Archaeologica.org

Assuming, Marduk that CC wasn't concealing what he knew, then yes he made a mistake. In a sailing ship the shortest distance between two poinst is not normally the shortest sailing time, so IF he sailed due west than I can only assume that he did not have prior information as that route would account for the long period of time it took him to cover the distance.

now you're moving your own goalposts
you said you doubted he headed west

let me ask you
what direction would you head from western europe if you were sailing to america

marduk wrote:now you're moving your own goalposts
you said you doubted he headed west

let me ask you
what direction would you head from western europe if you were sailing to america

Actually the 'shortest' direction would be north, along the 'great circle' route that modern aircraft follow. The quickest would be picking up one of the trade currents which move off africa toward the carribean. But that covers a tremendous distance.

In sailing terms Marduk there is distinct difference between Westward and West. To answer your question as to which direction from Europe to the Americas in a sailing vessel, the answer is SOUTH.
If CC had prior knowledge of how to get to the Americas and back his return route for the SHORTEST SAILING TIME would be NORTH from the Carribean to pick up the Gulf Stream then SOUTH after raising northern Europe. Is this the route he took?
In the mid Atlantic the Gulf Stream averages about 4 knots, which would have been about the speed he would have attained between two points in still water, so the Gulf Stream would have doubled his speed.
Take a look at Nelson's sailing time in pursuit of the French fleet from the West Indies before Trafalgar, and yes, I know his ships were better sailors, so was Nelson.

If CC had prior knowledge of how to get to the Americas and back his return route for the SHORTEST SAILING TIME would be NORTH from the Carribean to pick up the Gulf Stream then SOUTH after raising northern Europe. Is this the route he took?

yes

marduk wrote:

In a sailing vessel Marduk? I doubt it.

I read his log, I personally think the man is a bit bent, that happens when people try to prove only one set agenda. That does NOT however totally invalidate all the artifacts from other cultures and times, which HAVE been found where they do not belong.

I have no idea of Zheng He did what Mazies said he did, I read the debunker's web site. I did pay attention to the things they DID NOT debunk...or even mention.

UNDER ALL THE BULLSHIT of the people with agendas, the truth, like a tiny grain or sand caught in your "special purpose", lies irritating until it's found.

I dug up another discussion on the Los Lunas stone. I put it here because of the stone carvings that should not depict what they do, having been found where they were. Also it's interesting to see different bunch discussing the same thing.

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/ ... 763.0.html

That group is a little too "fringe" for my taste.
I stay away from the 10 Lost Tribes, because they are just that, lost.
There is no doubt that the Assyrians moved captured populations around, and that some Jewish religious hints can be found in many places after the removal of the 10 northern tribes.
But I don't think they populated the Americas. They were slaves. They didn’t have that kind of freedom of movement. Some may have been sold to sailing traders and shown up here, there, and everywhere.
I feel the biggest problem we today have is understanding that people of those time were not always of one religion. There were a lot of gods and belief systems around, and most kind of picked and chose.
I think Los Lunas is a great example of that. And that it predates the Assyrian conquest. Not only do we have the ten commandants, but if you read closely you will see that there was a zodiac on the other side of the hill. And that was something not all that rare in a Samaritan Synagogue.
And that reminds me of John Barentins’s discovery of a rock with both a dateable supernova and a zodiac scorpion in AZ. He sure stirred up a hornets nest with that one!

And that brings me to this: Note the comment. I had the same thought.

Published: 17th April 2005 11:48 BST+1
Pompei discovery for Swedish archeologists
(AFP) Swedish archeologists have discovered a Stone Age settlement covered in ash under the ruins of the ancient city of Pompei, indicating that the volcano Vesuvius engulfed the area in lava more than 3,500 years before the famous 79 AD eruption.

The archeologists recently found burnt wood and grains of corn in the earth under Pompei, Anne-Marie Leander Touati, a professor of archeology at Stockholm University who led the team, told AFP.

"Carbon dating shows that the finds are from prehistoric times, that is, from 3,500 years BC," Leander Touati said. It was until now believed that Pompei was first inhabited during the Bronze Age.

The group of archeologists - part of a larger international project - were mapping a Roman neighborhood of Pompei when they made the discovery.

"It was a real fluke," Leander Touati said, explaining that the group was emptying a well to determine its use when it made the find.

"We realized that the well was a lot deeper than we thought, and we sent a guy down into the well. He moved some of the earth and suddenly he was in prehistoric times," she said.

The Stone Age remains were covered in a thick layer of ash. On top of that a a layer of ceramic shards was found, which according to Leander Touati could be from the Bronze Age. Additional geological layers lay on top of that, and on top of it all were the ruins of Pompei.

Pompei was covered in lava when Vesuvius erupted in 79 AD. The excellently preserved ruins have become one of the world's most visited archaeological sites.

Leander Touati said her group was now planning the next step.

"We're going down there again," she said.
Comment
Phil Whitley | 17th April 2005 | 20.51 | Report Comment
IThe reference to corn grains being found at this date is of particular interest to me. (3500 B.C.)

My studies into the development of maize/corn all lead to it having been developed from a large grass (teosinte) in MesoAmerica by the Aztec around the same date, and only reached both coasts of Mexico by 1600 BC.

If the Pompei find is truly corn, this would indicate trade via sea travel at a much earlier date than previously known!

I would like to hear more on this anomaly. Great article!

Phil

My question is on the European use of the word “corn”.
I seem to remember from my High School World History class (Don’t ask how long ago that was!) that when the US sent ship loads of corn to newly liberated France during WWII, they were insulted at what they got. They considered it hog feed. They were expecting what in the US is called “wheat”.
So, what are the chances of this discovery being of maize/corn, and thus being evidence of an early world economy, or of it being what I would call wheat?

I stay away from the 10 Lost Tribes, because they are just that, lost.

Or perhaps they were a later literary creation?

I recall that Assyrian records indicated that something less than 30,000 people were relocated. Others doubtlessly escaped south to Judah where the refugees swelled the population in the 8th century BC which has been attested to by archaeological finds.

So the question remains how 'Jewish' was Israel in the 8th century BC? It was not until 104 BC that the Hasmonean king, Aristobulus, conquered Galilee and forcibly converted the population that any obvious Jewish political control can be found over the area. Whatever were they doing for six centuries in between?

It was not until 104 BC that the Hasmonean king, Aristobulus, conquered Galilee and forcibly converted the population

the idea fills me with palpable fear
Imagine you look out your window one day and you see Jewish doctors going door to door with little black medical bags
oh the inhumanity of war
oh the horror

Meanwhile, back to the word "corn" ?

This is a generalization, but In Europe , US "corn" is called maize.
European "Corn" is US wheat sometimes.

Could be a translation error.
Or maybe just a mistake, like saying further down that Pompeii was covered in lava. It was ash, not lava.

KBS is correct, from what I saw even recently while in Europe. In some places, maise is still considered animal feed. I don't know anything about something being called wheat other than wheat, or semolina.

I'm not sure what KBS was talking about concerning corn.

kbs2244 wrote:Meanwhile, back to the word "corn" ?

KBS, it seems that something is lost in translation, as Stan said. The local reporter is talking in the local vernacular and undoubtedly means grain.

There was no "corn" in Europe at that time, although stranger things have happened.

American paleobotanists have been able to track the cultivation of maize since its early beginnings.

A praise poem of Enlil-bāni
112-135. Enlil-bāni, king who gladdens the heart of his city, you speed offerings into Nibru. You bring the best corn into E-kiš-nu-ĝal; daily you ensure that it does not cease

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/et ... 9#t2581.p9

Enlil Bani 1847 to 1823 BCE

theres plenty of references to corn in antiquity qhere it shouldn't be
but as mentioned already
corn is the old english word for grain from Proto.Germanic. *kurnam "small seed"