Accepted theory or timeline of human development

Does anyone on here really buy it. I thought it was probably bull# when I was high school.

Humans are 100,000 years old but lived in caves and like animals until like 6000 years ago then developed civilization magically at same time when they discovered how to farm.

Really ????

Although a lot is being re-examined and reworked.
The idea that hunter-gatherers change the land and farmed it to a degree is gaining traction.
An argument for this would be Bruce Pascoe's Dark Emu (Magabala Books: 2018).

So to link agriculture and civilization in what Western archeologists wanted to find, is perhaps misleading.

Maybe what was painted at Lascaux was a carefully kept garden, rather than a wilderness.

a reply to: Jackfish28

The oldest cities in the world, that are known of, are over 11,000 years old. Your premise is flawed.
theculturetrip.com...

originally posted by: Jackfish28
Does anyone on here really buy it. I thought it was probably bull# when I was high school.

Humans are 100,000 years old but lived in caves and like animals until like 6000 years ago then developed civilization magically at same time when they discovered how to farm.

Really ????

No, not really, and not according to nearly anyone who has actually studied the subject. Who says that these days, except you?

a reply to: Jackfish28

I don't believe any official time lines or dates for objects, they keep changing them why do people believe them? they are very Anthony Fauci!

As a kid I had these books that said when the women of these tribes gathered, they would take a part of the plant and stick it back in the earth for regrowth.

Then, I'm thinking, but isn't that "farming"?
That is essentially farming.

But wow, the intro to so many books says "these people" never farmed.
You shouldn't believe everything people tell you.

originally posted by: Jackfish28
Does anyone on here really buy it. I thought it was probably bull# when I was high school.

Humans are 100,000 years old but lived in caves and like animals until like 6000 years ago then developed civilization magically at same time when they discovered how to farm.

Really ????

The species homo sapiens is around 2-300,000 years old, advanced sociology developed 75-150,000 years ago and civilization was achieved 6-10,000 years ago. Whatever your poorly developed understanding looks like is because you haven't taken full advantage of the internet.

Wikipedia is your friend.

It is amazing how so many scathing attacks come from people repeating untruth's as if they are facts.

Modern humanity is constantly being pushed back in time and is now well over 250.000 years old according to academia, Neanderthals whom had a bigger brain than modern man but apparently were less intelligent are about 500.000 according to academia.

We do not have enough of the Lesser known Denisovan peoples remains and artefacts to know how intelligent they may have been.

But all around the world artefacts have been found that are inconvenient to the prevailing theory and the information passed to our children as fact when it is at best theory and not actually fact.

Objects such as the Nampa Doll (which is one of the FAR younger objects at only about two million years old).


This objects suggest a species of human being's with the ability to think Abstract thought existed at least 2 million years ago, that is four times older than the accepted age of Neanderthal man, other finds are hundreds of times older than this, footprints complete with stitches in coal hundreds of millions of years old.

Of course these are subjective as artefacts of certain variety's have a nasty habit of disappearing into private collections or being destroyed or simply ignored.

Sometimes this is to prevent the professional qualifications and careers of academia and the biased view of history from being shaken to there core, the Smithsonian institutes founder was a believer in Isolationism for example, he believed that separate cultures arose completely independently as opposed to Diffusionism the transfer of ideas between civilizations by people travelling between them and trade, the Smithsonian institute has been accused time and again of hiding, destroying or losing artefacts that do not fit the View of history it endorses.

Experts and scientists have had there career's damaged when they have gone against the ESTABLISHED 'TRUTH'.

In recent times the Brazilian Navy dumped gravel and sand from barged onto a Roman Galley that was found complete with Amphora off the coast of Brazil, there have been claims of Phoenician writing found inscribed on stone markers in the amazon, a bowl was found with Cuneiform writing and these are from the last 5000 years of accepted history but in inconvenient places so have faced ridicule, dismissal or just outright are ignored.

There are large areas of ruins in South Africa that may indicate an area where a population equivalent to a city once lived in structures.

Vast earth work's have been discovered were the Amazon rainforest has been cut back by illegal logging.

The Mayan Civilization of the Yucatan it turn's out once had a city as large as many modern mega city's with perhaps eight or even more million people living in it and many of the formerly known city's were in fact just part of this huge urban sprawl, such a city does not arise without precursors and established infrastructure that grows with it and drives and inspired trade, such a large population are a ready market then as they are now.

China is filled with Pyramids, one the great white pyramid used to have a Crystal capstone witnessed by several people including war time US pilots over flying the region were it is, it was once over 1000 feet tall making it an artificial mountain and far larger than the great pyramid of Giza, it also once had stone casing stones.

Near to the tiny islets known as St Peter and Paul rock's half way between Brazil and Africa wartime US pilot's reported seeing ruins of a town with many buildings under water on the side of a sunken mountain or island.

And the list goes on and on and on and on and on.

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
a reply to: Jackfish28

The oldest cities in the world, that are known of, are over 11,000 years old. Your premise is flawed.
theculturetrip.com...

And yet the Blackfoot Tribe has a history over 36,000 years old, and the Hopi can track theirs back over 50,000 years.

But OK...



ETA: And before you get snotty about it, me and mine are not "with" you on this.

We are going to do what we have done the last 3 cycles of civilization on this planet.

Just passing through to the next part...

Even with modern archeology, for example, Gobekli Tepe in modern Turkey, apparently shows no sign of modern agriculture.

In fact it's accepted it was probably built by hunter-gatherers.
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: halfoldman

Modern people assume that you need to have a "City" to be "Civilized."

Stupidest. Premise. Ever.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
a reply to: Jackfish28

The oldest cities in the world, that are known of, are over 11,000 years old. Your premise is flawed.
theculturetrip.com...

And yet the Blackfoot Tribe has a history over 36,000 years old, and the Hopi can track theirs back over 50,000 years.

But OK...

ETA: And before you get snotty about it, me and mine are not "with" you on this.

We are going to do what we have done the last 3 cycles of civilization on this planet.

Just passing through to the next part...

I can trace my linage to the Lakota Blackfoot tribe. As opposed to the California Blackfoot tribe.
I found an easy link. What is our disagreement?

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
a reply to: Jackfish28

The oldest cities in the world, that are known of, are over 11,000 years old. Your premise is flawed.
theculturetrip.com...

And yet the Blackfoot Tribe has a history over 36,000 years old, and the Hopi can track theirs back over 50,000 years.

But OK...

ETA: And before you get snotty about it, me and mine are not "with" you on this.

We are going to do what we have done the last 3 cycles of civilization on this planet.

Just passing through to the next part...

I can trace my linage to the Lakota Blackfoot tribe. As opposed to the California Blackfoot tribe.
I found an easy link. What is our disagreement?

your first post on the topic...

The oldest cities in the world, that are known of, are over 11,000 years old. Your premise is flawed.

Any other questions, brother?

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
a reply to: Jackfish28

The oldest cities in the world, that are known of, are over 11,000 years old. Your premise is flawed.
theculturetrip.com...

And yet the Blackfoot Tribe has a history over 36,000 years old, and the Hopi can track theirs back over 50,000 years.

But OK...

ETA: And before you get snotty about it, me and mine are not "with" you on this.

We are going to do what we have done the last 3 cycles of civilization on this planet.

Just passing through to the next part...

I can trace my linage to the Lakota Blackfoot tribe. As opposed to the California Blackfoot tribe.
I found an easy link. What is our disagreement?

your first post on the topic...

The oldest cities in the world, that are known of, are over 11,000 years old. Your premise is flawed.

Any other questions, brother?

ETA are you Lakota? I would love to know if we have relations.

Not understanding your concern, I can only sight what I can find.
We are both supporting our background.

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
a reply to: Jackfish28

The oldest cities in the world, that are known of, are over 11,000 years old. Your premise is flawed.
theculturetrip.com...

And yet the Blackfoot Tribe has a history over 36,000 years old, and the Hopi can track theirs back over 50,000 years.

But OK...

ETA: And before you get snotty about it, me and mine are not "with" you on this.

We are going to do what we have done the last 3 cycles of civilization on this planet.

Just passing through to the next part...

I can trace my linage to the Lakota Blackfoot tribe. As opposed to the California Blackfoot tribe.
I found an easy link. What is our disagreement?

your first post on the topic...

The oldest cities in the world, that are known of, are over 11,000 years old. Your premise is flawed.

Any other questions, brother?

ETA are you Lakota? I would love to know if we have relations.

Not understanding your concern, I can only sight what I can find.
We are both supporting our background.

I am Cherokee/Hopi.

I have no concerns about what is going on at all for the People...

It's just the end of the 4th cycle.

~shrug~

Human race out of Europe not Africa and how do we only have 23 Chromosomes



But going beyond those question 16,000 years ago the world was a hugely different place.
Ice, 400 feet plus lower sea levels and greater space to spread into.

So if most of mankind favoured the coast and water ways we have to look a lot further out to sea.
To find real evidence

I think the term "Civilization" needs to be defined if we are going to be picking it apart.

This being said, there is evidence that there were social groups that believed in similar social norms and living in communities pre bronze age (8700BC-2000BC) While this thread I made is mostly about the possible location of Atlantis (AS SEEN HERE) the key point to take away is that around 9300BC humans were organized enough to form large armies of different social groups.

Then you have the Nile River Valley settlements, where people have been living in social groups and trading with or living cooperatively with others for nearly a million years ago. So Yes people have been living together for much longer is taught in basic public education courses, but in higher education this understanding of how old civilization is changes almost daily. Harte would be a better person than I am at explaining this.

As great as it may be the the Blackfoot people know their history, the question of how correct is that history if the history was passed on orally for all those years until recently (well in the past hundred years or so). Being nomadic and refusing to allow site to be examined for historical records, accepting their take on their history is not much different then agreeing the theory is correct without testing it. This is the same issue that pops up when studying early western (ie European and western Asia) history as well. With thousands of years to study and writing be a fairly resent invention, stories without hard facts is the same issue. I will say that those stories that are passed down can be used as jumping off point for backing up the claims being made through physical investigation of the tales. Again that means digging up a site and investigation of the location.

So for anyone wanting to argue about a term being used, please explain what that term means to you.

Although, if I had to explain "colonization" to a class, I would actually begin with the Romans and the "barbarian" tribes. The Celts and the Germanic tribes.

No legionary wanted to go into the dark forests across the Rhine ...

The "Congo" of the Roman world.
(An irony Joseph Conrad was well aware of in Heart of Darkness.)
The descendants of the various Germanic and Anglo-Saxon tribes once oppressed and enslaved by Rome, going out and doing the same to other people across the globe.
But such is the co-opting power of Empire.

Although it was never quite forgotten, there has always been counter-culture and resistance.

originally posted by: halfoldman
Although a lot is being re-examined and reworked.
The idea that hunter-gatherers change the land and farmed it to a degree is gaining traction.
An argument for this would be Bruce Pascoe's Dark Emu (Magabala Books: 2018).

So to link agriculture and civilization in what Western archeologists wanted to find, is perhaps misleading.

Maybe what was painted at Lascaux was a carefully kept garden, rather than a wilderness.

Agriculture, as it is defined, is preceded by aboriculture and horticulture both of which were practiced during the paleolithic and led to settled living first being somewhat viable in the Mesolithic and refined into the Neolithic grain based agriculture which was initially just a localised adaptation to conditions and resources, and from which the grain-state emerged. Black soils around the world indicate that a form of swiddening "technology" was developed fairly early on and was a form of land management which created the "happy hunting grounds" that allowed human groups to thrive. Controlled fire is where it all starts really, it is what civilised us (for better or worse).

So, in short, I agree with your "maybe", I think that is exactly what Lascaux represents.

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: halfoldman

Modern people assume that you need to have a "City" to be "Civilized."

Stupidest. Premise. Ever.

You're misusing the term "civilization."
It's just an artificial category of a culture. A category created by Anthropology in order to compare cultures.
Being "civilized" has nothing to do with it, but having cities certainly does.

Harte