Precolumbian_Inscriptions : Messages : 11839-11868 of 12092

http://www.barringercrater.com/about/history_4.php

our scientists only recently could believe that rocks fall from space. it was 1908 before barringer finally convinced our lads that the crater in az was from a meteorite impact.

its only been about 100 years since scientists were able to see that this crater was an impact, and not a volcano. so we should not expect them to recognize this new discovery as valid.

here is a picture of a large lunar crater. its rim is sharp, and it looks very recent.

large impacts are not always from mya.

catlin cites traditions of the tribes of the south, 'the water was seen coming in waves like mountains from the east'. the whole region sank, including the gulf of mexico, and the caribbean sea. it has rebounded somewhat. proof is found at palenque and uxmal, that they had lain on the seafoor for thousands of years. he cites the salt and marine deposits that tsunamis could have brought ashore.

bourbourg translated a toltec codice, 'teo amoxtli', a history of the cataclysm of the antilles. volcanic convulsions for four days and nights.

[ the oil wells of venezuela and tar on trinidad support the idea that forest land has been covered by the seabed. an impact of that great mass could have broken plates. he presents much evidence that the caribbean sea had been dry land. ]

the weight of water when the sea invades the land as tsunamis, can depress the plate, so that the sea retains the land.

he rightly says that travel at behring straits could have just as easy been east to west.

in his travels he visited 120 native american tribes. the central and southern tribes tell of two great floods.

mike

#11840

From: <aumsparky@...>
Date: Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:04 am
Subject: Re: [Ancient-Mysteries] catlin: 'lifted and subsided rocks of america' - impact tsunami

aumsparky

[ in response to author saying that much of yucatan and south to panama, had been below the sea. i suppose there could have been a tsunami and a plate drop during an earthquake, all caused by such a large impact from space. with tsunamis several miles high, it is not necessary to have elevator plate action to explain the record. im relieved, after having found evidence of seawater in so many places, america seemed very unstable and unsafe. cosmic impacts are normally a one time event.

a glancing blow from space could change the poles, or rotational speed. perhaps the year went from 360 to 365.25 days then. a glancing blow from the west would make the earth turn faster. a low angle strike from the west is more likely to bounce off, than one from the east. identifying this one event helps bring closure to so many earth mysteries, not only for the americas, but the world. ]

[ since i dont rely upon the concensus, i will accept this impact as a valid event, that happened within the last 10,000 years. imagine a disaster that erased a 900 mile circle, and destroyed life for a few thousand miles in every direction, with fire and huge waves. the recovery from an event of that magnitude could have taken ages. our largest h bomb is not as powerful. people were happy to live two miles above the sea after that in the andes. those northern bonebeds and muck must contain men as well. the hunters were near the game. any survivors either migrated or starved. please read dr hibbens on the megafauna deposits of alaska. the beds were being excavated with bull dozers, looking for gold. they were not looking for human bones. as far as i know, nobody has examined them since. all of the most important sites in the americas are left mostly unexplored. its ripe for great discoveries. ]

the great bison herds are a strange thing. did they survive the great tsunami kill-off, or were they introduced later? i need to take another look at that, but it seems there were breaks in time when there were fewer bison. there was no place of certain safety in their range, that i can locate, from such waves. how could bison survive, but not horses? the debris in tsunamis crashes rocks, trees, etc, and animals mixed, so their bones were tangled together in the deposits. only a tsunami could have done it.

structures facing the impact crater may have a burnt look on that side. that side also took the brunt of the waves, so may have those walls knocked down afterwards.

catlin had the idea that mountains collapse into the open vaults below them.

book ends

mike

#11841

From: <aumsparky@...>
Date: Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:11 pm
Subject: Fw: [Ancient-Mysteries] catlin: 'lifted and subsided rocks of america' - impact tsunami

aumsparky

http://www.barringercrater.com/about/history_4.php

----- Original Message -----

From: aumsparky@...

To: Ancient-Mysteries@yahoogroups.com

Cc: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 5:45 PM

Subject: Re: [Ancient-Mysteries] catlin: 'lifted and subsided rocks of america' - impact tsunami

our scientists only recently could believe that rocks fall from space. it was 1908 before barringer finally convinced our lads that the crater in az was from a meteorite impact.

its only been about 100 years since scientists were able to see that this crater was an impact, and not a volcano. so we should not expect them to recognize this new discovery as valid.

here is a picture of a large lunar crater. its rim is sharp, and it looks very recent.

large impacts are not always from mya.

bourbourg translated a toltec codice, 'teo amoxtli', a history of the cataclysm of the antilles. volcanic convulsions for four days and nights.

the weight of water when the sea invades the land as tsunamis, can depress the plate, so that the sea retains the land.

he rightly says that travel at behring straits could have just as easy been east to west.

in his travels he visited 120 native american tribes. the central and southern tribes tell of two great floods.

mike

#11842

From: "Dick" <dickcobbs1@...>
Date: Thu Feb 2, 2012 3:27 am
Subject: Mayan/Olmec Drinking Vessel

dickcobbs1

Hi,
I'm in northern Nicaragua, and last week when I went to buy some locally made
bricks,I bought an item that the owner said was excavated on his property, while
he was digging clay for his bricks.  The item appears to be a drinking vessel. 
It has three legs with finger holes and what appear to be thumbrests on two of
the legs.  The bowl area is approximately eight inches in diameter, and the
three legs protrude about an inch from that.  There is a gargoyle type head
protruding on one side, and a damaged protrusion on the opposite side (much like
a frog's nose and eyes.  The finish is faded off-white paint or glaze with much
crazing.  There are what appear to be blue lines inside at the bottom edge that
ring the bowl, and numerous different panels? painted all around the inside
wall.  Most of these are faded and although fairly simple line drawings, are not
easy to describe.  One, may be a snake with an open mouth at the left, with the
body extending to the right and curving upward to what may be a head. then a
smaller head and body with outstretched arms sitting in the lap of the
snake/man/woman.  There are also numerous panels around the outside, some with
the blue and what appears to be a dull red.
Is there any safe way to clean this?  Can anybody tell me what it was used for? 
I would think that it was ceremonial, probably too big for blood, so maybe
chocolate.
Any info would be greatly appreciated.
RWC

#11843

From: <aumsparky@...>
Date: Thu Feb 2, 2012 4:40 am
Subject: Re: Mayan/Olmec Drinking Vessel

aumsparky

welcome to the group. you have acquired an interesting item. determining its purpose or use, may take longer. i would recommend making photographs of the cup, the higher the resolution the better. it sounds like there are inscriptions, that should be studied. strange that it was found in clay, without a burial or other objects. perhaps an ancient traveller lost it, or waves carried it there.

northern nicaragua is near several high cultures of ancients, which may have overlapped. the face and extent of land in that region may have changed much over recent ages.

besides the maya, cholulan refugees settled there. atlantean relics from two periods might be found. the earliest is associated with the stone balls of costa rica.

your description was good and detailed, but seeing it, and recording the glyphs, is an important next step. i dont think the cup was for daily use, which makes it more interesting. its amazing that the cup survived intact.

its fascinating and a mystery, why the earliest people settled to the south. we should specify it as among the first of high culture in central america.

mike

----- Original Message -----

From: Dick

To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 10:27 PM

Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Mayan/Olmec Drinking Vessel

Hi,
I'm in northern Nicaragua, and last week when I went to buy some locally made bricks,I bought an item that the owner said was excavated on his property, while he was digging clay for his bricks. The item appears to be a drinking vessel. It has three legs with finger holes and what appear to be thumbrests on two of the legs. The bowl area is approximately eight inches in diameter, and the three legs protrude about an inch from that. There is a gargoyle type head protruding on one side, and a damaged protrusion on the opposite side (much like a frog's nose and eyes. The finish is faded off-white paint or glaze with much crazing. There are what appear to be blue lines inside at the bottom edge that ring the bowl, and numerous different panels? painted all around the inside wall. Most of these are faded and although fairly simple line drawings, are not easy to describe. One, may be a snake with an open mouth at the left, with the body extending to the right and curving upward to what may be a head. then a smaller head and body with outstretched arms sitting in the lap of the snake/man/woman. There are also numerous panels around the outside, some with the blue and what appears to be a dull red.
Is there any safe way to clean this? Can anybody tell me what it was used for? I would think that it was ceremonial, probably too big for blood, so maybe chocolate.
Any info would be greatly appreciated.
RWC

#11844

From: Dick Cobbs <dickcobbs1@...>
Date: Thu Feb 2, 2012 5:30 am
Subject: Re: Mayan/Olmec Drinking Vessel

dickcobbs1

Hi,

Thanks for your reply. I thought of a possibility; I was thinking that it may float, due to its shape. So, it may have floated down stream. The iconography appears quite different from Mayan; I'm not sure how to describe it, possibly more basic, more simple. I can tell that it is completely decorated, but greatly faded. I have tried examining with a black light, but don't see much change. Is there some way to bring out the detail without harming the vessel. I'm going to upload some pictures to the site.

Thanks Again,

RWC

From: "aumsparky@..." <aumsparky@...>
To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2012 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Mayan/Olmec Drinking Vessel

    welcome to the group. you have acquired an interesting item. determining its purpose or use, may take longer. i would recommend making photographs of the cup, the higher the resolution the better. it sounds like there are inscriptions, that should be studied. strange that it was found in clay, without a burial or other objects. perhaps an ancient traveller lost it, or waves carried it there.

    northern nicaragua is near several high cultures of ancients, which may have overlapped. the face and extent of land in that region may have changed much over recent ages.

    besides the maya, cholulan refugees settled there. atlantean relics from two periods might be found. the earliest is associated with the stone balls of costa rica.

   your description was good and detailed, but seeing it, and recording the glyphs, is an important next step. i dont think the cup was for daily use, which makes it more interesting. its amazing that the cup survived intact.

   its fascinating and a mystery, why the earliest people settled to the south. we should specify it as among the first of high culture in central america.

mike

----- Original Message -----

From: Dick

To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 10:27 PM

Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Mayan/Olmec Drinking Vessel

Hi,
I'm in northern Nicaragua, and last week when I went to buy some locally made bricks,I bought an item that the owner said was excavated on his property, while he was digging clay for his bricks. The item appears to be a drinking vessel. It has three legs with finger holes and what appear to be thumbrests on two of the legs. The bowl area is approximately eight inches in diameter, and the three legs protrude about an inch from that. There is a gargoyle type head protruding on one side, and a damaged protrusion on the opposite side (much like a frog's nose and eyes. The finish is faded off-white paint or glaze with much crazing. There are what appear to be blue lines inside at the bottom edge that ring the bowl, and numerous different panels? painted all around the inside wall. Most of these are faded and although fairly simple line drawings, are not easy to describe. One, may be a snake with an open mouth at the left, with the body extending to the right and curving upward to what may be a head. then a smaller head and body with outstretched arms sitting in the lap of the snake/man/woman. There are also numerous panels around the outside, some with the blue and what appears to be a dull red.
Is there any safe way to clean this? Can anybody tell me what it was used for? I would think that it was ceremonial, probably too big for blood, so maybe chocolate.
Any info would be greatly appreciated.
RWC

#11845

From: <aumsparky@...>
Date: Thu Feb 2, 2012 6:25 am
Subject: Re: Mayan/Olmec Drinking Vessel

aumsparky

do not try to clean it yet. a mistake cannot be undone. the clay may have protected it. lets hope the air wont crumble it. with enough time, even pottery decomposes.

was the site near a river? it may indicate more relics upstream, ruins or tombs.

dick, were you born there, or relocated?

we recently reviewed books by astute travellers to that region, squiers in particular. are there ruins nearby? near what city or village? i dont know the laws on antiquities there. maybe contact a museum curator in managua. there might be info on cleaning and preserving pottery online. probably vegetable dyes were used.

mike

----- Original Message -----

From: aumsparky@...

To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 11:40 PM

Subject: Re: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Mayan/Olmec Drinking Vessel

    welcome to the group. you have acquired an interesting item. determining its purpose or use, may take longer. i would recommend making photographs of the cup, the higher the resolution the better. it sounds like there are inscriptions, that should be studied. strange that it was found in clay, without a burial or other objects. perhaps an ancient traveller lost it, or waves carried it there.

    northern nicaragua is near several high cultures of ancients, which may have overlapped. the face and extent of land in that region may have changed much over recent ages.

    besides the maya, cholulan refugees settled there. atlantean relics from two periods might be found. the earliest is associated with the stone balls of costa rica.

   your description was good and detailed, but seeing it, and recording the glyphs, is an important next step. i dont think the cup was for daily use, which makes it more interesting. its amazing that the cup survived intact.

   its fascinating and a mystery, why the earliest people settled to the south. we should specify it as among the first of high culture in central america.

mike

----- Original Message -----

From: Dick

To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 10:27 PM

Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Mayan/Olmec Drinking Vessel

Hi,
I'm in northern Nicaragua, and last week when I went to buy some locally made bricks,I bought an item that the owner said was excavated on his property, while he was digging clay for his bricks. The item appears to be a drinking vessel. It has three legs with finger holes and what appear to be thumbrests on two of the legs. The bowl area is approximately eight inches in diameter, and the three legs protrude about an inch from that. There is a gargoyle type head protruding on one side, and a damaged protrusion on the opposite side (much like a frog's nose and eyes. The finish is faded off-white paint or glaze with much crazing. There are what appear to be blue lines inside at the bottom edge that ring the bowl, and numerous different panels? painted all around the inside wall. Most of these are faded and although fairly simple line drawings, are not easy to describe. One, may be a snake with an open mouth at the left, with the body extending to the right and curving upward to what may be a head. then a smaller head and body with outstretched arms sitting in the lap of the snake/man/woman. There are also numerous panels around the outside, some with the blue and what appears to be a dull red.
Is there any safe way to clean this? Can anybody tell me what it was used for? I would think that it was ceremonial, probably too big for blood, so maybe chocolate.
Any info would be greatly appreciated.
RWC

#11846

From: Dick Cobbs <dickcobbs1@...>
Date: Thu Feb 2, 2012 5:39 am
Subject: Pictures

dickcobbs1

Hi,

Pictures attached.

RWC

#11847

From: <aumsparky@...>
Date: Thu Feb 2, 2012 11:27 am
Subject: Re: Mayan/Olmec Drinking Vessel

aumsparky

hi dick, all

these pics may be too high of resolution for email. my client stalled my email acct, at 10mb. i did go online email to see them. there is a photo upload on group main at yahoo.

after seeing how it was made, with the prominent sturdy legs, it doesnt seem to be a drinking cup. i didnt see any certain glyphs. it is badly faded.

i dont know how the detail could be enhanced. distilled water might help, wet sometimes brings it out. before chemicals could be tried safely, the dyes and glazing should be identified. then try a sample on a leg.

so far, not enough can be seen well, to even identify the culture.

its nice to have such items in one's cabinet, but more might be gained if the local experts were brought in. if they want it in the museum, they should have you identified as the donor.

on a calm river it may float, but i was thinking a tsunami may have carried it, or a spring freshet washed it from a bank upstream. the experts should look for other relics in the area. the relic has such fine detail intact, that its possible that someone buried it in the clay. it may have been a votive bowl temple offering, or from a person's home altar.

someone else may be able to add comment upon it. at least you know where it was found, so many items ive bought from estates, have unknown provenance. i wonder at what depth in the clay it was found.

mike

----- Original Message -----

From: aumsparky@...

To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 1:25 AM

Subject: Re: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Mayan/Olmec Drinking Vessel

    do not try to clean it yet. a mistake cannot be undone. the clay may have protected it. lets hope the air wont crumble it. with enough time, even pottery decomposes.

   was the site near a river? it may indicate more relics upstream, ruins or tombs.

   dick, were you born there, or relocated?

   we recently reviewed books by astute travellers to that region, squiers in particular. are there ruins nearby? near what city or village? i dont know the laws on antiquities there. maybe contact a museum curator in managua. there might be info on cleaning and preserving pottery online. probably vegetable dyes were used.

mike

----- Original Message -----

From: aumsparky@...

To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 11:40 PM

Subject: Re: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Mayan/Olmec Drinking Vessel

    welcome to the group. you have acquired an interesting item. determining its purpose or use, may take longer. i would recommend making photographs of the cup, the higher the resolution the better. it sounds like there are inscriptions, that should be studied. strange that it was found in clay, without a burial or other objects. perhaps an ancient traveller lost it, or waves carried it there.

    northern nicaragua is near several high cultures of ancients, which may have overlapped. the face and extent of land in that region may have changed much over recent ages.

    besides the maya, cholulan refugees settled there. atlantean relics from two periods might be found. the earliest is associated with the stone balls of costa rica.

   your description was good and detailed, but seeing it, and recording the glyphs, is an important next step. i dont think the cup was for daily use, which makes it more interesting. its amazing that the cup survived intact.

   its fascinating and a mystery, why the earliest people settled to the south. we should specify it as among the first of high culture in central america.

mike

----- Original Message -----

From: Dick

To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 10:27 PM

Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Mayan/Olmec Drinking Vessel

Hi,
I'm in northern Nicaragua, and last week when I went to buy some locally made bricks,I bought an item that the owner said was excavated on his property, while he was digging clay for his bricks. The item appears to be a drinking vessel. It has three legs with finger holes and what appear to be thumbrests on two of the legs. The bowl area is approximately eight inches in diameter, and the three legs protrude about an inch from that. There is a gargoyle type head protruding on one side, and a damaged protrusion on the opposite side (much like a frog's nose and eyes. The finish is faded off-white paint or glaze with much crazing. There are what appear to be blue lines inside at the bottom edge that ring the bowl, and numerous different panels? painted all around the inside wall. Most of these are faded and although fairly simple line drawings, are not easy to describe. One, may be a snake with an open mouth at the left, with the body extending to the right and curving upward to what may be a head. then a smaller head and body with outstretched arms sitting in the lap of the snake/man/woman. There are also numerous panels around the outside, some with the blue and what appears to be a dull red.
Is there any safe way to clean this? Can anybody tell me what it was used for? I would think that it was ceremonial, probably too big for blood, so maybe chocolate.
Any info would be greatly appreciated.
RWC

#11848

From: "Dick" <dickcobbs1@...>
Date: Sat Feb 4, 2012 5:21 am
Subject: Olmec vessel

dickcobbs1

Hi,
I'm sending more pictures, hoping someone can identify this item.  One is said
to be the Olmec dragon. I think there is a similar representation upside down on
the leg opposite the gargoyle.  The gargoyle could be a transforming shaman, a
monkey, or just a really ugly dude with a monkey hat.
Thanks,
RWC

#11849

From: <aumsparky@...>
Date: Sat Feb 4, 2012 6:32 am
Subject: Re: Olmec vessel

aumsparky

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/olmec-dragon.htm

hi dick, all

i admire your work dick. i agree that the relic is olmec. while the olmec dragon is variously represented, the flaming eyebrows points to it being olmec. i wasnt aware that there was an olmec presence in n nicaragua, until now. the bird is also an olmec symbol, often found with the dragon culture.

what i said earlier about a potential site upstream still goes.

we are not a mainstream site, that cling to concensus opinion. there are some among us that hold different opinions.

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

http://brazilweirdnews.blogspot.com/2011/03/olmec-dragon.html

mike

----- Original Message -----

From: Dick

To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 12:21 AM

Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Olmec vessel

Hi,
I'm sending more pictures, hoping someone can identify this item. One is said to be the Olmec dragon. I think there is a similar representation upside down on the leg opposite the gargoyle. The gargoyle could be a transforming shaman, a monkey, or just a really ugly dude with a monkey hat.
Thanks,
RWC

#11850

From: "bigalemc2" <sgtti@...>
Date: Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:59 pm
Subject: Re: maya in ga?

bigalemc2

Mike -

Good point about Tulum.

One has to think that - whether they planned it or not - they would
quickly have seen that from the top of the pyramids they could see a
long way.  And no society that has enemies could not see the advantage
of having a high perspective.

This strongly suggests that one  of the primary reasons for pyramids was
as a vantage point, a crow's nest on land.  And like in The Lord of The
Rings, using them for signal fires could not be long in coming.  I have
no idea if there is evidence for fires atop pyramids with flat tops.  I
kind of doubt the evidence was there or someone would have mentioned it.
All we hear about is rituals.

But as vantage points, fires weren't necessary, but I won't drop the
idea until I have proven it wrong to my satisfaction.

Having the tops be above the trees not only gives the perspective of
looking down like gods, but it also allows seeing long ways across the
Yucatan, over the trees.  Yet, there is not much to see except trees -
and other pyramids - and perhaps the smoke from fires of anyone camping
anywhere nearby.

As an ancient version of the Pony Express or the telegraph, you couldn't
do any better.  It would even justify building them.

I would not be mentioning this, except I have never heard of any thought
put into this, so I thought I'd put it out there.

If we consider the ancient peoples as practical in the slightest, we
have to consider what WE would do with certain structures that we find.
Yes, the Christian white guys who started archeology decided that the
ancients were all mumbo-jumbo fearing numb nuts.  But we here don't.
So, if we had something taller than the trees, what would we utilize it
for?  Just because the 19th century arkies had no imagination doesn't
mean we can't.  And just because archeology is - amazingly - still stuck
in the thinking of those religious dummies, well, that isn't our doing.

My vote goes to them using them for signalling between complexes.  Once
they were up there, they could NOT have not seen that potential.
SOMEBODY had to have seen the potential.

Steve Garcia

--- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, <aumsparky@...> wrote:
>
>
> hi david, all
>
>    i reposted the link that was put on ancient-mysteries.  brasstown
bald and blairsville are probably within 30 miles from my home at
franklin, nc.  unfortunately, my legs are no longer up to the rigors
needed to hike up to the site.
>    apparently, some of the maya escaped the general revolt of the
masses, and may have taken boats from tulum.  they may have come inland
on the savanah river.
>    i dont recall the particulars, but some relics from the mound in
franklin may have related to the maya.  this may be how bamboo was
carried into this region.
>    ive travelled much in asia in the last 9 years.  im hoping to
explore the andes and mexico next.
>    i will look for authors other articles.
>
> happy holidays
> mike
>
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: dcampbell75479
>   To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 1:43 PM
>   Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Re: maya in ga?
>
>
>
>   That's a fascinating article, Mike. I ran across it yesterday at
another list. About a year ago I corresponded with Richard Thornton on a
project of mine. He has a whole slew of similar articles on the Examiner
which I suggest you check out.
>
>   --- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, aumsparky@ wrote:
>   >
>   >
>   > mayan ruins near blairsville, ga
>   >
>   >
http://www.examiner.com/architecture-design-in-national/massive-1-100-ye\
ar-old-maya-site-discovered-georgia-s-mountains
>   >
>   > mike
>   >
>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (15)

#11851

From: <aumsparky@...>
Date: Sat Feb 4, 2012 10:39 am
Subject: Re: Olmec vessel

aumsparky

an old email got overlooked, i apologize for the tardiness.

ive come to a different chronology for mesoamerica. the olmec, either of the two races that are currently lumped into the olmec, have features that are common to pacifica, the lemurians. that continent sank circa 50,000 bce, said cayce. the people of cholula were driven south by the olmec in remote times. its likely that the olmec were descended from the lemurians. i would guess the olmec arrival between 26,000 bce and 10,000 bce, far earlier than the 3000 bce commonly cited. there may have been two distinct periods of olmec in mexico, the earlier giants with the round heads, and the later elongated skull type. i assume that they were in mexico for thousands of years, and overlapped with the early atlanteans.

dick's relic could be up to 20,000 years old, in my opinion. it may have taken millennias for the clay to cover the cup, if it were by spring freshets.

the olmec may have had a script. some claim to have translated it, but i have my doubts.

please look for potters' marks on the bowl, often 3-5 characters.

im having email trouble, so there are delays.

mike

#11852

From: Luis Andrade <luis.sparhawk@...>
Date: Sat Feb 4, 2012 6:20 pm
Subject: Re: Olmec vessel

ci1222950

Hi Dick,

Thank you for sharing those pictures. Do you have any more of the "Olmec dragon" from different angles? It reminds me of some of the earlier, pre-Xia, Chinese cultures (Liangzhu or Longshang, for example) and their jade objects. Interested also in any rubbings of the relief on that clay vase.

Regards,

Luis

On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 12:21 AM, Dick <dickcobbs1@...> wrote:

Hi,
I'm sending more pictures, hoping someone can identify this item. One is said to be the Olmec dragon. I think there is a similar representation upside down on the leg opposite the gargoyle. The gargoyle could be a transforming shaman, a monkey, or just a really ugly dude with a monkey hat.
Thanks,
RWC

#11853

From: "Dick" <dickcobbs1@...>
Date: Sat Feb 4, 2012 7:36 pm
Subject: Vessel

dickcobbs1

Hi,
Will send additional pictures of dragon.  If you magnify the uploaded pictures,
you should be able to make out some of the detail.  Actually I am able to see
more in the pictures than on he object itself.
It appears that the interior panels tell a story, in that there is a repetition
of the seated reclining figure with the figure in its lap changing.  I am
starting to think it is a description of the beginning of their religion, or the
world, or something along those lines.  My friend, Luis, who was with me when I
got it thinks it is the Olmec Kama Sutra!!!!!!!
Later,
RWC

#11854

From: "Dick" <dickcobbs1@...>
Date: Sat Feb 4, 2012 10:28 pm
Subject: Olmec vessel

dickcobbs1

Hi,
I didn't mention that the dragon's snout is obviously broken and also the there
are rattles in the two intact legs.
RWC
p.s. I notice that tipping my screen brings out different details in the
pictures.

#11855

From: "dcampbell75479" <fred-dobbs@...>
Date: Sun Feb 5, 2012 2:44 pm
Subject: Re: Olmec vessel

dcampbell75479

Hi, Mike,
Have you added the Dragon Vessel to the files or photos yet? I just looked
quickly and didn't see them. What caught my attention was Dick's statement that
the dragon snout was obviously broken. You probably recall my photos of the
artifact from Texas which paleontologists said was merely a tylosaurus fossil
snout but which the original discoverer back in the '50's was certain was a
dragon type artifact of Mesoamerican origins. Also, years ago a correspondent
sent me photos of a dragon-like pictograph near Hueco Tanks which obviously had
Mesoamerican influence. It seems increasingly evident that there was a greater
Mesoamerican influence in the Southwest than previously acknowledged publicly.
(I have found discussions of this as far back as the '20's and '30's, though.)

Anyway, could you point me to the photo if you have it in the albums or photos,
so that I can make a visual comparison? Thanks.

Yours truly,
David Campbell

--- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, <aumsparky@...> wrote:
>
>
> hi dick, all
>
>    i admire your work dick.  i agree that the relic is olmec.  while the olmec
dragon is variously represented, the flaming eyebrows points to it being olmec. 
i wasnt aware that there was an olmec presence in n nicaragua, until now.  the
bird is also an olmec symbol, often found with the dragon culture.
>    what i said earlier about a potential site upstream still goes.
>    we are not a mainstream site, that cling to concensus opinion.  there are
some among us that hold different opinions.
>
> http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/olmec-dragon.htm
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmec_religion
>
> http://brazilweirdnews.blogspot.com/2011/03/olmec-dragon.html
>
> http://brazilweirdnews.blogspot.com/2011/03/olmec-dragon.html
>
> mike
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Dick
>   To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 12:21 AM
>   Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Olmec vessel
>
>
>
>   Hi,
>   I'm sending more pictures, hoping someone can identify this item. One is
said to be the Olmec dragon. I think there is a similar representation upside
down on the leg opposite the gargoyle. The gargoyle could be a transforming
shaman, a monkey, or just a really ugly dude with a monkey hat.
>   Thanks,
>   RWC
>

#11856

From: "Dick" <dickcobbs1@...>
Date: Sun Feb 5, 2012 6:15 pm
Subject: Research

dickcobbs1

Hi,
I'll probably raise some hackles with this post, but here goes!  In researching
my vessel I'm finding a great deal of speculation/assumption.  I even find
myself doing it.  When trying to sketch some of the glyph on the vessel, it's
easy to mistake what is probably dirt for a line, or circle, or some other thing
that really isn't there.
That said, I looked at some of the information on the Cascajal tablet.
It is assumed that the representations are a system of symbols that compose a
written language.

What if it is simply the local stone and leather worker's bill of goods.  This
list of objects that he can make for trade being leather pouches of various
designs, and knives, rollers, picks, mashers, etc.

As I said, this should raise some controversy.

Sincerely,
RWC

#11857

From: <aumsparky@...>
Date: Sun Feb 5, 2012 8:09 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Olmec vessel

aumsparky

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Precolumbian_Inscriptions/photos/album/1077709813/pic/list

hi david, all

dick uploaded the pics here :

mike

----- Original Message -----

From: dcampbell75479

To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 9:44 AM

Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Re: Olmec vessel

Hi, Mike,
Have you added the Dragon Vessel to the files or photos yet? I just looked quickly and didn't see them. What caught my attention was Dick's statement that the dragon snout was obviously broken. You probably recall my photos of the artifact from Texas which paleontologists said was merely a tylosaurus fossil snout but which the original discoverer back in the '50's was certain was a dragon type artifact of Mesoamerican origins. Also, years ago a correspondent sent me photos of a dragon-like pictograph near Hueco Tanks which obviously had Mesoamerican influence. It seems increasingly evident that there was a greater Mesoamerican influence in the Southwest than previously acknowledged publicly. (I have found discussions of this as far back as the '20's and '30's, though.)

Anyway, could you point me to the photo if you have it in the albums or photos, so that I can make a visual comparison? Thanks.

Yours truly,
David Campbell

--- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, <aumsparky@...> wrote:
>
>
> hi dick, all
>
> i admire your work dick. i agree that the relic is olmec. while the olmec dragon is variously represented, the flaming eyebrows points to it being olmec. i wasnt aware that there was an olmec presence in n nicaragua, until now. the bird is also an olmec symbol, often found with the dragon culture.
> what i said earlier about a potential site upstream still goes.
> we are not a mainstream site, that cling to concensus opinion. there are some among us that hold different opinions.
>
> http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/olmec-dragon.htm
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmec_religion
>
> http://brazilweirdnews.blogspot.com/2011/03/olmec-dragon.html
>
> http://brazilweirdnews.blogspot.com/2011/03/olmec-dragon.html
>
> mike
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dick
> To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 12:21 AM
> Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Olmec vessel
>
>
>
> Hi,
> I'm sending more pictures, hoping someone can identify this item. One is said to be the Olmec dragon. I think there is a similar representation upside down on the leg opposite the gargoyle. The gargoyle could be a transforming shaman, a monkey, or just a really ugly dude with a monkey hat.
> Thanks,
> RWC
>

#11858

From: <aumsparky@...>
Date: Sun Feb 5, 2012 10:16 pm
Subject: Re: Research

aumsparky

concerning the olmec, almost everything is speculation. if you examine facts, you may find that they are not sufficiently supported. this is especially true of the dates assigned. if you have facts to present, we welcome them. most of us are aware of what is written by the 'experts'.

mike

----- Original Message -----

From: Dick

To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 1:15 PM

Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Research

Hi,
I'll probably raise some hackles with this post, but here goes! In researching my vessel I'm finding a great deal of speculation/assumption. I even find myself doing it. When trying to sketch some of the glyph on the vessel, it's easy to mistake what is probably dirt for a line, or circle, or some other thing that really isn't there.
That said, I looked at some of the information on the Cascajal tablet.
It is assumed that the representations are a system of symbols that compose a written language.

What if it is simply the local stone and leather worker's bill of goods. This list of objects that he can make for trade being leather pouches of various designs, and knives, rollers, picks, mashers, etc.

As I said, this should raise some controversy.

Sincerely,
RWC

#11859

From: <aumsparky@...>
Date: Sun Feb 5, 2012 11:11 pm
Subject: Re: Research

aumsparky

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

some might compare the human figure, and the animals represented at toltec sites, and conclude your relic is toltec. only the flaming eyebrows suggest it to be olmec. the olmec dragon on the bowl could be a toltec jaguar.

examine the racial features of these vastly different people, that are all classified as olmec. they are dated between 1600 bce and 400 bce. i have difficulty accepting any of this as fact, but each to their own opinion. there are other figurines classified as olmec, that depict extremely elongated skulls.

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

mike

----- Original Message -----

From: aumsparky@...

To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 5:16 PM

Subject: Re: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Research

concerning the olmec, almost everything is speculation. if you examine facts, you may find that they are not sufficiently supported. this is especially true of the dates assigned. if you have facts to present, we welcome them. most of us are aware of what is written by the 'experts'.

mike

----- Original Message -----

From: Dick

To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 1:15 PM

Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Research

Hi,
I'll probably raise some hackles with this post, but here goes! In researching my vessel I'm finding a great deal of speculation/assumption. I even find myself doing it. When trying to sketch some of the glyph on the vessel, it's easy to mistake what is probably dirt for a line, or circle, or some other thing that really isn't there.
That said, I looked at some of the information on the Cascajal tablet.
It is assumed that the representations are a system of symbols that compose a written language.

What if it is simply the local stone and leather worker's bill of goods. This list of objects that he can make for trade being leather pouches of various designs, and knives, rollers, picks, mashers, etc.

As I said, this should raise some controversy.

Sincerely,
RWC

#11860

From: <aumsparky@...>
Date: Mon Feb 6, 2012 6:41 am
Subject: long-count

aumsparky

among olmec monuments and relics, it was noted that archaic hieroglyphs were in use, and dates were given by the familiar mayan bar and dot method. apparently, the mayans adopted much from the olmec, or an earlier culture. it is among the olmec relics that we should look for an earlier beginning of the long count. this would be in keeping with the hindu classification of time in about 5000 year yugas.

its unclear why they chose 5,126 year periods, instead of the near 2000 year duration of a zodiacal sign in precession.

perhaps both the olmec and the mayan cultures, adopted a script and numeral system already in place. this was also standard practice by the many foreign rulers of egypt.

this makes it hopeful that our scholars may learn more about the olmec people. they will probably learn that the olmec arrived from the pacific region, and not africa.

prospective members should read the group guidelines and description before joining. these groups are not professional journals. conjecture, speculation, and alternative theories are welcome, and encouraged.

mike

host

#11861

From: "Dick" <dickcobbs1@...>
Date: Tue Feb 7, 2012 10:07 pm
Subject: Vessel

dickcobbs1

Hi,
Three more pics and some observations.  Most of the glyphs appear to be a seated
figure with legs extended.  There are various things either in the figure"s lap
or emerging.
Pic 010 shows the basic scene upside down at the left of the head and right side
up at the right of the head.
Pics 021 and 025 show some of the faded detail.
Some things that may or may not be there:
Pic 028 three whiskers just behind the mouth line and below the eye.
Pic 010 a claw with three lines.

#11862

From: "Dick" <dickcobbs1@...>
Date: Wed Feb 8, 2012 12:25 am
Subject: Olmec vessel

dickcobbs1

Hi,
So far, the only "distant" similarity that I have seen to the major glyph, is
the seated ruler of the La Vente monument 19 (taube 1995 fig. 6a)
RWC

#11863

From: "Dick" <dickcobbs1@...>
Date: Thu Feb 9, 2012 6:14 pm
Subject: Vessel

dickcobbs1

Hi
I'm posting my crude sketches.
RWC

#11864

From: <aumsparky@...>
Date: Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:07 pm
Subject: great plains

aumsparky

the absence of trees on the great plains of north america has been a mystery since the first colonists arrived. not only were the trees missing, but the lands of texas, oklahoma, kansas, nebraska, and the dakotas, seemed to be stripped of top soil. oddly, there were few rivers flowing across the terrain.

my conclusion of a recent glancing impact by a huge meteorite in the caribbean sea, would explain so many mysteries, including the missing trees and soil from the great plains, the red clay of tx and ok, the missing soil of az, the grand canyon, the incredible flood erosion of utah, the bad lands, and the megafauna deposits of alaska. the huge tsunami that results from such an impact, seems the most plausible cause for all of these events. the object that made a crater hundreds of miles wide, would have generated a tsunami several miles high, with enough force to sweep away everything in its path for thousands of miles.

its hoped that the experts will take notice of this report, and investigate with field studies to determine the truth of it.

mike white

#11865

From: "bigalemc2" <sgtti@...>
Date: Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:17 pm
Subject: Two important academic papers in March

bigalemc2

[This was cross-posted at Ancient American Waterways. Also at my blog at Feet2theFire ]

At Ancient American Waterways, Susan Belding had commented on the article Radical theory of first Americans places Europeans in Maryland 20,000 years ago

Susan -

Is this the first mention of this in this group? Good get! "Ancient waterways" has to include the Atlantic, too, doesn't it? If an ocean isn't a waterway, what is?

Standford and Bradley have been pushing this pretty much ever since Clovis First was shot down in 1997. The DNA evidence gives them a boost, too. But as is normal, arkies can only go one step into the abyss, and even then their ideas are labeled "radical" for half a century. (Standford and Bradley are at about 15 years and counting...) It is pathetic when radical means not quite as conservative as an Oxford Don.

Whether first or not, certainly someone came from that direction, the East. For us Atlantean advocates it is being misread, but it still is one more thing that 'is consistent' with a Atlantean hypothesis, so it is a good thing. Our meme is more that both Solutrean and Clovis came from Atlantis. As I hear all the time at another science bog I haunt, "Correlation does not mean causation." With the Atlantean infrastructure dead and buried Atlantean refugees did the best they could with what they had at hand. In Egypt they had a lot of infrastructure to rebuild with, but not so in the far reaches of Europe or anywhere in America.

When I first heard of the Solutrean points back 20 years ago or more, the connection with Clovis points was said to be impossible because of the time gap between the two. I thought, "What horseshit. Don't they realize that their time scheme has every possibility of being changed with new discoveries?" I predicted back then that the gap between Solutreans and Clovis would be shown to be zero.

Someone last week wrote me and said how he had found that by taking the diametrically opposite position from what science says is true, he has found that things make more sense and new discoveries seem not to be shockers. I could have told him that; I took that position 40 years ago.

Now, for those who haven't been aware of it, this month has also had the announcement of a new paper about lake sediment cores in central Mexico, from Lake Cuitzeo about 3 hours WNW of Mexico City. The cores support the hypothesis that a comet - maybe more than one - exploded in the atmosphere over North America about 12,900 years ago, at the very beginning of the Holocene, at the onset of what is called the Younger Dryas (YD) stadial. Stadials were ice age periods, and the YD was the last one. It lasted 1,200 years and its onset was also when the mammoths and over 30 other North American megafauna went extinct.

The article here had a good point:

Between this and the Solutrean hypothesis, this is apparently the week for controversial hypotheses on North American prehistory. The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis has been around since around 2007, and it might actually be the subject of even fiercer dispute than the Solutrean model, considering its proponents and its detractors can't even agree on whether the supposed evidence to support it even exists.

It was good to put it in the perspective of that first sentence.

The last point it make is a correct one. An cometary air burst would be like the Tunguska blast of 1908, which wiped out about 500 square miles of trees without having an actual crater or meteor fragment, which caused over 80 years of confusion. (Remember what I said above about 'radical' ideas taking 50 years?) Only in the last 20 years has it been mostly agreed that it probably was a comet - calculated to be 10 meters across - that exploded over Siberia. The lack of evidence there - besides trees flattened like during the Mt St Helens eruption of 1980 - shows that all impacts do not look like meteors. Then consider that a N.A. impact coming would have more than likely hit the ice sheets, which is what the impact hypothesis people think happened. No matter HOW big, an air burst over a 2-mile-thick ice sheet isn't going to show much in the geological record, if any. As a result, there is a lot of ridicule being thrown at the impact folks.

For those of you who don't know him (Susan does), Ed Grondine has a book called "Man and Impact in the Americas," in which he delineates much about past impacts and goes so far as to show what the indigenous accounts told of 'flaming mountains being cast down to Earth" and of multiple Suns with many of them falling to Earth. If there is one thing daytime impactors would look like it is multiple suns in the sky. For those who don't know it, two of our main annual meteor showers is actually a slew of comet fragments which are strung out over the entire orbit of the Comet Encke. This orbital evidence has astronomers taking to mean that Encke (4.2 km) was once a much larger single comet, and that since its break up an estimated 30,000 years ago the fragments have stretched out like the fragmented comet Shoemaker-Levy/9 did before impacting Jupiter in 1994. The fragments of the porgenitor of Comet Encke are called the Taurids because when they come inward toward the Sun their 'radiant' (where they appear to be coming from) is in the constellation Taurus. This happens just after the summer solstice, in late June and early July. (Tunguska arrived on June 30th, so it is understood by many to have been one of the Taurids.) Since all comets that approach the Sun also head back out, we also run into the Taurids later in the year, too.   This happens around Halloween every year.

This is all pertinent to groups that study pre-Columbian American history because our history either began with Clovis Man or was severely affected at the time of Clovis Man. The original Firestone et al 2007   hypothesis pointed out that not only the mammoths and other megafauna went extinct at the 12,900 year point, but so did Clovis Man himself. So what we seem to have is an abbreviated or punctuated - I prefer to call it 'interrupted" - history of man in the Americas (if not the world). Ed Grondine's work shows evidence that men here witnessed impacts several times within the Holocene; i.e., since 12,900 years ago, and that the impacts devastated their peoples. The impacts essentially blew them back to the stone age - even though they were just barely out of the stone age themselves!

So with the history of the Americas being re-written - even in academia - before our very eyes, and on two fronts - these are pretty exciting times for pre-Columbian and Ancient Waterways participants. Our hollering and screaming that so much is being overlooked may not be noticed, but it does mean that what we have been saying needs to be looked at again, and with a different perspective. For others it means that impacts may be happening much more than the astronomers have always told us, such as that we will not experience a big impact more than once every 100,000 years. Alternate researchers and their audience have always thought that was a ridiculous number and based on faulty assumptions. Even if we are proven in the end to have been right we will not be given any credit for it - but at that time we will TAKE credit for it, anyway! Why? Because you cannot come up with any correct understandings if your premises and assumptions are wrong. And their assumptions about our history are simply wrong. There is far too much evidence out there pointing straight in the eye, yet the academics continue to sweep it under the carpet as either fraudulent or "you all are too stupid to know what it is you are looking at."

On the contrary, it is not OUR paradigms which keep on having to be updated.

New evidence coming in seems to always move the balance of evidence closer to our end of the scale. We should all be proud that our own logic and assembling of evidence keeps being more and more likely to be correct.

And in this month of March 2012, we have it our way on two fronts. The academics will push back, of course. They always do. There are still those who haven't given up Clovis First, though it is now 15 years since it was shot down in a blaze of glory. No matter what was found, from the 1930s to 1997, it was always, "You people are full of shit. Clovis Man came over Beringia 13,000 years ago when the ice-free corridor first opened up, and that is that. now go home and SRFU." We had to put up with that and put up with that and put up with that. Hubris. As in rubbing our noses in it. And in the end, the mofos were WRONG. And then to add schadenfreud to injury, the DNA evidence agreed - and pointed out that, NO, all incursions into the Americas did NOT come over Beringia - we are NOT all from NE Asiatic stock. It was THEY who had to retrench. It was THEY who had to eat crow - though we never got invited to the feathered feast so WE could rub it in.

Though we did not always have the Internet with which to share thoughts and support each other, we never gave up. We would all look at the same evidence they did. But we would not reject inconvenient parts of the evidence and cherry pick the rest. WE looked at ALL the evidence. And cine we did, we came up with better interpretations of the evidence than they did. They claim that only THEY are trained and only THEY know how to properly think and assemble evidence into a whole. In reality, it is WE who know best how to assemble evidence and assess it - because what they left out was important. We chose to not leave out anomalous evidence. We may not individually be as smart as them (I don't accept that, but it might be true even in the face of my disagreement), but collectively we are smarter, because we KNOW to our roots that you cannot pretend some evidence doesn't exist, just because you don't want it to exist. And if anyone posits hypotheses that fly in the face of the evidence it is a fools errand.

When I once read an assertion that 85% Carbon14 test results were tossed out by the scientists who received such results from labs I was horrified. I thought it must be untrue, so I went and looked into it as much as I could in the time before the Internet. I found some things to support it, but never did figure it out altogether, one way or the other. What I DID find is that archeologists and geologists start out with preconceived notions of the dates, and that when individual lab results don't fit that date range, it is up to the researcher to include - or not to include - each individual contrary result. The lab is never informed which decision was made, so the researcher is free to exclude whatever he wants to exclude. And he can word his paper such that no one ever knows he had X number of lab results that didn't fit his conclusions about dates. Was that number 85%? I don't know. When they actually speak of excluding data (e.g., see Callendar 1938 and Slocum 1955   pointing out the cherry-picking by Callendar) they point at trivial reasons or assert that the "sample was contaminated." They do not need to prove such contamination; their word is taken for it.

If any appreciable percentage of evidence - C14 or otherwise, or 'fraudulent' tablets from American caves or mounds - is excluded, a false and illusory history is all that can be built from what remains. An illusory history is not a history, however, so we cannot know - we cannot accept - any history built by the very 'disciplines' whose beginning motives were either to prove the truth of the Bible or the superiority of Anglo-Saxon religious males. Especially when the early paradigms of such disciplines are still with us in large measure, we cannot 'accept their word for it' on history.

Such developments as these two March papers are truly important. That the authors of the paper about the lake sediment cores in Mexico were Mexican - the University of Michoacan! - is an amazing and very good sign that the Anglo-Saxon hegemony in science may be showing signs of being finally overcome. Latin American archeologists have been railing for some time about the hubris of the Norteamericano arkies. One can hope things are beginning to change. And perhaps a real history of humans - at least in the Americas - can be written some day.

Steve Garcia

(Note: this comment is spell-checked, as opposed to the AAW one...)

#11866

From: <aumsparky@...>
Date: Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:44 pm
Subject: The "Phoenician" inscriptions from Paraiba, Brazil

aumsparky

http://patagoniamonsters.blogspot.com/2011/03/phoenician-inscriptions-from-paraiba.html

i was under the impression that the paraiba inscription was on living rock, not on a small stone. so the portion concerning the validity of the smaller stone may be discarded. my views may not concur with some of the authors, on certain issues.

in all, it was an interesting series of information on the history of

The "Phoenician" inscriptions from Paraiba, Brazil. the dates they came out with for the inscription, were the most incredible things.

i can believe that it has a basis in fact. its certain, from numerous finds in the amazon and the andes, that the phoenicians reached south america.

the dating of the coins may be the weakest link in the chain of evidence. i cant believe that the tyreans made such a voyage during the reign of hiram, and after alexander destroyed tyre, somewhere near 330 bce. in my opinion, the time of solomon, and his hiram, was very likely before 3300 bce. the philistines fought by david, were likely greeks, returned from the trojan war [5500 bce], and later generations. this would put the voyage to brazil between 5500 bce and 3300 bce. this better fits the cuneiform found in bolivia. there were several hirams, and there may have been centuries between them.

the southern paraiba seems more probable as being the correct location of the inscription, and former equestrian statue. i bet the inscription is still there, requiring a man to be lowered by ropes to read it. less likely to be destroyed by vandals.

has the location of corvo and miguel island been determined?

Pouso Alto is along a river that seems to flow east toward what could be a great harbor, if deep enough. this district i believe to be rich in minerals. both of these attributes would have attracted the phoenicians. it may have been less silted back then, plus their ships were shallow draft. there are islands in this bay, now with different names, one has wings like a bird, perhaps corvo, called restinga, the other grande.

the paraiba river running parallel to the coast, inland from rio de janeiro, would be the natural highway, for minerals, and farm products. it has everything to have made it as attractive a site, thousands of years ago, as today. most of european stock live there today. im surprised that more relics have not been found in modern time.

i will go so far, as saying this 10 ship fleet of phoenicians " embarked from Ezion-geber " [israel] were probably employed by solomon to get gold from ophir. as said before, i place ophir in ecuador. the main fleet made it to quito, and that lost, ended up nw of modern rio. they had 3 women with them, so a colony could have been started there. the land was fertile, the climate mild, so surviving for generations was possible.

they werent from sidon, but tyre, just as the votive bowl of heracles found in bolivia. after 5500 bce, greek influence reached tyre, causing the great temple of heracles to be built there.

thus, i date the inscription to the first hiram, circa 5000 bce. the fuente magna likely dates from the same era.

mike

#11867

From: enrico mattievich <enrico.mattievich@...>
Date: Mon Mar 19, 2012 12:30 am
Subject: Re: The "Phoenician" inscriptions from Paraiba, Brazil

enrico.mattievich@...

http://phoenicia.org/byblosmart.html

Dear Mike,

�

Since you discuss Phoenicians inscriptions in Paraiba, Brazil,

I would like to draw your attention to the following links below.

�

Press Release of "Journey to the Mythological Inferno" and

"Could Chavin's Laberinth be the Remains of the Resounding

Palace of Hades and Persephone? [Part 1 and Part 2]" on line:

�

www.migration-diffusion.info/article.php?subject=archaeology&id=219

www.migration-diffusion.info/article.php?subject=archaeology&id=221

www.migration-diffusion.info/article.php?year=2011&id=268

�

If you look at the conclusion in Part 2, I specifically show that

the Palace of Chav�n de Hu�ntar is the archaeological remains

of an oracle in the Peruvian Andes, built by ancient Greeks and

Phoenicians.

�

Regards from Petr�polis, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

�

Enrico

#11868

From: <aumsparky@...>
Date: Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:59 am
Subject: Re: The "Phoenician" inscriptions from Paraiba, Brazil

aumsparky

enrico, good to hear from you again. i dont want to change my focus at this time, but will try to examine your links later. since you live near the paraiba river, maybe you know if the phoenician coins reported found can be seen at a museum in rio? can you identify the ilhas miguel and corvo? perhaps there are islands in the river?

if they date from the voyage of hiram's sailors to ophir, they will prove false another 'fact' of our lads, the experts, who say that the first coins were minted in lydia about 750 bce. i cannot believe that an accurate date was given the coins. we need more information on the coins.

after solomon guided the phoenicians to ophir, they may have continued the voyages there long after the time of solomon. it looks as though their favored route was across the caribbean sea, up the orinoco, the canal to the rio negro, then the amazon westward from manaus, called solimoes in ancient times.

having a colony in northeastern brazil would have been sought by the phoenicians, to resupply the fleet, coming and going. the reports of phoenician ruins there are probably true. the gold, silver, tin, hardwoods, and emeralds, could supply a rich trade for generations. the lost colony to the south may have never reconnected with those of the far north.

mike

----- Original Message -----

From: aumsparky@...

To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 6:44 PM

Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] The "Phoenician" inscriptions from Paraiba, Brazil

   i was under the impression that the paraiba inscription was on living rock, not on a small stone. so the portion concerning the validity of the smaller stone may be discarded. my views may not concur with some of the authors, on certain issues.



http://patagoniamonsters.blogspot.com/2011/03/phoenician-inscriptions-from-paraiba.html

   in all, it was an interesting series of information on the history of
The "Phoenician" inscriptions from Paraiba, Brazil. the dates they came out with for the inscription, were the most incredible things.

   i can believe that it has a basis in fact. its certain, from numerous finds in the amazon and the andes, that the phoenicians reached south america.

the dating of the coins may be the weakest link in the chain of evidence. i cant believe that the tyreans made such a voyage during the reign of hiram, and after alexander destroyed tyre, somewhere near 330 bce. in my opinion, the time of solomon, and his hiram, was very likely before 3300 bce. the philistines fought by david, were likely greeks, returned from the trojan war [5500 bce], and later generations. this would put the voyage to brazil between 5500 bce and 3300 bce. this better fits the cuneiform found in bolivia. there were several hirams, and there may have been centuries between them.

   the southern paraiba seems more probable as being the correct location of the inscription, and former equestrian statue. i bet the inscription is still there, requiring a man to be lowered by ropes to read it.  less likely to be destroyed by vandals.

   has the location of corvo and miguel island been determined?

    Pouso Alto is along a river that seems to flow east toward what could be a great harbor, if deep enough. this district i believe to be rich in minerals. both of these attributes would have attracted the phoenicians. it may have been less silted back then, plus their ships were shallow draft. there are islands in this bay, now with different names, one has wings like a bird, perhaps corvo, called restinga, the other grande.

   the paraiba river running parallel to the coast, inland from rio de janeiro, would be the natural highway, for minerals, and farm products. it has everything to have made it as attractive a site, thousands of years ago, as today. most of european stock live there today. im surprised that more relics have not been found in modern time.

   i will go so far, as saying this 10 ship fleet of phoenicians " embarked from Ezion-geber " [israel] were probably employed by solomon to get gold from ophir. as said before, i place ophir in ecuador. the main fleet made it to quito, and that lost, ended up nw of modern rio.  they had 3 women with them, so a colony could have been started there. the land was fertile, the climate mild, so surviving for generations was possible.

   they werent from sidon, but tyre, just as the votive bowl of heracles found in bolivia. after 5500 bce, greek influence reached tyre, causing the great temple of heracles to be built there.

   thus, i date the inscription to the first hiram, circa 5000 bce. the fuente magna likely dates from the same era.

mike