Africa's greatest explorer: Did Abubakari II reach America before Columbus?

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Aug 6, 2006
2,010
0
0
40
#1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1068950.stm


Abubakari gave up his kingdom to pursue knowledge

By Joan Baxter in Mali

An African emperor who ruled Mali in the 14th century discovered America nearly 200 years before Christopher Columbus, according to a book to be launched this month.

Abubakari II ruled what was arguably the richest and largest empire on earth - covering nearly all of West Africa.

According to a Malian scholar, Gaoussou Diawara in his book, 'The Saga of Abubakari II...he left with 2000 boats', the emperor gave up all power and gold to pursue knowledge and discovery.

Abubakari's ambition was to explore whether the Atlantic Ocean - like the great River Niger that swept through Mali - had another 'bank'.

In 1311, he handed the throne over to his brother, Kankou Moussa, and set off on an expedition into the unknown.

His predecessor and uncle, Soundjata Keita, had already founded the Mali empire and conquered a good stretch of the Sahara Desert and the great forests along the West African coast.

Gold fields

The book also focuses on a research project being carried out in Mali tracing Abubakari's journeys.

"We are not saying that Abubakari II was the first ever to cross the ocean," says Tiemoko Konate, who heads the project

"There is evidence that the Vikings were in America long before him, as well as the Chinese," he said.

The researchers claim that Abubakari's fleet of pirogues, loaded with men and women, livestock, food and drinking water, departed from what is the coast of present-day Gambia.

They are gathering evidence that in 1312 Abubakari II landed on the coast of Brazil in the place known today as Recife.

"Its other name is Purnanbuco, which we believe is an aberration of the Mande name for the rich gold fields that accounted for much of the wealth of the Mali Empire, Boure Bambouk."

Another researcher, Khadidjah Djire says they have found written accounts of Abubakari's expedition in Egypt, in a book written by Al Omari in the 14th century.

"Our aim is to bring out hidden parts of history", she says.

Black traders

Mr Konate says they are also examining reports by Columbus, himself, who said he found black traders already present in the Americas.

They also cite chemical analyses of the gold tips that Columbus found on spears in the Americas, which show that the gold probably came from West Africa.

But the scholars say the best sources of information on Abubakari II are Griots - the original historians in Africa.

Mr Diawara says the paradox of Abubakari II, is that the Griots themselves imposed a seal of silence on the story.

"The Griots found his abdication a shameful act, not worthy of praise," Mr Diawara said.

"For that reason they have refused to sing praise or talk of this great African man."

Mr Diawara says the Griots in West Africa such as Sadio Diabate, are slowly starting to divulge the secrets on Abubakari II.

'Hard-nosed historians'

But the research team says an even bigger challenge is to convince hard-nosed historians elsewhere that oral history can be just as accurate as written records.

Mr Diawara believes Abubakari's saga has an important moral lesson for leaders of small nation states in West Africa, which were once part of the vast Mande-speaking empire.

"Look at what's going on in all the remnants of that empire, in Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea.

"Politicians are bathing their countries in blood, setting them on fire just so that they can cling to power," says Mr Diawara.

"They should take an example from Abubakari II. He was a far more powerful man than any of them. And he was willing to give it all up in the name of science and discovery."

"That should be a lesson for everyone in Africa today," concludes Mr Diawara.
 
Aug 6, 2006
2,010
0
0
40
#4
German sailor emulates ancient mariners in voyage from NYC


The Associated Press
Published: July 11, 2007



NEW YORK: A 41-foot (12 1/2-meter) raft, made of reeds and wooden planks and flying the flags of several countries, set out Wednesday on a planned two-month voyage to the Azores and Spain, a daring and perhaps foolhardy attempt to prove people as far back as the Stone Age could have crossed the Atlantic Ocean.

The fragile-looking craft was towed down the harbor past the Statue of Liberty, to be cut loose once it passed into the open sea. At the helm was Dominique Gorlitz, 41, a German botanist and ex-school teacher who has spent years preparing for the expedition.

"We are trying to retrace the ancient waterways to prove that prehistoric people crossed the ocean both ways," Gorlitz said as the Abora III, named for a Canary Island sun god, cast off to the sounds of an electric guitar and an Australian aborginal didgeridoo.

He estimated the voyage would take five weeks to Pontevedra, Spain, where success would prove that mariners predating Columbus by 12,000 years could have navigated the ocean by sailing against — as well as with — prevailing winds. The Abora III will use leeboards to steer like a modern sailboat.

Gorlitz's crew of ten men and two women will live in near-Stone Age conditions — except for fresh water, food for 100 days and satellite phones, navigational gear and generator-powered laptops.

The group seemed unfazed at crossing the Atlantic during hurricane season in a tiny craft with two wooden huts and a toilet shack on deck. "If I was not confident that we could do this, I would not do it," Gorlitz said.

The crew includes Germans, a Cuban-born American, a Norwegian and a Bolivian who built the boat by tribal methods at Lake Titicaca.

Gorlitz's theory is based on traces of tobacco and coca — substances native to the New World — having been found in an Egyptian pharaoh's tomb and cave drawings in Spain suggesting people 14,000 years ago understood ocean currents.

Kenneth L. Feder, an anthropology professor at Central Connecticut State University in New Britain, Conn., said Abora III's trip cannot prove any of that.

"I wish them well, but for a proper replicative experiment in archaeology, the culture has to be consistent," he said in a telephone interview. "How can they replicate the past accurately by using evidence from thousands of years ago in Egypt and a boat similar to those built 800 years ago in South America? These are completely different periods."

He said there were other possible ways for nicotine and coca to have turned up — possibly from now-unknown plants in Africa, or even from "mummy unwrapping parties" in 19th century England.

"This trip proves that if you are brave and foolhardy you can sail a primitive boat across the Atlantic, but that's all it proves," Feder said.


http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/11/america/NA-GEN-US-Atlantic-Vessel.php
 
Aug 6, 2006
2,010
0
0
40
#8
Lamberto Quintero said:
That dude didn't discover America, and niether did Columbus...
Who used the word "discover", besides you?
BaSICCally said:
READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE.
Thank you..

As a matter of fact, they concede that China and the Vikings most likely got here first.. But first and foremost, of course we all know that the Native populations in which still inhabit the region are the first confirmed settlers of the new world, no one denied that Native Americans "discovered" America, but that ain't the point.

Excuse the title, but this is also relevant, I'm planning on reading this book really soon..

1421 - The year China discovered the world
 
Aug 6, 2006
2,010
0
0
40
#11
Lamberto Quintero said:
First sentence...
You're taking it out of context, if you read the article you'd know that, it's just a dramatized opener. Like I've stated, they say in this very article that if Abubakari was successful, he wouldn't have been the first! Why can't you put two and two together? People have suggested that you read the article before making such reactionary responses, but your foolishness and irrational thinking has obviously overwhelmed you. Stop nit-picking..:rolleyes:

Edit: Also, technically that would indeed be considered a discovery, since no one in West Africa knew about it before(including Abubakari himself), it was just not the first discovery(assuming that he made it)..
 
May 13, 2002
8,039
858
0
39
montyslaw.blogspot.com
#12
ParkBoyz said:
You're taking it out of context, if you read the article you'd know that, it's just a dramatized opener. Like I've stated, they say in this very article that if Abubakari was successful, he wouldn't have been the first! Why can't you put two and two together? People have suggested that you read the article before making such reactionary responses, but your foolishness and irrational thinking has obviously overwhelmed you. Stop nit-picking..:rolleyes:

Edit: Also, technically that would be considered a discovery, since no one in West Africa knew about it before, just not the first discovery..
Technically, people were already there so NO ONE discovered it. And I read the article, very interesting. I just find it amusing that people STILL argue about who discovered America before Columbus.

And you stated that I was the one who used the word "discover", I simply pointed out that the first sentence in the article had it...
 

Hemp

Sicc OG
Sep 5, 2005
1,248
2
0
#13
one can "discover" something if its his first time finding it, even if the thing has been discovered before over and over.

and nobody is fighting about who first discovered america, this was an informative article to me in many ways.
 
Aug 6, 2006
2,010
0
0
40
#14
Lamberto Quintero said:
Technically, people were already there so NO ONE discovered it. And I read the article, very interesting. I just find it amusing that people STILL argue about who discovered America before Columbus.
My equal, I see what you're trying to say, but you're literally playing with definitions and the English language to make a point, which I don't appreciate.

Discover -
a. To be the first, or the first of one's group or kind, to find, learn of, or observe.

b. To learn about for the first time in one's experience: discovered a new restaurant on the west side.


Lamberto Quintero said:
And you stated that I was the one who used the word "discover", I simply pointed out that the first sentence in the article had it...
^This is nit-picking and wasn't the object of my response, I merely responded to your dismissive, non-contributing reply and play on words, it was so insignificant to me that I never realized or payed attention to the actual word since I kept everything in context.
 
Aug 6, 2006
2,010
0
0
40
#15
Hemp said:
one can "discover" something if its his first time finding it, even if the thing has been discovered before over and over.

and nobody is fighting about who first discovered america, this was an informative article to me in many ways.
Thank you hemp, I believe that he was merely confused, but meant no ill-intent..
 
Aug 6, 2006
2,010
0
0
40
#17
^How did I do that? I wasn't concerned with anything more than your response/s and addressed it/them accordingly, I didn't mean it as disrespect, only that you were nit-picking over the meaning of a word that has multiple definitions and took it out of context, applying your own..
 
May 13, 2002
8,039
858
0
39
montyslaw.blogspot.com
#18
ParkBoyz said:
^How did I do that? I wasn't concerned with anything more than your response/s and addressed it/them accordingly, I didn't mean it as disrespect, only that you were nit-picking over the meaning of a word that has multiple definitions and took it out of context, applying your own..
You do nit-pick sentences though, and I don't take it as disrespect at all. I take it more like "I'd better have my shit written clear or PB'z will pick it apart."

And you're right, discover has multiple definitions, I just simply don't like the word when it comes to content dealing with the foreign invasion of the Americas...
 
Aug 6, 2006
2,010
0
0
40
#19
Lamberto Quintero said:
You do nit-pick sentences though, and I don't take it as disrespect at all. I take it more like "I'd better have my shit written clear or PB'z will pick it apart."

And you're right, discover has multiple definitions, I just simply don't like the word when it comes to content dealing with the foreign invasion of the Americas...
I understand, since I feel the same way about discredited foreign invasion theories as it concerns Africa. I wouldn't condone anything suggesting that people actually found America first to the extent that the Natives didn't matter, that's just silly. I guess the word does carry a bad connotation(ill-intended or not). And I'll ease up on you as far as picking apart what you mean and/or write, I usually only reserve that to expose someone's unjustified arrogance, this wasn't the case..
 
Jun 15, 2005
4,591
14
0
#20
Nice article.

Anything that can historically give credit to someone other than Columbus for being in the Americas "first" is informative. We all know that he didn't discover a gotdamn thing around here, so it's good to read that others made the journey before he did.

One thing is, you are going to have Euro/Anglo-centric scholars that will say shit like his journey brought civilization or started a new era or some shit like that.