Were Romans and Greeks here?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 02:54 AM
link   


Is this supposed to be humor? Can we have a second opinion as to whether this is actually humor or just a child attempting to gain the adults attention?


Is this supposed to be a post? Can we have a second opinion as to whether this is actually a post or just a child attempting to launch a personal attack because he thinks the riddle of the sphinx is an egyptian story


this is for you Frohike www.langust.ru...




posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 06:11 PM
link   
The first link is speculative and not exectly mainstream. Out of place artifacts are not unknown. Even if it is from the natives, 1 soldier does not an army make.

As far as the Central and South Americans go, beating many lumps of gold, a very soft metal, into bigger lumps and then hammering them into shape is hardly blacksmithing and forging. Gold was a decorative metal, not a practcal one like iron and bronze.



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 08:38 AM
link   

These "linguists" are not linguists. They are people who read language dictionaries and look for words that they think SOUND like the langauge they want to prove as the "great historical language."

A real linguist looks at the way words are built and where the word roots come from. If a language has many word roots in common with another, they are related. They must also have the same function... a verb in one language can't be a noun in another if the two are related.


Well, that's a fair explanation



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 10:01 AM
link   


The first link is speculative and not exectly mainstream. Out of place artifacts are not unknown. Even if it is from the natives, 1 soldier does not an army make.

It is actually a fact that North American indians were not only smelting copper but also mining it at least a millenia before anyone landed at plymouth rock




Since the Europeans arrived in North America relatively late in historical world events, it might be assumed that metallurgy did not take place earlier. However, Native Americans, in the area between what is now Washington and Alaska, made ceremonial knives and daggers known as "coppers". A copper workshop was found at the Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site (East St. Louis, Illinois) that has been dated to about A.D.1100. It is not certain who operated this workshop, but archaeologists have referred to the craftspeople as Mississippians. The 17th century Illinois tribe took European copper objects and transformed them into jewelry and other objects to better suit their own cultural ideas. Copper and brass were also prevalent in early 17th century Ontario, Canada.

www.csa.com...



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 10:07 AM
link   
I dont think coins are the best evidence for proving that the romans had landed in north america in the early years

Money was different in those times, then it is now.

People didnt carry big sacks of money around

they hardly took money any where.

What were they planing on buying in northamerica in 1000 ad.



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by maynardsthirdeye
I had this in another topic but it seemed out of place there so I put it here.
Did they come here? Read this and decide. I guess I kind of stole this poll from the website.
1. Roman coins have been found in Venezuela and Maine
2. Roman coins were found in Texas at the bottom of an Indian mound at ound Rock. The mound is dated at approximately 800 AD.
3. In 1957 by a small boy found a coin in a field near Phenix City, Alabama, from Syracuse, on the island of Sicily, and dating from 490 B.C.
4. In the town of Heavener, Oklahoma, another out-of-place coin was found in 1976. Experts identified it as a bronze tetradrachm originally struck in Antioch, Syria in 63 A.D. and bearing the profile of the emperor Nero.
5. In 1882, a farmer in Cass County, Illinois picked up bronze coin later identified as a coin of Antiochus IV, one of the kings of Syria who reigned from 175 B.C. to 164 B.C., and who is mentioned in the Bible.
6. In 1966, a man named Manfred Metcalf stumbled upon a stone in the state of Georgia that bears an inscription that is very similar to ancient writing from the island of Crete called "Cretan Linear A and B writing.
The list goes on and on.
paranormal.about.com...


First of all, with sailing methods before the last century, if a ship was at sea during rough weather, during a bad season, etc, they could end up ANYWHERE.
So, personally, I think that it would be almost impossible to say who was here first, because, chances are that there were tons of instances, throughout history, all the way back when man first traveled by sea, that people from other continents and cultures have ended up in the Americas.

Even beside the artifact findings listed above, there are all kinds of unexplained structures all over North America that have vague similarities to structures from overseas.

A great book that discusses this kind of material is "Fingerprints of the Gods" by Graham Hancock. He sticks mostly to South America, but it s great nonetheless.

Remember, the Olmecs were in South America, established as a culture as early as 1500 BC. (Olmec Heads) And that culture is unmistakably African.
www.meta-religion.com...



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   
you've just posted exactly the same post in a different thread
you want me to post exactly the same reply to this one as I posted in the other one ?



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   
You seem to be repeating yourself.... however...


Originally posted by Horrificus
First of all, with sailing methods before the last century, if a ship was at sea during rough weather, during a bad season, etc, they could end up ANYWHERE.


Not really. Storms don't last long enough to blow someone across the Atlantic, and if they got lost out of sight of land their almost certain fate was to die in the middle of the ocean. It takes months to cross the Atlantic (check the logs of Columbus and other sailors before the age of steam) and they would lack food and water and shelter.

And the ships weren't made to float for months.

I don't know if you read any books on sailing ships, but if you did, you will surely remember just how dangerous crossings were even in a good sized 3-master and how often they needed repair during the voyage.


Even beside the artifact findings listed above, there are all kinds of unexplained structures all over North America that have vague similarities to structures from overseas.

Could you name some?

(Did you doublecheck for those artifact finds with sources other than the ones who copied that list? Look for records of the material? Some don't exist and were "reported" to have been found... and others (like the coin) have a rather prosaic explaination.)


Remember, the Olmecs were in South America, established as a culture as early as 1500 BC. (Olmec Heads) And that culture is unmistakably African.

Actually, it isn't. Someone has made this call from looking only at a very few stone heads and not looking at ALL the artifacts and archaeological evidence of the Olmecs. The fact that you're told "it's African" prejudices you to what you see -- thick lips and a flat face are not African traits. People with African ancestry have long faces and a strong lower jaw. Round heads and moderate jaws are actually typical of other races.

(look up (or I can give you) links on forensic anthropology and determining race. The features of the stone really ARE American Indian.)



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk



The first link is speculative and not exectly mainstream. Out of place artifacts are not unknown. Even if it is from the natives, 1 soldier does not an army make.

It is actually a fact that North American indians were not only smelting copper but also mining it at least a millenia before anyone landed at plymouth rock




Since the Europeans arrived in North America relatively late in historical world events, it might be assumed that metallurgy did not take place earlier. However, Native Americans, in the area between what is now Washington and Alaska, made ceremonial knives and daggers known as "coppers". A copper workshop was found at the Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site (East St. Louis, Illinois) that has been dated to about A.D.1100. It is not certain who operated this workshop, but archaeologists have referred to the craftspeople as Mississippians. The 17th century Illinois tribe took European copper objects and transformed them into jewelry and other objects to better suit their own cultural ideas. Copper and brass were also prevalent in early 17th century Ontario, Canada.

www.csa.com...


Maybe...but the fact remains that the vast, vast majority of native Americans were stone aged cultures. It is likely that the Cahokia Mississippian's were related to the peoples of Central America and not the tribes of North America. Legends from the Iroquois Nations say that the Mississippian mound builders were from the south and the Iroquois defeated them on their eastern migration.

I think the truth is: first, A more technologicly advanced peoples migrated to the Americas first and settled in Central and South America only to be followed but a later more primitive people later on who stayed in North America because the conditions better suited their hunter/gatherer culture.
Many traditions of the Nothern American tribes mentions such things.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 07:22 PM
link   
What's worth mentioning is that the Great Mesoamerican civilizations (Aztecs, Mayas, Incas, Olmecs, Toltecs) flourished around the Gulf bay. In my humble opinion, exploiting the Gulf stream is the best way to communicate using ship trade lines for the europeans (Romans and Greeks and Carthaginians) to communicate with the americans.



[edit on 11-2-2007 by Dragonlike]



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 06:22 AM
link   

What's worth mentioning is that the Great Mesoamerican civilizations (Aztecs, Mayas, Incas, Olmecs, Toltecs) flourished around the Gulf bay

Hmmmm








you have to factor in that all the earliest amerindian settlements in south america which include the Inca were along the pacific coast as well along the andes and up into them
concise.britannica.com...


[edit on 12-2-2007 by Marduk]



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Perhaps i was wrong about the Incas (I admit it) but you provide an excellent link!!!!!

Thumps up for you!!!


And i am asking:
Why an civilization (INCAS) would flourish at the coast lines?

Answer:
Becouse they were a navy civilization

What a navy civilization do?
trade!

With whom?
I say with the Japanese
or with the Phoenicians who had built colonies in Australia

PS: Marduk? are you working for the believers?



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 06:58 AM
link   
the Inca flourished along the coastline because they relied heavily on fishing


The Inca diet consisted primarily of fish, vegetables, nuts, and maize

it was about the only real protein they had
en.wikipedia.org...

but your claim they were trading with the other two groups is interesting
tell me
which of the three cultures had time travel technology ?




posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
the Inca flourished along the coastline because they relied heavily on fishing


The Inca diet consisted primarily of fish, vegetables, nuts, and maize

it was about the only real protein they had
en.wikipedia.org...

but your claim they were trading with the other two groups is interesting
tell me
which of the three cultures had time travel technology ?




Hmmmm....did they live by the sea because they ate fish or did they eat fish because they lived by the sea ?



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Not really. Storms don't last long enough to blow someone across the Atlantic, and if they got lost out of sight of land their almost certain fate was to die in the middle of the ocean. It takes months to cross the Atlantic (check the logs of Columbus and other sailors before the age of steam) and they would lack food and water and shelter.

And the ships weren't made to float for months.

I don't know if you read any books on sailing ships, but if you did, you will surely remember just how dangerous crossings were even in a good sized 3-master and how often they needed repair during the voyage.


I wouldnt normally doubt you Byrd but in this instance i dont believe your correct.
source wikipedia



In the 19th century, a Japanese junk lost its mast and rudder in a typhoon on its way to Edo, was carried by sea currents across the Northern Pacific, and reached the coast of Washington State 14 months later. One of the survivors, Otokichi, became a famous interpreter.


bold is my emphasis.



In 1947, Norwegian writer Thor Heyerdahl sailed for over 6,900 km across the Pacific, from Callao in Peru to the Raroia atoll in Tuamotu Islands, on the Kon-Tiki, a balsawood raft built after ancient Peruvian designs. In 1969, Heyerdahl turned to the Atlantic, and sailed 6,400 km from Safi in Morocco to Barbados in the Ra II, a reed boat of ancient Egyptian design. The Frenchman Alain Bombard had already done a similar trip in 1952, starting from the Canaries. Bombard sailed in a modern inflatable boat, but alone and without taking any food or water reserves.
In 1977, Irish writer Tim Severin sailed from Brandon Creek on Ireland's Dingle Peninsula to Newfoundland in a currach made with 6th century Irish designs and materials — namely, oxhides stretched over a wooden frame. (See the section on Saint Brendan below).


Besides which i believe there is ample evidence to suggest that the Phoenicians were skilled enough to have made long range sea voyages.





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join