Am I just slow?

[ModernMarvel]

I understand what Moonlapse is saying (although they weren't natives really) I just didn't know about the argument about Carthage. Well, for now, I think I'll stick to vikings.....

 

 

Marvel

Ahh, yes. New claims seem to come out every other year.

 

 

Heh, heh..I hear that. I think next week the 3 legged eskimos of Vietnam are gonna come out with their discovery of the New World.....

[Pantagathus]

Ahh, yes. New claims seem to come out every other year.

Heh, heh..I hear that. I think next week the 3 legged eskimos of Vietnam are gonna come out with their discovery of the New World.....

New claims do come out all the time, but to be fair the Carthaginian question has been floating around since the 17th Century...

 

The recent hoopla may be because of this guy: Mark McMenamin and his book (that isn't available anywhere): The Carthaginians Were Here: Evidence for an Early Crossing of the Atlantic. Apparently there is some Carthaginian coin that has a world map showing what he thinks is America on it and he went nuts and got sidetracked from his life as a geologist to investigate it...

[Marcus Caelius]

Apparently there is some Carthaginian coin that has a world map showing what he thinks is America on it and he went nuts and got sidetracked from his life as a geologist to investigate it...

 

That's what I like to see, solid physical evidence!

 

Well, I'm convinced.

[Skarr]

I understand what Moonlapse is saying (although they weren't natives really) I just didn't know about the argument about Carthage. Well, for now, I think I'll stick to vikings.....

 

 

Marvel

Ahh, yes. New claims seem to come out every other year.

 

I remember reading about someone finding a "Roman" head in Mexico some years ago. If I recall, the archaeologists were a little skeptical as this was an isolated find. Although authenticated as Roman, the theory was that it might have washed ashore off some shipwreck and did not really present evidence that the Romans ever visited the Americas.

 

Coming back to the Phoenicians, they were master ship builders and their two deck galleys (with 2 banks of oars) were the finest in ancient times and they were far advanced in ship building techniques than the Romans. They were also excellent navigators and there are accounts of voyages to a mysterious city called Ophir, from where they brought back gold, ivory and other "riches". Well, this land is suspected to be India, from a voyage which probably started in the Red Sea. There is another account of a voyage to the West of Africa and it may be conceivable that Phoenician ships could have been caught in storms off the West Coast and maybe blown off further west, towards South America. I remember also reading about some amphorae that was found by the coast of Brazil but I'm unsure if that was ever positively identified to belong to the ancient Carthaginians (or Phoenicians).

[ModernMarvel]

I understand what Moonlapse is saying (although they weren't natives really) I just didn't know about the argument about Carthage. Well, for now, I think I'll stick to vikings.....

 

 

Marvel

Ahh, yes. New claims seem to come out every other year.

Coming back to the Phoenicians, they were master ship builders and their two deck galleys (with 2 banks of oars) were the finest in ancient times and they were far advanced in ship building techniques than the Romans. They were also excellent navigators and there are accounts of voyages to a mysterious city called Ophir, from where they brought back gold, ivory and other "riches". Well, this land is suspected to be India, from a voyage which probably started in the Red Sea. There is another account of a voyage to the West of Africa and it may be conceivable that Phoenician ships could have been caught in storms off the West Coast and maybe blown off further west, towards South America. I remember also reading about some amphorae that was found by the coast of Brazil but I'm unsure if that was ever positively identified to belong to the ancient Carthaginians (or Phoenicians).

Well, if anyone could do it back then, it'd be Carthage. Their ships were fantastic. So were their ports. Very sea going economy. As far as the coin, I did see it on the net. It's weird. A picture of an animal standing on a line, and under that, VERY VERY VERY small, is some blobs. The pro-Carthage historians say this is the "map" of the world....looks like some spilled mustard to me....

[Rameses the Great]

Well, if anyone could do it back then, it'd be Carthage. Their ships were fantastic. So were their ports. Very sea going economy. As far as the coin, I did see it on the net. It's weird. A picture of an animal standing on a line, and under that, VERY VERY VERY small, is some blobs. The pro-Carthage historians say this is the "map" of the world....looks like some spilled mustard to me....

 

I agree it would be the Carthaginians but I am a bit skeptical of this. Remember that Carthage mainly traded around the Mediterranian a calm sea. The Atlantic is harsh, rugged, and nearly impossible to traverse. The Vikings had to build some of the toughest ships just to be able to stop at Iceland and move onto the new world.

[Pantagathus]

Remember that Carthage mainly traded around the Mediterranian a calm sea....

The also traded up and down the Atlantic seaboard from Mogador on the west African Coast to at least north Lusitania. Archaeology has shed light on numerous Phoenician & Punic settlements in modern day Portugal. Furthermore, if we are to believe the Romans the Carthaginians were also sailing to Britain (versus using middlemen like the Veneti which is more probable). If you know anything about currents and wind in the Bay of Biscay, you know that hugging the shoreline was not the best way of heading North from Spain off the coast of Gaul.

 

It's known from the so called 'Marsala Wreck' that their ship building techniques accomplished very similar stability features (but through a slightly different approach) to what the Vikings were credited with having invented over 1000 years later.

 

Then of course there was Himilco's expedition (not to be confused with Hanno's). I've poured over those weird lines in Ora Maritima and if one considers that Himilco spent 4 months attempting to get to the Tin Isles and what was described en route, it sounds to me like the poor guy went west (some of the ancient geographers incorrectly placed Britain in relation to Spain btw). 4 months is just about the perfect amount of time for someone to cross, get spooked in/around the Saragossa Sea (which it sounds like Himilco describes) and turn around. Average crossing time for a sailing ship is ~52-60+ days.

 

So RtG, it's not wise to make generalized comments like that without having done any research on the subject.

[Kosmo]

Is there anyone who didn't get to America before Columbus? So far, I've heard about the Norse, Welch, Irish, Egyptians, Greeks, Atlanteans, Polynesians, and Japanese. Now, the Carthaginians. It's beginning to look like Peter Minuit didn't buy Manhatten from the Indians, so much as he paid off their mortgage.

 

You did not mentions the africans as proven by the olmec statues

 

For sure carthaginians are serious contenders with good naval skills, apetite for exploration and one of the first to realy sail in the Atlantic. The problem is that even if they got there, by chance, there was of little interest to them and hence little remains that could be spotted today. So, if no undisputed written evidence will be found in a source the queston remains just a possibility.

 

Viking presence was well attested in written sources and highly probable, but the arheological finds are quite limited. A small, short lived hamlet with a handfull of objects it's all that was found.

[Pantagathus]

So, if no undisputed written evidence will be found in a source the queston remains just a possibility.

Exactly

[Rameses the Great]

The also traded up and down the Atlantic seaboard from Mogador on the west African Coast to at least north Lusitania. Archaeology has shed light on numerous Phoenician & Punic settlements in modern day Portugal. Furthermore, if we are to believe the Romans the Carthaginians were also sailing to Britain (versus using middlemen like the Veneti which is more probable). If you know anything about currents and wind in the Bay of Biscay, you know that hugging the shoreline was not the best way of heading North from Spain off the coast of Gaul.

 

It's known from the so called 'Marsala Wreck' that their ship building techniques accomplished very similar stability features (but through a slightly different approach) to what the Vikings were credited with having invented over 1000 years later.

 

Then of course there was Himilco's expedition (not to be confused with Hanno's). I've poured over those weird lines in Ora Maritima and if one considers that Himilco spent 4 months attempting to get to the Tin Isles and what was described en route, it sounds to me like the poor guy went west (some of the ancient geographers incorrectly placed Britain in relation to Spain btw). 4 months is just about the perfect amount of time for someone to cross, get spooked in/around the Saragossa Sea (which it sounds like Himilco describes) and turn around. Average crossing time for a sailing ship is ~52-60+ days.

 

So RtG, it's not wise to make generalized comments like that without having done any research on the subject.

 

I know, but what research do we have on that subject? It is all based on evidence that is disredited, to my understanding, by many archeologists. Mark McMenamin's idea of a Carthaginian coin is not really sufficient enough to provide that much insight on the possibility. This is just a possibility, but assumptions is all we have to base off of when there really is no base of understanding.

 

Regarding my original post, I suppose I was generalizing on personal and public opinion.

[Pantagathus]

I know, but what research do we have on that subject?

Rameses,

 

My last post had nothing to do with the crackpot theories, it was highlighting the dangers of making rash comments by showing research insight in contrast to your generalize comments made here:

Remember that Carthage mainly traded around the Mediterranian a calm sea. The Atlantic is harsh, rugged, and nearly impossible to traverse.

Basically I was saying that using the right ships the ancients of the Atlantic seaboard did indeed ply the Atlantic so your generalization is rubbish. Forget the image of the war galley trying to make it across the Atlantic but think of a gaulos, i.e. 'tub', merchantman vessel...

[Northern Neil]

It is all based on evidence that is disredited, to my understanding, by many archeologists.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htm

Just a little reminder from further back on this topic. The map in question was said by its creator to comprise information dating to the 4th century BC and even earlier. Given that this map is considered authentic by most scholars, I would say that here at least is undisputed evidence that someone mapped the Americas and Antarctica in pre Columbian times. If not the Phoenicians/ Carthaginians, then who?

Edited April 12, 2007 by Northern Neil

[Kosmo]

When the Piri Reis map was made America was discovered already and the route to India thru South Africa was quite common.

Also, at the time there was a great interest in maps while information was largely incorect so many maps look really strange and awfully wrong. California was an island and America, from north to south was a narrow strip of land. A french explorer, a little later, believed that some Great Lakes indian chief was the emperor of China!

Those who "discovered" the map decided that it looks like Antarctica but without ice. No human could know how it looks before XX century because of the Ice Shelf that looks like land. Also if it was no ice in Antarctica the coastline of the earth would have been different.

 

So, a cartoghrapher mistake was turned in a pseudohistory gold mine.

[Northern Neil]

When the Piri Reis map was made America was discovered already and the route to India thru South Africa was quite common.

Also, at the time there was a great interest in maps while information was largely incorect so many maps look really strange and awfully wrong. California was an island and America, from north to south was a narrow strip of land. A french explorer, a little later, believed that some Great Lakes indian chief was the emperor of China!

Those who "discovered" the map decided that it looks like Antarctica but without ice. No human could know how it looks before XX century because of the Ice Shelf that looks like land. Also if it was no ice in Antarctica the coastline of the earth would have been different.

 

So, a cartoghrapher mistake was turned in a pseudohistory gold mine.

The southern portion of the map, using the azimuthal equidistant projection, however, exactly depicts the southern part of Tierra del Fuego, Palmer Land and Antarctica, as can be seen at the very end of the article if one scrolls down far enough. No one decided it looks like Antarctica - it just does. Cuba even has a vertical appearance, as dictated by this particular projection of the globe. South Georgia and the Falklands (Malvinas) are shown, which were not discovered until a century or more after the map was complied. This has nothing at all to do with pseudo history, or early explorers mistaking Amerindians for Chinese. Further, the map, far from being strange and awfully wrong, was actually quite accurate - more so than some later maps. I ask again - How did Piri Reis manage to compile a map accurately showing Antarctica and portions of the Americas not yet reached by Europeans?

Edited April 15, 2007 by Northern Neil

[ModernMarvel]

When the Piri Reis map was made America was discovered already and the route to India thru South Africa was quite common.

Also, at the time there was a great interest in maps while information was largely incorect so many maps look really strange and awfully wrong. California was an island and America, from north to south was a narrow strip of land. A french explorer, a little later, believed that some Great Lakes indian chief was the emperor of China!

Those who "discovered" the map decided that it looks like Antarctica but without ice. No human could know how it looks before XX century because of the Ice Shelf that looks like land. Also if it was no ice in Antarctica the coastline of the earth would have been different.

 

So, a cartoghrapher mistake was turned in a pseudohistory gold mine.

The southern portion of the map, using the azimuthal equidistant projection, however, exactly depicts the southern part of Tierra del Fuego, Palmer Land and Antarctica, as can be seen at the very end of the article if one scrolls down far enough. No one decided it looks like Antarctica - it just does. Cuba even has a vertical appearance, as dictated by this particular projection of the globe. South Georgia and the Falklands (Malvinas) are shown, which were not discovered until a century or more after the map was complied. This has nothing at all to do with pseudo history, or early explorers mistaking Amerindians for Chinese. Further, the map, far from being strange and awfully wrong, was actually quite accurate - more so than some later maps. I ask again - How did Piri Reis manage to compile a map accurately showing Antarctica and portions of the Americas not yet reached by Europeans?

 

Very simple. I quote from the article: "His high rank within the Turkish navy allowed him to have a privileged access to the Imperial Library of Constantinople.

The Turkish admiral admits in a series of notes on the map that he compiled and copied the data from a large number of source maps, some of which dated back to the fourth century BC or earlier."

 

Let us take a look at some of the key words in this quote. Firstly, COMPILED. It means he got the information from various sources. SOME. Some of these compilations go as far back as the 4th century or earlier...not all of them. This thing was drawn in 1513. 20 some years after Columbus. I'm sure an admiral would have heard about Columbus' travels after 20 or-so years. Maybe the oldest parts of information about the map were about Africa and the western parts of Europe. I agree with some of the others here on this. This map, in no way, means that 4th or 5th century B.C. peoples mapped the Atlantic rim.

 

Although I did say earlier that if anyone could do it, it'd be the Carthaginians, I'm not saying they did. As Pantagathus said earlier, the ship would be a tub...not a war ship. The investment needed to make such a trip would be astronomical. I doubt any merchant back then would invest that kind of capital, for an ocean-worthy ship, with AT LEAST 10 years of supplies for an expeditionary voyage to lands that back then, everyone knew didn't exist. On top of all that, the Government could not have financed it either. In the 4th and 5th Centuries BC, when this information was supposedly compiled, Carthage was dealing with a MAJOR problem of it's own. Greece. Carthage was fighting the Greeks at this time. Allying with Persia militarily would not have allowed the Carthaginian Govt. to finance such an expedition.

 

Sorry, a 16th century map that has information about the Americas and Antarctica, with no reference to the sources, or the ages of said sources is not evidence at all to me. COULD the Carthaginians make it to America, sure...WOULD they or DID they, more than likely not...