reply to post by grey580
nephicode.blogspot.com...
Just a little blog I found about elephants in south america.
Sumerian / South American Connection, page 2
reply posted on 9-1-2013 @ 09:29 AM by grey580
reply to post by Signals
While not specifically about elephants. The elephant statue reveals something that should be impossible according to modern science.
ie the connection between the old world and the new world.
While not specifically about elephants. The elephant statue reveals something that should be impossible according to modern science.
ie the connection between the old world and the new world.
reply posted on 9-1-2013 @ 12:57 PM by Harte
Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by Signals
And this always gets me here.
www.richardcassaro.com...
Sculptures of Elephants. According to science there is no way possible that Elephants were seen by the Mayans. Elephants died out 10K years ago.
These are macaws.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Also see my post above that one by Byrd that I linked.
Harte
edit on 1/9/2013 by Harte because: (no reason given)
reply posted on 9-1-2013 @ 02:54 PM by Human_Alien
reply to post by Signals
We know 1% of 1% of the totality of everything. People need to try not confuse antiquity (our true past) with history that is just what it says: his story.
Truth isn't a story. It's actual.
We know 1% of 1% of the totality of everything. People need to try not confuse antiquity (our true past) with history that is just what it says: his story.
Truth isn't a story. It's actual.
reply posted on 10-1-2013 @ 05:01 AM by Astyanax
reply to post by grey580
If there were elephant-like animals is in South America (and why not? Mammoth remains have been found as far south as Nicaragua), it doesn't prove a cultural connexion between Asia and South America. On the contrary, it disposes of one of the pieces of evidence you're putting forward for it. It means Pacific-crossing Balinese Mayans didn't bring elephants (or the idea of elephants) with them from Asia; the elephants were already in South America (and so were the Mayans).
Besides, as Harte says, they're really macaws.
If there were elephant-like animals is in South America (and why not? Mammoth remains have been found as far south as Nicaragua), it doesn't prove a cultural connexion between Asia and South America. On the contrary, it disposes of one of the pieces of evidence you're putting forward for it. It means Pacific-crossing Balinese Mayans didn't bring elephants (or the idea of elephants) with them from Asia; the elephants were already in South America (and so were the Mayans).
Besides, as Harte says, they're really macaws.
reply posted on 10-1-2013 @ 11:15 AM by vind21
reply to post by Astyanax
Yes, the original assumption was that there were no elephants or elephant like creatures in South America which would then suggest a possible exchange of culture or at least experience of a creature not native to the continent of the art.
This is not the case however.
"Certainly, the Gomphotheres, a diverse group of elephant-like animals (proboscideans) were not only widespread in North America during the Miocene and Pliocene epochs, with some living in Eurasia and South America, they were slowly replaced by modern elephants, but the last South American species did not finally become extinct until possibly as recently as 400 A.D. In the toxonomy of the Gomphotherium, the complete “parentage” was finally decided in 1998 from Domain to Family. According to J. L. Prado, M. T. Alberdi, b. Azanza, B. Sanchex, and D. Frassinetti in their 2005 work on elephants in South America, the Gomphothere remains are common at South American Paleo-indian sites. One example is the early human settlement at Monte Verde, in Chile.
Consequently, elephants were widely distributed all over South America, with at least one variety existing to about the time of the annihilation of the Nephites, 400 A.D."
Now as the OP says, enough with the F$#%in elephants
It is highly, highly unlikely, that any Egyptians after the 4th dynasty and those populations we associate with the pyramids (Im talking about the text book Egyptology point of view here) ever had any regular contact with the america's or did so in a significant enough way to influence thier art or architecture.
I think if you want to start talking about those kinds of connections as a possibility you have to start talking about pre-Sumerian interaction.
Yes, the original assumption was that there were no elephants or elephant like creatures in South America which would then suggest a possible exchange of culture or at least experience of a creature not native to the continent of the art.
This is not the case however.
"Certainly, the Gomphotheres, a diverse group of elephant-like animals (proboscideans) were not only widespread in North America during the Miocene and Pliocene epochs, with some living in Eurasia and South America, they were slowly replaced by modern elephants, but the last South American species did not finally become extinct until possibly as recently as 400 A.D. In the toxonomy of the Gomphotherium, the complete “parentage” was finally decided in 1998 from Domain to Family. According to J. L. Prado, M. T. Alberdi, b. Azanza, B. Sanchex, and D. Frassinetti in their 2005 work on elephants in South America, the Gomphothere remains are common at South American Paleo-indian sites. One example is the early human settlement at Monte Verde, in Chile.
Consequently, elephants were widely distributed all over South America, with at least one variety existing to about the time of the annihilation of the Nephites, 400 A.D."
Now as the OP says, enough with the F$#%in elephants
It is highly, highly unlikely, that any Egyptians after the 4th dynasty and those populations we associate with the pyramids (Im talking about the text book Egyptology point of view here) ever had any regular contact with the america's or did so in a significant enough way to influence thier art or architecture.
I think if you want to start talking about those kinds of connections as a possibility you have to start talking about pre-Sumerian interaction.
edit on 10-1-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-1-2013 by vind21 because: spelling
reply posted on 11-1-2013 @ 06:00 PM by KingRat79
reply to post by Signals
As I said dead I would want to see clear evidence that it was dug out of the ground in south America, in the condition it is now in and that the patterns on it are undisputedly cuneiform. An artefact out of context, without a clear evidence and history of where it has come from is meaningless.
As I said dead I would want to see clear evidence that it was dug out of the ground in south America, in the condition it is now in and that the patterns on it are undisputedly cuneiform. An artefact out of context, without a clear evidence and history of where it has come from is meaningless.
reply posted on 11-1-2013 @ 06:14 PM by punkinworks10
reply to post by Astyanax
Some of the "elephants" are also ant eaters which are prominent in central American imagery.
I'm not buying the magna fuente bowl's provenance.
There is definative evidence for old world / new world contacts, other than migrations, which is where some of thw seemingly connected themes in mythology and related languages, come from back migrations of people from the new wolrd to the old world. Those contacts are so deep in antiquity that those contacts would not be readily appearent.
Botanical evidence is very good, coconut palms are native to central America, ancestral cotton from the new wolrd is found in the Indian ocean basin. The bottle gourd which is native to east Africa underwent two domestication events one asia around 20,000 years ago, another in Africa around 4 k years ago, but wild varietes in south America, are related to the original African variety.
Then there is the sweet potatoe which is a south American native, that is found throughout Polynesia.
Them there's the question of jade from baja showing up at a lapita site in the bismarks.
Or there's the question of how northern European DNA got to be 10% amerind, and how southern Europeans got a little less amerind DNA.
Some of the "elephants" are also ant eaters which are prominent in central American imagery.
I'm not buying the magna fuente bowl's provenance.
There is definative evidence for old world / new world contacts, other than migrations, which is where some of thw seemingly connected themes in mythology and related languages, come from back migrations of people from the new wolrd to the old world. Those contacts are so deep in antiquity that those contacts would not be readily appearent.
Botanical evidence is very good, coconut palms are native to central America, ancestral cotton from the new wolrd is found in the Indian ocean basin. The bottle gourd which is native to east Africa underwent two domestication events one asia around 20,000 years ago, another in Africa around 4 k years ago, but wild varietes in south America, are related to the original African variety.
Then there is the sweet potatoe which is a south American native, that is found throughout Polynesia.
Them there's the question of jade from baja showing up at a lapita site in the bismarks.
Or there's the question of how northern European DNA got to be 10% amerind, and how southern Europeans got a little less amerind DNA.
reply posted on 12-1-2013 @ 08:18 AM by Signals
reply to post by KingRat79
www.faculty.ucr.edu...
The Fuente Magna bowl was found accidentally by a worker from the CHUA Hacienda, property of the Manjon family located near Lake Titicaca about 75-80 km from the city of La Paz, Bolivia (see Photo). The site where it was found had not been studied for artifacts previously. The Fuente Magna is beautifully engraved in earthen-brown both inside and out and bears zoological motifs and anthropomorphic characters within (Please see Bernardo Biados for further detail).
www.faculty.ucr.edu...
reply posted on 12-1-2013 @ 09:00 AM by Astyanax
reply to post by punkinworks10
Oh, I'm not denying that there could have been contacts between the Old World and the New in prehistoric times. We know that there was cultural diffusion from Southeast Asia across the Pacific at least as far as Easter Island. That's still over two thousand miles from the nearest South American landfall – but, as you say, the cultivation of sweet potato is one of several clues suggesting that there was contact between South America and Polynesia.
The question is over what period these contacts occurred if they did occur. It appears that places like Hawaii and Easter Island were settled by Polynesians no earlier than the first millennium AD, and of course most of the known pre-Columbian civilizations of South America are of scarcely greater antiquity. But the Olmecs were, and there are pre-Olmec remains in Mexico that are nearly five thousand years old. A lot could have happened in that vast span of time; perhaps native South Americans found their way across the eastern Pacific and settled some of the nearer islands, and the Polynesians encountered them in the course of their own eastward migrations.
Still, the idea of direct contact between South America and the Malay Archipelago in ancient times seems rather absurd. People who make such claims don't seem to have any real idea of the difficulties involved. The Pacific is a biggish ocean – half a planet wide – and it was hard enough for the Spanish to keep the Manila Galleons plying between Mexico and the Philippines in the 1500s – and European maritime technology in that era far outstripped anything available to the ancients. In early post-Columbian times, vessels making a Pacific crossing in either direction would reach their destination with their crews decimated and the survivors half dead with exposure, starvation, thirst and scurvy. Imagine what it would have been like for small crews in open boats!
Oh, I'm not denying that there could have been contacts between the Old World and the New in prehistoric times. We know that there was cultural diffusion from Southeast Asia across the Pacific at least as far as Easter Island. That's still over two thousand miles from the nearest South American landfall – but, as you say, the cultivation of sweet potato is one of several clues suggesting that there was contact between South America and Polynesia.
The question is over what period these contacts occurred if they did occur. It appears that places like Hawaii and Easter Island were settled by Polynesians no earlier than the first millennium AD, and of course most of the known pre-Columbian civilizations of South America are of scarcely greater antiquity. But the Olmecs were, and there are pre-Olmec remains in Mexico that are nearly five thousand years old. A lot could have happened in that vast span of time; perhaps native South Americans found their way across the eastern Pacific and settled some of the nearer islands, and the Polynesians encountered them in the course of their own eastward migrations.
Still, the idea of direct contact between South America and the Malay Archipelago in ancient times seems rather absurd. People who make such claims don't seem to have any real idea of the difficulties involved. The Pacific is a biggish ocean – half a planet wide – and it was hard enough for the Spanish to keep the Manila Galleons plying between Mexico and the Philippines in the 1500s – and European maritime technology in that era far outstripped anything available to the ancients. In early post-Columbian times, vessels making a Pacific crossing in either direction would reach their destination with their crews decimated and the survivors half dead with exposure, starvation, thirst and scurvy. Imagine what it would have been like for small crews in open boats!
edit on 12/1/13 by Astyanax because: of open boats
reply posted on 12-1-2013 @ 06:32 PM by 1/2 Nephilim
reply to post by Byrd
Africans have elongated heads? You mean naturally and not from artificial cranial deformation? If so I've never noticed it. Do you have a link to something that supports this?
Originally posted by Byrd
Furthermore, Africans have small lips (the 'big lipped' version derives from minstrel show icons of the late 1800's) and elongated heads (not round heads.)
Africans have elongated heads? You mean naturally and not from artificial cranial deformation? If so I've never noticed it. Do you have a link to something that supports this?
edit on 12-1-2013 by 1/2 Nephilim because: (no reason given)
Egypt\'s Ancient Fleet: Lost for Thousands of Years, Discovered in Cave
Posted 17 days ago with 95 member flags
Posted 17 days ago with 95 member flags
Arizona man finds what he believes will change American prehistoric history....
Posted 19 days ago with 56 member flags
Posted 19 days ago with 56 member flags
Plantagenet Legacy Paved Over??? Presidents, Christianity, And Hidden History.
Posted 11 days ago with 18 member flags
Posted 11 days ago with 18 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
4 Fireballs with Same Heading Spotted Over U.S. in last 24 Hours
General Conspiracies: 17 hours ago, 37 flags
General Conspiracies: 17 hours ago, 37 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
6 Reasons Why Obama’s Popularity Is Likely to Plummet; The politics of hope & the politics of nope
US Political Madness: 7 hours ago, 50 replies
US Political Madness: 7 hours ago, 50 replies
4 Fireballs with Same Heading Spotted Over U.S. in last 24 Hours
General Conspiracies: 17 hours ago, 45 replies
General Conspiracies: 17 hours ago, 45 replies
Confess here! what music moves you that you won't let people know you love?
General Chit Chat: 14 hours ago, 38 replies
General Chit Chat: 14 hours ago, 38 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.209 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.209 seconds
