200,000 Year Old South African Civlization! color me amazed

reply to post by MrsBlonde


I do

You should really read the thread Gorman linked to in his last post. Really an eye opener.
I've not yet seen what he has got to say about machu pichu so I regard it as completely impossible for now.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Karilla

 

So we as humans simply say one thing. We are one. And we killed off every poor bastard that we were not part of. quite sad.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Gorman91]

I don't know if you can call it sad, it's nature. That's like saying that it's sad for a lion to kill a gazelle for dinner.
If our ancestors didn't kill/breed out competing species, our species may not have survived, hence failed it's biological purpose in life.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by MrsBlonde

 

also, nibru was the name of enlil's temple city on the euphrates, now called nippur. etymology: nibru, nibbur, nippur. it was associated with the crossing of planets across the meridian of the sky, and meant crossing place, such as the crossing place on the euphrates was at enlil's temple city (nibru-- the crossing place).

nowhere, and i do mean nowhere, in the countless sumerian texts i have read, does it say that nibiru is a planet. in fact, nibiru as a word doesn't exist until babylon, and then it is again a reference to planets like jupiter (called marduk at the time) and mercury, crossing the meridian of the sky. as above, so below. cross the river of sumer, cross the river of the sky.

the rest of the article is fascinating. just wish people would quit quoting sitchin theories as if they were taken straight from the texts.

I feel ya I have made this very statement myself in other threads on ATS

I read them all the time and have yet to run across this planet or it's evil inhabitants

I read the texts as a conflict between settled agrarians and semi nomadic
herdsman

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

reply to post by Sinter Klaas

 

Incorrect. 200,000 years ago, humanity was one of several human species. We were barbarians living in caves. and we were NOT, I repeat, NOT psychologically the same.

Again, we call this Behavioral Modernity. It is a fact that our bodies are older than our minds. Behavioral Modernity is the time when we started using that intelligence like we do now. When the biochemistry of the mind, and the mind itself, evolved to open the keys to imagination and art and science. It is when the cave paintings began and when we started developing.

This was 50,000 years ago.

Humanity is 50,000 years old as we are now. 200,000 years ago we were busy killing Homo sapiens idaltu and Homo Erectus and various other groups. No society. We were still animals.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Gorman91]

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Gorman91]

You sound so incredibly sure like you were there or something. Or like you are privy to information others are not. Or is it that you are really only accepting a very small part of the slew of information/evidence regarding the history of human kind and how we came to be?

Having said all that, Interesting topic and should be interesting to follow.

A very interesting read... However I can't stop the alarm bells ringing. I mean a whole explanation of our origins in a few pages. Sounds to good to be true... The mention of Nibiru made me raise my eyebrows too. Will we EVER know the truth???

Originally posted by Come Clean
Something can't come from nothing.

So if we chase the religion thing or the science thing all the way down this rabbit hole, both would have to come up with something always existed at the very beginning of time.

First person to identify that THING is the winner. I'm starting to think we don't exist. We exist in our own minds but we don't exist in the physical world. The reason I say that is NEITHER camp can explain how something came from nothing. God didn't come from nothing. Strings and alternate universes didn't come from nothing. Both of those things can be chased until infinity.

Look up vacuum fluctuation. something can come out of nothing. Time began when the universe began, any notion of time before the universe makes as much sense as one hand clapping.

What caused the big bang, that's another kettle of fish that I don't think science will ever answer, they may be able to decern the mechanism, but not the cause. Personally I think the cause of the big bang was conciousness, the initiall spark of self awareness created the energy required to kick start the process, that's my unproveable gut feeling.

reply to post by pscysm


here's the universe being created. this just flips me out every time i think about it, especially since i had concluded that at some point the ancient people called these things god. think about it after you watch it

Google Video Link

reply to post by Sly1one


Well maybe. Who knows. Maybe I'm the "Wandering Jew". lol. Nah man. Just been watching this for some time as a topic.

The mind fundamentally changed 50,000 years ago. No matter how isolated the group of humans, they all have similar aspects which have evidence going back to 50,000 years ago but not before.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

The severe ecological pressure still doe snot explain the lack of human behavior before that pressure for 150,000 years.

Also, the tech boom 10,000 years ago works with our exponential nature.

Check it.

50,000 yrs ago. 25,000 yrs, 10,000 yrs, 5,000 yrs, 2,000 yrs, 1,000 yrs, 500 yrs.

This marks major technological and sociological events. But if we extend it back to 100,000 yrs ago, and then 200,000 yrs ago, we see no change. The exponential growth starts 50,000 years ago. That is what defines humanity.

There is still debate amongst scientists over these issues and further excavation/archaeological study needs to be done to confirm either way. I think it's somewhat pointless to debate, let's let the scientists do their job, I'm sure they'll let us know when they find somethin.

Here are a couple interesting articles. From which you can tell that there is still quite a bit of debate and fogginess about the incidence of behavioral modernity:

news.nationalgeographic.com...

www.institutnicod.org...

I suppose it's worth a second look.
Most likely they were a self sufficient, cooperative and peaceful communal class of folks who learned to earn Trust in the communities. Their very survival depended on it. Perhaps it became corrupt by an unaccountable 'party' and was duefully destroyed by 'cosmic' design.
Well, that's usually how it works.

Is history looking for another example or is it just history repeating itself for No good reason?

The Truth is 'left' of the bargaining table.
It should be on the Right side as a dog unto his master.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas



In Search of < one my favorite Shows
Coral Castle


The Mysterious And Intriguing Ruins Of Tihuanaco And Pumapunku (HD)


a closer look at the ruins

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

I admit that I need to do more research into what Gorman is saying before I can definitively agree or disagree with him, but my original understanding is similar to yours...

...H. sapiens from 200,000 years ago and H. sapiens of today are physiologically the same species, thus had the same brains and the same capacity for thought and learning.

Again, I'm not saying that makes me believe the researchers' findings in the OP -- because I don't. I'm just arguing the point that ancient humans weren't "dumb"; they just possessed less knowledge.

Yeah I agree. I'm still of the impression that humans were essentially just as capable of modern thought 100-200kya as we are now.

It also seems that that researcher isn't necessarily trustworthy or qualified enough to make his claims. Indeed it seems that humans weren't dumb in the past but the transfer of cultural knowledge obviously took time to spread and be widely shared/adopted.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

Remember. Inside appearances are not the same as outside appearances. Not to mention the infinite complexities of the brain itself. Brain size has no correlation to intelligence. In fact our brains could easily have evolved into more intelligence over the last 50,000 years and none of us would be the wiser and our brains would look the same. There's over 6 billion combinations of chemicals that affect everything in the brain. I have a friend who did a test if the combinations of said chemicals could statistically allow every human brain to be truly unique. I'll talk to him about it when he's online tonight.

Indeed the structure may have been virtually the same 200,000 years ago, but the nature of that brain was not. Psychologically it was not. The crow and dolphin have brains fully capable of human-like levels of intelligence. But they do not have the necessary biochemical nature to allow it.

The human brain simply was not able to function like it does not back then. Structurally it was similar, but a very little bit of change goes a long way.


reply to post by SL55T0T0

 

That's nice. Supply proof.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Gorman91]

Well actually... OVERALL brain size may not correlate to intelligence but certainly the size of the Neocortex can be very closely, if not directly, linked to intelligence. Humans have the largest Neocortex in the animal kingdom (the outermost gray matter of our brains) that allows us to utilize advanced abstract thought and memory abilities. What's special about our neocortex in comparison to a dolphin or whale is that the deeper folds of our neocortex (what gives our brains that wrinkly look) increase overall surface area and thus overall size/ability of the neocortex.

Originally posted by mblahnikluver

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by MrsBlonde

 

Humanity did not exist 200,000 years ago.

We evolved 50,000 years ago.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Gorman91]

While we evolved anatomically 200,000 years ago, we did not mentally evolve until 50,000 years ago.


Please research before trusting an obviously biased site.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Gorman91]

Sorry but Wikipedia isn't exactly a reliable source for such a claim. You are saying the site linked in the OP is bias? Yet you link to a site that ANYONE can edit? I think you should research more before just using wiki for all the answers.

Besides wiki got any other absolute proof what you say is true? What we are told and what is really the truth are two totally different things. I will read more on this but if this is true it changes a lot of things.

Well actually... Wikipedia has been shown to be comparably (if not more) accurate than the Encyclopedia Brittanica. People may be able to edit it at will but if you understand the system they have in place, any graffiti and most unsubstantiated/unsourced claims will be DELETED by moderators and wiki geeks who constantly monitor the site for changes.

news.cnet.com...

there was a very cool interview with red ice creations a few weeks ago with one of these guys on this very subject...you can listen to the first hour here still:

www.redicecreations.com...

reply to post by MrsBlonde


Extremely interesting and well written article, ignoring the few spelling mistakes. I had some very similar theories which I was tossing around but I could never quite fill in the gaps, and determine which theory was the most likely. This article has presented some very intriguing information which has filled in a lot of those gaps, and given me a solid foundation for my next research effort. Thanks for the share S&F.

[edit on 26/7/10 by CHA0S]

I remember seeing a post about this before some time ago,very interesting how it is 200,000 years old and modern man was supposed to have evolved around the same time. The other odd thing is that a near by area is called the city of gold, and i think they said the people of that metropolis were excavating gold. 200,000 years ago as soon as we evolve what do we do? Mine gold... I don't understand. With this in mind, one has to think of the AA theory. Could aliens have mutated us 200,000 years ago to harvest this gold? Afterwards of harvesting they let us free and we migrated to the mediteranean. Would that make since?

reply to post by MrsBlonde


LMAO .... they used astrological settings to base the age?

That holds absolutely no weight within the Scientific community..

I really hope a real team of scientist investigates, it looks like a pretty cool site.

Yes, I'm a bit late to the thread, but thought I'd add a little bit to it.

A bit of further reading actually. this topic was previously discussed here;
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So you might find info that you've not uncovered already.
Also, this thread on African nuclear reactors...from many many years ago;
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is even a topic on the comparison of the African site to sites on Mars;
www.abovetopsecret.com...
And as some of you have mentioned Puma Punku;
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by MrsBlonde

I dunno how ruins this ancient fit with Sumerian mythology so I'm leaving that part out and focusing on the archaeology itself,since I believe it will tell it's own story

Loving that - well put indeed.

I know we can all be sceptical about Sitchin (Kandinsky in particular will recall I came to ATS as a devotee quite recently, and may be aware that I have shifted to a stance of cautious scepticism) but you have to admit, there's a lot of evidence that simply doesn't fit the accepted historical paradigm. Even if we have to put this down to a unique and amazingly improbable series of genetic mutations, there can be no doubt (if these and other similar finds are validated in the long run) some pretty amazing stuff went down, approx 200k yrs ago in South Africa.

Taking a tenuously linked leap of faith; does anyone else find it interesting that the Pre-Cambrian mass extinction ties in wonderfully with the Sumerian epic of the Enuma Elish? The impact of a wandering planetary body causes the orbital path of Earth to shift inwards towards the sun, resulting in a rise of tens of degrees celsius in a matter of thousands of years, not to mention the devastating effects of the erratic shift into new soalr orbit - perhaps the direct cause of massive plate shifts and explosive eruptions of the Siberian Trappes (happening coincidentally at around the same time as the temperature rise, though in themselves not sufficient to cause the temperature rise).

WHAT IF (note the hypothetical) a long-estabished and intelligent race simply observed by chance what was going on in our corner of the universe, and realised that there was a means to play out a little experiment with the 'newly' developed hominid species they observed? None of these thoughts denigrate my religious convictions, if anyone is confused about my seeming use of two incompatible 'genesis' theories.

M'eh. Preparing to be shot down in flames...


Noah.