Egyptian Boat People - Who were they?

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
Hey Versa,
If you are interested in Ancient Egyptian sea goers,you should read the book called
"The Ra Expeditions"by Thor Heyderhal.

Hiya, thanks for the link, Im on a book buying spree next week so thats gone on the list

reply to post by Versa


Nice one,if you do read it,let me know what you think.
I thought it was a great book,not only for the historical aspects,but also the strong spirit of the folks determined to attempt to build and sail such a vessel.

The book contains references and pictures/photos of the boat they try to build,they use tribes who still build reed boats to this day to help them,and the boat even has a monkey on board!

Enjoy

Originally posted by Versa

Originally posted by Byrd
But near rivers.

sea faring boats of an advanced design for people that were meant to be hunter gatherer types.

What sort of nautical credentials do you have that allow you to proclaim these ceremonial boats as "sea faring"?

Originally posted by Versa

Originally posted by Byrd
Linking them to the MesoAmerican civilizations doesn't make sense, since the Egyptian culture died a thousand years before the Meosamerican cultures rose.

Actually yes it does, it could point to a culture that had contact with both and left cultural traces behind in both area's religions, technology and mythology. Its also worth pointing out that some people dispute the dates at sites like Teotihuacan.

The only people that "dispute" these dates are fringe writers making a living off their false claims and their ignorant readership.

Harte

reply to post by Byrd

Somebody beat me to posting the coc aine mummies video. A better documentary is this Channel 4 one. www.channel4.com... aine-mummies/4od#2919495 However, I am not sure whether it can be viewed in the US.

Here is a review of the literature on the topic. I have posted the some of the findings of the author, Samuel A. Wells, below. One of the things I have to agree with is the following passage from the article. Archaeologists simply hate revisionists.

The initial reaction to the findings of Balabanova et. al. were highly critical. These criticisms were not based on a known failing in the authors' research methodology, rather they were attempts to cast doubt on an implication of the research - that coc aine and nicotine were brought to Egypt from the New World before Columbus. This conclusion is not acceptable to conservative investigators of the past. In fact it suggests a deep-rooted aversion to what Balabanova suggested might mean an unraveling of aspects of history contrary to basic reconstructions.
www.colostate.edu...

Here is the abstract.

The recent findings of coc aine, nicotine, and hashish in Egyptian mummies by Balabanova et. al. have been criticized on grounds that: contamination of the mummies may have occurred, improper techniques may have been used, chemical decomposition may have produced the compounds in question, recent mummies of drug users were mistakenly evaluated, that no similar cases are known of such compounds in long-dead bodies, and especially that pre-Columbian transoceanic voyages are highly speculative. These criticisms are each discussed in turn. Balabanova et. al. are shown to have used and confirmed their findings with accepted methods. The possibility of the compounds being byproducts of decomposition is shown to be without precedent and highly unlikely. The possibility that the researchers made evaluations from of faked mummies of recent drug users is shown to be highly unlikely in almost all cases. Several additional cases of identified American drugs in mummies are discussed. Additionally, it is shown that significant evidence exists for contact with the Americas in pre-Columbian times. It is determined that the original findings are supported by substantial evidence despite the initial criticisms.
www.colostate.edu...

Alternative link to the article: www.faculty.ucr.edu...

Originally posted by Harte
What sort of nautical credentials do you have that allow you to proclaim these ceremonial boats as "sea faring"?

What sort of credentials do archaeologists have to proclaim the opposite? If you don't like members starting a discussion with some opinions don't visit discussion boards on conspiracy website.

Originally posted by Harte
What sort of nautical credentials do you have that allow you to proclaim these ceremonial boats as "sea faring"?

I don't have but others do.

In 1969 and 1970, Heyerdahl built two boats from papyrus and attempted to cross the Atlantic Ocean from Morocco in Africa. Based on drawings and models from ancient Egypt, the first boat, named Ra, was constructed by boat builders from Lake Chad using papyrus reed obtained from Lake Tana in Ethiopia and launched into the Atlantic Ocean from the coast of Morocco. After a number of weeks, Ra took on water after its crew made modifications to the vessel that caused it to sag and break apart. The ship was abandoned and the following year, another similar vessel, Ra II, was built of totora by boatmen from Lake Titicaca in Bolivia and likewise set sail across the Atlantic from Morocco, this time with great success. The boat reached Barbados, thus demonstrating that mariners could have dealt with trans-Atlantic voyages by sailing with the Canary Current.

source

Originally posted by Harte
The only people that "dispute" these dates are fringe writers making a living off their false claims and their ignorant readership.Harte

There are other people that believe the dating could well be out, not just those writing books and I think its a bit harsh to call their readership 'ignorant' tbh, its my opinion that the ignorant ones are the people that dont read alternative theories about things and just swallow the official story time and time again without ever considering that the official line MIGHT me mistaken. It certainly doent hurt to look at things from a different perspective every now and again.

Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by Byrd

 

Somebody beat me to posting the coc aine mummies video. A better documentary is this Channel 4 one. www.channel4.com... aine-mummies/4od#2919495 However, I am not sure whether it can be viewed in the US.

oooo nice something to watch this evening thank you

Originally posted by Versa

Originally posted by Harte
The only people that "dispute" these dates are fringe writers making a living off their false claims and their ignorant readership.Harte

There are other people that believe the dating could well be out, not just those writing books and I think its a bit harsh to call their readership 'ignorant' tbh, its my opinion that the ignorant ones are the people that dont read alternative theories about things and just swallow the official story time and time again without ever considering that the official line MIGHT me mistaken. It certainly doent hurt to look at things from a different perspective every now and again.

Don't waste you energy asking Harte to be open minded. He always toes the establishment line and throws out blanket insults. Some people are confused and believe you can't be open minded AND sceptical.

He'll hate that post above with the article debunking the Cocaine Mummy debunkers.

OFF TOPIC: Enjoy your viewing tonight. I wish I was in Cornwall tomorrow. Forecast is good. I'll have to make do with camping in the Derbyshire Peak District.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1333ebdc68f0.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Versa


Ancient Egyptians often had to carry their boats over land to bypass the cataracts on the Nile. Drawings representing this is not unusual. The external image is a map showing the cataracts.

Originally posted by Pimander

Originally posted by Harte
What sort of nautical credentials do you have that allow you to proclaim these ceremonial boats as "sea faring"?

What sort of credentials do archaeologists have to proclaim the opposite? If you don't like members starting a discussion with some opinions don't visit discussion boards on conspiracy website.

Noting a depiction of a boat in ancient artwork is not proclaiming the boat not sea faring. No archaeologist has proclaimed "the opposite" as you state it.

On the other hand, the poster stated as fact that these boats are sea faring.

That's a falsehood on the part of the poster, and simply conservatism on the part of the archaeologists. Thinking people do not claim as fact things they cannot know.

Originally posted by Versa

Originally posted by Harte
The only people that "dispute" these dates are fringe writers making a living off their false claims and their ignorant readership.Harte

There are other people that believe the dating could well be out, not just those writing books and I think its a bit harsh to call their readership 'ignorant' tbh, its my opinion that the ignorant ones are the people that dont read alternative theories about things and just swallow the official story time and time again without ever considering that the official line MIGHT me mistaken. It certainly doent hurt to look at things from a different perspective every now and again.

Versa,
Why do you assume skeptics haven't "looked at " these "things?"

I was once almost convinced myself. So I started looking into these "things" and found out that I had been lied to, as you are being lied to.

I wonder why it is that proponents of these theories, such as yourself, never actually looked at the evidence on hand.

If you did, you'd know that the "different perspective" your talking about involves ignoring the facts that are actually known and taking things on faith that are flat-out falsehoods.

Also, regarding your claim that dates for Mesoamerican sites are disputed, is it always gonna be "some people," with no names of legitimate researchers attached when it comes to you pretending your beliefs are legitimate claims?

Originally posted by PimanderDon't waste you energy asking Harte to be open minded. He always toes the establishment line and throws out blanket insults. Some people are confused and believe you can't be open minded AND sceptical.

"Open minded," to you, appears to mean letting your brain fall out the hole in your head.

Originally posted by PimanderHe'll hate that post above with the article debunking the Cocaine Mummy debunkers.

Nope. Read it before. This coc aine mummy study that the fringe is always yapping about was done by three scientists:

In the late 1980s the German anthropologist, Dr Franz Parsche became interested in determining whether mummified remains could be forensically tested for the presence of drugs. If modern analytical techniques could be employed on ancient samples then we could determine which particular drugs were used by specific cultures and also get an idea of when they were first used. Dr Parsche collaborated with Dr Wolfgang Pirsig and Prof. Svetlana Balabanova, both at the University of Ulm, to obtain and analyse ancient mummies from Egypt, South America, the German “Bell” culture and Sudan for traces of drugs.

Balabanova was one of the three. Another one was Dr Wolfgang Pirsig.

Here's what Persig and Bablabanova said in an interview in 1995 (the third researcher - the lead scientist - had died by then)

Is it possible that plants yielding the required amounts of these drugs may have been present in the past and have become extinct?

WP: Yes, the destruction of nature today is the best evidence, and nature had been destroyed also in ancient times.

SB: It is possible that plants containing the alkaloids were present and used in Ancient Egypt.

Are there any plant sources of THC known to have been available in Peru between 200 and 1500AD?

WP: We have not investigated this question.

Do these results support an established trans-Atlantic trading route between Egypt and South America that predates Columbus (1492AD)?

WP: No, this conclusion cannot be made from the Ulm findings.

Could they indicate the possibility of a distant trading route across the Pacific between South America, Asia and Africa?

WP: No, this conclusion cannot be made from the Ulm findings.

Do you favour any particular interpretation of your results?

WP: As the Ulm findings are gained from a few specimens of a few sites in the huge world without other contemporary background information I don’t dare to interpret them in any particular cultural context.

Source

The original researchers involved agree that their findings indicate no such transatlantic contact.

I'm satisfied with that. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to add on things to scientific research that the science itself does not support.


Harte

Originally posted by Versa
In the Eastern Desert of Egypt at about 4500BCE there appeared a group of people complete with sea faring boats.

This group of people 'tagged' rocks as they dragged their vessels across the desert. Their 'tags' or 'rock art' shows them dragging their high-prowed, sea faring boats across the desert.

What are sea faring boats doing in the middle of the desert? It's obvious that they weren't the local inland desert dwelling peoples who had no need whatsoever of sea faring vessels so who were these people and what where they doing dragging their ships across the desert?

Are you sure about the dates of the boat on the rock? They might be a thousand years older. The period around 4500 BCE is when Egypt's Nile Delta became fertile for the first time, so agricultural groups moved in. Boat groups had been around in the Mediterranean since the 8th millenium BCE. But the Nile delta was avoided for colonization because it wasn't fertile yet. Too arid. There was one group that moved into South Egypt c. 7500 BCE from Cyprus, Levant, Palestine and they had boats. But that was south Egypt and not the delta.

So if groups were dragging boats across the desert-- it might have been between the years of 8300 BCE to 5000 BCE. After 4400 BCE the delta was fertile enough for agriculture and they wouldn't need to drag the boats across the desert from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea.

3.2.6. 4400 – 4000 BC: Spread of cattle cult, food-producing communities on the Nile, environment turning hostile

The period of 4400 – 4000 BC meant increasing aridity, and humans abandoned several locations. Pastoralism was switched for agriculture, and small agricultural communities were born in the Nile valley. Cattle cult was spreading in Sahara.

The food production had spread all along the Nile reaching from the delta in the north to south of Khartoum by 4000 BC.

p. 31-32

3.2.4. 5400 – 5000 BC: Multiresource pastoralism, cattle burials and the termination of monsoon rains

As the regular monsoon rains decreases, the aridification developed further. People moved to refugia, and migration and regionalization caused humans not only to make lifestyle changes by moving to another environment, but they even went through adaptations to the new environment, for example in the form of adapting multiresource pastoralism.

p. 29

from Holocene Climate Variability and Cultural Changes at River Nile and Its Saharan Surroundings

So the drought in the Nile Delta region would be in the timeframe 5400-5000 BCE which would be the timeframe that they might have had to drag their boats across the desert from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea. The period around 4500 BCE is the fertile timeframe. They wouldn't need to drag their boats across the desert. They'd have plenty of water, fertile soil and food along the Nile.

Why did the Ancient Egyptians bury their dead in boats? Does that seem at all logical for a desert people?

It would appear to me that a peoples capable of crossing seas have appeared in Egypt dragging their boats across the dessert roughly 4500BCE.

Have we got here evidence of a lost sea faring culture? I think its possible...

Egypt is a melting pot of different groups of different origins. Some are groups that abandoned the delta after the Eemian melt and moved south into Africa that moved back north when the Sahara decreased in size again after the Last Glacial. Other groups moved in by land from the Palestine. Other groups moved in by boat from other areas of the Mediterranean and Aegean. So they are a melting pot of different groups. Some Egyptians would be desert peoples by origin, while others migrated there to the coast by boat. It's clearly the boat groups who bury their dead in their boats. Other groups will have different burial practices.

The Egyptian 'crown' here shows a serpent and a vulture... feather and serpent.

The serpent and the vulture are both boat groups. The serpent group (cremations) colonized Cyprus by boat c. 8300 BCE. but avoided colonizing Egypt at that time because the Nile delta was dead--sand dunes. You couldn't grow crops there. The vulture group (excarnations) colonized Cyprus by boat c. 7500 BCE. They did try to colonize South Egypt but avoided the delta-- still dead. No way to grow crops there yet.

Red Heads did live in South Egypt. Even Seti I and Ramses II were red heads as was Seth. But this later group to colonize Egypt c. 4500 BCE when it became fertile again... not sure of their origins but they are also a serpent boat group. They could be from any number of islands or any number of other Mediterranean regions by that point in time.

So when South Egypt (vulture goddess) unites with North Egypt (serpent goddess)-- after a civil war --that's when you see both the serpent and the vulture on the crown.

By that point-- South Egypt's practice of excarnations (c. 7500 BCE) had turned into mummification. The first process of excarnation is painting the body with a substance and vultures devour the flesh from the bones-- hence Vulture Goddess. But the second process is painting the body with a substance and burying it underground for worms and vermin to devour the flesh. Then the body would be dug up and bones cleaned. But in the Egyptian sand-- the dry arid conditions began to cause natural mummification when the second form of excarnation was tried. So the Vulture goddess group in Egypt changed their burial practice from excarnation to mummification. That's how mummification became a burial practice.

Serpent groups in North Egypt-- many still practiced cremation or your "boat burials". They'd light those boats on fire with the dead body sometimes when they sent it out to sea.

maybe jews

Originally posted by Pimander
Don't waste you energy asking Harte to be open minded. He always toes the establishment line and throws out blanket insults. Some people are confused and believe you can't be open minded AND sceptical.

He'll hate that post above with the article debunking the Cocaine Mummy debunkers.

OFF TOPIC: Enjoy your viewing tonight. I wish I was in Cornwall tomorrow. Forecast is good. I'll have to make do with camping in the Derbyshire Peak District.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1333ebdc68f0.jpg[/atsimg]

Hiya,

TBH I don't expect someone that has a fixed view on anything ever to even try to change it. I am 'sceptical' about everything I read, and that means EVERYTHING, If there was enough time for me to read every book in the world on every subject I would but there isnt so I read what I can and take what I can from what I read.

OFF TOPIC: Im in somerset now and missing the beaches like you wouldnt believe!!! OMG what a pic!!! Stunning Pim just stunning!

Originally posted by Aislin
reply to post by Versa

 

Ancient Egyptians often had to carry their boats over land to bypass the cataracts on the Nile. Drawings representing this is not unusual. The external image is a map showing the cataracts.

edit on 7/22/2011 by Aislin because: (no reason given)

The age and dates are what is of most interest here.... These 'boat people' where around and using very advanced boats long before Egypt was meant to be organised etc.... By a long time I mean 1000yrs before pharaonic times.

From the OP:

Originally posted by Versa
The Inca God Viracocha

was described as "a man of medium height, white and dressed in a white robe like an alb secured round the waist, and that he carried a staff and a book in his hands.

source

From your same link:

Spanish chroniclers from the 16th century claimed that when the conquistadors led by Francisco Pizarro first encountered the Inca's they were greeted as Gods, "Viracochas", because their lighter skin resembled their God Viracocha.[12] This story was first reported by Pedro Cieza de León (1553) and later by Pedro Sarmiento de Gamboa. Similar accounts by Spanish chroniclers (e.g. Juan de Betanzos) describe Viracocha as a "White God", often with a beard.[13] The whiteness of Viracocha is however not mentioned in the native authentic legends of the Incas and most modern scholars therefore consider the "White God" story to be post-conquest Spanish invention.[14][15]

This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about - ignoring what is factually known in order to embellish some absurd thing that you have a dire need (for some reason) to believe in.

I mean, why else would you have even brought Viracocha up? He certainly doesn't date to 4500 BC.

You didn't even read your own reference.

I'm being kind here. That is, if you did read your own reference, then you purposefully left out the part I quoted in an obvious attempt to misinform through the mischaracterization of actual fact.

I'm assuming the former for the sake of politeness.


Harte

I think the OP will find a good answer in David Rohl's book Legend; the Genesis of Civilization, which in its later chapters, talks of this very subject. Rohl writes of people who sailed around Arabia from Mesopotamia, dragged their ships thru the wadis, and proceeded to conquer Egypt by the use of a smaller (and easier to wield) mace. They became the Followers of Horus, a Shemitic ruling-class veneer over the Hamitic substrata.

Originally posted by Harte
Versa,
Why do you assume skeptics haven't "looked at " these "things?"

I was once almost convinced myself. So I started looking into these "things" and found out that I had been lied to, as you are being lied to.

Which is what I am in the process of doing myself.... I am 'looking into these things' and I WILL draw my own conclusions in TIME.

Originally posted by Harte
I wonder why it is that proponents of these theories, such as yourself, never actually looked at the evidence on hand.

If you did, you'd know that the "different perspective" your talking about involves ignoring the facts that are actually known and taking things on faith that are flat-out falsehoods.

I am not as you put it a 'proponent of these theories' I am simply questioning things in my own way.... you did your search I am doing mine.

Originally posted by Harte
Also, regarding your claim that dates for Mesoamerican sites are disputed, is it always gonna be "some people," with no names of legitimate researchers attached when it comes to you pretending your beliefs are legitimate claims?

That's the issue here though isn't it? Who decides who is a legitimate researcher and who isnt? Sometimes its people who aren't upto their necks in academia's view of things that make the breakthroughs. As I said before I dont feel that it hurts to view things from a different perspective.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
I think the OP will find a good answer in David Rohl's book Legend; the Genesis of Civilization, which in its later chapters, talks of this very subject. Rohl writes of people who sailed around Arabia from Mesopotamia, dragged their ships thru the wadis, and proceeded to conquer Egypt by the use of a smaller (and easier to wield) mace. They became the Followers of Horus, a Shemitic ruling-class veneer over the Hamitic substrata.

Hiya that is a BRILLIANT book... I have read it some time back and really ought to pick it up again

Originally posted by Harte
From the OP:

Originally posted by Versa
The Inca God Viracocha

was described as "a man of medium height, white and dressed in a white robe like an alb secured round the waist, and that he carried a staff and a book in his hands.

source

From your same link:

Spanish chroniclers from the 16th century claimed that when the conquistadors led by Francisco Pizarro first encountered the Inca's they were greeted as Gods, "Viracochas", because their lighter skin resembled their God Viracocha.[12] This story was first reported by Pedro Cieza de León (1553) and later by Pedro Sarmiento de Gamboa. Similar accounts by Spanish chroniclers (e.g. Juan de Betanzos) describe Viracocha as a "White God", often with a beard.[13] The whiteness of Viracocha is however not mentioned in the native authentic legends of the Incas and most modern scholars therefore consider the "White God" story to be post-conquest Spanish invention.[14][15]

This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about - ignoring what is factually known in order to embellish some absurd thing that you have a dire need (for some reason) to believe in.

I mean, why else would you have even brought Viracocha up? He certainly doesn't date to 4500 BC.

You didn't even read your own reference.

I'm being kind here. That is, if you did read your own reference, then you purposefully left out the part I quoted in an obvious attempt to misinform through the mischaracterization of actual fact.

I'm assuming the former for the sake of politeness.


Harte

From the same link that YOU posted....

most modern scholars therefore consider the "White God" story to be post-conquest Spanish invention.[14][15]

MOST... not ALL...

Originally posted by Harte
ignoring what is factually known in order to embellish some absurd thing that you have a dire need (for some reason) to believe in.

Really Harte you are doing your self a disservice here.... You are assuming that I have a 'dire need' I don't, I am just going through the same process you yourself admitted to in an earlier post and that is exploring the alternatives.

I was once almost convinced myself. So I started looking into these "things"

My brain might be on the verge of falling out but I fear yours has become musty. I am the sceptic here Harte, not you... I am sceptical that modern historians have everything correct.

reply to post by MapMistress

hiya thank you for the reply I need to read your post properly when I am more awake and slightly more sober than I am now so I'll go through it asap and get back to you