Columbus didn't discover America [A Lost History Discussion]

[Livewire]

"History is a set of Lies agreed upon"
-Napoleon Bonaparte

If one digs deep enough through the pages of History, you will find that much of our Accepted history is not what it seems to be. It is often a one sided account of events, written by the victorious parties.



One of the most famous examples of a historical fallacy is Columbus's discovery of America. The Norse reached what is present day Newfoundland around the year 1000 AD, and left behind a settlement which was only discovered in the 1960's. The fact that Columbus wasn't the first, opened the door for many other possibilities as to who truly landed here first.

But the Kensington Stone's existence, and the Norse presence is not the only example of blurred history. All over the world, there are examples of things that should not exist, per our accepted standards of history, and that challenge our very understanding of the world:

• The existence of the Antikythera mechanism

• The Saqqara Bird

• The Baghdad Battery

• The Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca head

• The presence of Proto-Hebrew Semitic peoples in the Americas before Columbus

• The Bimini Road

• The Yonaguni Monument

Why is it the reasoning behind the various accounts of History, and why were some covered up and replaced? How do we explain the strange artifacts and missing pieces in the history books?

Discuss.

Also, feel free to mention any other accounts of lost History I may have missed.
​

 

[Surmonter]

I think the only reason people say that he discovered America is because it was his expeditions funded my Spain that led to the massive colonization of both American continents.

However, I do think it's a bit annoying that he gets the title of discoverer when really all he did was find land people found before him, and thought it was somewhere else.

We can never know all of history though. That being an example of the warping of history over time. :(

 

[Livewire]

I think the only reason people say that he discovered America is because it was his expeditions funded my Spain that led to the massive colonization of both American continents.

However, I do think it's a bit annoying that he gets the title of discoverer when really all he did was find land people found before him, and thought it was somewhere else.

We can never know all of history though. That being an example of the warping of history over time. :(

I agree, It resulted in the European domination of the Western Hemisphere, which led to the founding of the colonies, therefore the USA.

I heard an interesting theory that states Columbus was following his Norse buddies' directions, basically. He was recorded as staying in England/Finland in the years before leaving on the voyage to the Americas.

 

[Shanghai Alice]

In Colombus' defense, it's highly possible that he didn't know about the Scandinavian explorers before him.

I mean, the guy was beyond desperate when he landed on El Salvador (Hence the name), and I'm sure any land that didn't already have a flag on it would have aroused his conquering senses.

But, yes, Westerners do tend to be ego-centric when writing history books.

But then again, where in the East or Middle East do you see the Western viewpoint being taught?

"History shall be kind to me, for I intend to write it."
-Churchill

 

[Esper]

I don't think it's appropriate to call these examples of "lost history" history when there is little or no proof to back up these unconventional theories. The Vikings' accidental discovery of North America is a valid change to our view of the world because there are remnants of their settlements, or, in other words, proof to back up the claims that they landed in North America before Columbus. Something like the Yonaguni monument is simply a rock configuration without any definitive evidence that it was even made by humans. That makes it more speculation than anything. Just because an alternative interpretation doesn't have the same prestige as its "standard" counterpart doesn't mean it's some secret history being kept down by the Columbuses of the world.

I'll agree that there are interpretations of history, that some events get emphasized over others, but I don't think it's true that history is one sided and excludes alternative views. It seems that way in mass media, of course, but there are plenty of reputable books on almost any area of history you could care to study and there are plenty which refute established ideas. History isn't written in stone and it's normal for our view of it to change, similar to how scientific knowledge changes, based on new information. Sometimes this reinforces what we already know. It all comes down to which idea is the most accurate interpretations.

 

[Livewire]

I don't think it's appropriate to call these examples of "lost history" history when there is little or no proof to back up these unconventional theories. The Vikings' accidental discovery of North America is a valid change to our view of the world because there are remnants of their settlements, or, in other words, proof to back up the claims that they landed in North America before Columbus. Something like the Yonaguni monument is simply a rock configuration without any definitive evidence that it was even made by humans. That makes it more speculation than anything. Just because an alternative interpretation doesn't have the same prestige as its "standard" counterpart doesn't mean it's some secret history being kept down by the Columbuses of the world.

I'll agree that there are interpretations of history, that some events get emphasized over others, but I don't think it's true that history is one sided and excludes alternative views. It seems that way in mass media, of course, but there are plenty of reputable books on almost any area of history you could care to study and there are plenty which refute established ideas. History isn't written in stone and it's normal for our view of it to change, similar to how scientific knowledge changes, based on new information. Sometimes this reinforces what we already know. It all comes down to which idea is the most accurate interpretations.

If you look back in History, you'll see that many, many times, things get covered up and downplayed. The victors exaggerate and embellish, and try to exterminate the conqured culture.

And notice how all those books, on topics like these, are by no means mainstream. The People behind them get ridiculed in established academic circles for these theories.

That may be so, but the Yonaguni monument's edges form perfect 90 degree angles. Perfect ones.The Baghdad battery is as a fully-functioning, 3,000 year old power source. The Great Pyramids at Giza align perfectly with the 3 stars that make up the belt in the Orion Constellation. Now notice those last two were made by cultures that were conquered by a vast, famous empire, notably Rome. And the Romans went back to Rome, and told great, fanciful and exaggerated stories of their conquests, which were subsequently written down, and made it's way into our Western Culture as our History.

But like you said, History isn't set in stone. Columbus was proven wrong. I could wake up tomorrow morning, and some archaeologists could have dug up the Arc of the Covenant. All it takes is that one discovery to change things. Remember people thought the world was flat for Thousands of years. All it took was some exploration and a little Renaissance science to change things.

But then again, where in the East or Middle East do you see the Western viewpoint being taught?

"History shall be kind to me, for I intend to write it."
-Churchill

Well you wouldn't see the Western viewpoint from the east, seeing as you're in the east. And the West teaches western viewpoint, Vice-Versa.

Very good quote.

 

[Shanghai Alice]

Exactly my point.

History is only predominantly Western if you're in the West.

 

[Livewire]

Exactly my point.

History is only predominantly Western if you're in the West.

That's why everything should be taken with a grain of salt. We can never be completely sure of past events, because we physically weren't there. We rely on centuries old accounts, which weren't always objective/without bias. And those theories shouldn't be thrown away simply because they don't jive with the mainstream viewpoint. We don't know everything.

 

[Shanghai Alice]

That's why everything should be taken with a grain of salt. We can never be completely sure of past events, because we physically weren't there. We rely on centuries old accounts, which weren't always objective/without bias. And those theories shouldn't be thrown away simply because they don't jive with the mainstream viewpoint. We don't know everything.

But it's necessary to put a little faith into textbooks and things gained by research, else history is pointless altogether.

 

[Zet]

How can something be discovered when it was already discovered by the natives? :P


A lot of things in history that are covered up, is to make someone look really important and not another person who did the thing before them. Kinda sad really but this is one of the reasons why I love history so much, I just want to learn everything true and what happened before we came.

 

[Project.]

My personal thoughts on this is that many people may of traveled to the New World before Columbus "found" it and brought back the "news" and everyone started colonizing. I believe the Chinese had explored the areas of California and Washington (Along the Western Coast). But that is not hard to believe. If Magellan can circumnavigate the globe, The chinese, an advanced civilization at the time could of sailed across the Pacific Ocean. I believe the Chinese came much earlier though.

And I think that because some map was discovered, that accurately depicts the Pacific Ocean and everything in it before the time Europe had even thought about finding a Sea route to Asia.

I myself am a strong believer in aliens. I think a lot of our strange monuments may of been created by alien life. It's a strong statement, but a lot of the things that they did back then would of been difficult even today.

My opinion on the Baghdad battery is just a coincidence. Surely after a few thousand years someone's gonna throw some chemicals in a pot and light it up.

EDIT: The reason the natives didn't "discover" the USA was because they had no idea where they were. And because they had no knowledge. If you don't know what you discovered, then you didn't discover it. But that was the exception in Columbus' case. They looked at the maps and said, "Not asia, its a new hemisphere kthx"

 

[Livewire]

My personal thoughts on this is that many people may of traveled to the New World before Columbus "found" it and brought back the "news" and everyone started colonizing. I believe the Chinese had explored the areas of California and Washington (Along the Western Coast). But that is not hard to believe. If Magellan can circumnavigate the globe, The chinese, an advanced civilization at the time could of sailed across the Pacific Ocean. I believe the Chinese came much earlier though.

And I think that because some map was discovered, that accurately depicts the Pacific Ocean and everything in it before the time Europe had even thought about finding a Sea route to Asia.

I myself am a strong believer in aliens. I think a lot of our strange monuments may of been created by alien life. It's a strong statement, but a lot of the things that they did back then would of been difficult even today.

My opinion on the Baghdad battery is just a coincidence. Surely after a few thousand years someone's gonna throw some chemicals in a pot and light it up.

EDIT: The reason the natives didn't "discover" the USA was because they had no idea where they were. And because they had no knowledge. If you don't know what you discovered, then you didn't discover it. But that was the exception in Columbus' case. They looked at the maps and said, "Not asia, its a new hemisphere kthx"

My thoughts exactly. And there is proof they got to the Middle East (around Persia/the Ottomans) as well.

The Baghdad battery uses copper wrapping and an Iron rod in the center. One would have to understand electrical processes to make it.

I take it your familiar with the ancient astronaut theory then? Think about something as big and as complex as the Great Pyramids-- The structure that stood as the tallest on EARTH until the late 1800's. It weighs 6.5 million tons, at 2 tons per block of stone. I think they had some sort of help.

And I think Columbus knew where he was going. Spanish/Portuguese explorers were among the best of the best, they wouldn't make such an obvious and foolish navigation error like that.

 

[Project.]

Yes, I am familiar with that theory. In fact, Im a strong believer.

I do believe Asia did discover it first. It is probably hidden somewhere in their records, because Asia had to of written something down. They're smarter then that. With the Vikings, with Leif Erikkson and Vinland, they came a bit later. But they did establish a colony. But it soon failed.

But either way or the other, Columbus was not the first to America.

 

[Livewire]

Yes, I am familiar with that theory. In fact, Im a strong believer.

I do believe Asia did discover it first. It is probably hidden somewhere in their records, because Asia had to of written something down. They're smarter then that. With the Vikings, with Leif Erikkson and Vinland, they came a bit later. But they did establish a colony. But it soon failed.

But either way or the other, Columbus was not the first to America.

Agreed. The records could have been lost over time is all. Now just because the records aren't there, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. You won't find any actual historical record of Jesus's birth, but we all know he was born.

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

I remember learning this in eight grade or like three years ago...wow it feels like a long time but it really ain't...
Also history always get's covered up by the winner or simply due to lack of info similar to science, it get's tweaked every now and then to make sense and to add in our new found knowledge that's why I find science and history so interesting and want to have one of them as my College major.

 

[Rogue planet]

You won't find any actual historical record of Jesus's birth, but we all know he was born.

If there are no historical records, what are you basing this on? The bible or other religious books? There's no proof of Jesus' existence and the bible can't really be quoted as solid proof.

The way I see it, history is always debatable unless solid, undeniable proof is presented. But in many cases, those hazy areas of history tend not to be quite as important.

Sure it may sound important on paper "the man who discovered America!" But what difference does it actually make if it was a Christopher Columbus, or a Jack Smith, or a John Doe, this event happened so long ago in history and has no real difference on modern studies. What would we learn from a new discovery that it was in fact, a different person who discovered America? The historical records would be changed and that would be the end of it. It wouldn't have much of an impact.

Maybe vikings did get there first, but does it really matter if we know whether they actually did get there first or not? It's likely we'll never find undeniable evidence to support either claim, or many other claims throughout history, and even if evidence was found, I'm not sure how much of an impact it would have on our understanding of anything other than crossing out Columbus's name and writing "Vikings" above it. Or changing records of other historical events when it comes to different studies.

If you look back in History, you'll see that many, many times, things get covered up and downplayed. The victors exaggerate and embellish, and try to exterminate the conqured culture.

Things do get covered up, but they are often uncovered again soon enough. I can't think of many examples where things have remained concealed. I presume America would be the first to attempt to cover up anything that could be used against them, but there are sources and theories covering modern history that go against America. Their procedure in the final months of World War II is heavily criticized and I would've thought if such exaggerations were enforced then the criticism would've been repressed. Of course, it depends on your sources. In American high school it's likely nothing is taught that could be seen as anti-American, however there are still plenty of other sources which will enforce anti-American views. So while there certainly are exaggerations from certain sources, I don't think that information is repressed or changed entirely. There are many historians exploring different theories and if you dig deep enough there are plenty of sources that can give unbiased opinions.

tl;dr? I doubt that anyone could manage to totally repress, change or exaggerate history in this modern world.

And notice how all those books, on topics like these, are by no means mainstream. The People behind them get ridiculed in established academic circles for these theories.

Ridiculed by some, supported by others. I haven't seen any theory entirely ridiculed by the majority other than the holocaust denial theorists.

 

[Esper]

If you look back in History, you'll see that many, many times, things get covered up and downplayed. The victors exaggerate and embellish, and try to exterminate the conqured culture.

And notice how all those books, on topics like these, are by no means mainstream. The People behind them get ridiculed in established academic circles for these theories.

That may be so, but the Yonaguni monument's edges form perfect 90 degree angles. Perfect ones.The Baghdad battery is as a fully-functioning, 3,000 year old power source. The Great Pyramids at Giza align perfectly with the 3 stars that make up the belt in the Orion Constellation. Now notice those last two were made by cultures that were conquered by a vast, famous empire, notably Rome. And the Romans went back to Rome, and told great, fanciful and exaggerated stories of their conquests, which were subsequently written down, and made it's way into our Western Culture as our History.

But like you said, History isn't set in stone. Columbus was proven wrong. I could wake up tomorrow morning, and some archaeologists could have dug up the Arc of the Covenant. All it takes is that one discovery to change things. Remember people thought the world was flat for Thousands of years. All it took was some exploration and a little Renaissance science to change things.

Our understanding of history can change very quickly, yes, but I'm getting this impression that you're saying that because there are dominant theories (Columbus was #1) which are later proved to be false by alternate theories (oh snap, it was really the Vikings) it therefore means that any alternative theory becomes a valid explanation. I might be putting words in your mouth though. I'm just not seeing where you're getting whatever it is that makes you believe in things like ancient astronauts besides the fact that it's an alternate theory to the standard one.

 

[Livewire]

Our understanding of history can change very quickly, yes, but I'm getting this impression that you're saying that because there are dominant theories (Columbus was #1) which are later proved to be false by alternate theories (oh snap, it was really the Vikings) it therefore means that any alternative theory becomes a valid explanation. I might be putting words in your mouth though. I'm just not seeing where you're getting whatever it is that makes you believe in things like ancient astronauts besides the fact that it's an alternate theory to the standard one.

Oh I think I get what you're saying. It's just the History Major/Grad Student in me. We're essentially trained to challenge and question the established versions of History, because History isn't set in stone. I tend to believe that the alternate theories have a ring of truth to them because there is factual evidence to support them being true. But that evidence wouldn't be known to people who aren't from a historical background. One would have to be either a Historian or a History student to understand it. It's not an every-day discussion topic, if that makes sense.



Responses are in bold.

If there are no historical records, what are you basing this on? The bible or other religious books? There's no proof of Jesus' existence and the bible can't really be quoted as solid proof.

The bible is by no means a valid source of History, that's for sure. xD But the fact that Jesus existed isn't really challenged. (most likely to avoid social stigma, etc, depending where you are. Even Islam acknowledges Jesus' existence.) Who he really was, what he did during his life, etc, is what is debated, and rightfully so.

The way I see it, history is always debatable unless solid, undeniable proof is presented. But in many cases, those hazy areas of history tend not to be quite as important.

Exactly, The hazy areas wouldn't be classified as important, to people because they aren't proven

Sure it may sound important on paper "the man who discovered America!" But what difference does it actually make if it was a Christopher Columbus, or a Jack Smith, or a John Doe, this event happened so long ago in history and has no real difference on modern studies. What would we learn from a new discovery that it was in fact, a different person who discovered America? The historical records would be changed and that would be the end of it. It wouldn't have much of an impact.

But the fact that we got it all wrong is what makes it important, that we as a society like to be right all the time, and we have this naive assumption that we know everything, which we don't. Historians care about who discovered America because they want to get the record straight. It's more of an aesthetic thing. They want an objective recording of our past. And with a major event disproven, people would go back and question other historical events.

Maybe vikings did get there first, but does it really matter if we know whether they actually did get there first or not? It's likely we'll never find undeniable evidence to support either claim, or many other claims throughout history, and even if evidence was found, I'm not sure how much of an impact it would have on our understanding of anything other than crossing out Columbus's name and writing "Vikings" above it. Or changing records of other historical events when it comes to different studies.

Well in the Vikings case we do have proof- the Norse settlement in Newfoundland, which was carbon dated to 1000 AD, when Leif Erikson made his voyage.

Things do get covered up, but they are often uncovered again soon enough. I can't think of many examples where things have remained concealed. I presume America would be the first to attempt to cover up anything that could be used against them, but there are sources and theories covering modern history that go against America. Their procedure in the final months of World War II is heavily criticized and I would've thought if such exaggerations were enforced then the criticism would've been repressed. Of course, it depends on your sources. In American high school it's likely nothing is taught that could be seen as anti-American, however there are still plenty of other sources which will enforce anti-American views. So while there certainly are exaggerations from certain sources, I don't think that information is repressed or changed entirely. There are many historians exploring different theories and if you dig deep enough there are plenty of sources that can give unbiased opinions.

Chances are you can't think of any examples, because those things are still concealed. The Archives in the Vatican hold all sorts of religious material that only the Pope will ever see. Which insures it stays hidden. Same goes for the nation interests/secrets of America- things only the president knows. Who knows what sort of things they have hidden away. Why do you think the church suppressed science so much in the 1500 and 1600's? It was dangerous to church dogma. Same principle. Ideas that challenge the established order are quashed, to insure the continuation of the established order. Now granted, church censorship gradually lessened, but it was over the course of several centuries.

tl;dr? I doubt that anyone could manage to totally repress, change or exaggerate history in this modern world.

Granted, we have things like the freedom of information act to reveal old Classified Government documents, but in the 50 some years plenty of changes could be made to historical documents. Like when the government records of the Manhattan Project were de-classified, (this is true of the Records on the Kennedy Assassination investigation too) the documents had areas of info that had been blacked out in pen, making it illegible, so whatever was written there is still lost. We never get all the details.

Ridiculed by some, supported by others. I haven't seen any theory entirely ridiculed by the majority other than the holocaust denial theorists.

There are supporters, yes, but they are a small minority. Not enough of them to bring the theories any lasting respect in the academic world.

 

[Livewire]

Our understanding of history can change very quickly, yes, but I'm getting this impression that you're saying that because there are dominant theories (Columbus was #1) which are later proved to be false by alternate theories (oh snap, it was really the Vikings) it therefore means that any alternative theory becomes a valid explanation. I might be putting words in your mouth though. I'm just not seeing where you're getting whatever it is that makes you believe in things like ancient astronauts besides the fact that it's an alternate theory to the standard one.

Notice this is OC. The point of these threads is to protmote discussion, whichever way nessecary. I play devil's advocate to do that, and in this case I take the stance in the OP. My personal views may or may not have been revealed yet. ;)

 

[Rucario]

Correct - He didn't discover America. There were other people who were here way before him. Columbus claimed America. Yeah, I didn't see see the video, but I know that's what it was going to say. Vikings, for one, were here way before Columbus. My facts my not be too accurate, as we learned this in like, 6th grade and that was a few years ago. :x