Sumerian / South American Connection

reply to post by grey580


nephicode.blogspot.com...


Just a little blog I found about elephants in south america.

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.

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

Given that there is solid evidense for Ancient Egyptians in Australia (the Heiroglyphs there speak of the captain being bitten by a venomous snake and dying) and I vaguely also recall there being some very weak archeological evidense for the presence of coca and tobacco among Egyptian mummies. It is possible for there to be a connection between the two cultures. It is a verified fact that the Nordic Viking culture managed to get all the way to Canada (Newfoundland, to be specific), and established at least one settlement there. So... do with that waht you will.

The people who inhabited Sumer were not paler by and large than the natives of south america (by the Luschan chromatic scale, the people of Iraq are at the same level or a little darker than Latin Americans for the most part) and Sargon of Akkad was not of the genetic stock to be pale, chances are he, and his people, are not the origin of that myth.

The bowl sure is neat though. It may not be Cuneiform, but it certainly resembles it. I'll look into it, but if the bowl is old enough that mismatch would be pretty easily explained by the fact that Cuneiform was not a unified writing system till after Sargon's rule.

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.

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.

Originally posted by obscurepanda
Given that there is solid evidense for Ancient Egyptians in Australia (the Heiroglyphs there speak of the captain being bitten by a venomous snake and dying)

People were caught carving those glyphs. The glyphs themselves are amateurish and incorrect.

There's not a single whit of evidence that any Ancient Egyptians traveled to Australia.

Now, modern Egyptians, likely.

Harte

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.

Its interesting but if you take a picture of a statue out of its cultural, and historical context its very easy to start attributing ideas to the image that the original carvers did not intend and give an explanation for what you see, or what you want to see. Did the original carvers of those statues intend for them to have beards or maybe masks, or maybe just prominent jaws. A statue that appears to have beard is far from evidence of a connection between Sumerian and ancient American cultures. To take that bowl seriously I would have to see really strong evidence that it was found where it was claimed to have been found in the condition it is now in and that the markings are indeed cuneiform.

reply to post by KingRat79


Strong evidence?

The bowl speaks for itself...

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.

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.

reply to post by KingRat79

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 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!

for me, that first statue looks celtic or vinca.... sorry but luddite-ism prevents pics, but google is our friend

and not an elephant, as covered elsewhere, it's a tapir...

while i believe humans have travelled the globe far more widely and earlier than currently commonly accepted, perhaps the lesson here is that it's human art and we are all really rather alike, therefor our consciousness produces art that is archetypal?

The Olmecs were Africans brought over by Thoth/Quetzlecoatl. After his powers were usurped by Marduk/Ra in Egypt, he and his peoples (Canaanites) relocated to the new world. That is why pyramids can be found in Meso-America. Ishkur/Adad/Tesub was known as the Lightning hurler. His domains were South America. He is decended from Semitic stock. These would be your bearded peoples of the Andes. But I do belive there are settelments much older in Meso-America from the continent of Lemuria. This would help explain why some of the oldest settlements are on the West coast of America.

The Olmecs were Africans brought over by Thoth/Quetzlecoatl. After his powers were usurped by Marduk/Ra in Egypt, he and his peoples (Canaanites) relocated to the new world. That is why pyramids can be found in Meso-America. Ishkur/Adad/Tesub was known as the Lightning hurler. His domains were South America. He is decended from Semitic stock. These would be your bearded peoples of the Andes. But I do belive there are settelments much older in Meso-America from the continent of Lemuria. This would help explain why some of the oldest settlements are on the West coast of America.

Originally posted by obscurepanda
Given that there is solid evidense for Ancient Egyptians in Australia (the Heiroglyphs there speak of the captain being bitten by a venomous snake and dying)

Those are fake (and you can tell if you know how to read hieroglyphs.) A ranger caught the guy defacing the rock with fake Egyptian symbols. Seriously.

and I vaguely also recall there being some very weak archeological evidense for the presence of coca and tobacco among Egyptian mummies.

Only among mummies that were unwrapped at mummy unwrapping parties or had been stored in private collections in Europe during a time (Victorian era) when smoking and coc aine were in popular use.

The bowl sure is neat though. It may not be Cuneiform, but it certainly resembles it.

Actually, it doesn't. Take a look at some of the cuneiform dictionaries.

I'll look into it, but if the bowl is old enough that mismatch would be pretty easily explained by the fact that Cuneiform was not a unified writing system till after Sargon's rule.

Sargon predates that object by 2,000 years.

Originally posted by Oannes
The Olmecs were Africans brought over by Thoth/Quetzlecoatl.

They are indigenous Native Americans. The "African heads" are only a few cherry-picked examples out of ALL their art.

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.)

reply to post by Byrd

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?