# The Olmec Stone Heads.



## Theowl32 (May 18, 2017)

These are the Olmec Stone heads (there are others) found in the central Mexico region in the 19th century. They were carbon dated to 1200-600BCE.

That means the Olmecs were there long before the Incas or Aztecs or Mayan cultures began. At least according to all accepted history as to when those dynasties began.

I know a guy (biggest black supremacist I know) claims that these heads prove Africans were in the Americas even before the Natives. However, that fact has been written out of history.

Obviously I think he is ridiculous. I mean you have to hear him. He believes Africans began the Buddhist religion etc and ALL of Asia was settled by Africans.

Anyway, I have admit. Those stone heads sure look African (clear negroid features) to me. Anyone know anything about this? I Googled it and many seem to agree that it proves Africans were indeed in the Americas long before Columbus obviously. However, if they are indeed Africans, that would possibly mean they were indeed here before Natives.

Which I know must be impossible.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 18, 2017)

there's not a doubt in my mind that those Olmec heads are African.

There's Egyptian Mummies from the same period who were buried with coca and tobacco, native to the Americas and never native to Egypt.

Why is this so hard for people to grasp?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (May 18, 2017)

They also resemble the features of many tribes considered native to the Americas.

Consider this fellow.


----------



## Theowl32 (May 18, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> there's not a doubt in my mind that those Olmec heads are African.
> 
> There's Egyptian Mummies from the same period who were buried with coca and tobacco, native to the Americas and never native to Egypt.
> 
> Why is this so hard for people to grasp?


I tend to agree.


----------



## Theowl32 (May 18, 2017)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> They also resemble the features of many tribes considered native to the Americas.
> 
> Consider this fellow.


----------



## TNHarley (May 18, 2017)

Them being African sounds like pseudo science.
Hell, Kenniwick man is older than that and their DNA is closer to Native Americans. In fact, the Natives won in court(DNA) to bury the remains according to their culture.


----------



## TNHarley (May 18, 2017)

Besides, ocean travel at this point in our history seems a little far fetched, no?
The Vikings hitting England was a major milestone in our history....


----------



## TNHarley (May 18, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> there's not a doubt in my mind that those Olmec heads are African.
> 
> There's Egyptian Mummies from the same period who were buried with coca and tobacco, native to the Americas and never native to Egypt.
> 
> Why is this so hard for people to grasp?


But it isn't that black and white.
There were plants in Egypt that had nicotine. Tobacco isn't the only one.
Also, that mummy was found like 300 years or so ago. Contamination is highly possible.
Oceanic travel at that point is very unlikely. As far as I know, we have yet to discover anything like that. Besides that, in those tests, nicotine was the only plant to be fully conclusive.


----------



## Hugo Furst (May 18, 2017)

Thor Heyderdahl's voyage somewhat proved such travel was possible.

Thor Heyerdahl’s Kon-Tiki Voyage - History in the Headlines


----------



## Cellblock2429 (May 18, 2017)

Theowl32 said:


> These are the Olmec Stone heads (there are others) found in the central Mexico region in the 19th century. They were carbon dated to 1200-600BCE.
> 
> That means the Olmecs were there long before the Incas or Aztecs or Mayan cultures began. At least according to all accepted history as to when those dynasties began.
> 
> ...


 /---- You might be interested in joining this Facebook page that study these statues. Stones, Bones, and the Paranormal


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope (May 18, 2017)

Not all Olmec Art was the Olmec Giant heads.

A lot of Olmec Art looked East Asian.


----------



## OldLady (May 18, 2017)

Theowl32 said:


> These are the Olmec Stone heads (there are others) found in the central Mexico region in the 19th century. They were carbon dated to 1200-600BCE.
> 
> That means the Olmecs were there long before the Incas or Aztecs or Mayan cultures began. At least according to all accepted history as to when those dynasties began.
> 
> ...


Maybe some of native population in South America had those features, too?  Why couldn't they?  I'm no scientist, so maybe that's not possible.  I dunno.
My half brother who was adopted from Colombia has kinda the nose....


----------



## OldLady (May 18, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Besides, ocean travel at this point in our history seems a little far fetched, no?
> The Vikings hitting England was a major milestone in our history....


They're finding more and more "far fetched" ocean travel between Asia and the Pacific Islands, and between Europe and the islands in the Atlantic.  Maybe there were better mariners than we think.


----------



## OldLady (May 18, 2017)

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Not all Olmec Art was the Olmec Giant heads.
> 
> A lot of Olmec Art looked East Asian.


There's a ruin somewhere in Peru? I think? with faces of all different races embedded in the walls.  I've seen it on Ancient Aliens (don't laugh--I watch it sometimes for the ruins and stuff, not the alien theory).
It seems to me we have no choice but to conclude that there were world travelers there.


----------



## TNHarley (May 18, 2017)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Thor Heyderdahl's voyage somewhat proved such travel was possible.
> 
> Thor Heyerdahl’s Kon-Tiki Voyage - History in the Headlines


That was just few decades ago. We are talking before Jesus.


----------



## TNHarley (May 18, 2017)

OldLady said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Besides, ocean travel at this point in our history seems a little far fetched, no?
> ...


We are talking almost 4000 years ago.


----------



## TNHarley (May 18, 2017)

OldLady said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> > Not all Olmec Art was the Olmec Giant heads.
> ...


I would LOVE to see a link of that, if you could find it.


----------



## Hugo Furst (May 18, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > Thor Heyderdahl's voyage somewhat proved such travel was possible.
> ...


He did the voyage using pre-Columbian tools to build a pre-Columbian raft to prove his theory that travel between South America and Polynesia was possible.


----------



## OldLady (May 18, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


So?  We are finding advanced civilizations in the M.E. older than that.  If they could build giant monuments why couldn't they build a boat large enough to sail the ocean?  The ocean "belt" current may have been known long before we "rediscovered it" in the 1500's.


----------



## OldLady (May 18, 2017)

TNHarley
This has a lot of in depth info about the site:  finding pictures of the wall wasn't so easy.
Ancient Ruins of Tiwanacu and PumaPunku - World Mysteries Blog

Here's a couple pictures.  There are a lot more faces.  I suppose you could search Ancient Aliens episodes for Tiahuanaco if you can stand to suffer through it.  That's where I saw the most visuals.
Tiahaunaco on Lake Titicaca in Bolivia - Extra-Terrestrial    Connections


----------



## TNHarley (May 18, 2017)

OldLady said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


Oh,I agree. We find new stuff all the time. Finding the Viking stuff up north was a huge blow. I am just going by what we actually understand and what we have found, not theories.
You also have to consider how scared people would have been. Like I said earlier, the Vikings hitting England was a big deal. At that time, conquest wasn't on everyones minds. At least from what we know. European records will show they were mind blown over the Vikings as well. And they were extremely advanced compared to the Viking savages.


----------



## TNHarley (May 18, 2017)

WillHaftawaite said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > WillHaftawaite said:
> ...


You cant recreate mindsets, intelligence  and culture.


----------



## hunarcy (May 18, 2017)

OldLady said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> > Not all Olmec Art was the Olmec Giant heads.
> ...



I agree about Ancient Aliens...it's got a lot of history, as long as you can ignore the weirdness.


----------



## OldLady (May 18, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


Who was scared?  The natives, the Vikings or the Europeans?  I don't understand.  Why were the Europeans mind blown about the Vikings?  
You know the Vikings kept the Americas close to their vest because they were fishermen, right?  How many fishermen tell you where their best fishing spot is?  (Doesn't happen)


----------



## TNHarley (May 18, 2017)

OldLady said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


Sailors used to be scared to go out to sea. If they couldn't see the coast line anymore, they would turn around.
BAck then they believed in huge sea monsters and the sun boiled the ocean. They didn't understand the shape of the earth. SO many things to consider....


----------



## TNHarley (May 18, 2017)

The Vikings weren't scared. That's why they lead the way for oceanic travel. They believed the "Gods" were on their side. If they were going to leave for a raid, and it was storming, they wouldn't leave. If it was decent weather, it was on!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 18, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Besides, ocean travel at this point in our history seems a little far fetched, no?
> The Vikings hitting England was a major milestone in our history....



Not in the least!  Ocean travel was quite common millennium before Columbus. Coca in Egypt is one indisputable example


----------



## TNHarley (May 18, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Besides, ocean travel at this point in our history seems a little far fetched, no?
> ...


The coca wasn't completely verifiable. The only chemical from that mummy that 100% verifiable was nicotine. Egypt had nicotine. They just didn't have Tobacco.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 18, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



First, it's not just one isolated, contaminated mummy. Second, it was coca AND nicotine and it was found in the lungs and stomach of the mummies.  It's obvious, the Egyptians traded with the Americas.


----------



## TNHarley (May 18, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Can I get a link for that?


----------



## Theowl32 (May 18, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


The main problem I personally have with the notion that ancient Egyptians would have valued cocoa or tobacco etc and they were indeed traded or brought from the America's on a rather regular basis, then how or why would they have not cultivated those things at some point?

Think about it. I know tobacco etc is grown in Africa now. They certainly would have certainly sought ways to cultivate it then. I mean they knew how to farm that is for sure. If they were setting off on regular trade with the America's, and they valued those things so much so that they buried them in tombs with mummies, would they have not just grown it here instead of fetching it from waaay over yonder?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 18, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



There's a link from Wiki that covers this

Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories - Wikipedia

"A television show reported that examination of numerous Sudanese mummies undertaken by Balabanova mirrored what was found in the mummy of Henut Taui.[120] Balabanova suggested that the tobacco may be accounted for since it may have also been known in China and Europe, as indicated by analysis run on human remains from those respective regions. Balabanova proposed that such plants native to the general area may have developed independently, but have since gone extinct.[120]Other explanations include fraud, though curator Alfred Grimm of the Egyptian Museum in Munich disputes this.[120] Skeptical of Balabanova's findings, Rosalie David, Keeper of Egyptology at the Manchester Museum, had similar tests performed on samples taken from the Manchester mummy collection and reported that two of the tissue samples and one hair sample did test positive for nicotine.[120] Sources of nicotine other than tobacco and sources of cocaine in the Old World are discussed by the British biologist Duncan Edlin.[121]"

I can imagine that coca and nicotine were worth a fortune to the Egyptians.

Not on topic, but evidence of travels pre-Columbus is: 1421.  The book is combination of detective story and historic novel and complies a massive amound or evidence, artifacts and DNA to back up its main thesis

New PBS Documentary, "1421: When China Discovered the World," Re-writes Global History in 2004 | PBS About


----------



## Theowl32 (May 18, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


What would your theory be as to why they would not have grown such valuable crops in Egypt instead of setting off on great journeys to bring it back from the Americas?

There is no historical data that shows that those things were grown anywhere in Africa prior to 1492. Unless, there is something.

Even if there was something, then those crops would have been abundant enough that there would be NO QUESTION. Meaning, those things would have certainly been cultivated and grown on a rather mass scale.

Right?

Something about it is missing and does not make sense in regards to the notion that those things were brought to Africa from the Americas.

Also, if they did do that on a regular basis and they decided the most efficient way was to import it and not cultivate it, and those things were brought to Egypt on a rather regular basis, then how did it take so long for so many to not know about the missing continent?

There are aspects about the mummies being buried with these things that are not fitting logically. Those are just two things.


----------



## TNHarley (May 18, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Henut Taui - Wikipedia
Fairly short article I just found


----------



## TNHarley (May 18, 2017)

Theowl32 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


From what I just now gathered, that one scientist is the one that found them. From a few mummies. Another scientist tried to go and re-test it and she couldn't. They weren't there.
Im not saying he is a fake but that raises eyebrows. For sure.
They have done tests on other mummies and found nothing but nicotine. Which is something they had.
I still cant fathom people traveling the ocean in 2000-100 AD give or take.
 There is absolutely no other proof of ocean travel during that time other than tests this ONE guy made.


----------



## Theowl32 (May 18, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Nicotine, from what I understand is in A LOT OF PLANTS.

6 Common Food with Nicotine Content | About Testing

*Tomato*

It has an average of 7.1 -7.3 ng/g wet weight. It means there is a 7.1 ng of nicotine in ever 1 gram of tomato. Findings also show that the nicotine level decreases as the tomato ripens. Tomato, belonging to the Solanaceae family, is found to possess a nicotine alkaloid called tomatine.

*Eggplant *

Eggplants (aubergines) have a concentration of 100 ng/g of nicotine. It is second highest next to tobacco among the nightshade family where nicotine alkaloids are commonly present. In simple terms, 10 kg of eggplant have the same nicotine content of a stick of cigarette.

*Teas*

According to research, green and black teas also contain small amounts of nicotine whether regular or decaffeinated. Studies show that black teas appears to have a non-detectable to 100ng /g nicotine concentration.

*Peppers and Capsicums.*

Peppers and capsicums also contain solanine and solanadine, nicotine alkaloids, just like the other nightshade family plants. Common peppers have a solanine concentration of 7.7 – 9.2 mg per 100 grams of serving.

*Cauliflower*

Surprisingly, even cauliflowers, which are not part of the nightshade family, also contain nicotine. Research findings gave cauliflower a nicotine content of 16.8 ng/g.

-------------------------

Again, there are just things that make little sense with the notion that ALL of these things were imported from the Americas without cultivating them if they were indeed so valuable.

Does it make sense?


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 18, 2017)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Thor Heyderdahl's voyage somewhat proved such travel was possible.
> 
> Thor Heyerdahl’s Kon-Tiki Voyage - History in the Headlines




I read two of Heyerdahl's books......thank you for the reminder.


The other one was the Easter Island book.


----------



## Theowl32 (May 18, 2017)

After reading some stuff, I came across this is little piece of interesting information.

I came across this little piece about the Mali Empire. During the 1300s. 

*The Mali Empire:* Perhaps more than coincidentally, North African sources describe what some consider to be visits to the New World by a Mali fleet in 1,311. (15) According to these sources, 400 ships from the Mali Empire discovered a land across the ocean to the West after being swept off course by ocean currents. Only one ship returned, and the captain reported the discovery of a western current to Prince Abubakari II; the off-course Mali fleet of 400 ships is said to have conducted both trade and warfare with the peoples of the western lands. It is claimed that Abubakari II abdicated his throne and set off to explore these western lands. In 1324, the Mali king Mansa Musa is said to have told the Arabic historian, Al-Umari that "his predecessors had launched two expeditions from West Africa to discover the limits of the Atlantic Ocean." 

Old World - New World Contact.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 18, 2017)

Theowl32 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



Why aren't we growing coca and tobacco everywhere?


----------



## TNHarley (May 18, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


We don't have to worry about it now.. We trade.
Back then, it would seem more feasible to learn how to grow it instead of rowing for a year.
Pure opinion, of course.


----------



## Theowl32 (May 18, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...















They are both grown in plentiful abundance all over the world.


----------



## IsaacNewton (May 18, 2017)

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Not all Olmec Art was the Olmec Giant heads.
> 
> A lot of Olmec Art looked East Asian.



The first statue in this series is doing his best Dr Evil impression. "One hundred billion dollars". 

If real evidence is found that changes dates or emigrations the scientific community puts that information out very quickly after various scientists in that field verify it. The conspiracy theories are no more valid than bigfoot sightings.


----------



## Theowl32 (May 18, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...


Yes, that is one of the big points. Here is where we are with the mummy claims.

It is being suggested that the ancient Egyptian valued cocoa and tobacco so much that they had it buried with some mummies. That is based on the fact that some scientist did tissue samples and they found nicotine. Well, that in itself proves very little since so many vegetables contain nicotine.

The suggestion is that Egyptians were so sea worthy (none were more advanced btw than Polynesians) that they went to the Americas to get these valuable commodities. However, they did not see fit to cultivate these things themselves.

Now, the more plausible possibility is their trade relations with the ancient Chinese people etc, who also traded with Polynesian, who I do believe reached the Americas in BC era.

Now, that I can see. I also happen to think the Natives held shared relationships with those Polynesians along with Asians. That, we can clearly see in the Natives.

Now, back to the op and those statues that do clearly look negroid. I do think they also do look Polynesian and that is more than likely the shared or closer relationship and not negros from west or North Africa. That, makes no sense.

Admittedly though, those statues truly look negroid to me.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 18, 2017)

Theowl32 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...



Do you have the same chart from 1200 BCE?


----------



## Theowl32 (May 18, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


No..none exist prior to 1492.

However, I am sure we would have A LOT more evidence than a handful of mummies having tissue that may have contained trace amounts of nicotine according to one or two scientists.

If it was that valuable, we would indeed have a lot more information about tobacco and cocoa being traded and cultivated in those regions during ancient times.

As of now, there is nothing prior to the 1400s. The same goes for potatoes and maze.


----------



## TNHarley (May 18, 2017)

Theowl32 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Our Natives are Asian. That's why you see it. They supposedly crossed over around 20K years ago over a land bridge.
Beringia - Wikipedia
I have never heard the Chinese got here BC


----------



## TNHarley (May 18, 2017)

I think they look Negroid because of the nose. Asians are close to blacks. Asians can have big noses.
In fact, there is a guy trying to prove Africans settled China first. He claims Asians are closer to Africans than anyone.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 18, 2017)

Theowl32 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...



Oh?

How did Maize wind up in the stonework at Rosslyn Chappel in Scotland in the mid 1400's?


----------



## TNHarley (May 18, 2017)

Of course, blacks settling china makes perfect sense. If the out of Africa theory is correct, that is. And as far as we know, that is what happened.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 18, 2017)

So, its just bad science that coca AND nicotine are in Egyptian mummies?  Was the scientist himself snorting coke while conducting the test?


----------



## Marion Morrison (May 18, 2017)

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Not all Olmec Art was the Olmec Giant heads.
> 
> A lot of Olmec Art looked East Asian.




*¡*Oye Chino mang! *¿Que paso en el barrio, Holmes?*


----------



## TNHarley (May 18, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


BBC - Religions - Christianity: Rosslyn Chapel
Dr Adrian Dyer, a professional botanist and husband of the Revd Janet Dyer, former Priest in Charge at Rosslyn Chapel, meticulously examined the botanical carvings in the Chapel. He looked at carvings of leaves that are claimed to be curly kale, oak leaves, cactus leaves, sunflowers and three-leaved botanical forms (trefoils).

Broadly speaking, Dr Dyer found the botanical forms in the Chapel to be stylised or conventionalised, not meant to be identifiable plants, with one exception. Hart's-tongue fern, an ancient fronded plant, was growing in Roslin Glen in the fourteenth century and is still found today under Rosslyn Castle. It can be seen, approximately life-size, carved on the Apprentice Pillar.

With respect to the fruits and flowers and their possible symbolism, the three-leaved flowers may be seen as references to the Trinity. However, the flowers in the roof which early guides described as 'daisies' are not true representations of that flower. There are some carvings which are reminiscent of the Madonna lily and may therefore have religious significance.

 The Rosslyn 'corn' carvings. Photo: Kjetil Bjornsrud ©
One window in the Chapel is surrounded by carved plants that are claimed to be maize and aloe, two species that are native to North America and had not yet reached Europe by the 15th century, when Rosslyn was built. They have been used to support theories that William Sinclair's grandfather, the explorer Henry I Sinclair, Earl of Orkney, had secretly travelled to the Americas before Columbus.

This idea does not bear scrutiny. Dr Dyer found that there was no attempt to represent a species accurately: the 'maize' and 'aloe' carvings are almost certainly derived from stylized wooden patterns, whose resemblance to recognisable botanical forms is fortuitous.

Much the same conclusion was reached by archaeo-botanist Dr Brian Moffat, who also noted that the carvings of botanical forms are not naturalistic nor accurate. He found a highly stylised Arum Lily the most likely candidate for what has been identified as American maize.

As for the 'aloes', Dr Moffat points out that the consumer would never have seen the plant, only the sap which was used medicinally. There is no citation of either 'maize' or 'aloe' in the Oxford English Dictionary before the mid-sixteenth century; aloe was not imported to Spain until 1561. Moffat adds that "In common with the majority of Rosslyn's foliage, little life is on display and precious little nature."


----------



## TNHarley (May 18, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So, its just bad science that coca AND nicotine are in Egyptian mummies?  Was the scientist himself snorting coke while conducting the test?


Do you not find it the least bit curious that he is the only one to have found that in mummies and when another scientist tried to test it, they weren't even there for her to?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 18, 2017)

Theowl32 said:


> These are the Olmec Stone heads (there are others) found in the central Mexico region in the 19th century. They were carbon dated to 1200-600BCE.
> 
> That means the Olmecs were there long before the Incas or Aztecs or Mayan cultures began. At least according to all accepted history as to when those dynasties began.
> 
> ...



Actually, this is all well known.

The original Americans, here 10,000 years before the Indians are related to Australian Aborigines, not Africans. The rout traveled is from the South Pacific to South America.

First Americans were Black according to BBC documentary – Originalpeople.org

Because facts don't fit with the hate memes of the left, they ignore them. But the FACT that there were a black people in America before the Indians is established fact, as is the fact that the Indians engaged in total genocide of them.


----------



## Theowl32 (May 18, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Yeah, I know about that. Very little explanation about that. It is not that clear that those carvings is actual maize. Oh, it perpetuates certain mythology that is not proven. This fanciful claim, however, has been countered by the argument that these ‘American plants’ were actually common motifs in medieval art, and that they are not as unique as commonly made out to be.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 18, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...




Riiiiiiiigght.


----------



## TNHarley (May 18, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > These are the Olmec Stone heads (there are others) found in the central Mexico region in the 19th century. They were carbon dated to 1200-600BCE.
> ...


That's awesome!
But one thing.. it doesn't disprove the Bering land bridge theory. It just suggests it happened earlier than estimated. A cave painting is their proof they came by ocean....


----------



## TNHarley (May 18, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Right? Botanists wouldn't know shit about corn!
Dictionaries aren't good references either!
LOL


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 18, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So, its just bad science that coca AND nicotine are in Egyptian mummies?  Was the scientist himself snorting coke while conducting the test?
> ...



"Abstract Data are presented on the biochemical findings in several intermal organs from an Egyptian mummy with a 14C-dating of approximately 950 B.C. By use of radio immunoassay systems and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, significant amounts of various drugs were detected in internal organs (lung, liver, stomach, intestines) as well as in hair, bone, skin/muscle and tendon. These analyses revealed a significant deposition of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), nicotine (and its metabolite cotinine) and cocaine in the tissue from the mummy. The concentration profiles additionally provide evidence for the preferential ways of consumption: Thus, the highest levels of THC in lung specimens point to an inhalation of this drug -- as it has been assumed from known ritual smoking ceremonies --, while nicotine and cocaine containing drugs showed their highest concentrations in the intestines and liver, so that they seem to have been consumed perorally. Furthermore, a histopathological examination of the internal organ tissues revealed some evidence for the underlying disease and the probable cause of death. Thus, a severe and presumably recurrent intravital pulmonary bleeding, most obviously due to a parasitosis affecting the lung, was observed."

Presence of drugs in different tissues of an egyptian mummy

From a journal of analytical chemistry.

BTW, the scientific community especially the Smithsonian is notorious for destroying "anomalous" artifacts


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 18, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



Who to believe, a random botanist or your lying eyes?


----------



## OldLady (May 18, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > These are the Olmec Stone heads (there are others) found in the central Mexico region in the 19th century. They were carbon dated to 1200-600BCE.
> ...


 Boats, TN, Australia to America.  Prior to the last ice age.


----------



## xyz (May 18, 2017)

I think the theory is totally plausible.

Also, black Africans had occupied most of southern Asia at one point. In places like Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia and so on they interbred  with peoples that came later, but some remain in New Guinea. They aren't identical to modern Africans because it was so long ago.


----------



## Theowl32 (May 18, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Again,  the one carving that has shown to have other explanations other than CORN being brought from the North Americas.

Either way, there is no historical documented evidence that corn was in any way a stable diet anywhere in Europe prior to the 1400s.

I get it. The carvings.  Anything else?

Now, it leads to ask this. Much like the ancient Egyptians not cultivating these valuable  crops, even though they valued them so much, is why isn't there anything else other than that carving?

Meaning, did the Knights Templar want to keep their discovery of corn on the cob so secret that they had it carved prominently on the ceiling of a church for the whole congregation to see for centuries to come?

Just trying to understand what the claims actually are here.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 18, 2017)

Theowl32 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



The Templars went into hiding in 1307. Their fleet vanished from the harbor on the very night Thursday the 12th King Philip sent the order to round them up.  The next morning, Friday the 13th, the most powerful group in Europe was targeted for extermination.

Not likely they would advertise their whereabouts after that or sponsor a local Farmers Market.  But to leave evidence like that: maize and aloe as a way of telling anyone, "yes, we're alive and we're in the Americas" well, that could work.


----------



## TNHarley (May 18, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


It was more than one. And I don't see it in that pic. I truly don't.


----------



## TNHarley (May 18, 2017)

Theowl32 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


They didn't even know what it was until after 1500. The church was built in the 1460s or something like that.
Like I told frank, I don't see corn there.


----------



## Theowl32 (May 18, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Yeah, and the myth of Saint Brendan who is the Patron Saint of sailors or boatmen, is said to have made it to the Americas in the 6th century.

A lot of stories out there.


----------



## TNHarley (May 18, 2017)

GREAT thread Owl.
Makes it even better we are all acting like adults LOL
I LOVE ancient history


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 18, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



No worries, its not me against you in any event.  I've been following these stories for over 3 decades. The most shocking thing I've learned is that the Smithsonian hires ships to drop anomalous artifacts out in Baltimore Canyon. I thought they had the Indiana Jones warehouse, but no, they destroy objects and our government actually threatens anyone who might go public with whatever they've found.

Last year I was fortunate enough to become friends with a man who was inducted as a 33rd degree Mason in a ceremony at Rosslyn Temple, so it helps to have hands on verification.


----------



## Gracie (May 18, 2017)

Interesting discussion.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 18, 2017)

Theowl32 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...




Have you read 1421?


----------



## Theowl32 (May 18, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


No, what is it about?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 18, 2017)

Theowl32 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...



It's about a 600 ship Chinese armada that spend three years circumnavigating and mapping the globe.

To give some idea of the size of the ships in the armada, a 500 year old teak wood rudder found off the coast of Australia was taller than any of Columbus's ships


----------



## Theowl32 (May 18, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


I am just wondering if there is anything in history that suggests that Africans from North Africa or West Africa had the know how to sail across the Atlantic.

I do not think there is anything that suggests they had the ability to do it. I can see how a 600 ship armada could do it. It would probably take that many ships to cross the vast Pacific, just to have the rations.

Pretty sure that was one of the main problems. The logistics more than likely prevented any real explorations.

I mean think about it. If you run out of rations half way across (and you would not know if you are half way) and you don't go back to find a way to replenish, you are dead. I mean think about it.

That was one of the reasons why the ancient Polynesians were probably the most skillful seafaring people of the ancient world. There is actual evidence that they built ships that they fitted to allow crops to be grown ON the ships.

This is the KNOWN routes that the Polynesians (ancient) sailed.






I remember reading about how this would be possible. Archeologists discovered that they were able to outfit their ships with rations that could be grown etc. Meaning, they could go a lot further than other cultures who did not have that plan. I do not think they went out with large armadas either.

That was quite an accomplishment and a significant amount balls to island hop when you have no clue where the islands were or if any island was there. Those maps don't give a true idea of the vastness of the Pacific.

Try driving from NY to LA and then imagine ALL of that sailing is more than 3 times the distance of that.


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > These are the Olmec Stone heads (there are others) found in the central Mexico region in the 19th century. They were carbon dated to 1200-600BCE.
> ...



Established fact? LOL

While it is possible that people related to Australian Aborigines arrived in the Americas, there is no real evidence that they did. Your 'evidence' is from 1999. Have they done DNA testing on those skulls? Assuming that there is some DNA still in the bone, that would answer the question very easily.

It is very likely that there were instances of contact between the New World and the Old- there isn't much evidence. 

There is evidence of Polynesian contact- sweet potatoes from SA ended up in Polynesia- but pigs from Polynesia didn't make to the New World. Viking contact rather dead ended up in the North. The Chinese were certainly capable of reaching the New World as were the Japanese and the Koreans- but there is evidence that they did so.


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



It is a fun read- and that fleet actually existed- it was actually I think 3 seperate fleets- but the author's 'evidence' is really flimsy and not substantiated. 

Some of the stuff he mentioned- like a wreck of a Chinese Junk up the Sacramento river- I can't find any record of- anywhere.

That fleet certainly could have gotten here- certainly by sailing across the Pacific- but he theory that they sailed all the way to the East Coast is mostly his whimsy.


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Well I have to thank you for providing links to a study I had not heard of.

I dug around and there is not universal acceptance of the results- but at the same time there is not a definitive rejection


American Drugs in Ancient Egyptian Mummies?

This is just a quick overview of the evidence but on balance it seems there is still insufficient evidence to suggest that the Ancient Egyptians actively traded with their counterparts in South America. One day this might change but at the moment it seems unlikely. More testing is certainly called for but until that happens we can hold off rewriting the history books just yet.


----------



## Theowl32 (May 18, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


If anything, the Egyptians were not trading WITH South America. They were trading with China, WHO may have been "trading" with South America.

Lets say the Egyptians did have actual cocaine in their systems or tobacco (just because it is nicotine, does not make it "tobacco") then it is more likely than not that they got it third hand via the Chinese.

There is also a distinct possibility that the Chinese would not want the known world to know about ALL of their sources. I know that it is was common practice that resources were vigilantly guarded.


----------



## Theowl32 (May 18, 2017)

Ok, as far as the Olmecs and the "Negroid" features. I just read portions of this.

This is a good site to learn about the Olmec. No, they were not African in origin.

https://mikeruggerisolmecs.tumblr.com/


"There is no evidence for the presence of African migrants to the New World before Columbus. No artifacts have been found whose raw material source can be traced to Africa; no artifacts whose style could come only from a pre-Columbian African source have been found in the New World; and finally, no skeletal remains have been found, dating to a pre-Columbian context, with DNA proving an African source. The civilizations of the New World, including those of Mesoamerica and South America, exhibit archaeological evidence for a long sequence of indigenous development and no evidence for inspiration outside of the New World. The Olmec heads were the product of indigenous skills in quarrying, transportation, and sculpting, as well as the ability to conscript and organize labor for monumental undertakings. The Olmec heads provide no support for hypotheses of the presence of Africans or Europeans, or recent Asian migrants to the New World.”-pg.201-203, Encyclopedia of Dubious Archaeology: From Atlantis to the Walam Olum by Kenneth L. Feder – 2010

I think this says it quite well. There simply is little, or no evidence other than subjective interpretations of stone heads, which look as much Polynesian as African. There are not even anomalous objects, such as there are for Euro or Eastern presence theory.


----------



## whitehall (May 18, 2017)

As far as I know you can't carbon date inert stone.


----------



## Theowl32 (May 18, 2017)

whitehall said:


> As far as I know you can't carbon date inert stone.


Yeah, whatever or however they figure out how old a certain carving is. Yeah, that process.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 18, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...



The article I posted is from 1999, the discovery of these people was made in the 1950s. Tons of DNA testing has been done.

A DNA Search for the First Americans Links Amazon Groups to Indigenous Australians      |     Science | Smithsonian
Blacks Are The First True Americans You Can't Go Back To Africa - Hidden Lies in History - SoPoCo.net
Native American origins: When the DNA points two ways

BECAUSE the facts don't fit the racist narrative of the left, with the hatred of whites and everything European, you avoid them.


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



LOL...yeah because proto- Aborigines would be so very white....LOL.

The DNA that links these groups had to come from somewhere. Because the groups have about as much in common with Australians as they do with New Guineans, the researchers think that they all share a common ancestor that lived tens of thousands of years ago in Asia but that doesn’t otherwise persist today. One branch of this family tree moved north to Siberia, while the other spread south to New Guinea and Australia. The northern branch likely migrated across the land bridge in a separate surge from the Eurasian founders. The researchers have dubbed this hypothetical second group “Population y” for _ypykuéra_, or “ancestor” in Tupi, a language spoken by the Suruí and Karitiana.


Read more: A DNA Search for the First Americans Links Amazon Groups to Indigenous Australians      |     Science | Smithsonian
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

And this one? Really? LOL
Blacks Are The First True Americans You Can't Go Back To Africa - Hidden Lies in History - SoPoCo.net

Frankly there is nothing that shows that there was a pre-European population of people descended from what would be called "Negroes" from Africa- ultimately all of us descend from people from Africa.

Your good links report DNA evidence that suggests that there were people who had a common ancestor with Australasians who came probably came from Asia to the New world- along with the traditional population that we know about.

And that is fascinating.


----------



## whitehall (May 18, 2017)

Theowl32 said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > As far as I know you can't carbon date inert stone.
> ...


Yeah but if you can't authenticate the stuff by scientific analysis you have to conclude that it's a gigantic scam .


----------



## Theowl32 (May 19, 2017)

whitehall said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...


What is the scam? They definitely discovered these statues or carvings in the 19th century. That is not in dispute. I think in the 20th century questions arose as a result of the apparent negroid features that it suggests Africans were here prior to Natives as we know it.

Now, they may not use carbon dating,  but they are able date things like this within a millenia or so. Based on a few things. Not carbon dating like I said. When those carvings were created is also not in dispute.  Around 600 to 1200 BCE.

That would predate the known ancient tribes like the Incas, the Azteca or the Mayans.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 19, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Excuse your illiteracy; all sources already stated these were not African, but Austrailoid. Again, because it does not fit with your racist agenda, you ignore the facts. You think that since the Indians were in fact worse than the Europeans, it undercuts the hatred you promote of whites. 

Alas, facts remain, regardless of your racism.


----------



## mamooth (May 31, 2017)

Theowl32 said:
			
		

> These are the Olmec Stone heads



Why the faked Time magazine coves in your sig?

Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age | TIME.com


----------



## surada (May 1, 2022)

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Not all Olmec Art was the Olmec Giant heads.
> 
> A lot of Olmec Art looked East Asian.


Looks Asian to me.


----------

