If it was just one drawing that looked like a helicopter I would agree that may be its just coincidence but I see many on these drawings that resemble modern or even beyond modern crafts. I see an airplane, UFO (saucer shaped) and even a submarine. Are they all just look a likes? I know archeologists deny it and try to explain it away, hoping guys like you will buy it which you did. The elites are not gonna allow the truth to be told. As I said before they sold you on fake history and you guys don't want to hear anything other then what comes out of the mouth of mainstream. Can you just entertain the possibility that earth was once very advanced and now we live in a world that came after a great flood or catastrophe. I guess you can't.
We can certainly entertain the idea, but without corroborating evidence it can only remain that: entertainment.
Evidence must be able to withstand interrogation, and the supposed evidence for advance technology in early history does not.
Here would be my examination of the evidence your present:
Firstly an ancient Egyptian hieroglyph resembling a helicopter.
1) Does the context of the hieroglyph support it being a helicopter or even a symbol of flight itself? No, as the text talks about protecting Egypt and resisting Egypts enemies. A standard temple inscription.
2) Are there other examples that support it being a helicopter? That I know of, no, though admittedly I haven't examined every hieroglyph in Egypt so I cannot be certain. The lack of published images of similar hieroglyphs suggests to me that they are either incredibly rare, or non-existent. In and of itself that proves nothing, but provides no support for your idea either.
3) Is there any other evidence that Egypt possessed advance technology. No. In fact all the evidence points towards them having standard bronze age technology.
Secondly, the Quimbaya artifacts:
Yes, they look like planes. However, when one consideres that early planes were modelled on birds, then it is hardly surprising that models of birds resemble planes, especially if they are highly stylised.
The existence of the artifacts themselves do not constitute evidence, so one must look wider. Is there any other evidence from the area that suggests they had advanced technology? Again, no. There is no evidence that they had advanced technology, and no precursors to advanced technology have been found. Admittedly lack of evidence is not proof, but it strongly suggests they didn't.
As both examples seem to provide no concrete proof, then one must widen one's view.
The Abydos inscription was completed some time during Ramesses II's reign, so around 1250 BCE. The Quimbaya artifacts have been dated to around 1000 CE. Therefore this knowledge must have existed a little over a thousand years ago, and any global flood or catastrophe that wiped out this knowledge must have happened after then, and within recorded human history. There is no evidence of this in recorded history.
One could say that the Egyptians and Quimbaya rediscovered this lost history, but one must explain how this knowledge (and supporting evidence) was again lost. What evidence can we find that shows the loss of this technology not just once, but twice?
So you can see, I have entertained the idea, and examined the evidence on which it stands. As all the evidence can be explained in a more simple way, and without contradiction, and there is a distinct lack of evidence that supports the idea, I can only arrive at the conclusion that the evidence has been misinterpreted. That ancient civilizations did not have advanced technology.