Egyptian Boat People - Who were they?

reply to post by Versa


Well, even if you don't get the chance to read it again the important part is that boats were invented by humans by the middle of the 8th millenia BCE. We may not have the physical remains of the boats, but we know that they existed because all sorts of islands were colonized by humans in the Aegean Sea during the middle of the 8th millenia BCE. Including the Cyclades islands & Crete. People could not have swam there. The only way to get to those islands is by boat. So when you find human remains on islands...you know they had boats to get to those islands.

The SIZE of the boats? The boats had to be large enough to hold people and livestock. The group of people colonizing islands in the Aegean Sea in the mid-8th millenia BCE also imported livestock: pigs, goats-- even cats and mountain lions. We may not have the physical remains of such ships-- but they aren't tiny rowboats, nor canoes. Mountain lions were imported to Crete. And by 8300 BCE, they colonized Cyprus-- importing cats. It would be impossible to put cats on canoes and row to Cyprus-- so the boats had to be large enough to carry the cats in some sort of cages.

Here's an article on the Early Taming of the Cat c. 8300 BCE - importing cats to islands by boat! It's not like the cats could have swam to the islands.

reply to post by Harte

Originally posted by Harte

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:

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.

Source

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

I knew you'd do that. Utterly pathetic, unscientific, closed minded nonsense.

Of course the Ulm findings on their own aren't enough to conclude that there was pre-Columbian transatlantic trading. However, the fact is that there is no other reasonable explanation for that and lots of other data that you carefully ignored. There may be another explanation, but the simplest (Occam's Razor out) is that there was such trading.

I referred to an article that used the Ulm findings and also reviewed other important evidence. I will cite the abstract of the article again. Not in a pointless attempt to persuade the closed minded - we can all continue to wonder what motivates an establishment hard-liner to spend so much time on ATS. I post this so that open minded readers of this have access to other points of view so they can research this for themselves. Ignoring evidence is far from scientific.

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 Pimander
reply to post by Harte

 

Originally posted by Harte

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:

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.

Source

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

I knew you'd do that. Utterly pathetic, unscientific, closed minded nonsense.

Pathetic, unscientific and closed minded to quote the researchers being discussed?

Did anyone else quote them or link to their work?

Now [B]THAT'S[/B] pathetic, unscientific and closed-minded.

Harte

reply to post by Harte

Originally posted by Harte
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.

You're stating that the limited work of 2 scientists is enough to satisfy you regarding a subject as massive as pre-Columbian transatlantic trading? But I'm the closed minded one?

It's sometimes difficult to accept that you even believe what you type.

Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by Harte

 

Originally posted by Harte
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.

You're stating that the limited work of 2 scientists is enough to satisfy you regarding a subject as massive as pre-Columbian transatlantic trading? But I'm the closed minded one?

No, simply joining this part of the conversation:

Originally posted by EartOccupant

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.

reply to post by Byrd

 

What about the traces of cocaïne in the mummies, as cocaïne only grows (to my knoledge) in the america's, there had to be a connection, trade route or something.

Then four years ago a German scientist, Dr Svetla Balabanova, made a discovery which was to baffle Egyptologists, and call into question whole areas of science and archeology to chemistry and botany. She discovered that the body of Henut Taui contained large quantities of coc aine and nicotine. The surprise was not just that the ancient Egyptians had taken drugs, but that these drugs come from tobacco and coca, plants completly unknown outside the Americas, unheard of until Sir Walter Raleigh introduced smoking from the New World, or until coc aine was imported in the Victorian era. It was seemingly impossible for the ancient Egyptians to get hold of these substances. And so began the mystery -

Note the name of the researcher - Dr Svetla Balabanova.

There are no other researchers doing this work.

The "limited work of 3 scientists (one now dead and no longer working on it)" is the only reference in this area of the field.


You're right, though. It's not evidence. I believe I indicated that already. So did Dr. Balabanova.

Originally posted by Pimander

It's sometimes difficult to accept that you even believe what you type.

And you should perhaps think a little more before you come up with another snappy comeback like "You can't believe the limited research of only two scientists." I mean, they're the only two. Without them, you don't get to have coc aine mummies.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte
You're right, though. It's not evidence. I believe I indicated that already. So did Dr. Balabanova.

Now I know you're just trolling!

Balabanova did not say that and nor did I. I've observer what you do and you clearly have no intention of doing anything other than what in my view you should be banned for.

Originally posted by MapMistress

Here's an article on the Early Taming of the Cat c. 8300 BCE - importing cats to islands by boat! It's not like the cats could have swam to the islands.

TY for the link

Originally posted by Pimander

Originally posted by Harte
You're right, though. It's not evidence. I believe I indicated that already. So did Dr. Balabanova.

Now I know you're just trolling!

Balabanova did not say that and nor did I.

Hows your grasp of English?

Note:

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.

Source
SB = Svetlana Balabanova.

In other words, no, it's not evidence.

Originally posted by Pimander
I've observer what you do and you clearly have no intention of doing anything other than what in my view you should be banned for.

If I'm banned for pointing out the stinkiest parts of an entire load of bullcrap, I won't miss the place.

Harte

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by Harte

 

What you have just quoted is not evidence, it is an opinion for which there is absolutely no evidence whatever. As I said, neither Balabanova or myself said that the Cocaine Mummies aren't evidence. Not for the first time on ATS you are lying about what someone has posted and about the topic. Continue to desperately squirm if you like.

No squirming here.

Of course, I wasn't the one that tried to discount the only source on these "coc aine mummies" in an awkward attempt to support the use of these mummies as evidence of transatlantic contact.

Ignorance of a subject, I've noted, does not preclude one from pontificatring on about it. So I'm not surprised at your mistatements.

I quoted Balabanova. She clearly indicates that her findings are not evidence of transatlantic contact. If you need to parse her words to fit them to your worldview, you're welcome to do so. I would remind you that you are doing this in front of everyone and in a manner that leaves a (semi) permanent record of your misrepresentation of the facts.

There's a reason she said this. The only Egyptian mummies she has ever found traces of coc aine in were all at one point stored in the same museum in Munich. No other Egyptian mummy has ever yeilded anything like the same results.

Perhaps you were unaware of this.

Also, a common insecticide in used in museums in the old days was based on nicotine. Mummies were constantly sprayed with this to maintain them and keep them from being eaten by bugs.

Perhaps you didn't know this either.

Originally posted by Pimander
Anyway, I am only prepared to respond in a more measured way to members who can be honest. I don't like folks who lie and distort the facts.

MODERATOR EDIT -- Things are starting to get personal. Please address the evidence and do not make comments about others.

Harte

Please discuss the topic and not each other.

reply to post by Harte


coc aine was also socially acceptable in germany in the late 19th century, maybe some museum worker spilled some of his "marching powder" while spraying the mummies with a tobacco soap pesticide

Twisting of words

Originally posted by Pimander

Originally posted by Harte
You're right, though. It's not evidence. I believe I indicated that already. So did Dr. Balabanova.

Balabanova did not say that and nor did I.

What Balabanova really said

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Pimander
Balabanova did not say that and nor did I.

Hows your grasp of English?

Note:

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.

Source

In what way does saying, "It is POSSIBLE that plants containing the alkaloids were present in Ancient Egypt,"amount to saying it is not evidence? In English - it clearly doesn't!

What Pimander really said

Originally posted by Pimander
Of course the Ulm findings on their own aren't enough to conclude that there was pre-Columbian transatlantic trading.
*snip*
I referred to an article that used the Ulm findings and also reviewed other important evidence.

Clearly I never said that the ULM findings were not evidence, I simply and clearly stated they were not conclusive.

In English

Whilst I love a good debate as much as anyone, I hate to see my own or another researchers words twisted. If it's a mistake, you hold up your hands so as not to derail the discussion. If a member can't do that.... Draw your own conclusions.

P.S. Sorry OP for my inappropriate outburst. After a lot of beer I found it amusing. Whoops!

Originally posted by Pimander

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.

Source

Originally posted by Pimander
In what way does saying, "It is POSSIBLE that plants containing the alkaloids were present in Ancient Egypt,"amount to saying it is not evidence? In English - it clearly doesn't!

In this way:

It is not evidence if it can be explained in another, more mundane way.

Any transatlantic trade would certainly have involved (at the very least) foodstuffs. After all, there is no more important commodity than food, especially to the people of that time.

Yet, there are no commonalities between the foods of the Americas and those of the Africans of those times.

Also, the findings of these compounds in a few mummies that all were kept in the same museum, but not in any other mummies from the same time period in Egypt, is extremely suspicious. And that's understating it.

Originally posted by Pimander
Of course the Ulm findings on their own aren't enough to conclude that there was pre-Columbian transatlantic trading.
*snip*
I referred to an article that used the Ulm findings and also reviewed other important evidence.

Concerning that article, I find it suspicious (again) that no mention of the nicotine-based insecticide is made. Also, the author seems (to me) to have cherry-picked the so-called "criticisms" of Balabanova he addresses. It makes it appear that the author is ignoring the actual criticisms (such as the ones I've made) in favor of others that were made immediately after the data were released (before the data were further explained by Balabanova.)

Thus:

The biggest criticism of the findings of Balabanova et. al. was not necessarily directed at the extraction process per se, although this was discussed. The biggest criticism was that coc aine and nicotine could not possibly have been used in Egypt before the discovery of the New World, and that transatlantic journeys were not known - or at least they are highly speculative.

IMO, this is certainly not the "biggest criticism" (whatever that means) of her findings. Obviously, one cannot rule out transatlantic contact merely on the basis that "we have decided that this never happened and so any evidence of it must be bogus."

Also:

Another interesting criticism of Schafer (1993) is that Balabanova et. al. might have been the victims of faked mummies.

And:

The criticism that seems most popular is that the identified drugs might have been products of "necrochemical and necrobiochemical processes" (Schafer, 1993; Bjorn, 1993).

(all three quotes are from the article you linked.)

That's no criticism at all. That's merely a possible explanation for Balabanova's findings. And, again, it (Schafer's comments) was published before Balabanova provided any analysis of her data (in which she attempted to address this very idea.)

The paper you linked was written in 2000, 7 years after Balabanova published, yet it addresses "criticisms" that Balabanova (and others) had already addressed.

The author was a grad student at that time, an Entymology PhD candidate (his thesis was written 2 years later.)

While I certainly respect Dr. Well's academic credentials, in this particular case I think his paper (which, though having little or nothing to do with Entymology, was inexplicably written for an Entymology course) is a little suspect for these reasons.

Originally posted by Pimander
P.S. Sorry OP for my inappropriate outburst. After a lot of beer I found it amusing. Whoops!

This I can get behind. I am usually only posting here to amuse myself. I don't mean to always take the hard-line mainstream position, but there are so few people here willing to do so that I feel like someone has to do it.

Harte

reply to post by Harte

You have drawn attention to some criticisms that I take on board. However, I agree with Wells that the criticisms do not invalidate the evidence.

Regarding the nicotine based insecticide - there is no evidence either way of whether it was used on the nicotine mummies. I did discuss possible ways of testing this with someone (I can't remember her name as it was a few years ago, possibly Rosalie David) in the Egyptology Department at Manchester University - who also found nicotine but not coc aine in hair and other cells in different Egyptian mummies. My suggestion was to test the materials that the mummies were stored in to try to eliminate the possibility of contamination. I'm not sure whether she followed up but I guess not....

P.S. There can be no question whatever of the authenticity of the mummies in Manchester Museum.

Originally posted by Pimander
P.S. There can be no question whatever of the authenticity of the mummies in Manchester Museum.

edit on 14/8/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)

If you're referring to Well's response to the so-called criticism that maybe Balabanova's mummies were faked ones (ala the sale of mummia,) I couldn't agree more.

Harte