[Maxim Litvinov]

Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me that that pic of an anicent Olmec statue isn't indicative of the obvious African roots to many of the Central and South American empires?

That picture isn't indicative of any relationship between these states.

What reason is there not to believe that the Nubians and Egyptians didn't have the capacity to sail accross the Atlantic?

What reason is there to believe that Jesus didn't have green skin? Very little. Except there is also precious little evidence to show that he did.

Quite frankly, just because something was technically possible does not mean it happened. And there is no good evidence to support the idea that the Nubians/Egyptians had any cultural contacts with Maya/Aztecs/Inca/Olmecs etc.

[Truth-a-naut]

Wait, isn't von Daniken that crazy "ancient astronaut" guy?

[Maxim Litvinov]

Correct. In fairness to AtG, there are people with less nutty theories than him that believe similar things though. What is common to all of them is a lack of any strong evidence.

[Fernando]

There have been discoveries of Viking settlements in Canada.

Please?

[Fernando]

I have read the book (as a matter of fact I opened a thread on the issue in this forum, I think). Considering that one the main evidence (a tower in New England) which Menzies believes to be a Chinese construction is, no doubt a 16th English-made tower, I seriously doubt on most of the 'evidence'.

The Zhong He expedition was widely known before this book and there is no doubt he reached East Africa and Indonesia.

Menzies' book is interesting and provides a lot of information about 15th century navigation. I am not saying his theories are necessarily wrong, but I tend to distrust the theories not supported by written evidence.

Even in the case of viking settlements in Canada (doubtful) there are some evidence of people sailing West from Greenland, when vikings were not exactly known by his literacy.

As ML has pointed out, the 'possibility' or 'capability' does not mean 'evidence'.

[Fernando]

What reason is there not to believe that the Nubians and Egyptians didn't have the capacity to sail accross the Atlantic? They were widely considered to have been the best shipbuilders in the world for centuries.

As a matter of fact most Egyptian fleets were phoenicians. The circunnavigation of Africa (which is oftenly offered as an evidence) was performed by Carthaginian sailors.

About Nubians it is unknown to me their ability to sail. I am not been sarcastic. I am only saying I have no information on Nubian navigation.

[Tangerine]

Like I said, it's anyone's wonder what may have happened in past but was lost over time. Clearly the Chinese were not the first to reach the Americas, as was previously stated in the original 1441 topic, and yes I have heard that the Egyptians may have crossed the Atlantic. What about the Atlanteans?

Personally, I think the evidence is there. I think they did do it.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Please?

http://www.usask.ca/education/ideas/tpl ... ikings.htm

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Personally, I think the evidence is there. I think they did do it.

what evidence?

[Tangerine]

Do I really have to get out the book, read it all and give you evidence? Buy the book. There's more than enough to convince me.

[Fernando]

Tangerine, the Atlanteans were nothing more than myth. I don't mind if you 'have heard' of the Egyptians crossing the Atlantic. they had not, as far as we know.

Spaniards had enough technology in 14th century to travel to America. Did they do it? NO.

To Tech II Nosferatu: The evidence of vikings descovering America before Columbus are:

- Vikings saga, talking about people travelling from Greenland to the West.

- Remnants of a town in Newfoundland descovered by a Norge archeologist.

Anyway, I am ready to accept it. There is some evidence.

[Tangerine]

I just want to make it clear that I never suggested that either empire had travelled to America, I had just heard of these things. No evidence exists of course. And you do not know whether Atlantis did exist or if it didn’t. I was just trying to highlight the point that empires could have done so in the past that we have no knowledge on.

[Piano Red]

That picture isn't indicative of any relationship between these states.

Denial? I just said that apart from the physical characteristics on the statue (big flat nose, etc.), the headset design on it is very similar to the helmets worn by Nubian soldiers of that era. I'm going to try to find a book that lost that goes into detail about it further.

What reason is there to believe that Jesus didn't have green skin? Very little. Except there is also precious little evidence to show that he did.

That same assertion can't be compared to the notion that Africans didn't/couldn't get to the New World. Another example I can bring up is that of a mid-sized sailing yacht that was discovered in the Great Pyramids decades ago. When it was discovered archeologists found that not only did it have a very advanced deisgn to it's construction, but also that it was incredibly sturdy given how it was almost completely intact with no wear. Subsequently they postulated that some theories about the Egyptians having been able to sail accross the Atlantic might have had some merit if they built the same kind of ships on a somewhat larger scale.

Quite frankly, just because something was technically possible does not mean it happened. And there is no good evidence to support the idea that the Nubians/Egyptians had any cultural contacts with Maya/Aztecs/Inca/Olmecs etc.

There's plenty of evidence, the only problem is that much of the archeological community has been indoctrinated into dismissing it just as readily as you have over many years. I'll try to find that book.

Correct. In fairness to AtG, there are people with less nutty theories than him that believe similar things though. What is common to all of them is a lack of any strong evidence.

Too be honest i've never heard of him, but I have taken an African Studies course on the subject, and since then i've been convinced that there is more than evidence to give the Egyptians and Nubians far more credit than they deserve in regards to their contributions to civilization. Moreso than any other ancient civilization, including the Greeks, Sumerians, etc.

As a matter of fact most Egyptian fleets were phoenicians. The circunnavigation of Africa (which is oftenly offered as an evidence) was performed by Carthaginian sailors.

Correct and not correct at the same time, the Carthaginians were the descendents of a Phoenician colony, and if you dig back further than that you'll find that the Phoenicians themselves had their roots from an Egyptian colony. However when put into the context of the time period such an expedition would've taken place the sailors would've still been counted as Egyptian.

About Nubians it is unknown to me their ability to sail. I am not been sarcastic. I am only saying I have no information on Nubian navigation.

I'll try to find some, although given the fact that Egypt (or Kemet as it should be known) was established by the Nubians, that should give an indication towards their level of advancement. In terms of relation they were very much like the Britain and America of Africa in that the latter was able to grow more powerful than the other in a much more peaceful manner, and on very good terms.

and yes I have heard that the Egyptians may have crossed the Atlantic. What about the Atlanteans?

Just a sidenote about that, but the whole notion of the Atlanteans being said to have established the civilizations in the Americas is rooted in more realistic terms. The Aztecs had a legend that pointed to their ancestors being the survivors of a calamity who sailed accross the ocean and discovered a new place to settle. But if you compare that to historical notes there is reason to believe that their ancestors were Egyptian colonists. Even though there isn't really any evidence to support this because the Conquistadors and others left no real remains of the Aztecs and other empires they conquered.

Tangerine, the Atlanteans were nothing more than myth. I don't mind if you 'have heard' of the Egyptians crossing the Atlantic. they had not, as far as we know.

It may be rooted in myth, but I would bet good money that there is some truth to it. If you look at the modern Mexican flag you can see a depiction of an Eagle with a snake in it's hand, it's based off of an Aztec legend, which in itself can be traced back to the Egyptians.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

This stuff by ATG smells of traditional Afro-centrist 'studies'. I think this was covered once already.

http://www.delaplata.net/articles/Afrocentrism

Egypt and Black Identity

Many Afrocentrists insist that ancient Egyptians were black African peoples, often emphasising that this black identity was strongest in early Egyptian history, but was diluted later. Among Afrocentrist authors, it is common to refer to Egypt as "Kemet," the indigenous term for the country, which means "black land." Traditionally, mainstream scholars contend this term refers to the dark, fertile soil beside the Nile, in contrast to the desert beyond it, labelled the "red land" by Egyptians. Afrocentrists, however, associate the term with Egyptian racial identity, pointing out that ancient Egyptians also called themselves "Kmemeu," or "the black people" and their subjects "Kemetu," or "the blacks' people." They also cite the archaeological evidence, particularly that of temple statuary, and the writings of Herodotus and other ancient authors, who refer to the dark-colored skin and woolly hair of Egyptians. Opponents would argue that indigenous Egyptian terminology is best translated as "people of the black land," and that Western classical writers usually described Egyptians as a mid-tone between black Ethiopians and pale Europeans. Herodotus himself is clear that Egyptians look different from Ethiopians. Marcus Manilius states that "the Ethiopians stain the world and depict a race of men steeped in darkness. Less sun-burnt are the natives of India. The land of Egypt, flooded by the Nile, darkens bodies more mildly owing to the inundation of its fields: it is a country nearer to us and its moderate climate imparts a medium tone.".....

more at the source


I don't see what Egyptians have to do with Nubians. These are entirely different civilisations even though they were in contact with each other.

[Stipe]

Denial? I just said that apart from the physical characteristics on the statue (big flat nose, etc.), the headset design on it is very similar to the helmets worn by Nubian soldiers of that era. I'm going to try to find a book that lost that goes into detail about it further.

The resemblances have been noted before, but it's also worth noting that a lot of the physical features of the Olmec statues which are considered 'African' are also present in some of the Meso-American population, and without any evidence of African ancestry. Africans simply aren't the only people to exhibit these features. The eye folds in the statues are also distinctly a Meso-American trait and not present in African populations. Though the headsets may resemble Nubian helmets, it is also similar to, and infinitely more likely to be, the headgear worn by ball players.

The problem is that a few resemblances prove nothing. If an African population had actually lived among the peoples of the Americas long enough to influence their culture in such a way, they would have left behind more than just these statues. They would have left behind other kinds of art, in ceramics and such, which would show African influence, and most importantly they would have left behind their tools and objects of day to day life. To the best of my knowledge, nothing like that has ever been found. Similarily, there are no known genetic links between the local populations and Africans.

Just because a culture could have been capable of doing something, doesn't mean they necessarily did it, and the fact that there is a vague resemblance in the statues to African physical traits is a long way from proving that Africans actually made such a voyage.

Edit: Also, about this:

Correct and not correct at the same time, the Carthaginians were the descendents of a Phoenician colony, and if you dig back further than that you'll find that the Phoenicians themselves had their roots from an Egyptian colony. However when put into the context of the time period such an expedition would've taken place the sailors would've still been counted as Egyptian.

The origins of the Phoenicians have never been conclusively proven. Culturally, there is little that sets them apart from the other Canaanite peoples aside from their maritime achievements. There are many theories about the possible origins of the Phoenicians and who influenced their development ranging from people from the Land of Punt, to the Minoans, to the Sea Peoples, to an Israelite tribe. However, to the best of my knowledge it is generally agreed that they are still Canaanites as evidenced by their name for themselves, Kinahni, and spoke a language much more closely related to Hebrew than Egyptian. The problem is that their origins has become such a politically loaded question.

[Maxim Litvinov]

I think we are all missing out on a vital piece of evidence that AtG has provided us with.

What is the image of above? Not merely a head, but a head made of ROCK. What does this suggest? That the original inhabitants of the Americas were rock people. They died out when they couldn't work out any way of living a normal existence as rocks. It seems also clear - judging from remains - that they had cannibalistic ceremonies where they'd cut up other members of society and arrange them into big monuments to appease the rock gods.

But wait... Haven't you seen rocks like this one somewhere before? Maybe somewhere on your own continent? You wouldn't be mistaken - ROCK like this can be found in many places around the world. This suggests that these rock people could travel great distances over the seas. Furthermore, because it is clear that large pieces of rock are quite heavy and not easy to transport by a simple canoe or raft over large oceans, the rock people were good navigators with large ships.

Then we are faced with another problem - how did these rock people manufacture such a civilisation with high developed technologies - including navigation and construction - so early (ie before human civilisations). The answers can't lie in another civilisation on the Earth - no such society exists. Where then? BEYOND the earth.

It is quite clearly the case that Earth rocks were visited by advanced beings from beyond the solar system some time about 2000 years ago. They constructed their civilisations, but a distinct lack of movement meant that their societies were always doomed to fail.

EDIT: I should also like to point out that some rock culture survives even to this day. For instance - the Christian church. For those that are not familiar, Jesus told his disciple Peter that he was (quite literally, it seems), the rock upon which the church was to be built. Jesus' closest disciple was a rock.

[Schrödinger's Kitty]

What is the image of above? Not merely a head, but a head made of ROCK. What does this suggest? That the original inhabitants of the Americas were rock people.

I can't stop laughing!!

[onemanarmy]

funniest thing i've heard in ages.

Ah but maxim we still have much of their culture than you think, i mean Rock (and roll) is still a very important part of society.

still I'm ussually not one to believe conspiracy theories but i must say this one has really got me believing. it has a lot more substance than theories like the "da vinci" code.

[Piano Red]

This stuff by ATG smells of traditional Afro-centrist 'studies'. I think this was covered once already.

That's because it is, what's wrong with that?

I don't see what Egyptians have to do with Nubians. These are entirely different civilisations even though they were in contact with each other.

Because the Nubians established the foundations from which the Egyptian civilization sprang from, they were not entirely different civilizations and both of them had a lot of similarities.

The resemblances have been noted before, but it's also worth noting that a lot of the physical features of the Olmec statues which are considered 'African' are also present in some of the Meso-American population, and without any evidence of African ancestry. Africans simply aren't the only people to exhibit these features. The eye folds in the statues are also distinctly a Meso-American trait and not present in African populations. Though the headsets may resemble Nubian helmets, it is also similar to, and infinitely more likely to be, the headgear worn by ball players.

True, which is why evidence needs to be found.

The problem is that a few resemblances prove nothing. If an African population had actually lived among the peoples of the Americas long enough to influence their culture in such a way, they would have left behind more than just these statues. They would have left behind other kinds of art, in ceramics and such, which would show African influence, and most importantly they would have left behind their tools and objects of day to day life. To the best of my knowledge, nothing like that has ever been found. Similarily, there are no known genetic links between the local populations and Africans.

The problem with that is that your looking at it from the standpoint that they arrived and followed more of a European style colonialism. What's more likely however is that they intregrated themselves into the culture of the native peoples as time passed, and subsequently their descendents formed one that was completely unique but still maintained African influences. The other problem that comes from that is that any African connection that the Meso-American civilizations might've had would probably have been lost when they collapsed (such as the Mayans and Olmecs), or were conquered by the Europeans (such as the Incas and Aztecs).

The origins of the Phoenicians have never been conclusively proven. Culturally, there is little that sets them apart from the other Canaanite peoples aside from their maritime achievements. There are many theories about the possible origins of the Phoenicians and who influenced their development ranging from people from the Land of Punt, to the Minoans, to the Sea Peoples, to an Israelite tribe. However, to the best of my knowledge it is generally agreed that they are still Canaanites as evidenced by their name for themselves, Kinahni, and spoke a language much more closely related to Hebrew than Egyptian. The problem is that their origins has become such a politically loaded question.

True, but there have also been arguments made that pointed to possible Egyptian roots and influences to their development, which is what I was bringing up. We can both agree though that any cumulative data pointing to anything in rgeards to the origins of the Phoenicians is figurative at best.

[Stipe]

The problem with that is that your looking at it from the standpoint that they arrived and followed more of a European style colonialism. What's more likely however is that they intregrated themselves into the culture of the native peoples as time passed, and subsequently their descendents formed one that was completely unique but still maintained African influences. The other problem that comes from that is that any African connection that the Meso-American civilizations might've had would probably have been lost when they collapsed (such as the Mayans and Olmecs), or were conquered by the Europeans (such as the Incas and Aztecs).

No, actually you're quite mistaken. I was never talking about any kind of European-style colonialism at all but rather the examples of cross cultural mixing in early human migrations.

The big problem is that you're basically assuming that the Africans made this journey based only on the presence of a superficial resemblance in some art (which is particularly precarious in the case of the Olmecs who are known to have heavily stylized their art), and that any and all other evidence must have been somehow completely lost. This is not a responsible approach. One can theorize and then look for evidence that agrees with that, but such a radical claim has the burden of proof on it. Basically what has been offered is speculation, and that is not enough to make any assertions.

If we assume that the migration took place, and that an African population was extremely influential in the development of Olmec civilization, it would show some similarity to African cultures' in terms of technology, tools, and building techniques. Likewise, if the Olmec statues are somehow an artistic legacy of African contact, we would expect to find similarities in techniques existing on both sides of the Atlantic. However, there doesn't seem to be any indication of this. Africans crossing the ocean would have had memories of their homes and would have brought with them elements of their culture. If the Olmecs are the result of such a convergence of cultures, then the resulting civilization would have inherited much more from its African component than simply facial characteristics.

Furthermore, the collapse of their civilization does not mean that descendants of that population all cease to exist. Populations simply don't just fall off the face of the earth. Incans, Mayans, Aztecs, and the other native peoples still exist. Likewise, descendents of the Olmec though they may have become assimilated into other cultures in the area, also still exist. Genetic links to an African migration would be present in those populations, yet again no evidence for such a link has ever been found.

Because the Nubians established the foundations from which the Egyptian civilization sprang from, they were not entirely different civilizations and both of them had a lot of similarities.

I don't know if I would quite put it that way, but distinct Egyptian and Nubian cultures did develop from the Neolithic Gerzean culture roughly in parallel with each other. The artifacts of the earliest Nubian culture, the A Group, does differ very substantially from its contemporaries in Egypt and may suggest considerable difference ethnically, linguistically, and politically as well. The two cultures interacted with each other from the start, but I'm not sure how appropriate it is to say that one sprang from the other.