Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Abramelin

Did ancient native American seafarers cross

265 posts in this topic

And if one is to take the possibility seriously, then they did so in such insufficient numbers as to make their existance, archaeologically and genetically, irrelevant to the future of the Old World.

cormac

And I never suggested anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this Abramelin ? A different sailing route, from the Americas to the East... From Labrador to Greenland., then Iceland... then there is an Island if it might help ... then to England or Norway . Just a thought.. and the guys talked about below may have been capable of doing it . ? .. here's a map. post-86645-126713297383_thumb.gif

http://viking.som.yale.edu/will/timreck/skeleton.2.html

The Ancient Circumpolar World

"Researchers began to piece together the evidence for the development of early maritime societies along the northern and western coasts of Europe where the use of radiocarbon dating indicated that these cultures flourished before the advent of farming in the region. But the surprising recent discovery of ancient sea peoples along the Northeastern coasts of the New World has expanded the study of early maritime cultures across both sides of the North Atlantic. Once called the "Red Paint People of Maine" but now known as the Maritime Archaic, their discovery opens an unprecedented new chapter in Native American prehistory. Scientists never expected to find an Indian group that was adapted to life on the ocean over 8,000 years ago and no one has yet studied the impact of this complex culture on later Indian groups. Looking across the North Atlantic Rim, we now have a strange new image to study -- a mirrored image that challenges what we know about the history of human development on both sides of the ocean.

The identification of the Maritime Archaic and the discovery of their settlements in northern Labrador were among the first research efforts accomplished by the Smithsonian's Arctic Studies Center. Let's follow the story of this investigation to see how our long accepted ideas about the prehistory of Native America are still capable of being radically changed."

Edited by lightlyy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I never suggested anything else.

Actually, whether stated or implied, you rather did when you brought the Sea Peoples and their possible origins (at least for some of them) into the discussion.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you bring up a good point OP. I have always only thought of it as a one way trip, but now that you have me think about it I see no reason why somewhere within those people that had the ability to travel to the Americas a few might try in later generations to head back. Surely, they must have had in their oral history a story of where they came from. I have not read of any evidence to support that, but it is fun to think about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, whether stated or implied, you rather did when you brought the Sea Peoples and their possible origins (at least for some of them) into the discussion.

cormac

This is where I brought in the Sea Peoples:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=176033&view=findpost&p=3302104

I think you read much more into it than I wrote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this Abramelin ? A different sailing route, from the Americas to the East... From Labrador to Greenland., then Iceland... then there is an Island if it might help ... then to England or Norway . Just a thought.. and the guys talked about below may have been capable of doing it . ? .. here's a map. post-86645-126713297383_thumb.gif

http://viking.som.ya...skeleton.2.html

The Ancient Circumpolar World

"Researchers began to piece together the evidence for the development of early maritime societies along the northern and western coasts of Europe where the use of radiocarbon dating indicated that these cultures flourished before the advent of farming in the region. But the surprising recent discovery of ancient sea peoples along the Northeastern coasts of the New World has expanded the study of early maritime cultures across both sides of the North Atlantic. Once called the "Red Paint People of Maine" but now known as the Maritime Archaic, their discovery opens an unprecedented new chapter in Native American prehistory. Scientists never expected to find an Indian group that was adapted to life on the ocean over 8,000 years ago and no one has yet studied the impact of this complex culture on later Indian groups. Looking across the North Atlantic Rim, we now have a strange new image to study -- a mirrored image that challenges what we know about the history of human development on both sides of the ocean.

The identification of the Maritime Archaic and the discovery of their settlements in northern Labrador were among the first research efforts accomplished by the Smithsonian's Arctic Studies Center. Let's follow the story of this investigation to see how our long accepted ideas about the prehistory of Native America are still capable of being radically changed."

Yes, that's more like it Lightlyy, thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_Archaic

Let's see if we can come any further with these "Maritme Archaic" people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where I brought in the Sea Peoples:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=176033&view=findpost&p=3302104

I think you read much more into it than I wrote.

No, you implied a connection between NA and the Sea Peoples when you said:

As far as I know - and I don't know much, lol - there were no people in the Mediterranean who wore head dresses made of feathers.

Suggesting a possible connection based upon pictures of an Arawak/Carib family and one of the Sea Peoples, both with headdresses. The Sea People's headdress of which you assumed was made of feathers. The implied connection here due to a similarity in head gear.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you implied a connection between NA and the Sea Peoples when you said:

Suggesting a possible connection based upon pictures of an Arawak/Carib family and one of the Sea Peoples, both with headdresses. The Sea People's headdress of which you assumed was made of feathers. The implied connection here due to a similarity in head gear.

cormac

But this is what you said earlier and to which I responded to and agreed with:

And if one is to take the possibility seriously, then they did so in such insufficient numbers as to make their existance, archaeologically and genetically, irrelevant to the future of the Old World.

cormac

And yes, I assumed the head gear was made of feathers (an other source - one I posted - said it might have been small pieces of leather, but that's not at all certain), and would then be quite similar to the head gear of several tribes living in the Americas.

It would be just a hint of their presence, but not much of a real archeological evidence, I'm aware of that.

I just considered it a possibility, and reasoned from there on.

Well, let me ask you a question: what you think that head gear was made of? Was it made from pieces of leather, was it made from feathers, or - like I read somewhere else - made from a bundle of grass?

The picture I posted earlier of that Philistine warrior with those pieces of leather as head gear (and a beard, which none of these 'Philistines' appear to have on the Medinet Habu mural) was nothing more than a(n) - archeologically accepted?? - interpretation based on the ancient peoples living in the eastern Mediterranean.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, to settle the thing with the head gear for good, here is something I found after a long time searching for pics of these Philistines :

Philistinwarrior.gif

Virtually all the non-Bes wearers of the "fluted crown" show up typically in places associated with the Philistines: in Egypt which they tried to invade, in Canaan where they settled, and in Cyprus, Mycenae, and Crete from where some among them came71.

Examples from the Sea Raider time or earlier include "fluted crown heads" on a seal72 and on the warrior shown here, from an ivory game box found at Enkomi in Cyprus73; on a silver rhyton fragment found in Shaft Grave IV at Mycenae74; on a seal impression from Hagia Triada in Crete75; and on a votive axe from a Cretan cult cave at Arcalochori76. The pictograph groupings on that axe, three short columns of six, six, and three signs, show a head with a Philistine -style crest twice from the front and three times from the side.

http://www.recoveredscience.com/Phaistosebook09.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be just a hint of their presence, but not much of a real archeological evidence, I'm aware of that.

Well, let me ask you a question: what you think that head gear was made of? Was it made from pieces of leather, was it made from feathers, or - like I read somewhere else - made from a bundle of grass?

No, it wouldn't. It would only be a hint that someone used feathers in constructing their helmets. Unless you're suggesting that there were no birds, therefore no feathers, in the Old World. As well as showing that the feathers, if that's what they were, were specifically of New World origin. Is that what you're suggesting? Without archaeology and genetics to corroborate same, similarities in items considered possibly of a cross-cultural nature are only that, SIMILARITIES. Nothing more.

At various times, I've read that the headgear was believed to be made from either feathers or leather. Likely it was a little of both. As to helmets with horns, etc., Naram-Sin is shown in one. There are many other examples of unusual headgear amongst the Sumerians, Assyrians, Hittites, Phillistines, etc. Nothing to suggest any origin from the western hemisphere.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it wouldn't. It would only be a hint that someone used feathers in constructing their helmets. Unless you're suggesting that there were no birds, therefore no feathers, in the Old World. As well as showing that the feathers, if that's what they were, were specifically of New World origin. Is that what you're suggesting? Without archaeology and genetics to corroborate same, similarities in items considered possibly of a cross-cultural nature are only that, SIMILARITIES. Nothing more.

At various times, I've read that the headgear was believed to be made from either feathers or leather. Likely it was a little of both. As to helmets with horns, etc., Naram-Sin is shown in one. There are many other examples of unusual headgear amongst the Sumerians, Assyrians, Hittites, Phillistines, etc. Nothing to suggest any origin from the western hemisphere.

cormac

Hello, I have already let it go. I just didn't know of any ancient peoples living in the Mediterranean/Middle East who wore these headgears.

But here's something nice:

This presentation presents evidence that the feather crowned prisoners of war depicted by the artists of Pharaoh Ramses III on the walls of Medinet Habu were Persians and not Philistine and that today's scholarly community ought to be embarrassed by their lack of recognition.

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/canopus.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, to settle the thing with the head gear for good, here is something I found after a long time searching for pics of these Philistines :

Philistinwarrior.gif

Virtually all the non-Bes wearers of the "fluted crown" show up typically in places associated with the Philistines: in Egypt which they tried to invade, in Canaan where they settled, and in Cyprus, Mycenae, and Crete from where some among them came71.

Examples from the Sea Raider time or earlier include "fluted crown heads" on a seal72 and on the warrior shown here, from an ivory game box found at Enkomi in Cyprus73; on a silver rhyton fragment found in Shaft Grave IV at Mycenae74; on a seal impression from Hagia Triada in Crete75; and on a votive axe from a Cretan cult cave at Arcalochori76. The pictograph groupings on that axe, three short columns of six, six, and three signs, show a head with a Philistine -style crest twice from the front and three times from the side.

http://www.recoveredscience.com/Phaistosebook09.htm

Abramelin, I think the Philistine theory is the first to be discarded, as what we heard of them points onto them being a Germanic tribe, which then left Palestine and re-settled to Europe. Goliath is probably spelled "Olaf" today and is still red-haired.

Also, below is a plastic reconstruction of the Greek helmet circa 1100 BC

20766.jpg

Feathers and horse tail hair were the most popular decorations on the European military head gear till Napoleonic wars...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abramelin, I think the Philistine theory is the first to be discarded, as what we heard of them points onto them being a Germanic tribe, which then left Palestine and re-settled to Europe. Goliath is probably spelled "Olaf" today and is still red-haired.

Also, below is a plastic reconstruction of the Greek helmet circa 1100 BC

20766.jpg

Feathers and horse tail hair were the most popular decorations on the European military head gear till Napoleonic wars...

Come on, that headgear doesn't resemble what some of the Sea People wore at all !!

And Goliath = Olaf???

I think I'm going to weep a little...

But ok, show me some of your sources please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And about those beards :

Depictions of the Philistines

In about 1175 B.C. Ramses III successfully stopped the Sea Peoples (including the Philistines) from invading Egypt. This account is recorded on the walls of his mortuary temple. The Philistines are known by their use of feather head dresses, swan decorations, two edged swords, spears, and rounded shields. The majority of the Sea Peoples are clean-shaven, but a few Philistines are depicted with beards.

http://www.bibleplaces.com/medinethabu.htm

LOL, I think I have seen a zillion pics of these Philistine sailors, but none with a beard.

Sigh... where are my glasses.........

======

Now something that seems interesting enough to start a brand new thread (I assume Qoais and Puzzler might like this quote):

The Medinet Habu Tablets clarify some of the events. Some of the Sea Peoples, as prisoners, declare: "Our islands are uprooted and carried away. The might of Nun [ocean] broke forth and fell in great wave on our towns and villages. The head of their cities has gone under the sea; their land is no more" (inscriptions 37, 46, 80, 102 & 109). This is very much like the geologist's descriptions examined earlier for northern Europe. Ramses III declared on the walls of Medinet Habu that "the whole delta of the Nile is flooded by the sea." Later he states, as does the archeological evidence, that there were vast fires in the Near East: "Libya became a desert; a terrible torch hurled flame from heaven to destroy their souls and lay waste their land [as] their bones burn and roast within their limbs [and] the Nile was dried up and the land fell victim to drought" (Tablet 105). Again, like Homer, the fires are said to be the result of a source from outside of the Earth.

http://www.livingcosmos.com/1250-1050BC.htm

I tried to find an online source for the translations of the Medinet Habu hieroglyphs to corroborate the above quote but couldn't find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on, that headgear doesn't resemble what some of the Sea People wore at all !!

And Goliath = Olaf???

I think I'm going to weep a little...

But ok, show me some of your sources please.

This would be of Indo-European origins of the name Philistines.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/499052

This makes them Aryans from Anatolia:

They are called Allophyli, "foreigners," in the Septuagint, and in the Books of Samuel they are spoken of as uncircumcised. It would therefore appear that they were not of the Semitic race, though after their establishment in Palestine they adopted the Semitic language of the country. From Philistia the name of the land of the Philistines came to be extended to the whole of "Palestine." The theory that the Sea Peoples were composed of Greek-speaking tribes has been developed even further to postulate that the Philistines originated in either western Anatolia or the Greek pennisula though the biblical sources are unanimous that they were descended from Egypt (Mizraim).
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/ph/philistines.html

However we are talking about the culture, which disappeared about 3000 years ago, so the deepest traces of it can be found in our today's culture, not in the research reports, which have little factual material, as we do not talk about a civilization with its records. Any net search on the words "Germanic Philistine" would reveal importance of Philistine for German nationalists from Heine to Hitler, while classic music keeps Goliath close to Olaf:

Adapted from Longfellow, King Olaf is by no means problem-free. Planned orchestral links got infuriatingly axed at publishers' insistence. One focal encounter sustains the first half - a David-and-Goliath tussle between the pagan Ironbeard (one rather warms to him) and the opportunistically monotheistic upstart Olaf. Then things rather peter out in a loose odyssey of lightly connected Circean scenes, centring on soprano solo.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/classical-music-king-olaf-bbc-philharmonic--donald-hunt-victoria-hall-hanley-1351375.html

As for the "sea people" theory - the Egyptians admit their main competitors in Mediterranean for thousands of years were Phoenicians, and no one else, as they were the only seafarers in the region. Then Phoenicians won in about early 1st millenium BC, and build Carthage, instead of their fortress Crete, earlier destroyed by the Egyptian invasion (so-called "Minoan civilization") so the dominance of them lasted till 2nd century BC when they lost 3rd Punic war and Rome wiped them off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be of Indo-European origins of the name Philistines.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/499052

This makes them Aryans from Anatolia:

http://www.websters-...hilistines.html

However we are talking about the culture, which disappeared about 3000 years ago, so the deepest traces of it can be found in our today's culture, not in the research reports, which have little factual material, as we do not talk about a civilization with its records. Any net search on the words "Germanic Philistine" would reveal importance of Philistine for German nationalists from Heine to Hitler, while classic music keeps Goliath close to Olaf:

http://www.independe...ey-1351375.html

As for the "sea people" theory - the Egyptians admit their main competitors in Mediterranean for thousands of years were Phoenicians, and no one else, as they were the only seafarers in the region. Then Phoenicians won in about early 1st millenium BC, and build Carthage, instead of their fortress Crete, earlier destroyed by the Egyptian invasion (so-called "Minoan civilization") so the dominance of them lasted till 2nd century BC when they lost 3rd Punic war and Rome wiped them off.

Sorry, I will only respond to the highlighted part (for the rest of your - let's say , creative and free interpretations - I need more booze...)

"The Sea Peoples" is not just a name for the peoples sailing the Mediterranean, but the name of some sort of loose confederation of displaced peoples from around the eastern Mediterranean that attacked Egypt at around 1200 BC.

This name has nothing to do with the Phoenicians, nor did the Egyptians mention them in the Medinet Habu murals.

For more info, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples

And this paper:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060903164435/http://dscholarship.lib.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1199&context=undergrad

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I will only respond to the highlighted part (for the rest of your - let's say , creative and free interpretations - I need more booze...)

"The Sea Peoples" is not just a name for the peoples sailing the Mediterranean, but the name of some sort of loose confederation of displaced peoples from around the eastern Mediterranean that attacked Egypt at around 1200 BC.

This name has nothing to do with the Phoenicians, nor did the Egyptians mention them in the Medinet Habu murals.

For more info, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples

And this paper:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060903164435/http://dscholarship.lib.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1199&context=undergrad

The only known pirates, living is such loose community in the 2nd millennium BC were Tyrrhenians (Etruscans) but these were mostly active on the North coast, these mentioned by Apollodoras as captors of Dionisius. However the abundance of little populated islands in the Meds allows some independent Phoenicians settlements to also be like them. There is no intention to break somehow your vision of mysterious sea people, it is just the early sources do not know about them. Meds was pretty densely populated and there is no "unknown" culture mentioned in them for that period. Given that it is boats on your drawings, these sea people were not proper seafarers, but rather some local for Egypt coastal pirates, and maybe really Philistines, who knows? This is all open to guesses and fantasies, but I personally would not go as far as proclaiming them being Americans. In those days to cross the Meds was a serious problem, so mostly the navigation was happening along the coastline, even in the proper ships. The only culture, generally fluent in open sea voyages were Phoenicians, as these were even sailing along African coast in Atlantic and had colonies as far as in South Africa - just look at Nelson Mandela's photo, how do you think his tribe acquired Semitic features? Also, if there ever was that Atlantis which you dislike, then it was Phoenicians who navigated there, as they were old enough culture for this. They controlled practically all trade in the area from Gibraltar to Asia Minor and hardly could allow some strangers to operate in their backyard. Note, that practically all Canaan was inland, as the coastline was populated by the Punes, so Philistines could not be a maritime power anyhow, no matter what their origin was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the webpage and the PDF I posted. Believe me, you will not get harmed by secret spells or something....

But ok, Nelson Mandela is a Semite and Goliath was German called Olaf, riiiiight.

Oh, and for the second time, I was not talking about a maritime power.

And I don't dislike Atlantis, but it seems anything that even smells of mystery automatically involves Atlantis. It gets kind of boring.

No more, plesasee

7.gif

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, I had to read Plutarch again to clear this. He actually says that the Atlantis story was in the unfinished poem, Solon wrote under impression of the story told to him by Sonkhis during his travel to Sais.

Okay, I know I said I wouldn't, but...

What Plutarch is saying is precisely what Plato says - that the story was a poem by Solon that he never finished. Except Solon's source - Plato - never mentioned Sonchis.

So, sorry, but we basically have to say that Plutarch references Plato here, not Solon.

Moreover, Plutarch adds that Plato did not fulfill his dream to write an extended work on Atlantis, and this part of his writings remained unfinished project, same as Solon's poem.

Yes, the Timaeus remained unfinished.

Plutarch was not writing Biography using Plato as a source, he mentions other writings he used and refers to them in the beginning.

There could be many sources for the life of Solon. Most of them would have been unreliable for Plutarch:

His works only survive in fragments. They appear to feature interpolations by later authors and it is possible that fragments have been wrongly attributed to him (see Solon the reformer and poet). Ancient authors such as Herodotus and Plutarch are our main source of information, yet they wrote about Solon hundreds of years after his death — and this was at a time when history was by no means an academic discipline (see for example Anecdotes). Fourth century orators, such as Aeschines, tended to attribute to Solon all the laws of their own, much later times.[8]

Source: WIKI

However, there is no other source but Plato for the claim that Solon had written some poem about Atlantis.

By the way he also says that Plato too was traveling to Egypt, so if the intention of Plato was to lie about Solon's message, then he could easily mention he himself also heard this story, but he never said this.

Plato, at the time of writing Timaeus and Critias, had not traveled to Egypt so, no, he would not have been able to say he'd seen it himself.

Solon travelled for 10 years, to several different countries. It was not unusual for any Greek of consequence to travel to the various countries around the Med. That was what they did once they retired from public life.

In Solon's case, he went after he implemented his famous reforms and then reliquished his power (he was an Archon) in Athens and departed. Because of Solon's attempt to reform Athens against what he saw as moral decline, that made him a perfect foil for Plato to use in his allegory about a "great" society that fell into decline.

I swear, this is my last response to this line of argument in this thread.

HarteArtend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright Abe,

I've been thinking about it and thought of a couple of points that may or may not be pertinent. Near where I used to live there was a discovery in 1823 of the Red Lady of Paviland. Turned out it wasn't a lady but a guy of about 21 who was buried in a cave with some mammoth teeth. It's carbon dated to roughly 30,000 years ago. I find it interesting because red ochre was used to colour the body much like I know was done in South America. Now I'm not saying it must be related because ochre, being a compound of ironore and clay it must have been a very common substance in pre history and the best source of the colour red. However, dying bodies red seems an odd ritual to perform. Symbolically representing blood, death, sacrifice. Is it feasable that common practices grew up independently?

http://www.waterdragoninc.com/RedOchre.pdf

Howvever, it seems it was a common practice in the upper paleolithic. With ochre hand prints dating as far back as 77,000

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2741829

The other thought I had was that the possible evidence of such an early migration could be found in seeds. The Lee Brown, Cherokee artcile talks about the red skinned people being given guardianship of the earth and therefore crops. If native american plants were found in large enough numbers in the old world it would go some way to proving the theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Harte. Why do you suppose they did it? It seems like it may be one of the longest practiced customes. Is it simply symbolic of returning to the earth and/or blood sacrifice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright Abe,

I've been thinking about it and thought of a couple of points that may or may not be pertinent. Near where I used to live there was a discovery in 1823 of the Red Lady of Paviland. Turned out it wasn't a lady but a guy of about 21 who was buried in a cave with some mammoth teeth. It's carbon dated to roughly 30,000 years ago. I find it interesting because red ochre was used to colour the body much like I know was done in South America. Now I'm not saying it must be related because ochre, being a compound of ironore and clay it must have been a very common substance in pre history and the best source of the colour red. However, dying bodies red seems an odd ritual to perform. Symbolically representing blood, death, sacrifice. Is it feasable that common practices grew up independently?

http://www.waterdrag...om/RedOchre.pdf

Howvever, it seems it was a common practice in the upper paleolithic. With ochre hand prints dating as far back as 77,000

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2741829

The other thought I had was that the possible evidence of such an early migration could be found in seeds. The Lee Brown, Cherokee artcile talks about the red skinned people being given guardianship of the earth and therefore crops. If native american plants were found in large enough numbers in the old world it would go some way to proving the theory.

Jim, initially - I read too fast - I thought you were going to mention the "Red Paint People" or the "Maritime Archaic".

I think there might lie a possiblity for trans Atlantic contact originating in the Americas.

--

LOL, I found something about the Carib and their canoes/boats having sails or not:

"THE ORIGIN OF SAIL

It is thought sail was not used until after 1605. In this year, three Spanish Galleys were wrecked on Guadeloupeand the Caribs murdered all the crews. One friar, a certain Father Blasius from the Low Countries was spared as he had shown the Indians how to make sails out of the linen cloth that had been a part of the ships' cargo.

He showed them how to make a fore and aft spritsail (common in the Low Countries, the innovation pleased the Caribs as the sails had saved them much labour. Incidentally, Father Blasius made his escape by using one of his sails one night when he saw a British merchantman the 'Henry Challons' approaching the lee of Guadeloupe.

From that time on, sail was reported in the Caribbean in historical records, and until recently, the Carib Canoes of the Eastern Caribbean used the same sprit rig, utilising flour sacks sewed together as sail cloth."

http://anbanet.com/wadadli-antigua.html

OK, skip the Carib.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim, initially - I read too fast - I thought you were going to mention the "Red Paint People" or the "Maritime Archaic".

I think there might lie a possiblity for trans Atlantic contact originating in the Americas.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

respectfully, *snip*

The Territory of The Red Paint People you mention above Abramelin...( according to searches) not only covered the upper northeastern coastal areas of the Americas ,Canada and Labrador, but also included the St. Lawrence Seaway~~~~~ the Great Lakes, and some lands further west. They were originally called the Red Paint People because of their use of Red Ochre in burial practices .. (and probably other ways?) The name Maritime Archaic ,if i understand it right, came about with an increased understanding of their Maritime culture and abilities. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Edited by lightlyy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What Plutarch is saying is precisely what Plato says - that the story was a poem by Solon that he never finished. Except Solon's source - Plato - never mentioned Sonchis.

So, sorry, but we basically have to say that Plutarch references Plato here, not Solon.

The quick one, Harte - where is your logic? If Plutarch's "source" is Plato, and Plato never mentioned the names of the priests, whom Solon was talking to, but Plutarch still says these were Sonkhis of Sais and Psenophis of Heliopolice, then does not it mean Plutarch was using a more detailed source than Plato's Timaeus? Or, maybe, Plutarch is a liar too? You seem to have a quick one answer for all contradictions!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.