Talk:Pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact theories

Neutrality
This theory, while notable, is not very commonly held. The article needs to be rewritten to address how controversial this theory really is. — BrianSmithson 02:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Can this page be put on a "project" or other list to help it get the attention it needs? --192.154.63.19 18:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is only controversial because many people are racist and history is centered on Europeans. Many other peoples made contact with Native Americans before Columbus and there is enough concrete evidence to say this. People just don't want to admit this. - ProfessorYing 05:35, 3 December 2006
 * Accusations of racism do not address the issue: This is a fringe theory. Maybe that's because of racism or Eurocentrism, but Wikipedia policies require that topics be approached neutrally (see Neutral point of view). It is inappropriate to present this information as fact. Instead, we should say who claims these things happened, information that is indisputable. For example, instead of (this made up example) "Africans encountered the Olmecs in 1383," we must say something like "Samuel Jones of Yale University claims that Africans encountered the Olmecs in 1383." Until the article is rewritten in such a style, the NPOV tag must remain. -- BrianSmithson 01:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this article needs a total rewrite, if it is not to be deleted altogether. Accusations of 'racism' directed against opponents of this fringe theory are wide of the mark; indeed it has more than once been pointed out by notable commentators that the extreme Afrocentrist position in its turn negligently downplays the role and heritage of the actual indigenous American peoples whose achievements the fringe claimants seek to co-opt.--cjllw | TALK  02:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * BrianSmithson and cjllw are entirely correct. Opposing dodgy scholarship has nothing to do with racism or Eurocentrism. I've done a bit of work myself trying to help out the Africans section of the Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact page. It turns out that much information posted in regards to this theory (usually by someone with an anonymous IP address) is lifted directly from websites chock full of factual and logical errors, misspellings, mixups of historical persons and events, poor style, et cetera.


 * There are some aspects related to the theory that are worth considering, but as BrianSmithson points out, it's quite a leap to say that many of these assertions are facts (like the bit about bringing elephants to Arizona). Twalls 23:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've moved this page to a more neutral and descriptive title (which does not presume the claims as historical fact), and commenced a rewrite of at least the lead section in what I trust is a more balanced and accurate view. The remainder of the article needs throrough attention, accumulation and x-checking of refs, etc etc...--cjllw | TALK  08:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Much better. Another one you might want to take a look at: Muslims first journey to America. That page should be moved to a better title, too. — BrianSmithson 08:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't want to sound flip, but since the accepted idea is that people walked to present-day North America from Siberia, Manchuria, Korea, China, etc., it might clarify the situation to hear the Asian view on the subject. I'm not sure what that view is, but it might alleviate the confused nature of this article on the Wikipedia. --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 10:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is the Models_of_migration_to_the_New_World article, which discusses theories of how the Western hemisphere came to be populated. Although there are several views on the subject, I'm not sure if there is a distinctly "Asian" view. The African contact claims aren't related to how the Americas were populated, although some of the proponents say that Maya have a high level of African genes. Twalls 03:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Re the Muslims first journey to America article, I personally doubt whether this is a cohesive-enough topic to stand on its own, and if any of the material there is to be retained it is probably better off merged and redirected to some other article(s). Perhaps Native Americans and Islam, although this too suffers from much of the same misinformation problems and POV as these others, and is in great need of cleanup. Possibly also the material could be transposed (once cleaned up) to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact if it's not covered there already...?--cjllw | TALK  10:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Reconsidering, I've now moved Muslims first journey to America to Pre-Columbian Islamic contact theories and begun what is intended to be a more balanced rewrite. As long as it addresses the claims as hypothetical and unaccepted by the great majority (I would even say all) of historians, it can probably stand as its own article covering the debate (such as there is). --cjllw | TALK  04:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Accusation of racism are ridiculous, this theory is fringe and widely ignored, agreed. But NPOV is a bit far fetched too. "Samuel Jones of Yale University claims that Africans encountered the Olmecs in 1383." Sure... what about doing the same thing for other accounts of other peoples encountering Amerindians? You just can't write an article like that. Sources have to be given to a certain degree, but you can expect a reference for every single statement. If you do please tag the whole Wikipedia as NPOV. --moyogo 04:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's an exemple of how you're overusing the tag :
 * According to a Malian scholar, Gaoussou Diawara in his book, The Saga of Abubakari II, Abubakari left with around 2,000 large boats.
 * Isn't According to [Gaoussou Diawara's book The Saga of Abubakari II] a citation? What kind of citation do you need? Do you need the actual statement copied from his book? --moyogo 05:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right that that statement doesn't need further sourcing, as the source is right there in the text. You're wrong that "you can't write an article" by attributing specific claims to specific people. Examples are all over Wikipedia. One example off the top of my head is Dixie (song), which describes a controversial theory that the song was written by African Americans. This article needs to be refactored in this way or it will remain in violation of WP:NPOV. -- BrianSmithson 06:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I poorly phrased my statement. I was just saying it's impossible to give a reference for every single statement but your example seem to prove my statement false anyway. Now, why don't we have this kind of reference everywhere? --moyogo 06:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as the Diawara citation is concerned, I highly doubt that the original contributor here had access to it- the work appears to have been only published in French in a very limited edition by a publishing house which normally specialises in theatrical texts (while Diawara may hold a professorship at a Malian university, he is probably better known as a playwright, dramatist and organiser of Malian arts).
 * In fact, most if not all of the original article here seems to have been cobbled together verbatim from a number of afrocentrist-orientated sites, such as this one and this one the latter actually a book review of van Sertima's work by some Uni student on a message board. In fact earlier on in this article's editing history a {copyvio} tag was added to it by another editor and just as quickly removed by the orig contributor.
 * So before expending much effort validating the 'cites needed' the remaining text which is in copyvio needs to be removed, if it is not immediately rewritten.--cjllw | TALK  07:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The reference to this theory as fringe shows that some of you need to update your research. This is one archeological theory that has gained a lot of traction in relation to other accounts of pre-columbian contact. The evidence is significant though not as mind blowing as finding an actual settlement. The fact is that we are talking CONTACT, not colonization and the evidence that is there is significant in showing that there may have been CONTACT. --68.16.209.82 22:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The sections without references whould be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.162.36.220 (talk • contribs).

Fix it and stop the rhetoric
I believe that instead of folks pointing fingers about who is racists and who is crazy we should just fix the page so that it all the citations are accurate. There isn't much on this page that isn't factually accurate, but the kneejerk reaction of many White people (which most of the detractors are) is to simply toss these facts and theories aside instead of properly investigating them. This isn't a page about debunking or proving anything. It should be a page about presenting the facts as are and leaving opinions out. Remember the wiki rules! The author's sources are on this page if you'd take a second to look at them instead jumping to delete his page or portions of it. Oh and sign your freakin comments why don't ya. Scott Free 21:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * First you say, "...instead of folks pointing fingers about who is racists..." Then you say, "...the kneejerk reaction of many White people (which most of the detractors are)..."  You do realize how that sounds, don't you?  Kajmal 18:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The page is not as bad as some think
I don't think this page is as bad as some say it is. We have an outline of a theory that does certainly exist. We have a list of many claims which one could write about, either to debunk them or support them. For example, the claim about African plants in the new world clearly debunks the gourd as evidence. But the other plants could be good evidence if we can find some support for them, i.e. evidence that the plant did indeed exist in the new world in the right timeframe.

Other items are ridiculous and rather than deleting them, we could explain why. For instance the claim that legends of a black world indicate Africans were in America a long time ago. This is a somewhat racist statement that could only be believed by a person who thinks that Africans are blacks. In fact, the majority of Africans do not have black skin. The term "black" used to refer to Africans is a cultural artifact of the USA and England. In Australia "black" means aboriginal. In Russia it means Chechen. In ancient Sumer it meant the people of Sumer, i.e. "us".

Some work with Google could provide citations to add to the article.

I would suggest that the article be restructured in 4 parts. An intro, a list of claims that could be true, a list of claims for which the evidence seems rather weak, and a list of claims that are clear nonsense or which have some serious flaw. In addition to the black world claim, the Olmec statue claim has a serious flaw in that they have not compared the statues to other racial groups, especially local Mexicans. I know for a fact that many orientals, especially South China, and Indochina, have broad flat noses like many (not all) Africans.

One item of information that is generally ignored or poorly explained in these theories is the ocean and wind currents. My vague knowledge of these is that voyages from somewhere in the region of Mali, would easily get to America, but run into some difficulty in returning eastwards. This seems consistent with the Mali fleet story.

--Wavetossed 00:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This article seems to rely heavily on a single Afrocentrist-biased scholar, Ivan Van Sertima as its source. The article is presented as accepted fact when it is far from that.  It is actually unsubstantiated speculation, heavily reliant on pseudoscientific reasoning.  Claims are also shifted across various time frames such that any coherent hypothesis is lost.  Some items initially present (since deleted) were outright falsehoods.  For instance, the word "yam" refers to two different species (not even in the same genus, order, family or class!) of plant (the sweet potato, native to America and the African yam), but the contributor confabulated them (delberately or ignorantly?), concluding that (paraphrasing) "yams were introduced from Africa before Columbus".  This article needs major re-working, or deletion. Tmangray 23:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

RS
This guy isn't a very reliable source, yet his statements are taken as fact in this article. It needs to be made clear that he makes these claims and that they are unsubstantiated. Titanium Dragon 09:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of contact claims
Yes, the theory makes far-fetched claims, and many of its proponents are guilty of poor scholarship, but it does deserve to be laid out without a dismissive refutation after each point. This is another example of overcompensation - there is really no need to state anything other than no conclusive evidence has been found of an African contribution to the Native American gene pool. There are also some issues with this statement:

"no evidence of African or any other ancestry or contacts after the last migration over the Bering Strait and before the Vikings and Columbus"

I'm not sure what you mean by "any other ancestry". Populations in the Americas were and are extraordinarily diverse, and there is increasing evidence of multiple migrations over longer time periods. The Bering strait migration is the dominant model of migration to the Americas, but it is by no means exclusive of other routes. It is certainly difficult to reference a "last" migration, as Eskimo-Aleut populations are thought to have gone back and forth up until the first millennium A.D., but it's not known for sure. There are a number of mtDNA haplogroups that have been found in Amerind populations apart from the typical A,B,C and D groups, most notably Haplogroup X. These other less representative types aren't found in Siberia, which may suggest some alternate migration routes (the distribution of Haplotype B may suggest a coastal migration route, for one). The bottom line is that these are still being studied and debated, and the Bering Strait model isn't the only game in town.

Widespread susceptibility to Old World diseases by itself is not "evidence that there had been no prior contacts." It only suggests there were probably not any recent mass migrations. Twalls 02:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is very strong evidence for those diseases which were entirely absent and not merely slight mutations of worldwide disease pathogens. The mortality rate was almost uniformly 90% after Columbus throughout the hemisphere.  One would have expected something like that earlier if people had actually visited from Africa during the time of the Olmecs, and that the indigenous Americans by the time of Columbus would not have been so susceptible after 1492 since the survivors' descendants would have been those whose immune systems had been sufficient to withstand a pre-1492 African contact.  This did not happen from the Viking contact probably because the indigneous people they encountered were few and relatively isolated, and perhaps even died from diseases brought by the Vikings before having any contact with other indigenous communities.


 * As to the Bering Strait: yes, the evidence is compelling for the coastal migration hypothesis, and genetic and linguistic studies conclude that there were at least three major migrations to the Americas, but the Bering route is the last before the Vikings and Columbus according to all these hypotheses. Tmangray 23:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

New entry: The cocaine mummies
Cocaine Mummies of Ancient Egypt

^^I've provided a new entry into the article and welcome all opinions and discussion pertaining to it..Taharqa 06:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Van Sertima’s claims
___________________________________________________

I removed Van Sertima’s claims about guanin for the following reasons:

1) Van Sertima misquotes Thacher (1903-1904, vol. 2, 380): which says “... he thought to investigate the report of the Indians of this Española who said that there had come to Española from the south and south-east, a black people, who have the tops of their spears made of a metal which they call ‘guanin’ of which he had sent samples to the Sovereigns to have them assayed, when it was found that of 32 parts, 18 were of gold, 6 of silver, and 8 of copper.” Neither Columbus, nor Thacher referred to Africa nor to the identity of guanin with African alloys.

2) Copper/gold and copper/gold/silver alloys are not unique to Africa or distinguished from each other and are referred to generically as tumbaga.

3) Guanín is a word in Arawak, the language of the inhabitants of Hispaniola, not Mandingo and was, therefore, not imported. Rivet and Arsandaux (1946: 60 ff.) show that in many Arawakan languages words like guanín or guani and words resembling karakoli, in Carib languages, designate tumbaga alloys. Rivet and Arsandaux found guanin ranging in composition from 11 to 81% gold and from 18 to 87 % copper

4) In any case alloys in Africa were not the same as Columbus’ guanín. Lawrence (1987), Van Sertima’s source, cites Bosman (1967) for the composition of gold alloy objects (though not spear heads). For comparison, Moche tumbagas are also provided (Lechtman 1988). The composition is given in percentages to facilitate comparison. The percentages list gold; copper; silver.				Columbus-guanin	(56%		25%		19%); Guinea (Africa)		(50%		25%		25%); Guinea (Africa)		(65%		17.2%	17.2%); Mochica			(31%		60%		10%); Moche			(68%		13%		19%); Moche			(67%		11%		22%)

The proportions of this ternary alloy vary so widely that a particular composition is not an identifying marker.

5) Columbus found natives trading all kinds of objects (not just spear points) made from guanín in the whole region of Central America and Venezuela (Morison 1942: 265, 589). This was to be expected, because copper/gold and copper/silver/gold alloys were first made by the Moche culture of Peru about A.D. 100 (Lechtman, Erlij, and Barry 1982) and eventually diffused through the New World reaching Western Mexico about A.D. 1200 (Hosler 1994: 127). There is no need to posit diffusion of this alloy to the circum-Caribbean region from Africa because gold/copper/silver alloys were being made in neighboring South America 1400 years before Columbus’ journey.

references: Bosman, W. 1967 [1705]. A New and Accurate Description of the Coast of Guinea. London: Frank Cass & Co.

Hosler, D. 1994. ''The Sounds and Colors of Power. The Sacred Metallurgical Technology of Ancient West Mexico''. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lawrence, H. 1987. “Mandinga Voyages Across the Atlantic,” in African Presence in Early America. edited by I. Van Sertima. 55-81. New Brunswick, NJ: 	Transaction Books

Lechtman, H. 1988. “Tradition and Styles in Central Andean Metalworking,” In The Beginning of the Use of Metals and Alloys, ed. R. Maddin. 344-378. Cambridge, 	MA: MIT Press.

Lechtman, H., A. Erlij, and E. J. Barry. 1982. “New Perspectives on Moche Metallurgy: Techniques of Gilding Copper at Loma Negra, Northern Peru.” Antiquity. 47: 3-30.

Morison, S.E. 1942. Admiral of the Open Sea. A Life of Christopher Columbus''. Boston: Little Brown.

Rivet, P. and H. Arsandaux. 1946. La Métallurgie en Amérique Précolombienne. Paris: Institut d’Ethnologie, Musée de l’Homme.

Thacher, J.B. 1903-1904. ''Christopher Columbus. His Life, His Works, His Remains''. NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itzcoatl (talk • contribs) 07:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is obviously original research, you have no business in blanking cited material simply because you personally disagree..Taharqa 20:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

All entries in wikipedia are in some sense original research. someone had to get the references and the material to write an entry. The essential question is whether what is written is documented and accurate. Regarding the claims made by van Sertima-- I have quoted exactly what van Sertima's source said and Columbus (really his chronicler) did not[say that the metal composition was that of Guinea. I have also documented from the literature that guanin (tumbaga) alloys have been made inSouth America for over 1000 years, that  the  composition of guanin is quite variable and that the word "guanin"exists in native American languages. I had left the Van Sertimaclaimsinbut inserted some of my fully footnoted  contrary evidence for balance, It was removed anonymously. I think that some of Wikipedia editors should intervene and decide if footnoted and documented claims are to be eliminated just because Van Sertima's true believers disagree, You, of course, are fully entitled to present fully documented and footnoted evidence that 1) Columbus stated that the guanin he sent to Spain had the same composition as the metal spears of Guinea 2)  that the Moche did not make these alloys by 100 AD, etc.06:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this at all comrade. I simply saw you blanking material that you apparently disagreed with, which violates wiki policy. This edit that you've recently made is a lot more constructive in that you cite noted rebuttal. You did not do that initially, you merely blanked the material. That is seen as vandalism in most cases, but I see that you were merely trying to create balance. In the future, please go about it this way instead of removing other people's contributions.

P.S., it is completely wrong to say that all edits are in a sense original research, please see the policy.Taharqa 16:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I had presented the same balancing material you mention and it was summarily and anonymously deleted once already. We shall see if this is left alone.Itzcoatl 17:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added to the quote from Gregorio Garcia that van Sertima uses that Garcia wrote this either in 1607 or 1627, whereas van Sertima seems to be suggesting it was much earlier and first hand.--Dougweller (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Abu Bakari
As I pointed out above, Columbus did not say that the gold alloy found in the New World was the same as that made in West Africa, wich contradicts the cited sources which are secondary and do not cite Columbus' original source.

) Van Sertima misquotes Thacher (1903-1904, vol. 2, 380): which says “... he thought to investigate the report of the Indians of this Española who said that there had come to Española from the south and south-east, a black people, who have the tops of their spears made of a metal which they call ‘guanin’ of which he had sent samples to the Sovereigns to have them assayed, when it was found that of 32 parts, 18 were of gold, 6 of silver, and 8 of copper.” Neither Columbus, nor Thacher referred to Africa nor to the identity of guanin with African alloys.

2) Copper/gold and copper/gold/silver alloys are not unique to Africa or distinguished from each other and are referred to generically as tumbaga.

3) Guanín is a word in Arawak, the language of the inhabitants of Hispaniola, not Mandingo and was, therefore, not imported. Rivet and Arsandaux (1946: 60 ff.) show that in many Arawakan languages words like guanín or guani and words resembling karakoli, in Carib languages, designate tumbaga alloys. Rivet and Arsandaux found guanin ranging in composition from 11 to 81% gold and from 18 to 87 % copper

4) In any case alloys in Africa were not the same as Columbus’ guanín. Lawrence (1987), Van Sertima’s source, cites Bosman (1967) for the composition of gold alloy objects (though not spear heads). For comparison, Moche tumbagas are also provided (Lechtman 1988). The composition is given in percentages to facilitate comparison. The percentages list gold; copper; silver. Columbus-guanin (56% 25% 19%); Guinea (Africa) (50% 25% 25%); Guinea (Africa) (65% 17.2% 17.2%); Mochica (31% 60% 10%); Moche (68% 13% 19%); Moche (67% 11% 22%) The proportions of this ternary alloy vary so widely that a particular composition is not an identifying marker.

5) Columbus found natives trading all kinds of objects (not just spear points) made from guanín in the whole region of Central America and Venezuela (Morison 1942: 265, 589). This was to be expected, because copper/gold and copper/silver/gold alloys were first made by the Moche culture of Peru about A.D. 100 (Lechtman, Erlij, and Barry 1982) and eventually diffused through the New World reaching Western Mexico about A.D. 1200 (Hosler 1994: 127). There is no need to posit diffusion of this alloy to the circum-Caribbean region from Africa because gold/copper/silver alloys were being made in neighboring South America 1400 years before Columbus’ journey.

references:

Bosman, W. 1967 [1705]. A New and Accurate Description of the Coast of Guinea. London: Frank Cass & Co.

Hosler, D. 1994. The Sounds and Colors of Power. The Sacred Metallurgical Technology of Ancient West Mexico. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lawrence, H. 1987. “Mandinga Voyages Across the Atlantic,” in African Presence in Early America. edited by I. Van Sertima. 55-81. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books

Lechtman, H. 1988. “Tradition and Styles in Central Andean Metalworking,” In The Beginning of the Use of Metals and Alloys, ed. R. Maddin. 344-378. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lechtman, H., A. Erlij, and E. J. Barry. 1982. “New Perspectives on Moche Metallurgy: Techniques of Gilding Copper at Loma Negra, Northern Peru.” Antiquity. 47: 3-30.

Morison, S.E. 1942.'' Admiral of the Open Sea. A Life of Christopher Columbus. Boston: Little Brown.

Rivet, P. and H. Arsandaux. 1946. La Métallurgie en Amérique Précolombienne. Paris: Institut d’Ethnologie, Musée de l’Homme. Thacher, J.B. 1903-1904. Christopher Columbus. His Life, His Works, His Remains. NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons 18:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This almost seems like a short essay. Did you write this or copy and paste it from an academic source? What do those references say explicitly about this said issue? Can you provide quotes from them sharing the same sentiment and conclusions (in whole)?Taharqa 20:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

thoughts on how to improve this article
I think this page is fair. It says that most historians don't think this theory is true and then outlines why some people still support it. However, one thing I wish this article could bring out is the way that the theory being rejected from the start (before it was examined more carefully) has influenced Afrocentric scholars. It's only in recent years that this idea was examined with any care and shown to be false. Initially, the theory was rejected simply because it was hard for the scientific establishment to accept the idea that Africans were capable of making boats. The Afrocentric scholars who still cling to this theory today are still bitter about that racism. You see, Afrocentric scholars were wrong about this one, but they were right about other things-- (for example, western scientists incorrectly claimed that there were no civilizations in sub-Saharan Africa, it was a part of the racist assumption that Africans are inferior and incapable of creating culture, and then there was the whole issue with the piltdown man... Scientific racism may have made some Afrocentric scholars a little pariniod, but its not like they don't have a reason to suspect that "the truth is being suppressed" --because it has happened in the past...) And because of that there's a lack of trust that keeps theories like this one in circulation. Now I'm just writing from my experience, and I don't know how we can add these ideas without a source-- do any of you have thoughts on how we could do this? I think it would help explain to people why all of this was so important. futurebird 13:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment but would also say that somethings are still up for debate and it isn't on us to shun every speck of evidence provided or attribute afrocentrism to anyone who puts fourth such views as I believe one of Van Sertima's earlier primary sources was Leo Weiner of Harvard.Taharqa 20:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Weiner wrote in 1920!!. This was before the Olmec centers were discovered and before radiocarbon dating. People had no real idea of the absolute dating of the various civilizations in the New World. If we reject as false the hyperdiffusionist ideas of Grafton Eliot Smith (1923) that white Egyptians were the source of all civilizations, why would we regard the contemporary Weiner as accurate? Roland Dixon demolished both Smith and Wiener's theories as far back as 1928.Itzcoatl 16:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"it isn't on us to shun every speck of evidence provided or attribute afrocentrism" agree 100% futurebird 20:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Weiner wrote it in 1922, since that is called an Appeal to novelty. Nor does it have to pertain to Olmecs since Sertima's book has a theme similar to that of the article, which is pre-columbian contact between Africa and America. He even mentioned the Cocaine Mummies, which is hard to dismiss imo. The reason Eliot is rejected is because archaeology and language systematically shows his migration thesis to have been false, while Sertima, as noted, is merely shunned and has been from the very beginning.

The difference also is, Africans reaching America is not a diffusionist hypothesis and Van Seritima himself does not promote such notions:

"I think it necessary to make it clear -- since partisan and ethnocentric scholarship is the order of the day -- that the emergence of the Negroid face, which the archeaological and cultural data overwhelmingly confirm, in no way presupposes the lack of a native originality the absence of other influences or the automatic eclipse of other faces" - They Came Before Columbus, 1976, p. 147

and:

"I cannot subscribe to the notion that civilization suddenly dropped onto the American earth from the Egyptian heaven." - -- Journal of African Civilizations, V8#2, 1986 p. 16

and:

"Not all of these heads are African. I have said that over and over again. I have never claimed that Africans carved these heads or that they were the only models for them. What I have claimed, . . . is

''1. that the skull and skeletal evidence examined in certain Olmec settlements show a distinct African physical prescence AMONG THEM''

''2. that this alien prescence is displayed not only in bones but in the features of SOME of the Olmec stones. . .''

-- Early America Revisited, 1998, p. 52 Taharqa 16:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

African colonies in the New World
Can someone direct me to more info on the Africans discovered in the New World by early explorers in Panama. I understand that the discovery of the two African captives occurred in 1512. What I want to know is what wasthe possibility that these Africans were simply shipwrecked survivors from a slave ship. The first slave ship came to the New World in 1502 (to Hispanla). Despite much of the criticism found in in eurocentric cirlces, none have seemed to address this oddity. Should there be Africans in Panama at that period in time? Thnx in advance. :) Scott Free 20:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

San Sebastian, near the Panama border, was settled in 1510, so I see no problems in escaped slaves in Panama in 1513.--Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Slight caveat -- I am not sure there were slaves in San Sebastian in 1510. I do know that there were Africans (and presumably Moors) as sailors and soliders from 1492 on. --Dougweller (talk) 09:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

POV assertion?
"Given the improbability of an Egyptian voyage to the Americas and/or an established ancient trade route, most skeptics and scholars remain tentative, seeking more conventional means of explanation to address the problem, while many alternative historians see this as proof of ancient contact between Africa and the Americas, well before Columbus."

In the 1960s (or '70s), Thor Heyerdahl, well known for his Kon Tiki expedition, mounted an expedition he named Ra, which set sail from Egypt. Its destination? The Americas. Given the results of the voyage, the "improbability" of an Egyptian voyage to the Americas was rendered infinitely more probable. Furthermore, findings of mainstream forensic anthropologists have established that the earliest skeletal remains of humans in South America are definitely "Negroid/Australoid," indications of human populations who arrived many thousands of years ago -- and that these human populations were later supplanted by "Asiatic" peoples a mere 7,000 years ago. This information is presented nowhere in the article -- and should be.

Weird. In searching for links, I came across this, a purported NYT article dating back to 1922. I can't verify its veracity.

What I was actually searching for was this and a BBC News article, which I can't seem to find (but I've referenced it numerous times elsewhere on this site). And the info about Heyerdahl's Rah expedition is easy enough to find.

And then there's the controversial scholarship of Barry Fell and Ivan van Sertima.

While it isn't necessary to address these matters in the article at length, certainly at least some mention of them ought to be made as possibly supportive of the DNA evidence. And certainly the matter shouldn't be left in the article as they are -- with some POV comment about the "improbability" of African contact with the New World. deeceevoice (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I simplified the paragraph you mentioned, as well as another one. Regarding Heyerdahl, I would think that a summary of his views and the Ra expedition would seem appropriate to the article.  Madman (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't add to article without specifying why
We shouldn't add to article without specifying the reason that the article is POV. Thanks, Madman (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Only complaint
I read through the entire article and have no problem with it as currently presented. It actually cleared up some questions I had. The only thing it seems to neglect is the african skeletons found in the Americas that date back to the 13th century. These should be included as no one has found a way to explain them yet (to my knowledge). Scott Free (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I see the skeletons are pointed out ONE time in the Abubakari II section. What seems amazing is the amount of effort put toward evidence that can be disproven while this pheonomenon is given all of one sentence. I pulled the following from the citation found on that section.


 * "In 1975, 2 Negroid skeletons were found in the U.S. Virgin Islands. One wore a pre-Columbian Indian wrist band. They were found in layers dated to about A.D. 1250."

Also there is this matter...


 * "In 1974, Polish craniologists revealed that no fewer than 13.5% of the skeletons from the pre-Columbian Olmec cemetery of Tlatilco were Negroid."

These are two instances of verified contact between African cultures if not African people. Someone has some explaining to do, lol. Scott Free (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Scott, but those are not verified. I can find no evidence of the Virgin Islands claim at all, just claims. Can you? As for the Polish craniologist, I'm afraid he is on his own there. Also see --Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How are they not verified? they've been carbon dated. that's how the 1250 date was found. i'm looking at a book right now about the 2 negro skeletons and the polish craniologist. what exactly are we looking for before we post this kind of info. thnx in advance.Scott Free (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh and this is the book im looking at. it even includes pictures from the burial site. http://books.google.com/books?id=uziKYgZAVS0C&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=negroid+skeletons+virgin+islands&source=web&ots=N81dpuQBnA&sig=YHWig3NA1XFlLRT0CsO0j-ZHxgI#PPA103,M1  Scott Free (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is a more reputable book in my opinion (published in 2001) about the so-called Hull Bay Find http://books.google.com/books?id=Xkky7kPKU0QC&pg=PA210&dq=Hull+Bay,+skeletons,+african&lr=&sig=M2QgoHsbYxCzy_TnxGa0n2YKYpg   Scott Free (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust van Sertima at all. He writes things such as his claim that the skeletons were found to be morphologically African, whereas it looks as though Ubelaker called them negroid, a very different thing. Your second source, Jacob U Gordon, points out that carbon dating didn't work with them. An article here: History and Comparison of Bioarchaeological Studies in the African Diaspora¹ doesn't mention the dental decoration. Lacking anything that isn't second hand makes it hard to figure out what is the most likely scenario. I'll check with a friend who may well know something more about this. And as I've said, the Polish guy seems to have had his own methodology which found an astounding number of 'racial types' and he seems to be on his own with that. I'll take mtDNA over skulls and skeletons every time anyway.--Dougweller (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, a bit more now. There seems to be some confusion between 2 sets of 2 skeletons. The ones associated with coffin nails (not 'a nail' as stated I think by van Sertima, were found at Hull Bay and I don't think by archaeologists: "In 1974, two skeletons were found at site 2-AVI-1-ENS-1 at Hull Bay,St. Thomas, which Smithsonian physical and forensic anthropologists assessed to be “Negroid” (Ubelaker & Angel 1976). Skeleton B was associated with coffin nails and therefore reasonably of the colonial period. But skeleton A was definitely associated with an indigenous pottery fragment (Elenoid period, dated 800–1200) and no colonial artifacts. Radiocarbon dating only resolved that the skeletons were not recent, which was important for the forensic concerns of the investigation." Sounds like they thought they might have been murder victims. That's from Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001. 30:387–422 BIOARCHAEOLOGY OF THE AFRICAN DIASPORA IN THE AMERICAS: Its Origins and Scope Michael L. Blakey. The same article mentions 2 skulls found on St. Thomas in 1938 by Oxford archaeologists, analyzed as Negro by someone at the Smithsonian because of dental work, and thought to be intrusive, ie not contemporary with the stratigraphy. It seems in neither case can we ever be sure about the dates of the skeletal remains. --Dougweller (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thnx for the update. I do wonder if we are not splitting hairs a bit in reference to van sertima. i tend not to use him as a source cuz the mere mention of him makes many balk. however, what's the difference between negroid and african. are there any negroid types that wouldn't be from Africa. Wouldn't logic dictate that negroid skeletons would come from the closest possible destination (Africa). I do believe there are negroid types in New Guinea, but its so far away. Thanks again. Scott Free (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Negroid need not come from Africa but the other areas are far away, yes. The real point is that there is no good reason to think that any of these are pre-Columbian, and we shouldn't lose track of that.--Dougweller (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ancient seafarers may have been first settlers
A team of U.S. researchers has proposed a new "working model" for when and how humans came to the New World —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiphus (talk • contribs) 09:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be this same research: The article, which is published in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science, shows that the first Americans came from a single Siberian population and ventured across the Bering land bridge connecting Asia and North America about 22,000 years ago.

You have to pay for the actual article: [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/5869/1497 The Late Pleistocene Dispersal of Modern Humans in the Americas Ted Goebel,1* Michael R. Waters,2 Dennis H. O'Rourke] - the other articles this month all say Beringia by the way if I recall correctly.--Doug Weller (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Page too against the theory
I have found this page has become significantly against the theory. lets keep the page Neutral rather than incorporating a whole heep of Eurocentric material.. much of which have no sources or references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.105.71 (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The page is not supposed to be 'neutral', it is supposed to follow our policy at WP:NPOV, ie it " must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. In particular, this article is covered by the section headed "Pseudoscience and related fringe theories" and WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, You've added a duplicate section on the Olmec headed 'proof', hardly neutral in any way, moved the mainstream position down although it belongs as the beginning according to our policy, You've deleted cited text as well. You've asserted as fact that the Olmec heads have Negroid features, which is highly arguable given the epicanthic folds, their resemblance to Asian faces, etc. And you've added categories which are basically pov. I've reverted your edits. Dougweller (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

^Wiki policy aside, the article is full of original research used to simply discredit a theory. It is extremeley Eurocentric in that arguments are put forward by editors simply for that purpose, not to defend wiki policy. Good faith edits notwithstanding, I will present my complaints below as requested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.93.154 (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Cocaine mummies
At the end of the section it reads:

"Most mainstream scholars remain skeptical[citation needed], seeking more conventional research such as third-party examinations and original research, while many pseudo-historians see this as "proof" of ancient contact between Africa and the Americas well before Columbus."

I'd like to know who these scholars are, what they said in reference to the mummies, what their explanations were and why it deserves to be the end conclusion to the section?98.207.93.154 (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've re-written the sentence, and added some supporting citations. ClovisPt (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious?! Your sources do not even support that blanket statement. This is from one of YOUR sources (and the most authoritative one at that):

"The possibility that the researchers made evaluations from faked mummies of recent drug users is shown to be highly unlikely in almost all cases.  Several additional cases of identified American drugs in mummies are discussed.  Additionally, it is shown that significant evidence exists for contact with the Americas in pre-Columbian times.  It is determined that the original findings are supported by substantial evidence despite the initial criticisms."

http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/ethnic/mummy.htm

^^So what's going on here? Another source was from hall of maat only over viewed the controversy while the other merely speaks about how it was ignored, not discredited. None of them support the above quote that it the point of my complaint. This is unacceptable and sloppy original research. I'll back off for now as not to induce an edit war, but that can't stay for obvious reasons. Too much POV going on. It's ridiculous..98.207.93.154 (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Mali empire
The only citation against claims of Abubakari's success came from a website of some random graduate student in community nutrition. Now I see that after my intervention, that citation has been deleted but the associated statement that went along with it is still there. This is what I mean by original research. The editor plans to leave it there so he/she can hunt high and low for a reliable source that says the same thing. Problem being, I haven't seen too many arguments against his voyage becoming a success. None directly dealing with him at least. The only one that did was that horrible source which is now gone. Why is that statement still there. It is the comment of an editor based on a blog post.98.207.93.154 (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not completly sure I'm following you here. Just to clarify, are you asking for a citation for this sentence: "However, no African artifacts, let alone the remains of even one of the 2,000 ships, have ever been found in the Americas."? ClovisPt (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm asking for as it relates specifically to Mali and Abubakari II.. If not, that statement shouldn't be there.98.207.93.154 (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Olmecs
My opinion has no merit but I don't believe the Olmec were Africa explorers. They were Olmecs. But still, original research can't be tolerated simply to discredit a theory. At the end of the section it reads:

"The great majority of scholars who specialize in Mesoamerican archaeology and history regard these speculations as incorrect."

What "majority"? Why is this uncourced? What majority? How do we know it's a majority? Do we have a source who counted the people who specialize in this? Do we have a source that represents the majority? Who decides who represents the majority? This is weasel worded and uncited and added for the sake of rebuttal.98.207.93.154 (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * These statements are well sourced in the Olmec alternative origin speculations article, we can of course borrow those references for this article, if it is necessary. ClovisPt (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me..98.207.93.154 (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Scholarly consensus
With in the section, this is posted:

"Genetic and immunological studies over the past two decades have failed to yield evidence of precolumbian African contributions to populations in the Americas.[5][6][7] The high mortality associated with the spread of Old World diseases introduced by Europeans suggests long-term immunological isolation"

1) Does this source deal directly with the controversy? 2) Does this even contradict claims of pre-columbian "contact" (it's ludacris to suggest that it does as if such proposed small contacts would affect the entire native american gene pool)

^Assuming that neither apply, why is this not original research, even desperate to some extent?98.207.93.154 (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You may have a point here. These sources, while relevant to a discussion of indigenous American genetics, do not specifically mention "Pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact". If we can't find reliable, third party sources that mention this topic, we may need to re-evaluate its notability. ClovisPt (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Point in case. They have nothing to do with the topic so I'm having trouble understanding why they are there (these random citations used to build an argument). Anyone can do that, right? It's debating? I can just through 2 million sources at you that may support the theory, but have nothing to do with it.

Another example, I see the section on bontany was deleted, for obvious reasons. There was an effort to debunk Van sertima point for point, one was about the discovery of African cotton in the new world. It's a dead issue now, but van Sertima actually claimed that American cotton was found in Africa. The opposite. Not only was that section entirely original research, it misrepresented the theories it sought to refute. This is a major problem with the article. I don't mean to seem hostile or aggressive either, I'm just a bit taken a back by all of this as it seems nefariously motivated, but I guess the idea around here is to assume good faith, no?98.207.93.154 (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

the point here is that the article does not need to go out of its way to debunk theories that aren't accepted by any scholars in the first place. Just say that they are lunatic fringe and that nobody accepts them and be done, no need to dwell on absence of evidence.

If any of these theories are misrepresented by all means correct this, but nothing here is "nefariously motivated", we simply need to defend these lunatic fringe topics against constant attempts to suggest that they have some kind of merit. Wikipedia does carry crackpot theories even if there is nothing whatsoever to support them (say, Vedic UFOs, Time Cube), simply because they are notable, but this is no excuse to actually push these theories or try to imply that they do have any merit. --dab (𒁳) 16:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability
I'm honestly beginning to wonder if this topic deserves a Wikipedia article. I am having trouble finding reliable third party sources that deal with "pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact theories" in a notable fashion. Do any other editors have thoughts on this? ClovisPt (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As it is, the article contains summaries of two articles that should exist - Olmec alternative origin speculations and Ivan van Sertima, one article that has been mostly used for fringe POV pushing - Abubakari II, and a discussion of the "Cocaine mummies" and a brief mention of Thor Heyerdahl. At the least, it's not very cohesive. As a possibility, what would other editors think of turning this into a redirect to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact? ClovisPt (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added the merger templates to both articles in an attempt to generate interest in this discussion. I would like to hear what other editors think. ClovisPt (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I'd suggest merging the "Cocaine mummies" section into the "Material evidence of possible contact" section, and blending usable elements of the rest of the material into the "Africans" section. ClovisPt (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I have the energy to get deeply involved with this, but I am struck by the absence of citations of reliable sources in the leads of both articles. I think this is because they are too general. Various authors have proposed particular theories about pre-Colunbian contacts, and in most of those cases other authors have responded disagreeing with them. No responsible scholar has asserted that all such theories are mistaken, because no responsible scholar could possibly do so. These articles have therefore resorted to unsubstantiated general claims which are clearly POV.
 * The solution is not just to merge these articles, but to prune them down to a list of particular theories which have been proposed, and particular authors who have advanced them. These should be given with minimal comment and there should be no general statement as to their credibility. Then each separate theory and author should be dealt with in the appropriate separate article, which can then give a properly sourced discussion.
 * One specific point which strikes me is that neither of the articles concerned seems to mention the book Before Columbus by Cyrus H. Gordon, altough he is in general regarded as a respectable scholar. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * These are good points, SamuelTheGhost. In my opinion, reworking the main article is the best place to start, if you find that you do in fact have the time to put into improving this topic. Since this page contained very little information not in the main article, I merged some text and redirected this page. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)