Ancient Civilizations and Crazy Theories

Why should we think (and I�m including me) that there is some sort of secret and mystical background on the basis of the ancient civilizations which lived all over the Earth? Are we just looking for the truth of our genesis, and secret and "lost" or "hidden" knowledge?

I personally think it is amazing all the stories surrounding these mysterious ancestors of nowadays human community.

However, I believe there is also a lot of Hollywood film fiction hidden some really historical facts that this "mystical paradigm" blocks us from see.

I think you'd find it very interesting to take some anthropology and archaeology courses.

Start with archaeology. You'll be amazed at the things we DO know that the public just has absolutly no clue about.

as mentioned by Bryd
You'll be amazed at the things we DO know that the public just has absolutly no clue about.

Not meaning to put you ont the spot Bryd, but I would seriously be interested if you would expand on the "what we DO know that the public just has no clue about" part.

I have considered taking some archaeology classes being that I think that they would go fantastically with my numerous History type classes. Didn't mean to put you on the spot again, but I was very interested in what I might be missing when I read your comment(s).



seekerof

Originally posted by Falkner
I personally think it is amazing all the stories surrounding these mysterious ancestors of nowadays human community.

The actual history that is slowly being recovered every day is astounding and, honestly, sometimes quite mindboggling. To a certain degree, its not all that much wilder and amazing than the 'conspiracyish' ideas.

Originally posted by Seekerof

as mentioned by Bryd
You'll be amazed at the things we DO know that the public just has absolutly no clue about.

Not meaning to put you ont the spot Bryd, but I would seriously be interested if you would expand on the "what we DO know that the public just has no clue about" part.

Sheesh. Where do you want me to start? Nygdan touches on some of it, but the whole of the thing would be too much to write in a lifetime.

I'm taking a course on American Indians (from the first appearance over the land bridge to the present) and I have learned so many things that totally overthrew what I *thought* I knew about the culture, the spirituality, and the practices (and the sheer, mind-boggling stupidity of the New Age stuff. American Indians and others warn that the "new age" practices are dangerous... and they're right!) They practiced selective breeding of crops long before Mendel played with his peas.

Australian aboriginal thought and spirituality and cultures... they're not just black-skinned people strolling around the deserts. The technological advances of Greece and Rome, and of Egypt (not the fake UFO stuff -- the real things like the mass manufacturing workshops and other advances.) The amazing gold work of the Dikus and other Central American tribes long before Columbus got there. The maps that the Polynesians made of the wind and the currents in the Pacific... maps made of shell and reeds and grass long before the Europeans ventured away from shore.

The rich mythologies, the chain of languages, the lineages and the kinship systems... patterns of progress, patterns of change... they're so different from what people *think* they know based on a few world history courses in school.

I love this stuff... could you tell?

I have considered taking some archaeology classes being that I think that they would go fantastically with my numerous History type classes. Didn't mean to put you on the spot again, but I was very interested in what I might be missing when I read your comment(s).

Oh, DO! Let me tell you, the archaeology is quite an interesting counterpoise to anthropology. Archaeology is so rigidly scientific and anthropology is so much more akin to psychology that the contrast is intriguing. You get a much fuller picture with both approaches.

The amusing thing about the above comments on American Indians is that I'm also taking an Archaeology of Texas course this semester and we're also covering the American Indians. The contrast in the two approaches is quite broad, but combined they present a rich and full picture.

seekerof

Byrd is right. Some very ancient (what would almost be considered pre-historical) sites have been found that show at least moderately "civilized" societies, living within groups that built what we would consider cities, go back as far as before the last Ice Age (ie ca. 12,000 BCE). The general populace knows very little about this because 1. they don't want to do the research and 2. they generally don't seem to care too much.

I really have never understood why ancient civilizations have to be "mystical" in anyway, or have some technology that was "lost". If you take the mystical part out of history its still very facinating, but if there is not a "deep underlying secret" so to say, most people could care less. People are intrigued by mystery, and as soon as the mystery is taken out they lose interest.

Humans were inhabiting Southern Chile as far back as 12,500 years ago. Fragments of Clovis points found at Monte Verde have dated back more than a thousand years before the oldest Clovis points in the North American region.

Then there are things like the Kennewick Man, Caral in Peru, and countless others that while interesting are not what I would consider historically "mystical" in any way. There have been cities found in both the Americas and the current Middle East that easily pre-date what many think to be some of the oldest structures on earth.

[edit on 19-9-2004 by Jazzerman]

Originally posted by Byrd
The amusing thing about the above comments on American Indians is that I'm also taking an Archaeology of Texas course this semester and we're also covering the American Indians. The contrast in the two approaches is quite broad, but combined they present a rich and full picture.

Very cool. I love Native American history, and took an overload of courses on Native cultures back in college. Not necessarily covering the Archaeological and Anthropological aspects of it completely, but rather the historical approach which is still quite facinating. My specialties were really Ancient (Sumerian, Assyrian, et al) and Medieval British history, but Native American history is just too facinating to pass up on.

Hey, Byrd, could you expand on the "mind-boggling stupidity" of New-Age ideas. And what New-Age ideas are you taking about?

Originally posted by Byrd
I think you'd find it very interesting to take some anthropology and archaeology courses.

Start with archaeology. You'll be amazed at the things we DO know that the public just has absolutly no clue about.

Hi there. I didn't have archaeology courses, but I had some anthropology. I studied, very lightly I must say, some ancient cultures, such as the Sumerians, and some tribes in North America.

That is the reason why I think this natural tendency to the "fantastic" explanations, are just there some times to generate some sort of popular curiosity. However these things you said ("You'll be amazed at the things we DO know that the public just has absolutely no clue about") left me intrigued.

As you might have seen, I've been arguing for a more historical Atlantis, being in the Alti-Plano in South America, rather than some mythical empire with death rays, etc.

I also studies anthroplogy. Archaeology is next on my list.

As much as I want to believe in the mystical past, there just isn't anything plausible to believe in. We solved( for the most part) the language tree. Scholars are pretty much a consensus on the 'cradle of civilization'. I, personally, am more interested in language developement and cultural similarities.

But one thing for me just doesn't jive, and I hope a more versed member can help out.

Why the different racial features? I know them theory: Africa=hot=darker skin.
Europe=cold=lighter skin.

But what about Asians? Smaller and slantier eyes. What would cause this?

Africans: Thicker noses and lips, longer limbs and more muscle tone, kinkier hair.

Europeans: Tall, thin noses and lips, hairier bodies.

Native Americans: small, thin, darker skin, Asian similarities

I know the basics of evolution. But how would it be possible for such a difference in appearance, over such a short period of time(10's of thousands of years)?

And wouldn't people still be evolving? I know that we have grown taller over the past 1000 years or so( due to better nutrition). But basic facial and outside appearances haven't changed.

Also: would a black person living in Europe or America, after having generations of children, would those generations have any difference in racial appearance than an African? We can change the scenario, and have generations of Europeans in Africa. Would they also change appearance?

peace

There are civilizations that we are finding still today in deep forests and jungles. It is too much to fathom, but i believe 100's of thousands of years ago we were more than likely put here. I do not buy into the we evolved from an ameoba mentallity.

There are tribes of people that through evolution changed the appearance and the adapted to where they lived. I see 4 main groups of people...

1. Indians-Europeons and Americans, light skinned
2. Africans-Dark skinned
3. Far Eastern- Samller, different skin and eyes
4. Middle Eastern- the combination of all 3 it would seem, so was this the source or the outcome.

We have breed ourseleves aound the world to be different and genetics should not cross race I feel somtimes, I am NOT A racist. I just feel that when something is OK fora long time, why change it. We could just be mutts from past genetic experiments.

Live in a desert for a couple of years....you'll notice your eyelashes will start to grow longer...

Hows that for some quick adaptation...???

Oddly enough, seems like it takes longer to deprogram it...(my eyelashes still get long, but not like they used to)...

Look at the breeds of cats and dogs, respective to their climes....

Originally posted by nathraq

Why the different racial features?

Well, without getting into a discussion about whether races exist or not, one can definitely say that different populations under different environmental and social conditions are going to tend to look different from one another given time. There are a plethora os reasons for the various features. skin with only a little melanin is better at absorbing UV radiation in cloudy conditions, eyes with the epicanthic fold are thought to be better protected from sand/snow blasts and possible cold termperatures. The straighness of curliness/kinkiness of hair is a function of the amount of suflr compounds naturally in the hair, I can't imagine what particular benefit might be offered by any particular concentration. Different limb to body proportions are adaptations to different overall temperatures, with thin long limbs radiating excess heat well and shorter stockier builds retaining heat better. There are lots of different little reasons, certainly not all of them have been thoroughly studied.

over such a short period of time(10's of thousands of years)?

I think you'd have to allow a longer period of time than that. this site details the species and times involved. It has homo sapiens as first appearing 500,000 years ago. homo erectus starts showing up around 1.8 million years ago. It also states that the oldest confirmed homonids in europe are homo antecessor which was there around 780,000 years ago. Depending on what scenario you favour for the evolution of modern humans, you can easily have over a million years for 'racial' differences to form.

And wouldn't people still be evolving?

Humans are still evolving, genetic studies confirm this. Evolution is merely the change in allele frequencies over time. When there is a strong selection pressure, then these changes are more 'dramatic' and noticable to most people.

I know that we have grown taller over the past 1000 years or so( due to better nutrition).
Actually I've heard it posited that before the prehistoric agricultural revolution, humans were on average taller than today. Basically switching over a diet of less nutrious grains and more dependency on them resulted in a general malnourishment, so extreme that even today the average height hasn't recovered from it.

But basic facial and outside appearances haven't changed.

Well, why should they? AS you can see, they needn't have changed very quickly in the past either.

We can change the scenario,

Any such scenario would be less dependant on what we think would happen and more dependent on the selection pressures. In the distant past living in a cloudy environment like ancient europe and having slightly lighter skin might've been a big benefit, but would it now? Its easier to get vitamin d from vitamin pills, rather than walking around half naked exposed to the sun.

esdad
We have breed ourseleves aound the world to be different and genetics should not cross race I feel somtimes, I am NOT A racist.

Thinking that race mixing will lead to problems or degeneration of the stock is practically a definiton of racsim. There is no evidence that humans were the result of experiments or only dropped off here '100s' of thousands of years ago.

Byrd I would be interested n hearing your thoughts on pre columbian contact between europe and the Americas, specifically the traces of coc aine found in egyptian muumies and the like. What is the current consensus opinion of the liklyhood of pre-columbian contact and trade between europe and the Americas?

Because theres blank spots in our relativley brief exsistance on planet earth that we cant at present fill,i think people without the basis of research are quick to fill the gap with ideas of magic and alien involvement.
Im not saying that hasnt happened but i think theres more truth in going over what we do know and looking at it from outside "the box" im sure theres links were missing that are there to be discovered?
Quick example would be the reconstruction of dinosaur remains that have been changed years later in museums because they realised theyd put them together slightly wrong or used parts from 2 different skeletons find at the same location.
I think the secret is to accept that we could be wrong with what we think sometimes and always allow for error and constant re-evaluation through research?

A good example of this here on ATS is the member "Nygdan" his style when replying to threads is to question the original posters research-its a good way to be because it makes you re-evaluate what youve posted and make sure your ironing out little faulseitys you may have posted by accident.It stops everyone from jumping on the "yeah-i heard that" band wagon,and i think thats what has happened with the gaps in our history-too many people are too quick to accept the facts without proper conclusive research!

Thanks for the info Nygdan.

As I went on my castle tours in Germany, I noticed the stairs were smaller, and closer together. The archways were also shorter, to the point where I had to duck to get through them (Castle Dahnfels, Dahn, Germany; Castle Fleckenstein, Lemberg, France; Castle Trifels, Annweiler, Germany; and some ruins in Busenberg, Germany). According to Tacitus, in his writings about Germania, he stated the 'barbarians were tall(compared to the shorter Romans), stalwart and strong. What happened during the Dark and Middle Ages though? The Germans/Gauls were definitely shorter.

Thanks again Nygdar.

Originally posted by optimus fett
A good example of this here on ATS is the member "Nygdan" his style when replying to threads is to question the original posters research-its a good way to be because it makes you re-evaluate what youve posted

What evidence do you have to suggest that this poster even exists, yet alone posts in such a ridiculous manner? [/sarcasm]

nathraq
What happened during the Dark and Middle Ages though?

I don't specifically know if there was a food supply problem at that time. On the one hand the collapse of Roman society must've had disasterous affects, but one would think that they could've recovered after a shorter period of time. On the other hand, the germans at least would've been moving from rather barbaric circumstances to slightly more 'civilized' (loosely speaking anyway) so one would think that that would mean better control of the food supply and what not. Perhaps there was just too much conflict going on to commonly to allow people to properly meet their basic needs too. So I can't offer much of an answer on that.

What evidence do you have to suggest that this poster even exists, yet alone posts in such a ridiculous manner? [/sarcasm

You do make me laugh

Originally posted by Jazzerman
I really have never understood why ancient civilizations have to be "mystical" in anyway, or have some technology that was "lost". If you take the mystical part out of history its still very facinating, but if there is not a "deep underlying secret" so to say, most people could care less. People are intrigued by mystery, and as soon as the mystery is taken out they lose interest.

One word: MEDIA.
India Jones Stuff
Da Vinci Code
Author
etc..
The list is much bigger, but too lazy to go into them.

Not only the Westerners are doing this, other cultures are doing it too. (I know specifically that the Indians are doing, because I am one of them.)

Take for example Mahabharatha and Ramayana. Everyone loves it because it has all the characteristics of an idealistic hero and stuff.

As far as the truth behind the legend, it is probably a over exaggeration. Still people believe that our ancients are better than us and we should try and become like them.

To answer you question in detail, it is because we know so little of them and the things we know of them is so different than our culture, we assume that they are much superior than us.

Basically we fill in those blank spaces with our imaginations.

What are the chances that those ancients had a nuclear bomb and aircrafts? Don't even bother answering, it is 0.