🚀 go-pugleaf

We are getting far off the original subject, which was related
to the District.  I'll respond, in brief, to the previous posts.
Because it is important that the work of respected, accredited 
scientists not be dismissed as tabloid stories, like Elvis on Mars.
I assure you that I will drop this end of the thread.

Sources will be included for those who are interested.

1)  What is the source of the claim that Olmecs had
    Negroid features?

    The whole discussion is said to rest on this.
    History books about Mexico and the Olmecs talk about
    Olmec art (See Coe's works, for example).  The most famous
    examples of the art are the giant 18 ton basalt heads which
    have unquestionable Negroid features.  Pictures of the sculpture
    and especially the heads are available in most books, and
    National Geographic ;-).

    "I relected that there had undoubtedly been Negros 
    in this country, and that this had been in the first
    epoch of the world." --Jose Maria Melgar, Mexican Society of
    Geography and Statistics, 1869

    "To judge from their art, the Olmecs comprised two
    contrasting ethnic types: one was remarkably Negoid,
    with thick lips, flat broad nose, and round face...Neither of
    these two contrasting Olmec types-the Negoid and the Semitic
    -resemble any ethnic group known to have come across the
    Bering Straits."  -- Thor Heyerdahl, Early Man and the Ocean,
    1979

    "It is thereore not surprising that their so-called Negroid
    features led to speculation as to the antecedents of people
    whose traits seemed un-typical of the American Indians..."
    -- Nigel Davies, The Ancient Kingdoms of Mexico, 1982


2)  Ra II missed Central America and landed in South America (implying
    that it was far away from the Olmecs).

    Ra II made landfall in Barbados, NOT South America (see Heyerdahl,
    The Ra Expeditions, 1971).  From there it is a short trip across
    the Carib to Veracruz/Tabasco, the heart of Olmec territory.
    That's the *east* coast of *Central* America.

3)  There are no similarities between Central American cultures and
    the Egyptian culture.

    There are similarities in literature, religion,tech, etc.  See Rowe,
    J.H.; "Diffusionism and Archaeology"; American Antiquity; 1966.
    For literature and religion, see Jairazbhoy, R.A.; Ancient
    Egyptians and Chinese in America; 1974.


4)  How can one call the Egyptians civilized and the Vikings
    uncivilized barbarians?

    Definition:  "We can say that a culture deserves to be called
		  a civilization when it has reached a stage in
		  which writing has come to be used a considerable
		  extent, some progress has been made in the arts
		  and sciences, and political, social and economic
		  institutions have developed sufficiently to
		  conqueor at least some of the problems of order,
		  security, and efficiency in a complex society."
		  (Roughly quoted, I don't have the work in front
		  of me, it's >1300 pages) -- Burns & Ralph;
		  World Civilizations, 5th Ed.

    Egyptians:  a)  Had large, permanent cities.
		b)  Used writing as a practical way to store and
		    transmit information (recall the great libraries
		    of Alexandria with over 700,000 texts).
                c)  Had division of labor.
		d)  Had storage systems and infrastructure to stow
		    food for the population.
                e)  Had organized agricultural systems.
		f)  Achieved great advances in the sciences,
		    including the practical aspects of building,
		    and the abstractions of mathematics.
		f)  Maintained all of the above for an amazingly
		    long period of time.

		    All of the above should be available in every
		    text on the Egyptians.  They are well documented.

    Vikings:  a)  Had small fortified towns and only occupied the
		  cities of others.
              b)  Did not use writing, for all practical puposes.
		  "...runes were not used for literary or practical
		  everyday purposes...This double use of runes,
		  for hidden magic and open commemoration..."
		  -- J. Bronsted, The Vikings, 1960.
		  They were a culture with an oral tradition.
              c)  There was little division of labor in Viking
		  society.  There were few dedicated craftsmen
		  (with the exception of towns such as Hedeby).
              d)  I can find no reference to large stocks of food.
	      e)  Agriculture was not organized in any communal
		  way.
              f)  Were associated with terror across Europe.  They
		  are legendary destroyers and pirates.
              g)  "They are the filthiest of God's creatures...King
		  frequently has public intercourse...little security
		  amoung them, and much deceit, and even a man's
		  brother or comrade is not above killing and plundering
		  him if he can."  -- Ibn Rustah, diplomat from
		  Baghdad Caliphate, 921 AD.
              h)  Had a culture driven principally by profit and pleasure.
		  They show little scientific development, or learning.

		  Another source for Viking Material:  Gwyn Jones;
		  A History of the Vikings; 1973.

5)  The Egyptians were mixed races, not Black Africans.

    There were indeed several races in Egypt.  It was the center
    of civilization and learning at that time and place!  However:
    "Ancient Egypt was a Negro civilsation."  -- Diop, C.A.;  The
    African Origin of Civilization, 1974.

    The work cited above should address all of your concerns on the
    subject.  It is heavily footnoted, includes an extensive
    bibliography, and is dedicated exclusively to the topic.

6)  How/why would vegetation grown in Egypt be extinct now?

    There are any number of reasons.  This is not an unusual
    occurance.  Look at the case of the papyrus reed, an icon
    in Egyptian culture.  "The papyrus had died out in Egypt some time
    in the previous century.  No one knew why."  -- Heyerdahl;
    The Ra Expeditions; 1971.

So the work done in Munich could be correct, and the plant sources
could have been the New World, or they could have existed locally
at the time.  There is no practical reason to think it could not
be so.  Nothing I have presented is based in the pyramid power/
Elvis on Mars/flying Egyptians realm.  Transatlantic travel
was proved to be possible with the tech available, and there is
evidence to support the presence of Negros in Central America.
That's all I've written.

From here we go back to the original point.  That a little
crack use in a private hotel room is hardly going to cause
the collapse of Ward 8, D.C., or the USA.  Apparently drugs
were used, and did not cause the collapse the
civilization of Ancient Egypt.