Howdy Cormac

Yep, hmmmm, having looked at the problem associated with a two-thousand year old trade route between AE and SA.....not just the better explanations for the mummies "seasonings". I've also been looking at the materials left from the trade between India and the ME, a rather impressive array of materials and even written notes.

In our speculation of an AE to SA where is the "Dilmun"?

Three routes to the coca:

To Columbia-Panama and then overland, build another ship or take a very long walk.

(There were log rafts moving up and down in a yearly cycle from the west coast of SA to CA before the Spaniards)

Up the river system to Bolivia or the eastern parts of Peru.

Around Cape Horn (oh my god)

Hi Hans,

Realizing we are always making new discoveries in the Americas, we still have another problem. Even the beginnings of Nakbe and Ujuxte, Guatemala as well as Tres Zapotes, La Venta, San Lorenzo and Laguna de los Cerros don't happen until the end of your proposed 2500-1000 BC period. Wouldn't explain any trade prior to then.

cormac

Hi spacevisitor,

I don't think that could be the explanation in all cases for all the mummies involved, but it stands a better chance of being true in some cases over an alleged Egyptian/South American trade, evidence of which is non-existant.

cormac

Originally posted by spacevisitor


Are you willing to give me your opinion about that?

Should be a difference between smoked and unburnt tobacco. I smoked a pipe for years as well. But I never did it near any artifacts of fantastically ancient date.

Never did a line off a mummy's mask, either.

I'm not sure I agree with him; although it happens a lot more often in forensics than you'll ever hear.

But it certainly is an even simpler explanation, even if only for one of the plants.

An additional problem I see is that tobacco comes from central america, while coca comes from the south. The aztecs didn't have any coca either, so why would the pre-inca trade with egypt but not mexico. It doesn't add up. And why not potatoes or tomatoes, both of which are from that same nightshade family . . . .

.

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
Hi spacevisitor,

I don't think that could be the explanation in all cases for all the mummies involved, but it stands a better chance of being true in some cases over an alleged Egyptian/South American trade, evidence of which is non-existant.

cormac

Hi cormac mac airt,

As you know also, Professor Nasri Iskander makes that statement after the findings of tobacco during the repair of the damage of the mummy of Ramses II at the Museum of Mankind in Paris.

So therefore Dr. Michelle Lescot of the Natural History Museum responded to this charge of "contamination" by carefully extracting new samples from Ramses II’s abdomen, all the while having others photograph the process. These samples which could not possibly be "droppings" were then tested and once again were established to be tobacco.

So, the tobacco that was found on the body of Ramses II was absolute not done thru contamination by smoking pipes.

But there is one thing I don’t understand.
Despite how it came to Egypt then and perhaps we will find that out someday, why is it so absolute unacceptable for the Egyptologists?
Would that not be very interesting to know?

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
An additional problem I see is that tobacco comes from central america, while coca comes from the south. The aztecs didn't have any coca either, so why would the pre-inca trade with egypt but not mexico. It doesn't add up. And why not potatoes or tomatoes, both of which are from that same nightshade family

I don’t know why not potatoes, tomatoes or chocolate? (As Frau Dr. asks)
If it was a normal trade route there would be all sorts of things trade, and to both sides.
But that has not happened as far as I know.

The explanation for only tobacco and cocaine because of their property fits also in a way what Skyfloating said.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Maybe there was no official trade route but only a few "secret suppliers" the ruling class had. The ruling class jealously guarding their secret in order to exercise power over the ignorant.

But it is only speculation of course.

[edit on 25/5/08 by spacevisitor]

Good point Dr

An additional problem I see is that tobacco comes from central america, while coca comes from the south. The aztecs didn't have any coca either, so why would the pre-inca trade with egypt but not mexico.

However how would we know that? We might be able to find containers - so look for reports of pottery from SA in CA.

That is a good point, if the Aztecs didn't have it why would a trade route all the way to AE have it?

Oh if you guys want to reheash the cocaine mummy story please do so in another thread. This one should be for discussion and speculation on a trade route between SA and AE in the period 2,500 - 1,000 BC.

There was a trade between SA and central America at one point, Pizarro intercepted a log raft on his way south. Must look up what has been found. Will have to research what the trade consisted of.

Oh no problem Cormac but lets see if we can keep this just on the trade route for a bit longer. I'm finding the research leads from this to be quite interesting.

It rather reinforces the idea that if trans-atlantic trade was occuring at all, it was very, very sporadic - yet the heavy exposure of even non-royal mummies appears contrary to that.

Anyone want to attempt to estimate the number of shiploads you need each year? Based on a craft with a weight of 100 tons?

Originally posted by Hanslune

So, there are those that believe based on the challenged evidence of two reports that cocaine and tobacco were imported to Egypt from South America.

Lets speculate on what would be needed for such an endeavor.

1. Egyptian naval technology was rather weak but we can get around that by assigning another group to do the actual voygage

1a. Egyptian or others?
1b. Who would the otrhers be?

2. By which route?

3. How did the voyagers know where to go? Navigation methods?

4. How were Teredos (eulamellibranchiata) defeated?

5. How was scurvy defeated?

6. How was enough food provided?

7. Once in SA waters, were did the Egyptians go? What route?

8. Where is the trading port?

9. What did they bring to trade? Why doesn't it show up?

10. Why was disease not transmitted?

11. Why were no other materials/knowledge transmitted between the civilizations?

12. What can be determined from the RA expeditions by Thor H?

1a. Phoenicians.
1b. The Sea Peoples (still a mystery exactly who these people were).

2. via the Azores or the Canaries.

3. Not sure, the Phoenicians though are expert mariners who may have known of the Azores.

4. Huh.

5. Resupply points. (Azores or Canaries)

6. See above.

7. Haven't looked into it in that much detail yet.

8. There is some suggestion of Phoenician artifacts in central and south America in coastal communities, i'll need to look that up.

9. Dye? Silver or Tin? need to research it a bit further.

10. Maybe it was, there are many accounts of small groups dying out suddenly or disappearing.

11. The Phoenician civilization may have had more important things to attend to at home, like War perhaps. Not a lot is left of their civilization to determine much about them, they were attacked relentlessly for a period of time.

12. That expeditions with vessels of similar technology were possible. It has been shown that polynesians had contact with the New World with basic sea going vessels and some conjecture that Australian aborigines may have also.

The "cocaine mummies" were kicking around the drawing rooms of Europe for quite awhile during a time when cocaine was in popular use in Europe.

But... if you're trying to establish trade, then why don't we see the drink of royalty showing up in Europe -- chocolate? The Europeans valued it highly when it did finally show up. Come to think of it, it's still fairly expensive.

Also corn... another staple that was easy to grow and in high demand.

Originally posted by Hanslune
An additional problem I see is that tobacco comes from central america, while coca comes from the south. The aztecs didn't have any coca either, so why would the pre-inca trade with egypt but not mexico.

Aztecs did have chocolatl... unless my source is mistaken on this. It was one of the trade items on their trade routes. They also traded up into the Arizona/New Mexico area, bringing parrot feathers.

But here you're talking (Aztecs and so forth) civilizations that flourished from 1100 AD to 1600 AD. Egyptians were part of the Turkish empire then.

There was a trade between SA and central America at one point, Pizarro intercepted a log raft on his way south. Must look up what has been found. Will have to research what the trade consisted of.

Didn't need canoes or boats. Most of the ancient trade was done by people who walked from one area to the other.

Howdy Sinema and the worthy Byrd

We're speculating about the possibility of an ancient trade route. For the time being were suspending reality in regards to the "cocaine" mummies!

Sinema

Some good answers, some problems with the dates thou. The sea people and Phoes weren't around in 2,500 - perhaps we could assign them the title "Proto-seafarers"

Teredos are ship worms, they eat the wood of ships and tend to end there careers rather quickly. Until shipbuilders came up with copper and lead shealthing, these little buggers destroyed wooden shipping with aplomb, especially in warm tropical waters.

One other thing to consider, after they got to SA where did they go?

Byrd would you say that trade between SA and CA was sporadic and light or continual? Mainly items for the elite or bulk?

Yeah Chocolate and pineapples would have been a big hit, along with more boring maize and potatoes!

Byrd what do you know about:

Egyptians were bringing in poppy syrup from Anatolia thru Cyprus I believe that trade has been documented.