The 40 000 year old Sphinx

reply to post by Skyfloating


I'm pretty well aware of that. Sometimes you've got to at a little devils advocate though to get a different context or way of looking at the problem. I'm pretty secure in my education and what I've learned but I'm also pretty open minded to any evidence or data that would counter my personal paradigms. With that said, I'm still confident in my view that this kings list, much like later Egyptian lists, were meant to convey divine providence for a particular ruler or potential ruler making a claim. There just isn't a lot of data, hard or otherwise to suggest anything different at this time. Great thread overall and some very interesting perspectives pertaining to this piece. Whether I think they're accurate or not is irrelevant because I enjoy seeing what other people think so thanks formputtingmit together.

Skyfloating

darkbake

As far as intelligence goes there is even some merit to the idea that writing could have lowered it - think of the difference, people used to memorize whole epics by word of mouth only.

Yup...people used to talk a whole lot more to each other. We`ve become a society that is rather private and our vast reserves of knowledge are stored in electronic equipment that could disappear with an EMP Blast.

Exactly, I think that the Internet basically is as big (or easily bigger) of an invention as the Printing Press. It has similar effects on society that I hope are not permanent.

One of the problems is that critical thinking and problem solving is not being addressed in real-life situations. Is there even a real life anymore? I have autism and it makes it extremely stressful for me to deal with the changing social norms since I have to manually adjust to them - also, there are differences between generations that seem to be heavy.

To bring this back to the original post, there were obviously human societies around up to 40,000 years ago and I have heard from a studied friend that neanderthal man was actually a lot more into problem-solving and creative thinking than modern man.

I don't think that just because the history wasn't written down means that the societies were not interesting, or that they don't have a history, for that matter.

In fact, I suspect that many major events were passed down by word of mouth and might even show themselves in religious or epic texts to this day, which may have been attempts to permanently record tales for the first time, like the Great Flood, for one example.

There are also very interesting facets of the particular creation stories (there are two) that show themselves in Genesis. A lot of these particulars are not explored much, but one example is that there are two different Gods mentioned.

Another very interesting example is the use of the Apple to represent knowledge, and knowledge to be a known "Anti-Dote" to religion at the time - something that is strange, very strange. Why was the Apple chosen and why was the Snake chosen.

Symbols are extremely important because they have innate traits in them, for one, for another, they often represent schools of thought or ideas related to their innate traits. One example of how complex a society can still be without written language, I guess.

In fact, so complicated that I bet only the Elite possess all the knowledge about it. Imagine that, a society so complex that the common man of today doesn't get it, even when presented with the stories and symbols directly - yet probably also the basis for our current society, I would bet.

peter vlar

I'm pretty well aware of that. Sometimes you've got to at a little devils advocate though to get a different context or way of looking at the problem.

Absolutely. It gets them to look more deeply for Evidence to back up their claims.

darkbake

In fact, I suspect that many major events were passed down by word of mouth and might even show themselves in religious or epic texts to this day, which may have been attempts to permanently record tales for the first time, like the Great Flood, for one example.

Tribal cultures still do that today. They gather around in the evening and here the elder of the tribe recount stories. The youngsters who listen with great fascination then someday become the elders who repeat the stories. Through stories memories and actual events are contained and stored, sometimes encoded. The flood myth, which is universally and globally told is one of the big stories thats been told for ages.

The more I look at this statue, or picture of a statue, I see a Neanderthal, with a fairly sophisticated head gear.

Could Neanderthals have had that wide of a nose? Could his ears have been that high?

reply to post by freedomSlave


In Canada, they have moose - faces.

reply to post by poet1b


Personally, I'm in the minority for thinking that this item was created by Neanderthal as opposed to a modern human. I don't however think it is very representational of Neanderthal physiology, predominantly because of the very pronounced jutting jaw of the sculpture which is not present in Neanderthal. Is of their major facial features is lack of a chin. For the sake of comparison, Neanderthal is in the left and a modern human is on the right-

reply to post by peter vlar


I saw your post and starred it.

I agree, the chin is predominant on the statue, but it looks like the statue has a beard.



The rest of the shape of the head matches a neanderthal quite well.




Except for the ridge.



But what if there was a lot of fat and tissue that hid the ridge.

Seeing the two compared in pictures I`d say its not a Neanderthal. Also, the ears give it away.

reply to post by mindseye1609


may b i can help i am from india

I think the lion represents what man has always feared the most, the top predator and its power. People generally create art from emotions. The Lion was probably what bothered them. The Saber Tooth Tiger was an animal that roamed around back then. I feel the sphinx was altered to be a man's head by some later in time egotist Pharroh. Just as the French solders shot of the nose the sphinx in their own arrogant stupidity. The proportions are all wrong for the head on the body. The sphinx is probably extremely old.... which is how ever long it took to erode the exposed sculpture.

Someone mentioned the age of Aquarius will starts in 600 years, and some man will be here pouring water over his head.... I don't think we are going to last as a human species that long. We are overpopulated, and polluting ourselves to death. Cancers and plagues are coming. Just think the Gulf of Mexico spill, the radiation dumping from Japan, War abounds, China is Polluting their country daily..... Unless we demand free clean energy ideas be implemented, control population, and ask all countries to clean up their pollution... We Are Doomed. No to mention climate change is altering everyone's environment. In some ways the recession caused us to have and do less, which was better for the environment. What art will we leave behind? The Georgia Guide stones.... and what will people say?

reply to post by Skyfloating


I agree, the ears don't look right. I think they are a part of the hoody the model was wearing. They are too small for a lions ears.

I could see that skull inside of that head. We have no idea what the nose looked like.

The neanderthal was an apex predator, up to three or four hundred pounds, and far stronger than modern man. This was an intelligent gorilla, that even lions feared. Our bones compared to their bones, would be like comparing broom sticks to shovel handles.

In all the pictures of neanderthals, they look like a human chimp crossbreed, or these days much more human, but what if neanderthals looked much more like a predator, more like a lion. This statue looks like a very powerful humanoid, which is how the neanderthal would have looked.

Maybe the nose was much more extensive than imagined. An extensive cartilage that created an extensive cavity that allowed the air to warm before it got to the lungs. This would then mean that the eyes would be more separated, more like a predator.

Just kicking out ideas here.

Skyfloating

Antigod


'Manimals' are common shamanist themes and occur across many cultures. That's a portable piece of stone age art made by a hunter gatherer. Not some relic of a lost civilisation. All the tech from sites of that age are stone age, made of stone of bone and ivory. Nothing 'lost tech' about it at all.

I agree there's nothing "lost tech" about the making of this statue. The "lost tech" is what it is based on...genetic engineering (as one of many explanations of Sphinxes and Hybrids put forward in this thread)

So Ganesh the Indian god is also a result of genetic engineering?

It's just some caveman's idea of what his spirit/animal god would look like.You see the same sort of things in hunter gatherers all over, they venerate animal spirits, often dressing up as them. I don't see anything interesting in this except archaeologically.

It's an odd premise by some around here, that ancient civilizations could build massive monuments, pyramids, were advanced, etc, but somehow at the same time couldn't carve a little statue correctly and what clearly looks like the head of an animal was actually meant to be the head of a neanderthal.

If an ancient civilization could build massive pyramids which modern technology might not be able to duplicate, I think it's fair to assume their pictures and small statues show exactly what they're meant to show.

Or are some really clinging to the belief they could build the Sphinx but couldn't accurately produce small statues?

poet1b
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

I agree, the ears don't look right. I think they are a part of the hoody the model was wearing. They are too small for a lions ears.

I'm curious why you feel that this sculpture is based on a model wearing a hoodie? I'm just not seeing that nor the beard you alluded to in your previous reply to me. As for the ears, 2 thoughts come to mind. 1. are you basing your comparison on modern African lions or contemporary European cave lions? and 2 is that anthropomorphic or zoomorphic figures aren't meant to be precise, scale pieces of modern art. Carving ivory with flint hand tools is no easy task. We can see from cave paintings that the lionman has a lot in common with the European cave lion. for comparison sake-

I could see that skull inside of that head. We have no idea what the nose looked like.

actually, from the fossils of cave lions contemporary with Aurignacian culture we have a very good idea of what their morphology was. or do you mean a Neanderthals nose? actually, the answer would be the same.

The neanderthal was an apex predator, up to three or four hundred pounds, and far stronger than modern man. This was an intelligent gorilla, that even lions feared. Our bones compared to their bones, would be like comparing broom sticks to shovel handles.

While I agree to an extent due to isotope evidence being applied to two Neanderthals and various faunal species from Vindija Cave, Croatia which indicates that at least in that region and these individuals,that Neanderthal were indeed high level predators. You are grossly over exaggerating some of their traits, particularly heir size and weight. The average male Neanderthal weighed in at about 145 lbs with females about 20-30 pounds less. Like all predators, fear isn't really part of the equation, survival and sustenance are and lions would have been less afraid of them than they were of the lions, IMO. Their bone density and muscle strength was definitely far greater than modern humans though. of that there is little debate.

In all the pictures of neanderthals, they look like a human chimp crossbreed, or these days much more human, but what if neanderthals looked much more like a predator, more like a lion. This statue looks like a very powerful humanoid, which is how the neanderthal would have looked.

But we know what they looked like, and it was far more like modern humans than a lion. If they were to have morphological features in common with cave lions it would be eyes closer together and sinuses less like ours but that isn't the case. Most of their morphological differences were adaptations to colder environments which is part of the reason they never made it much farther south than the Middle East and even then only during times of decreased global temperatures.

Maybe the nose was much more extensive than imagined. An extensive cartilage that created an extensive cavity that allowed the air to warm before it got to the lungs. This would then mean that the eyes would be more separated, more like a predator.

Just kicking out ideas here.

it would be the sinuses that held that job. no need for additional cartilage, which there is no evidence for. Predators eyes are closer together to give them better depth perception not farther apart.

Just my opinions, I'm not trying to piss on your Christmas, just engaging in a dialogue here so I hope I don't come off like I'm attacking your ideas as that's not my intent.

Antigod

It's just some caveman's idea of what his spirit/animal god would look like.You see the same sort of things in hunter gatherers all over, they venerate animal spirits, often dressing up as them. I don't see anything interesting in this except archaeologically.

I`ll go with what the ancients said they were. For instance in Greek Mythology they say that the hybrids are the result of Gods mixing with humans. And the Religions say that there were God(s) that didn't at all approve of such mixing and therefore wiped the civilization out with a flood. That's good enough for me, why build constructs over what the ancients report. It seems arrogant to me to dismiss their globally consistent tales...which is what modern historians and archaeologists are doing.

reply to post by peter vlar


My understanding is the Neanderthal strength is being re-considered, and so then should the body weight.

www.academia.edu...#

Whatisstriking,however,is that the Neandertals have the greatest mean measures of leverage for both muscle (and by a considerable margin). Combined with evidence of greater advantage and range of action for M. biceps insupination
(51–52), this may reflect the need for powerful forearm flexion and supination in spear thrusting.

The overall pattern of upper limb muscularity and leverage in Neanderthals is consistent with predatory behavior involving close contact with prey,in which muscular effort was critical to hunting success.

Somewhere out there I remember a link that shows Neanderthal bone size was closer to a gorilla than a human.

Muscle is heavy, which means neanderthals probably had greater body density. Gorillas are about the same height as Neanderthals were, which means that is is possible that neanderthal weight was closer to 300 pounds, more like gorillas.

My point is that we still know very little about what Neanderthals actually looked like.

It is possible they looked like this carving.

With the hoody.

poet1b
reply to post by peter vlar

 

My understanding is the Neanderthal strength is being re-considered, and so then should the body weight.

Somewhere out there I remember a link that shows Neanderthal bone size was closer to a gorilla than a human.

I'm not sure I understand your meaning, are you saying that the size and density of their bones is more similar to gorillas or that gorillas have a completely different type of bone structure than other hominids? If you meant the first then yes, the thickness and density of their bones was much more than modern humans. If you mean length of long bones in the post cranial skeleton, simply due to the fact that gorillas are closer I height to H. Sapiens the bones are closer to us in that instance.

Muscle is heavy, which means neanderthals probably had greater body density. Gorillas are about the same height as Neanderthals were, which means that is is possible that neanderthal weight was closer to 300 pounds, more like gorillas

Yes, I agree muscle is heavy and dense. We can measure with a high degree of accuracy the attachment point scars for muscle and tendon and rather definitively determine just how strong and large neanderthal were. One issue that I will admit to is that compared to modern humans, we have a very small amount of Neanderthal remains to work with so there will be a margin of error on the upper and lower ends of this measurement based on population density, diet and location. At 5'4" an adult male Neanderthal likely never got close to 200 lbs let alone 300 lbs. You're comparison to gorillas isn't without merit in regards to strength and muscle density but a full grown silver back can reach 6 ft tall giving them much more mass than a Neanderthal. Proportionally, a male gorilla can bench press the equivalent of 400 lbs or more and I'd be willing to bet the average adult male Neanderthal was capable of putting up at least 300 lbs without breaking a sweat. They would be like midget defensive linemen in the NFL

My point is that we still know very little about what Neanderthals actually looked like.

It is possible they looked like this carving.

I strongly disagree with that. We know within a small degree of deviation, what Neanderthal looked like. Ill have to look around but o another thread several months back the question came up regarding facial reconstruction of extinct hominids and what the margin of efrror may be or whether we were completely off the beaten path with our representations. I managed to find a couple of examples of recent missing persons cases that were solved with the assistance of facial reconstruction (clay models based on cranial casting) and the results were rather surprising at just how close to the true features of the individuals when they were still living. The correlation of techniques applied to extinct hominids is a valuable tool in anthropology and while we can't say 100% without a time machine, I feel the results are for the most part very indicative of what our ancestors looked like while they were alive.

With the hoody.

Hey, I'm not seeing it, but ill let you have the hoodie AND the beard lol. Just because I don't agree with your impressions or interpretations of this piece doesn't mean that I'm not open to looking into them. You can't learn if your mind is closed to opposing thoughts or interpretations.

I personally believe that there is more evidence that Neanderthal, as opposed to MH, were the movers and shakers of Aurignacian culture and consequently likely carved this piece as well as several others located nearby. I don't think it's representational of themselves, or if carved by MH, representative of Neanderthal, at least not supposed to be an anatomically correct depiction of H. neanderthalensis. I think it's more likely to be a stylized anthropomorphic or zoomorphic religious icon based on the nearby findings of a similar but smaller "lionman" as well as other animal carvings and flutes. Will we ever know for sure? Not likely but its certainly fun to debate the myriad of possibilities.

Skyfloating
I`ll go with what the ancients said they were. For instance in Greek Mythology they say that the hybrids are the result of Gods mixing with humans. And the Religions say that there were God(s) that didn't at all approve of such mixing and therefore wiped the civilization out with a flood. That's good enough for me, why build constructs over what the ancients report. It seems arrogant to me to dismiss their globally consistent tales...which is what modern historians and archaeologists are doing.

edit on 2014 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)

I can see your point regarding the hubris and arrogance of most of modern science and archaeology in particular. While I don't necessarily agree with the notion myself, I can completely see why people look at science as its own sort of religion complete with unshakeable paradigms. However, as ignorant as it is to dismiss outs of hand that which was recorded by our ancestors, would it also it be terribly ignorant to just accept those records without corroboration?

Like your example of a global flood based on multiple cultures over several millennia, it can certainly be seen as having credence from that perspective. Why would so many disparate cultures from literally every corner of the globe have these stories if there weren't some basis for them? The flip side though is that when looking at each story and examining the pertinent facts and details, we will find that yes, each culture likely did survive some massively scaled flood events. With that said, the most likely locations for settlements during the Neolithic was near a water source whether inland rivers or coastal locations.

Once we settled down and became more sedentary with farming and raising livestock, an ample supply of water for ourselves, domesticated animals and irrigation was critical for success and survival. When you have the majority of your people living near water you are bound to have not just the occasional flood but also the less frequent major flooding events. At that point we have to ask ourselves what is more likely, one massive Noah/Gilgamesh level world encompassing flood event or several smaller but no less destructive on a local scale, flood events? Add to those, other much larger flooding events t at can be associated with Toba and the flooding of the Mediterranean into the Black Sea and the loss of coastal areas from 13000 to 7000 YA compounded with displaced survivors and it becomes almost a collective memory event after several generations. I guess it's a matter of not just scale but the fear and devastation felt by those who survived that was then passed on to the following generations. Multiple smaller flood events are no less devastating when it wipes out or entirely displaces people.

We know that several cultures from Gobekli Tepe to Mississippi mound building cultures were still mostly nomadic hunter gatherers but still met up at certain times of the years to trade, meet up with friends and family, arrange marriages etc. If you have a scenario like that and some of these people survived massive flood events and told the stories at their seasonal gatherings, e survivor marries into a group that hasn't been exposed to the flooding will tell the tales to their children and on and on.

I'm simply hypothesizing one possibility to show how these stories could have created or contributed to a collective conscious type of event without the need for one massive worldwide ELE behind it all while trying to entertain the notions of arrogance over ignorance.

reply to post by peter vlar


When I post about the comparison with gorilla bones, I am only referring to the thickness, and size of the muscle attachments, which indicates how strong Neanderthals probably were.

As far as height is concerned, we don't have even 1 complete skeleton, so even the average height could be off by a considerable degree. I think odds are pretty good that there were a fair number of neanderthals as tall as 6 foot, but maybe the average goes the other way.

A gorilla is 20 times the strength of the average modern human. A gorilla could probably bench a ton, and a neanderthal probably a half a ton.

Looking at more info, it looks like I was off about the 400 pound size, 200-300 is probably more correct, but that is still a huge carnivore for Europe. I think that is big enough to rival Cave Lions, add in their intelligence, and neanderthals were the apex predator of Europe, until homo sapiens came along, or maybe even then.

I think I participated in that thread on facial reconstruction. I would disagree. As I remember, some of the faces were good matches, and others not so good. We know how people look, so it makes sense that we could succeed to a modest degree on human facial reconstruction, but being that we have nothing to go on, when if comes to how a neanderthal actually looks, I think that leaves us with nothing to work with.

Hey, I'm not seeing it, but ill let you have the hoodie AND the beard lol. Just because I don't agree with your impressions or interpretations of this piece doesn't mean that I'm not open to looking into them. You can't learn if your mind is closed to opposing thoughts or interpretations.

Love that attitude, I feel where you are coming from.

Ok, what I see. The face extends out from the skull, which gives the cat like look. The mouth is much wider, could very well possibly be. The nose completely different from a human or ape. Evolved in a different climate, why not. The neck much thicker. Pull off the hoody and you have the large back part of the skull, hidden by the thickness of the neck.

See that smile? Wow, that demonstrates and amazing touch. This looks more like a carving made as a tribute to an important person in the community, than that of some local god. This guy should have his own television show.