Blame the discovery channel for this question but...

silverharp

Did Ancient Egypt have a connection to South America based on cocaine traces found in Mummies? I know Discovery have a habit of throwing in speculative stuff without giving counter points but is it a question within serious historical circles? or if not is it just down to a lack of any other evidence?

Coriolanus

Not really a serious question afaik but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be. I tend to think that there were small contacts over several centuries. We know the Vikings went as far as Greenland, and probably had logging/hunting activity further west.

One of the main tacks debunkers use is that immunologically speaking, the american natives were completely isolated, and point to the devastation caused in the 15th c forward.

That doesn't completely discount smaller contacts though. The natives the Norse came into contact with didn't die out from disease after all.

Edit: Oh, on topic, I don't think the cocaine and tobacco in Egypt came from trade connections. I think it's more likely it's contamminants. The studies have seen didn't do organic dating on the samples, just established that the substances were present. That might have changed in the past few years though.

silverharp

Nevore wrote: »

Not really a serious question afaik but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be. I tend to think that there were small contacts over several centuries. We know the Vikings went as far as Greenland, and probably had logging/hunting activity further west.

One of the main tacks debunkers use is that immunologically speaking, the american natives were completely isolated, and point to the devastation caused in the 15th c forward.

That doesn't completely discount smaller contacts though. The natives the Norse came into contact with didn't die out from disease after all.

Edit: Oh, on topic, I don't think the cocaine and tobacco in Egypt came from trade connections. I think it's more likely it's contamminants. The studies have seen didn't do organic dating on the samples, just established that the substances were present. That might have changed in the past few years though.

I would find it hard to believe myself based on Geography alone. Egypt had no incentive to find a shortcut to Asia so I cant see myself how they would have contact with somewhere so out of the way from their perspective.

so the testing is not definitive then, that's a good enough reason

brianthebard

To start with I don't study this period at all, but if people were to travel from South America to Egypt in that period they would have had to use the Atlantic currents, which would mean they'd have arrived in Iceland/Ireland/Britain/Spain first and then had to travel on to Egypt. That amount of travel and that amount of countries in between would have to necessitate a lot more interaction between people than just a strictly American-Egyptian transaction.

Coriolanus

brianthebard wrote: »

To start with I don't study this period at all, but if people were to travel from South America to Egypt in that period they would have had to use the Atlantic currents, which would mean they'd have arrived in Iceland/Ireland/Britain/Spain first and then had to travel on to Egypt. That amount of travel and that amount of countries in between would have to necessitate a lot more interaction between people than just a strictly American-Egyptian transaction.

Well, the theorising I've read in support of a trade link always spoke of it having been instigated by the Egyptians, not the other way around. Think Thor Heyerdahl did a trip Europe->America to prove that it was possible.

brianthebard

Fair point but regardless they would have had to have travelled with the currents which would mean using the gulf stream on the way back. I'm not saying it wasn't possible or not, just that there would have been more evidence left of such travels than just a little bit of contamination, and it would have been spread over a wider area. For instance if the Egyptians travelled to South America they would have wanted to stop off at the canary islands or west Africa somewhere to refuel before the crossing, and probably do the same in Iceland/Ireland/Spain on the way back. That's how every european explorer did it until steam power and imo it doesn't make sense that they could have sidestepped that aspect of travel.

Coriolanus

No, I don't think they were doing it either. Just a lot of people dismiss the idea on a technical level.
It'd take a lot to convince me that it wasn't contemporary contamination that deposited the nicotine and cocaine.
I do think more testing is needed though, just to be able to debunk the idea properly.