Who landed in North America first?
Where is the solid archaeological and historical evidence that prove a Hebrew or a Greek or a Irish or a Chinese or a Roman was the first person to come to North America before Christopher Columbus?
Well let see the evidence the people have to prove their theory, here what people said:
In 1882, a farmer from Cass country Illinois found a coin and this coin was identified as a coin of Antiochus lV, a Syria king in the year 175 BC to 164 BC.
In the year 1957, near the Phenix city of Alabama, a coin was found by a small boy.
This coin is from Syracuse on the Island of Sicily and is dated from 490 BC.
In 1963, in Ohio, a construction engineer found a small hoard of coins while excavating.
According to the construction engineer he stated that the coins were grouped in a leader pouch that had long since disintegrated.
From those coins he found he gave two coins to a worker that was with him when he found it.
When the worker who receive the two coin die his wife took possession of it.
In 1997, the widow brought the two coins to the museum in Clarksville, Ohio and donated it to them and they identified the smaller coin from a guide to be a Roman's coins as a bronze of Claudius ll, from the year of 268 AD.
Another coin was found in 1976, in Oklahoma. This Syria's coin is dated in the year 63 AD, and bearing the profile of the emperor Nero.
All of these coins are ancient coins, but does it necessary means the Roman or the Hebrew's people landed first in North American before Christopher Columbus?
These coins the only thing it prove that it was losses by modern collectors, but still it is not a solid evidence that the Hebrew or Roman's people discover first North America before Columbus.
How about stones age people known as Solutreans who people believer they sail from Europe to North America.
In 1971, fishermen sail on the scallop boat, the Cinmar, about 60 miles east of the Virginia cape, as they plow and trawl the sea bottom they pulled up part of the jaw from an ancient mastodon - a large extinct elephant from the last ice age, along with this catch they also found a curious stone spear point that resembled the famous Clovis points from the 13,000 years ago [base on their theory].
Where they found these artifacts once it was dry land but now is under water.
The stone spear point was use to hunt the mastodon 13,000 years ago [base on their theory].
The stone spear point was chemical analysis by expert and they believe it originated from flint in an area that is now France!
They also said, the way it was made showed that it was not a Clovis point at all, but a hand crafted point made by European humans known as the Solutreans.
Most archaeological evidence of the Solutreans indicates they originated in what is now Spain, Portugal and southern France, about 25,000 years ago [base on their theory], even thus they have never found any skeletons to study the DNA.
The first Clovis blade that was discovered in New Mexico the archaeologists look at it and they notice and claim that the Clovis strongly resemble Solutrean blades from Europe.
They also believe that the Solutreans from Europe cross North America which later gave birth to the later Clovis culture 13,000 years ago [base on their theory].
Clovis stone blades was not the only thing they have found they also have found hooks and sewing needles made from bones which shows the adept at making warm and durable clothing from animal skins to survive the cold climates.
But some archaeologists argue how Clovis came in?
Some said they came in the east of Europe by way of the North Atlantic ice sheet and move west across the continent.
Other archaeologists have denied the eastern origins of Clovis, claiming that they originated in the west, migrated South to Central America where they crossed over to the East coast and moved North.
Other said, it is possible that the continent was inhabited by humans tens thousands of years before either group was in North America.
Experts are still looking for consistent evidence of cultural traits so they can know more of this kind of unique population.
Therefore, archaeologist stated about Solutreans that they originated in what they know Spain, Portugal and southern France, about 25, 000 years ago [base on their theory].
The problem with this archaeology theory is that they said, they have never found skeletons to study the DNA, so how in the world can they certainly come to conclusion and affirm that Solutreans really came from there?
Second,. what prove of evidence the archaeologists have that Solutreans made a boat?
And if in case they did made a boat what was it made of?
And if they did sail across the Atlantic Ocean, what part of North America they landed?
Did they left foot print or mark or trail behind or any other archaeological solid evidence which can prove they were the one who left it there?
How can a blade that resemble to Solutreans blade be the evidence that the Solutreans people were here?
What solid prove of evidence you have that Clovis culture originated from Solutreans, how can you prove that if you were not there to see how it happen?
How can you Archaeological prove with solid evidence that Solutreans gave birth to Clovis Cultures?
Just because you believe Clovis blades resemble to Solutreans blades does not means they are.
Haven't you thought of this that perhaps the Clovis cultures who used to hunt with giant blade, learn in a period of time how to make their blade much better for hunting, good blades that resemble to Solutreans blades?
Where is the solid prove of evidence of your theory?
Anyway archaeologists do not agree with each other on how Clovis came to North America, and the reason why of your disagreement because of the lack of solid evidence, you can't prove what really happen, the fact is nobody knows the answer to that question because nobody physically was there to see it how it happen.
The true about all of these theory are European's people did not have any ideal the existing of the New World and people therein.
The European people did not have any knowledge of them, not until 1492 when Christopher Columbus found them.
Now the sad part about founding the New World was to found gold too, because from that time forward the lust of possessing gold change the New World forever; it turn the New World from a peaceful paradise land to a pit of hell.
How about Saint Brendan, who was an Irish holy man who live from 484 AD to 577 AD.
People believe that he came to America before Christopher Columbus.
How people came to this theory thinking?
They got this strange tale called, "The voyage of St. Brendan the Navigator," written in the nine century and rewritten with much changes in several later manuscript.
In Saint Brendan year of Journey people told the following story:
He saw an Island full of birds.
He saw another Island and a dog.
He saw another Island full of woman.
He saw another Island of monks.
He saw an Island but when they landed there they found out that it was a sea monster.
He saw mermaid tempted him and many other strange and wondrous sights.
Some people also said, that he settle in the Faroa Islands halfway between Scotland and Iceland.
Some Viking sagas said Saint Brendan might have made it to Greenland too.
Other believe that he landed west of Ireland and that this might be an evidence he came to America.
If you look at the old world map you will notice how closer these Island was from each other, Greenland is closer to Iceland and all of them closest to UK England.
In fact the bird that he saw in an Island could have been the canary Island not to far from Spain and Africa.
Although all of these journey that Saint Brendan had made might have seem to look like he could have made it to North America, still it does not mean they did.
It does not prove anything that Saint Brendan could have sail over the other side of Atlantic Oceans to North America before Christopher Columbus.
Why should we reject Saint Brendan came to North America?
Look at the story of the Tainos in Puerto Rico, what was their first impression when they saw Christopher Columbus and his crews?
Their first impression were they are gods, for Tainos have never seen a white man before with blue eyes and blonde hair neither did they have seen horses before, for Christopher Columbus brought them in the ships, read the history story about the Taino in Puerto Rico, you will find out how innocent and peaceful and friendly the Tainos were.
There is no record written that the Tainos ever saw any white men before Columbus; the Tainos were the only people dwelling in the land.
In North American the Native people were friendly people too.
But to says before Christopher Columbus found North America, the Irish people found it first, is not a solid prove of evidence.
Therefore, Saint Brendan might have sail the Atlantic Ocean around the land of Europe, Africa and Asia, and yet it does not necessary means because Saint Brendan and his crews sail around Europe, Africa and Asia that perhaps they might have sail easily to the other side of the Atlantic Ocean and found the New World first before Columbus, for you to says something like that, your theory for sure will hang on the air and impossible to prove it without any strong evidence.
How about Eriksson and his Viking crew?
People around the world talk about this man and believe he was the first man to discover North America.
Some people believe Eriksson was born in the year 970AD, in Greenland, but most of the people believe he was born in Iceland.
Around the years 1000 to 1001 AD, Eriksson left Iceland to Greenland as he were told to establish Christianity.
Eriksson in his letter wrote about all his voyage he had made, but the one that most people talk about is Vinland.
The whereabouts of Vinland is unknown to the people until this day.
But archaeologists believe Vinland actually is Newfoundland in North America because of the description of the land that Eriksson wrote about.
Eriksson said, the Vinland is a land of grapevines, and because "Vin" means pasturing, green grass and etc.. so they came to conclusion it must be Newfoundland.
People talk about what happen in the year 1020AD, they said Eriksson sail in his ship and never return back, they believe his ship was blown and sink to the deep of the sea although there is no proof.
In the year 1963, an archaeologist Anne Stine Ingstad, identified a Nose settlement located at the Northern tip of Newfoundland and she suggested that this site, known as L'anse aux Meadows the ship she has found is a similar description of Eriksson.
After the ship was found since that day forward people believe and claim it was Eriksson ship that sank there.
Whether the ship which was found by an archaeologist seem to look like Eriksson ship, we should not come to conclusion to says it is his ship and that Vinland is actually Newfoundland.
But lets make believe it is Eriksson's ship and now is found, still it does not prove anything that Vinland is Newfoundland.
Neither does it prove Eriksson landing there, for his ship was sunk in the bottom of the sea.
How his ship sank in the bottom of the sea?
Who knows how, perhaps his ship sank because that days or that night the weather was so bad that the clouds covered all the sky and everything around them became dark for him to see his way in and out, maybe he never got to see the land at all, what really happen that day or that night no one knows because no one was there to witness it.
To said he discover North America is not legit evidence, nobody can prove it, nobody can prove that before Eriksson's die and before his ship went under he saw the land.
Perhaps Eriksson was already dead on his ship while his ship was blown away to this location and shipwreck, sinking to the bottom of the sea, we just don't know what really happen that day or that night.
Are you sure 100%e what an archaeologist found is actually Eriksson's ship?
And if you believe he landed there then shows the world the solid evidence that prove your theory is a fact?
Can you find historical written record that stated North America which today is known as United State of America, including Center America and South America and all the Caribbean Islands, Eriksson was the first man who found them before Columbus, shows your solid evidence?
It is not fair to take away the credit of a man [Christopher Columbus] who have had the gut to ask support to Spain for him to sail across the Atlantic Ocean in order to find a short route to Asia, but instead of founding a short route to Asia, to his surprise he found a New World.
We should not be anxious to ruin the effort of one historical man who has change the whole World in order to replace him with another who ambition and ego and jealousy is to damage, steal, discredit this man effort.
People want the world to recognize Eriksson as being the first man who came to North America but without any solid evidence of what they are defending.
Therefore, their theory of Eriksson being the first man to discover America should be denied and rejected.
How about Admiral Zheng He did he discover America?
Gavin Menzies believe he did discover America.
A note of a writer he wrote there is no actual evidence that the Chinese discover North America.
This person he actually believe there is no archaeological evidence to suggest the Chinese made it to America before Columbus.
Lets just search for the truth evidence who discover America and what Gavin Menzies bring to the table to prove his theory as solid evidence that Admiral Zheng He, was the first to discover America.
According to his book there is a copy of a 600 year old map found in a second-hand book shop which is controversial British historian claims.
This copy of 1418 AD map charted by Chinese Admiral Zheng He, appear to show the New World in some detail.
Admiral Zheng He, is know to have sailed to Europe and Africa with a massive fleet of ships but does it give us the impression because he had this massive fleet of ships that perhaps he also has reached the other side of the Pacific Ocean, New World?
Menzies believe Chinese sailors was the first to crossed the Pacific Ocean 40,000 years ago [base on his theory], but according to the bible it does not calculated the same age when God created the world 6,000 years ago.
40,000 years is a huge gap to far off away from God's creation, it did not happen that way at all.
Menzies believe that Christopher Columbus actually had a map of the world that was plotted by the Chinese Admiral Zheng He.
Where is he getting this information and what solid evidence he has to support his saying?
For Christopher Columbus his only thoughts was to discover a western sea route to Asia but still when he cross deep in the Atlantic Ocean he did not have any idea where he was and when he landing in Puerto Rico and saw the Taino he thought he has reached South of Asia, Indian.
Christopher Columbus made 4 trips and at his last trip he thoughts that he had reached far off China.
How can a man who Menzies said had a copy of the map of Zheng He, still be lost and did not have any idea where he was and what he has found, it does not make any sense in any human mind to believe this theory.
Mr. Liu a man who claim he has a copy of a old map, brought the map to Mr. Menzies' historical teams to look at it and they analyzed it was originally written in the Ming Dynasty - a Chinese period that lasted from 1368 to 1644.
If it lasted from 1368 to 1644, who can give us evidence of the exact date, perhaps the map could have been originally written after Christopher Columbus had sailed into the Atlantic Ocean in 1492 and found the New World?
Mr. Liu's map was only a copy, but not the original map, that is odd, where is the original map?
Could it be that the original map was withheld in order to hid the real truth?
Could it be the purpose all of these propaganda is to deceive the people in believing Admiral Zheng He is the founded of the New World?
Know wonder the mainstream academic community don't accepted Menzies theory.
A man by the name of Simon Jenkins in his article he said the map is plainly a hoax, not only shows North and South America as massive continents which no sailor could possibly have known.
The map shows missing lands, countries that suppose to be there is not there, you can't find it on the map.
Why the map brought by Liu was reportedly to go on display on Tuesday in London's Maritime Museum, but the museum denies all knowledge of it according to Simon Jenkins?
There is something strange about this map that we don't know about it yet.
But I will not argue that perhaps many years ago before Admiral Zheng He was born, people found a way to cross North America; from North America people might have cross down to Central America, South America and the Caribbean Island, there is no doubt that this crossing could have happen, but to say Admiral Zheng He, was the first man to discover America I don't think so, I don't buy this theory.
Do you think a man like Admiral Zheng He with great power and for sure who pursue power and riches [for he was a business man] after founding the Caribbean Islands and Mexico and the rest of lands would not notice and have no interest of the gold in the lands?
Wouldn't he be draws to the gold these people were carry on them and at least make an effort to negotiate with them, for this is the way a business function?
Tell me is there any different with Admiral Zheng He, that would have not done to these people than what the Spaniard have done to them?
Read history what the Spaniard did to the New World and you will be amazed what they have accomplished there?
Tell me, name at least one king or a Cesar or an Admiral who does not like power and riches and would not try to take it by physical force or by deadly force?
Especially when they already know they have the power to do as they wish with them, you have to understand conquering the world is a way of showing the power they possess?
It is hard to believe that Admiral Zheng He, discover America, saw the land full of riches of gold and didn't do anything about it to take it either by force or at least by trying trading for something they want, it would have left some various evidence for the Spaniard to recognize the Chinese were the first people to landing there before Spaniard arrival?
But no it did not happen that way because Admiral Zheng He, was never there, he never discover the New World.
Therefore, let me says this to all of you who believe Zheng He was the first man to discover America.
Neither Eriksson and his Viking Crew, nor Brendan the monk, nor Admiral Zheng He, nor Madoc ab Owain Gwynedd, nor Christopher Columbus nor any other man who you can name it, none of them discover North, Central and South America neither the Caribbean Island, for AMERICA was already inhabited with people before any of these men mentioned above was born.
History only recognize Columbus of being the first man to found [not discover] America and no one should be allow and permitted to take away this man's credit without any solid evidence of what they are saying.
How about the Los Lunas Inscription, it was know by the locals as far back as the 1850's in New Mexico.
People said that the inscription was written in Hebrew Script, but then in the year 1993, another stones was found near East, and when they look at both of the stones they came to conclusion and believe that both stones are copy of the Ten Commandments because both was found to be identical.
The stones had Tel Dan inscription and they estimated of inscription could be between 500 and 2000 years ago.
But it does not stop there, other who have look at the stones have found that the inscription uses Greek Tau, Zeta, Delta, and Kappa (reversed) in place of their Hebrew.
They analyzes the orthographic error of the Los Lunas text itself, and conclude that it appears to have been written by a person who primary language was Greek, who had a secondary, but verbal, comprehension of Hebrew.
According to Archaeologist Kenneth Feber he stated, "the stones is almost certainly a fake because of the lack of any archaeological context, for there were no trail left behind of physical archaeological evidence that prove the existence of foreigners in New Mexico.
These let us know that there is not enough evidence or 100% evidence to prove how it got there and when it got there and who wrote it.
There is no trail of items and other archaeological evidence which prove it was left behind by these people when they arrived there before Columbus.
The theory of the Hebrews people that were the first one to found the new world before Columbus has not being strongly approved yet and accepted as solid evidence, it is impossible to prove it.
It is not logical to accept a theory base on if an inscription in any language is found to be an old alphabet and it is written on an old stone, then that may prove it was written many years ago; I don't think so, I don't buy it.
Especially, when people who had studied the inscription have found error of the Lunas text itself, and what cause this error, because the person who wrote it his primary language was not Hebrew at all, but Greek.
How can any person accept this theory when other archaeological context the existence of foreigners in New Mexico before Columbus arrival isn't available.
Where is the prove of their grave and their bones, and their equipment and other archaeological evidence?
Understand this, the Los Lunas inscription, the stones, where the Greek's word was written, is an old stones, but because the stones is an old stone and because the alphabet is an old alphabet, does that give anybody the impression to believe that the inscription written on the stones must have been written many years ago before the arrival of Columbus?
The date of the Los Lunas Inscription, no one know 100% when it was written.
This theory should be rejected for the lack of other archaeological context evidence.
In conclusion, the Los Lunas inscription is not a strong Archaeological and historical evidence to prove the Hebrews or the Greeks were the first to arrived North America before Christopher Columbus.
P.S. I am speaking now to Christians, those who reject the truth that the world was made 6,ooo years ago, are in error.
To believe, that it took million and millions of years of falling water on a "rock" to bring into existing all living creatures of the sea, and from these creatures of the sea to evolve into creatures of the earth [beasts, cattles, creeping things] and from creature of the earth, evolve into human being [men], to believe this theory, according to the scripture you are falling from grace and Jesus Christ saying doesn't dwells in you.
For Jesus Christ has said: "He who made from the beginning made them male and female" [Matthew 19:4].
Lets read it again in the book of Mark 10:6, it says - "From the very beginning God made them male and female."
Man was created from the soil of the ground and not from monkey nether self created from a rock, no, no, that is not the way the bible teach us about the beginning of creation.
The scripture says, "And the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
Man was not self created from a rock but God created man from the dust of the ground.
According to the scripture it did not take millions and millions of years to create all thing, no, it took exactly 6 calendar days.
If God needing millions and millions of years to make right all things, then he is not God.
I believe what the scripture said, God got it right the first time he made man in the six day and did not needed evolution to help him in the creation process.
Again God created all things in 6 calendar days and I stand on his word, you too should stand and believe in his saying, unless you had denying and doubting the scripture, if that is so, then I said unto you repent, for God is merciful and compassion to forgive all your sins.
WRITER: JRR
JRR's background - Cute pictures - JRR's picture
::: E-Mail Made By : JRR :::