Roman Visitors to N. America?

Great Debates
21

It’s a huge leap, and in the wrong direction, to go from “Could they possibly have done it, even theoretically?” to “Therefore they DID do it”. If you start by asking “Is there any evidence anywhere that can most plausibly be explained by this hypothesis?” then the answer appears to be “No” in this case.

It may never be knowable exactly who the first humans were in the Americas, or exactly when the first wave came over, but there is no reason not to believe they walked over the Bering Strait land-bridge from Asia. There is no evidence that can best be explained for any Europeans prior to the L’Anse aux Meadows Vikings to have made it to North America. That’s not to say it couldn’t have happened, of course, but there’s no basis for believing it did.

Anyway, in the Eurocentric cultural sense, it’s been said that Columbus’ “discovery” was the one that mattered, because America then STAYED discovered.

22

As many of you know, and as Polycarp mentioned, Mormons have made a religion out of labeling (and libeling) the Native Americans as lost tribes of Israel (600 BCE), that have been cursed dark for their sins. This is an idea not original to Mormonism, and was a common American religious theme around the time of Joseph Smith (Rev. Ethan Smith, for example, no relation to JS, except J. Smith’s chief conspirator, Oliver Cowdrey was in E. Smith’s Cambellite congregation). Anyway, among many sources that are thought to have inspired Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey to write the Book of Mormon is Solomon Spaulding’s “Manuscript Found” which is a frame story novel based on Roman folks accidently discovering North America, and then the plot basically follows the Book of Mormon. (Note: Mormonism is in a dire crisis since it has recently been proven from DNA, archaelogical and linguistic research that Native Americans are unrelated to Semitic ancestors).

I do not believe the Romans made it to North America. Devout pseudo-scientific Mormons have combed the American continent looking for any evidence that anyone from the middle-east could have possibly settled here. They have found none. And the Book of Mormon mentions many species and artifacts that have never turned up here in N. America., like coins, functional wheels, grapes, chariots, sheep, cows, horses, glass, steel swords, etc. The Romans would have brought these with them, and helped validate the BoM by default. Thanks.

23

Don’t mormons think Jesus sailed here in a wooden boat or something like that?

24

I’ve been carefully avoiding any statement of opinion on the Mormon historical claims, out of respect for the three sincere Mormons I know of who post to this board regularly and such others as may be lurking out there. I find most of their material unconvincing, to say the least, and the greater share of their theology to be an erroneous take on a semi-Gnostic view of Christian doctrine. However, their take on my beliefs is similarly slanted, and I don’t feel it right to misrepresent them. However, the claim that various groups of Semites came to America at various times B.C. is key to their sacred text The Book of Mormon – if there were no Nephites or Lamanites, then Jesus couldn’t have come and preached to them. So I threw the basic allegation of Semitic emigration to America into the hopper along with Madoc, Brendan, the Chinese Admiral, and all the other supposed discoverers of America. (Saw a great cartoon once where, in the near distance, Columbus has rowed in from the Santa Maria and is planting the Spanish flag and claiming the New World, and in the foreground are two Indians, one turning to the other and saying, “Sure, and won’t he be upset when we tell him the truth?”)

25

I think it was an old Shafer Burr cartoon, where his ships are in the bay and Columbus has come to shore in a small boat, where the Indians say to him: “Sure, but if we let you land, how do we know you won’t want to unload two, three, or even four boatloads before you are finished?”

26

Ok, I tried to hunt up something a little more solid the past three or four days, but have had pretty much zero luck since I can’t remember any key words whatsoever.
Does anyone remember an article from sometime last year dealing with some interesting ruins in Central/southern North America?
Something about a pottery head (I think) which dated back to Roman times, and an interesting construction with features from that part of the world.

Normally, I would be skeptical, but the article was fairly compelling and I think was in a reasonably reputable source.

Anyone else here recall something similar?

27

No, they believe that when Jesus was resurrected, he also visited the Americas.

28

In one of my anthro classes, the prof handed out an article that claimed a ship of apparent Roman origin had been found off the coast of South America, but that government officials ordered it covered. (I don’t recall why).

However, I don’t recall where the article was from or how certain the archaeologists were that it was Roman orgin. However, I sincerely doubt that it was any sign that Romans made a concerted attempt to come to the Americas. It could have been a lone explorer or a sailor way, way, waaay off course. It’s also apprent the crew didn’t make it back to Rome, if their ship is lying on the bottom of the ocean.

I have heard that Japanese sailors blown off course, made also have made it to South America. Again, don’t recll where I heard that.

29

Another thought, besides not finding olives, wheat, or figs in North America (see my Mormon post earlier) Roman historians would not have missed this huge discovery. The Romans would have celebrated this feat.

To answer Pepperjett’s question, The Book of Mormon says that Jesus beamed down, presumably in Central America somewhere among “white” people, after his resurrection and showed his crucifixion wounds and uttered the exact phrases and words recorded in the King James Bible. The wooden boat you speak of may have been Lehi’s boat that brought the Nephites to N.America. The Book of Mormon was written at a time when people wondered about ancient civilizations in America. The Book of Mormon thematically claims the entire North American continent as promised domain of white people, who were to return and reconvert the sinful Natives under a restored gospel, under direction of Joseph Smith, previously self-employed as a treasure-scryer/gold-digger.

Polycarp, I know what you mean about Mormons misrepresenting your views, they do that by training, and they are blessed to “know” that they are always right, and only right. I invite them all to http://www.exmormon.org so they can begin to recover from this wretched mindset. The jig is up for Mormonism. R.I.P.

30

**Polycarp wrote:

Best evidence we have is that Stonehenge III – the Sarcen Circle and such that everybody thinks of as “Stonehenge” – was built by the Beaker People, on whom there’s a fair amount of archaeological data. Were they Celts? Probably – they were in the right area at the right time to be the ancestors of the Classic-history continental and Brythonic Celtic tribes. No proof, though. (My wife did some research on this for an advanced-level anthro. course. Of course, it’s all theoretical at this point – something she’d be quick to point out.) Stonehenge I and II, the predecessor constructions at that site, are evident only in holes and a few isolated stones, but C-14 says they predate the Beaker Folk by 900 years and more.**

Naturally, as soon as I want to do some research on this, the b/f, Charles, takes the ONE BOOK I need with him on an out-of-town trip! FELDERCARB As soon as I get my hands on it, I’ll write more on this.

Anyway, one point I want to make is that we’re pretty sure that what we know as Stonehenge was assembled a couple thousand years before the late Roman period of which we’re speaking. But that style of building hasn’t been used in many, many years

Therefore; this means the American stonehenge was built by Roman period Celts who could have come to the Americas and then built it in a style they’ve not used in over a thousand years.

Or Neo-lithic Celts somehow cross the Atlantic and then built it in a style they’re known for using. How they would have crossed the Atlantic and why is still a mystery.

Either way, I think the American Stongehenge is a fraud. I’m still looking at the Kensingtone stone.

**beakerxf wrote:

However, I don’t recall where the article was from or how certain the archaeologists were that it was Roman orgin. However, I sincerely doubt that it was any sign that Romans made a concerted attempt to come to the Americas. It could have been a lone explorer or a sailor way, way, waaay off course. It’s also apprent the crew didn’t make it back to Rome, if their ship is lying on the bottom of the ocean.**

I could envision a scenario of a Roman ship, passing around the bulge of Africa and getting caught in a hurricane in its early stages of formation and getting blown across the Atlantic. The distance between the western bulge of Africa and the eastern bulge of S. America is the shortest (I believe) distance directly across the Atlantic. And the ship may not have gotten home, since at that latitude, the winds are blow primarily from east to west.

31

Good point. I purposefully omitted dates, because there were a bunch of C-14 errors, speculations corrected, and so on, and I could not (and still cannot) remember what were finally decided on as most accurate. But Freyr’s basic points are very much on target. Reserving myself a lot of wiggleroom for the reasons given above, I’d cite 1800 B.C. for Stonehenge III (Stonehenge-as-we-know-it) and 2700 B.C. for Stonehenge II, with I preceding that by a few hundred years. Which, as Freyr notes, is a whole long way from any 1st millenium A.D. North American colonization. (Note to Skeptical Inquirer subscribers who read this thread: Any material you can give refuting “the American Stonehenge” from the debunking article last year (I think) would be appreciated. If I still am in possession of my copy, it’s in storage in a barn about 30 miles from where I am now and 5 miles from home.)

The Kensington Rune Stone is one of those things. I was under the impression it had been debunked as the work of a 19th century Scandinavian immigrant (Norwegian I think, but would leave room for Swedish) who was an amateur student of runes before emigrating. And that there were some “True Believers” holding to its reality, in the same way as there are crop circle fanatics today, even when the hoaxers have confessed.

Now, about those mounds in Uppsala, Freyr… especially considering that I have one ancestral line that supposedly descends from your namesake (though one consumes quite a lot of salt getting there, a grain at a time). :wink:

32

**Polycarp wrote:

Any material you can give refuting “the American Stonehenge” from the debunking article last year (I think) would be appreciated.**

I think one of the major de-bunking points is the site itself, and how everything is labelled so clearly by its advocates. Especially the sacrifical altar, etc. It’s known that some of the Celts practiced human sacrafice, but they were hung from trees, not laid out on a stone table and dis-emboweled. The whole presentation smacks of “look what our savage ancestors did” sensationalism.

The Kensington Rune Stone is one of those things. I was under the impression it had been debunked as the work of a 19th century Scandinavian immigrant (Norwegian I think, but would leave room for Swedish) who was an amateur student of runes before emigrating. And that there were some “True Believers” holding to its reality, in the same way as there are crop circle fanatics today, even when the hoaxers have confessed.

After reading a bit about the Kensington stone, I tend to agree it’s a forgery, especially since the man who found it was especially interested in “discoverying” such evidence. Also, the associated maps showing how these Norse folk ended up in what we now know as Minnesota don’t make much sense. shrug If anyone else has better evidence, I’d like to hear it.

Now, about those mounds in Uppsala, Freyr… especially considering that I have one ancestral line that supposedly descends from your namesake (though one consumes quite a lot of salt getting there, a grain at a time).

Well, if you want to call up the spirits of your dead ancestors, go talk to the Guy with an eye patch and the two big ravens sitting on His shoulders, whispering in His ears. He’s the one who goes around raising dead spirits and asking them questions.

33

Actually, “futhark” refers to all of the Germanic runes.Futhark is taken from the common Germanic ordering of the letters: F U Þ A R K. The first six of the Anglo Saxon runes are ordered F U Þ O R C, futhorc.

As for the Chinese…How old is the design for their Junks? When Monterey had a Chinese village, their main industry was drying squid for shipping to China. I’ve read that Chinese Junks would sail into the bay, pick up a load of dried squid, then sail back to China to sell it. So, if these Junks could make it back and forth, the Chinese could get here. But, that depends on how old the design is, and why would the Chinese sail to N.A. without knowing if there were good opportunities to do so (since from what I’ve read it seems they mostly sailed long distances for trading opportunities).

34

Doob, what I’m given to understand (and again I don’t have decent cites) is that early in the Ming dynasty the Chinese got quite into exploration of trade routes, sending ships as far as Zanzibar in the one direction, and northwest along the Kamchatka coast in the other. At least one such expedition is believed to have arrived at San Francisco Bay, though on what evidence, and how valid it is whatever it is, I don’t know. I do recall that the admiral in question was a favorite of an emperor, and was dismissed, after that emperor died, by his successor, and the fleet effectively mothballed. Maybe somebody has more detailed information and sources on this?

35

Possible ancient circumpolar navigation:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/arctic/html/ancient.html