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.

 

Ancient Visitors to the Americas

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   


but the british isles is mentioned in ancient egyption history.we were known as the Tin Isles,which are even mentioned in greek history and roman history,long before the roman invasion of this fabulous island

thats hardly surprising seeing as the Phoenecians were here trading for tin in cornwall before the romans and the greeks actually existed as cultural groups
and the records from egypt arent that old




posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   
I think it was more likely the Phoenicians who were visiting Britain at that time, the Egyptians were not very good sailors/navigators and they hired the Phoenicians for most of their sea trade.



edit-beat me to it marduk

[edit on 26/2/07 by mojo4sale]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 05:57 AM
link   
forgot to mention the phoenicians,was half asleep when i posted my last message
its a common mistake to think that the egyptions were bad sailors/navigators.they had great expertise,but never used their navy to invade other lands.as far as we know their ships were for defence and trade only.
the limestone used at newgrance,ireland(as mentioned before) comes from egypt.this "tomb" is dated back to 3200b.c.the phoenician culture didn't appear until 1200b.c.or round about then.obviously we have some history missing.a common occurence



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:23 AM
link   
the limestone used at newgrange comes from Mourne and Dublin/Wicklow.
clearly you have been reading the wrong books
the construction date for newgrange is also before Egypt existed as a seperate culture so put any idea of boats of stone from egypt sailing to Ireland 5200 years ago right out of your head



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   
dear marduk
i try and read all the books that are to do with the things that interest me.its the best way to know everyone's belief and arguments.so yes,i have read the "right" books
but my opinion is this,the authors who write that the limestone is local are those who believe that there could have been no communication between 2 distant lands,therefore they deny where the stone truly came from.
and newgrange predates the great pyramids but not their culture.coz we all know that the history of unified egypt goes back further than the academics say....



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 09:39 AM
link   


coz we all know that the history of unified egypt goes back further than the academics say....

no i think you'll find its only pseudohistorians like Graham Hancock and other assorted non qualified to talk people who claim that
his claims have been denbunked by just about everyone on earth the last time I checked
If you like I could satisfactorily debunk his claim of why Giza doesnt date to 10,500bce in about ten lines or less

Also Newgrange is not just a building unlike any others
it follows a regular plan or construction that is visible in other monuments across Ireland Scotland and Britain
the earliest structures are in Orkney (scottish isles)
then Ireland
then Britain
if you have a basic geographical knowledge you might realise that this means whoever was responisble for their construction came from the north east
egypt lies to the south east
in addition the stone used at Newgrange has been scientifically tested and matched to the quarry sites I mentioned
as you may know Limestone is not a uniform substance
each deposit of it has a unique chemical signature
there is no mistaking that the limestone came from a very local source
and does not chemically resemble anything found in africa

you might also want to consider as well that it is unlikely that anyone would bother to send to egypt for limestone when there is perfectly good limestone less than two miles away
I call this the appeal to common sense answer




the authors who write that the limestone is local are those who believe that there could have been no communication between 2 distant lands,therefore they deny where the stone truly came from.

so to summarize
the archaeologists and scientists who wrote that did so because they had irrefutable evidence
and not just someones opinion written in a pseudohistory book



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   
i do enjoy reading hancock's books,he does bring up a lot of valid questions,but some of his theories have holes so big you could drive a herd of elephants through them,lol.i think its wrong thet ppl like him get called lunatics etc.he shows ppl that history doesn't have hard and fast rules,that there is still a lot that we still don't know or we ignore because it changes history.it makes ppl question how things once were,and some ppl don't like to do that.

i do believe the pyramids are older than history says,but i'm not sure if the date hancock uses is a more truthful date or not.i do question how the pyramids were built etc.but i don't think it had anything to do with aliens!
i once saw a program were these scholars pulled a 2 tonne stone block along tree trunks,they did thid for about 30ft and then claimed,this is how it was done.maybe.but how did the egyptions move 400 tonne slabs of stone,and then life them 100's of ft into the air? missing technology maybe?


do you the sphinx is older than it is thought to be,marduk?
its something i'm still reading about and would be interested in your opinion.i find it fascinating that the body has such water damage to it,yet for years it was buried beneath the sand and egypt has had a dry climate for 1000's of years....

oh,and the irish are not the first to use stone from distant lands





posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   


but how did the egyptions move 400 tonne slabs of stone,and then life them 100's of ft into the air?

the average weight of the blocks in the great pyramid at Giza is 2.5 tonnes
I would love to know how they moved 400 tonne slabs of stone,and then lifed them 100's of ft into the air as well but as they didn't i don't spend too much time worrying about it


I do actually think the sphinx is older than the orthodox claims but have my own reasons for thinking so not based on the work of pseudohistorians
I do not however think it is very much older than the egyptian civilisation




oh,and the irish are not the first to use stone from distant lands

well they certainly weren't in the case of Newgrange which wasn't built by local Irish and didn't come from a distant land
link for you



the home of a race of Irish supernatural beings, known as 'Tuatha de Danann' : the people of the goddess Danu. Newgrange was also taken to be the house of the patriarchal god Dagda.

www.stonepages.com...





The Tuatha Dé Danann ("peoples of the goddess Danu") were the fifth group of inhabitants of Ireland, according to the Lebor Gabála Érenn (Book of Invasions) tradition. They are thought to represent the gods of the Goidelic Irish; their Christian transcribers' interpretations generally have reduced their stature to historical kings and heroes.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 27-2-2007 by Marduk]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   
How are you defining ancient? There had undoubtably been contact from Europe and Asia here in the America's. French fisherman fishing off of Newfoundland long before Columbus. The Vikings. This we have evidence of. It's said that a Chinese Admiral navigated the west coast of North America some two hundred years or so before Columbus.

Perhaps the Romans, Cartheginians, and Phonicians have also been said to have visited and perhaps also attempted colonies. That would certainly explain the indian stories of blue eyed, light haired peoples.

Undoubtably, the contact did occur. But the distances involved at the time would, in my humble opinion, would have been prohibitive.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:17 PM
link   
there are slabs of stone above the kings chamber that are reported as weighing almost 400 tonnes.is that wrong? there are also stones in the sphinx temple that weigh almost 200 tonnes.is that wrong too?

i agree that the pyramids were built during the ancient egyption time period,even though some attribute them to a wandering ppl,believing that such a jump in intelligence and technology is impossible.yet there is evidence all around the world for those very things.isambard kingdom brunel is one such person who created great change in the world over a short period of time.such a person could have had the vision to create the wonder that is the great pyramid....

hmm,seemed to have wondered away from the thread topic.oh well,lol.

i do know there are many ancient places round the world that have stones that weigh so much that in todays world special cranes are needed to move similar weights.i do believe there is some kind of technology that has been lost to us,and its waiting to be discovered.
just because no evidence exists doesn't me it didn't happen or wasn't so.too many times one persons theory becomes a fact.why? because its said enough times.if interested,i have examples of these theories becoming facts,even though there still just theories.....



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:22 PM
link   
oh,forgot to say that i also believe the sphinx was built by ancient egyptions......i define ancient as anything b.c.some ppl may not agree,but thats how i see it.if you go to the naval archive library in bristol,you will find records of british ppl (and others)making trade journeys to the americas 200yrs before columbas set sale....



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
How are you defining ancient? .

Ancient in its broad sense just means "very old" so could be applied to your grandparents
in a specific sense it applies to anything before the end of the Roman Empire in 476CE



there are slabs of stone above the kings chamber that are reported as weighing almost 400 tonnes.

the heaviest blocks in the great pyramid are the two that form the lintel above the door to the kings chamber
they weight 65 tonnes each and are made of granite



if you go to the naval archive library in bristol

thats very interesting
perhaps you can provide a link to this library or if not then its address in Bristol so I can go visit ?
I'm not being lazy but after an exhaustive internet search the only national archive I can find in bristol is this one
The British Postal Museum & Archive
these trips you refer to...were they delivering the mail ?




[edit on 27-2-2007 by Marduk]

[edit on 27-2-2007 by Marduk]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   
ok,just been checking online and had to make some calls.it seems that the bristol naval library closed down a cpl of years ago.but don't worry,all of their archives have been moved to the main university,and are there for all to look at.hope this is of some help to you



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   
dear marduk,do you believe then that the pyramid was built by the means of a giant causeway snaking around the structure? if not,how? hope you don't mind my questions,i like to hear other ppls opinions...saying that tho,i'm just sick and tired of reading about ancient cultures building magnificent structures,but then having scholars saying something like,"oh.well,they were to dumb to have a pully system" for example.in the same breath they seem to say these cultures were advanced,but still way too primitive to have any advanced technology(for the times that is.) .....and just out of curiosity,have you read g.hancock's book underworld,or anything similar?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 05:57 PM
link   
A few points, if I may...


Originally posted by jakyll
ah,yes,my apologies.i was thinking of tabacco when i mentioned coffee,not sure why i got them mixed up,lol....coc aine and tabacco,like coffee have different strains.the coc aine and tabbaccoo samples found in the mummies mentioned are traced back to the americas,not to africa or asia....it the thieves smoked over the remains of mummies,its highly unlikely that high amounts would be found in their hair.it would be found in the rappings,but no deeper.

It was found in only a few mummies by German researchers. When others tried to duplicate the findings, they did not get the same results.

The mummies were unwrapped and kept in the households of private collectors (wealthy people in the 1700's and 1800's often bought and unwrapped mummies at "unwrapping parties"). They were brought out for celebrations (like Halloween) and were exposed to coc aine smoke (very common) and tobacco smoke in the environment.

Tests on recent unwrapped mummies from the same era and location (not contaminated by being in museums, etc) show no traces of coc aine or tobacco.


p.s.reeds grow along alaskan rivers in the summertime.you should compare the pictures of the boats i've mentioned;eskimo & egyption.even a drunk would say they were the same....

Not unless the Egyptians were suddenly making animal skin kayaks.

Boats of the "eskimos" (Inuit and Inupiat and other tribes) are small because there's little plant material there. They're framed with whalebone and covered with sealskin (I heard an elder talk about how they were made when we visited Alaska.) No one would take a reed canoe in those waters -- they're not very agile and you couldn't hunt bear in them or walrus.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jakyll
the limestone used at newgrance,ireland(as mentioned before) comes from egypt.

Do you have a source for this? I can't find anything on Google saying that the limestone came from someplace other than Newgrance itself.


this "tomb" is dated back to 3200b.c.the phoenician culture didn't appear until 1200b.c.or round about then.obviously we have some history missing.a common occurence

I'm disappointed at the lack of material on Newgrance. There's some scholarly works, but other than that it's been pretty much neglected (hmmf) or lumped in with other material of the area.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   
if you do your research you will find that these samples,as i mentioned,were first discovered in the mummies at the manchester museum.at the moment the name of the doctor escapes me,but i will find it for you.she did the tests several times and ended up with the same results,she herself didn't believe them at first because it went against all she had been taught.eventually the other museums with mummies did the same tests and ended up with exactly the same results.it was the scholars at the german museums who ridiculed the doctor the most for her findings,until they were proved true that is.

as you probably know,hair continues to grow after death.which means anything like tobacco,drugs etc,will be found in the hair fibres.it these substances appeared after mummification this could easily be identified,but this is not the case.no traces of tobacco,coc aine,coffee etc have been found on the wrappings of mummies....

i agree that most of the information online about newgrange is not that good,it seems to be mostly done for tourists.if you are interested i can give you the names of some books that i have used for research.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:00 PM
link   

posted by byrd
I'm disappointed at the lack of material on Newgrance. There's some scholarly works, but other than that it's been pretty much neglected (hmmf) or lumped in with other material of the area.

ask someone thats studied it recently
they can normally link to sites that will answer individual questions but will probably tell you that there is no one super newgrange site because despite its impressiveness it bores the crap out of a lot of people who'd rather go wow at some neo pagans pretending to be holding back the dawn or some other crap at stonehenge instead

or they might have access to a book such as "Newgrange" Archaeology, Art and Legend by Michael J O Kelly
like
for example




dear marduk,do you believe then that the pyramid was built by the means of a giant causeway snaking around the structure?
no I don't as such a feature has been estimated to be bigger than the pyramid itself
and why bother really when the ramp that the builders used to move the blocks is still very obviously in place for all to see
as long as they aren't researching it at pseudohistory sites that is


www.hallofmaat.com...



if you do your research you will find that these samples,as i mentioned,were first discovered in the mummies at the manchester museum

I have done my research
All the mummies tested were from the Egyptian Museum, Munich


at the moment the name of the doctor escapes

thats not very surprising it was Dr. Svetlana Balabanova


she did the tests several times and ended up with the same results,she herself didn't believe them at first because it went against all she had been taught.

the mummies were selected specifically so that these tests could be done by Prof. Strouhal, Historical Museum Vienna and she only did the test once. there were two different reports publsihed using the same data


eventually the other museums with mummies did the same tests and ended up with exactly the same results

The remains used in this study included 7 mummified heads (all adults, 2 females, 5 males), 1 single complete adult female and 1 incomplete adult male. The only Egyptian mummies to have tested positive for coc aine originate from the Munich museum and these samples all passed through Balabanova's laboratory.



it was the scholars at the german museums who ridiculed the doctor the most for her findings,until they were proved true that is.

these were the scholars who actually asked that the tests be done in the first place. the only things that I have seen ridiculed were later claims that Ramses II also had coc aine and tobaccor present in his corpse
but that was ok because it was me doing the ridiculing earlier in this thread
page 2 or 3 iirc




as you probably know,hair continues to grow after death.which means anything like tobacco,drugs etc,will be found in the hair fibres

If a drug is inside the hair it has come into the hair during the lifetime. In recent people Dr. Balabanova found a type of timetable according to the intake of the drugs. If the drug addict is clean for a time and then starts again, one can show the interruption in long enough hairs. Due to the small specimens of mummy hair such a timetable could not be shown in the ancient hair.

hope this has cleared up a few errors on your part Jakyll
once again I feel that youre sources are pretty much out there if they can't even tell you the basic details



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jakyll
if you do your research you will find that these samples,as i mentioned,were first discovered in the mummies at the manchester museum.at the moment the name of the doctor escapes me,but i will find it for you.she did the tests several times and ended up with the same results,she herself didn't believe them at first because it went against all she had been taught.eventually the other museums with mummies did the same tests and ended up with exactly the same results.it was the scholars at the german museums who ridiculed the doctor the most for her findings,until they were proved true that is.

Actually, I have researched it since it's been discussed here before. When colleagues and others suggested that the mummies be retested to confirm this, the researcher refused.

This is quite suspicious.
www.straightdope.com...


as you probably know,hair continues to grow after death.

Urban legend.
www.snopes.com...


which means anything like tobacco,drugs etc,will be found in the hair fibres.it these substances appeared after mummification this could easily be identified,but this is not the case.no traces of tobacco,coc aine,coffee etc have been found on the wrappings of mummies....

Again, only one group of mummies (about 6) by one researcher has reported this and these were mummies that had been taken to Europe and had been there for 50 years or more.


i agree that most of the information online about newgrange is not that good,it seems to be mostly done for tourists.if you are interested i can give you the names of some books that i have used for research.

I'd like that. It seems that the Egyptian stones should be very prominently mentioned if it was true. I'd like to see some evidence that they did something other than say "wow! That looks like Egyptian limestone."



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk



The Tuatha Dé Danann ("peoples of the goddess Danu") were the fifth group of inhabitants of Ireland, according to the Lebor Gabála Érenn (Book of Invasions) tradition. They are thought to represent the gods of the Goidelic Irish; their Christian transcribers' interpretations generally have reduced their stature to historical kings and heroes.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 27-2-2007 by Marduk]


Glad you raised this Marduk though its slightly off topic, The Tuatha Dé Danann are said to have been invaded by the Milesians.


Tuatha de Danann - (People of the goddess Danu) This is the tribe of Irish deities, founded by Danu. Originating from the 'islands in the west', the gods traveled on a cloud to Ireland, which they then settled. Their use of magic had reached a level of perfection. Upon arriving in Ireland, they defeated the Firbolg. They later conquered the Fomorians as well. Rather than demolishing the Fomorians, as they did the Firbolg, they bestowed upon the the province of Connacht. When the Milesians came to Ireland, they drove the Irish gods into the underworld. They apparently still dwell there, now as invisible beings. They will sometimes aid mortals, armed with pure white shields, and lances made of blue flame.


The Milesians mentioned here are not the ancient Greek Milesians but refers to the descendants of Mil who are thought to have come from Spain and invaded Britain and defeated the Tuatha de Danann.


The Lebor Gabála (Book of Invasions - probably first written in the second half of the 11th century AD) describes the origin of the Gaelic people. Under the leadership of Galamh or Golam (Míl Espáine, the soldier of Hispania - a descendant of Japheth, one of Noah's three sons), they came out of ancient Scythia (southern Russia - a land that had obtained sovereignty shortly after the Deluge) to live for a while in Egypt. According to Edmund Campion writing in 1571, at the court of King Amenophis of Egypt, Galamh married the king's daughter, Scota; when the pharaoh had drowned in the Red Sea, Galamh and his people wandered for many years before conquering Hispania (Iberia, or modern Portugal and Spain) and establishing the city of Brigantia.


Grains of truth? thescotsman.scotsman.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Article.


Historians believed that the Celts, who were originally from the Alpine regions of central Europe, invaded the Atlantic islands in a massive migration 2,500 years ago. But Dr Bradley said that it was possible migrants moved from the Iberian peninsula as far back as 6,000 years ago and up until 3,000 years ago.
The study, using DNA samples from people living in Celtic nations and other parts of Europe, found
there are also close links between Scotland and Ireland dating back much further than the Plantations of the 1600s, when many Scots moved to northern Ireland in search of fertile farming land.


source


A MAJOR genetic study of the population of Britain appears to have put an end to the idea of the "Celtic fringe" of Scotland, Ireland and Wales.
Instead, a research team at Oxford University has found the majority of Britons are Celts descended from Spanish tribes who began arriving about 7,000 years ago.


If true would this point towards a group of people being able to traverse the oceans much earlier than the Phoenicians, thus getting back towards the topic of visitors to the america's. Just a thought.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join