Transcontinental Contact Between Megalithic Cultures in Prehistory?

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

I totally get the possible motives. But if all we can do is attack motives and not information, then we haven't really gotten anywhere.

I should add: my family ended up in Oklahoma when my great grandmother walked there as a Cherokee.

originally posted by: Necrose

originally posted by: Metatronin

The key that binds these cultures is oxalic acid and citric acid. It softens the stones when soaked, to a clay like substance. Can also be used to drill holes in stone with a wood stick.

Bollocks. You would need a diamond to carve into some granite stones.

They either had lasers or diamond point machinery.

Bollox.

Carving granite does not require a diamond anything. Also, lasers can't even carve granite.

If you don't understand what a laser is, that is not a justification for waving your arms and saying "LASERS! LASERS!"

Harte

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

I totally get the possible motives. But if all we can do is attack motives and not information, then we haven't really gotten anywhere.

Well, that's the thing...how do we define 'information'? Lots of yarns and conjecture...all that's missing is the proof. I provide the motives because so many people suck up the 19th century blarney, yet don't know why they'd lie.

I should add: my family ended up in Oklahoma when my great grandmother walked there as a Cherokee.

Ive been reading a book: The American Revolution in Indian Country: Crisis and diversity in Native American communities. Pretty grim.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Fair enough. There certainly is no shortage of 19th century hoakum available.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: jeep3r

Ill be back later to read through the thread. I am interested in seeing more pre-historic connections.

Some of the smaller details in megalithic stonework in Peru and the ceremonial platforms on Easter Island seem to be very similar as well. Is the insertion of small, trapezoidal stones a common style element or an architectural necessity?


Image Source 01 | 02 | 03

More details available here:
Easter Island, Land of Mystery

While I find your OP interesting, you have to note that while construction techniques might look the same, the overall buildings do not.

It could be simply that construction was the same, because that was the way to do it. For example, the statues in your OP: both are giant heads....but really, the styles are not exactly the same. What would stand out more is if the statues looked exactly the same (not counting weathering of course).

I think what would be stronger evidence would be finding a stone tablet in a sealed Egyptian toomb, that has Mayan carvings on it, or a sealed Mayan tomb that had a stone table with an Egyptian cartouche with Aman-Ra's name on it.

Now a find like THAT.....well,......that would be pretty hard to explain I would think.

Still I find your thought on this interesting, but just not quite enough as proof of trans ocean contact. Actually finding something that could not have come from that area, but instead had to of been carried there would be much better.

a reply to: eriktheawful

How about a mesoamerican fertility goddess using european pagan symbolism of the rabbit, and tied to the venus (planet/female fertility goddess)? Maybe not a smoking gun, but i bet the barrels still warm.



The Mayan "Moon Maiden". Ixchel

There it is again. The ancient association of the moon with the feminine. Except this is being expressed by theoretically unrelated people from the other side of the globe.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It is an interesting comparison.

However, again, as you said, it only makes the barrel warm.

Finding either of those things actually physically across the ocean from where they should be on the other hand.....that would be the smoking gun.

I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm like some on here...wasn't it Slayer that said it?.....I think we (the human race) have amnesia. I think there are parts of our history that are lost and forgotten.

a reply to: eriktheawful

I agree...its tenuous.

another theory I have been looking into is the Mound Builders and their connection to berbers. there is a lot of vague circumstantial evidence, but nothing that really drives it home.

ETA: i have also run down potential Celtic influences in N. America. Again, this is kind of far fetched...but it is interesting in that there are some coincidental points.

a reply to: JiggyPotamus

Precisely. Not to mention that human hands come up against the same physical limitations when working stone with an iron chisel, resulting in similar shapes and design compromises.

Generally speaking, the most unreliable form of evidence is analogy. Just because two things look the same doesn't mean they are connected. 'Likeness impliest connexion' is primarily a law of magic, not of science.

a reply to: jeep3r

I think it's very possible. It's known from some very OLD finds in North, Central, and South America that "who got here first" isn't nearly as clear cut as we once believed. There are remains far older than the Amerind people of all the major races, showing that all were here much longer ago than was previously believed. Couple that with the fact that these cultures clearly had skill enough to build what they did, and there is no reason not to believe that they were able to handle sea travel as well.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Fair enough. There certainly is no shortage of 19th century hoakum available.

Yea but that's their stock and trade... hokum. They stand on it. They always go for the easy picking to smear the whole deal. Like criticizing the laser idea, fake giants, Borrows cave junk and other obvious nonsense. But when it comes to some real evidence that North america did not exist in isolation from the rest of the world say 1000bc they actually get offended and accuse proponents of slanted view, racism, armchair archeology ect.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: JiggyPotamus



Generally speaking, the most unreliable form of evidence is analogy. Just because two things look the same doesn't mean they are connected. 'Likeness impliest connexion' is primarily a law of magic, not of science.

But what are you going to do then when you find out that comparable cultural material not only lends itself to physical analogy but cross cultural interpretation? The fool says, for example, that the Monkey Scribes of Copan, their icons and extensive underworld mythology and the Monkey Scribe concepts of Egypt, the related icons and mythology are analogous by happenstance only.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It is an interesting comparison.

However, again, as you said, it only makes the barrel warm.

Finding either of those things actually physically across the ocean from where they should be on the other hand.....that would be the smoking gun.

For one example, several if not over a dozen clusters of copper age carpentry tools have been found at various locations in the Midwest. You can dig theses up on line and compare them to European tools of the era. Fascinating.

Here's the thing: evidence is out there and was meant to be found. They built as they did with intention, if you want something to survive for eons you build with materials that can weather time well. That there was transcontinental contact between Sumerian age cultures there can be no doubt, look at the evidence that has been found. All things being equal that leaves a few things yet:

1) What happened that caused a systemic breakdown of knowledge and ability in the human species? Clearly, there was some event that occurred, and our ancestors did not recall the time before......OR...the records are there, and we are just misinterpreting them.

2) When are we going to make public the things that are being found via radar sounding under the ice in Antarctica. There is a wealth of information there, and the whole species has a right to it.

3) Who is responsible for eradicating history and keeping the current populace in a state of repressed ignorance? I realize in some sense this is just a personal choice, but there is a lot of active work that goes into making sure people do not think. That is a problem.

originally posted by: Logarock
...But when it comes to some real evidence that North america did not exist in isolation from the rest of the world say 1000bc they actually get offended and accuse proponents of slanted view, racism, armchair archeology ect.

So how is this state of 'offence' characterised? By requesting proof?
For Shame!

Seriously, what you are missing is the fact that observations of analogous anything are not an end, in and of themselves. You want to test your theories, that's fine and dandy, and more power to you. That's what fuels innovation. But once again, some real evidence would be nice.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

To be fair, proof is an absolute rarely found outside geometry and video tape.

Evidence is what should be sought. And there is quite a bit of evidence scattered around.

Out of curiosity, are you aware of any studies on ocean conditions in the distant past? I am curious about the effects of the influx of the large amount of glacial melt water from North America when the "ice dam" broke, and during the YD event.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

To be fair, proof is an absolute rarely found outside geometry and video tape.
Evidence is what should be sought. And there is quite a bit of evidence scattered around.
Out of curiosity, are you aware of any studies on ocean conditions in the distant past? I am curious about the effects of the influx of the large amount of glacial melt water from North America when the "ice dam" broke, and during the YD event.

Even so, that's a huge topic. The best I can do is steer you towards Google Scholar, or JSTOR (if you have access), and wish you luck. Let me know.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Necrose

originally posted by: Metatronin

The key that binds these cultures is oxalic acid and citric acid. It softens the stones when soaked, to a clay like substance. Can also be used to drill holes in stone with a wood stick.

Bollocks. You would need a diamond to carve into some granite stones.

They either had lasers or diamond point machinery.

Bollox.

Carving granite does not require a diamond anything. Also, lasers can't even carve granite.

If you don't understand what a laser is, that is not a justification for waving your arms and saying "LASERS! LASERS!"

Harte

really??
examples:

www.alibaba.com...
www.jqlaser.dpes.com.cn...

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Do we really know she was a fertility goddess? I only ask because what you call the Man in the Moon looks like a rabbit at lower latitudes. Perhaps she's just a Moon goddess?