Ancient Cannabis 'Burial Shroud' Discovered in Desert Oasis

originally posted by: punkinworks10
a reply to: peter vlar
As to the psycoactive use of cannabis, it likely goes back to neanderthals at least, their horticultural knowledge was extremely extensive,

That's quite a claim...

No ones under estimating the extensive knowledge nomadic people had about the flora around them.

In fact, that's the reason I doubt it even had psychoactive properties in its original wild state. If it did, you'd expect to have evidence of cannabis being depicted in rock art dating back to like 30,000 years ago.

But the oldest evidence we have of cannabis use dates back to around 12,000 years. Even then we only have evidence of it being utilized for its fibres.

It's probably one of the earliest plants cultivated by man. Just think about how vital an abundant source of high quality rope and cloth would have been in creating a civilization.

Just theorizing here obviously, but I think a symbolic relationship (for lack of a better phrase) might of occurred, in the form of the cannabis plant re-establishing a dormant gene, which shared a common ancestry with us. Which for the first time gave us a way to deliberty activate our cannabinoid receptors.

the use of tobbaco goes back 13k years now, in the new world.

Tobacco's in a complete different boat, since nicotine isn't unique to the tobacco plant. Unlike cannabinoids, which are unique to the cannabis plant.

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
I personally think we have a deep symbolic relationship with the cannabis plant and have evolved side by side... 3000 years ago was probably just when the plant started to become the species we now recognize as 'Cannabis Sativa'.

The Sumerian name for Cannabis was Azalla
azalla [PLANT] wr. a-zal-la2 "a medicinal plant" Akk. azallû
its found in lists for medicinal plants from around 3000BCE
So it has those properties 5000 years ago

I think your idea is dead in the water

It seems to have had those properties, but not in Sumeria, your source is mistaken. Same time period, further East...much further East, is the earliest recorded use supported by archaeological evidence. It didn't arrive in the Near East until about the second millennium, about the 8th century BC in any written source. Beyond speculation that is.

originally posted by: Anaana

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
I personally think we have a deep symbolic relationship with the cannabis plant and have evolved side by side... 3000 years ago was probably just when the plant started to become the species we now recognize as 'Cannabis Sativa'.

The Sumerian name for Cannabis was Azalla
azalla [PLANT] wr. a-zal-la2 "a medicinal plant" Akk. azallû
its found in lists for medicinal plants from around 3000BCE
So it has those properties 5000 years ago

I think your idea is dead in the water

It seems to have had those properties, but not in Sumeria, your source is mistaken. Same time period, further East...much further East, is the earliest recorded use supported by archaeological evidence. It didn't arrive in the Near East until about the second millennium, about the 8th century BC in any written source. Beyond speculation that is.

My source is the Electronic Pennsylvanian Sumerian Dictionary, which is the most up to date source on Sumerian literature in the world, an academic resource
Maybe you'd like to reconsider your approach, the fact that I included its Sumerian name and its Akkadian one proving it dates from way before 2400BCE
You also seem to be unaware that Cannabis was one of the original ingredients in Sumerian beer, that's common knowledge

a reply to: Marduk

The qualifier was "medicinal use".



In which medicinal text is it found?

And, for that matter, which beer recipe?

Common knowledge is not necessarily accurate knowledge.

On reflection, and closer examination, the Chinese claims of early medicinal use seem unfounded too. Very important plant to them economically and culturally for it's fibres undoubtably, but not documented to be used medicinally as early as some claim, just a presumption based on proximity to general hemp usage and only recorded later (1st century AD, so much much later) in medicinal use. Which is sort of surprising.

I don't think it can be assumed that the hemp plants were there for their psychoactive properties or that that was the basis of their value in the burial, although, that they are all female plants was noted. I wonder if they can test to see whether they all originate from the same Mother.

From The draft genome and transcriptome of Cannabis sativa (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...)

One of the earliest domesticated plant species, Cannabis sativa L. (marijuana, hemp; Cannabaceae) has been used for millennia as a source of fibre, oil- and protein-rich achenes ("seeds") and for its medicinal and psychoactive properties. From its site of domestication in Central Asia, the cultivation of cannabis spread in ancient times throughout Asia and Europe and is now one of the most widely distributed cultivated plants [1]. Hemp fibre was used for textile production in China more than 6000 years BP (before present) [2]. Archaeological evidence for the medicinal or shamanistic use of cannabis has been found in a 2700-year old tomb in north-western China and a Judean tomb from 1700 years BP [3,4].

I stand myself corrected.

originally posted by: Anaana
a reply to: Marduk

The qualifier was "medicinal use".

In which medicinal text is it found?

And, for that matter, which beer recipe?

Common knowledge is not necessarily accurate knowledge.

Wow so you were completely making it up earlier, kinda obvious if you aren't aware of the sources that EPSD uses. Which on the whole are excavated tablets from scribe schools.
On which, words were grouped together by common meaning in this case medicinal plants
Common knowledge is pretty accurate when it comes from Sumerologists, unlike Sitchin they don't make it up

azalla [PLANT] wr. a-zal-la2 "a medicinal plant" Akk. azallû

originally posted by: Mianeye
There once was a time this plant was used widely as medicine and food, that's untill someone decided to make it illegal to the public for no apparent reason.

I would say it was money. The thought was cannabis was cheaper than paper and ol' what's his name owned paper mills (we would call it "verticalization" or possibly "vertical monopoly"). Hemp was cheaper to produce than paper mills. So using his own papers, along with the busy body mentioned earlier, demonized ALL forms of MJ including hemp. That was just so he could keep his paper empire. May have been Hearst but I am trying to remember the documentary's name where that is laid out... and having a brain fart on both.

Hemp needs to be taken off Schedule 1 (is one?) so it can be used for fiber production in the US. Cotton is such a nasty way to pollute the world. And the good part is, nobody would care if it was genetically modified to never pollinate again (especially certain, ahem, farmers). Even if not GMd, it can be burned to produce carbon nanotubes and graphene. But hey, then again, I'm not thinking about the children and what message we would be sending them by saving the planet...



Cool find! Nice to know that a hemp blanket can last 2,000 years! Reminds me of Tyler Durden's quip: In the world I see... people... wearing... clothes that last them their entire life.

originally posted by: Marduk
Wow so you were completely making it up earlier,

No. Just practicing what I preach. I checked my source, found it to be out of date and it's references vague, so sought more recent findings.

originally posted by: Marduk
kinda obvious if you aren't aware of the sources that EPSD uses.

Is it? Funny how looks can be deceiving, isn't it?

originally posted by: Marduk
Which on the whole are excavated tablets from scribe schools.
On which, words were grouped together by common meaning in this case medicinal plants

I am familiar with the range of sources, individually and collectively. I also know their fallibility and that there is a tendency for some to make mountains of assumption based on the most tenuous of information. Hence why such dictionaries are under constant revision. What edition is your copy?

originally posted by: Marduk
Common knowledge is pretty accurate when it comes from Sumerologists, unlike Sitchin they don't make it up

I wouldn't know about Sitchin, never read him. In terms of Sumerologists, they seem to be as fallible as the rest of us, and besides, they often had to work from scratch with little or no material for reference. Mistakes, and assumptions are bound to be made and hence the necessity for reexamination as new information becomes available.

originally posted by: Marduk
azalla [PLANT] wr. a-zal-la2 "a medicinal plant" Akk. azallû

A medicinal plant certainly, but cannabis, not confirmed, nor widely supported due to the lack of archaeological evidence to back it up.

Because an ancient commentary describes the azallû plant as “a plant for forgetting worries,” it has sometimes been suggested that the plant may have had narcotic properties. Various parts of the plant were used for potions and in salves, but there is no evidence that it was ever used alone. To judge from its use in medical prescriptions, there is no reason to suspect that it had any special narcotic qualities.

www.jaas.org...

So...about that common knowledge, and the beer recipe that you claim has cannabis in it. How's a source for that coming along?

originally posted by: Anaana

I am familiar with the range of sources, individually and collectively. What edition is your copy?

You know nothing at all about the range of sources either individually or collectively, if you did you wouldn't ask what edition my copy of an online academic resource was
psd.museum.upenn.edu...

clearly that is the case as this quote you cherry picked

Because an ancient commentary describes the azallû plant as “a plant for forgetting worries,” it has sometimes been suggested that the plant may have had narcotic properties. Various parts of the plant were used for potions and in salves, but there is no evidence that it was ever used alone. To judge from its use in medical prescriptions, there is no reason to suspect that it had any special narcotic qualities.

is actually discounting Azallu as being opium
This is the next line that you chose not to print

Paleobotanists have not found any evidence for the growing of opium
poppies in the ancient Near East, and attempts to identify an object depicted on
Assyrian reliefs as an opium poppy are unconvincing. There is thus no plausible
evidence for the use of opium in ancient Mesopotamia.

So here, just for you here is google
knock yourself out
google


These are the academic sources, just in case you have the first clue how to use them
Farber 1981:271
Emboden 1995:99
Zaragoza 1990:105
Sigerist 1972:101
Thorwald 1985:170
Albright 1926:
Thompson 1924
Thompson 1949:221


Now perhaps you can validate your claim that a plant which had been evolving for millions of years didn't get psychoactive until 2000 years ago.
Because that's how we got here, with that ludicrous assumption

originally posted by: Marduk

You know nothing at all about the range of sources either individually or collectively, if you did you wouldn't ask what edition my copy of an online academic resource was
psd.museum.upenn.edu...

Well yes, that is what I looked at, but since it says nothing at all about cannabis I assumed you were using another version.

azallû [(A MEDICINAL PLANT)] (N)
39 instances
Written forms:∗; úA.ZAL.LA; úA.ZAL.LÁ; úa-zal-la-a; úa-zal-le-e; úa-zal-lu-u.
Normalized forms:azallâ (∗, úA.ZAL.LÁ, úa-zal-la-a); azallê (∗, úA.ZAL.LÁ, úa-zal-le-e); azallî (∗, úA.ZAL.LÁ); azallû (∗, úA.ZAL.LA, úA.ZAL.LÁ, úa-zal-lu-u).
1. (a medicinal plant) (39x/100%)

See, nothing at all about cannabis. I was just trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

originally posted by: Marduk
clearly that is the case as this quote you cherry picked

Because an ancient commentary describes the azallû plant as “a plant for forgetting worries,” it has sometimes been suggested that the plant may have had narcotic properties. Various parts of the plant were used for potions and in salves, but there is no evidence that it was ever used alone. To judge from its use in medical prescriptions, there is no reason to suspect that it had any special narcotic qualities.

is actually discounting Azallu as being opium
This is the next line that you chose not to print

Paleobotanists have not found any evidence for the growing of opium
poppies in the ancient Near East, and attempts to identify an object depicted on
Assyrian reliefs as an opium poppy are unconvincing. There is thus no plausible
evidence for the use of opium in ancient Mesopotamia.

No, that is a seperate paragraph under the sub-heading "Use of Drugs". The whole section...

Use of Drugs

Of the various possibilities for use of drugs in ancient Mesopotamia, only
alcohol is unambiguously attested in the written sources. The techniques for
distillation were not known, so “hard” liquor was not used. The most widely
consumed alcoholic beverage was beer (šikāru), of which many varieties were
produced. Wine (karānu) was produced in Assyria and was imported into
Babylonia. Both beer and wine occur frequently in medical prescriptions.

Because an ancient commentary describes the azallû plant as “a plant for
forgetting worries,” it has sometimes been suggested that the plant may have had
narcotic properties. Various parts of the plant were used for potions and in salves,
but there is no evidence that it was ever used alone. To judge from its use in
medical prescriptions, there is no reason to suspect that it had any special
narcotic qualities.

Paleobotanists have not found any evidence for the growing of opium poppies in the ancient Near East, and attempts to identify an object depicted on Assyrian reliefs as an opium poppy are unconvincing. There is thus no plausible evidence for the use of opium in ancient Mesopotamia.

www.jaas.org...

originally posted by: Marduk
So here, just for you here is google
knock yourself out
google

These are the academic sources, just in case you have the first clue how to use them
Farber 1981:271
Emboden 1995:99
Zaragoza 1990:105
Sigerist 1972:101
Thorwald 1985:170
Albright 1926:
Thompson 1924
Thompson 1949:221

I think that most of those are out of date. Thompson certainly and given that you have nothing from the past 20 years I should think those are too. Lots of work has been done since then.

originally posted by: Marduk
Now perhaps you can validate your claim that a plant which had been evolving for millions of years didn't get psychoactive until 2000 years ago.
Because that's how we got here, with that ludicrous assumption

Now you're just getting confused, I didn't make any such claim. I was questioning your claim that Cannabis was in use in Sumeria.

Have you found that beer recipe yet, the one that you said was common knowledge, and included cannabis as an ingredient? No? I wonder why...hmmm...tricky one that eh?

originally posted by: Mianeye
There once was a time this plant was used widely as medicine and food, that's untill someone decided to make it illegal to the public for no apparent reason.

The reason was probably because it was more effective than the snake oils. I use it for recreation but if I had some disease I would not need any other medicine.

originally posted by: Anaana

I think that most of those are out of date. Thompson certainly and given that you have nothing from the past 20 years I should think those are too. Lots of work has been done since then.


Have you found that beer recipe yet, the one that you said was common knowledge, and included cannabis as an ingredient? No? I wonder why...hmmm...tricky one that eh?

Lol, Sumerology doesn't really get out of date, it builds on what is already known. All those sources are still valid, obviously they are still being used and the source for the beer claim is one of the earliest and still hasn't been superseded. Thompson 1924 is the beer reference and is based on a translated recipe, Most of Sumerology is based on linguistics and translated texts. The Sumerians recorded loads but the Akkadians recorded everything.

But, we know that Azallu was Marijuana, because the word was still being used for over 2500years, until the Neo Assyrian period when it was replaced by the new word for Marijuana, can't remember the word, starts with a Q
Its a fact, not a claim

Chnoubis was bred by man to produce its resin glands externally. And also bred for tighter calyx clusters. It would have always been "psychoactive". Even moreso in the past than todays indoor hydro bred diseased slave plant genetics.

If the plants were female, the buried man was a breeder. As female crops were not representative of commercial interests at the time. Plants were only sexed in breeding for the above traits, as pollinated kanebosim is more useful therapeutically, and hash production kept seeds out of end users hands just as todays sensi flower crops are intended. (Dont get your pot standards from rap music kids, indo sensi hydro is basically a useless decorative plant grown via methods barely suitable for lettuce.)

The only real difference in todays crops are more bang per square foot. A whole fields worth of cannabis growth in a musty closet, under lights that cant keep fungus from growing.

originally posted by: JuanDope
The only real difference in todays crops are more bang per square foot. A whole fields worth of cannabis growth in a musty closet, under lights that cant keep fungus from growing.

Or the red spider mites from weaving...