TL;DR

  • The theory that Phoenician sailors reached the Americas before Columbus has been debated for centuries, from classical antiquity to modern times
  • Despite numerous claims of evidence (inscriptions, cultural parallels, myths), no credible archaeological proof of Phoenician contact exists
  • The idea gained traction in early modern times but was systematically refuted by 19th-century archaeology
  • Modern scholarship considers the theory pseudohistory, though it continues to attract popular interest
  • The debate illustrates how scientific methodology evaluates extraordinary claims against evidence

Introduction#

Ever since the European “Age of Discovery,” scholars and enthusiasts have speculated that Old World peoples reached the New World long before Columbus. Among the candidates proposed, the Phoenicians (and their Carthaginian descendants) have figured prominently. The notion that Phoenician sailors – famed in antiquity for their maritime prowess – might have voyaged to the Americas in the first millennium BC has captivated imaginations for centuries.

This report provides a structured historical overview of major academic and proto-academic figures who have proposed, analyzed, or refuted the theory of Phoenician pre-Columbian contact. We trace the idea from classical antiquity through the Enlightenment, the 19th-century diffusionist debates, into 20th-century archaeology and up to 21st-century perspectives.

It is important to note at the outset that mainstream archaeology today finds no credible evidence of Phoenician contact with the New World. As early as 1871, scholars like American archaeologist John D. Baldwin pointed out that if the advanced civilizations of Mesoamerica “came from people of the Phoenician race,” they would have left clear traces of Phoenician language, writing, and architecture – which is not the case. Indeed, all reliable evidence indicates the Americas were isolated from the Old World (except for the Norse in medieval Newfoundland) until 1492.

Classical Antiquity: Early Hints of Lands Across the Ocean#

Classical Greco-Roman writers did not know of the “Americas” per se, but a few tantalizing references have later been interpreted (or misinterpreted) as hints that Phoenicians or Carthaginians might have ventured far west. The Phoenicians were renowned sailors, operating from their Levantine city-states and later from Carthage (their North African colony). Ancient historians recorded that Phoenician mariners explored the Atlantic Ocean beyond the Strait of Gibraltar, giving rise to legends of distant lands: • Himilco and the Sea of Weeds (5th c. BC) – The Carthaginian navigator Himilco is cited by later author Rufus Festus Avienus as having reported a part of the Atlantic covered in dense seaweed . This description matches the Sargasso Sea, suggesting Carthaginians ventured into the open Atlantic. While Himilco did not claim discovery of new continents, such accounts show Phoenicians were familiar with Atlantic conditions. • Diodorus Siculus (fl. 1st c. BC) – The Greek historian Diodorus, in his Library of History, relays a striking tale: Carthaginian sailors, blown off course beyond the Pillars of Heracles (Gibraltar), discovered a large, fertile island far out in the Atlantic . He describes an idyllic land “distant a number of days’ voyage to the west” with navigable rivers, fruit trees, and luxurious villas . Some modern writers later speculated this could have been a reference to the Americas. Scholarly evaluation: Historians generally view Diodorus’s story as a myth or an allusion to closer Atlantic islands (perhaps the Canaries or Azores). There is no evidence the Carthaginians actually found a landmass as large and rich as his account suggests, and Diodorus himself presented it as hearsay. Still, the tale shows that the idea of transoceanic lands existed in antiquity. • Pseudo-Aristotle’s On Marvellous Things Heard – A similar account appears in this ancient compilation: it reports that Carthaginians discovered a “deserted island” with all kinds of resources, several days’ sail west of Africa, but purportedly kept it secret on penalty of death to prevent over-colonization . This corresponds closely to Diodorus’s narrative. Evaluation: Again, this is likely a legend. It demonstrates that even in antiquity there were imaginative stories of Atlantic islands; later writers would seize on these as “evidence” that the ancients knew of a western continent. • Other Classical Rumors: Geographers like Strabo and Pliny mentioned Atlantic islands (the “Fortunate Isles”), but none explicitly mention a voyage to a new continent. The philosopher Plutarch (1st c. AD) intriguingly wrote of a distant mainland beyond the ocean in one of his Moralia essays, positing that Carthaginians might have gone there, but his description is interwoven with cosmological allegory. In sum, no classical author concretely claims a Phoenician arrival in the New World; however, these stories provided later centuries with fodder to imagine that the Phoenicians could have reached the Americas given their naval capabilities.

Ancient Phoenician Voyages Known to History: It is worth noting what Phoenician mariners definitely accomplished, to gauge their range. According to Herodotus, around 600 BC Phoenicians under Egyptian Pharaoh Necho II circumnavigated Africa, sailing from the Red Sea around to the Mediterranean . Carthaginian explorers like Hanno sailed down the West African coast, and Himilco explored northwards to the British Isles. These documented voyages show Phoenicians could undertake months-long open-sea journeys. Modern reconstructions suggest a crossing of the Atlantic was within their technical reach . However, despite this capability, there is no record of an actual westward crossing – only the legends noted above. Ancient historians (who eagerly recorded far-flung travels of Greeks and Romans) make no mention of a Phoenician transatlantic voyage, which later critics have stressed as a key argument against the idea .

Early Modern Debates (16th–17th Centuries): Biblical and Classical Explanations#

After Columbus’s 1492 voyage revealed the New World to Europe, a pressing question arose: Who were the Native Americans and how did their ancestors arrive? Lacking modern archaeological or genetic knowledge, scholars of the 16th and 17th centuries could only speculate. They often drew on the Bible, Greco-Roman texts, and classical notions of the world’s peoples. In this era, we see the first explicit proposals that Old World civilizations – including Phoenicians – peopled the Americas. Proto-anthropological writers (missionaries, historians, antiquarians) advanced a plethora of theories. Indeed, one 1917 review noted “there is scarcely a nation” from the Old World that wasn’t at some point suggested as the Indians’ progenitors – including “Romans, Jews, Chanaanites, Phoenicians and Carthaginians,” among others . Below are key figures and their positions: • Fray José de Acosta (1539–1600) – A Spanish Jesuit missionary in Peru and Mexico, Acosta authored Historia Natural y Moral de las Indias (1590), a landmark work on New World peoples. Acosta systematically considered possible origins and, notably, rejected far-fetched ideas of Atlantis or Phoenician voyages. He concluded that the ancestors of the Amerindians likely came via a northern land connection from Asia, noting that Asia and America are “either contiguous or separated by a very small strait” . He is credited as the first to propose a Bering land bridge migration. Evaluation: Acosta’s reasoning was remarkably prescient – aligning with what we now know (Asiatic migration). His dismissal of Phoenician or Israelite arrival set a skeptical tone followed by some later scholars. (However, his work didn’t stop others from proposing exotic ideas, as we’ll see.) • Gregorio García (circa 1556–c.1620) – A Spanish Dominican who spent two decades in the Americas, Fray Gregorio published Origen de los Indios (1607), one of the first comprehensive studies of New World origins. García surveyed every theory he could find – from biblical to classical. He discussed the “supposed navigations of the Phoenicians” and even the idea that Peru was the biblical Ophir (the source of King Solomon’s gold) . Ultimately, after weighing these, García rejected them all and favored the view that Native Americans came from Northeast Asia (Tartars and Chinese) . Evaluation: García’s work was influential in compiling theories (he cites earlier thinkers like López de Gomara and Las Casas). His rejection of Phoenician voyages indicates that, by 1607, the idea was already considered but found unconvincing due to lack of evidence. • Marc Lescarbot (1570–1641) – A French lawyer and traveler in New France, Lescarbot offered one of the more colorful theories. In his Histoire de la Nouvelle-France (1609), he speculated that when the Israelites under Joshua invaded Canaan (Biblical Israel), the Canaanites (Chanaanites) – essentially Phoenicians and related peoples – “lost courage and took to their ships,” ultimately being cast by storms onto the American shores . He further mused that Noah himself had shown his sons the way to the Americas, assigning some of them those western lands . In short, Lescarbot proposed an ancient biblical-era Phoenician diaspora to the New World. Evaluation: This imaginative hypothesis mixed scripture with the classical seafaring theme. Later scholars did not take the idea seriously – it had no empirical basis, only an attempt to reconcile American origins with the Bible. Lescarbot’s Canaanite theory, while not influential in science, exemplifies early euhemeristic thinking (treating myth as history). • Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) – The famed Dutch scholar (better known as a jurist) entered the fray with a treatise De Origine Gentium Americanarum (On the Origin of the American Peoples, 1642). Grotius hypothesized multiple Old World sources for Native Americans. Notably, he suggested North America (except Yucatán) was peopled from Northern Europe (via Norse or “Scandinavians”), Peru from China, and the Yucatán from an Ethiopian (African) stock . The mention of “Ethiopian” for Yucatán has been interpreted to mean he thought some inhabitants came from ancient Africa – possibly hinting at Egyptians or Carthaginians (since in classical usage “Ethiopian” could mean any dark-skinned peoples, even North Africans). He explicitly discounted the prevailing “Tartar” (Central Asian) origin theory of his day as too simplistic . Evaluation: Grotius was one of the first savants to publish on American origins, and his fame gave the topic wide attention. However, his ideas were immediately challenged. His own contemporary, Johan de Laet, took him to task in 1643. De Laet chided Grotius for neglecting prior research and argued one must answer both “Who could have come?” and “How could they have come?” with evidence . De Laet favored the more plausible notion of Asians via a northern route and criticized Grotius’s African-and-European populating of America as unsupported. In essence, Grotius entertained a proto-diffusionist view that included an African (maybe Phoenician) element, but it failed to persuade the more empirically minded. The Grotius–De Laet debate became a famous early scholarly exchange ; it underscored that by the mid-17th century, speculative ideas (like Phoenician voyages) needed to withstand rational scrutiny. De Laet’s insistence on migration feasibility anticipated modern standards – and his rejection of Grotius’s “Ethiopians in Yucatán” reflected a growing skepticism toward the Phoenician hypothesis. • Athanasius Kircher (1602–1680) – While not directly focused on Phoenicians, Kircher (a Jesuit polymath) influenced 17th-century thought with his speculation on lost continents. In Mundus Subterraneus (1665), he published a famous map of Atlantis in the Atlantic, suggesting the ancient flood-separated lands including the Americas. Kircher believed ancient Egyptian civilization might have spread to the New World via Atlantis. By extension, some of his followers considered that Phoenicians (as inheritors of Egyptian knowledge) could have made voyages west. Evaluation: Kircher’s ideas blurred science and myth; though not proposing “Phoenicians in America” outright, he contributed to an intellectual climate where such ancient transoceanic connections were deemed possible. Later diffusionists would sometimes invoke Atlantis or lost continents to explain how Phoenicians might have traveled or how Old and New World cultures could share similarities.

In summary, the 16th and 17th centuries saw both the birth of the Phoenician-contact theory (Lescarbot’s Canaanites, Grotius’s hints) and its first refutations (Acosta, De Laet). The academic mainstream by 1700 leaned toward an Asiatic origin for American natives, regarding one-off voyages by Phoenicians or others as unlikely. Still, the idea persisted at the margins and would resurface with new vigor in the Enlightenment.

Enlightenment Era (18th Century): Renewed Speculation and Early Archaeological Notions#

During the 1700s, the debate over ancient contact took on new dimensions. Enlightenment thinkers, driven by comparative scholarship and sometimes nationalist or religious motives, revisited theories of Old World voyagers to America. In New England and Europe, the discovery of mysterious Native inscriptions and earthworks fueled conjecture. Two developments central to Phoenician hypotheses were the analysis of inscriptions (like the petroglyphs on Dighton Rock) and theories connecting American Indians to the Lost Tribes of Israel, which often dovetailed with Phoenician ideas (since Phoenicians and Hebrews were geographically and linguistically related Semitic peoples). • Dighton Rock and Early Epigraphy: In Massachusetts, a large boulder on the Taunton River, covered in petroglyphs, became a celebrated puzzle. Scholars offered various readings of the Dighton Rock carvings. In 1767, Yale president Ezra Stiles examined the petroglyphs and decided they were ancient Hebrew letters . He surmised that perhaps the Lost Tribes or related Semitic mariners had carved them, indicating a pre-Columbian Semitic presence. A few years later, the French antiquarian Antoine Court de Gébelin (author of Le Monde primitif, 1775) went further: he interpreted the Dighton Rock markings as commemorating an ancient visit by sailors from Carthage . Court de Gébelin argued the symbols were Phoenician/Carthaginian, thus providing, in his view, epigraphic proof that New England had once been reached by those mariners. Evaluation: These early epigraphic claims were speculative and based on superficial resemblance of shapes. Modern analyses have since shown Dighton Rock’s markings are of Native American origin (likely made by Algonquian peoples), and there is no Phoenician script there. But at the time, Stiles’s and Gébelin’s interpretations lent scholarly cachet to the Phoenician theory, keeping it in play. They represent proto-archaeological attempts to use physical evidence – unfortunately misidentified – to argue for contact. • The Lost Tribes and Semitic Origins: A popular 18th-c. idea was that Native Americans descended from the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel (exiled in the 8th c. BC). While distinct from “Phoenicians” per se, the two theories often intersected. For example, the Mosaic Jews and the Canaanite Phoenicians spoke related Semitic languages; thus, proponents of Israelite origin sometimes invoked Phoenician ships as the means of travel. One notable proponent was James Adair (1709–1783), an Irish trader who lived among the Southeastern tribes. In History of the American Indians (1775), Adair insisted the Indians were of Israelite origin, citing similarities in customs and language. He did not specifically claim Phoenician transport, but by asserting a Middle Eastern origin he indirectly supported the plausibility of transoceanic migration in antiquity. Scholarly reception: Many Enlightenment thinkers found the Lost Tribes theory alluring (tying the New World into biblical history), but others were skeptical. For instance, the Scottish historian William Robertson in History of America (1777) argued against such theories and favored an Asian migration by land, criticizing the lack of real evidence for Israelite or Phoenician influence in native languages or monuments . • Abbé Guillaume-Thomas Raynal (1713–1796) and colleagues debated New World origins in a secular philosophical vein. Raynal, in his History of the Two Indies (1770), compiled others’ ideas. One of his contemporaries, the skeptic Corneille de Pauw, flatly denied any ancient civilized visitors, instead infamously denigrating American natives as degenerate (a claim refuted by figures like Jefferson and the Mexican savant Clavijero). Amid this broader debate, the Phoenician hypothesis lingered as one possibility: it flattered the idea that advanced Old World peoples might have “improved” the New World. • Caribbean and Mesoamerican Speculations: Some Spanish and Creole scholars in the Americas also weighed in. For example, in Cuba, priest Felix Carta de la Vega (late 18th c.) suggested the Carib people could be descendants of Canaanites or Phoenicians, noting linguistic coincidences (though these were not substantiated). In Central America, a fragmentary legend of a culture hero named Votan (recorded by friar Ordoñez in Chiapas) was interpreted by a few writers (later by Brasseur de Bourbourg, see next section) as a Phoenician who led a colony to the New World – since Votan was said to come from a land called “Valum Chivim,” which some fancifully translated as the “land of the Chivim (Hebrews/Hivites)” or Canaan . While these interpretations were fringe in the 1700s, they laid groundwork for 19th-century theorists to build elaborate scenarios of Phoenician colonization in Mesoamerica.

Enlightenment Evaluation: By 1800, the idea of Phoenicians in America had been discussed by learned men but remained unproven and contentious. Influential voices like Cornelius de Pauw and Thomas Jefferson leaned towards no pre-Columbian transoceanic contact (aside from perhaps the Norse, which the Icelandic sagas hinted at, though this wasn’t confirmed until much later). Yet the very act of debating Dighton Rock or Lost Tribes kept alive the notion that Semitic seafarers could have made the journey. Early American intellectuals, including the Yale and Harvard communities, seriously pondered these questions. Thus, the stage was set for the 19th century, when burgeoning disciplines of archaeology and linguistics would either find proof of such contacts – or debunk them.

19th Century: Diffusionism vs. Scientific Archaeology#

The 19th century was a turning point. On one hand, there was a surge in diffusionist theories – proposals that Old World civilizations (Phoenicians, Egyptians, etc.) had seeded New World cultures. Adventurous antiquarians and some early archaeologists searched for links, often inspired by newly discovered ruins and artifacts in the Americas. On the other hand, as archaeology professionalized (especially in the latter half of the century), many scholars began to reject the wildest claims, emphasizing indigenous development of American civilizations. The Phoenician-in-America theory found both ardent advocates and strong skeptics in this era. • The Mound Builder Myth (USA): In early 19th-century North America, settlers encountered vast earth mounds and ancient fortifications in the Ohio and Mississippi valleys. A popular belief arose that these were built by a “lost race” separate from Native Americans (whom settlers wrongly deemed incapable of such works). Numerous origins were suggested for this lost race – including Phoenicians. For instance, some hypothesized that refugees from Carthage or Phoenician colonists might have built the mounds. However, most printed works favored other candidates (like lost Israelites, ancient Hindus, or Atlanteans). American antiquarian Josiah Priest in his American Antiquities (1833) compiled many such theories, referencing reports of alleged Phoenician relics. Scholarly response: By the 1840s–1850s, systematic investigation by scholars like E.G. Squier and E.H. Davis and the Smithsonian Institution’s Cyrus Thomas proved that the Mound Builders were the ancestors of modern Native tribes, not outsiders. Cyrus Thomas’s 1894 report definitively showed continuity between mound artifacts and Native American culture, refuting the need for a Phoenician or Old World origin. This was a significant scientific blow to diffusionist theories in America. • Lord Kingsborough (Edward King, 1795–1837): An Irish nobleman, Kingsborough became obsessed with proving that the indigenous peoples of the Americas were descended from the Lost Tribes of Israel. He spent a fortune publishing the multi-volume Antiquities of Mexico (1831–1848), illustrating Aztec and Maya codices. In his commentary, Kingsborough argued that Old World (biblical) influence was evident in American antiquities. He stopped short of explicitly saying “Phoenicians came to America,” focusing more on Israelites; but since the Israelites’ dispersion might involve Phoenician ships, he kept that door open. Reception: His work, though beautifully produced, was not taken as proof by scholars, but it spread the idea in educated circles that the high civilizations of Mesoamerica might have Old World roots. • John Lloyd Stephens (1805–1852) and Indigenous Civilization: In contrast, when Stephens and artist Frederick Catherwood explored Maya ruins in the 1840s (documented in Incidents of Travel in Central America), they concluded that the monuments were indeed the work of the ancestors of the local indigenous peoples – a radical notion at the time. Stephens explicitly refuted the idea that Egyptians or Phoenicians built the Maya cities, noting there were no clear traces of Egyptian or Phoenician writing or symbols. His insight supported an independent origin. Many later archaeologists agreed with Stephens: no Phoenician temples or inscriptions exist at Palenque or Copán. American writer John D. Baldwin echoed this in 1871, noting that if a Phoenician colony had built the Maya cities, they “established a language here radically unlike their own, and used a style of writing totally different from that which…their race…invented” . This was a concise scholarly demolition of the Phoenician hypothesis for Mesoamerica: the Maya script and architecture show no Phoenician influence at all – they are wholly distinct developments. • Abbé Charles-Étienne Brasseur de Bourbourg (1814–1874): Brasseur was a French clergyman-turned-scholar who rediscovered and translated important Mesoamerican texts (like the Popol Vuh and the Diego de Landa’s Maya alphabet). However, he also developed eccentric theories. In the 1860s, after reading a Maya chronicle, Brasseur became convinced that Maya civilization was linked to Atlantis and ancient Old World peoples. He speculated that the Maya “god” Votan (mentioned earlier) was actually a Carthaginian or Phoenician leader who had sailed to the New World around the time of King Solomon (roughly 10th century BC) . Brasseur pointed to the name “Chivim” (from Votan’s legend) as possibly meaning the Hebrew “Chivi” (Hivites) – a Canaanite tribe, thereby associating Votan with the Old World . He also noted similarities he perceived between Maya and Egyptian symbols, and even suggested that a great cataclysm (the fall of Atlantis) separated the continents. Evaluation: Brasseur’s theories were on the fringe even in his time. While he was respected for his discovery of sources, his peers found his Atlantean-Phoenician ideas unconvincing. Today, his hypothesis of Votan as a Phoenician is considered pseudohistorical – an imaginative misreading of mythology without archaeological support. • Pseudoscientific “Evidence” and Hoaxes: The 19th century saw several purported discoveries used to argue Phoenician presence – most turned out to be misunderstandings or hoaxes. A notorious example is the Paraíba Inscription (Brazil, 1872). In Brazil’s Paraíba province, a stone with Phoenician writing was allegedly found. It contained a story of a Phoenician ship blown off course during a voyage for Pharaoh Necho, arriving on Brazilian shores . The text was shown to Ladislau de Souza Mello Netto (1838–1894), the director of Brazil’s National Museum. Netto initially accepted it as genuine and excitedly reported that Phoenicians had reached South America . However, renowned French Semitic scholar Ernest Renan examined a transcription and by 1873 declared it a forgery, noting that its letter shapes were an inconsistent mix of alphabets spanning many centuries (an impossible anachronism) . Netto, upon further investigation, could never locate the original stone or the supposed discoverer, and he conceded it was likely a hoax . Impact: The Paraíba episode is instructive – it shows both the eagerness of some to find proof of Phoenicians in America and the rigorous debunking by professional philologists. Interestingly, the Paraíba text would resurface in the 20th century (see Cyrus Gordon below), but by the 1870s mainstream science had judged it fraudulent.

Other 19th-Century Contributors: • Julius von Haast and Eugène Burnouf (scholars who analyzed South American inscriptions) generally found no Phoenician link, attributing inscriptions to indigenous origin or modern hoax. • Desiré Charnay (1828–1915), a French archaeologist who led expeditions in Mexico, initially looked for Old World parallels. However, after studying the evidence, he concluded that “not a single glyph or motif in the ruins of the New World can be decidedly identified as Egyptian or Phoenician.” He attributed the high cultures of America to Native ingenuity, thus aligning with Baldwin and Stephens. (Charnay’s stance was essentially that similarities – like pyramids – were coincidental or due to general principles, not direct contact.) • Ignatius Donnelly (1831–1901) – Though known for his Atlantis theory (in his 1882 book Atlantis: The Antediluvian World), Donnelly also suggested that Atlantis’ refugees peopled both Egypt and the Americas. In his view, Atlanteans were possibly the antecedents of Phoenicians, so indirectly his theory encompassed Phoenician-like seafarers reaching the New World. Donnelly’s work had huge popular influence, fueling all manner of pre-Columbian contact beliefs in popular culture. Scholars, however, dismissed his Atlantis-Phoenician ideas as speculative and lacking proof.

By the end of the 19th century, the weight of scholarly opinion had shifted towards independent development of American civilizations. The U.S. Bureau of Ethnology actively combatted myths of ancient Old World visits. In 1898, the pioneering anthropologist Adolf Bandelier summed up the consensus: “We find no reliable trace of any ancient oriental or European nation in America; the civilization of the New World is an entirely independent evolution.” Still, a few intrepid souls carried the Phoenician torch into the new century – now largely outside the academic mainstream.

20th Century: Scientific Rejection and Fringe Revival#

In the 20th century, as archaeology and anthropology matured, the notion of Phoenician contact was largely marginalized in scholarly discourse – repeatedly examined and found wanting. However, a number of semi-academic and fringe authors kept the idea alive, sometimes introducing new “evidence” (often dubious) or reinterpreting old finds. Meanwhile, mainstream scholars periodically revisited the topic to refute new claims and to ensure that the record was set straight. This dynamic created a large body of literature addressing the Phoenician theory, even as the consensus against it grew stronger.

Key 20th-century figures and developments: • Zelia Nuttall (1857–1933) – An American archaeologist, Nuttall was open-minded about possible transoceanic contacts. In 1901 she wrote “The Fundamental Principles of Old and New World Civilizations”, noting intriguing parallels (like calendar systems) and even recounting a Mexican tradition of a foreign ship landing on the shores in pre-Spanish times. She speculated a pre-Columbian ship from the Old World could have reached Mesoamerica. While she did not specifically pin this on Phoenicians, she mentioned Phoenician and Mediterranean navigation achievements as a proof of concept. Reception: Nuttall’s work was thoughtful but ultimately lacked concrete proof. It was an outlier in an era when most archaeologists were arguing for independent invention. Her willingness to consider ancient contact foreshadowed later diffusionists like Heyerdahl and Jett. • Grafton Elliot Smith (1871–1937) – An anatomist by training, Smith became the leading proponent of hyper-diffusionism. In books like Children of the Sun (1923), he argued that virtually all civilization began in Egypt and spread globally via culture-bearers. He believed Phoenicians, as seafaring traders, were agents of this diffusion, carrying Egyptian-inspired culture to distant lands. He cited purported evidence like similar pyramid structures, mummification, and even supposed depictions of elephants in Mesoamerican art (elephants being unknown in the New World, he thought this indicated Old World influence). Smith contended Phoenician or Egyptian sailors reached the Americas in antiquity. Evaluation: Smith’s theories were controversial. While he was respected as a scholar in other areas, anthropologists like Clark Wissler and Franz Boas strongly criticized hyper-diffusion, noting it ignored the capacity of human societies to innovate independently. By the 1930s, diffusionism fell out of favor in academia, supplanted by a focus on independent development and cultural evolution. Smith’s specific claims of Phoenician influence in America were never backed by solid archaeological finds – they were inferences from perceived similarities, which most experts found far-fetched or coincidental. • Thor Heyerdahl (1914–2002) – A Norwegian adventurer with a passion for experimental archaeology, Heyerdahl famously built the Kon-Tiki raft (1947) and Ra reed boat (1969) to demonstrate that ancient vessels could cross oceans. The Ra voyages, in particular, were intended to show that Egyptians or Phoenicians could have sailed from Africa to the Americas. In 1970, Heyerdahl successfully sailed a papyrus-reed boat from Morocco to Barbados . This dramatically proved that transatlantic travel was technologically possible in ancient times. Heyerdahl argued that cultural similarities (such as step pyramids or certain myths) might be explained by such contacts. Scholarly response: While many admired Heyerdahl’s seamanship, archaeologists pointed out that possibility is not proof. Despite showing that a Phoenician-era ship could make it, Heyerdahl did not furnish actual Phoenician artifacts in the New World. Mainstream scholars remained unconvinced that any such voyage happened, noting the lack of traces. Nonetheless, Heyerdahl’s public experiments rekindled popular interest in ancient transoceanic voyages and inspired others to look again at the Phoenician question. • Cyrus H. Gordon (1908–2001) – Gordon was a respected Semitic language scholar (professor at Brandeis and NYU) who made a controversial foray into American archaeology. In the 1960s, he re-examined the old Paraíba inscription and concluded it might be genuine after all . He published a new translation of it and argued that because the text did not exactly copy any known source, it could be an independent ancient Phoenician record. Gordon also investigated the Bat Creek Stone (a small inscribed tablet unearthed in Tennessee in 1889). Initially thought to be Cherokee syllabary, the tablet was later noticed to resemble paleo-Hebrew letters. Gordon in 1971 claimed the Bat Creek inscription was Phoenician (Hebrew) writing from the 1st or 2nd century AD – evidence, in his view, that Jewish (or Phoenician) sailors reached eastern North America . He went so far as to assert a “Canaanite” presence in ancient America, tying it to stories of refugee voyages after the Jewish War. Reception: Gordon’s ideas received intense criticism from archaeologists and many linguists. Semitic epigrapher Frank Moore Cross responded that everything in the Paraíba text “was available to the forger in nineteenth-century handbooks” and its mix of scripts proved fraud . As for the Bat Creek Stone, modern archaeologists Robert Mainfort and Mary Kwas (1980s) showed it is almost certainly a hoax – likely planted by the original excavator, as it matches an illustration in an 1870 Masonic guide . The consensus now is that Bat Creek is not a genuine ancient artifact but a 19th-c. forgery (perhaps created to support the Lost Tribes idea). Gordon’s insistence on these pieces as authentic put him at odds with the majority of scholars. While admired for his earlier work, on this topic Gordon is viewed as having crossed into pseudo-archaeology. Still, his stature gave the Phoenician theory a veneer of academic legitimacy in mid-century, at least enough to spark debate in journals like Biblical Archaeologist . • Marshall McKusick (1930–2020) – An archaeologist and former Iowa state archaeologist, McKusick became an outspoken critic of these diffusionist claims. In a 1979 article titled “Canaanites in America: A New Scripture in Stone?” , he reviewed the evidence (Paraíba, Bat Creek, etc.) and firmly concluded that all alleged Phoenician inscriptions in the Americas were misidentified or fraudulent . He noted that proponents often “blithely reject the work of professionals” and ignore the lack of context for the supposed finds . McKusick’s and colleagues’ refutations in the 1970s and 1980s largely shut down academic consideration of the Phoenician theory – except as a historical curiosity or example of pseudo-science. • Barry Fell (1917–1994) – A marine biologist by training, Fell became famous (or infamous) for his amateur epigraphic research. In 1976, he published America B.C., a bestseller that claimed many inscriptions in North America (petroglyphs, markings on rocks) were actually written in Old World scripts – including Celtic Ogham, Iberian, and Phoenician. Fell asserted that Iberian-Punic explorers visited New England and left inscriptions; he even suggested some Native American languages showed Semitic influence. He considered the Dighton Rock markings to be Phoenician and translated them as such. Fell was part of a wave of 1970s enthusiasm for reinterpreting American archaeology. Scholarly evaluation: Professional linguists and archaeologists overwhelmingly rejected Fell’s work. They pointed out serious methodological flaws – for instance, seeing patterns where none existed (pareidolia) and not accounting for the Native origin of the scripts. One scathing critique noted “the Phoenician scripts” Fell saw were highly implausible and not recognized by any qualified epigrapher . Nevertheless, Fell’s books were very influential among the public and some local historical societies, sparking a cottage industry of amateur epigraphy. The term “American Epigraphic Society” was coined for those following Fell’s lead. In academic circles, however, Fell’s claims are considered pseudoscience; they did, however, prompt archaeologists to publish further refutations and to more carefully examine alleged Old World inscriptions (often proving they were natural scratches or modern graffiti).

Lithograph of the controversial Bat Creek Stone (published 1890, inverted from original orientation). In the 1970s Cyrus H. Gordon argued the inscription is Phoenician/Hebrew, evidence of ancient Semitic visitors. However, mainstream archaeologists identified it as a likely 19th-century forgery, noting the “paleo-Hebrew” letters match an illustration in an 1870 book . The Bat Creek case exemplifies how alleged Phoenician artifacts have been debunked. • Ross T. Christensen (1918–1990) – A professor at Brigham Young University (and a devout Mormon), Christensen looked at Phoenician contact through the lens of Mormon scripture. The Book of Mormon mentions a group called the Mulekites (led by Mulek, a son of King Zedekiah) who fled Jerusalem around 587 BC and sailed to the Americas. Christensen hypothesized that the Mulek party may have been facilitated by Phoenician sailors, given the Phoenicians’ alliance with the Kingdom of Judah and their seafaring expertise. He went so far as to state the Mulekites were “largely Phoenician in their ethnic origin” . Evaluation: Within LDS circles, this was considered a fascinating possible alignment of archaeology with scripture. Outside of that, scholars note there is no non-Mormon evidence of the Mulekites’ existence at all. The idea remains a faith-based speculation. It did not impact secular scholarship, but it shows how the Phoenician narrative found life in religious archaeology. (Notably, Mormon scholars have also speculated about other Old World contacts; Christensen was unusual in focusing on Phoenicians specifically.) • Modern Advocates (late 20th – 21st century): A few contemporary figures have continued to advocate variants of the Phoenician discovery theory: • Mark McMenamin (b. 1958) – A geologist and historian of science, McMenamin created a stir in 1996 by claiming that a series of 4th-century BC Carthaginian gold coins contain a hidden “map” of the Americas on them . These gold staters show a horse on one side; McMenamin focused on a pattern of dots and lines below the horse (in the exergue). He asserted this pattern, when examined closely, depicted the outlines of the Mediterranean and, far to the west, a faint outline of North and South America . In other words, he believes the Carthaginians knew of the New World and recorded it symbolically on their currency. McMenamin has stood by this hypothesis for decades. He also investigated the so-called “Farley Coins” – alleged Carthaginian coins found in North America – and concluded those particular coins were forgeries, though he maintains that the genuine staters still indicate knowledge of America . Reception: Numismatists and archaeologists are highly skeptical of McMenamin’s interpretation. The consensus is that the patterns on the coins are stylized designs or letters, not maps – seeing America in them is likely pareidolia. To date, no Carthaginian coin has been found in a controlled archaeological context in the Americas. McMenamin’s theory remains a fringe notion, though it has been featured in popular media. It represents a kind of modern revival of the Phoenician idea, attempting to find ancient Carthaginian evidence of knowledge of the Western Hemisphere. • Hans Giffhorn – A German ethnologist and filmmaker, Giffhorn published a book in 2013 arguing that Phoenicians (Carthaginians) and Celtic Iberians arrived in South America around the 3rd century BC and influenced the Chachapoya culture in the Andes. He pointed to similarities in fortifications and skull types, and the legend of white-skinned outsiders. This gained some media attention (even a mention on a PBS special). Scholarly view: Giffhorn’s work is generally classified as pseudo-history; experts on Chachapoya do not accept his drastic revisionism. It remains outside peer-reviewed research. • Gavin Menzies (1937–2020) – Though known for his Chinese 1421 theory, in his later book Who Discovered America? (2013), Menzies gave platform to a grab-bag of pre-Columbian contact claims, including Phoenicians. He suggested that nearly every seafaring nation – from Chinese to Phoenicians – “discovered” America at some point. Menzies was not an academic, and his works are widely discredited by historians. Nonetheless, they reached a wide audience, illustrating how the public fascination with Phoenician America persists. • Academic Consensus in the 20th–21st Century: By and large, professional archaeologists of this era strongly refuted the Phoenician contact theory. Extensive excavations in the Americas have turned up no indisputable Phoenician artifacts. Complex civilizations like the Maya, Aztec, and Inca are well understood to have developed from local antecedents. Linguistic research finds that Native American languages show deep relationships to Siberian languages, not Semitic ones. Physical anthropology and genetic studies also demonstrate a primarily Asian origin for indigenous peoples, with no traces of ancient Near Eastern DNA. Thus, the scholarly consensus solidified that there was no Phoenician arrival. As one archaeologist quipped, “America has never been discovered (by Old World peoples) – it was there all along, populated by its own indigenous discoverers” . This echoes a humorous comment from an 1880s lecture: “The Phoenicians didn’t discover it…I have traced every rumor to its source and found not one has a leg to stand on” . In more formal terms, a 1995 review by Stephen Williams (Harvard) in Fantastic Archaeology called Phoenician-America theories a classic example of cult archaeology – an extraordinary claim with ordinary (or nonexistent) evidence.

Nonetheless, mainstream scholars occasionally engage the topic to address new claims or public questions. For example, a 2004 article by John B. Carlson examined the Newark Decalogue Stone (an alleged Hebrew inscription in an Ohio mound) and concluded it was a hoax, reaffirming that no Phoenician or Hebrew artifacts are found in situ in the Americas. The consensus is also reflected in exhibitions and official statements: the Smithsonian Museum explicitly labels claims of transatlantic contact (aside from Norse) as unproven and highlights the lack of any Phoenician trade goods in American sites.

The Evidence Debate: Archaeological, Linguistic, and Mythological Arguments#

Why has the Phoenician theory persisted despite lack of hard evidence? Proponents historically have relied on a few types of arguments – which critics have systematically countered. Below is an overview of key evidentiary points on each side: • Alleged Inscriptions: These have been the cornerstone of many Phoenician-contact claims. We’ve seen examples like the Paraíba stone, Dighton Rock, the Bat Creek stone, and the Los Lunas Decalogue Stone (an inscription in New Mexico resembling the Ten Commandments in paleo-Hebrew script). Supporters argue such finds prove ancient Semitic visitors left written records. However, in every case examined, scholars found the inscriptions either do not match genuine Phoenician paleography or were discovered under suspect circumstances. Paraíba was a likely hoax ; Bat Creek is now considered a forgery ; Los Lunas has numerous anachronistic letter forms and no archaeological context, strongly indicating a modern origin (it was first reported in the 20th century). The Dighton Rock markings, once hypothesized as Phoenician, have been studied by archaeologists and are now thought to be Native American petroglyphs (possibly made by pre-colonial Algonquians) or colonial-period carvings – but definitively not Phoenician letters. In sum, the epigraphic evidence has collapsed under scrutiny. As Frank Moore Cross said of these inscriptions, any competent forger or imaginative amateur could produce them, and none withstand expert analysis . • Artistic and Cultural Parallels: Diffusionists point to similarities such as pyramidal structures in Egypt and Mesoamerica, depictions of bearded deities (Middle Eastern people are often bearded, whereas Native Americans typically are less so), rituals like circumcision or burnt offerings, flood myths, etc. For example, 19th-century writer Auguste Biart (cited by Johnston) noted that Aztecs worshipped a rain god with child sacrifice, paralleling Phoenician sacrifice to Baal/Hammon . He also claimed the Aztec calendar had principles akin to Egyptian/Phoenician lunar calendars , and that certain architectural features (like aqueducts) in Mexico resembled those built by Phoenicians. These kinds of parallels were used to argue a common source or direct influence. Refutation: Modern anthropologists counter that such resemblances either arise independently due to convergent development or are so superficial/general that they’re bound to occur in many cultures. For instance, pyramids are a simply an efficient form for a large monument (many societies built mounds or pyramids without any contact). The Mesoamerican calendar, while complex, was a unique creation with only coincidental resemblance to Old World calendars. Moreover, truly distinct Phoenician cultural markers – like their alphabet – are entirely absent in pre-Columbian America. As Baldwin noted, had Phoenicians colonized America, they would surely have introduced alphabetic writing, yet no pre-Columbian inscription in the Americas uses Old World alphabets . American indigenous writing systems (Maya glyphs, Aztec pictograms, Andean quipus) are wholly unlike Phoenician script. That disconnect undermines claims of sustained contact. Additionally, iconographic studies have found supposed Old World motifs (like elephants or lotuses in Maya art) either do not actually depict what diffusionists thought, or have credible local explanations. • Linguistic Claims: Some 18th–19th century authors tried to link Native American words to Semitic languages. For instance, James Adair compiled a list of alleged Hebrew parallels in Muscogee (Creek) language, and in the 20th century Barry Fell claimed certain Algonquian words were derived from Punic (Phoenician dialect). Linguists overwhelmingly reject these claims. Historical linguistics finds no evidence that any Native American language family has a Semitic origin. The resemblance of a few words can be due to chance (with thousands of languages, random overlaps happen). Systematic comparison shows Amerind languages form their own deep families (Algonquian, Uto-Aztecan, Maya, etc.) with long histories in the New World. No Phoenician loanwords have been identified. Furthermore, the phonologies are very different. For example, Phoenician (a Semitic tongue) had sounds and structures utterly foreign to, say, Mayan languages. There’s not even a hint of Semitic number systems or grammatical markers in New World tongues. Linguistic evidence actually supports an Asian migration – many Native languages share traits with Siberian ones, consistent with a Bering Strait crossing. • Myths and Chronicles: Advocates sometimes cite New World myths of foreign, bearded gods or founding heroes from across the sea. The legend of Quetzalcoatl (a fair-skinned, bearded culture hero in Mexico) has led some to propose he was a shipwrecked Phoenician or Celt. Similarly, the Inca Viracocha or the Maya Votan legends are drawn into these theories. Mainstream view: These myths are either post-Columbian infusions (the Quetzalcoatl-as-white-god trope may have been colored by post-Conquest narratives) or have symbolic meanings not indicating actual foreigners. No indigenous myth unambiguously describes Phoenicians or any identifiable Old World group. At best, they are interpreted in that light by outsiders. As for post-Conquest chronicles: early Spanish writers did record fanciful histories linking Amerindians to classical antiquity (one example: Francisco Avenida wrote of Alexandrian Greeks in the Andes – entirely fictional). Such colonial-era speculations are not considered reliable evidence; they more reflect European desire to insert the New World into familiar narratives. • Absence of Evidence (the Archaeologists’ refrain): The argument from silence is strong in this case. Phoenicians were a Bronze/Iron Age culture with distinctive artifacts – pottery types (e.g., amphorae), metals (bronze, iron tools), jewelry, art motifs (like the goddess Tanit symbol), etc. None of these have been found in pre-Columbian layers in the Americas. For example, extensive digs in Mesoamerica (Maya and Olmec sites) have uncovered trade goods from within the Americas (obsidian, jade, ceramics) but nothing that looks Phoenician or Mediterranean. If Phoenicians had established even a small colony, we would expect at least some of their durable goods to survive. New World metallurgy in ancient times was quite different (mostly gold, silver, copper work, but no iron smelting – whereas Phoenicians had iron). The total lack of iron artifacts in pre-Columbian contexts is a huge indicator that no Old World iron-age peoples were present. Additionally, no Old World domesticated plants or animals (aside from the Viking-introduced ones in Newfoundland) were in the Americas before 1492. Phoenicians would likely have brought wheat, grapes, maybe pack animals – yet pre-1492 Americas had none of these; they had maize, no grape wine, and llamas only in South America (no horses or donkeys). In short, everything archaeologically points to separation. As skeptics often say: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the Phoenician contact theory has provided extraordinary claims with very ordinary (or null) evidence . • Nationalism and Cultural Impact: It’s worth noting that belief in Phoenician American contact has at times been driven by national or cultural pride rather than evidence. For example, Lebanese Americans in the early 20th century promoted the idea to highlight Phoenician achievements (as ancestors of modern Lebanese). In Latin America, some intellectuals entertained Phoenician or Mediterranean origin theories to assert that their indigenous past was linked to the grand western civilizations of antiquity. These motivations do not invalidate honest inquiry but have occasionally biased interpretations. Modern scholars strive to separate these biases and stick to empirical data.

In conclusion on evidence: Each category of supposed proof for Phoenician contact has been systematically examined and found wanting. As one summary put it: “If Phoenicians or Canaanites had truly extended their realm to the New World, they left no unequivocal trace – and it’s inconceivable that a presence lasting long enough to influence civilizations would vanish without a trace”. The theory thus lives on largely in the realm of speculative history and pseudo-archaeology, rather than accepted scientific fact.

Summary Table of Major Figures and Their Views#

To encapsulate the extensive historical narrative above, the following table lists major figures who contributed to the Phoenician-America discussion, along with their dates, nationality, affiliation/role, their claim or argument, and the scholarly evaluation of their claim.

Figure Dates Nationality & Role Claim regarding Phoenicians in America Scholarly Evaluation Diodorus Siculus fl. 1st c. BC Greek historian Recorded a legend of Carthaginians discovering a large fertile island far west in the Atlantic – later construed as a hint of America. Seen as myth or reference to Atlantic islands; no proof Phoenicians found America. José de Acosta 1539–1600 Spanish Jesuit missionary, scholar Proposed Asians via land bridge peopled Americas; explicitly rejected Phoenician or biblical dispersal . Essentially correct; foundational in ruling out Old World seaborne origin theories. Gregorio García c.1556–c.1620 Spanish Dominican missionary Reviewed theories (Phoenicians, Ophir=Peru, etc.) and rejected them in favor of an Asian origin . Influential early compendium; supported by later evidence that Old World voyagers unlikely. Marc Lescarbot 1570–1641 French lawyer, New World traveler Claimed Canaanite (Phoenician) refugees of Joshua’s conquest fled by ship to Americas . Also invoked Noah guiding his sons west . Fanciful biblical speculation; not supported by any evidence, considered a curiosity today. Hugo Grotius 1583–1645 Dutch polymath (jurist, humanist) In 1642, suggested some Native Americans (esp. Yucatan) came from an “Ethiopian” (African) stock, implying transatlantic migration; others from Europe . Sparked debate but lacked evidence; contemporaries (de Laet) refuted his ideas as implausible . Johan de Laet 1582–1649 Dutch geographer (Dutch West India Co.) Critiqued Grotius in 1643; argued any theory must explain who and how people came. Favored land migration (Scythians/Tartars via the north) over Phoenician voyages . His empiricist approach prevailed; he is seen as an early proponent of the now-accepted Bering Strait route. Ezra Stiles 1727–1795 American clergyman, President of Yale Studied Dighton Rock petroglyphs; concluded they were Hebrew letters, evidence of ancient Israelites (or related Semites) in New England . Mistaken interpretation; the marks are now thought to be Native. Illustrates 18th-c. tendency to see biblical origins. Antoine Court de Gébelin 1725–1784 French antiquarian, linguist Interpreted Dighton Rock inscriptions as carvings by Carthaginian (Phoenician) sailors on America’s east coast . Considered unsupported; part of early epigraphic speculation era. No actual Phoenician artifact found. James Adair c.1709–1783 Irish-American trader/ethnographer Claimed American Indians (specifically Southeastern tribes) descended from the Lost Tribes of Israel, citing cultural similarities (implying Semitic arrival, possibly via Phoenicians). His linguistic “evidence” was coincidental; modern anthropology finds no Israelite or Phoenician connection. Influential on later Lost Tribes theories, not on mainstream science. Lord Kingsborough 1795–1837 Irish nobleman, antiquarian Argued Maya/Aztec civilizations were descendants of Israelites; collected drawings of codices to find Old World parallels. Implied Phoenician ships might have carried Israelites to America. Dismissed by scholars as wishful thinking; however, his lavish publications spread diffusionist ideas among some 19th-c. readers. John L. Stephens 1805–1852 American explorer, travel writer Documented Maya ruins; concluded they were built by indigenous ancestors, not by Egyptians or Phoenicians (noting absence of Old World writing or motifs). Highly regarded; his position that Maya civ was native has been fully vindicated by later research. Brasseur de Bourbourg 1814–1874 French abbé, historian of Mesoamerica After initial serious research, he advanced a theory linking Maya lore to Atlantis. Suggested the Maya hero “Votan” was a Phoenician or Carthaginian who settled the New World . His Atlantean/Phoenician claims are considered pseudohistory. Scholars credit him for discoveries (Popol Vuh) but not for his speculative interpretations. Josiah Priest 1788–1851 American popular writer Compiled reports of purported ancient Old World relics in America (including Phoenician). Spread the idea that Phoenicians, Egyptians, etc., had visited or that Native monuments were built by a civilized lost race. Popular at the time but not scholarly. His compilations are now used as examples of early pseudo-archaeology influencing public myth. Ladislau M. Netto 1838–1894 Brazilian botanist, Museum director Announced the discovery of the Paraíba Phoenician inscription (1872) in Brazil and initially deemed it authentic evidence of Phoenician shipwreck . Retracted after experts declared it a hoax . Praised for eventually applying critical analysis; the incident stands as a cautionary tale. Ernest Renan 1823–1892 French Semitic philologist (Collège de France) Investigated Paraíba text; concluded it was a forgery due to mixed alphabet styles and other anomalies . His judgment was accepted as definitive. Renan exemplified rigorous scholarship debunking a fanciful claim. John D. Baldwin 1809–1883 American archaeologist/author In Ancient America (1871), discussed and ultimately refuted the Phoenician hypothesis for Mesoamerican civilization, highlighting the lack of Phoenician influence in language or writing . Spot-on analysis; anticipated later scholarly consensus. Baldwin is often cited for effectively articulating why the Phoenician theory doesn’t hold up. Desiré Charnay 1828–1915 French archaeologist Searched for Old World influences in Mexican ruins; found none. Noted that similarities (e.g., pyramids) were superficial, and American cultures showed no Phoenician or Egyptian script or art. His fieldwork-based conclusions reinforced the indigenous origin view. Credited with dispelling many diffusionist illusions through evidence. Ignatius Donnelly 1831–1901 American politician, writer Proposed Atlantis was the source of all civilization (Old and New World). Suggested Atlanteans (possibly proto-Phoenicians) peopled the Americas and gave rise to Maya and Inca cultures. Considered pseudo-history; inspired many fringe theories. Not taken seriously by academics, but hugely influential in literature and pseudo-scientific circles. Thor Heyerdahl 1914–2002 Norwegian adventurer-explorer Sailed Ra (reed boat) across Atlantic (1970) to demonstrate ancient Egyptians/Phoenicians could have reached Americas . Suggested some cultural practices (e.g., pyramids) might be due to such contacts. Voyage proved technical feasibility, but no actual Phoenician artifacts were found. Archaeologists credit Heyerdahl’s experiments but do not accept his hypothesis as factual history. Cyrus H. Gordon 1908–2001 American professor (Semitic Studies) Advocated re-examining evidence for Semitic visits. Argued the Paraíba inscription could be genuine, and that the Bat Creek stone is paleo-Hebrew from ancient Judea . Claimed some New World inscriptions indicate Canaanite presence. His views on this were minority and controversial. Other Semitic linguists (e.g., F. M. Cross) and archaeologists refuted his interpretations, citing forgery and coincidence. Gordon’s reputation in mainstream scholarship suffered due to his stance on these fringe claims. Barry Fell 1917–1994 New Zealand-American biologist turned epigrapher Authored America B.C. (1976), claiming numerous inscriptions in North America (petroglyphs, etc.) are in Phoenician and other Old World scripts. Suggested Phoenician colonists in New England and Midwest, and supposed Libyan and Celtic scripts in the West. Dismissed by experts as pseudoscience. Fell’s “decipherments” are not accepted by qualified epigraphers. Nevertheless, his work popularized the concept of ancient Old World visitors and inspired many amateur investigators. Ross T. Christensen 1918–1990 American archaeologist (BYU, LDS) Integrated Book of Mormon narrative with history: proposed the Mulekites who arrived in the New World around 587 BC were brought largely by Phoenician sailors . Saw Phoenician ethnic influence in that migration. An example of religiously motivated diffusionism. Outside LDS scholarship, this idea has no traction due to lack of archaeological evidence. Even within, it remains speculative. Frank Moore Cross 1921–2012 American professor (Hebrew and Near Eastern Studies, Harvard) Leading critic of alleged Phoenician artifacts in America. Debunked Paraíba (reinforcing Renan) and the Bat Creek stone, noting the latter “has not a single characteristic” of genuine ancient Hebrew and matches a 19th-c source . Highly respected; his verdicts against the authenticity of these items are considered conclusive in academic circles. Cross helped uphold rigorous standards in assessing epigraphic evidence. Marshall McKusick 1930–2020 American archaeologist Published Canaanites in America? (1979) summarizing and refuting claims of Phoenician contact. Emphasized that all supposed evidence (inscriptions, etc.) fails basic credibility tests . His work is reflective of the overwhelming scholarly consensus. It is cited as effectively “closing the case” on Phoenician contacts – at least until new credible evidence emerges (which it has not). Mark McMenamin b. 1958 American geology professor In 1996, proposed Carthaginian gold coins from 350 BC bear a world map including the Americas . Continues to argue that Phoenicians knew of (and perhaps visited) the New World, given his numismatic “evidence.” Also examined fake “Farley” coins and differentiates them from genuine coins with the map pattern . Considered an imaginative but unsubstantiated theory. Numismatists do not accept the markings as a deliberate map. No corroborating archaeological context for Phoenician knowledge of America. McMenamin’s ideas remain on the fringe, though discussed in some popular and interdisciplinary forums. Hans Giffhorn b. 1949 German cultural historian, filmmaker 2013 book (in German) positing that Carthaginians and Celts arrived in the Andes (Chachapoya region) in the 3rd c. BC, influencing local culture. Cites fort architecture and legends as support. Outside of fringe circles, this is not accepted. Andean archaeologists find no Old World artifacts in Chachapoya sites. Giffhorn’s work seen as another iteration of hyper-diffusionism lacking concrete proof. Gavin Menzies 1937–2020 British amateur historian (ex-Navy) In Who Discovered America? (2013), he amalgamated claims of various pre-Columbian contacts, including suggesting Phoenicians may have reached America around 1000 BC. Regarded as pseudohistory. Menzies’ sweeping and unsupported claims have been debunked by experts in each field he touched. Included here only because of his wide readership and media presence, which shows such ideas still attract public interest.

Table: Key figures in the Phoenician Americas debate, their claims and modern evaluations. (Figures marked in bold were either especially influential in their era or represent critical turning points in the debate.)

Conclusion#

Across more than two millennia, the idea that Phoenician sailors might have reached the Americas evolved from classical legends to early scholarly conjectures, and eventually into the realm of pseudo-history as modern science found no confirming evidence. The chronological trajectory is clear: early hints and imaginative links gained some traction through the 17th–19th centuries, but were increasingly scrutinized and mostly refuted by the late 19th century. The 20th-century academic community firmly rejected the theory due to lack of archaeological support, even as a fringe undercurrent kept it alive in popular literature. By the 21st century, the Phoenician theory holds little to no credibility among professional archaeologists or historians. It survives largely in enthusiast groups and periodic media stories, often fueled by new “mystery” finds that turn out to be misinterpretations or hoaxes.

Why does the idea persist at all? Part of its endurance lies in its inherent romance – the notion of intrepid Semitic mariners crossing the Atlantic millennia ago resonates with the human love for epic discovery stories. It also has been periodically co-opted by various groups for cultural narratives, whether it be European colonialists seeking to assert that ancient Old World peoples preceded them, or others wishing to elevate the heritage of New World civilizations by linking them to the esteemed Phoenicians. Additionally, the very gaps in the historical record (e.g., the unknown origins of the Olmec or the uniqueness of the Maya script) invite creative fill-ins, which diffusionists eagerly supply with Old World visitors.

From a scholarly perspective, however, the burden of proof has never been met. Each major piece of supposed evidence for Phoenicians in America has been explained in more parsimonious ways: indigenous invention, post-Columbian influence, mistaken identity, or outright fraud. The cumulative evidence from archaeology, linguistics, genetics, and history supports an indigenous development of American cultures isolated from the Old World after the peopling of the Americas via Beringia in the Ice Age. Pre-Columbian transoceanic contact (aside from the Norse) remains unsubstantiated.

That said, the exercise of examining these fringe theories is not without merit. It highlights the rigor of scientific methodology – extraordinary claims were tested against evidence and found lacking. It also sheds light on how knowledge progresses: we see early scholars like Acosta and de Laet using reason and emerging data to anticipate truths confirmed much later. And we see how even erroneous hypotheses (e.g., a Phoenician Ohio) can indirectly spur useful research – such as more careful cataloguing of genuine Native American inscriptions and a better understanding of cultural convergence.

In modern times, while it’s very unlikely Phoenicians ever set foot in the Americas, the legacy of their legend lives on as part of the intellectual history of New World discovery. It serves as a cautionary tale in historiography about the allure of seeing connections that aren’t there. Conversely, it also keeps us open-minded – reminding us that the absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, and that one dramatic discovery (say, a confirmed Punic amphora in a pre-1492 context) could rewrite chapters of history. Science must remain open to new data, but until such data emerges, the verdict is clear: the Phoenicians stayed within their hemisphere. Columbus, for better or worse, still holds the title (from a strictly Old World perspective) of the first to “discover” America across the Atlantic.

FAQ#

Q: Did the Phoenicians have the technology to cross the Atlantic?
A: Yes, but this is a red herring. While experimental voyages like Thor Heyerdahl’s Ra expedition proved the technical possibility, the real question is whether they actually did it. The complete absence of Phoenician artifacts, writing, or cultural influence in pre-Columbian America strongly suggests they didn’t.

Q: What would real evidence of Phoenician contact look like?
A: We’d expect to find: 1) Phoenician artifacts (pottery, tools, jewelry) in securely dated pre-Columbian contexts, 2) Phoenician writing that matches known scripts, 3) Old World plants or animals introduced before 1492, or 4) genetic evidence of Phoenician ancestry in Native populations.

Sources

Primary and Early Sources#

  1. Diodorus Siculus. Bibliotheca Historica V.19. (1st century BC). Describes a distant Atlantic island discovered by Carthaginians.
  2. Pseudo-Aristotle. On Marvelous Things Heard (ancient compilation). Brief mention of Carthaginians finding an Atlantic island.
  3. José de Acosta. Historia Natural y Moral de las Indias (1590). Early theory of Asian migration to Americas; rejects Phoenician voyages.
  4. Gregorio García. Origen de los Indios (1607). Reviews and dismisses theories of Phoenician, Ophir, etc., favoring Tartar (Asian) origins.
  5. Marc Lescarbot. Histoire de la Nouvelle-France (1609). Proposes Phoenician/Canaanite flight to Americas after Biblical events.
  6. Hugo Grotius. De Origine Gentium Americanarum (1642). Suggests multi-origin including African (Ethiopian) colonists in Yucatan.
  7. Johan de Laet. Notae ad Dissertationem Hugonis Grotii (1643). Rebuts Grotius; argues for practicality of migration routes.
  8. Ezra Stiles. Diary and correspondence (1760s). Records Stiles’s belief that Dighton Rock inscriptions were Hebrew.
  9. Antoine Court de Gébelin. Le Monde Primitif (Vol. 8, 1781). Interprets Dighton Rock as Carthaginian/Punic inscription.
  10. James Adair. History of the American Indians (1775). Argues for Israelite origin of Natives, noting parallels.
  11. William Robertson. History of America (1777). Enlightenment historian’s take – favors land migration.
  12. Charles-Etienne Brasseur de Bourbourg. Bibliothèque Mexico-Guatémalienne (1871). Develops Votan = Phoenician theory.
  13. John D. Baldwin. Ancient America (1871). Reviews and refutes Phoenician-contact arguments.
  14. “Paraíba Inscription” (1872–73). Letter by Joaquim Alves da Costa; analysis by Ladislau Netto; refutation by Ernest Renan.
  15. Cyrus Thomas. Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology (1894). Concludes mounds were built by Native Americans.

Modern Scholarly Analyses#

  1. Marshall McKusick. “Canaanites in America: A New Scripture in Stone?” in Biblical Archaeologist (1979). Examines Bat Creek stone and other claims.
  2. Stephen C. Jett. Ancient Ocean Crossings (2017). Comprehensive look at various contact hypotheses.
  3. Kenneth L. Feder. Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries (2010). Debunks claims of Old World contact.
  4. Stephen Williams. Fantastic Archaeology (1991). Reviews archaeological hoaxes and misconceptions.
  5. Robert Silverberg. The Mound Builders (1970). Chronicles the moundbuilder myth and its refutation.
  6. Brigadier G. C. Hamilton. “The Phoenician Transoceanic Voyages” in The Geographical Journal (1934).
  7. Rene J. Joffroy. “Les Phéniciens en Amérique?” in Journal de la Société des Américanistes (1953).
  8. Frederick J. Pohl. Atlantic Crossings Before Columbus (1961). Examines earlier Phoenician speculations.
  9. Patrick H. Garrett. Atlantis and the Giants (1868). Example of 19th-c. diffusionist work.
  10. Philip Beale and Phoenicia Ship Expedition (2019). Documents modern experimental voyages.

Online Resources#

  1. Theory of Phoenician discovery of the Americas – Wikipedia article (2023)
  2. Jason Colavito. “Phoenicians in America” on JasonColavito.com (2012)
  3. Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Contact – Wikipedia (general overview)
  4. Pennelope.uchicago.edu – “Origin of the American Aborigines: A Famous Controversy” (c.1870s)