Most historically significant naval vessel...?

squeakie wrote:

searat12 wrote: Well, the Viking longship was not an American boat, but a European one, so should not count.  Also, I think you will find the Native Americans here in America by at least 14,000 years ago (some say 20,000), and that significantly predates any Chinese arrivals (I have heard some claims of stray Chinese ships on the West coast perhaps as early as 500 AD, but nothing before that, and of course, the really significant Chinese explorers weren't until the 15th century AD, and I haven't heard any actual evidence of them coming East, only to India, Africa, etc..... National Geographic has said many times that the first (and oldest) setlements in North America are Chinese, and predate the American Indian by hundreds of years. There were Chinese settelments all over the west coast. I know that in these days it's not politically correct, but this has been proven out many times over.     In the part of the country I live in there are some of the oldest settlements (Native American) anywhere, and rarely does one go back 5K years. But there are a small handfull that are about 10k years old. gary

Well, as someone with a degree in Anthropology (which I have), I can tell you that Native Americans/Indians/Paleoindians, etc, have been living happily in North and South America since at least the end of the last Ice Age 15-20,000 BP.  They are also the reason why there are no mammoths, giant ground sloths, and all the other Pleistocene megafauna that rambled around North and South America.  Yes, there is a bit of evidence that some stray Chinese ships made it to North America (evidence for which as last I can recall, consisting of a few large circular stone anchors that have been discovered), some of which might go back as old as a thousand years (it is difficult to date a piece of stone), but I haven't heard anything about any permanent settlements, or regular communication with China.  Note, I am not saying the Paleoindians made anything like settlements, as they were hunter-gatherers and constantly on the move.  But I have personally assisted in the excavation of sites in Wyoming that go back 10,000 years or more (mammoth kill and prehistoric buffalo jump sites), and certainly Native Americans had built significant cities with more than a million inhabitants at Teotihuacan and elsewhere in Mexico and Central America more than 2,000 years ago........

squeakie wrote:

searat12 wrote: Well, the Viking longship was not an American boat, but a European one, so should not count.  Also, I think you will find the Native Americans here in America by at least 14,000 years ago (some say 20,000), and that significantly predates any Chinese arrivals (I have heard some claims of stray Chinese ships on the West coast perhaps as early as 500 AD, but nothing before that, and of course, the really significant Chinese explorers weren't until the 15th century AD, and I haven't heard any actual evidence of them coming East, only to India, Africa, etc..... National Geographic has said many times that the first (and oldest) setlements in North America are Chinese, and predate the American Indian by hundreds of years. There were Chinese settelments all over the west coast. I know that in these days it's not politically correct, but this has been proven out many times over.

Rest assured that is not so.   The first firm evidence of American Indians settlement in west coast of North America dates to around 11,000 years ago, which predate the first hint of any Chinese civilization in Asia by 7000 years.  

With the barely possible exception of a few walled encampments of uncertain affinity in the near and middle east, there were nothing that could by any stretch be called "civilization" anywhere on earth when American Indians are first known to have settled here.   All the great civilizations of the old world, including those of the Chinese, arose far, far, far more recently than the peopleing of the new world.    With the exception of south pacific, for all practical purposes the entire world was already fully populated when the first urban civilizations arose.   

Oldest human remains in North America in Mexico:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2538323.stm

Oldest human traces in North America:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/03/ST2008040302198.html

And there are a variety of sites that have tools indicating ages possibly as old as 20,000 years ago.......

As for the Chinese, there seems to be indications that Chinese Buddhist missionaries may have come to the West coast of America as early as 500 AD (but there is no firm evidence, and little evidence that they had much impact), though most credit the possibility as being considerably later (1421)...

I was actually referring to the earliest known settlement actually on the west coast, presumably where the Chinese would settle if they did come here first.    

The theory of how America was peopled is clearly in flux.    The Clovis first theory that has been  the accepted model for about 40 years is clearly crumbling.    There are different lines of evidence, some as dramatic as they are tentative.     For example, there are genetic results suggestive of the possibility that ancesters Native Americans had been separated from gene pool in Asia as early as 35,000 years ago.     The question is where did the ancester of the native Americans spend the next 20,000 years that kept them so well isolated?   Were they still in Asia or did they already come to North America?   One theory is the separation was caused by migration to North American and that they spent the next 20,000 years in North America.    Just where is not known.   Another suggested they became isolated but were still in Northern Asia.  Again just where is not known.     There is also linguistic and genetic evidence to suggest that although Native Americans mostly descended from the same group that separated from the rest of Asian gene pool 35,000 years ago, they subsequently developed into 3 distinct genetic groups, and populated North and South America in 3 pulses.   The early separation theory then postulate that the original group, after separating from Asian gene pool 35,000 years ago remained confined for about 20,000 years.   Then sometime around 15,000 years ago something happened and one group broke out the confined area where they've lived for 20,000 years and quickly populated all of the American continent down to Terra Del Freugo.   About 8000 years ago another group, originating from the same confined area, broke out again, moved down the American south west and populated much of American south west, displacing some of the already established population as they went, establishing an genetically and linguistically related but distinct group still recognizable.   Finally maybe 2-3000 years ago yet a third group again broke out of the original area and populated much of Northern Canada, Greenland and possibly even back to Siberia, resulting in a third related yet distinct group amongst the American Indian population.

The only things known for certain are:   What are now American Indians originally descended from a very small group of no more than a few hundred individuals.   The genetic variation amongst American indians is far smaller than the genetic variation that exists among the population of the old world, which is why they were so much more susceptible to old world diseases after Colombus first visited then the old world people were to new world diseases.   They probably descended from people related to Northern Asians but had been genetically separated from people of Northern Asia now a very long time ago, much earlier then the end of last ice age.     The American Indian populations of North and South America didn't all arrive near their current locations in one single great migration thrust.   There were at least 3 as told by linguistic evidence.    Based on linguistic variations, these three groups were each separated from the others by a long time as well.

As for Chinese migration to North America, I think there is no evidence.    The most charitable thing that can be said for this theory is no evidence decisively precludes it, which is different from saying evidence point suggestively to it.   Not every stone with a hole in the middle is a Chinese anchor.   A mill stone can also have a hole in the middle, as can a soap stone from which the American Indians had manufactuered a soap stone bowl.   Not every passage in an ancient Chinese book of proses that could be made to fit the scenario of American west is actually inspired by direct experience with the scenary of American west.   Some could really be fanciful.   

That is not to say no Chinese junk blown off course could have shipwrecked on the American coast, or that no Chinese ship wrecked survivor could have lived for a few years in America, or even have made use of local material to build another ship to bring them back to China.   It could have happened, but there is no real evidence.  Everything looks blue when one wears blue glasses.   But take it off and most things are not blue.

Even though this is taking this thread even more off-topic, as a biological anthropologist/osteologist, I can't resist the urge to chime in...

As Chuck has already said, the one real thing we can say with certainty about the peopling of the New World is that we don't understand it nearly as well as we thought we did, even 10 or 15 years ago.  Clovis First is, IMHO, dead...  Still exactly how and when the first people came to be in the New World, and if where they settled, is a complex question.  Is Tom Dillahey correct down at Monte Verde, and people were in South American 25,000 years ago?  How about Jim Adavasio and Meadowcroft Rockshelter in PA?  Could people have been in the Northeast 20+ thousand years ago, before an ice-free corridor would have allowed migration from what is, today, Alaska?  Really all intriguing questions...

One thing that we can say is, when considering the earliest skeletal material (of which there really isn't that much, so conclusions are tentative) they are quite distinct from what we consider to be the 'Native Americans' of the post-Contact period (one reason why the 'Kenniwick Man' skeleton is so remarkable and controversial).  Undoubtedly, the earliest migrants were from Asia (as intriguing as it may be, and as provokative as it might also be, I'm not sold on the 'Solutrean' link between Europe and the Eastern US).

As far as the Chinese being here 'first' or setting up the first 'settlement', from what I have read (and I will admit it is limited) I am also not convinced.  I know that book came out a few years back, I think it was something like 1442, The Year the Chinese Discovered America, but most of what I have seen suggests there are some pretty serious flaws in the arguments presented and conclusions are reached on less than impirical evidence.  And, as someone esle mentioned, if the Chinese did happen to get here, even well before Columbus, their impact was minimal.  The Basques on the other hand.....  well, y'all probably aren't interested in stories about salted cod, so I'll spare you the details....

Chuck Fan wrote:

I was actually referring to the earliest known settlement actually on the west coast, presumably where the Chinese would settle if they did come here first.     The theory of how America was peopled is clearly in flux.    The Clovis first theory that has been  the accepted model for about 40 years is clearly crumbling.    There are different lines of evidence, some as dramatic as they are tentative.     For example, there are genetic results suggestive of the possibility that ancesters Native Americans had been separated from gene pool in Asia as early as 35,000 years ago.     The question is where did the ancester of the native Americans spend the next 20,000 years that kept them so well isolated?   Were they still in Asia or did they already come to North America?   One theory is the separation was caused by migration to North American and that they spent the next 20,000 years in North America.    Just where is not known.   Another suggested they became isolated but were still in Northern Asia.  Again just where is not known.     There is also linguistic and genetic evidence to suggest that although Native Americans mostly descended from the same group that separated from the rest of Asian gene pool 35,000 years ago, they subsequently developed into 3 distinct genetic groups, and populated North and South America in 3 pulses.   The early separation theory then postulate that the original group, after separating from Asian gene pool 35,000 years ago remained confined for about 20,000 years.   Then sometime around 15,000 years ago something happened and one group broke out the confined area where they've lived for 20,000 years and quickly populated all of the American continent down to Terra Del Freugo.   About 8000 years ago another group, originating from the same confined area, broke out again, moved down the American south west and populated much of American south west, displacing some of the already established population as they went, establishing an genetically and linguistically related but distinct group still recognizable.   Finally maybe 2-3000 years ago yet a third group again broke out of the original area and populated much of Northern Canada, Greenland and possibly even back to Siberia, resulting in a third related yet distinct group amongst the American Indian population. The only things known for certain are:   What are now American Indians originally descended from a very small group of no more than a few hundred individuals.   The genetic variation amongst American indians is far smaller than the genetic variation that exists among the population of the old world, which is why they were so much more susceptible to old world diseases after Colombus first visited then the old world people were to new world diseases.   They probably descended from people related to Northern Asians but had been genetically separated from people of Northern Asia now a very long time ago, much earlier then the end of last ice age.     The American Indian populations of North and South America didn't all arrive near their current locations in one single great migration thrust.   There were at least 3 as told by linguistic evidence.    Based on linguistic variations, these three groups were each separated from the others by a long time as well.   As for Chinese migration to North America, I think there is no evidence.    The most charitable thing that can be said for this theory is no evidence decisively precludes it, which is different from saying evidence point suggestively to it.   Not every stone with a hole in the middle is a Chinese anchor.   A mill stone can also have a hole in the middle, as can a soap stone from which the American Indians had manufactuered a soap stone bowl.   Not every passage in an ancient Chinese book of proses that could be made to fit the scenario of American west is actually inspired by direct experience with the scenary of American west.   Some could really be fanciful.    That is not to say no Chinese junk blown off course could have shipwrecked on the American coast, or that no Chinese ship wrecked survivor could have lived for a few years in America, or even have made use of local material to build another ship to bring them back to China.   It could have happened, but there is no real evidence.  Everything looks blue when one wears blue glasses.   But take it off and most things are not blue.

an interesting post to say the least, and I've got to think on most of it. BUT:

The State of California has found evidence of perminate Chinese settlements that predate any Indian culture in the state. To be exact they have been able to unearth new ones in the last ten years. Now I can't say anything about the State of Washington or even Oregon and for that matter Canada. But the California stuff is not new, and have been published many times over. There's even one idea that "Native Americans" are actually Polynesian. I'll leave that for experts as they look more like Manchurians to me.

   And with matters involving the so called "Native American" there seems to be a constant revisionists history that is full of holes (the latest is with the Cliff Dwellers.) At least in the National Geographic they do publish photos instead of theorys.

gary

squeakie wrote:

an interesting post to say the least, and I've got to think on most of it. BUT: The State of California has found evidence of perminate Chinese settlements that predate any Indian culture in the state. To be exact they have been able to unearth new ones in the last ten years. Now I can't say anything about the State of Washington or even Oregon and for that matter Canada. But the California stuff is not new, and have been published many times over. There's even one idea that "Native Americans" are actually Polynesian. I'll leave that for experts as they look more like Manchurians to me.    And with matters involving the so called "Native American" there seems to be a constant revisionists history that is full of holes (the latest is with the Cliff Dwellers.) At least in the National Geographic they do publish photos instead of theorys. gary

Gary,

Two quick things: first, where has this evidence of 'Chinese' settlement of California been published?  I ask because I am genuinely interested and would like to follow up.  Although I will say, the old idea that Native Americans were/are of Polynesian descent has been largely refuted by genetic evidence...

Second, what revisionist history about the Cliff Dwellers?  I had not been aware that there was a brewing controversy concerning them. 

I certainly have never seen any indication of any evidence, in National Geographic, or anywhere else that suggested Chinese settlement anywhere in the US prior to their importation to help build the railroads in the 19th century.  Yes, as squeekie wrote, there have been several theories floating around that the Chinese could  have reached the new world sometime in the 15th century (certainly their ships were up to it), but if they did, they didn't stay, and based on the mission of the explorers, they would have no reason to return either.  The Emperor's mission was to find out if there was any superior knowledge or technology in the world, and when it was discovered that essentially, there wasn't, the Emperor figured that the only thing that would result from expanded contact with foreigners would be a loss of technology to them, rather than a gain to China, and so all further explorations were cancelled, forbidden, and the ships destroyed in the interests of 'National Security.'

There have also been some theories (and with a lot better evidence) that America may also have been visited, and for a time even settled (or rather, some settlements were established), by the Carthaginians too!  As for linguistics and genetics, this is still very much a developing science, and it is hard to assign definitive dates using it as yet (though it gets better all the time!).  While the ancient human remains found are few and far between, these dates are definitive, as are their racial and DNA footprints.  Does this mean people could not possibly have arrived in America earlier?  Of course not; it just means definitive remains have not yet been found.  Prior to the Mexican findings, the next two oldest human remains are found in Oregon (13,000 years old), and Santa Catalina Island in California (11,500 years old), which is a lot older than any Chinese, or Chinese junks, I do assure you!

bbrowniii wrote:

squeakie wrote: an interesting post to say the least, and I've got to think on most of it. BUT: The State of California has found evidence of perminate Chinese settlements that predate any Indian culture in the state. To be exact they have been able to unearth new ones in the last ten years. Now I can't say anything about the State of Washington or even Oregon and for that matter Canada. But the California stuff is not new, and have been published many times over. There's even one idea that "Native Americans" are actually Polynesian. I'll leave that for experts as they look more like Manchurians to me.    And with matters involving the so called "Native American" there seems to be a constant revisionists history that is full of holes (the latest is with the Cliff Dwellers.) At least in the National Geographic they do publish photos instead of theorys. gary Gary, Two quick things: first, where has this evidence of 'Chinese' settlement of California been published?  I ask because I am genuinely interested and would like to follow up.  Although I will say, the old idea that Native Americans were/are of Polynesian descent has been largely refuted by genetic evidence... Second, what revisionist history about the Cliff Dwellers?  I had not been aware that there was a brewing controversy concerning them.

The "so called" latest Chinese culture finds in the USA  were in the national news a few years back, and I think even National Geographic and others did a page or so about it. The reason I keep refering to the N.G. is that that's about the only journal I've read that would have anything to do with that. Possibly the Smithsonian as well, but nothing recent.

I just made the quip about the Polynesians to point out that there are many ideas; right or wrong.

The Cliff Dwellings are another thing with me. Contrary to what the Navahos and Hopi would like us to believe they were not Navahos, Hopi's, or Apaches. They were their own race and culture. Politically correct or not this has been proven out hundreds of times. But in these times and wanting to appease certain sects they are now considered Hopi even though the Navaho say they're wrong as they're Navaho. Many people thing they are a spin off of the Aztecs that once settled in the area (long before the Indians that we know of today were there). What happened to them one cannot be 100% sure, and why it happened is another thing. They do now know that there was an extremely hard drought that lasted close to thirty years proceeding the ice age of the 16th century (climatologists have confirmed this). But the real mistory is why did they just leave everything behind (food and all) in every site they've uncovered, and at about the same time. I have a close friend who does work for the Fed on the side and has access to the sites that 99% of the people are bared from, and she has told me often that they find the same thing in everyone she's been to. They are finding new sites all the time, and now they are thinking the area they lived in was many times larger than first thought of. They do know they pretty much lived in everything from middle Colorado and south no northern Mexico. But appear to stop at the Sierra Nevadas in the west and maybe west Texas (this is a complete mistory as to just how far east they settled). They operated on a "commune system," and had a very well structured society. Everything was much different than the current Indian societies we know of today. I've two or three really good books on them, and I'll have to hunt them up.

    So what is the revisionist history concerning the Cliff Dwellers? Simply that it's now fashionable to lable them as Hopi's or Navahos when they are not. But what were they is still a mistory (I might add that there's something about their art work that leeds credence to this, but it's above me).

gary

searat12 wrote:

Yup, Pennsylvania is a good candidate, as is HMS Furious for the same reasons.   I have a book called 'US Armored Cruisers' which has a large section on the Pennsylvania.  I really like the old US armored cruisers, like the Pennsylvanias and Tennesee's (and really like the old USS Brooklyn!).  Perhaps a new subject line to compare relative armored cruisers?  What if Scharnhorst met up with USS Tennessee?

squeakie wrote:

The "so called" latest Chinese culture finds in the USA  were in the national news a few years back, and I think even National Geographic and others did a page or so about it. The reason I keep refering to the N.G. is that that's about the only journal I've read that would have anything to do with that. Possibly the Smithsonian as well, but nothing recent.

There is simply no getting around the fact that Chinese civilization, according to both archeology and China's own records, is no more than 4000 years old.   If settlers had sailed across the Pacific from Asia before that time, they weren't Chinese.    The oldest Indian settlement in North American is at the very minimum 3 times older than 4000 years.  Unless the Chinese had invented a time machine, they could not have gotten here before the American Indians.    If someone can be shown to have sailed across the Pacific more than 12,000 years ago, that would probably cause many archeologists to hang themselves.  

squeakie wrote:

The "so called" latest Chinese culture finds in the USA  were in the national news a few years back, and I think even National Geographic and others did a page or so about it. The reason I keep refering to the N.G. is that that's about the only journal I've read that would have anything to do with that. Possibly the Smithsonian as well, but nothing recent.

OK, one quick thing.  Neither National Geographic nor Smithsonian are really 'journals' in the sense of 'professional, peer-reviewed anthropological/archaeological' journals.  They are written for a popular (as oposed to a professional) audience and, as such, often have stories based on conjecture, rumors, and cricumstantial evidence, but which appeal to peoples' imaginations.

squeakie wrote:

So what is the revisionist history concerning the Cliff Dwellers? Simply that it's now fashionable to lable them as Hopi's or Navahos when they are not. But what were they is still a mistory (I might add that there's something about their art work that leeds credence to this, but it's above me). gary

What you are saying about the Cliff Dwellers is pretty widely accepted among anthropologists who study New World Pre-history.  NONE of the modern (or historic for that matter) Native American groups can really trace a genetic or cultural heritage back very far into prehistory, so linking them to any group is really difficult.  Primarily this is because the contact period was so destructive for Native Americans, and their cultures and societies that, what remained to be 'discovered' by Europeans was just a shadow of what had been before.  So many groups were decimated, disrupted, displaced, and later ammalgamated with other fragmentary groups that cultural legacies were devastated. 

So it isn't really revisionist history, at least to anthropologists.  Now, your average 'Joe' on the street may not understand that, and the Hopi and the Navajo may disagree (for a lot of reasons, it is in their interest for people to think they are the descendants of the Cliff Dwellers - which in all fairness, they may prove to be...), but that is the nature of things in so many cases that I would hesitate to consider it 'revisionist'.

The Taranto torpedo attacks were supposedly Yamamoto's inspiration for the same sort of attack at Pearl Harbor. But as posted above, the concept of an aerial attack upon Pearl Harbor had first been tried out (very successfully and seen by the Japanese Naval Attache at the Hawaiian consulate) by the Lexington and Saratoga's air groups during the 1932 war games there on a Sunday morning.

stikpusher wrote:

The Taranto torpedo attacks were supposedly Yamamoto's inspiration for the same sort of attack at Pearl Harbor. But as posted above, the concept of an aerial attack upon Pearl Harbor had first been tried out (very successfully and seen by the Japanese Naval Attache at the Hawaiian consulate) by the Lexington and Saratoga's air groups during the 1932 war games there on a Sunday morning.

True, but wargames are where the initial seeds are planted. The Taranto attack was very limited in scale and although it achieved great results, it was far different in scope from Pearl Harbor. Only one carrier was used, and the actual sorties flown were small. There was not attempt to win air superiority or repeated strikes. The attack could not have succeeded so well in daylight. The 1932 wargames were revolutionary in that carriers were still viewed as supporting the gun battle line. Instead, there the concept of carrier planes delivering the main blow against ships and shore installations, including airfields, and replacing the battle line were tried out very successfully. The defending team was caught completely unprepared, as they would be again in 1941.

again, all true points... but their initial planning was geared towards eliminating American air power to both defend and strike back at the outset. The first wave's dive bombers along with a portion of the 1st wave level bombers were tasked with hitting the known fighter bases as well as the Naval/MarineCorps Air stations. This was the essence of winning temporary air superiority over the chosen battlefield. Which they did. Only during the second wave were dive bombers tasked with anti shipping strikes, along with another strike at the airfields. And yes the failure to launch a strike/3rd wave aginst the oil tank farms, dry docks, and other support facilities would enable the US to recover from the overall atack far quicker than had those also been hit.

     However, in all fairness to the Japanese, a more serious defense would have been encountered, and the possibility of at least Enterprise being able to locate and strike back would have increased. At the very least, in all probablity their losses to fighters would more than likely have doubled. Between four US fighter pilots: Taylor, Welch, Brown, and Rasmussen, 1/3 (10 kills total among them) of all Japanese aircraft losses (29 lost) are credited. More were available and airborne in the wake of the second wave.

But yes, again, other Japanese Admirals (but not all) would break off a successfull action when an even greater victory or a victory was within reach.

First off, Squeekie, get to me off-line to talk about anthropology.  As for the Pearl Harbor/Taranto topic, I think Yamamoto was well aware of the exercises against Pearl Harbor, as well as the actual results at Taranto, and both of these items helped form his strategy for the initial Japanese attacks at Pearl Harbor, and the Phillipines as well.  As regards Japanese appreciation for air-superiority is concerned, ALL of their strategy was dependent on fully establishing both local and area air-superiority in order to achieve their objectives, and this strategy was faithfully adhered to until they stretched just a bit too far by trying to establish yet another air-base at Guadalcanal (which could not be continuously covered by air assets), at which point, the whole house of cards began to collapse......... 

subfixer wrote:

A submarine is not just useful to sink ships with torpedoes. There hasn't been a ship sunk by torpedoes (that I know of, anyway) since the Falkland War. The major contribution of submarines is in covert operations and intelligence gathering. More than most of us will ever know. Why do you think that they keep building them? And improving on them? And don't even get me started on boomers.

All true!  And while torpedoes haven't been used for a while, this is mostly because there has not been a naval battle since the Falklands.  Yet the submarine continues to prove its worth through the use of submarine-launched cruise missiles against land targets.  But of course, much the same can be said about aircraft carriers, in that they represent just about the apex of 'power projection' of a non-nuclear type.  As for an individual ship, perhaps it might be worth mentioning USS Langley, and IJN Hosho in this regard, as both ships represent the first 'purpose-designed' aircraft carriers (were not conversions), and perhaps the Japanese I-400 submarines, as they were the first submarines built for strategic, not tactical purposes (designed to attack Panama and the US West Coast with bomber aircraft)........

Ranger, not Langley, was the first US purpose built carrier. The latter was a converted collier.

searat12 wrote:

First off, Squeekie, get to me off-line to talk about anthropology.  As for the Pearl Harbor/Taranto topic, I think Yamamoto was well aware of the exercises against Pearl Harbor, as well as the actual results at Taranto, and both of these items helped form his strategy for the initial Japanese attacks at Pearl Harbor, and the Phillipines as well.  As regards Japanese appreciation for air-superiority is concerned, ALL of their strategy was dependent on fully establishing both local and area air-superiority in order to achieve their objectives, and this strategy was faithfully adhered to until they stretched just a bit too far by trying to establish yet another air-base at Guadalcanal (which could not be continuously covered by air assets), at which point, the whole house of cards began to collapse.........

There's an off the wall theory that a group of Norse Voyagers prior than 1000 CE(AD) made it around Cape Horn and up to the island of Hawaii. Each of the Hawaiian islands held their own pantheon of dieties. Three of the dieties for the island of Hawaii have common factors that are also different from the other dieties in the pantheon which is their fair skin and hair colors. Pele is a blond, while her brother, the war god, is a red head like their younger sister. Fair skin and blond and red hair coloring although common in the Norse is not so with the Polynesians.

I thought the theory as interesting especially that it could have been two migrating groups that arrived in the Hawaiian islands about the same time. There is some overlap in the times the Norse and Polynesians did their voyaging. Imagaine the impact of a Norse warrior with metal weapons and armor against warriors using bone, skin and wood! He would surely be a god of war!

FYI

Mike T.    

It's a waste of time to look at such off the wall theories.    Norse ships were open, not decked.   Every known Norse voyage was conducted hugging the coast with no more than 2-3 days out of land, a far cry from navigating an absolute minimum of 2000 miles to reach Hawaii.  The weather of North Atlantic on the worst day is a flat calm next to the most serene sea you will ever see in Cape Horn.    To say the Norse navigate in open boats around the cape horn and reach Hawaii 2000 miles from the nearest land in any significant numbers is fantasy even more out there than Chinese arrived in North America prior to 12,000 years ago.     I think we in the west has expanded far too much energy, and make far too grand leaps of imagination, to twist some distant factoids into a self-satisfying fantasy of how our ancesters must have been to be gods to other parts of the world.   I have no doubt some day someone would claim the Viking long ships somehow got to the moon first as well.