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.

 

A Debunking of Cocaine Mummies

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by MagoSA
 


Besides that I see nothing in the links you provided that support your theory, I salute you for trying to solve a mystery. But if you look at the big picture rather than just a single element of it I don't think it holds water.

You are of course assuming that the accomplished German toxicologist Svetlana Balabanova - who first announced the find of coc aine, nicotine and cannabinoids in the hair, soft tissues, skin and bones of the mummified remains of priestess Henut Taui - didn't see that coming, even though Belladonna was considered in the initial stage of the investigation.

As already mentioned in this thread, the high concentrations of nicotine in the mummies makes it unlikely that it derived from another source than Nicotiana Rustica.

In 1974, fragments of tobacco leaves (Nicotiana Rustica) were found in the abdominal cavity of the mummy of Ramses II in Paris (Layer-Lescot 1985). It created a minor sensation at the time, but it was assumed (by lead investigator Maurice Bucaille) that the tobacco was placed or accidentally dropped there when the mummy was unwrapped in 1886.

In 1982, J. R. Steffan reported that he had found a single specimen of Lasioderma serricorne (commonly called the tobacco beetle) in the mummy of Ramses II. More tobacco beetles (who feeds mainly of tobacco) turned up in Tutankhamen's tomb, and in this case it becomes difficult to speculate in contamination. Is it not a bit too 'coincidental' to find both tobacco leaves and tobacco beetles in a mummy where neither 'should' be present?

Add to this the excellent work of anthropologist Gunnar Thompson on the presence of corn and pineapple in Theban temple art, and we start getting the notion that there are a bit too many odd ends to explain away.

www.atlanticconference.org...

For those who are allergic to the idea of Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, note that we do not need to speculate in ancient established trade routes between Africa and America. We could simply talk about a single Egyptian merchant vessel gone astray that reached Mesoamerican cultures, and that somehow made it back to Egypt with a cargo of plants and seeds. It is within the possible and could explain the presence of these substances in ancient Egypt.






edit on 13-8-2012 by Heliocentric because: a world of dew, and within every dewdrop a world of struggle




posted on Dec, 22 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: MagoSA

Good point! But there is some other evidence of Egyptian travels, and explorations, so I still think they found S. America...
For instance, this article about Egyptian access to drugs says more about this topic, and it states clear evidence of Egyptian exploration possibilities...



posted on Dec, 22 2017 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ia991
a reply to: MagoSA

Good point! But there is some other evidence of Egyptian travels, and explorations, so I still think they found S. America...

Your link's not working, but it doesn't matter since there is no such evidence, whatever a fringe site like Ancient Origins has to say on the subject.

Harte



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
It's accepted by most professionals in fields relating to studies of Polynesia that Polynesians brought back the sweet potato either from South America or Easter Island. There is a string of islands going between the tip of South America and New Zealand. I'm sure coc aine was found in mummies further east than Egypt, probably China. Why are people assuming it was Egyptians who sailed to America? They may have obtained it from others who had.



posted on Mar, 17 2018 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Just to be a contrarian ... because I'm always thinking this way...
AND-- climates and flora were wildly different in northern Africa and most places in times past, who can say that coca plants weren't once growing in places we don't think about now because our worldly paradigm is sooo different in this age. Or that other plants didn't exist now gone that were related/similar in use and effect by other cultures and people in other places... what we know is a drop in a very large pond.



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 01:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ia991
a reply to: MagoSA

Good point! But there is some other evidence of Egyptian travels, and explorations, so I still think they found S. America...
For instance, this article about Egyptian access to drugs says more about this topic, and it states clear evidence of Egyptian exploration possibilities...


The Egyptians basically thought of themselves as the center of the world (which,.... ironically..... is actually true of their geographic location.) Nothing happening outside of Egypt itself really mattered to them very much.

However, they did trade with the outside world, and archaeology is presently only skimming the tip of the iceberg in terms of understanding the limits of their boating tech. (It was previously believed they didn't have the technology to even venture out into the Mediteranean sea, but it was later proven that they did so.)

However, it wasn't central to their way of life. So even if it did happen, an explorer coming back from the Americas wouldn't have been seen as a big enough deal to write it into their history.

From the perspective of most Egyptians, the discovery of Scandanavia, or Madegascar, would be just as big of news. (Which is to say, they would barely care enough to shrug.)



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 01:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: MagoSA
I offer this for consideration...

Mummies in Egypt and containers have found residue that indicated coca extracts in hair and on the pottery. While to some this points out a South American connection in trade, there may exist an alternate theory of why these remains are there.

No, there is no African coca bush. But there is atropa belladonnaand other tropane alkaloidsbearing plants which are well known for their pharmacological effects on the body.

The link I would like to point out is tropane. This chemical ring is the active ingredient that creates the drug effect of coca, belladonna, mandrake, and datura.

I posit that after 3000 years, the deterioration of processed plant product has degenerated into an unidentifiable extract with tropane alkaloids, and the residue discovered in hair from mummies is simply metabolized belladonna, as the end product in tropane which is present in both coca and belladonna. Modern blood tests search for metabolites of coca, but with no liquid blood, the only thing to check for are deposits of tropane alkaloids

Occam's Razor lends validation to this idea.

Thoughts?









The Phoenicians were known to have been daring Seafarers as far back as 1600 B.C. . There is compelling Evidence that they Visited the Americas around this time in the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1600–1200 B.C.) . They could have Traded with the Incas of that Time for Coca Leaves , Tobacco , Copper , and Tin which they brought back to the Middle East . Your Theory is Possible , but I Suspect the Definitive Hard Evidence for that is in Question . One Day it will be Proven either way ......)
edit on 3-5-2018 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 05:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Ia991
a reply to: MagoSA
However, they did trade with the outside world, and archaeology is presently only skimming the tip of the iceberg in terms of understanding the limits of their boating tech. (It was previously believed they didn't have the technology to even venture out into the Mediteranean sea, but it was later proven that they did so.)



Can you link to this "proof," or at least tell us what it is?
I doubt it very much.

Harte
edit on 5/3/2018 by Harte because: of the wonderful things he does!



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 05:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
The Phoenicians were known to have been daring Seafarers as far back as 1600 B.C. . There is compelling Evidence that they Visited the Americas around this time in the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1600–1200 B.C.) .

Please provide this "compelling evidence."
Surely you don't mean the Michigan Copper claptrap?

Harte



posted on May, 5 2018 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Ia991
a reply to: MagoSA
However, they did trade with the outside world, and archaeology is presently only skimming the tip of the iceberg in terms of understanding the limits of their boating tech. (It was previously believed they didn't have the technology to even venture out into the Mediteranean sea, but it was later proven that they did so.)



Can you link to this "proof," or at least tell us what it is?
I doubt it very much.

Harte


Certainly:

discovermagazine.com...

Apparently it was puzzling archaeologists for a long time how it was possible for Thutmose III to have moved his army so far north to attack the Mitani in their lands, without running into trouble with his supply lines. His records had suggested they got on boats and sailed the Mediterannean, but nobody had found any Egyptian boats that could handle the open ocean.

Well, now they have.


Does that mean they could cross the Atlantic? Well .... no. It doesn't prove that. It just proves that they could sail the Mediterannean, like quite a lot of other bronze age cultures.

But it shows that the real extent of their sailing abilities are totally unknown to us. That one, single cave, could not have been the entire navy. The boats in it show a lot of development had happened over a long time to get to what is there. Development we've no other evidence for. A tip of an iceberg.



posted on May, 5 2018 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Ia991
a reply to: MagoSA
However, they did trade with the outside world, and archaeology is presently only skimming the tip of the iceberg in terms of understanding the limits of their boating tech. (It was previously believed they didn't have the technology to even venture out into the Mediteranean sea, but it was later proven that they did so.)



Can you link to this "proof," or at least tell us what it is?
I doubt it very much.

Harte


Certainly:

discovermagazine.com...

Apparently it was puzzling archaeologists for a long time how it was possible for Thutmose III to have moved his army so far north to attack the Mitani in their lands, without running into trouble with his supply lines. His records had suggested they got on boats and sailed the Mediterannean, but nobody had found any Egyptian boats that could handle the open ocean.

Well, now they have.


Does that mean they could cross the Atlantic? Well .... no. It doesn't prove that. It just proves that they could sail the Mediterannean, like quite a lot of other bronze age cultures.

But it shows that the real extent of their sailing abilities are totally unknown to us. That one, single cave, could not have been the entire navy. The boats in it show a lot of development had happened over a long time to get to what is there. Development we've no other evidence for. A tip of an iceberg.


Thanks.
We DO know, from their own records, that they hired Phoenician ships for sailing the ocean. Or so they claimed.
Harte



posted on May, 5 2018 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: MagoSA




Other research indicates, though, that the Piri Reis map doesn't depict more than a wonky view of Africa's coastline


It very much looks like part of Antarica. Have you seen the Buache Map



posted on May, 5 2018 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

Do your OWN Research Pal , I do not Work for you ................



posted on May, 6 2018 @ 02:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Harte

Do your OWN Research Pal , I do not Work for you ................

True, you don't work for me.
But you DID make the claim, which you cannot back up.
So, you don't work for me, but you DO lie to me.

Harte



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 07:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

Thanks.
We DO know, from their own records, that they hired Phoenician ships for sailing the ocean. Or so they claimed.
Harte


Also given the scarcity of lumber in Egyptian lands, and lack of ready access to a port, it makes more sense for them to leave sailing to others.

But they had some lucrative trade options available, so even if, in Egypt's wood market, buying the lumber to build a boat would cost a king (of Pharaoh's) ransom, the ability to tap into that trade could have been valuable enough to do it anyway.

We often make assumptions about what people will or won't do based on the difficulty of the task, and then the ancients surprise us by doing things we thought they would find too difficult. Usually by a means we didn't expect.


Another possibility we're forgetting is that maybe it wasn't the Phoenicians or Egyptians sailing to the New World. Maybe it was the Inca or the Aztecs sailing to the Old World.



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Or well... I guess a precursor to either of those. I don't think the Inca or the Aztecs were seriously a thing yet.

Going even further out on this limb.... Maybe a few sea farers saw the Pyramids of Egypt and that is what later inspired the pyramids of the new world?







 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join