4 ms·
The difference is that there is no way that Biblical or ancient Islamic scholars would have the equipment to study quantum physics or advanced astronomy. It is
by jmopp 5y ago
The difference is that there is no way that Biblical or ancient Islamic scholars would have the equipment to study quantum physics or advanced astronomy. It is entirely plausible that Polynesians who settled as far south as the Chatham Islands could sail further south. Granted, with no archaeological evidence, we can't say for sure. A better parallel I think would be the Viking discovery of America. Before we found the archaeological evidence, all we had was the sagas and the medieval reports. It's certainly enough of a lead to warrant looking at the ice with some ground-penetrating radar.
- jeltz 5y agoYes, it is similar but one difference is that the Norse oral histories were written down only 250 years after the events plus that there are a couple of references to later expeditions in the Icelandic chronicle, including a logging expedition to the Americas blown off course. So the Norse contact had really strong support even before the archeological evidence.