Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Peopling of the Americas by Boat, Not Land


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Short distances in boats is what scientists believe was possible, not long distances. 

https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/08/time-to-scrap-the-idea-that-humans-arrived-in-the-americas-by-land-bridge/

Is there any theory by Sorensen or other Mormon scholars that talks about the BoM people traveling along the Pacific coastlines using short distances to arrive in the new world?  I'm not aware of one or how this would fit with this view of how the Americas became populated some ~14,000 yrs ago.  

You are correct to apply that proviso.  However, I am more interested in the fact that scientists have now become willing to admit that boats were primary at that early period (from 23,000 - 14,000 years ago to the American coast, and 50,000 years ago for Aboriginal settlement of Australia).  Till now, few scholars would accept boating as a major means of transport in early times and argued vehemently for Beringia alone.  This major shift allows us now to posit reasonably sophisticated boats in a period when Phoenician ships larger and better than those of Columbus were being used for major trade in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean.

As to Book of Mormon peoples hugging the coastline, Rajah Manchou does make that suggestion -- at least as far as Malaysia.  And the Jaredite barges would likely have made the great circle route while drifting to the New World.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Robert,

I think you're really missing the point.  The type of boating anthropologists are talking about is not long cross-ocean expedition, that is the problem.  They are talking about very small boating trips, see the earlier quote I took from one of the linked accounts.  This comparison between a large ocean crossing and small incremental boating/fishing trips to explore the coastlines that had populations of people gradually making their way to the continents over the course of many years is completely different.  Surely you see the difference between the two.  

I already responded to your valid points here, but you misunderstand the major disjunction between previous Beringia-only theories and the current one which emphasizes boats -- even if they are primarily coastal in use.  Scientists are now freed from the previous dogma of ignorant savages unable to deploy boats, while we have overwhelming evidence of long cross ocean voyages taking place repeatedly has long been in our hands,  it is much easier to take cognizance of it now.  The Book of Mormon crossings take place much later,  after all, when technology has presumably advanced considerably.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are correct to apply that proviso.  However, I am more interested in the fact that scientists have now become willing to admit that boats were primary at that early period (from 23,000 - 14,000 years ago to the American coast, and 50,000 years ago for Aboriginal settlement of Australia).  Till now, few scholars would accept boating as a major means of transport in early times and argued vehemently for Beringia alone.  This major shift allows us now to posit reasonably sophisticated boats in a period when Phoenician ships larger and better than those of Columbus were being used for major trade in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean.

As to Book of Mormon peoples hugging the coastline, Rajah Manchou does make that suggestion -- at least as far as Malaysia.  And the Jaredite barges would likely have made the great circle route while drifting to the New World.

Why do you think the consensus has shifted?  I would say its because the evidence has become persuasive to support this theory.  I wouldn't say that scientists are even following how these evidences are perceived in Mormonism.   The reason they argued for Beringia migration is that the evidence at the time seemed more persuasive, and newer evidence typically has to meet a high standard to overturn current theories.  

What time period are you talking about with this idea that sophisticated boats may have existed for trade in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean, you said pre-Columbian, but you're not talking about 14,000 BCE are you?  

I respect Rajah and I appreciate that he's trying to think outside the box, but I honestly don't take any of the Malaysian BoM model theories seriously at all.  

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't know if you're intentionally misinterpreting the data to continue your assertion with this poor comparison or if you just don't understand how this the scientific findings don't apply to the BoM transatlantic or transpacific migrations.  The only similarity is that they both used a boat on the water.  

The scientific articles are talking about gradual migration through very small boating expeditions that happen over the course of many many years times.  There is no evidence for an epic boating trip across the wide oceans as described in the BoM at this early time period of 14,000 years BCE.  I don't know of any apologists that would even argue that this could have happened, so I'm not sure why you're saying this is an apt comparison.  

Its akin to saying that the first airplane that the Wright Brothers invented could be used to travel around the globe.  These small boats couldn't make a migration across the wide ocean any easier than the earliest airplanes could travel around the world.  The technology didn't exist.  The way people came to the American continents by boat in 14,000 BCE is completely different than the way described in the BoM, and its not because of a lack of detail in the BoM accounts as you asserted earlier.  Those accounts are quite detailed, enough to see that they weren't taking fishing expeditions of small distances over the course of many many years and eventually making their way to a new continent.  I don't understand the desire to make this comparison.  

Manned flight became normal; oceanic voyages to the ancient Americas has become normal.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for sharing this, its so interesting to find how new evidence is changing our paradigms on this subject.  

From what I'm reading in your first link, this doesn't mean the Clovis people didn't come over the Beringia Land bridge, this is just saying those people weren't the first inhabitants of the continent. 

Exactly.

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Also, the hypothesis is that people traveled along the coastal regions on the Pacific coast in smaller boats while foraging along the coast.  No evidence to suggest they had the technology to build large boats that could traverse the vast ocean on a single voyage.  

I would hesitate to restrict their technology to only small boats which hugged the coast.  Once the boat idea has taken hold, humans are very smart and resourceful, and could certainly expand the size and purpose of whatever craft they wanted to launch.  The Polynesians, for example, had mastered long ocean voyaging long before Clan Lehi set sail to the New World.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Scientists are now freed from the previous dogma of ignorant savages unable to deploy boats, while we have overwhelming evidence of long cross ocean voyages taking place repeatedly has long been in our hands,  it is much easier to take cognizance of it now. 

I don't believe there has been any scientific dogma.  Science is going to follow the evidence, and as the evidence changed the prevailing theories changed with it.

Also, there is nothing about this evidence that suggests long cross ocean voyages during the time periods these articles are talking about that I can see.  If I missed it, please correct me, otherwise could you please provide the link or evidence that any scientists are claiming this kind of evidence during this time period would suggest the possibility of long cross ocean voyages.  

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Manned flight became normal; oceanic voyages to the ancient Americas has become normal.

Manned flight around the world became possible after many years and significant technological innovation.  The same with cross oceanic voyages, but the amount of time it took for that technology to develop was many thousands of years.  You're talking about a time period where there is absolutely no evidence to suggest this technology existed.  

Link to comment
On 11/6/2017 at 3:09 PM, hope_for_things said:

Why do you think the consensus has shifted?  I would say its because the evidence has become persuasive to support this theory.  I wouldn't say that scientists are even following how these evidences are perceived in Mormonism.   The reason they argued for Beringia migration is that the evidence at the time seemed more persuasive, and newer evidence typically has to meet a high standard to overturn current theories.  

What time period are you talking about with this idea that sophisticated boats may have existed for trade in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean, you said pre-Columbian, but you're not talking about 14,000 BCE are you?  .................................................

The word "Phoencian" ought to have been an indication that I was speaking of the 1st millennium B.C., when Lehi & Nephi were crossing the Pacific (with admitted difficulty).  You may be unaware that the Phoenicians were better navigators and had bigger ships than Columbus. We know for a fact that Phoenicians were trading outside the Straits of Gibraltar, and went regularly to India from their Red Sea port of Ezion Geber (Eilat).  Indeed, according to Herodotus, on one voyage they left Ezion Geber, went south along the African coast, rounded Cape of Good Hope, and came north along the African coast, and returned via the Mediterranean.  How do we know?  The dead giveaway is the record of the sun being north of them while rounding the Cape.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't believe there has been any scientific dogma.  Science is going to follow the evidence, and as the evidence changed the prevailing theories changed with it.

There has been a dogma for a long time, and science did force that dogma to be overturned.  Anthropology is science and it has dogmas as do all academic endeavors.

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Also, there is nothing about this evidence that suggests long cross ocean voyages during the time periods these articles are talking about that I can see.  If I missed it, please correct me, otherwise could you please provide the link or evidence that any scientists are claiming this kind of evidence during this time period would suggest the possibility of long cross ocean voyages.  

I agree with you that we are speaking about coastal boats in the early period, no more, although I put a lot more trust in the ability of humans to adapt than you apparently do.  The dogma that humans are incapable of doing anything spectacular in early times is very strong, which is why they dragged their feet for so long on the pre-Clovis question.  Now they have no choice but to come around to at least small boats, rather than an impossible early land bridge.  We could see this break coming decades ago.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Manned flight around the world became possible after many years and significant technological innovation.  The same with cross oceanic voyages, but the amount of time it took for that technology to develop was many thousands of years.  You're talking about a time period where there is absolutely no evidence to suggest this technology existed.  

That is part of the dogma I was discussing.  This is a very strong impediment to understanding even among anthropolgists -- the notion that the requisite adaptation could take place in a relatively short period.  Aeronautical engineering is vastly more complex than nautical engineering, and the distance from building a small boat to creating an outrigger is not as difficult as it may seem to you.  However, there were in any case many thousands of years between the time of the first immigrants to the Americas in small boats, and the voyages of the Jaredites, Lehites, and Mulekites.  You seem to be missing that main point entirely.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, Palerider said:

Too bad none of this fits with a BoM scenario. The boat arrivals are supposed to be even earlier (up to 20,000 years). And it doesn't say the Bering Straight migration didn't happen, it just says they weren't the earliest. :P

The BoM does not say there was no one else here first.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The abridgment explanation doesn't make sense to me since the voyages are described in great detail, even the number of days on the sea in the Jaredite version.  They just weren't the same kind of voyages at all in their description.  It wasn't that the details were left out.  The Jaredites were inside their ships, even under the water like submarines.  Lehi's family experienced large storms and didn't see land for many days, the kind of narratives for both stories don't fit the descriptions for these kind of earlier migrations.  

So you're saying God can't provide a way?

or that science is set and nobody in the history of the world could have done it any other way?

What about the Vikings? its been proven they were here before Columbus.

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Manned flight around the world became possible after many years and significant technological innovation.  The same with cross oceanic voyages, but the amount of time it took for that technology to develop was many thousands of years.  You're talking about a time period where there is absolutely no evidence to suggest this technology existed.  

Wright brothers first flight = 1903

First around the world flight =1924

21 years is not " many years and significant technological innovation."

 

Might want to check this site out for early long ocean voyages http://biega.com/sailing-history.shtml

 

 

Edited by mnn727
Link to comment
25 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There has been a dogma for a long time, and science did force that dogma to be overturned.  Anthropology is science and it has dogmas as do all academic endeavors.

I agree with you that we are speaking about coastal boats in the early period, no more, although I put a lot more trust in the ability of humans to adapt than you apparently do.  The dogma that humans are incapable of doing anything spectacular in early times is very strong, which is why they dragged their feet for so long on the pre-Clovis question.  Now they have no choice but to come around to at least small boats, rather than an impossible early land bridge.  We could see this break coming decades ago.

I can agree that there are precedents in science that will dominate thinking, but this is not a dogma and I disagree with the use of that term.   Science is constantly evolving, but I believe there is incentives for overturning long held precedent and that is built into the system, and there will always be challenges to the one or two people that challenge a theory, but when the evidence continues to mount, the precedents change.  

Religions dogma is different and the mechanisms at play are different.  Dogma is a claim based on authority and is held to be incontrovertible.  Religious dogma is not governed by a rational approach to evidence.  Religious dogma often holds to ideas without any evidence to support those ideas, solely based on authority claims and tradition.  This has its pros and cons, but it is not the same as scientific precedent.  

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is part of the dogma I was discussing.  This is a very strong impediment to understanding even among anthropolgists -- the notion that the requisite adaptation could take place in a relatively short period.  Aeronautical engineering is vastly more complex than nautical engineering, and the distance from building a small boat to creating an outrigger is not as difficult as it may seem to you.  However, there were in any case many thousands of years between the time of the first immigrants to the Americas in small boats, and the voyages of the Jaredites, Lehites, and Mulekites.  You seem to be missing that main point entirely.

Admittedly I'm missing the connection between small boats used for short expeditions that gradually populated the America's over many years through coastal exploration around 14000 BCE, and the idea of a voyage during the BoM years that was cross oceanic in nature.  I'm not disputing the idea that technology of boating may have advanced to the point that at 2500 BCE, people could have crossed the oceans for the Americas.  I really don't know if that was possible, but I haven't disputed its possibility here in this thread.  So I don't understand the connection you're making.  

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

So you're saying God can't provide a way?

or that science is set and nobody in the history of the world could have done it any other way?

What about the Vikings? its been proven they were here before Columbus.

I didn't say anything about whether it was possible for this to happen as the BoM narrates.  I personally don't think the BoM is historical, but that doesn't mean the technology didn't exist for a voyage like this to happen.  And I agree that they have found evidence for Viking voyages, but you're talking about very different time periods, aren't the Viking explorations in the 1000 - 1400 CE time period, thats way after the BoM times.  

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Wright brothers first flight = 1903

First around the world flight =1924

21 years is not " many years and significant technological innovation."

 

Might want to check this site out for early long ocean voyages http://biega.com/sailing-history.shtml

 

 

21 years is pretty quick innovation in aviation, but this is the modern age, and I was making a comparison, not in years, but in type of technology.  We have computers now with more than doubling their computing power every year or so. 

Are you saying there is evidence for long oceanic voyages in the 14,000 BCE time period?  If so, could you please provide some evidence, as there wasn't anything I saw in your link that suggested such voyages from that long ago, let alone the book of Ether BoM times of 2500 BCE.   

Link to comment
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Admittedly I'm missing the connection between small boats used for short expeditions that gradually populated the America's over many years through coastal exploration around 14000 BCE, and the idea of a voyage during the BoM years that was cross oceanic in nature.  I'm not disputing the idea that technology of boating may have advanced to the point that at 2500 BCE, people could have crossed the oceans for the Americas.  I really don't know if that was possible, but I haven't disputed its possibility here in this thread.  So I don't understand the connection you're making.  

You are the one who raised that objection and compared it to aeronautical engineering, which is pretty lame.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I can agree that there are precedents in science that will dominate thinking, but this is not a dogma and I disagree with the use of that term.   Science is constantly evolving, but I believe there is incentives for overturning long held precedent and that is built into the system, and there will always be challenges to the one or two people that challenge a theory, but when the evidence continues to mount, the precedents change.  

You clearly don't know science, which has dogmas galore, and even required rituals.  Some anthropologists have even written studies of those academic rites and dogmas.  I suppose, if it makes you more comfortable, you could say paradigm instead of dogma.  That is the term used by Kuhn.

See especially Bennetta Jules-Rosette, "The Veil of Objectivity: Prophecy, Divination, and Social Inquiry,” American Anthropologist, 80/3 (Sept 1978):549-570, online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1978.80.3.02a00020/full .

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Religions dogma is different and the mechanisms at play are different.  Dogma is a claim based on authority and is held to be incontrovertible.  Religious dogma is not governed by a rational approach to evidence.  Religious dogma often holds to ideas without any evidence to support those ideas, solely based on authority claims and tradition.  This has its pros and cons, but it is not the same as scientific precedent.  

Science and religion are very different categories of thought and action, and you seem not to understand either one.

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are the one who raised that objection and compared it to aeronautical engineering, which is pretty lame.

Apparently you didn’t understand my comparison, but I don’t understand your underlying point about the relevancy of small boat exploration and a connection with BoM migration.  So I guess we’re even on the lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You clearly don't know science, which has dogmas galore, and even required rituals.  Some anthropologists have even written studies of those academic rites and dogmas.  I suppose, if it makes you more comfortable, you could say paradigm instead of dogma.  That is the term used by Kuhn.

See especially Bennetta Jules-Rosette, "The Veil of Objectivity: Prophecy, Divination, and Social Inquiry,” American Anthropologist, 80/3 (Sept 1978):549-570, online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1978.80.3.02a00020/full .

I didn’t say human nature including bias and tradition and turf defending don’t all play a role in the sciences, they do.  That doesn’t make science suspect to the same factors that influence religious dogma.  Different scenarios.  

And I don’t claim to be an expert on religion or science, I’m just a regular guy with an opinion, agree or disagree with me, that’s fine.  

Link to comment
3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't believe there has been any scientific dogma. 

Call it whatever, science has built all its theories on the peopling of the Americas upon the necessity that America could only be accessed by foot. Walking. So all the theories have revolved around ridiculous time periods based on sea levels and ice corridors. That has severely crippled thinking on the subject. It has limited any passage to America to 14,000 BC when the land bridge was exposed.

That isn't necessary now.

Now science can allow for the passage of any number of people around the Pacific Rim to the Americans at any point, from as early as 20,000 BC.

That is a big shift.

Edited by Rajah Manchou
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...