Ancient Egyptian visitors to Australia or miner's mishap?

a reply to: DexterRiley

And if so, is there any reason to believe that such a boat could not have been sailed to Australia from Egypt, given Heyerdahl's success in crossing the Atlantic?

Pretty good reason.

Heyerdahl got from Morocco to Barbados (barely), riding the Canary Current not sailing. 6,100 km.


It's a lot farther to Australia. A lot. No matter how you cut it. And there is no current to ride. From Egypt to there.

a reply to: Phage

Thanks. I got lazy and didn't look at the map.

I remember going to see the documentary detailing Thor Heyerdahl's journey across the Atlantic when it was in the theaters way back in the 1970's. It was one of those family friendly films that we were allowed to go see without our parents. As I recall it was sort off boring and I fell asleep.

-dex

a reply to: DexterRiley

I saw Kon Tiki repeatedly on TV when I was a kid. Drove me nuts, Thor pronounced it "corral".

"We approached the coral reef."

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: skywatcher44
a reply to: Byrd

Hi Byrd. I am not showing these Videos because I think these Glyphs are genuine although some think they are or that there were originally 50 Glyphs that have been added to or re-carved.

They aren't. But you needn't take my word. There are hieroglyph study groups in Yahoo and all it would take is a little reading on your part of the "how to read ancient Egyptian" books to understand just how "off" they are and that they couldn't possibly be genuine.

And, of course, to a historian the "art" has all the earmarks of being done by English speaking people with no real understanding of how the Egyptians did art or what their graffiti would have looked like... and how really bad the Gosford fakes are.

I'd like to add that whoever carved the Anubis at Gosford had seen wile E. Coyote at some point in their life.

There's a strong Wile E. bias in that carving.

Harte

a reply to: harold223

I reckon this find will get banned in the media because it interferes with governments aboriginal agenda.

If the find is true then it calls into question the aboriginal claim that they were the first to move into the Australian continent and that will interfere with the govts aboriginal agenda.

originally posted by: Azureblue
a reply to: harold223

I reckon this find will get banned in the media because it interferes with governments aboriginal agenda.

If the find is true then it calls into question the aboriginal claim that they were the first to move into the Australian continent and that will interfere with the govts aboriginal agenda.

Even if the coin was dropped in North Queensland 2000 years ago, all that most likely proves is that aboriginal people were trading with the outside world or at least some people from elsewhere visited Australia 2000 years ago. Evidence of aboriginal occupation going back 65,000 years is pretty solid.

originally posted by: DexterRiley

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: toms54
When you consider that part of the world Egypt is in, it's hard to believe they didn't sail the oceans. The country is pretty much surrounded by famous seafaring nations. If they didn't do it, they probably knew someone that did. Why didn't they write about it more?

They didn't sail the oceans because they had pretty bad ships. During the time that Khufu lived (the time that the hoaxers are trying to say is when the fake hieroglyphs come from), their boats were reed platforms that wouldn't withstand much of a journey. Wooden boats weren't widely available until much later. Voyagers during the time of the New Kingdom did write about their trips, but nobody seems to have made it even as far as India (though goods came into the area via the "Silk Road" overland routes.

In the early 1970's Thor Heyerdahl made several ocean crossings using a papyrus boat based on ancient Egyptian designs. Just for the sake of argument, would a boat like the one he used have been available in ancient Egypt around the time when the bronze coin, detailed in the OP, was minted? And if so, is there any reason to believe that such a boat could not have been sailed to Australia from Egypt, given Heyerdahl's success in crossing the Atlantic?

-dex

I believe Heyerdahl did some kind of raft across the Pacific also. Let's not forget all the islands in the Pacific that were peopled using crappy boats.

a reply to: Byrd

Literacy was a thing mostly for the rich back then, isn't that so? Couldn't the mistakes then be chalked up to a non-noble blooded person, or more than one, who for whatever reason got seperated from their exploration group, or left behind for some transgression, or maybe they were the only survivors after an attack, and so they left a message as best as they could, in the only language they knew?

Couldn't the patina be explained by some random person perhaps the Aboriginee?...coming along in the late 1800s or early 1900s or Anytime, and cleaned it off in order to try to make sense of it?

Is it necessary to assume it's a hoax?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DexterRiley

And if so, is there any reason to believe that such a boat could not have been sailed to Australia from Egypt, given Heyerdahl's success in crossing the Atlantic?

Pretty good reason.

Heyerdahl got from Morocco to Barbados (barely), riding the Canary Current not sailing. 6,100 km.

It's a lot farther to Australia. A lot. No matter how you cut it. And there is no current to ride. From Egypt to there.

It is a lot farther to Australia. But the aborigines are there. They must have done it somehow. Africa to Australia. It is not impossible.

I don't argue the coin or hieroglyphs are genuine. What I do believe is the possibility of diffusionism. Science shows all kinds of human migrations and prehistoric trade. Just the fact the Pacific islands are populated at all demonstrates humanity is not so limited as some say. Discussion of this usually centers around genetics or artifacts. We know American Indians came from Siberia. How many Siberian artifacts are found in the average Indian dig? Isolated cultures develop over time. Don't believe every outlandish idea but don't be so quick to dismiss every possibility either.

a reply to: toms54

Let's not forget all the islands in the Pacific that were peopled using crappy boats.

Actually, not crappy at all. Catamarans that could outsail any 18th century vessel, using highly sophisticated navigational techniques. The Polynesians were seafarers, the Egyptians were not.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: toms54

Let's not forget all the islands in the Pacific that were peopled using crappy boats.

Actually, not crappy at all. Catamarans that could outsail any 18th century vessel, using highly sophisticated navigational techniques. The Polynesians were seafarers, the Egyptians were not.

OK

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DexterRiley

And if so, is there any reason to believe that such a boat could not have been sailed to Australia from Egypt, given Heyerdahl's success in crossing the Atlantic?

Pretty good reason.

Heyerdahl got from Morocco to Barbados (barely), riding the Canary Current not sailing. 6,100 km.

It's a lot farther to Australia. A lot. No matter how you cut it. And there is no current to ride. From Egypt to there.

It is a lot farther to Australia. But the aborigines are there. They must have done it somehow. Africa to Australia. It is not impossible.

The Aborigines walked there from India, only having to cross a couple of channels, both of which you could see across (at that time.)

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DexterRiley

And if so, is there any reason to believe that such a boat could not have been sailed to Australia from Egypt, given Heyerdahl's success in crossing the Atlantic?

Pretty good reason.

Heyerdahl got from Morocco to Barbados (barely), riding the Canary Current not sailing. 6,100 km.

It's a lot farther to Australia. A lot. No matter how you cut it. And there is no current to ride. From Egypt to there.

It is a lot farther to Australia. But the aborigines are there. They must have done it somehow. Africa to Australia. It is not impossible.

The Aborigines walked there from India, only having to cross a couple of channels, both of which you could see across (at that time.)

Harte

Good point. An Egyptian could have walked there. There was the silk road trade routes.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: skywatcher44
a reply to: Byrd

Hi Byrd. I am not showing these Videos because I think these Glyphs are genuine although some think they are or that there were originally 50 Glyphs that have been added to or re-carved.

They aren't. But you needn't take my word. There are hieroglyph study groups in Yahoo and all it would take is a little reading on your part of the "how to read ancient Egyptian" books to understand just how "off" they are and that they couldn't possibly be genuine.

And, of course, to a historian the "art" has all the earmarks of being done by English speaking people with no real understanding of how the Egyptians did art or what their graffiti would have looked like... and how really bad the Gosford fakes are.

I'd like to add that whoever carved the Anubis at Gosford had seen wile E. Coyote at some point in their life.

There's a strong Wile E. bias in that carving.

Harte

Yes. "Anubis" looks like he's looking for a roadurnner so he can smack the bird with the ankh. Ankh-ish thing, that is.

originally posted by: toms54
Good point. An Egyptian could have walked there. There was the silk road trade routes.

Actually, he couldn't. Aborigines walked there when there was (mostly) a land bridge and not a WholeLottaWater. Also, there was no commerce there to interest Egyptians.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: toms54

Let's not forget all the islands in the Pacific that were peopled using crappy boats.

Actually, not crappy at all. Catamarans that could outsail any 18th century vessel, using highly sophisticated navigational techniques. The Polynesians were seafarers, the Egyptians were not.

Polynesians also made maps of the winds and stars and the currents... the Egyptians didn't have that technology.

a reply to: Harte

Nobody ever walked to Australia, at its minimum during the LGM the Lombok straight would still be more than 6 miles wide.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: toms54
Good point. An Egyptian could have walked there. There was the silk road trade routes.

Actually, he couldn't. Aborigines walked there when there was (mostly) a land bridge and not a WholeLottaWater. Also, there was no commerce there to interest Egyptians.

Come on. I didn't say they walked on the water. They could have walked through Asia. Just when did the first Indians go to southeast Asia? I don't argue the carvings as authentic. I do believe in prehistoric migration and trade.

Further if Egyptians ever did reach Australia, there is no need to prove a 2 way trade network, just that it was possible to get there maybe even in something less than a ship. Maybe they never returned.

originally posted by: punkinworks10
a reply to: Harte

Nobody ever walked to Australia, at its minimum during the LGM the Lombok straight would still be more than 6 miles wide.

I don't think Harte was saying anyone walked on water. He was saying it was easier for the Aborigines to cross the water than it would have been for an (theoretical) Egyptian, because rise of sea level.