Ancient and ArchaeologyÌý permalink
What causes a civization to evolve
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Monday, 24th August 2009
Your views please
-
Message 2
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
The academic consensus is as follows..?
Civilization first developed in the fertile crescent of the middle east..
This development began after 4000 BC and culminated in the emergence of the earliest true civilization {Sumer & Egypt} around 3000 BC, soon followed by the Indus Valley and China.
About 1500 years later, civilization took of spontaneously and independently in the Americas.
Since 3000 bc in the old world {and about 1500 bc in the new}civilization has steadily "evolved" in the direction of ever more refined, complex and productive forms.
In consequence, and particularly by comparison with ourselves, all ancient civilizations {and all thier works} are to be understood as essentially primitive {the Sumerian astronomers regarded the heavens with unscientific awe, and even the pyramids of Egypt were built by "technological primitives"
How many of you out there actually think that this makes sense..?
And how many of you just wants to cry...?
Z -
Message 3
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
The academic consensus is as follows..?
Civilization first developed in the fertile crescent of the middle east..
This development began after 4000 BC and culminated in the emergence of the earliest true civilization {Sumer & Egypt} around 3000 BC, soon followed by the Indus Valley and China.
About 1500 years later, civilization took of spontaneously and independently in the Americas.
Since 3000 bc in the old world {and about 1500 bc in the new}civilization has steadily "evolved" in the direction of ever more refined, complex and productive forms.
In consequence, and particularly by comparison with ourselves, all ancient civilizations {and all thier works} are to be understood as essentially primitive {the Sumerian astronomers regarded the heavens with unscientific awe, and even the pyramids of Egypt were built by "technological primitives"
How many of you out there actually think that this makes sense..?
Ìý
Well as the evidence suggests something like that, I am for one
And how many of you just wants to cry...?
Ìý
Only those who don't like evidence not backing up their own personal preconceived ideas that are fallacious or obtuse -
Message 4
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
Ok, my last post was a bit OTT.
But, why would the orthodox view based on a sound rigorous empirical methodology make one cry? -
Message 5
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
Give me a chance Stoggler old boy, i will produce evidence..
Rome was not, as they say, built in a day.
And your comments aren't over the top, coming from where you are coming from.Though they do, to me , seem a "tad" confined...
Thanks for your post
So please give me a chance as I'm answering quite a few posts here and if you want me to take YOU seriously how about you producing a creditable answer to some of the points i have already made...
Those maps would be a good start on my other post. Otherwise i shall just ignore your views and continue with my posts..
Credibility goes two ways.
best wishes
Z -
Message 6
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 7
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
Z,
I too broadly follow the concensus. I don't know how much you've researched the primary evidence yourslef, but many websites suffer from simply not being aware of what archaeology is, literally, unearthing.
The independent development hypothesis is backed by finding ALL the stages of human development in ALL the areas where civilization developed. Most alternative theories I've seen on the internet claim that "X civilization suddenly emerged without any signs of development" and are usually just plain wrong. For instance, you mentioned Egyptian Hieroglyphs on the other thread. Well, such was conventional wisdom until 1998 when a German team discovered a large collection of clay engraved proto-hieroglyphs in a tomb of the Naquada IIIA culture.
Added to which Egypt had proven cultural interaction with Mesopotamia where there is plenty of evidence of writing developing from basic propriety marks to basic marks for items and thence to writing.
Meso-America again shows all the stages of independent development. If it came from the same source as Egypt, then in 2000BC, why doesn't Mexico show the same level of development as Egypt in 2000BC? The Olmec culture for instance shows ceremonial platforms and proto-pyraminds which developed into the stepped pyramids of the Teotichuano culture. interestingly the really early Mexican pyramids were round showing them to develop as artificial hills, compared to the very eary Egyptian styles which developed from square mastabas. -
Message 8
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
Thats it for me CJ.
This discussion is ended. Either you want an adult discussion or you want to pull the plug as and when you panic..
So i will apologize to others involved in this discussion but I'm not going to get banned because of it..
Would of been interesting though had you allowed this to run..
There was no swearing and no rudeness.. Just a disagreement with convention..{what is wrong with that.
Time will, I'm sure, answer these questions themselves, so until then i suppose that there is nothing that can stop you Geniuses from blowing up this beautiful planet my children have to live on..
Kind regards
Z -
Message 9
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
This discussion is ended. Either you want an adult discussion or you want to pull the plug as and when you panic.Ìý
I do want an adult discussion which is why I've spent so much time commenting on the points you put forward. I can assure you that I most certainly didn't pull the plug". -
Message 10
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
Hi Z,
Spare a thought for us old stagers when you change your posting name; at my age I have trouble remembering what I had for breakfast, let alone the artist formerly known as Zerafim (or Doc).
I generally share the views that the previous posters have given about the evolution of civilisations but I thought it might be interesting to consider the history of 'diffusionism' which, I guess, is where you would like to direct this thread. Frederick Ratzel (1844-1901) argued that even simple inventions would only have happened once but in our relatively small world new knowledge could ‘diffuse’ from place to place. Diffusion was perceived as creating common cultural areas in regions adjacent to a 'seeding' culture.
Grafton Elliot Smith (one of the Piltdown men) extended this idea. In his ‘heliocentric theory’ he postulated that all inventions had their birth in Egypt. Priests of Ra were possessed of esoteric knowledge which they distributed to others. In such a way were pyramids extended to the Maya, and to the builders of Angkor Wat. This extreme form of innovative conservatism was described as 'hyperdiffusionism' which term seems to have been coined by the Cambridge archaeologist Glyn Daniel with derogatory intent. V Gordon Childe, a very great though mistaken archaeological theorist, extended these views to encompass all Europe.
The Scandinavian explorer Thor Heyerdahl was a convinced follower of Ratzel. Admirable those his exciting explorations were there was unfortunately a catch. In proving that Egyptians could have crossed the Atlantic in a papyrus boat, or that South Americans could have crossed the Pacific in a balsa boat, he didn’t prove that they did actually make these journeys. It is really important to distinguish between the possible and the actual.
I'm surprised to learn in the Atlantis thread that you haven't come across Graham Hancock. He is a modern TV programme maker whose chief areas of interest are ancient mysteries, stone monuments, megaliths, ancient myths and astronomical/astrological data from the past. One of the main themes running through his books is the possible global connection with an Antarctic 'mother culture' from which he believes all ancient historical civilizations sprang. His methods and conclusions have found (let me be generous) little support among archaeological academics but you can see why I thought you might approve of his ideas.
I don't have any problems with ideas and concepts moving around the ancient world. We know that Rome, for instance, was profoundly influenced by classical Greece. The difficulty comes if we dispute the idea that societies can make any intrinsic developments at all. Follow this to its logical conclusion and we end with cultural imperialism: 'the black Africans couldn't have built the ruins at Zimbabwe because they weren't civilised'. I'm sure that you find that view as repugnant as I do.
Best wishes,
T -
Message 11
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
This discussion is ended. Either you want an adult discussion or you want to pull the plug as and when you panic..
Ìý
Steady on old bean, but cloudy's posts have been measured and factual with reasoned argument. I can't see anything childishness at all in his response
Yours
Bemused and Confused from London -
Message 12
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
TP
"A Rose By Any Other Name Would Smell Just As Sweet"
Z
-
Message 13
Posted by on your toes (U11274411) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
No-one has mentioned the Chinese, who made most of their discoveries, eg, bronze smelting, independantly of Egypt and the Near East.
-
Message 14
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
Hi oyt,
Strictly speaking 'smelting' is the separation of a metal element from its ores by heat. So you can smelt copper and tin, which you then 'alloy' to make bronze.
Your point about the Chinese is well considered though; for that matter they seem to have invented the blast furnace and cast iron independently of, and earlier than, anyone in Europe.
TP -
Message 15
Posted by -frederik- (U13721647) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
<>
Competition? -
Message 16
Posted by on your toes (U11274411) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
According to the Chinese they invented almost everything including Pasta!
It makes me wonder why they invented such a copmplex form of writing. -
Message 17
Posted by Frank Parker (U7843825) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
How many of you out there actually think that this makes sense..?
And how many of you just wants to cry...?Ìý
In what way does it not make sense?
Why would it make anyone want to cry?
Surely you are not advancing creationism? That would hardly be consistent with your belief in an Antarctic Atlantis as expressed on another thread. -
Message 18
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Wednesday, 26th August 2009
Plotinlaois
What i am advancing, as you put it is that there is something just not right with the present day interpretations of creation.
Creation, intelligent design, extraterrestrial visitation, call it what you want, something just is not right.
But as was so sensibly pointed out to me by the honorable "clouldyj" i am going to have to submit some thing that you, on this board understand so here's a "geological eyes view". Maybe i might even get my "monarch" back..
So here we go...
Any one object to me using the observations and conclusions of Robert Schoch...? In particular his investigations into the Sphinx..?
6 -
Message 19
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Wednesday, 26th August 2009
<quote.So here we go...
Any one object to me using the observations and conclusions of Robert Schoch...? In particular his investigations into the Sphinx..?
</quote>
Which is? I'm not familiar with him. Any chance you could actually explain what you want to say, instead of constantly leaving little teasers on what may follow; what are his theories and what's the reasoning behind it? That would help us. It's frustrating having something hinted at and then nothing more being said. -
Message 20
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Wednesday, 26th August 2009
Maybe i might even get my "monarch" back..Ìý
What's your "monarch"? -
Message 21
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 26th August 2009
Hi Z,
I have followed the career of Robert Schoch with great interest. Most posters will be familiar with his observations at the Great Sphinx on which he detected the signs of water erosion. On this basis he dated the original form of the monument to a much earlier date than that favoured by Egyptologists. Reasonably enough, he felt that water erosion required rain and there had been no significant rainfall in Egypt since 5000 BC at least.
Robert Schoch is a geologist by training so he should know what he talking about, although I have heard other geologists dispute the validity of his findings. I guess that the jury is still out. Dating carved rock surfaces, and the like, is always difficult. Britain's famous chalk hill figures, for example, have been dated at most periods between the Iron Age and the post-Medieval.
The important thing (IMO) is that if the Sphinx was proved to have been constructed in, say, 6000BC it would require a reconsideration of the events in pre-dynastic Egypt but it wouldn't be fatal to our global understanding of Old World archaeology. Neolithic settlements dating back to about 8000BC have been found in the Middle East. It does not pose a difficulty to archaeologists of the same order of magnitude that Earth Crust Displacements would give to geologists.
Where I would differ from Prof Schoch, in as much as I understand his recent work, is his extrapolation from the sphinx observations to what one might call the 'early global civilisation theory'. This seems to be placing more weight on the evidence than it can really bear. He is also a great deal more involved with parapsychology than I personally feel comfortable with.
I suppose that where you and I really differ is that when I look at biological evolution or human cultural development things do actually look 'right'. I won't pretend that modern scholars understand everything, far from it, but I don't see the need for intelligent design or extra-terrestrial visitation to explain current findings. When you don't see the need for such things then the evidence advanced to support them starts to look rather flimsy, and often appears in websites and popular books, not in peer reviewed academic journals.
Somehow I doubt I've convinced you!
Kind regards,
TP -
Message 22
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 26th August 2009
Any one object to me using the observations and conclusions of Robert Schoch...? In particular his investigations into the Sphinx..?
Ìý
No-one's going to object to you quoting Schoch. He is a trained geologist and deserves to have his observations on rock weathering considered seriously.
But serious consideration does not mean automatic acceptance. Other geologists have theories of how the Sphinx weathering patterns could be formed without rain.
If the Sphinx did turn out to be of earlier construction, then it poses questions mainly because we have found ancient settlements stretching back that far and we'd have to try and work out how they built such statues. -
Message 23
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Wednesday, 26th August 2009
Ok cloudy here we go...
I will come to Schochs address to the AAAS in a moment.
First. Let me give an outline to my post.
There are loads of anomalies in Egypt. The one that i will refer to is the forth dynasty pyramids, in particular, Zoser's step pyramid at Saqqara.{third dynasty} was built with relatively small manageable blocks and its internal chambers were structurally sound..{agreed.?}
Pyramids of the 5th and 6th dynasties {the scribblers} were not built so well and collapsed so completely that today they are little more than mounds of rubble.{agreed.?}
The forth dynasty pyramids are still standing and have endured the passage of many millennium of time..{are these three points consistent with your own information.?
6 -
Message 24
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Wednesday, 26th August 2009
Ok cloudy here we go...
I will come to Schochs address to the AAAS in a moment.
First. Let me give an outline to my post.
There are loads of anomalies in Egypt. The one that i will refer to is the forth dynasty pyramids, in particular, Zoser's step pyramid at Saqqara.{third dynasty} was built with relatively small manageable blocks and its internal chambers were structurally sound..{agreed.?}
Pyramids of the 5th and 6th dynasties {the scribblers} were not built so well and collapsed so completely that today they are little more than mounds of rubble.{agreed.?}
The forth dynasty pyramids are still standing and have endured the passage of many millennium of time..{are these three points consistent with your own information.?
6 {not sure if i posted this right so ignore this post if i did} -
Message 25
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Wednesday, 26th August 2009
A lot of recent 'inventions' such as Electric Light, Radio, TV, etc, seem to be credited to one person, but in fact others were very close to them, or lots of people were working on them at a similar stage of development, often independently.
If smart people put their minds to solving a problem, similar solutions often result, quite independently. Why shouldn't 'civilizations' develop independently, in different areas?
Some may have heard traveller's tales from other lands, and added their own ideas to come up with their own versions, or maybe just solved a similar problem in a similar way?
Does everything need a conspiracy theory? -
Message 26
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 26th August 2009
There are loads of anomalies in Egypt. The one that i will refer to is the forth dynasty pyramids, in particular, Zoser's step pyramid at Saqqara.{third dynasty} was built with relatively small manageable blocks and its internal chambers were structurally sound..{agreed.?}Ìý
Agreed, though the Layer Pyramid (probably 3rd dynasty) isn't in such great shape.
The forth dynasty pyramids are still standing and have endured the passage of many millennium of time..Ìý
Mostly. These are huge pyramids and very impressive. Giza was a prime site for pyramids and probably provides a better foundation than the bedrock at other sites.
Pyramids of the 5th and 6th dynasties {the scribblers} were not built so well and collapsed so completely that today they are little more than mounds of rubble.Ìý
I'm not sure I do agree with this. The interiors of many of these pyramids are still well preserved despite being robbed. The outsides aren't always up to much, but then neither are some post-Zoser 3rd dynasty tombs, nor is Djedefre's 4th dynasty tomb.
Mining into the pyramids to rob them was a problem for the ancient egyptians (especially the more remote pyramids) and stealing the facing stone was also common.
Attempts to increase the angle of the pyramids usually result in a worse looking surface.
There's a nice collecton of pictures here:
Building smaller pyramids isn't necessarily a function of inability, but more likely a combination of cost and a shift in emphasis from the pyramid itself to the attached temples (which become more elaborate). -
Message 27
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 26th August 2009
6,
Can I put a question back to you? If you believe in diffusion of civilization from a single source (Atlantis now under the south pole), how come civilization in Mexico in 2000BC was at a wholly different level of advancement to Egyptian civilization in 2000BC?
Forgive me if I've guessed wrongly at your position, but most of your points aren't new to me and usually move towards Atlanteans teaching everyone else everything. If that's not your position, sorry for the assumption. -
Message 28
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Wednesday, 26th August 2009
CJ
Thanks for that good sir.
Mexico is a good point mate. And i do have some strong views on that.{Quetzalcoatl}
THE PIRI REIS MAP does have more points to make, as i hope you are aware and gives us a clue to your question {even if it is , in my opinion, a conventional view and even tough i disagree with your assumption}
But for sanity's sake can we first deal with Egypt.? I seem to get my posts "unplugged" when i diverse, I will not fudge you and will give you a run for your money on that one..
The discrepancy.
A scenario that reads...Building rubbish pyramids that are structurally sound...Suddenly building absolutely unbelievable pyramids that are structurally the most incredible things ever conceived of, and then immediately afterwards going back to structurally unsound pyramids.
This makes sense to you.?
{ west, in his book "serpent in the sky"} puts it this way..
""The parallel scenario in say , the car industry would be inventing and building the Model T , then suddenly inventing and building the 2008 porch and making a few of those, then forgetting how to do that and going back to building Model T fords again"
Does this then suggest to you that the forth dynasty pyramids maybe wernt built by the forth dynasty at all, or is there another logical explanation offered..?
6
+ -
Message 29
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 26th August 2009
The discrepancy.
A scenario that reads...Building rubbish pyramids that are structurally sound...Suddenly building absolutely unbelievable pyramids that are structurally the most incredible things ever conceived of, and then immediately afterwards going back to structurally unsound pyramids.
This makes sense to you.?
Ìý
I'm not confident that the 5th dynasty pyramids really are structurally unsound. I also have a memory of seeing pictures from the time of Napoleon's expedition where the Giza pyramids were covered in rubble like many of the others.
An alternate analogy might be building a 727 style aeroplane, inventing Concord, then reverting to slower 747 style aeroplanes. -
Message 30
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Wednesday, 26th August 2009
OK CJ
May i approach this another way...
Was the Sphinx built by khafre. -
Message 31
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Wednesday, 26th August 2009
TP
Thank you kind sir
I do understand your position, and pay it due respect.
When one sees the development of a fetus in the womb it is easy to go with your opinion..Maybe 3.5 billion years ago our planet was "Bombarded" with "material" and everything grew from there.{though I'm not convinced}
It would give an handle though on "epigenetics", from an "inner" perspective..
Have you an opinion on the above mentioned perspective.? {epigenetics}
Madonnas {Her and her t waves.} tells me that this "inner" perspective could be responsible for this "hyperdiffusionism"
But i know shes just pulling my leg....
CHEERS.
6
{Am going to stick with this number until the Â鶹ԼÅÄ gives me back my name..{Buggers.!} -
Message 32
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 26th August 2009
Hi Z,
Amazing; you slipped the 'B word' through the Â鶹ԼÅÄ's profanity checker. You must have powerful friends!
I know two meanings of 'epigenetics' but I'm not sure that either fits your point. One is the capacity of gene expression in the nucleus to be affected by non-genetic factors, like hormones for example. The other is the way in which the appearance of an organism, the phenotype, is affected by non-genetic factors. Do you have a third meaning?
I'm totally baffled by 't wave'. In medicine the T wave is, or course, the final displacement in an ECG complex and represents repolarisation of the ventricles. But you just can't mean those....
Can you be a little more precise please?
TP -
Message 33
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Wednesday, 26th August 2009
TP;
As always; Thank you for your post.
Just rang Maddonas. She said for me to tell you to put thetahealingcanada.com into your search engine and this will answer both your questions...
You too have friends in high places.
6
May i ask why do you call yourself twin peaks.? -
Message 34
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 26th August 2009
Re: Message 33
It is twin probe and not twinpeaks -
Message 35
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 27th August 2009
Hi Z,
Thanks for the hint. I checked the website and am now acquainted with theta-healing. I'm afraid that as an ex-health care professional I am famously hostile to alternative healing; sorry. It's a great shame that we are not likely to agree on this or geology. I'm also a great fan of Victorian bricks; there is not much controversial about these!
'Twinprobe' is easy. Do you know those geophysicists who appear in 'Time Team' measuring soil resistance? Well the 'twinprobe' is one way of wiring up the kit. I like it because it reminds me that there are twin ways of probing the past; documentary and the archaeology on the ground.
Historians are prone to forget on-site studies and, with respect, I fear you are an example. You concentrate on the validity of a map when, I would submit, excellent data from Antarctic demonstrates that the 'ice free coast hypothesis' just cannot be correct. Sorry to be such a wet blanket.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 36
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Friday, 28th August 2009
Sort of getting back to the question, the changes in a community's growth are strongly evident in the Indus valley cities of 1800BC.
Excavation through 40 feet of debris around wells that now stand like tall chimneys reveals the several changes in the standard of their brickwork. Many feet of crude stuff then a few feet of well laid and better quality brickwork that gradually fades to crude again.
That moment of progress was about 180 years of fine development. The cities were well laid out wit drainage systems, huge granaries, wharves and at one place a great bath like a large swimming pool with a sloping floor, presumably for religious rites.
When that great surge forward weakened - and many reasons have been given for that, the rot set in. However, what is interesting is what gave it a kick start in the first place. One can assume a time of peace, perhaps - few weapons have beeen recovered - and there is a strong sense of discipline about the layout. We can only admire and surmise what once it must have been like on the broad streets of artisans shops workstands, dying, working metal and making pottery. A strong authority is implicated somehow in all of this, I think.
THeir trade consignment shipped down the Indus went as far as Bahrain, each sealed with the owner's trademark.
From between 2200 and I800Bc that was.Let's not just get stuck again in the sands of Egypt, please.
Regards, P. -
Message 37
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 28th August 2009
Hi priscilla,
Brickwork, that's more like it. Are we talking fired or sun-dried? Do you know anything about Harappan mortar?
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 38
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Saturday, 29th August 2009
TP - gulp - here goes. Ancient brickd.
The Harrapan site bricks were of both kinds through out the many citiy sites - over 150, the sun dried mud brick being larger than the red brick - but both in the 1:2:4 ratio - a standard that appeared to last throughout 2-3 thousand years.
Mud brick was used for the defensive walls though often overlaid with red brick. The houses too have both kinds - or thick walls of red brick alone - especially the 3 storied ones.
However, the redbrick used for wells and the circular work floors (doubt about their real use) were of shaped tapering brick. In some well walls there are layers of vertical straight bricks - for strength, I assume.
There was mortar used in the great baths of gypsum and bitumen layers beneath the tightly wdged brick flooring and the bath sides which also had a gypsum overlay.
As for the rest, that's difficult. No mention of mortar otherwise is noted in reports, yet I've seen it.
Perhaps that was mud - or, and I jest not, honest, it was used by Sir Mortimar Wheeler when he had so much rebuilt. The jest is that he built the most extensive ruins in the world.
Further to that UNESCO was busy boots for a while inserting miles of waterproofing because of the water table rising. An outer ring canal was built by them many years ago several miles long. I think it its pumps are broken now and to be honest. the citadel site at Mohenjo Daro is in a bad way. Years of flooding and mismanagement as well as allowing hordes of visits - mainly on a day out jollies to clamber about all over it presents a sad picture so I am told. It is several years now since I chartered flights to take foreigners there.
Having said that the best part of that site is harder to find through the scrub and few ever do. That is where the houses, streets and wells are.
The bricks must have been very neatly fixed to allow, for instance, interior ducts to drain internal latrines even from the 3rd storey down to the covered street drains. One assumes that it was the lot of some unfortunates to keep all of this clean -as well as the street waste bins every so often. Remarkable standards when pitched along the time line at about 2000 BC.
Sadly, somewhat like the ruins of Rome. the sies have been brick quarries for hundreds of years. However there are millions left if bricks are your thing.
That should be enough on that I think. Hope it was of interest.
Regards, P -
Message 39
Posted by Frank Parker (U7843825) on Saturday, 29th August 2009
allowing hordes of visits - mainly on a day out jollies to clamber about all over it presents a sad picture so I am told. It is several years now since I chartered flights to take foreigners there.Ìý
So you blame yourself P
-
Message 40
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 29th August 2009
Hi Priscilla,
"....if bricks are your thing." Ìý
They are! Thank you for such a scholarly survey.
Kind regards,
TP -
Message 41
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 29th August 2009
The bricks must have been very neatly fixed to allow, for instance, interior ducts to drain internal latrines even from the 3rd storey down to the covered street drains.
Ìý
Civilisation could, in one sense, be seen as a history of sewage, drainage, irrigation and disposal. Much of the technology used to create those angled pyramidal shafts which get the crackpots all excited and grinding up a gear or three was honed, as archaeology demonstrates, in the more prosaic surroundings of the structure's builders' own communities, taxed as they were with the perenniel problem of what to do with their waste, how to keep water on tap, and how to employ drainage to retard erosion, all using the two most common building materials to hand - dried mud and stone.
Mesopotamia and Egypt (and a few other relatively arid cradles of civilisation, such as Zimbabwe) found themselves prioritising durability through necessity to a degree that their more sylvanian contemporaries in the rest of Europe, for example, did not need even to contemplate. And it shows.
What is amazing (and a great affirmation of human problem-solving and innovative capability) is how each of these cultures - with little or no overlap - solved these problems relatively early in the evolution of their building process, and the result was that technology which bore excrement from a humble abode one day was, the next day, facilitating a pharaoh's soul's projectory to Sirius the Dog Star, or whatever the latest theory is regarding dead pharaohs and stellar targets. The application of the technology, in other words, might have been impressively diverse, but its origin in irrigation and sewage and the beautiful simplicity of the principles involved, once discovered, are both undeniable, and both most demonstrably the result of human invention tackling all too human and practical problems.
I often feel the crackpots, in their headlong rush for the "wow" factor, stampede past the very realisation which provides the biggest "wow" factor of all - namely that human adaptability and manipulation of the environment has always been impressive, so impressive that it appears "modern" at times (as if invention is a prerogative of recent generations), and therefore almost supernatural - hence the equally stupid headlong rush to invent supernatural reasons for our ancestor's ingenuity (healing, sending dead pharaohs to heaven, predicting the end of the world, sharpening razor blades etc).
Supranatural it may in a sense be, this quality of ours to "improve" on what nature provides, but supernatural it most definitely ain't! -
Message 42
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Sunday, 30th August 2009
I am inclined to add another point: As impressive as the pyramids are, and allowing for all the skills and impressive care that were employed in their construction, in the end a pyramid is just a somewhat refined pile of stones: The default way to create a large building. This provides the monument with both scale and durability, but nevertheless a pyramid is the typical product of an early culture with a relatively modest understanding of architecture. The religious architecture of further developed civilisations produces monumental buildings with a greater focus on inner space: Halls supported by columns, galleries, arches and domes.
Judging from the one case we can study, the great European expansion that began in the 14th century, the level of technological development required to achieve an intercontinental diffusion of culture is far beyond that possessed by a pyramid-building society. The contrast became obvious when the Spanish entered central and south America. -
Message 43
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Monday, 31st August 2009
N&M.
Surely one can-not talk about such "evolutions" and developments without giving a clear indication of ones views with regards the Astrological and mathematical "implications" revealed, in relation to above mentioned evolutions and creations.
Just wont wash old boys..
These "piles of stone" are more then just "default" buildings, and everyone understands this..
Why must these factors, found in these "evolutionary piles of stone," be keep hidden by such square minded beings whose crackpot illusions belong in another time and era..
This planet is waking up and its inhabitants deserve to understand why these crackpot people are still behaving like they can assassinate a president and get away with it..
History tells the greatest story of all about ourselves and our stay here , yet this story is corrupted to tell someone else's story {the real crackpots.}People who tell us that these ancient secrets, hidden in these structures, are just piles of stone.! -
Message 44
Posted by Frank Parker (U7843825) on Monday, 31st August 2009
Why do you suppose these "ancient secrets" have been hidden for so long? Why are they only now being revealed? And why only to a select few?
-
Message 45
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Monday, 31st August 2009
So what is civilisation?
My Indus valley people had huge well ordered cities. Their religion - Vedic it is supposed had a great respect for health and hygene - all those baths, wells toilets and drains, for instance.
They apparently housed thousands of people very well. They did not have a religion that favoured advanced five star bookings in the afterlife for a few. It was cremation, no tombs and and excess bagagge it was ashes to ashes, that's it, dust and dusted.
We have no way of knowing if they supported reincarnation.
Their engineering skills however were considerable and benefitted thousands.
Now take the Eygptian Kingdoms over a broad span of time. Much wealth and attention was concentrated on the very few leaders and little on the rest - or at least from the evidence. Masses of gold and piles of stone lego to house future needs was concentrated on the few.
Aligning with the stars - no great shakes there - many civilisations coulddo it. The night sky was the only programme to watch for thousands of years - and some one made programmes, that's all.
Regards, P. -
Message 46
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 31st August 2009
Fimbar, your wild and sweeping assertions could mean just about anything, but I'll afford you the benefit of the doubt and assume that somewhere in the gibberish lay a reference to the Egyptian pyramids, since it was they which had previously been referred to as "default" structures.
All stone structures are "piles of stones", some more technically innovative and expert than others. Mathematics, unless a society is committed to "trial and error", will inevitably be employed in designing structures, and Egyptian architecural development actually shows evidence of both approaches. The employment of astrology in the design of these structures is a moot point - namely because (despite hysterically avowed assertions to the contrary) we have only a vague and sketchy idea of the superstitions in vogue at the various times of the pyramids' building and the extent to which the builders were prepared to utilise those superstitions in arriving at a design.
I am at a loss to know just what has been "kept hidden", as you aver. Egyptology suffers rather from the other extreme, where a plethora of information has allowed crackpots to pluck out those pieces which best suit their nefarious theories (and there are many of these). That this information has been withheld as you claim, and apparently by presidential assassins, seems just about loony enough an assertion to place your others in the context they deserve. That they are not based on archaeology goes without saying.
Which brings me back to my main point above; in your apparently insatiable pursuit of something to make you go "wow" you have rather sillily hopped over the very thing which, as a problem-solving adaptable human being yourself, should have arrested your headlong plunge into stupidity and provided you with the biggest "wow" of all. Your ancestors produced very clever people. As clever as most people who would be regarded in that light today and, on the evidence of your post, way cleverer than many currently on this earth.
No magic. No spacemen. No hidden codes prophesying the doom of anything. No sharpened razor blades. Just brainy people building things. -
Message 47
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Monday, 31st August 2009
Priscilla
Thank you for your post.The point about the Indus and Sanskrit is something that give weight to my point it does not weaken it.
Especially when it comes to dis-enfranchisement..
India has, as everyone on this board must agree , produced some of the most enlightened individuals that our "generations" have seen...Yet what has become of India.? What has become of her people.?
Just like every enlightened race they have been pillaged, raped, and looted.
Theirs is an old culture, very old , yet we are to believe that the only good thing she has to offer is her teabags..
India has an history and so do most other ancient civilizations , yet all we get from the governments of our "Ruling Elite" is the propaganda that all life began in Egypt.! What a load of Bull..
The point i am making, with regards the maths and Astrology, is that, regardless of the individual/s buried in these pyramids, something else is going on..
I feel a responsibility to my Species to try to work this out. I am the last one to bang on about establishment Gods and stuff but i can see method to this story of maths and Astrology..I see fingerprints all around our planet leaving us all a message for the advancement of my Species. All i see when i look at the establishments gods is murder and mayhem. If we don't search for greater meaning to our lives then what are we.? We are not a slave race, we are far too clever for that, and we should try and recognise the will we have inside of us to do better things with our spirits.
Not hide the truth like some of the crackpots on this board..
This is my opinion Priscilla. These Ancient buildings are leaving a future for all Man and the only people, in my opinion , who find fault with this suggestion are the C.E.O S And shareholders of OUR planet who have it all to lose should thier dirty washing ever see the light of day..
Thanks again priscilla for your post.
Fimbar -
Message 48
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Monday, 31st August 2009
Hi ya Nordman
Better go sell your shares..
. Seeing as my "gibberish" confuses you there can not be any point in offering you a logical response..
But please continue posting my friend because between your and my post there is a truism just waiting to break free.
Honest respect.
fimber -
Message 49
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Monday, 31st August 2009
Plotinlaois.
That is the most sensible question i have heard all week.
There is Method to all things...Maybe it wont be long before the time where we are all gonna have to pay the piper.
That or a return to , what History shows us to be "extreme" and mass extermination..
Afraid the story i was told about the the Hopi Indians and thier beliefs kind of jumps out at me in relation to the questions you are asking..{but i am full of gibberish...apparently.}
Do you have your own view on this.?
For you to ask that question infers that this is exactly what is happening...Revelations {or so it could seem.?}
kind regards
fimbar -
Message 50
Posted by Frank Parker (U7843825) on Monday, 31st August 2009
Fimbar, You not only failed to answer my questions, you completely missed my point. I don't believe you can answer those questions. Because the gibberish (Nordman is so much better than me at choosing appropriate words!) you expound has no foundation. Incidentally, in your earlier post you deny that all civilisation started in Egypt. But I can't recall anyone here or anywhere else suggesting that it did. In one of the earliest posts on this thread it was pointed out that there were several parallel developments, in the far east as well as the middle east.
If you have unorthodox theories about how and/or where civilisation began it is up to you to back them up with evidence. The professional historians and archeologists whose carefully propounded theories, built up over many years of careful study that you dengrate are owed that at least. Instead all we have from you are hints and inuendos.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.