SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (35446)4/19/1999 11:06:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
>Lather, in order to refute the cocaine in the mummies theory of them getting it from South America, you would
have to also explain away the Bay of Jars there, which I think would be difficult.<

That burden does not fall on me. If the By of Jars is authentic, it suggests it's remotely possible that trade existed between Egypt and the Andean region. But it does not prove it. Bigger reach, it does not prove the mummies and theur daddies possessed cocaine.
I'll grant you this - if the Egyptian ruler class knew about cocaine, they'd divert a lot of State funds to surreptitiously (or quite openly) import the good stuff. How to fund that, I wonder. A pyramid scheme?



To: Grainne who wrote (35446)4/20/1999 4:04:00 AM
From: nihil  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 108807
 
The Bay of Jars deposits only prove a one-way traffic, easily a ship that caught the trades and made the crossing but obviously did not return. Why not post some references to the Bay of Jars and mummy cocaine data if we are going to educate ourselves on these matters.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News