Sumerian / South American Connection

Native legends speak of Giants coming from the east on reed ships. They were the builders brought over from the African Domains. Tiahuanaku,Puma-Punku,and Ollytaytambu were constructed by these Nefilim. Most of the megalithic stones in Meso-America were carved using a radiation like device. The Natives didn't have this technology. It was brought from elsewhere. To make it shorter, Nin.gish.zidda (Sumerian) is Thoth (Egyptian) is Quetzalcoatl (Mexico).

I'd say the jury is still out on that one and stating this kind of information as fact is pretty unsupportable even to the open minded.

The chances of any actualy "sunken continents" is highly unlikely. The sunken areas of the continental shelves however being previously inhabited by humans while exposed during the most recent major ice age is as far as you can project these ideas and hold any defensible ground.

originally posted by: Signals
With all due respect you two, this thread isn't about elephants....

Apparently, its about people not knowing what a Mayan statue of an anteater looks like.
s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...
Because anything else you've posted in this thread is complete nonsense. Youre taking a handful of statues from thousands of dissimilar examples and saying "look, how a few of these look similar to this other handful I found from thousands of dissimilar examples"
Cherry pick much ?

a reply to: Marduk

Thanks for the 2 year-old dead thread bump, however, none of the OP links resemble an ant eater...

And you fail to address the cuneiform writing on the Fuente Magna bowl.

originally posted by: Signals
a reply to: Marduk

Thanks for the 2 year-old dead thread bump, however, none of the OP links resemble an ant eater...

And you fail to address the cuneiform writing on the Fuente Magna bowl.

I can read Cuneiform, I can't read most of the Bowl, it says at one point "mountain, mountain, mountain" like the carver didn't understand what he was writing, or in other words, its fake. Even if it wasn't it has no provenance. Your apparent translator, Winters is an afrocentrist who's work "claiming every ancient culture was black" has been completely discredited since DNA became understood. (25 years). He holds no linguistic qualifications at all
The op links not only resemble an ant eater, but they are indigenous to the region, pinning your misunderstanding on an elephant explains what exactly ?

As per the original premise, that because Indians don't grow beards, the bearded carvings must be of Europeans
here is a blog featuring S American Indians with beards
makinapacalatxilbalba.blogspot.co.uk...
You should also bear this in mind when posting in future
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Marduk

Ok, we'll just take your word for it that you can read Cuneiform, cause I sure can't..

LoL at the racism angle!

Nice to have you back

....

Nothing works on this website, impossible to upload photos

originally posted by: Marduk
....

Nothing works on this website, impossible to upload photos

A while back, ATS stopped letting you post a photo by linking it.

Now you have to upload the photo to your own gallery here, then post it in your post, if you want a photo in your post.

At least, that's the only way I was able to figure out how to do it.

The bar at the top of your screen has a down arrow. Click on it and then click on "upload." You get to your gallery where you click "upload" again.

Sorry to go OT, but I 'm interested in any pics Marduk thinks are pertinent, and I was afraid he'd miss that tiny "mail" icon being lit up (like I so often do) so I didn't PM the info.

Harte

Thanks Harte


The animal on the left has big ears and tusks, the animal on the right is local to the area of the carving
which one can it be

originally posted by: Marduk
Thanks Harte

The animal on the left has big ears and tusks, the animal on the right is local to the area of the carving
which one can it be

Neither.

The Mayans say it's a Macaw.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Marduk
Thanks Harte

The animal on the left has big ears and tusks, the animal on the right is local to the area of the carving
which one can it be

Neither.

The Mayans say it's a Macaw.

Harte

the Maya have nothing to do with Tiwanaku and they have never lived in Bolivia
www.markamusic.com...
So whats your source on that claim ?

You were probably thinking of Teotihuacan
It has a famous Macaw carving and is connected to the Maya
www.gettyimages.co.uk...

originally posted by: Marduk
You were probably thinking of Teotihuacan
It has a famous Macaw carving and is connected to the Maya
www.gettyimages.co.uk...

Stela B at Copan:



Also:

The western side of Stela B reveals a personified witz monster. The witz symbol means
“mountain.” Dozens of witz masks and macaw heads are stacked in the upper sections of the
façade. Newsome writes that the presence of the witz glyph and macaw masks indicate the stela’s
direct connection with Temple 22, a personified structure built by 18-Rabbit to be used as ritual
space (Martin and Grube 2000:204). Temple 22 is thought to represent the holy mountain where
humans were first created from ears of corn (Newsome 2001:137). The text of Stela B identifies
18-Rabbit as the “Macaw Mountain Lord.” “Macaw mountain” refers to the world that the
founder of Copan’s dynasty, Yax K’uk Mo’, established. The glyphs also reference the centers of
the earth and sky, perhaps alluding to 18-Rabbit’s central role in the universe.

Source

Harte

Errr, no...

But there was cultural interactions way before columbus, even before the phoenicians introduced the water-displacing hollow hull.

I once again point to the WHOLE body of work by Thor Heyerdahl. "Early man and the sea" is a somewhat ponderous but incredibly informative scientific book. (And surprisingly easy to follow/read)

a reply to: Astyanax

originally posted by: MacChiavell1
Errr, no...

But there was cultural interactions way before columbus, even before the phoenicians introduced the water-displacing hollow hull.

I once again point to the WHOLE body of work by Thor Heyerdahl. "Early man and the sea" is a somewhat ponderous but incredibly informative scientific book. (And surprisingly easy to follow/read)

a reply to: Astyanax

The adventurer Heyerdahl only showed that it could be possible to cross an ocean in one of the boats or canoes (depending on the culture) that we already know they had.

And Heyerdahl's doings didn't really prove that.

The famed trip made in the Kon-Tiki was actually a failure, for example, though certainly a good showing of stamina and persistence, not to mention physical fitness, in Heyerdahl. I don't mean to take anything away from that guy's accomplishments.

I think this thread originated as regards Sumer and South America. But even in a broader view, there is precious little (basically no) evidence of any cultural interaction occurring across the Atlantic Ocean.

There's more evidence for such contacts across the Pacific, though. But that evidence is mostly pretty skimpy too.


Harte

The ancient Mesoamerican civilizations might have had knowledge of mastodons from direct observation. Mammuth remains hasve been found as far south as Mexico City (there is an exhibit of various Mammuth tusks and skulls in the Museum of Cuernavaca, and a number of pre-Columbian artefacts carved in Mammuth ivory are known from funerary sites).

It would be interesting to know what the ancient Mesoamerican civilizations thought of these giant bones. In any case, this is a much more likely explanation than African elephants somehow making it to ancient Mesoamerica.

a reply to: Harte
Hi Harte,
There has been some intriguing, but obscure,
evidence from the world of genetics, regarding middle eastern/Mediterranean/Agean contact with the new world.

Guthrie's paper also deals with other HLAs, with interesting inferences:


The A*32 allele seems to indicate a Mediterranean or specifically Aegean impact in the Caribbean region (including on the Cherokee) as well as on Tupians of the lower Amazon (Oyampí and Parakana). It seems to connect this set and the Central Amerind composite with northern India, Sardinia, the Tuareg of Algeria, and with populations around the Adriatic Sea in Greece, Yugoslavia, and Italy. A*32 is absent from other South American samples except the Mapuche.
A*32 levels in the Mapuche, Oyampí, and the Central Amerind composite samples are among the top nine in the CS tabulation (7-9%), and the Tupian Oyampí near the mouth of the Amazon River have the second highest American frequency. If this is not an artifact of sampling [...]
Both A*32 and A*30 are found at significant levels in Greece, Sardinia, and in the Central Amerind composite. They also appear at anomalously high frequencies in Samoan outliers but are not documented elsewhere in Pacific islands. This may reflect limited exploration of the Pacific by Mediterraneans who otherwise left few traces except (controversial) petroglyphs. [1]

patagoniamonsters.blogspot.com...

And a link to the original paper.

web.archive.org...

Just a little from this very informative paper,

Table 3 lists all 18 “non-Indian” alleles in decreasing order of their contribution to the American total.  The most important is Afro-Asiatic B*21, which contributes 10.4% of the atypical HLAs found in American samples.  Six alleles account for more than half of the total.  The nine Afro-Asiatic types together contribute 47%; the five southern Asian types, 28%; and the four European types, 25%.  These percentages are only approximate as they stand and would doubtless change with more complete sampling or with changes in classification.

Some of this "signal" might arise from the fact that the Portuguese colonized Brazil much earlier than is currently accepted, when the Spanish were sniffing around in the early 16th century, there were already established sugar plantations, filled with north and west African slaves.
Another paper on the same Cavelli-Svortza data claims the Aegean alleles found are ancestral, and by the time of European colonization, were extremely rare in populations of the 16th century.

Very provacative info indeed.

Very interesting material.
The question, as usual, is whether we are in the presence of genetic evidence of trans-oceanic contact, or perhaps of an earlier migration by an ancestral people that became the ancestor of later Mediterranean civilizations and, possibly, of some of the original settlers of America (through Bering or some other migration pathway).

originally posted by: NeoIkonEpifanes
Very interesting material.
The question, as usual, is whether we are in the presence of genetic evidence of trans-oceanic contact, or perhaps of an earlier migration by an ancestral people that became the ancestor of later Mediterranean civilizations and, possibly, of some of the original settlers of America (through Bering or some other migration pathway).

As I understand the materials the input would not be from people far enough back to be ancestors of agean or Mediterranean populations or the ancestors of Native Americans.
One thing of note , is the incidence of these genes is highest among the multi ethnic urban societies of the Americas not found at high frequencies among the more isolated tribal people.