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.

 

Egyptions and Aztecs. Is there a link?

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   
in my science class today we discussed continental drift. It moved on to how humans crossed the bering strait and came to america. then, we discussed how it seemed the aztecs seemed so much more advanced than the native Americans even though the Native Americans had about 500 years more. We then noticed that the Aztecs and the Egyptions both built pyramids. well, going with the continental drift theory, we think that humans first came to the americas when pangea broke up. any thoughts?


[edit on 27-9-2005 by ketoes13]

[edit on 27-9-2005 by ketoes13]




posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Pangea broke up WAY before the first humans evolved (a couple of hundred million years or so.)


On the other hand there is the old “tobacco and coc aine in the mummy” mystery.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Tobacco and coc aine in ancient Egyptian mummies is a good one, and only one of many ties between the two. The megalithic stones in Peru, Mexico, and Egypt are very similarly conceived. And the reed rafts in Egypt are the same as those used on lake Titicaca. The carving of the elephant on the gate of the sun in Tiahuanaco is another hint. And the olmec heads distinctly African look is another. The bering migration may have happened, but there were folks in America long before that.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ketoes13
the aztecs seemed so much more advanced than the native Americans even though the Native Americans had about 500 years more.

Why would you say this? The aztecs and the like and the civs that preceded them really only seemed to have differed from the other native american populations in that they built cities and built them out of stone. Neither worked metal and both were still in the stone age.


We then noticed that the Aztecs and the Egyptions both built pyramids.

More like, they both built mounds. A pyramid is really just a tall structure, wider at its base than at its top. A mound. The native north americans also built mounds, just not out of stone.


well, going with the continental drift theory, we think that humans first came to the americas when pangea broke up.

Humans did not exist until long after pangea broke up.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   
The golden treasures that were stolen by the invading European thieves were beautifully wrought and showed great knowledge of metallurgical processes. They had alloys of metals, and they also built their pyramids with features we still do not understand, like the purpose for the thin layers of mica they laid in them. Also, the megalithic walls in Peru and Mexico are as advanced as the ones in Egypt, and equally as difficult for us to duplicate. They were the conquerors and/or remnants of a once highly advanced culture, who themselves were conquered by the Europeans. Just like their ancient texts said they would, right on schedule.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   
I mean, could it be possible that scientests are wrong and that humans actually evolved during pangea? of course, that leaves the problem why the Native Americans were less advanced than the Aztecs/Egyptions.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Metalworkers? Don't know about that. Artisans sure, but they didn't even have knives, they still used stone (which, of course, isn't nearly as primitive as it sounds and shattered obsidian will cut you with micrometer precision).

could it be possible that scientests are wrong and that humans actually evolved during pangea?

Possible? Sure. But there's no evidence for it. Why would the existence of big stone buildings in south america and egpyt support that? Why would man have waited to spread until they had that technology? Why no evidence of a cross-atlantic civilization, since that is what is ulitmately suggested here? And how does this theory explain all the other evidence that supports the 'standard' model???

why the Native Americans were less advanced than the Aztecs/Egyptions.

If you look at it tho, they weren't all that much less advanced. The Aztecs were a tribe that, effectively, wandered into technoticlan, and found the monuments already there. They didn't know how it had happened. A previous tribe had built it, and abandoned the city, which is oddly common for central america. Meanwhile, there were large tribes of north american natives that were living in wooden cities, had complex socities, and build large monuments, just not out of stone.

Its like the old story about Sparta and Athens. The greeks at the time (thucididyes I beleive) remarked that, if the two cities were abandoned, and people found their ruins much later, those people would far overestimate just how great the athenians were, because their city had so many monuments and temples, whereas they'd vastly underestimate how great the spartans were, because their cities were very centralized and, well, spartan.

Similar effect here, the aztecs weren't all that much more advanced that the north american indians (i'm not saying that they weren't at all, just not as might as it might first appear).



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   
alright, but how did the previous tribe build the pyrimids without the information spreading?



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Why wouldn't the information have spread? Like I said, lots of people build mounds, a pyramid is a mound, just one made from stone blocks. I'll agree that the aztec pyramids are a bit more complex than that, but thats the basic idea, it doesn't require that there be a global civilization that first thought up the idea and then spread it all over the world.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 06:53 AM
link   
you have a good point there. I didn't think of that.thank you for your input. anyone else have any opinions?



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 08:07 AM
link   
I have seen abundant evidence of a very advanced pre-cataclism global civilization. The most striking clue is about 750 feet square and just under 500 feet tall and is sitting just outside Cairo, Egypt. Many have said it is just a pile of rocks, its stone age, a simple design, etc. That is quickly disproved with about an hours research. Once you have read thousands of pages of the thoughts of people who devoted their lives to learning all the details it has built in, you get a better idea of how difficult replicating it exactly would be. Nobody, no matter how many doctorates in the relevent fields, not one person, has set out a workable plan for us to copy it. 200 years of study, and there are still many puzzles to solve before a plausible blue print will be released. It is easy to say, "Of course we can, we are so great, we have huge cranes, and helicopters, and laser levels, and diamond saw blades, so clearly we could duplicate some old stack of rocks." Well, maybe we could, but no one has yet to put forth a workable plan of how to do so, yet many have tried.
An interesting thought to me is that if we can't do it with all our machinery, then how did they do it with copper blades, levers, and ramps? Kind of hard for me to swallow. Especially considering that Khafre did repair work on the erosion on the sphinx, which is pretty good evidence it was already really old even then. Monolithic walls in Abydos, and in Peru, use the same joinery technique as the ones in the Temple at Giza. There is the tip, and it really just brushes the surface, there is so much more...



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I am going to assume that you are talking about the pyrimids. I heard about something about building it and digging out the sand on one side to move it but I definetly think that is BS. Has anyone else heard anything like that before?



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   


I mean, could it be possible that scientests are wrong and that humans actually evolved during pangea?

I assume that you are talking about humans in the America, the Aztecs more specifically.

The oldest human like remains found outside of Africa were found in Dmansi, Georgia (the country, not the state). The remains date back to 1.8 million years ago, long after pangea or any major continental drifting took place. The dig site is pretty amazing, Ive been there a few times over the past few months. The human remains were actually found under a medievel town. Holes indicate that someone from the town found the human remains long before the find in the 1990's.
Link here
Dmanisi
Another link

The oldest human-like remains found in the Americas date back only 13,000 years. They are believed to have migrated from Alaska....see the chain, Alaska, Georgia, Russia/China, then across the Aleutian Islands and onto Alaska...then North America and eventually South America.
Check it out
another link

13,000 years is way after pangea or any major drifting......



[edit on 28/9/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   
true, but maybe human bones decay after time. who knows. but still; how could the egyptions and the aztecs be so closely alike in their building styles?



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ketoes13
true, but maybe human bones decay after time. who knows. but still; how could the egyptions and the aztecs be so closely alike in their building styles?

Aliens!!!! Yup aliens, I believe alot of thier technology came from Aliens...or at the least, inspired by Aliens. Im not saying they are connected....Aliens is just the first reason that popped in my head.

[edit on 28/9/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ketoes13
true, but maybe human bones decay after time. who knows. but still; how could the egyptions and the aztecs be so closely alike in their building styles?


Fossils don't decay, they are rock.

I don't consider the Mezoamerican pyramids similar to the Egypt pyramids other than they are pyramids.

Just like the bow and arrow. Civilizations around the world came up with the invention with out knowing each other.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   
The bow and arrow is simple to create and the technology did spread from civilization to civilization.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ketoes13
The bow and arrow is simple to create and the technology did spread from civilization to civilization.

Can you please provide some links or something to back that claim up? How did it spread? The Bow has not been around for 13000 years, Humans have been in the Americas for not longer than 13000 years...when columnbus, that Americana guy, whoever..first cam over here.....there were bows...and there were also bows on the other side of the world. Like you said, the technology is SIMPLE to create....



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ketoes13
true, but maybe human bones decay after time.

Problem with that is that we do have series of skeletons that show the basic movements, and also that show when man evolved and where. It'd be a stretch to say that no human fossils formed for millions of years while all this was going on, and then all of a suddent very primitive types start fossilising in africa and progressively further regions.


but still; how could the egyptions and the aztecs be so closely alike in their building styles?

They're not alike at all. Outside of the general pyramid concept, and thats a pretty basic concept, wide base, narrow top. Its actually thought that, at least with the egyptians, that the pyramid represents the 'sacred mound' that emerged out of the watery chaos before the world formed. We have examples of primitive pyramids and can see the evolution of the egyptian pyramids, from simple one story buildings with surrounding walls, to stacks of these buildings, to bent pyramids, stepped pyramids, and finally nice smooth ones, it wasn't something that they perfected on the first try.

The bow and arrow is simple to create and the technology did spread from civilization to civilization

???
Please demonstrate that the bow and arrow spread from one original civilization to another, rather than was thought up independantly in lots of places and spread to some???



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Here is a picture of very similar stonework in Peru and Egypt, which besides being monolithic in its size, is precise in its seam fittings.
Theses are three of many examples.




new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join