Peopling of the Americas by Boat, Not Land

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

To be honest, I never understood why people who prefer a 100% natural, rational, logical explanation bother with Mormonism or religion at all. Why not just be a scientist and stick with what is known and testable?

I didn't ask to be born into Mormonism or to be raised with a very black and white orthodox view of the world for 39 years of my life.  I didn't choose to grow up in this culture which I'm still a part of because of my family and friend associations.  I don't think people that make this kind of critique can even fathom what a huge thing they are asking someone to do.  I may not be orthodox anymore, but I try to find some value in this religion/culture that I'm living in and live life in a positive way. 

10 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I suppose the idea of a Malay geography could have come to him via Solomon Spaulding who, according to his daughter and a number of other people who knew him, was writing a book about the Nephites and Lamanites and their "migration via the Red Sea to the Pacific Ocean; their residence for a long time in China; their crossing the ocean by Behrings Straits in North America." Or maybe it was the dozens of other accounts that had the Lost Tribes and/or the Rechabites traveling through Asia before they crossed the Bearing Strait? Or maybe it was influenced by Samuel MitchiIl who proposed that Malays and Tartars were the first Native Americans and they battled it out in upstate New York. Or maybe it was from Claudius Buchanan's Star in the East that described Malayalan Jews leaving Jerusalem in the 6th century BC with brass plates and sailing as far as the Malay Peninsula and China.

The Spaulding theory has been largely debunked by historians.  The rest of these wild speculations don't have any basis in rigorous analysis.  I'm sorry, you seem like a nice person, but this kind of loose speculation about possible origins really isn't persuasive.  I really don't want to get overly critical of you or your theories, so out of my respect for you and my happiness that at least you are thinking outside the box (albeit way way outside) I think we should end this exchange.  

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks, I think I misunderstood your earlier post because it sounded like you were saying that this evidence shows that these people must have taken a direct path across the ocean on a long voyage, otherwise we'd find evidence of them along the coastal regions, however I'm not sure you can make this assumption.  Do the studies support your assumption on this point?  From what you've described it sounds plausible that these people came across through the same small boats exploring the coast lines method, and then settled in the Amazon.  

The evidence doesn't show how these people got from the Indian Ocean to the Amazon Jungle. The logical answer, IMO, is they hopped across the Pacific like Australasians and Polynesians have always done. But for some reason the safe and acceptable answer is they paddled in kayaks to Alaska and then down to Brazil.

[Rajah Manchou]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I didn't ask to be born into Mormonism or to be raised with a very black and white orthodox view of the world for 39 years of my life.  I didn't choose to grow up in this culture which I'm still a part of because of my family and friend associations.  I don't think people that make this kind of critique can even fathom what a huge thing they are asking someone to do.  I may not be orthodox anymore, but I try to find some value in this religion/culture that I'm living in and live life in a positive way. 

Yeah, me too brother.

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The Spaulding theory has been largely debunked by historians.  The rest of these wild speculations don't have any basis in rigorous analysis.  I'm sorry, you seem like a nice person, but this kind of loose speculation about possible origins really isn't persuasive.  I really don't want to get overly critical of you or your theories, so out of my respect for you and my happiness that at least you are thinking outside the box (albeit way way outside) I think we should end this exchange.  

Your first paragraph clashed harshly with your second. And I was only looking for explanations that you might find more acceptable, even though I also consider them to be loose speculation. But oh well, that's the life unorthodox Mormons are condemned to live. All the best to you. 

Edited November 7, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

The evidence doesn't show how these people got from the Indian Ocean to the Amazon Jungle. The logical answer, IMO, is they hopped across the Pacific like Australasians and Polynesians have always done. But for some reason the safe and acceptable answer is they paddled in kayaks to Alaska and then down to Brazil.

The problem with your answer is we have no evidence to support your idea that boating technology and expertise necessary to accomplish such a long voyage existed anywhere in the world during that early time period.  That's why no scientists are proposing what you think is safe and acceptable, because its not supported by evidence.  

[Rajah Manchou]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The problem with your answer is we have no evidence to support your idea that boating technology and expertise necessary to accomplish such a long voyage existed anywhere in the world during that early time period.  That's why no scientists are proposing what you think is safe and acceptable, because its not supported by evidence.  

Correct. Even though Australasians had the skills and technology to colonize tiny and distant islands ranging from Madagascar to Easter Island, there is no evidence they could have done so at such an early time period. So the safe and acceptable answer is that they paddled kayaks from the Indian Ocean to Alaska and down to Brazil.

Odd, but true. 

[Rajah Manchou]

Ah, forget it. I'm stepping away. Mormonism is too much of a mindwarp for me right now.

Edited November 7, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Correct. Even though Australasians had the skills and technology to colonize tiny and distant islands ranging from Madagascar to Easter Island, there is no evidence they could have done so at such an early time period. So the safe and acceptable answer is that they paddled kayaks from the Indian Ocean to Alaska and down to Brazil.

Odd, but true. 

I believe they called it island hopping in the paper that I read earlier.  I don't think a 50-100 mile trek on the Ocean from one island to another is the same thing as a 9000 mile traverse across the entire Pacific.  If there are scientists proposing that they had this technology at those early dates, feel free to cite this material.  I'll tend to stick with the experts and their opinions on this.  

[Rajah Manchou]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I believe they called it island hopping in the paper that I read earlier.  I don't think a 50-100 mile trek on the Ocean from one island to another is the same thing as a 9000 mile traverse across the entire Pacific.  If there are scientists proposing that they had this technology at those early dates, feel free to cite this material.  I'll tend to stick with the experts and their opinions on this.  

Let's just wrap this up.

You accept the possibility of human migrations by boat from Asia to South America in 2500 BC and 600 BC? But since we only have solid evidence of coastal migrations, we can't yet assume migrations directly across the Pacific. I can accept that. The biggest problem I have always had with the Book of Mormon account are the multiple trans-Pacific voyages. This is why I prefer the BoM geography model that doesn't require them. But I remain open to new evidence and shifts in the paradigm. You have said that you are open to new evidence as well.

You also accept the possibility that Joseph Smith gleaned material from 19th century accounts of lost tribes in America to assemble the Book of Mormon. But since we have no solid evidence that he also used 19th century accounts of lost tribes in Asia, we can't speculate that he did. I don't agree, because everything related to BoM origins feels like wild speculation to me. But I can see where you are coming from. The simplest explanation is, of course, a 19th century text. However, I have hope/faith that it is ancient, and I start from that point.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

You also accept the possibility that Joseph Smith gleaned material from 19th century accounts of lost tribes in America to assemble the Book of Mormon. But since we have no solid evidence that he also used 19th century accounts of lost tribes in Asia, we can't speculate that he did. I don't agree, because everything related to BoM origins feels like wild speculation to me. But I can see where you are coming from. The simplest explanation is, of course, a 19th century text. However, I have hope/faith that it is ancient, and I start from that point.

I can understand what you're trying to do, but I need stronger evidence and not just speculations.  Best of luck to you though, I really do respect people that try to look at things differently and for that I commend your efforts.  

[mnn727]

On 11/6/2017 at 5:25 PM, hope_for_things said:

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.   

You're apparently think Nephi, built his ship based on the previous ships that had been built. Where did you get that idea?

 

Quote

1st Nephi 17: 8 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto me, saying: Thou shalt construct a ship, after the manner which I shall show thee, that I may carry thy people across these waters.

Sounds kind of familiar, doesn't it?

 

Quote

 

Genesis 6: 13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

14 ¶ Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.

 

 

 

[hope_for_things]

35 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

You're apparently think Nephi, built his ship based on the previous ships that had been built. Where did you get that idea?

Huh?  How did you get that idea.  I don't even think Nephi was a historical person.  I was asking for evidence that long ocean voyages were possible according to the scholars.  Then I wanted to know how any of this scholarship about these early time periods 14,000 BCE - 20,000 BCE has any application to the BoM time period.  

[RevTestament]

15 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

But since we only have solid evidence of coastal migrations, we can't yet assume migrations directly across the Pacific. I can accept that. The biggest problem I have always had with the Book of Mormon account are the multiple trans-Pacific voyages. This is why I prefer the BoM geography model that doesn't require them. But I remain open to new evidence and shifts in the paradigm. You have said that you are open to new evidence as well.

If I may intervene. I agree that transpacific voyages that early (Jaredite) are a bit of a stretch - except coastal jumps. First of all, the Jaredite vessels apparently had no sails. The Pacific equatorial current doesn't favor such a model - even for Nephi's sail vessel. They would presumably be essentially forced to cross in the S. Pacific, which is a long, long journey for boats adrift with virtually no stopping points. I think Church members got stuck on this paradigm due to statements of various early apostles and editors, but Joseph Smith never said such a thing, and there is good reason to believe T&S writers put words in his mouth(that will stir up a hornet's nest I'm sure). I really don't see a good reason to stick to this assumption when one can cross from Africa to the Americas in 3 weeks or less.

[mnn727]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Huh?  How did you get that idea.  I don't even think Nephi was a historical person.  I was asking for evidence that long ocean voyages were possible according to the scholars.  Then I wanted to know how any of this scholarship about these early time periods 14,000 BCE - 20,000 BCE has any application to the BoM time period.  

And what does long ocean voyages being done at that time have to do with Nephi when according to the story, God assisted.

Do you believe in Noah?

[hope_for_things]

27 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

And what does long ocean voyages being done at that time have to do with Nephi when according to the story, God assisted.

Do you believe in Noah?

That is the question I asked in my earlier posts, what is the connection between 14000 BCE exploration of coastlines with small boards, and the BoM.  I don't get it.

Not sure what you mean by do I believe in Noah.  Its an interesting myth with some metaphorical value, and similar myths exist in other cultures.  I don't believe there was a global flood.  

[Rajah Manchou]

11 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I can understand what you're trying to do, but I need stronger evidence and not just speculations.  Best of luck to you though, I really do respect people that try to look at things differently and for that I commend your efforts.  

Glad you understand what I'm trying to do, because I don't. I'm pretty much all over the place. I don't know when the Book of Mormon was compiled, and I have no clue who did it. There are a number of possible explanations, none are satisfactory IMO.

For the record, I am open to the Book of Mormon being a fictional account that aligns closely with ancient Jewish and Christian texts that were not available to Joseph, and that he cobbled it together based on lost tribe lore and then dictated it all from memory to several different scribes without making any serious continuity errors. But I need stronger evidence and not just speculations.

[Rajah Manchou]

19 hours ago, RevTestament said:

If I may intervene. I agree that transpacific voyages that early (Jaredite) are a bit of a stretch - except coastal jumps. First of all, the Jaredite vessels apparently had no sails. The Pacific equatorial current doesn't favor such a model - even for Nephi's sail vessel. They would presumably be essentially forced to cross in the S. Pacific, which is a long, long journey for boats adrift with virtually no stopping points. I think Church members got stuck on this paradigm due to statements of various early apostles and editors, but Joseph Smith never said such a thing, and there is good reason to believe T&S writers put words in his mouth(that will stir up a hornet's nest I'm sure). I really don't see a good reason to stick to this assumption when one can cross from Africa to the Americas in 3 weeks or less.

Transpacific voyages were possible, and there is plenty of evidence for them. One of the more convincing proofs is the spread of the South American sweet potato (kumara) through the Pacific. (source)



Commenting on the study above, Pat Kirch, an archeologist at the University of Berkeley, California, said: 

"There's a lot of evidence accumulating over the last 10 years that the Polynesians made landfall in South America," he says. "We think they had sophisticated, double-hulled canoes — like very large catamarans — which could carry 80 or more people and be out to sea for months."

But, as Hope for Things and you have noted, even though long distances were possible within the BoM time frame, these large catamarans don't match the descriptions of the Jaredite vessels we find in the Book of Mormon, or the Arnold Friberg paintings we find in our cultural halls. We'd also need to explain how the Jaredites and Lehites picked technologies off the Austronesians. Problem or not?

Edited November 9, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[mnn727]

On 11/8/2017 at 5:20 PM, hope_for_things said:

That is the question I asked in my earlier posts, what is the connection between 14000 BCE exploration of coastlines with small boards, and the BoM.  I don't get it.

 

There is no connection. For someone who believes in God and believes Nephi was an actual person, then God can give knowledge beyond what is commonly available

[strappinglad]

 A question for rodheadlee,  our resident sailor. What different technology is required to take a boat 50 miles out into the pacific vs 500 miles? Is it inherently more or less dangerous to sail from one unknown island to another , or to travel 1000 miles across open ocean? From your knowledge, what is the smallest open boat ever to cross a major ocean? Some on this thread believe it would take a thousand years to gain the knowledge and technology to progress from island hopping to crossing vast oceans. Is that true or not?  

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Some on this thread believe it would take a thousand years to gain the knowledge and technology to progress from island hopping to crossing vast oceans. Is that true or not?  

For the earliest mariners (2500 BC), crossing the vast ocean was really just island hopping.


 

[Hamba Tuhan]

57 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

For the earliest mariners (2500 BC), crossing the vast ocean was really just island hopping.

Exactly. I've wondered why we keep talking about open ocean voyages in this thread.

[Rajah Manchou]

47 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Exactly. I've wondered why we keep talking about open ocean voyages in this thread.

Especially now that the data shows that Sunda to Australia was populated by human migrations at much earlier dates. Homo sapiens were island hopping as early as 80,000 years ago.

There's also the 700,000 year old hominin teeth found on Flores Island.

Edited November 11, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[RevTestament]

On 11/9/2017 at 5:46 AM, Rajah Manchou said:

Transpacific voyages were possible, and there is plenty of evidence for them. One of the more convincing proofs is the spread of the South American sweet potato (kumara) through the Pacific. (source)



Commenting on the study above, Pat Kirch, an archeologist at the University of Berkeley, California, said: 

"There's a lot of evidence accumulating over the last 10 years that the Polynesians made landfall in South America," he says. "We think they had sophisticated, double-hulled canoes — like very large catamarans — which could carry 80 or more people and be out to sea for months."

But, as Hope for Things and you have noted, even though long distances were possible within the BoM time frame, these large catamarans don't match the descriptions of the Jaredite vessels we find in the Book of Mormon, or the Arnold Friberg paintings we find in our cultural halls. We'd also need to explain how the Jaredites and Lehites picked technologies off the Austronesians. Problem or not?

i just want to be clear Rajah, and I think you know this, that I strongly believe the Austronesians/Polynesians reached the Americas by boat before Columbus, and I agree with the points you are making here. I did not mean to diminish their accomplishments. However, it was after the Jaredites, and using powered sail craft vs the unpowered barges of the Jaredites. It is one thing to argue Nephi crossed the Pacific in a powered sail craft, and quite another to argue multiple, unpowered barges did that. I am not saying it cannot be done - just that it seems rather improbable in 2000 BC, and I stated my reasons for believing this. Now it is quite probable that Yeshua visited some of His lost sheep in Asia ,  but that doesn't make them Lamanites, and doesn't make the trip across the Indian and Pacific Oceans less daunting.

[Rajah Manchou]

23 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I am not saying it cannot be done - just that it seems rather improbable in 2000 BC, and I stated my reasons for believing this. Now it is quite probable that Yeshua visited some of His lost sheep in Asia ,  but that doesn't make them Lamanites, and doesn't make the trip across the Indian and Pacific Oceans less daunting.

Yeah, I agree. That's why I'm sticking with the Malay model, at least until evidence of transpacific or transatlantic migrations from the Middle East were possible. For now, it seems the data only supports migrations from Mesopotamia as far as Taiwan, with some shorter runs into the Pacific and down to the Malay Peninsula, nothing beyond has been demonstrated, yet.

I suspect it was possible to island hop, or catch a strong current, and I'll definitely be changing my view (and preferred model) as soon as that evidence becomes available.

Edited November 11, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[RevTestament]

10 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Yeah, I agree. That's why I'm sticking with the Malay model, at least until evidence of transpacific or transatlantic migrations from the Middle East were possible. For now, it seems the data only supports migrations as far as the Malay Peninsula, nothing beyond has been demonstrated, yet.

I'll definitely be changing my view (and preferred model) as soon as that evidence becomes available.

I'll work on that for you  While I may not believe in your Malay model as pertaining to the BoM; I do admire your research, and believe it may pertain to other members of the lost tribes. So to that extent, your research is not futile. 

[rodheadlee]

5 hours ago, strappinglad said:

 A question for rodheadlee,  our resident sailor. What different technology is required to take a boat 50 miles out into the pacific vs 500 miles? Is it inherently more or less dangerous to sail from one unknown island to another , or to travel 1000 miles across open ocean? From your knowledge, what is the smallest open boat ever to cross a major ocean? Some on this thread believe it would take a thousand years to gain the knowledge and technology to progress from island hopping to crossing vast oceans. Is that true or not?  

Coastal cruising or island hopping is more dangerous than offshore sailing, there is nothing to run into offshore. The technology is the same unless you're talking sheltered water like the Chesapeake Bay. The big difference between coastal and offshore is the ability to take enough provisions of the voyage or acquire them along the way.  i prefer offshore sailing, it's more relaxing.