It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Arrival of the Longships...in Egypt

page: 4
42
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 04:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk
You used to be credible, what happened ?




When was that in your opinion? I'm genuinely interested.



Talking of credibility, have you managed to turn up that "Sumerian" cannabis beer recipe yet?



@ OP, I am currently reading Barry Cunliffe's By Steppe, Desert and Ocean: The Birth of Eurasia. Cunliffe is an amazing communicator, very accessible writer, another of his books, Europe Between the Oceans 9000BC - AD1000 should be compulsory reading, in my opinion. Either one though should help appraise you of the evidence as it currently stands and help prevent you from chasing your tail quite so much. You're really good at finding interesting stuff, however consistently, from my perspective, you let yourself down attempting to force whatever it is you are trying to force through misinterpretation, unless all your looking to do is entertain - in which case, party on.

ETA Just checked, it is By Steppe, Desert and Ocean that you need for the boat stuff, he doesn't go into it that quite so much in the previous one.
edit on 3-2-2017 by Anaana because: clarification




posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Anaana

I don't trust people who write big history, particularly as in the case of Barry Cunliffe those who create false paradigms in order to misdirect current political thought, there's a reason he is advanced and promoted and that you find yourself reading his work.

Civi lizations only flourish with free movement

It's not just him, even though David Rohl is supportive to some extent of what i proposed here i've no time for him, Marduk gets triggered when he thinks Alternative Big Historians could exploit what i'm suggesting, but i don't care about them either.

I only research the seeds of ideas through religious text and iconography, the actual trees arising from such i don't put much effort into describing, i'm only a very small underground historian, in terms of significance the size of the following full stop.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 07:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Anaana

Talking of credibility, have you managed to turn up that "Sumerian" cannabis beer recipe yet?



Are you having memory issues,
1. you didn't ask for the recipe, you asked for sources,
2. When you were given sources, you claimed they weren't good enough for you,
3. The sources are academic, the best on earth
4. you stopped responding because you were shown to be incorrect in your assertion

you lost that discussion or you got so bored you couldn't be bothered which is the same thing
So now you're posting throw away comments about my credibility when you have none

thanks for playing.

Kantzveldt, the second chapter of Graham Hancock's new pile of toss, "Magicians of the Gods", is all about how there must be a connection between old and new world cultures, because in some carvings they appear to be handling identical buckets. The fact that the buckets are from different cultures, different time periods and held by completely different characters seems lost on him, "There must be some connection, perhaps the buckets were a badge of office, of the Magicians of the Gods."
This thread, is on the exact same level as that, which I find disappointing, so thanks for the attempt to explain my motivation, but no, you got that wrong too. I am motivated by my disappointment in what has happened to your level of scholarship. nothing more. I haven't posted much on ATS recently, because on the whole, everyone suddenly seems to have got a lot less intelligent and as a result, I am not going to waste much more of my time here trying to educate people who are incapable of learning.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

I've no idea why you would even read Graham Hancock, but anyway at least i'm not a Professor...




posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kantzveldt
a reply to: Marduk

I've no idea why you would even read Graham Hancock,


Wouldn't be much point in believing him to be an intellectual fraud if I didn't know what he was saying, In this case he managed a whole chapter on the buckets, even connected it to the pine cone and managed to completely miss out the words "mullilu" and "banduddu", that's how deep his research goes, he's never even read "Lugalbanda and the cave" he seems completely unaware that the leather bucket was the carrier bag of the ancient world because it was waterproof. Everyone had one

Also stuffed his profits by buying it second hand on eBay for less than a cup of coffee.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: abeverage
a reply to: Kantzveldt

Yes, I meant on the older glyphs you mentioned when you made the comparison to the people pulling the boat for a scale reference it made me curious as they again are depicted as tick marks.


It has to do with the tools the artist had available... rocks and more rocks (if you'll forgive the levity.)

You can try the experiment for yourself... try depicting a modern sailboat on a rock by pecking (hammering) the design into a large rock with another rock. See for yourself how much detail you can get into it (and then try adding a person into the image.)



I get that but I was wondering if they were depicting oars or passengers and crew.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: abeverage
I get that but I was wondering if they were depicting oars or passengers and crew.


Isn't that the same thing, in an age before sail, oars are the only means of propulsion and usually on a large boat require one person per oar.
But where does that thought take us, with so many oars.
Either the boat was an invasion vessel, or they were hunting something in the Capian sea which required a large boat and many men....

Luckily the answer is also carved on the wall



Archeological studies of Gobustan petroglyphs indicate that there once had been dolphins and porpoises, or a certain species of beaked whales and a whaling scene indicates of large baleen whales likely being present in Caspian Sea at least until when Caspian Sea was a part of ocean system or until Quaternary period. Although the rock art on Kichikdash Mountain assumed to be of a dolphin or of a beaked whale, might instead represent the famous beluga sturgeon due to its size (430 cm in length), but fossil records suggest certain ancestors of modern dolphins and whales, such as Macrokentriodon morani (bottlenose dolphins) and Balaenoptera sibbaldina (blue whales) were presumably larger than their present descendants.


Wait, did that say they were all extinct, well, how the hell did that happen



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 12:43 PM
link   
So much thought and zero heart.

I love how anyone who rubs a rock on another in the past must have been an prominent figure, surrounded by entire tribes while scribbling for the few minutes it takes.

The amount of fired lead ammunition and tin cans found at these sites is never mentioned lol.

White man found Egypt, played dress up and impostor like he does. Not long before Rome traveled the world posing as gods and priests of gods, building temples and perverted religions that would keep monkey man in check for lap 2 (not my racism). Isnt this common knowledge?



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Kantzveldt

You're kind of missing the point because that is exactly why you should read it. How else do you expect to know your "enemy"?



Plus, you're just missing out, it is a great book and Cunliffe is an excellent researcher, but you need to read those that you disagree with just as much, if not more than, those you agree with, or, as you are, you get stuck in a loop agreeing with yourself. Progress has never been made that way.
edit on 3-2-2017 by Anaana because: clarity heh



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk
Are you having memory issues,
1. you didn't ask for the recipe, you asked for sources,
2. When you were given sources, you claimed they weren't good enough for you,
3. The sources are academic, the best on earth
4. you stopped responding because you were shown to be incorrect in your assertion

you lost that discussion or you got so bored you couldn't be bothered which is the same thing
So now you're posting throw away comments about my credibility when you have none




Lost? You mean I don't get a prize? O poor me.

No skin off my nose if you don't keep up to date with the research. If you want it to be about sources, what is the primary source? Surely that must be detailed in one of those books that you listed. That should settle it much quicker than a pile of books all copying from the same incorrect translation.

Please, go ahead, destroy my "credibility"



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: anana[post]

Please, go ahead, destroy my "credibility"




No need. Done it twice already and your questions about primary sources and an allusion to it all being based on an incorrect translation quite clearly shows you dont understand how linguistics works.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

As you please



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChelseaHubble
White man found Egypt, played dress up and impostor like he does. Not long before Rome traveled the world posing as gods and priests of gods, building temples and perverted religions that would keep monkey man in check for lap 2 (not my racism). Isnt this common knowledge?


I don't know if you get the BBC, but to add further insult to injury we now have "history" programmes that basically can be described as privileged white chick (Lucy Worsley) dresses up in historical clothing for an hour. I think it must be some kind of history-buff fetish porn or something...and while she certainly knows her stuff (rich-elite history), "smart-posh-chick-does-historical-dress-up" would be a more honest description.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: abeverage

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: abeverage
a reply to: Kantzveldt

Yes, I meant on the older glyphs you mentioned when you made the comparison to the people pulling the boat for a scale reference it made me curious as they again are depicted as tick marks.


It has to do with the tools the artist had available... rocks and more rocks (if you'll forgive the levity.)

You can try the experiment for yourself... try depicting a modern sailboat on a rock by pecking (hammering) the design into a large rock with another rock. See for yourself how much detail you can get into it (and then try adding a person into the image.)



I get that but I was wondering if they were depicting oars or passengers and crew.


Oars are pretty difficult to represent. In general, if the line is upward the best assumption is that it represents crew/passengers/etc. Downward represents oars. To the best of my knowledge, oars were rarely depicted in rock art though rudders were depicted.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Anaana

originally posted by: ChelseaHubble
White man found Egypt, played dress up and impostor like he does. Not long before Rome traveled the world posing as gods and priests of gods, building temples and perverted religions that would keep monkey man in check for lap 2 (not my racism). Isnt this common knowledge?


I don't know if you get the BBC, but to add further insult to injury we now have "history" programmes that basically can be described as privileged white chick (Lucy Worsley) dresses up in historical clothing for an hour. I think it must be some kind of history-buff fetish porn or something...and while she certainly knows her stuff (rich-elite history), "smart-posh-chick-does-historical-dress-up" would be a more honest description.




We've got that in America. I want to throw my textbooks at him every time he shows up. He doesn't do any in-depth presentation or analysis, just shows up and plays Genghis Khan or Caesar or whomever for a time.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 03:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd
We've got that in America. I want to throw my textbooks at him every time he shows up. He doesn't do any in-depth presentation or analysis, just shows up and plays Genghis Khan or Caesar or whomever for a time.


Lucy Worsley does know her stuff at least, she has the PhD to prove it, but the choices that she has made in how to demonstrate and get her knowledge out there is now limiting her choices and ability to do that. More and more she is being given less and less to say. She's been niched, sadly.

Fortunately, Worsley is not representative of all the historians in BBC history, including women, so it's not a total loss, and if she can get into the heads of an audience that would otherwise not watch history programming and improve their understanding of how we got here, she's not a total bust.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join