Cacique Caribe | 05 Feb 2015 1:17 p.m. PST |
I absolutely hate absolutes. Absolutely. :) So I try to keep an open mind about the history we inherit and what is yet to be discovered, some of which may support or dispute our current notions. Therefore, to summarily dismiss the multiple exploration and settlement of early America theory as a possibility is a bit dogmatic and narrow. But many people I talk to say that if the artifacts predate Viking settlement of Vinland then, by default, they are either Native American or frauds, with no other possible option. A Native American friend of mine even denies that the Vindland settlement is authentic. Anyhoo, back to topic. Have you guys seen this bull stone carving before? link link imdb.com/title/tt2597970 If so, what are your thoughts? 1- Fraud? 2- Native American? 3- Minoan? 4- Egyptian? 5- Something else? Most importantly, why? Dan |
nnascati | 05 Feb 2015 1:38 p.m. PST |
Dan, I am a great believer in pre-columbian contact, and "America Unearthed" is a favorite show of mine. The problem with these ideas though is that except for the Vikings there is no tangible evidence. Yes, the style of that Apus Bully is definitely Egyptian or even Assyrian, but nothing else has been found that points to their presence in the New World. |
sumerandakkad | 05 Feb 2015 1:39 p.m. PST |
It would only be fraud if someone did it deliberately to mislead. That may not be the case here. Someone trying a stylised carving. Not Minoan or Egyptian in style the head is much sharper. The folds,of skin?, around the neck also doesn't fit with the Apis bull but some Minoan bull carvings have similar. I'd say 5 but what I am not sure |
Rich Bliss | 05 Feb 2015 2:10 p.m. PST |
Based on style and morphological features, I'd say very early Native American. |
Wackmole9 | 05 Feb 2015 2:35 p.m. PST |
1- Fraud? Because most of the ideas on "America Unearthed" are great TV but bad Archaeology/History. I believe we will never know the true history of contact between the old and new world. The Bull carving might be plausible if it was found somewhere near the coast in a good stratified context and not just lying in a River. |
Ivan DBA | 05 Feb 2015 6:20 p.m. PST |
Rubbish sensationalist nonsense. It is sad that a channel calling itself the "History" channel airs this kind of foolishness. |
Henry Martini | 05 Feb 2015 7:19 p.m. PST |
A change of spelling would fix it: The Hystery Channel. |
liborn | 05 Feb 2015 7:27 p.m. PST |
For me, the history channel lost all credibility when they began following |
liborn | 05 Feb 2015 7:38 p.m. PST |
It's just more trash to sell commercials! |
zippyfusenet | 06 Feb 2015 5:36 a.m. PST |
5. Strange artifact found in a river. Could easily be the work of a recent American crank, not necessarily intending fraud. Some bored bachelor farmer spent 30 years carving a primitive sculpture into a boulder, and died without anyone ever noticing. |
Cacique Caribe | 06 Feb 2015 6:46 a.m. PST |
|
TKindred | 06 Feb 2015 7:13 a.m. PST |
I have no problem believing that other ancient peoples made it to the western hemisphere. Any vessel capable of surviving in the Med is capable of making the trip across the Atlantic. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. |
LEGION 1950 | 14 Feb 2015 4:11 a.m. PST |
TKindred,I think is correct! Mike Adams |
Bowman | 15 Feb 2015 7:59 a.m. PST |
Therefore, to summarily dismiss the multiple exploration and settlement of early America theory as a possibility is a bit dogmatic and narrow Insisting on physical evidence is neither dogmatic nor narrow minded. But many people I talk to say that if the artifacts predate Viking settlement of Vinland then, by default, they are either Native American or frauds, with no other possible option. That is the current best explanation given the available evidence. Occam's razor. New evidence will require a reevaluation. That's how science works, no absolutism here. A Native American friend of mine even denies that the Vindland settlement is authentic Then he is clearly ignoring the evidence. A Native friend of mine denies that Indians were at war with each other, nor did they scalp, torture or sacrifice each other until they learned all that from the white people. They have a idealized vision of their past, and no evidence to the contrary will dissuade them. I have no problem believing that other ancient peoples made it to the western hemisphere. I have a bit more of a problem than you it seems. There are written accounts that indicate that Breton fisherman were fishing the Grand Banks well before John Cabot's visit in 1497. I have no doubt these men would have made landfall for food and water. Technically, this would be pre-Columbian if it occurred before 1492. However, what sort of physical evidence would such a scenario produce? Surely nothing. Any vessel capable of surviving in the Med is capable of making the trip across the Atlantic I'm not sure I would buy that. The distances and physical conditions are not the same. It was difficult enough for the Norsemen, and later Breton, Norman, Basque and Portuguese fisherman. But for Egyptians and Phoenicians? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. True, but it doesn't buy us permission to accept any crackpot hypothesis with equal credence. Evidence still trumps non-evidence. |
Bowman | 15 Feb 2015 8:23 a.m. PST |
According to archeologist Peter Faris the bull carving is a fake. Scroll down half way on his blog page for his criticism of the America Unearthed episode: link |
HarryHotspurEsq | 15 Feb 2015 10:58 a.m. PST |
It certainly doesn't look Egyptian or Minoan in style – and the carving is to crisp for something that has been in a river for some time. |
jpattern2 | 22 Feb 2015 5:57 p.m. PST |
Bowman nailed it with his two posts. |
Lewisgunner | 23 Feb 2015 11:24 a.m. PST |
The Atlantic is nowhere near as difficult to cross as the Pacific. the Canary islands were settled by the Guanches in prehistoric times. When the Spanish arrived they found that the Guanches did not use boats.mEither they sailed the 60 miles there or people who did use boats took them there. Either watpy, the Canaries are situated just ideally to pick up the NE wind that Columbus used to cross the ocean. also Phoenicians and Carthaginians made it to the Canaries. A boat or two caught in a storm and pushed across the ocean could make it. Similarly there were sea lanes frm spain up the West coast of Europe to Brittany, Cornwall, Wales, Ireland. Ships could be driven Soth from these routes and end up in the Americas. None of this would be large enough to create a cultural transfer, gut it is entirely possible that across 2,500 years of voyaging some boats did end up crossing the Atlantic. |
Bowman | 24 Feb 2015 6:55 a.m. PST |
Good comments Lewisgunner. Some responses: The Atlantic is nowhere near as difficult to cross as the Pacific. Yes, but that doesn't imply that the Atlantic is easy to cross, just because you can sail around the Mediterranean. Plus it looks like most of the Pacific and Indian Ocean were explored between 3000BCE to 500CE. the Canary islands were settled by the Guanches in prehistoric times. When the Spanish arrived they found that the Guanches did not use boats.mEither they sailed the 60 miles there or people who did use boats took them there. The Guanches seem to have settled the Canary Islands at the same time as the western coast of North America was settled. At those times the water levels were much lower, and coast settlements of these migrations have never been found as they are now under water. The distance between the Canary Islands and Morocco would have been much smaller, or even connected by a land bridge. I don't know what the second sentance means. According to Roman sources, when the Carthagenians visited the Canary Islands they were uninhabited. I wouldn't put too much stock in that. also Phoenicians and Carthaginians made it to the Canaries. Technically they are the same. Carthage was a Phoenician colony. Another Phoenician colony was through the Straits of Hercules on the Atlantic side of Morocco. So sure they would have visited. However, it is telling that Madeira, The Azores, and Cape Verde were never settled by any Mediterranean ancient sea faring people. A boat or two caught in a storm and pushed across the ocean could make it. Similarly there were sea lanes frm spain up the West coast of Europe to Brittany, Cornwall, Wales, Ireland. Ships could be driven Soth from these routes and end up in the Americas. Really? You put provisions and water on board for a 60 mile trip, get blown off course and safely make it to the New World? You should read about the dire conditions of Columbus's voyage. He almost didn't make it…..with fully stocked boats. Again, if this were true, why were the outer Atlantic islands never colonized until much later? None of this would be large enough to create a cultural transfer, gut it is entirely possible that across 2,500 years of voyaging some boats did end up crossing the Atlantic. Yes, if you are talking European fishing boats that skirted the British Isles, Iceland, Greenland and on to the Grand Banks. More improbable if we are talking Phoenicians, Greeks Minoans, Egyptians, etc. Forget the fact that these off course sailors then hike 100's of miles inland to practice their rock carving. Which is what the OP is suggesting. |
TwinMirror | 20 Mar 2015 4:05 a.m. PST |
You make your case eloquently and with solid reasoning and historical backing, Bowman. It's really refreshing! It seems strange to me that some people don't find the many subtle and complex turns of history interesting enough; instead they seem eager to believe in cliched sensationalist conspiracy theories. But I suppose that's a lot easier than doing the hard work of historiography and investigating actual historical processes. Thanks for taking the time to present the considered argument so well. |
Bowman | 20 Mar 2015 6:44 a.m. PST |
Thanks, TwinMirror. I like your comment: It seems strange to me that some people don't find the many subtle and complex turns of history interesting enough; instead they seem eager to believe in cliched sensationalist conspiracy theories. The late Douglas Adams stated it another way: "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" |
TwinMirror | 17 Apr 2015 9:59 a.m. PST |
|
hillbilly hetman | 21 Apr 2015 1:22 p.m. PST |
It looks graphically modern. The lines look like they were carved by someone used to working with fineline ink pens, as if he was copying from various elements of Egyptian and Mesopotamian art. |