TL;DR

  • Genetic evidence overwhelmingly supports Native American origins from Northeast Asia via Beringia, with no clear evidence of later Old World contact
  • Polynesian contact with South America around 1200 AD is well-documented through sweet potato cultivation, chicken bones, and genetic evidence
  • Claims of Roman, Egyptian, or Chinese contact lack credible archaeological evidence and are generally considered fringe theories
  • Cultural parallels between Old and New World civilizations are more likely due to independent invention than direct contact
  • Only Norse and Polynesian contacts are widely accepted by scholars as pre-Columbian trans-oceanic interactions

Genetic Evidence of Early Old World–New World Contact#

Modern genetic studies of Native American populations overwhelmingly support an origin from Northeast Asia via Beringia, followed by isolation and expansion in the Americas. However, a few unusual lineages in Native DNA have fueled speculation about additional Old World contacts:

1.1 Mitochondrial DNA Haplogroup X in North America

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup X is one of the rare founding lineages in Native Americans, alongside the typical A, B, C, D groups . Haplogroup X is most prevalent in North American tribes around the Great Lakes and interior Canada (e.g. Ojibwa, Sioux, Nuu-chah-nulth, Navajo) , but it is absent in East Asia. Instead, mtDNA X occurs in low frequencies in parts of Europe, the Near East, and Siberia (Altai region) . This unusual distribution led to hypotheses of trans-Atlantic migration or Near Eastern contact in antiquity . Notably, some researchers in the 1990s suggested haplogroup X might indicate a migration of people of “Caucasian” ancestry to North America around the end of the last Ice Age . The Solutrean hypothesis of Stanford and Bradley (proposing that Ice Age Europeans crossed the Atlantic along ice floes and influenced the Clovis culture) embraced haplogroup X as supporting evidence .

Current view: Comprehensive analysis now indicates that Native American X falls into a distinct subclade (X2a) that diverged from Old World X thousands of years ago . Ancient DNA has confirmed haplogroup X2a was present in North America at least ~1,300 years ago and even ~9,000 years ago (Kennewick Man) , long before any known Old World voyages. Crucially, haplogroup X2a has been detected in central Asia: people of the Altai region carry a related X lineage, meaning all five Native founder haplogroups (A, B, C, D, X) co-occur in Siberia . This suggests haplogroup X reached Beringia from an ancestral Eurasian source and was part of the original Ice Age migration into the Americas . Geneticists conclude that X2a arose among Beringian isolated populations ~15–20 kya (kilo-years ago), which explains why it’s confined to the Americas despite being distantly related to Old World haplogroup X . In short, the scholarly consensus is that haplogroup X does not require a trans-Atlantic Bronze Age or Iron Age voyage—it is a minor founding lineage from Siberia/Beringia . The once-theorized link to ancient Hebrew or European travelers (popular in some fringe literature and even Mormon apologetics) finds no support in detailed mtDNA phylogeny .

1.2 Y-Chromosome Haplogroups R1(R1b) in Native Americans

Unlike mtDNA, Y-chromosome lineages in uncontacted indigenous groups are almost entirely haplogroups Q and C, which trace to East Asian origins. A puzzling exception has been reports of Y-haplogroup R1 (especially R1b) at high frequency in certain Native American communities, notably some Algonquian-speaking groups around the Great Lakes. For example, studies have found R1b-M173 in ~79% of Ojibwa males, ~50% of Seminoles, and ~47% of Cherokee, far higher than any other Y-lineage . R1b is common in Western Europe but extremely rare in East Asia, raising the question of how it became so prevalent in these Native groups.

Mainstream explanation: Virtually all geneticists attribute these R1 lineages to post-1492 admixture – i.e. European or African men intermarrying into the tribes . The Ojibwa and neighboring nations had intensive contact with French, British, and Scottish fur traders in the 17th–19th centuries, many of whom took Native wives, introducing European Y-chromosomes. Indeed, detailed subclade analysis shows the R1b types in these tribes match those in Europeans, not an “ancient” unique branch . Additionally, some R1b among Southeastern tribes may trace to African-American admixture during the colonial era (since a minority of West African males carry R1b-V88) . Scholarly literature thus considers Native R1 occurrences as recent gene flow rather than evidence of a prehistoric Atlantic crossing .

It is worth noting that ancient DNA from pre-Columbian male remains (e.g. from the US Southwest, Mexico, etc.) almost invariably shows Y-haplogroups Q or C, not R. One intriguing exception is the 24,000-year-old Siberian “Mal’ta boy” (near Lake Baikal), who had Y-haplogroup R* and whose genome revealed an ancestral affinity to Native Americans. This finding suggests that some ancestors of Native Americans over 20k years ago belonged to haplogroup R, but that lineage did not persist in appreciable frequencies among migrants who crossed into the Americas (likely due to genetic drift). Thus, any genetic “signal” of West Eurasian ancestry in Native Americans (about ~5–20% of Native American genomes) is now understood as originating from that Paleolithic Siberian gene flow, not from medieval Europeans . In summary, despite online speculation about “ancient European” Y-DNA in Native Americans, no credible scholarly evidence supports that haplogroup R1 pre-dated Columbus in these populations – the pattern is fully explained by post-contact admixture, consistent with the historical record .

1.3 Other Notable Genetic Clues • Population “Y” and Australasian DNA: In 2015, researchers reported a mysterious minor ancestry (~2%) in some Amazonian tribes (Suruí, Karitiana) that is statistically related to Australasian/Melanesian populations . They dubbed this lineage “Population Y” (for Ypykuéra, “ancestor” in Tupi) and hypothesize it derives from a very early migration separate from the main Siberian-derived founders . One theory is that a group related to Australo-Melanesians may have migrated along the Pacific or Bering coast ~15,000+ years ago. While fascinating, this does not imply recent contact – it likely reflects deep prehistoric population structure and remains an area of active research (with some later studies questioning the interpretation). • Viking/Norse Contact: Norse explorers reached Greenland and Newfoundland (c. 1000 AD). Genetically, they left little trace in Native communities. One intriguing find is that an Icelandic family line carries a unique mtDNA (C1e) of probable Native American origin, presumed to descend from a Native woman brought to Iceland in the Viking age. This is a one-way gene flow (America-to-Europe) example, and it appears isolated.

Overall, genetic evidence for pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact (beyond the known Arctic/Norse cases) is scant. The unusual haplogroups (X, and R in some modern tribes) initially stirred debate, but are now explained within the framework of Beringian migration or post-1492 admixture. Modern genomic studies consistently find that the primary gene pool of indigenous Americans formed from Northeast Asians, with a small Ancient North Eurasian contribution – and they do not require any later Old World inputs .

Austronesian (Polynesian) Contact with South America#

One of the most widely accepted pre-Columbian contacts is that between Polynesians (Austronesian sailors) and the Pacific coast of South America, roughly 700–800 years ago. Multiple lines of evidence – botanical, linguistic, cultural, and genetic – point to brief encounters between these populations: • Sweet Potato (Ipomoea batatas) Diffusion: The clearest evidence is the sweet potato, a crop of South American origin that was present across Polynesia centuries before Columbus. Sweet potato (known as kūmara in Polynesia) was being grown in central Polynesia by ~1000–1100 AD , with the earliest archaeological remains dated on Mangaia (Cook Islands) to ~AD 1000 . By the time of first European contact, Polynesians from Hawaii to New Zealand had long cultivated it as a staple. The Polynesian word for sweet potato (kumara or kumala) closely resembles terms in Andean or coastal South American languages – for example, kumara in Quechua/Aymara. This shared vocabulary strongly suggests Polynesians obtained sweet potato directly from Amerindians . Natural dispersal (e.g. floating seeds) is considered unlikely for sweet potato, especially given the intentional cultivation and specific naming. The prevailing theory is that Polynesian voyagers reached the Pacific coast of South America (likely present-day Colombia, Ecuador or Peru/Chile), obtained the tuber and spread it westward . The tripartite hypothesis in ethnobotany holds that an initial kumara lineage was brought from South America to Polynesia ~1000 AD, while later Spanish introductions in the 1500s added other varieties . • Polynesian Chickens in Chile: Another piece of evidence is the presence of chickens in pre-Columbian South America. Chickens are not native to the Americas; European explorers introduced them in the 1500s. However, excavations at El Arenal on the Chilean coast uncovered chicken bones in layers dated to ~AD 1300 (i.e. before Spanish arrival) . DNA analysis of these ancient chicken bones showed they carried a genetic signature matching chickens from Polynesia, not the breeds later brought by Europeans . In other words, it appears that Polynesians brought chickens to South America around the 13th century . This finding, first reported by Storey et al. (2007), was hailed as “conclusive evidence for prehistoric Polynesian contact” . Some subsequent researchers questioned whether the bones might date from after 1492 or if the DNA could be contaminated, but a 2014 reanalysis found no evidence against the Polynesian introduction and reaffirmed that the chicken haplotype predates European contact . While still debated, the balance of evidence supports that chickens were indeed transferred by Polynesians. • Genomic Evidence of Human Contact: The strongest confirmation came in 2020, when a team of geneticists published a study of DNA from Polynesians and coastal South Americans. They found identical-by-descent DNA segments indicating that people from Colombia and people from several Polynesian islands shared common ancestors around 800 years ago . The analysis showed a single contact event ~AD 1200 in which Native American individuals (likely from what is now Colombia) mixed with Polynesians . The researchers concluded that a band of Polynesian voyagers landed on the South American coast – probably in Colombia – and interbred with local natives, bringing some of them (or at least their DNA) back into Polynesia . This genomic study definitively settles the long debate by providing “conclusive scientific evidence” of Polynesian–Amerindian contact before European arrival . Notably, it aligns with the sweet potato timeline and suggests the initial encounter was in northern South America (consistent with the kumara word’s distribution) . • Linguistic and Cultural Signals: Apart from the shared word for sweet potato, there are hints of other cultural exchange. Some Mapuche (Chile) words for boat or fishnet may resemble Polynesian terms, and early Spanish explorers noted Pacific-style sewn-plank canoes in California which some anthropologists attributed to a Polynesian influence around the 5th century AD (though this remains speculative). Polynesian oral history speaks of long voyages eastward, and one Easter Island legend mentions a land called Te Pito O Te Henua possibly referring to another landmass. Additionally, the presence of the bottle gourd in prehistoric South America and Polynesia has been investigated – though bottle gourd likely drifted across oceans naturally much earlier, its ubiquity in Polynesia and the Americas is another Old World-New World botanical link.

In summary, the Polynesian contact hypothesis is widely accepted in academia today, thanks to multidisciplinary evidence. It is now established that Polynesians not only reached as far east as Rapa Nui (Easter Island) but also encountered South American peoples around 1200 AD, leaving tangible legacies: the sweet potato cultivation in Polynesia, chickens in Chile, and detectable Native American ancestry in eastern Polynesians . This constitutes a remarkable chapter of trans-oceanic interaction well before Columbus.

Debated Artifact Finds (OOPArts) in the Americas#

Over the years, there have been numerous claims of out-of-place artifacts (OOPArts) suggesting Old World visits to the Americas. Here we list several notable cases, describe the “evidence,” and note their status in scholarly eyes: • Bat Creek Stone (Tennessee): Discovered in 1889 in a Native American burial mound in Tennessee, this small stone bears an inscription that was long thought to be Cherokee syllabary. In 1971, scholar Cyrus Gordon identified the script as Paleo-Hebrew (ancient Hebrew), reading it as “for Judea” and dating it to the 1st–2nd century AD . If genuine, this would imply a Roman-era Jewish presence in eastern North America. Supporters point to a radiocarbon date of ~32–769 AD on associated wood and argue the letters, when inverted, clearly match Paleo-Hebrew rather than Cherokee . However, mainstream archaeologists suspect a hoax. The context of the find is dubious: the dig was led by a Smithsonian assistant, John Emmert, who worked alone and may have planted the stone . Crucially, researchers have shown the Bat Creek inscription closely matches an illustration from an 1870 Masonic reference book (which depicted an ancient Hebrew phrase) . This suggests Emmert (or another 19th-century person) copied it, creating a forgery. Semitic language experts also note anomalies in the lettering that indicate an imperfect modern carving rather than a genuinely ancient script . By the late 1800s even Cyrus Thomas of the Smithsonian had doubts about its authenticity . Current status: The Bat Creek Stone is considered a 19th-century fraud by most scholars . While fringe literature still cites it as proof of “Hebrews in America,” peer-reviewed analysis (Mainfort & Kwas 1991, 2004) thoroughly debunked it, and the Smithsonian regards it as a likely hoax . • Los Lunas Decalogue Stone (New Mexico): A large boulder on Hidden Mountain, near Los Lunas, NM, bears an inscription of the Ten Commandments in a form of Paleo-Hebrew. The text was noticed by locals by the 1930s (with unverified claims it existed in the 1880s) . Advocates argue the weathering and lichens suggest great age, positing an ancient Jewish or Phoenician presence in the Southwest. However, no archaeological context exists (it’s a lone inscription; no other artifacts were found in situ). Scholars overwhelmingly consider the Los Lunas stone a modern hoax . Paleo-Hebrew was known to scholars by the 1870s, so a clever hoaxer in the late 19th or early 20th century could have carved it . Notably, archaeologist Frank Hibben, who popularized it, had a history of fabricating data in other cases , undermining his credibility. No peer-reviewed study supports its authenticity, and it is often lumped with other “Epigraphic Society” curiosities. Status: Dismissed by academia as a likely modern forgery . It remains a roadside oddity, but no credible evidence ties it to a real pre-Columbian Semitic expedition. • “Roman Coins” in the Americas: Scattered reports have claimed Roman-era coins found in American soil: • In the 1920s, reportedly, a farmer in Venezuela found a handful of Roman coins. Daniel Boorstin’s The Discoverers mentions this, speculating a Roman ship might have drifted to the New World. However, such coins more likely came via collectors or as ballast on Spanish ships . No documented stratified context exists – these coins were stray finds with no archaeological control, so scholars suspect modern losses (e.g. a coin collector dropping them). • Similarly, Roman or Greek coins have been allegedly found in Texas, Maine, and elsewhere, but upon investigation all are either unsubstantiated or clearly intrusive (the Maine “Phoenician” coin turned out to be a Norse penny from the 11th century, actually authentic Norse evidence!). In general, experts note that Roman coins are common artifacts easily transported or misidentified, and none discovered in the Americas have reliable provenance beyond the colonial era . • A more intriguing case is the discovery of Roman-style amphorae off the coast of Brazil (Guanabara Bay) in 1982. Underwater archaeologists found jars resembling 3rd-century Roman amphorae. While this raised eyebrows, no shipwreck was excavated systematically. It’s possible a Portuguese ship once carried these as curios, or they drifted from elsewhere. The Brazilian government eventually halted investigation to avoid wild claims. No scholarly consensus exists, but the leaning is that these finds are not evidence of a Roman voyage, just anomalies. • Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca Head (Mexico): In 1933, archaeologist José García Payón excavated a burial at Calixtlahuaca (Toluca Valley, central Mexico) dated ~1476–1510 AD. Among the offerings was a small terracotta head with a beard and European features . Two art experts (Heine-Geldern and Andreae) examined it and remarked it strongly resembled Roman 2nd-century AD art . If that piece truly was buried pre-Spanish conquest, it implies a Roman artifact somehow reached Aztec-era Mexico. However, doubts persist. One story (recounted by Michael E. Smith) is that a student working with Payón, as a prank, planted a Roman head from a curator’s collection in the dig . While unproven, this anecdote reflects the skepticism of scholars. The context is hard to verify (the published report was decades later). Smith investigated and could not confirm the hoax, leaving a slim possibility it’s genuine . Status: Debated. Most lean toward hoax or intrusive object, but a few concede it could be authentic. As of now, mainstream opinion does not accept it as proof of Roman contact, pending further evidence. • Other Artifacts and Inscriptions: Many other OOPArts have been touted, but none have held up under scrutiny: • The Newark Holy Stones (Ohio) – Hebrew-inscribed tablets “found” in 1860s Adena mounds – were immediately suspected as forgeries by the finders (and are now thought to be a hoax to support Lost Tribes theories). • The Paraíba Inscription (Brazil, 1872) – a Phoenician text allegedly found on a stone slab – was later confessed as a hoax by the Brazilian who “discovered” it. • The Tucson Lead Artifacts (Arizona) – lead crosses and objects with Latin, Hebrew, and Christian symbols found in the 1920s – are widely considered a spurious creation (perhaps by local amateurs), given their bizarre mix of languages and lack of context. • Alleged ancient Chinese writings on rocks in California or Ogham inscriptions in West Virginia have been examined by qualified epigraphers and determined to be natural scratches or wishful readings. • A sensational claim of an Egyptian hieroglyphic temple in the Grand Canyon (reported in a 1909 newspaper) is pure folklore – no evidence has ever surfaced.

In sum, no out-of-place artifact has yet passed the rigorous tests of authenticity and context to be accepted as proof of trans-oceanic contact. The Bat Creek and Los Lunas inscriptions, and similar “Old World texts” on American stones, are considered modern frauds or mistakes . Isolated Old World objects in American sites are either intrusive (brought by later Europeans) or unproven finds that languish in a gray area. Mainstream archaeology remains unconvinced by any OOPArt so far – each one, upon closer inspection, has “too many questions” to overturn the prevailing model that, aside from Norse and Polynesian forays, the Americas saw no trans-oceanic visitors between the end of the Ice Age and 1492.

Cultural and Artistic Parallels Between Old and New Worlds#

Beyond physical artifacts, diffusionist authors have long pointed to similarities in culture, art, and architecture between the Old World and pre-Columbian civilizations. They argue these parallels are evidence of contact, whereas skeptics attribute them to independent invention or convergent evolution. Key areas of comparison include: • Monumental Architecture (Pyramids and Temples): Both Mesoamerica and the Old World (Egypt, Mesopotamia, India) built pyramidal structures. For example, Maya and Aztec step-pyramids resemble (in form) Egyptian pyramids or Mesopotamian ziggurats – all are massive tiered edifices. Diffusion proponents like Ivan Van Sertima even suggested that Mesoamerican pyramids and mummification were inspired by Egyptian examples brought by voyaging Africans . However, archaeologists note fundamental differences: Mesoamerican pyramids were usually temples on stepped platforms (often rebuilt repeatedly), whereas Egyptian pyramids were smooth-sided tombs; they arose in different contexts and eras. Most scholars see these as independent inventions addressing universal engineering challenges in early complex societies (stacking structures high). There are also pyramid-like mounds in places like Indonesia and Cambodia – again independent. No unequivocal stylistic or engineering link connects American pyramids to a specific Old World prototype. Claims that specific motifs (e.g. winged sun disc symbols, or alignment methods) are shared remain speculative. Thus, while pyramid shapes are superficially similar across many cultures, no scholarly consensus supports direct diffusion; the parallels are considered coincidental or resulting from analogous needs (ceremonial high platforms, etc.). • Board Games (Patolli and Pachisi): One striking parallel often cited is between the Aztec game Patolli and the Indian game Pachisi. Both are gambling board games played on a cruciform (cross-shaped) board, with pebbles or beans as markers, and dice (or bean dice) to move pieces. In fact, 19th-century anthropologist E.B. Tylor, upon learning of Patolli, immediately noted it “highly similar” to Pachisi and suggested this might hint at contact between Asia and Mesoamerica . Indeed, Patolli was extremely popular in central Mexico at conquest, and Pachisi (also called “chaupar” or later commercialized as Parcheesi) was an ancient game in India. However, modern experts tend to favor independent development. The rules and some details differ, and cross-shaped race games can arise naturally from simpler dice games. A comprehensive analysis by Erasmus (1950) concluded the resemblance is likely coincidental, given the lack of any other cultural link . In other words, while the visual similarity is real (see figure comparisons) , there is no evidence of transmission. Scholars point out that if such a game had been transmitted, one might expect other Indian cultural elements in Mesoamerica (or vice versa) which are absent . Thus this parallel remains an alluring curiosity. It is debated: diffusionists cite it as a key hint, but the prevailing view is that human inventiveness can produce similar games in isolation (especially given dice games’ limited structural possibilities). • Statuary and Artistic Motifs (e.g. Squatting Figure “Hocker” Pose): Diffusion researchers like Andreas Lommel have identified what they call the “squatting figure” motif – human figures portrayed in a specific squat posture, often associated with ancestor or spirit imagery – appearing in diverse cultures from China and Anatolia to Mesoamerica and the Pacific . Mesoamerican art indeed has many seated or squatting figurines (Classic Veracruz “smiling” figurines, Olmec dwarfs, etc.), sometimes reminiscent of Asian squat guardian statues . Could this indicate a shared origin? Lommel argued that the squatting ancestor-figure icon diffused from the Old World into the New . However, most anthropologists are unconvinced that this particular pose requires historical contact – squatting is a natural human posture, especially in ritual or maternal contexts, so it could easily arise independently. Furthermore, the meaning of the figure may differ: in some cultures a squatting figure represents fertility or earth, in others an ancestor spirit, etc. While it’s intriguing that rock art in Australia, carvings in Neolithic Göbekli Tepe, and motifs in Mesoamerican carvings all feature squatting humanoids , mainstream scholars do not see this as probative evidence of diffusion. It remains a topic occasionally discussed in comparative art forums, but without additional corroborating links (like common stylistic details or associated symbols), the consensus leans to coincidence or very ancient (Paleolithic) shared heritage rather than direct contact. Another often-cited art parallel is the depiction of elephants. Grafton E. Smith in 1924 claimed Maya stelae (e.g. Stela B at Copán) showed elephant-like heads with trunks, implying knowledge of Asian elephants . This was quickly refuted – the “elephants” are now understood to be stylized tapirs, a native animal (with a short proboscis) used in Maya iconography . The elephant hypothesis has been abandoned in scholarship, illustrating that many such art resemblances have mundane explanations. • Symbolic Motifs and Myths: Numerous symbolic parallels have been proposed: • The feathered serpent deity in Mesoamerica (Quetzalcoatl, Kukulcan) compared to dragons or serpent cults in Asia and the Near East. Serpents are common mythological figures worldwide; in the Americas, the feathered or horned serpent could be an independent development. No specific Old World “dragon” myth matches the American context of Quetzalcoatl (a wind god, teacher figure). Most likely, serpent worship arose independently in multiple cultures. • Sun worship and cosmic imagery: Both Mesoamericans and ancient Egyptians had solar deities and solar calendars; both Indians and Maya revered a sacred tree (world tree vs. Kalpavriksha). Such motifs (sun, tree of life, etc.) are so widespread that diffusion is hard to demonstrate. They may reflect convergent religious themes addressing universal human experiences (the sun’s importance, the idea of an axis mundi tree). • Swastika-like symbols: The swastika (a hooked cross) appears in some Native American art (e.g. in Southwest tribal designs) and across Eurasia since the Bronze Age. It’s conceivable this symbol was carried by the earliest Paleo-Indians from Siberia (where it existed in antiquity) – or it could have been invented independently as a geometric motif. There’s no evidence of a first-millennium AD introduction of the swastika into America; any similarity is likely either very ancient or coincidental. • Games and rituals: The Mesoamerican ballgame has been likened to sports in Asia or the Mediterranean (e.g. some have drawn analogy to Greek episkyros or Chinese football), but the parallel is tenuous – rubber balls and ballcourts with hoops were unique to Mesoamerica.

In general, cultural parallels are intriguing but not considered proof of contact unless accompanied by specific transmissions (such as a loanword, a transplanted species, or a distinctive technology). Scholars apply the comparative method carefully: for example, the resemblance of Patolli to Pachisi was noted in the 19th century, but without any additional Indian influence in Mexico it remains an isolated coincidence . Likewise, claims that Hindu or Buddhist iconography influenced Maya art (once popular among some early 20th c. writers) have not held up – detailed examinations show the motifs evolved within their local contexts. The trend in academia is to explain such similarities via human universals or parallel invention, resorting to diffusion only when corroborated by direct evidence. Thus, while semi-scholarly enthusiasts might compile long lists of Old/New World parallels, the current scholarly stance is generally that these do not demonstrate contact. Only in cases like the sweet potato (where a physical organism and word were shared) or specific shared technology (like sewn-plank canoes in California potentially from Polynesia) does a consensus lean toward actual contact.

Forum and Blog Discourse: Lesser-Known and Fringe Claims#

Outside academic journals, various forums, blogs, and independent researchers actively discuss pre-Columbian contact theories. These venues sometimes surface lesser-known claims or new evidence not yet in scholarly literature. A few examples gaining semi-scholarly attention: • African Presence in Mesoamerica (Olmec “Negroid” Heads): On forums and blogs inspired by Ivan Van Sertima’s work, one frequently sees the claim that the Olmec civilization (1200–400 BCE in Mexico) was influenced by West Africans. The giant Olmec stone heads have facial features that some early observers (starting with José Melgar in 1860s) thought looked African . Van Sertima’s 1976 book They Came Before Columbus argued that Nubian or Malian sailors reached the Gulf of Mexico around 800 BCE, contributing to pyramid building, mummification, and even introducing the calendar to Mesoamerica . This theory was discussed in a 1997 volume of Current Anthropology, where multiple experts refuted it point by point. Mainstream archaeologists note that Olmec heads portray a range of local facial features (likely those of robust Gulf Coast chiefs) and that no Old World artifacts or genes have been found in Olmec contexts. The plants Van Sertima claimed Africans introduced (e.g. banana, cotton) have been shown to either be native American species or brought later by Europeans . Consequently, scholarly consensus rejects African contact; these ideas are labeled pseudoarchaeology . However, on websites like Reddit or historical forums, enthusiasts still debate this, sometimes citing new “finds” (which typically do not stand up to peer review). • Egyptian “Cocaine Mummies” (trans-Atlantic plant trade): A famous controversy emerged in the 1990s when German chemists (Balabanova et al.) reported that some ancient Egyptian mummies contained residues of nicotine and cocaine – compounds thought to be found only in New World plants (tobacco, coca) before Columbus. This led to sensational speculation that Egyptians had trading contacts with the Americas (bringing back coca leaves, etc.). The scholarly response has been skeptical: alternative explanations include post-excavation contamination, misidentified compounds, or Old World sources of similar alkaloids (nicotine can come from Old World species like nightshades; cocaine is trickier, but there are unrelated plants with similar chemicals). No corroborating evidence of Egyptian contact (no American crops in Egyptian tombs, no Egyptian artifacts in America) has emerged. While a few fringe authors propose an ancient trans-Atlantic voyage to explain the drugs, most scientists remain unconvinced. The “cocaine mummies” case illustrates how an anomaly in scientific data can ignite contact hypotheses on blogs, but until it is replicated and supported by archaeology, it stays on the fringe. Recent attempts to reproduce the findings have been mixed, and many suspect laboratory contamination as the culprit. Thus, it’s a tantalizing but unresolved point – often cited on forums as “evidence” but not accepted in scholarly literature. • Chinese Voyages to the Americas: Popularized by Gavin Menzies’ book 1421: The Year China Discovered America, this claim asserts that Ming-dynasty Chinese fleets reached the Americas (and world over) in the early 15th century. On many online forums one will encounter references to supposed Chinese anchor stones off California, alleged Chinese maps depicting America, or even claims that the Olmec were Chinese sailors. Mainstream historians have thoroughly debunked Menzies’ thesis – there is no historical record in Chinese archives of such voyages beyond known routes, and no Chinese artifacts have been found in pre-Columbian contexts in America. Some maps turned out to be forgeries or misinterpreted later copies. Nevertheless, the idea has traction in amateur circles. Semi-scholarly blog discussions sometimes mention the California stone anchors: indeed, large stones with holes (resembling Chinese ship anchors) were found off Palos Verdes, CA. Initially thought to be from junks of the 1800s, a few speculated they could be much older – but analysis suggests they are likely 19th-century fishing boat anchors left by Chinese immigrants, not Zheng He’s 15th-century fleet. Overall, while “Chinese discovered America” makes for exciting debate online, academic historians and archaeologists do not accept it due to the lack of credible supporting evidence. • Medieval Europeans (Irish, Welsh, Knights Templar, etc.): Folklore abounds of Celtic monks or Welsh princes sailing to America. The legend of Prince Madoc (a Welsh prince who around 1170 AD supposedly landed in Alabama) was popularized in the 18th–19th centuries, and even President Thomas Jefferson tasked Lewis and Clark to look for Welsh-speaking Indians. No trace of Madoc was ever found; the story is now regarded as myth. Similarly, tales of Irish monk St. Brendan reaching North America (~6th century) are unproven, though taken seriously by some historians as possibilities. A Norse saga also mentions an Irish presence in Iceland pre-Norse. Yet, archaeologically, apart from the confirmed Norse sites, we have no physical evidence of European arrival earlier than Columbus. That doesn’t stop modern forums from speculating about “Templar” carvings (e.g. the Westford Knight carving in Massachusetts, which scholars believe is 19th-century, not a 14th-century Templar grave), or about supposed medieval European heraldry on petroglyphs (all unsubstantiated). These remain firmly in the realm of legend and speculative enthusiasm. • Pre-Columbian Asians in the Americas (aside from Polynesians): Some blogs discuss possible trans-Pacific drifts or voyages beyond Polynesia. One example discussed is the resemblance of early pottery in the Valdivia culture of Ecuador (c. 3000 BC) to Japanese Jomon pottery. Smithsonian archaeologist Betty Meggers controversially proposed in the 1960s that Japanese fishermen may have drifted to Ecuador, bringing pottery skills. While this was a serious academic theory for a time, it has since been largely rejected – differences outweigh similarities, and the timeline doesn’t necessitate contact (each could have developed pottery independently). Nonetheless, the idea of Jomon-Valdivia contact is still mentioned in some forums as a real possibility, illustrating how an academic hypothesis can trickle into popular discourse even after being refuted. • Maize in Ancient India (and vice versa): In the late 20th century, botanist Carl Johannessen claimed that carvings at the 12th-century Hoysala temple at Somnathpur, India depict maize ears – a New World crop . He published an article in 1989 arguing this as evidence maize reached India before Columbus. This sparked debate in niche circles about trans-oceanic crop exchange. Indian scholars responded by pointing out the carved “corn” is stylized or could be a native plant or a mythical fruit (makara or “muktaphala”) adorned with jewels . Most botanists remain unconvinced that maize was present in Old World art pre-1492; the current belief is that maize was introduced to Asia by the Portuguese in the 16th century. Johannessen’s work is often cited on diffusionist websites as “proof,” but it hasn’t been accepted by the broader academic community, which finds the identification doubtful . This example shows how forum debates can latch onto a very specific claim (temple carvings) that mainstream scholars consider resolved (as non-maize).

In forums like Reddit’s r/AskHistorians or specialized groups, knowledgeable enthusiasts and professionals often engage, which helps correct some misinformation. For instance, discussions on haplogroup X or Solutrean hypothesis in genetics forums usually conclude that the Beringian explanation fits best, referencing recent papers (as we saw above) . Similarly, archaeology hobbyists examining the Los Lunas stone or Newark stones often come to accept the hoax evidence once presented with the facts. However, some blogs with a bias (e.g. hyper-diffusionist or nationalist agendas) continue to promote these fringe ideas even without scholarly backing.

FAQ#

Q: What is the strongest evidence for pre-Columbian contact between the Americas and other continents?
A: The most compelling evidence comes from Polynesian contact with South America around 1200 AD, supported by sweet potato cultivation, chicken bones with Polynesian DNA, and genetic evidence of Native American ancestry in Polynesians.

Q: Why do scholars reject most claims of ancient trans-oceanic contact?
A: Claims typically lack multiple lines of evidence (archaeological, genetic, and historical) that would be expected from sustained contact, and many proposed artifacts have been shown to be hoaxes or misinterpretations.

Q: How do genetic studies help evaluate contact theories?
A: Modern genetic analysis can identify when and where populations mixed, with Native American DNA showing clear Beringian origins and no evidence of significant Old World admixture before 1492 (except for known Norse and Polynesian contacts).

Sources#

  1. Brown et al., “mtDNA Haplogroup X: An Ancient Link between Europe/Western Asia and North America?”, American Journal of Human Genetics 63:1852-1861 (1998).
  2. Smith et al., “Haplogroup X Confirmed in Prehistoric North America”, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 119:84–86 (2002).
  3. Malhi et al., “Distribution of mtDNA haplogroup X among Native North Americans”, American Journal of Physical Anthropology (2001).
  4. McCulloch, J.H. “The Bat Creek Stone” (2010), online at Ohio State University.
  5. Mainfort, R. & Kwas, M. “The Bat Creek Stone Revisited: A Fraud Exposed”, Tennessee Anthropologist 16(1) (2001) and American Antiquity 69(4) (2004).
  6. Wikipedia: “Los Lunas Decalogue Stone” (accessed 2025).
  7. Armitage, Hanae. “Polynesians, Native Americans made contact before European arrival, genetic study finds” – Stanford Medicine News (July 2020).
  8. Ioannidis et al., “Native American gene flow into Polynesia predating Easter Island”, Nature 585: 80–86 (2020).
  9. Storey et al., “Radiocarbon and DNA evidence for a pre-Columbian introduction of Polynesian chickens to Chile”, PNAS 104(25):10335–39 (2007).
  10. Wikipedia: “Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories” – sections on Polynesian contact, Claims of Indian contact, African contact (accessed 2025).
  11. Soemers, D. et al., “Report on the Digital Ludeme Project” (2019) – Discussion of Pachisi/Patolli similarity.
  12. Winters, Clyde. “Is Native American R Y-Chromosome of African Origin?”, Current Research Journal of Biological Sciences 3(6): 555-558 (2011).
  13. Van Sertima, Ivan. They Came Before Columbus, Random House, 1976.
  14. Balabanova, S. et al., “First Identification of Drugs in Egyptian Mummies”, Naturwissenschaften 79:358 (1992).
  15. Menzies, Gavin. 1421: The Year China Discovered America, HarperCollins, 2002.
  16. Johannessen, C. & Parker, A. “Maize Ears Sculptured in 12th and 13th Century A.D. India as Indicators of Pre-Columbian Diffusion”, Economic Botany 43(2): 164–180 (1989).
  17. Meggers, Betty. “Jomon Potterymaking: A Case of Prehistoric Parallelism”, Science 165(3893): 89-91 (1969).
  18. Various discussion threads on Sci.archaeology and Reddit (1995–2023).