Originally posted by sy.gunson
Byrd like your friend Marduk you selectively only quote that which serves your arguments.
We can discuss this in another thread if you like, but I think the evidence that the story was fabricated is pretty clear.
French fur trader Jacques d’Eglise first reported the welsh speaking tribe in 1792. It may interest you that several words in Welsh are
similar to their french equivalents.
(etc from wikipedia)
The article also goes on to say that the "white Indians" were also supposed to be Irish or Portugese as well as Welsh.
The language of the Mandans is Siouan, not Welsh and has no Welsh mixed in with it.
As for the Egyptian mummies your dismissal is also biased and misleading. These mummies were not displayed at 18 century parties. Instead there
was a craze for grinding them up to dust and then consuming their dust infused in drinks.
Some were, but others were unwrapped for their treasures (the amulets) and then kept around as curiosities. It's these mummies that were studied.
It's also slightly misleading to say that no other mummies since have yielded such results. The fact is that the Egyptians nowadays would
resist mummies being exhumed for such analysis and many museums would probably not allow it either.
You're probably not a constant reader of archaeological newsfeeds, but in fact mummies are exhumed nowadays and they do run analysis on them. It's
kind of a geeky thing, but I do like to read recent news on them when I find it. Here's one source I use very occasionally:
amscresearch.com...
amscresearch.com...
Balabanova's first tests were not on mummies from 18th century parlours, but rather from well documented exhibits in the Munich
museum.
Donated by private individuals. Not "fresh from the field." Anyway, there's anothet thread on this. Would you like me to find it?
