A new movie is apparently due out in 2008 called 10,000 BC, which might be a kind of interesting movie to see,
Mezhirich Ukraine (Diorama display at the American Museum of Natural History)
Photo Credit: <Wally Gobetz
except that apparently humans were into iron metallurgy and sophisticated stone masonry back then, which we actually weren't until several thousands of years later. Oh well. It's probably almost as good without Raquel Welch in a furry bikini.
Mezhirich Ukraine (Diorama display at the American Museum of Natural History)
Photo Credit: <Wally Gobetz
- 10,000 BC, the movie trailer
- 10,000 BC, the movie listing on IMDB
- One Million Years BC, the original (with Raquel Welch in a furry bikini), which you can now get on a DVD
- Mammoth Bone Dwellings, a more likely structure for anybody that long ago
Comments
Actually, that’s kind of a sweeping, out-dated generalization and I would be careful about making it. They’ve finally admitted that the Sphinx was standing during a time when Egypt regularly received a lot of rain. The only period in history that shows rainfall in the amounts that would cause the erosion found on the Sphinx was around 10,000BC. So if they could build the Sphinx, i would say they were pretty damn handy with the stone masonry. Now, I’m just an avid researcher, not a scientist, but, as a rationalist, I think it’s pretty clear that we know shockingly little about anything that happened before about 1900BC and we should really stop insisting otherwise. The fact is, you don’t know when “modern” humans first developed skills in metallurgy or masonry and you should probably stop pretending that you do. But I do have one question: if it’s really as rediculous as you make us feel like it is, perhaps you would be willing to share your theories on how exactly the Crystal Skulls, for example, came into being? or do we believe that they appeared miraculously like Civilization in Egypt and Nubia? or that they’re secretly plastic? I expected better from you. Shame on you.
No, no, not 12,000 years ago. The Sphinx was built in the 4th dynasty old kingdom, probably for the pharaoh Khafre [ca 2558-2532 BC). Those rainfall estimates are based on faulty logic, not historical and archaeological research.
And, I’m afraid that the crystal skulls you speak of have been proven to be modern fakes.
Sorry! I might have been a little flip (my sense of humor is a little warped), but… humans were not building stone monuments 12,000 years ago.
Kris
I just saw the trailer for this one during I Am Legend, which I saw with a fellow archaeology buddy of mine. He said that he wasn’t going to touch it. I just had to, though! When the trailer began, I thought that it was sort of interesting that they were making a movie about the Upper Paleolithic, where they were hunting wholly mammoths. Then, when they somehow ended up in a temple that looked very much like Middle Kingdom Egypt, with a plaza and pyramid that reminded me of photos of Teotihuacan, I just had to laugh. I think that I will probably go see it with my fellow anthro M.A. cohort, but we will have to rent the whole theatre, because I’m sure that we will be roaring with laughter! And if it is a hit, as it will probably be, I’m sure that I’ll start to get the barrages of “so, your an archaeologist, you dig dinosaurs. Did humans and dinosaurs live at the same time?” and other assorted horrible questions!
What I should really do is make a list of movies loved by archaeologists–and not for the reasons you’d expect. I went to the first Indiana Jones movie with a bunch of fellow archies, and we all shrieked “don’t lean on the transit!” at one memorable point.
I have to admit that I love the mummy movies myself.
I expect a movie like this to be filled with some inaccuracy, that’s the way hollywood works. They are theer to entertain us with stuff like Transformers and Jurrasic Park.
However that’s not to say everything in the movie is wrong. sophisticated metalwork no, but yes the human being has been active in skilled stone masonry for at least ten thousand years. As an archaeologists you could be aware of advances the human was making as far back as 8000 BC. There is plenty of evidence for anicent advances in Ggantija temple Malta, Newgrange ireland, domestication of animals in China, buildings at Jericho, Tell Abu Hureyra, stone work in the villages along the India Pakistan border, the forts at Coleraine, Jomon pottery, Sesklo settlement in Greece.
You have to realize this movie is for the masses who look for entertainment not historical correctness. This is from the director of “Independence Day”. In that movie, the attacking aliens technology was the same from 1950 (remember the alien ship we had recovered) to our modern day (alien ships unchanged). And then we hacked into their computer to save the day. Really.
10,000 BC Racist Historical Crap
Director Roland Emmerich should be ashamed of himself.
When will we get it right and stop putting this racist crap on the movie screens? Any historian will tell you that Egypt ( its part of Africa not the middle East) and the Tigris/Euphrates Valley has well-developed civilizations, even 12,000 years ago. And yes African or descendants of Ham first settled both of those societies. That’s why the original settlers in Mesopotamia were called the black-headed people.
We have used the image of white people in furs, i.e. cavemen and women, as the image of early man so much that its hard to contemplate that African and Asian people were never cave people and yet their lineage is much older than Caucasians.
We have an ongoing series about caveman where they boast of giving man the wheel and fire as they none of these things happened before whites appeared. Bull
Our information about the history of man was put together during the early part of this century when white anthropologist were convinced that Africa and African people were insignificant. Even in this picture there does not appear to be any Black people other than faces in the crowd.
The movie says that this was the first hero and implies that this was the beginning of man’s rise to civilization. Then it leads to pyramids and still no Black or brown faces.
Caucasians had nothing to do with pyramids and nor were their any proof of any Caucasian presence in the early history of anywhere pyramids can be found.
I don’t care about the Saber tooth tigers but I am tired of this racist twisting of history that refuses to acknowledge that Europe was actually the last continent to get civilization in 50 BC when Julius Caesar and the Romans invaded. Most of the Roman army was North Africans and blacker than I am because most of the original Roman territory was North Africa. Remember Hannibal a Black General of Carthage. The barbarians were originally the white tribes of Europe.
Every scientist will tell you that man was in Africa first and was Black. Yet we still use the old anthropology scales that show the rise of man from ape to Homo sapiens and the Homo sapiens is always a white man in furs. My kids are very confused when I show them the truth.
Why is all they can say? Why?
1st. Water doesn’t have DNA. Neither does dirt, magma, rock, electricity, static electricity, mud, ice, steam, nor any of the other natural elements that evolutionary scientists claim must have accidentally bumped into each other to spontaneously form life.
2nd. Without a complete DNA strand, from the very moment of spontaneous inception, there could have been NO subsequent reproduction of plants OR animals. The first would have been the last.
China houses the oldest written history of humans on the planet, but blacks and whites alike ignore it because of our own prejudices.
I think:
1. There were several “seats” of human development in existence at the same time. 2. That none of the lineages of mankind developed from apes or monkeys. All three species have been in existence at the same time and have lived side by side – throughout 10,000 years of known history – without intermixing, changing or evolving into a new or distinct species.
3. That all of mankind did not begin in the same place, but emerged simultaneously through intelligent design in Africa, the Middle East, China, and Central America.
4. Through which we became “breeds” or “varieties” of the same species of animal, homo sapien.
5. And that these 4 breeds or varieties of man are simply the only ones that have survived, and that we can find any written record of today. The fossil record cannot tell us what color the skin was that surrounded a human skeleton in prehistory.
Who is to say how many other breeds of ourselves we homo sapiens killed off because they were “different,” or we ate them, or we destroyed them through warfare in mankind’s prehistory?
Who is to say that there were not other “species” of men as well. Science today claims that there were at one time 3 species of men alive on the earth at the same time. They are homo erectus, homo gigantis and homo sapiens. We simply cannot know whether they are right or wrong about this, nor what happened that caused the other 2 species’ demise.
We do know from the written records we have found and interpreted, that we have always been warlike. We do know from written records that mankind has always been a hunting omnivore, with meat – all kinds of meat – a consistent part of our diet.
We also know that mankind’s written histories are first and foremost a record of our wars and of our continuous warfare against each other. There can be little doubt these wars were also happening in prehistory.
All too often we confuse species with breeds, the same as we sometimes confuse races with species, both of which are wrong. There wre many breeds of dogs, but only one species of k-9, whether the specific animal is a wolf or a basset hound. Lions and housecats are likewise of the same species although they are vastly different breeds of the same species.
The fossil record is terribly incomplete! Much imagination went into developing the THEORIES that, today, we tout as science, including the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Survival of the Fittest and the Theory of Natural Selection. Darwin should get credit for the last two. They have been proven over and over again. The first, however, The Theory of Evolution, has NEVER been proven scientifically, not even by the evidence Darwin himself used to support it. (The jawbone of an ass that he claimed was human.) Since then, evolutionary theory has only been “SUPPORTED,” scientifically, but never ever proven.
If science were not so busy pushing the evolutionist agenda, scientist might come to realize that the theory of evolution is completely contradictory to how life itself is a completely self-sufficient, self-rejuvenating, perpetual motion machine.
Every species of plant or animal, left free of the interference or manipulations of man, will renew itself mirroring the parents.
Even the planet earth itself is self-rejuvenating and through movement of the tectonic plates is the ultimate recycling center, which includes periods of Global Warming and Global Cooling that science KNOWS has periodically taken place on the planet throughout the geologic record.
By God, I think all that took some pre-planning.
Scientists, just like blacks and whites and other races, don’t want their viewpoint specific educations to go to waste. Nor to find out that all they had been taught and believed was in error. All of us, scientists included, only want to believe our own versions of it.
So, with that criteria in mind, I choose to believe my version of it. It makes much more sense to this homo sapien.
I’m not a professional archaeologist, but I’ve been obsessively interested in sciences since high school. Like other science folks I’d love to see a movie about the real 10,000 BC. Unfortunately this movie ain’t it. There are so many wrong things shown in the trailer, it’s just silly. I’m calling it a fantasy film and nothing more. We’re building an article here about it: The REAL 10000 BC
Thanks, Casey! Nice debunking site for the movie…
I’ll never forget my first yr archeology prof…first day of class he told us that if we ever hoped to achieve greatness, we had to think outside the sarcophagus. He then proceeded by telling us that a great deal of what we were about to learn from our text books was based on circumstantial evidence and speculation. This due to the fact that huge gaps are missing or simply omitted from the history books, because they didn’t fall into the “what we know” way of thinking.
His first example was the pyramids. Most people assume they were built by the Egyptians as a tomb for the pharaoh Khufu. Why shouldn’t they? After all, that’s what the text books say. The fact is, that information is based on the poorly painted and graffiti like scribbles inside the great pyramid. Not only are the hieroglyphs poorly executed, they contain a critical spelling error… the Pharaoh’s name is spelled Raufu, combining the Ra and Khufu.To the ancient Egyptians, this would have been viewed as an act of blasphemy.
A few years later I discovered the “Portalano” charts… Maps from the middle ages that accurately depict Antarctica’s coastline free of ice and from a perspective that requires spherical projection…as seen from a low Earth orbit.
These were studied for 30 yrs by Charles Hapgood, of the University of New Hampshire.He concluded that based on the evidence that a true advanced civilization had once existed and predated the earliest known civilizations by thousands of years.
The examples of an “alternate” view of our history are many. But if it makes you feel safe blogging away in your own little sarcophagus at about.com, please do so. But if the day should ever come when the real history is finally realized, I sure hope you don’t take it too hard.
Sorry you feel that way—but, I don’t feel “safe in my sarcophagus”! That’s the one thing about science–you never feel “safe”. Luckily for me, ambiguity (and being darned well aware that tomorrow some piece of carefully researched science may tell us we’ve been wrong) is what I live for. I think that’s why some people are so critical of science–they expect Truth and all we can do is report what we think we know up to this moment.
Kris
Thank you for responding. I must apologize for the last paragraph – there’s really no excuse for rudeness. Also, I completely detracted from the point I was trying to make, causing it to be the only part you commented on.
I was really more interested in letting others, who might not be aware, of the obvious gaps and omissions in the history of the human race and the fact there is a great deal of evidence to suggest the possibility of an advanced civilization that predates the oldest known civilization -Sumeria by several thousand years. This evidence, however, is usually met with nothing more that a condescending smirk, as it falls outside the parameters of what we consider the truth.
My hope is that if enough people actually question the world around us and investigate for themselves instead of relying on what others tell them to think, then maybe one day this information will get the study it deserves.
Well, I accept your apology; and I’m perfectly happy with you or anybody else to believe as they wish. But you see, I only report what people who have specialized in archaeological research their entire working lives have published. You, of course, have the right to accept that as worthy of consideration or not, or choose to rely on other sources of information.
Bravo adpayne…exactly my point. Thinking outside the proverbial box or “sarcophagus” is needed since we keep bumping up against dead ends that seem to present more questions than they answer.
In response to Dr. Hirst I would say, yes, we do expect truth from you, not speculation. I have the greatest respect for anyone who spends a lifetime doing research, whether in the field or even in a more comfortable setting. I rely on them and quote their findings constantly. I use their findings to understand our world, even if I might not agree with all of their findings or assertions. As a scientist however, you are held to a higher standard and to a higher degree of accuracy because of the impact you can have on society in your capacity as a respected professional in your field of endeavor. Your assertions and those of your colleagues, whether right or wrong, impact on our beliefs about our world, its origin, and the creatures living on it. No scientist, not even Darwin, should be allowed to assert speculation or theory as a SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSION, period! I hope that wasn’t too ambiguous.
To adpayne who is obviously interested in cartography. If you have a chance, read 1421, The Year China Discovered America by Gavin Menzies, a former submarine Captain in the British Royal Navy and an accomplished “old style” star navigator. Menzies presents an alternate view of seafaring world history that western historians are furiously trying to debunk, but is widely praised by Chinese historians as much of his research is based on Chinese records and his personal seafaring experience. PBS broadcast the story, but I didn’t see their presentation of it. I did read his book however, and found his argument to be very compelling and persuasive. Basically it answers the question of where Prince Henry the Navigator of Portugal come into possession of the “secret” charts that Columbus, Bartholomeu Dias, Amerigo Vespuchi, Vasco de Gama and Magellan are all rumored or known to have possessed during their “voyages of discovery.” (Remember, Columbus’ stated intention was to find a western route to China.) Interestingly, Menzies also notes a Chinese legend that an ancient Chinese seafarer named Han already knew of the Americas, and the people who lived there, 1000 years before 1421. Another interesting statistical claim he made was that the first Chinese census was taken around 2000 B.C. At that time, according to the census, China already had a population of 74 million!
I think we have a unique and historic opportunity. For the first time in modern history, formerly closed societies like China and Russia are opening up and making their historical, anthropological, paleontological, and archeological research available to the western world. We should take advantage of their knowledge while the window of opportunity is open, even if it doesn’t agree with our western “version” of world history. Hopefully the western scientific community is in communication with their counterparts in these countries. Perhaps Dr. Hirst can tell us about efforts being made toward this international cooperation?
I think the key to understanding the true age, initial distribution, and subsequent development of man will ultimately be revealed through the Human Genome Project by employing reverse tracing and comparison of human genetic markers. I think we will be very surprised by what it reveals about Homo sapiens, how long we have been here, and our past, provided scientists are not too entrenched in Darwin’s theory of trans-species evolution (all species evolving from one common source) to be objective. I am already aware that “bottlenecks” in human history have been identified through genetic research. Each time I read of it, however, the writers who were mainly interested in supporting trans-species evolutionary theory with their findings quickly skirted the subject. The question in my mind is whether one of these genetic bottlenecks will concur with biblical events such as the great flood in Genesis. (I have no doubt the time frame references will present problems.)
In my opinion, if it doesn’t make practical sense, our interpretation of the information is probably wrong, or we have somehow missed vital information needed to reach a true and correct conclusion. (As examples. A – The Darwinian theory’s assertion that somehow a species has the conscious ability to plan adaptations of itself for survival. (We humans can’t even do this to assure our own survival.) B – Or even further out in left field, that a species can accidentally produce a new species by somehow (which is never explained) combining two old species into a third species, or converting (evolving) an existing species into a new or different species.
We can produce Ligers by artificially mating Lions and Tigers, but both are of the same species in the first place, as is the offspring Liger. We can breed a horse and a donkey to get a mule, but all three remain of the equine species. But to my knowledge, we can’t mix a k-9 and a feline to produce a new third species, no matter how hard we try. We can’t get an ear of corn to grow from a cotton plant, nor produce cotton from a corn plant, nor can we combine the two to produce a brand new species. We can’t grow a coconut palm from an Oak’s acorn. We can and have produced many varieties of each species. But we just can’t jump across species to do it. Nature doesn’t appear to allow it, despite science’s assertion of it repeatedly happening in prehistory. Why did it only happen in prehistory? Why has it not happened over the last 10,000 – 12,000 years of known history if it is a natural occurrence? Or is my understanding of the theory of trans-species evolution incomplete? If so, how? What have I missed?
This Darwinian assertion of trans-species evolution is the foundation of the Theory of Evolution that unfortunately negates the entire theory. Yes, evolution within a specific species is ongoing and takes place daily, driven by Survival of the Fittest, Natural Selection, and by man’s manipulations. Animal and plant husbandry and animal cloning is all about man engineering animal and plant evolution for MAN’S benefit – but it still remains restricted to evolution within the confines of a specific species. We cannot force or JUMP the apparently divinely imposed dividing lines between species on purpose, nor in my opinion, did it occur by accident or spontaneous mutation in the vague distant past.
Of course, without trans-species evolution, only a higher being or intelligent designer could have created all the different species, past and present, that we know lived on the planet from the fossil record. To believe in God/s and intelligent design or not to believe in God/s and intelligent design. That is the central conflict between science and religion, as it exists today. But I would remind all concerned. Since God is an ethereal or spiritual being, to accomplish anything in our physical world, God would had to use Nature, as well as natural physical elements and phenomena to accomplish his works. So, in my view physical science and God are not actually in conflict. From my viewpoint, God is the greatest of all scientists and knew about genetics, species evolution, species adaptations and DNA technology, long before modern scientists, following his groundbreaking lead, finally figured it out. (Either 5 billion years earlier or tens of thousands of years earlier, depending on your secular or religious point of view.)
The only reason Mr. James believes that African blacks were the first humans on the planet is because science implies that assertion and he wants to believe in it. Contrary to that implied assertion by science, the facts are that the remains found in Ethiopia, Africa, are simply the oldest human-like remains yet discovered, through radio carbon dating, by science. That in no way precludes older remains being found somewhere else in the future. Nor does it conclude that these specific remains are those of the first humanlike creatures. (In fact it is compelling evidence that they were not.) Nor does it conclude that all ancient humanlike creatures were their size. Nor does it even conclude that they were actually human and not a variety of ape now extinct. Nor does it even conclude these specimens were the forerunners of modern humans. Perhaps they were simply another breed or variety of Homo sapiens. (Remember the physical differences between a lion and a housecat, both of which are of the same species.) Nor does it conclude that they were black, simply because the remains were found in Africa. (Common sense however, might seem to argue otherwise.) It also assumes that Radio Carbon Dating is always an accurate measure of geologic time, which presents an entirely different set of issues, as any scientist could tell you, if they would admit it.
From what I have read in ancient texts, the Phoenicians founded ancient Carthage. The Phoenicians were an ancient Mediterranean people and renowned seafarers, who originated on the west coast of the Arabian Peninsula near where Lebanon and Turkey join today, their ships constructed of the highly valued hardwood of Lebanon Cypress. It is certainly possible however that Hannibal was black. Someone had to have brought all those elephants from the African interior and across the Sahara desert. Unless, of course, they transported them there by ship, the same way I assume they got them to the European continent. On the other hand, interior and southern Africa supposedly were not discovered until the Portuguese rounded the western Atlantic coast in the late 1400’s. hmmm…???
Interestingly enough, ancient Mediterranean people did not call the African continent Africa. Up until Roman times it was called Libya. Ancient Libya did not encompass Egypt and the mouth of the Nile River peoples, who appear connected culturally to the Arabian Peninsula peoples. Even in ancient texts, the Nubians, who lived far south down the Nile River, were black and were referred to as such. Perhaps if we start attaching ancient names to the ancient places they referred to we might someday get it right and give the ancient Phoenicians credit for being the first Mediterranean or “western” seafarers to round the southern tip of Africa, just as they said they did, thousands of years before European seafarers supposedly “discovered” it. It makes one wonder just how long ago the seafaring people living on the coasts of southern Africa discovered it. Unfortunately, they left no written record of their discoveries that we have been able to find and interpret. Equally intriguing is the fact that Vasco De Gama had to enlist an Arabian seafarer to guide him to India. Hmmm? According to our western notions, the Arabians didn’t even have seafarers. According to Menzies and Chinese history, they certainly did and were very accomplished seamen, trading from southern Africa to China and throughout the Indian Ocean.
Biblical world history does not agree with scientific world history in the first place. This is mainly because of the timeline. Scientific world history asserts 5 billion years as the age of the earth and 4 million years the age of oldest humanoids, and prehistoric “modern” human remains at 1,500,000 years. The time frame inherent in the Adam and Eve genealogy in Genesis and the biblical history view of the world is only tens of thousands of years. Ham and his descendants fit into the tens of thousands of year’s biblical assertion of the age of mankind. Hurto man would predate Adam and Eve by millions of years in the scientific view of man’s possible 4 million year existence.
Unless you believe like I do:
1. That Homo sapiens have been around for far longer than we can verify scientifically.
2. That ancient man had a consistent practice of burning, burying or otherwise destroying the remains of his dead, probably to prevent attracting predators or scavengers to his living area.
3. Making it much harder to find human remains than those of other animals of comparable size that were not intentionally destroyed.
4. That in ancient prehistory there were many breeds or varieties of Homo sapiens, just as there are today, and probably even more varieties than exist now.
5. That some Homo sapiens varieties were smaller, and some were larger, just as they are today. That some varieties were squat with bandy legs and stooped posture, and some were tall and slender, just as they are today. That some varieties were ugly with protruding brows or receding chins. And some varieties were as pretty as we think modern man is. That some varieties were black, some were brown, some were yellow skinned, and some were white. That there may even have been other varieties and colors of Homo sapiens that we are not aware of that existed, but subsequently became extinct through war, disease, famine, or catastrophic natural events that caused mass extinctions of the variety in the specific locations in which they lived.
6. That biblical “history,” (the Old Testament,) is mainly a Hebrew tribal view of Hebrew world history.
7. And despite Hebrew claims to the contrary, did not encompass the entire planet, only the “world” as they knew it, which was the Middle East.
8. That Adam and Eve emerged into a world already inhabited by other humans, whom they and their descendants called Nephilim.
9. Who had probably eaten dinosaur steaks for breakfast in their prehistory.
10. And none of whom had a great ape for a parent.
11. That Adam and Eve were simply the first “western” man and woman to be imbued with the spiritual knowledge of God’s existence and their own spirituality.
12. That ancient man needed freshwater, shelter and food the same as we do.
13. And would have utilized many of the same resources, the same rivers, lakes, streams, ports and locations that we know of as major cities today.
14. And that three of man’s oldest professions are building boats, fishing and seafaring.
In my opinion, we today in our arrogant perception of our own greatness, shortchange ancient man’s inventiveness, adaptability, activities, travels, commerce and international trade because we can find no written records to tell us of them. Even in the face of compelling evidence of ancient man’s greatness. (Perhaps we simply are not looking in the right places.) A short walk through Pompeii provides startling evidence of “modern” plumbing practices being used by ancient man in his own society in 700 A.D. The Great Wall of China is an astounding accomplishment, in any age, as are the Sphinx and Pyramids of Gisa. Herodotus claimed the first Suez type canal between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea was dug in 5000 B.C by an Egyptian king who worked 130,000 people to death getting it done. (Sorry, but I can’t remember his name.) Not having locks, it followed the contours of the land, so required constant dredging to keep the channel open, and subsequently filled in and fell into ruin. When the Persians attacked Greece in 500 B.C with the intention of “owning all European lands under the sun,” Xerces employed from 700,000 to 1.5 million warriors and a fleet of 3000 warships. And an estimated 3.5 million people in his logistical supply train that stretched from Persia to Greece. Wampum, pacific seashells used for money by the American Indians, were found all over the North American continent, which implies Native American trade and travel covering the entire breadth of the continent. Last, no seafarer I’ve ever heard of claimed the world was flat. If memory serves me right, only followers of the Roman Catholic Church during the dark ages ever made that claim. I wonder why that was?
I’m glad someone else pointed out that white people are always depicted in these movies with ancient story lines. 10,000 b.c. the human population was not a majority of pigment challenged homo sapiens, the planet was hot and the people were dark. Northern people were light in color, but not colorless, yet. Racists on all sides, from every race, want to argue instead of giving a correct and panoptic view of history. I’m watching a History Channel show right now about ancient animals, including humans. They are talking about Australia at the moment and every human face is white. Come the hell on, there are still descendants of the real Australians in Australia today and they are as black as Africans are. Sorry, but whites would like to take the credit for everything, even the ideas they stole from the Moors that occupied Europe for 800 years and the Africans that Alexander the Great was mixing with. Sorry to break some people’s hearts, but Cleopatra was not white, either. She was biracial.
After reading these comments, I think Steve and Apayne make some excelent points. I noticed that Kris still avoids the whole subject of an alernative history, by simply mentioning others who have spent a life time studing archaeology and who have even been published. Wow. Published. They must be telling the truth then. Sorry. all sarcasm aside, I was wondering if any of you had heard of the Brookings report?? It was a study done for Nasa in the 50′s. It stated that Nasa would most likely find alien artifacts on the moon as well as on other solar bodies. And when they did, they should keep this information to themselves, because civilitaion wouldn’t be able to handle the truth. The report then goes on to state that the people that would have the most trouble accepting this information would be the scientist.Why? Scientist all tend to study in one area which makes “experts”. Anything that deviates from what they were taught cant be real. At least not until a respected member of that particular field comes forward and agrees with the new theory.
It seems to me that Kris is one of those people that will simple spew out the same old science “as we know it” crap.
For Steve, you mentioned the bible and Adam and Eve being the first westerners…the bible is nothing more than a condensed and editied version on the creation stories of babylon..Bible/Babel. The babel stories can be traced back to Sumeria. In these test the story of genisis is far richer and explains in great detail how the “gods” created the adam (adam wasnt a name, but word translating roughly to mean earth man) by mixing their own essence(DNA) with a primative primate species. My feeling is that we weren’t there, we don’t know what happened and we are left to out own speculations. I do feel that as more people question the what we’ve been told is true, then eventually the we may get to the bottom of things.
As for nikki dee…no one actually knows what cleopatra looked like. All we know is that she was born in Egypt and was of Greek ancestry. As greeks are caucasian, for all we know her skin could been white. As for your statement about the planet being hot. I’m afraid your wrong…around the time of 10,000 bc. our planet was thawing out from an ice age that had lasted for about 70,000 years. And as for thinking that Steve was pointing out that the world wasn’t overun with “pigment challenged homo sapiens”, I don’t think that’s what he said at all…he was saying there were all sorts of colors, maybe even more than there are now.
By the way, the calling a person “pigment challenged” is to somehow suggest they are lacking or inferior to people of color. This statement is rasist. For someone who is so concerned with rasism, you yourself seem to be dealing with your own issues of hatered based on color…or should I say lack of color.
What never fails to amaze me is how rude people can be over this issue. Yes, I am a science writer, and so my writing is based in the sciences. I have no problem with anybody else writing or thinking or believing as they wish with regard to whatever you want to. But I personally don’t believe it, and I’m not going to support belief systems that aren’t based on real scientific research. No amount of insulting diatribe is going to change that.
But as I say. Believe as you will. It’s a free… internet. Isn’t it?
The things people are pointing out aren’t based “real scientific research” because scientist refuse to give the matter the attention it deserves.
I myself am in physics and am now finding that my community is being forced to admit that the 100 year old theory of an invisible aether binding the universe is real…up until the 90′s, with the discovery of such things as dark matter, any scientist who even mentioned such nonsense was laughed out of a job. Now a days the aether has an updated name – Quantum Medium, but it’s just the same old invisible goo of the 19th century. Thanks to the work of a few pioneering Russian scientists who didn’t have to worry about the ridicule of westerners from behind the iron curtain, we’ve made leaps into understanding the universe we live.
I guess the point I’m trying to make is nothing is set in stone…especially if that stone happens to be a granite box inside a pyramid that could have only carved with a high speed diamond head drill.
From what I understand, there are a lot of things(like precisions cut granite boxes) that aren’t acknowledged in archaeologically because they don’t fit. To me this isn’t science. At least in physics we admit something is a theory until it can be proven.
Emma… I did not say that Adam and Eve were the first westerners. I said Adam and Eve were the first “westerners” to be imbued with the spiritual knowledge of God’s existence and their own spiritual connection to God. I called them “westerners” only because of the Middle Eastern peoples’ historic and continuing discourse with the “western civilizations” that surrounded the Mediterranean Sea and their proximity to Europe. Sorry I didn’t make that distinction clear.
I also said that their stories, handed down through the ages, were a history of the Hebrew tribe alone, and Hebrew tribal belief in their own tribal origin and the tribe’s connection to God {Adam’s rib aside.} That in no way precludes the ancient Sumerians, who predated the Hebrews, from having a profound influence on Hebrew tribal beliefs. In fact, it should be expected because Hebrew tribal beliefs had to have originated somewhere previous to them, but with some added twist that made them a unique tribe, one different from their forefathers. There’s really no mystery there, since it’s very human behavior. As I also said, I do not believe Adam and Eve were the first humans, but emerged [I should have said, were born] into a world already inhabited by other humans that they called Nephilim (which means the unenlightened.) The Sumerians, the forefathers of the Hebrew people, would certainly have had an effect on the Hebrew tribal view of its own history. Absolutely no disagreement there.
I would like to read some research on the Sumerian belief of the Gods mixing their essence (DNA) with a primate to make man, if you can tell me where to find a translation of it.
The Brookings Institute material I have heard of but never actually read. Can it be found on the internet? Perhaps that report is the foundation of the continuing persistence of the Roswell, NM accusation of the government covering up knowledge of extraterrestrials.
Nikkidee is right. The black aborigines of Australia were undeniably first on the Australian continent and as such are still a largely homogeneous culture. The question is, how did they get there in the first place, when brown-skinned seafaring peoples inhabited the volcanic islands north of the continent? How were they able to exist for so long in isolation without outside influences? Were they transported there by black African colonial seafarers in prehistory? Were they carried there on the Australian continent after the breakup of Pangea when Australia separated from Africa, during a time when man supposedly did not exist? (This is exactly how I believe they got there.) Another intriguing question that perhaps Kris can answer, are the Australian aborigines genetically connected to any black African tribe or group? Or are they a completely genetically separate group of people who also happened to be black? These are questions that need to be asked and answered by scientific people qualified to perform this testing.
Oh, one other thing. I personally don’t believe that hot or cold actually had anything to do with racial coloring, any more than it does today. To my knowledge science has yet to PROVE anything of the sort. It has however, become an accepted scientific theory and a commonly applied assumption. [If this is the case, then why weren’t ancient South Americans black instead of brown?] If any environmental condition caused Africans to become dark, I would find it more compelling to attribute it to continuously living amongst the largest predators on the planet, and a means for hiding and hunting in the dark to insure survival of the race. But, as I said previously, I think the races, or varieties of man, were initially created in different colors, sort of God’s color-coding system for keeping track of man’s development.
Don’t laugh too quickly. Stranger things have happened in a scientific laboratory than color-coding, and a scientific laboratory is exactly how I see the blue planet, the aquarium that we humans, just one very smart animal among many other lesser animals, call the earth.
That being said, my viewpoint has actually been more influenced by demographics and how civilizations develop rather than on religious belief or pure science. Utilizing the scale that science uses for civilization development; the individual, the family, the group, the tribe [and establishment of a tribal religion to maintain tribal affiliation in a geographically expanding society], the tribal state, the city/state, the regional state, [the religious nation], the political nation, and the divisions of labor inherent in a maturing society, (Boy what a mouth full.)
I have decided that civilizations historically develop from the center outward toward the frontiers. Hence, the significance of China having a population of 74 million in the year 2000 B.C., as well as the false assumption inherent in the Bering Strait Land Bridge being the source of North America’s Native American population. The center would have been Central and Northern South America. Which would totally explain their genetic connection.
Like the scientific community, I also see the history of man like ripples on a pond. The first generation influenced the next generation, which in turn influenced subsequent generations and so forth and so on, up until modern day. Unlike that part of the scientific community that believes all species evolved from one common source, I have decided that the most reasonable way to view the “panoptic,” as nikkidee put it, history of mankind, is that different races of peoples originated (were created) independently but simultaneously, in different parts of the prehistoric world.
I think science actually calls this the multi-regional theory and simultaneous development, although science doesn’t include Devine creation in the equation.
Hi Kris, thanks for running the blog. What do you think is probably the oldest known example of a society (like the one depicted in the movie)?
I think it’s interesting that recent un-earthings in South America look as though they might push back what we know as the earliest “monumental” civilizations by a couple thousand years in the Americas.
Also, what do you think of a lot of this new fangled genetics work. I read articles that claim they’ve found genetic evidence (from necropoli) in Italy that support the ancient historians claims that Estrucsans did come from somewhere in modern day Turkey (previously it was felt that the old historians may have been wrong). It’s also forcing many british who would prefer to think of themselves as primarily anglo-saxon to realize that they are actually (on the average) over 50 percent Celtic. Do you think this stuff is proving to be valuable new information? bunk? is it interfacing well with regular arheological stuff?
Thanks.
Hi Steve, Finding the Brooking s report online, I’m not to sure. I read about it in the book Dark Mission, The Secret History of NASA, written by former science adviser to Walter Cronkite and NASA, Richard C. Hoagland. You can also visit his website enterprisemission.com
The translations of the Sumerian people is covered by Zacheria Sitchen in a series of books called The Earth Chronicles. Sitchen has been researching the subject for at least 40 years. He is a Hebrew scholar and considered an expert translator of several ancient languages, including Sumerian. Sitchen has translated hundreds of clay tablets
that have basically told the story of Genesis, but in far greater detail and without the slant toward a single male deity. If you decide to read the books, you will find he gives extensive coverage to Sumer as being the birth place of most religions including Christianity. He traces the evolution of the gods and shows how many became one. Which is why we see mistakes in the Bible like God saying, “let us create man in our own image” Who’s he talking to?
One nonreligious item that Sitchen discovered…which I think is very interesting…he points out that the symbol for medicine,two entwined serpents, can actually be traced back to Sumer and is a perfect representation of DNA. This symbol was always attributed to one Goddess…Sitchen believes she was actually one of a team of genetic scientists, who created the human race.
Believe it or not, there is actually evidence to support his theories.In the late 80′s and early 90′s, geneticists announced the discovery that all humans originated from a single male and female. Barring the Christian’s myth, can you explain how a brand new species suddenly appeared from nowhere?
One other example is the fact that Sitchen accurately described the planets Uranus and Neptune years before the Voyager missions, based on his translations of Sumerian text. Sitchen was so sure of his work, that he released a press statement on the eve of the arrival of the Voyager 1. Until this point, no human had supposedly laid eyes on either of these planets, which are so far away they can only be seen as small blurry lights with a telescope. The question is, how did the Sumerians attain this knowledge?
You said that Nephilim means unenlightened ones.That incorrect. Most Hebrews translate the word as Giants or Mighty Ones. But according to Sitchen, this too is incorrect . He believes the actual translation to be “Those who came down.” Something he realized as a young boy and was scolded by his teacher when he pointed it out.
Emma… Thank you. I figured if I stirred up enough debate, sooner or later someone would come along with something new I have not heard of or read. Someone who could maybe fill in some blanks, connect some dots, or provide some new avenues to explore. Strangely, I half expected it to come from…well…someone well versed in current scientific belief, technology and findings. I have never asked so many pointed questions nor presented such a detailed argument, just to have it so profoundly ignored.
So, according to Zacheria Sitchen, was Von Daniken right? (Extraterrestrials visited the earth and built many of the structures primitive man should not have had the technology or machinery to build.) Boy, it has been so very long since I read his [von Daniken’s] hypothesis I can barely remember it. Late 70’s or early 80’s I think.
I have never read the Earth Chronicles by Sitchen. Tomorrow I will find them and start.
I believe with all my heart, the answers to the questions are already available. We, however, simply cannot agree which answer is the right one and get bogged down in the continuing debate. Many modern scientific findings are driven by our specific scientific ability to look at smaller and ever smaller details. Lawsuits today are filed over parts-per-billion and parts-per-trillion, lawsuits that even 25 years ago would have had no substantive support basis. The use of DNA “fingerprinting” has brought us to a point where likelihood is measured in 1-in-a-trillion-plus possibilities. Such is darker side of scientific advancement and our ability to make ever more tiny measurements and to proclaim large significance in the minute.
If one is too involved in counting rings the simplicity, beauty, and majesty of the surrounding forest can be lost.
By the way, many years ago I decided that God was female, because all of nature revolves around the female. For obvious reasons, I don’t often say it out loud. Apparently Sitchen agrees.
I saw the movie last night. There are many places where you are expected to just suspend all disbelief, but – unlike the trailer, there are African tribal peoples shown living in the African part of the movie, and they are shown to be more sophisticated in some ways than the mammoth hunter peoples. Even the mammoth hunter tribe seems to be made up of people representing a variety of modern racial characteristics.
You just have to accept that all of these different people live within several days walk of each other – mammoth hunters on the tundra, marauding slavers on horseback, African farmers and herders, and the pyramid builders on the Nile; not to mention the jungly rainforest home of a missing link between birds and dinosaurs.
Hey Steve,
I think Von Daniken was on the right track, but from what I understand, he ruined his credibility by inventing facts for the purpose of a good book. Richard C. Hoagland considers Von Daniken to be the major contributing factor to people having such resistance to the possibility of the ancient astronauts theory.
Sitchen’s work, on the other hand, is extremely well researched…all you have to do is flip to the back of one of his book to see his extensive sources.
I hope you enjoy your read. It’s best to start with the first book…The 12th Planet.
PS. For Steve,
I forgot to mention that Sitchen doesn’t believe that the creators were gods…one of the first things he states in the the 12th Planet, is that the Sumerians did not believe the creators to be gods, but flesh and blood beings.
I think that whatever “God” may be, part of It’s plan-”go forth and be fruitful” includes a technologically advanced species creating life where it can. If you think about it it’s not so far fetched when you consider that we ourselves are on the verge of being that advanced species.
Hi Dan:
I’m enjoying this broad discussion immensely.
I haven’t seen the movie yet, so I don’t know what the cities in it look like. The oldest cities on the planet so far discovered, if you can call them that, are probably the Neolithic (or rather Pre-Pottery Neolithic) sites in Turkey about 9,000 years ago–at least 3,000 years later than the title of the movie anyway.
The best known is Catalhoyuk:
http://archaeology.about.com/cs/religionandmagic/a/catalhoyuk.htm
Their webpage has lots of information about it, too:
http://www.catalhoyuk.com/
The earliest city-like places in the Americas date to around 4,600 years ago, at Caral:
http://archaeology.about.com/od/southamerica/a/caral.htm
In terms of cultural change and whether it results from an influx of people or an idea that is learned by people traveling around and then returning home has always been a tough nut to crack, until genetics showed up. Even so, (although again I haven’t seen the Etruscan paper you talk about, sorry–I actually try to keep up on stuff but there’s so much! that I can’t come close); even so, the differences in gene populations are going to vary by whose cemetery you are looking at. The danger is trying to put a clear and inarguable face on something that is stubbornly fuzzy–human ‘ethnicity’. It just doesn’t work well archaeologically. To a large degree, people choose what ethnicity they are–at least in the kinds of stuff they have buried with them. And in a generation or two, even that goes away. Think of American graveyards; they’re all pretty much the same now, and walking around in one you don’t often get a sense of anybody’s ‘ethnicity’.
What stable isotope analysis can show is where a person was born and grew up versus where they lived and died. Now THAT may help a whole lot in figuring out how ideas migrated in the past (what I like to call the period of time called ‘paleo-Internet’ –joke). I put together something called “stable isotope for dummies” because I didn’t understand it all at first, and putting it in plain English helped me a whole lot.
http://archaeology.about.com/od/stableisotopes/qt/dummies.htm
Pretty interesting study, though, this Etruscan thing, it sounds like, so thanks for bringing it up!
Kris
I’ve been studying ancient Egypt as of late. I’m not an archeaologist nor anthropologist. In fact I’m an artist (and spiritual seeker of truth) and as an artist I have an eye for detail. What I see from the artwork the ancient Egyptians left was that they were not “negroids” nor “caucasoids” They look more “mongoloids” (asians). They are depicted on the artwork, in papyri and sculpture , as Asians with dark (or red) skin. Not unlike native Americans (North, Central, South).
I know this is probably not something that is commonly accepted, in fact I’ve never heard of anyone give this theory, EVER. But I’m looking at the evidence as an artist.
Plus, If we look at their mythology, we begin to see lots of similarities between Ancient Egypt, Asia, and the Americas. The Serpent gods (or flying serpents), The plumed serpent. Earth mounds rising from primordial waters. Resurrecting Gods.
Then we have sacred sciences which involve astrology, super accurate calendars, and pyramids. Yes, HUGE pyramids in China…
Check out these coordinates on Google Earth, or Google Maps…
34.397954, 108.712916
34.390380, 108.739579
34.374940, 108.698493
34.400807, 108.765103
Yes, those are in China!!!
Ok, Now for you anthro/archeo buffs I’ll give you a clue to the secrets and keys that will keep you busy for a long time and will help you SEE that humans (and human society) are older than what the establishment wants us to believe:
In the most advanced known civilizations around the world. Ancient Egyptians, Indus Valley (India), and Native Americans (Mayans, Norther, etc.) THE LOTUS FLOWER is seen as sacred. It represents the same thing in all those cultures, which is purity or alchemical (or shamanic) transformation. I don’t think this is a coincidence.
Humans started out as Shamanic societies and then branched out to different religious structures. In Shamanism, the practitioner goes into altered states of consciousness, via psycho-active substances or naturally through drumming, chanting, dancing, meditating, etc.
What is really interesting about the Lotus flower and other water lilies is their hallucinogenic properties. Most of these flowers are psycho-active!
In Ancient Egypt, worshipers are depicted offering blue lotus (or water lilies) to their gods and while having sex (which shows that the plant was an aphrodisiac as well). For some reason the use of these flowers connected them to a “higher source.”
In Indian religions, the deities, and Buddhas (enlightened beings), are almost always sitting on a sacred white lotus flower. Again, a connection to the divine via the these flowers. Even the depiction of body’s chakras (or energy centers) are seen as lotus flowers with various amounts of pedals with the “crown” chakra having 1000 pedals!
So I say follow the lotus and you’ll find TRUTH…
I just saw the movie and it was incredibliy entertaining(literally)
Overall I liked it.But I did wonder about the multiracial tribe.Not to mention the caucasian looking girl.oh well it is a hollywood movie.
Wow. It’s hard to know what to say about most of the discussion above; I would just say that I do not give much credence to anybody who talks about “Sumeria” (vs. Sumer). Also, the word “theory” is used differently in science than in vernacular speech; a theory is the *most vetted* scientific explanation for something, since very little of significance is ever considered to have been *proven*. Hence the Theory of Gravity – and I’m sure that the other commentators here have no problem with the notion that this “theory” is not likely to be improved upon.
I am not aware of any Sumerian myth in which a primate is imbued with divine…whatever in order to create humans; the usual account is that humans were created from clay (and specifically the clay of Apsu – cf. “Enki and Ninmah,” translated by T. Jacobsen as “The Birth of Man”).
I have worked as an archaeologist at Catalhoyuk, and while that site is quite extraordinary, I think that even more fascinating finds have been coming out of southeastern Turkey in the last decade. See, for example, the site of Gobekli Tepe, currently being excavated by a German team. This mountain site is extraordinary because it consists of stone-built, semi-subterranean structures with large pillars decorated in relief, and dates to the 9th millennium B.C. (getting fairly close to our famous “10,000 BC). Even more extraordinary is the fact that the structures themselves were probably not used for domestic habitation (i.e., probably “cultic”) and that the plant remains found near the site come from non-domesticated species. The excavator himself, a fairly hard-nosed rationalist, has had to admit that the evidence suggests that hunter-gatherer tribes were combining forces and climbing beyond their usual habitation zones to create stone structures well before there’s any evidence for political unity. On the other hand, these structures are nowhere near the size of the pyramids depicted in “10,000 BC.”
I haven’t yet seen the movie but almost feel that I should, since I will be teaching a Near Eastern archaeology class in the fall semester that will begin with the Neolithic period, and with sites such as Gobekli Tepe. I’d like to know what (mis)conceptions my students might have coming in!
P.S. I liked the movie “300″ and am willing to grant some creative license, just not *this* much.
P.P.S. I am a homo sapiens, and so is everyone else commenting on this blog. You don’t remove the final “s” in order to make the term singular.
Jodie:
Have you read Rob Swigart’s Stone Mirror yet? He worked closely with folks at Catalhoyuk to develop his various plotlines.
Kris
Nope, haven’t read “Stone Mirror,” and I haven’t been to the site since Swigart started visiting (he’s listed as the site “novelist” in e.g. the 2005 archive report), but I know most of the people whom he thanks — like illustrator John Swogger, stone specialist Tristan “Stringy” Carter, field director Shahina Farid, and the co-director of the Berkeley team, Mirjana Stevanovic. The excavators there have always welcomed people who want to use Catalhoyuk as a jumping-off place for various projects, including “site biographies” like the one written by Michael Balter and other artistic ventures.
I hesitate to read the book both because I’m planning a archaeology-based novel of my own (having to do with a later period in Anatolia) and because I haven’t been terribly impressed with his online essays such as .
But it’s good that you’re getting the word out.
As I say, I think there’s a great story waiting to be told about the very early southeastern Anatolian Neolithic sites such as Gobekli Tepe and Nevali Cori, but I’m not sure that I’m the one to tell it!
Oops — sorry that my HTML tag didn’t turn out right in my last comment. I meant to link to Swigart’s online essay at http://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/criticalecologies/denial.
Kristi, I know that these postings generate a chuckle now and again but it’s truly painful for me to read. Yes, I’m one of those scientific snobs who bases his views on authority, on the research of people who’ve devoted a lifetime to their specialties.
I’ve had many discussions with creationists and others regarding the origins of life, and what I find most fascinating is that though they wrap themselves up in science, I’ve never been able to get one to admit to a basic tenet of science. Namely whether it would ever be possible to convince them of evolution or the ancient origins of life. Certainly, any scientist would accept creationism given enough evidence. I’ve found creationists unwlling to consider their view refutable. At that point, they’re no longer engaged in science.
Another pet peeve of mine is that unfortunately much of science lends itself in the popular mind to wild speculation. A layperson can become an authority on Egypt or Chinese seafaring with just a few months of research (normally quite narrowly focused only on the supporting evidence for their theories). However, we would immediately (and rightly) call someone a quack if after, say, even a year of intense home practice and study, he set out to perform surgery. How many times have you turned on TLC or Discover to find another documentary on a team investigating “a lost civilization” led by journalist or amateur whose only connection to archaeology is seemingly his fedora. And then one tunes in again a few months later to find the same “archaeologist” on the other side of the planet investigating “a new mystery.” Like a sitcom, everything is resolved in 30 minutes including commercial breaks.
Hi Brent:
The way I look at it, this whole thread is an object lesson on what people want to believe about the past. I personally find what archaeologists have learned to be fascinating, far more than the embroidered pasts assembled from legends and fantasies of alien landings and hyper-diffusionism; but that’s just me.
As long as people are polite about what they believe, I’m fine with them believing what they’d like and even writing about it here. This thread just encourages me to keep trying to get the scientific news out; people who are interested in what archaeologists are finding out can find it on my website. And if others are stubbornly uninterested in what archaeologists have to say, there’s not much else I can do to change things. Rebuttal of these odd beliefs can be found at Doug Weller’s Skeptics site; he does a far better job than I at that.
Kris
I was once willing to tolerate pseudoscience and, if anythinng, felt it at least signified an interest in exploring the world but I grew exhausted pointing out basic errors to people unwilling to consider the evidence. But perhaps what was most appalling of all was hearing a fellow student speak with some grasp of ancient history, only to hear him or her lapse into the most bizarre tangent. A little knowledge is indeed a bad thing.
I equally recommend a book by a past professor of mine: “Ancient Astronauts, Cosmic Collisions, and Other Popular Theories about Man” by William Stiebing. Though published in the early 80s, it unfortunately still addresses the pseudoscience rampant in the field among laypersons.
In my opinion, critiquing movies does not actually belong in a forum about archeology and science. Movies and the people who make them already get more attention than they rightly deserve. Admittedly it is a safe and innocuous topic to discuss that people aren’t likely to be concerned enough to get rude over. But that’s just my opinion.
On the other hand, do religion or religious beliefs belong in a forum about archaeology and science? Yes, emphatically yes! Religions have had, and continue to have, a profound impact upon mankind, mankind’s interrelationships, and the speed of mankind’s collective development. Religions built many of the structures, belief systems and political systems that science studies for clues about ancient man. Let me give you one example. “See, for example, the site of Gobekli Tepe, currently being excavated by a German team. This mountain site is extraordinary because it consists of stone-built, semi-subterranean structures with large pillars decorated in relief, and dates to the 9th millennium B.C. (getting fairly close to our famous “10,000 BC). Even more extraordinary is the fact that the structures themselves were probably not used for domestic habitation (i.e., probably “cultic”… “ Does “cultic” mean religious? Religions have been responsible for many of the major wars that have plagued mankind’s history, just as they are today. Religions have also set mankind back, repeatedly, throughout our history.
The very same effects that a victory for bin Laden and fundamental Moslem religion would have here, if they wind up conquering the western world. All remnants of personal and religious freedom left over from western society would be lost in a world that mixes the Islamic faith and State government, a world where Islamic religious law dictates governmental law. A system in which your local Moslem cleric has power over a congregation, including the life or death of an accused sinner, that is unimaginable to a modern day Baptist minister in America.
Some version of the Taleban would be based in Washington, D.C. All American women would be banned from showing skin, becoming educated, driving a car, dating or marrying who they liked, or having an individual right to be protected from domestic abuse since Moslem women are considered to be the property of men, father or groom. Prevented even from simply saying “hello” to a man who is not family. A system in which, dating outside your race or religion could easily get you killed by stoning, even at your own father’s hands, or by your peers, with no action or punishment taken against them afterward. In January of this year, a Muslim father in Dallas, Texas shot and killed his two daughters because they were wearing western clothing and dating outside the Moslem religion. One daughter lived long enough to call 911. The father, arrested for the crime, readily admitted he had done it for religious reasons.
Even the secular scientific research we Americans have conducted over the last 200 years would be systematically altered or destroyed, because the secular nature of the Theory of Evolution disagrees with Mohammed and the fundamental Moslem religion, and the consequent State enforcement of Islamic law and Allah being the one God. Secular scientists like you guys would be out of a job, if not killed outright during the Islamic takeover.
Refer to your own research about the establishment of the Moslem Ottoman Empire, how it was achieved, partly through terrorism, and the ensuing pogroms [not programs - pogroms – anyone who doesn’t know the difference should look it up because the difference is important] in Turkey and Istanbul (formerly Roman Christian Byzantium) against religious denominations other than Islam. Read about how the Ottoman Empire maintained that power for 8 centuries through strict control of the population through the Moslem religion and strict Islamic law, where existing foreign or religious societies were consistently persecuted, were coerced into converting to Islam, and were treated as second-class citizens and required to live in ethnic enclaves. The Moslem rulers protected them for a time; taking advantage of their particular expertise, such as carpentry, stone masonry, and shipbuilding, just to name a few. But as soon as that knowledge became endemic to the Moslem population, they were expelled or killed through pogroms carried out by the xenophobic Moslem population, with the tacit approval of the Moslem rulers.
This all happened during known history, not in the far distant past. None of what is happening today in the so-called “war on terrorism” is new. It has all happened before in mankind’s known history. Only when it happened before, the United States didn’t exist. What we are fighting is Moslem religious expansionism through low grade but systematic irregular warfare. They can’t beat us militarily, so other means must be found to achieve the same results.
It took eons for a free America to happen where religious freedom was part of a citizen’s individual civil rights. I have personally fought to maintain our freedoms, your freedoms. Some of us however, are too self-involved, or politically correct, or too busy making money, or spending other peoples’ money, to even be aware of how profound the threat really is to our society and our way of life. On the other hand, giving away those freedoms to our own government so it can protect us is also asinine.
Stalin almost completely rewrote Russian history, after the Communists took over the country, in a systematic purging of historical records and pogroms (that word again) against intellectuals, [that’s you science types] academics, and religious denominations that didn’t fit into the secular communist agenda. Including many great WWII Russian military leaders who had saved Russia from destruction at German hands, but as respected military leaders were imprisoned, killed or exiled to Siberia because they posed a threat to Stalin’s dictatorial rule.
The Dark Ages in Europe are another example of the same thing happening after Christianity defeated (?) assimilated (?) the Romans. Christians systematically destroyed all vestiges of the pagan Roman civilization and plunged Europe into what we today refer to as the Dark Ages. The Parthenon, built by the Romans, had a ceiling of gold. That gold now makes up the pillars surrounding the tomb of St. Peter in St. Peter’s Basilica, a fact that is proudly proclaimed by local Vatican tour guides. Of course, the Black Plague was also a major contributing factor as it decimated the European population, making no distinction between the educated and non-educated.
I find it strange that we can find so very little non-Christian material written about this particular era, 1 A.D. through 600 A.D. in Roman/Christian/Italian history. We do know the Roman Catholic Church maintained a death grip on Europe throughout the dark ages and emerged so powerful that secular rulers in Europe could not even take possession of their own domains without the Church’s endorsement and sanction. How did this happen? The priests maintained and kept the records, population, production, and taxation, for the local nobles and the Kings, who were largely illiterate. The Church educated its priests for this very purpose. The Church also profited greatly from this association. The black plague decimated the European population, impacting greatly on Europe’s production and the Church’s economic well-being. So it makes perfect sense that the Roman Catholic Church would want to keep their religious population involved in making babies, making money, and repopulating the area, instead of leaving and exploring the world. Which of course they said was flat anyway, and very soon after leaving Europe one would fall off the edge and be lost forever.
Historically, everything happens for a reason, even if we sometimes have problems figuring out what that reason was. Often the root cause can be traced directly back to religion, but only if it is included in the research in the first place.
Naturally, the church would influence the local military to go to the Holy Land and “liberate” the Holy Grail, – as well as any formerly Roman Christian lands they happened to come across. The Church sanctioned and even helped to finance the Crusades into the Middle East, as well as the conquering of the Americas after its discovery. The Spanish Inquisition was designed by the Roman Catholic Church to suppress Protestantism in Spain and to remove the last vestiges of the Moslem religion from the Iberian Peninsula. The Moslem Moors, a north African people that nikkidee referred to, ruled Spain for just over 300 years after the Moors conquered it 711A.D., They were eventually forced back across the Straits of Gibraltar by the expanding Christian kingdoms north of it in France, who invaded Spain, again with the support of the Roman Catholic church. And the list goes on and on, growing larger quickly, as soon as one starts looking at the Middle East and the Far East and the religion based conflicts that have taken place there and continue to do so. Does it sound to you like I believe in religions or espouse their respective causes or beliefs?
I am not even including purely territorial or economic grabs such as the Mongol invasion of Europe and the Middle East, Xerces attack on Greece, the Roman conquests and those of Alexander the Great. Although they were also followed in some cases by the implantation of dominate religious belief following the conquests. The ancient Hebrew migration into the Holy Land from Egypt was justified by religious belief, although secular concerns such as living room, a homeland, and economic advancement for a formerly displaced people we also contributing factors. But it didn’t end in Israel after the Hebrews decimated and enslaved the Canaanites and established a homeland. Hebrew conquests of their neighbors resulted in the establishment of Judea, a separate state from Israel, a state that continually advanced toward and fought the ancient Philistines, the forefathers of modern Palestinians. (David and Goliath – Goliath was a Philistine – Samson single-handedly killed 3000 Philistines in one combat.)
This is a situation caused by religion, and spurred by religious justification that is still driving warfare in modern Israel and Palestine between the Jews and ethnic Palestinians. This is the reason it is so difficult for you “western Christian” scientific folks to do research in some Moslem dominated lands. Only now the Palestinians have a religious justification of their very own, the Moslem religion, that sees all Jews as the historic enemy, just as the prophet Mohammed claimed they were. Gee, I wonder how they came to have that viewpoint? The question Moslems consistently fail to address is who conquered the Hebrews in the first place and carried the entire population off into slavery in Egypt. Who caused them to become a displaced people? Are any two disparate peoples genetically closer than the Hebrews and Middle Eastern Moslems? Both claim to be descendents of Abraham. Gee, I wonder how anyone today, secular scientists included, could possibly think religion was irrelevant or didn’t affect societies, past and present?
Does it sound like I hold religion blameless? Hardly. Because of their causal effect on human interrelationships, the scientific community should not ignore religions and their impact on civilizations. Nor should religion be deemed beneath the “true scientist’s” notice. Nor should religion be abstractly referred to as “cultic” to obscure its possible impact or the broad support base that it might have enjoyed in past or primitive societies.
I am not advocating believing in any religion or any particular religious beliefs, although I will openly state my own belief in Divine creation, creationism, or intelligent design, whichever you prefer. Prove to me it didn’t happen and I will readily change my belief. I am advocating the scientific study of religions in general because of their causal effects on mankind’s activities and our collective development. Isn’t that part of your jobs as archeologists?
Is it in our genes to believe in a greater being, since so many humans do? (Except secular scientists and atheists, of course.) Do we actually have a spirit being within us that was implanted by God? Shouldn’t science be able to find and identify it or prove it doesn’t exist? Is religion simply a man-manufactured means of population control and population manipulation? Are spiritual experiences real or simply self-hypnosis? Or are they a human response to the power of suggestion? What about faith healing? Is that self-hypnosis too, or the power of suggestion, or mind over matter? Is mind over matter even possible scientifically? Just how compelling is the power of suggestion to humans? Just why is it that so many of us do believe in a greater being? Is its foundation in our herding instinct? Is it in our innate desire to belong to something greater than one’s self? Is this desire rooted in the family unit, or rooted in our herding instinct? If so, why is the drive so strong?
We Americans join and support hundreds of organizations that have nothing to do with religions. Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Lions Clubs, Rotary Clubs, Alumni Clubs and Fraternities, VFW, Disabled American Veterans organization, Move America Forward.org, Scientific associations, The National Geographic Society, etc… This “need to belong” appears to be basic human need. How did we come to have it and why is it so strong in us? What behavior is inherited through our genes? What behavior in humans is instinctive? Where does instinct leave off and learned behavior begin? Is building cities a response to herding instinct, or is it a response to survival instinct that prey animals exhibit in mixing among large numbers of other prey animals?
In my opinion, qualitative scientific studies can answer many if not most of these questions. But the scientific community first needs to be convinced these questions about religion and religious belief in mankind have relevance or significance to “pure” science. The scientific community also needs to be convinced that living with questions unanswered and hanging in scientific limbo does mankind no good.
Five hundred years ago, a large portion of the European population believed the world was flat. Today, nobody on the planet does. But it wasn’t because of scientists or Darwin. It was because of those layman seafarers who risked life and limb PROVING it wasn’t. Those same people you so readily disparage as quacks, but who also transported Darwin to the Galapagos because he had no means of getting there himself.
Everyone condemned the U.S. intelligence community for its compartmentalization and jurisdictional blindness that allowed 9-11-2001 to occur. Science is also compartmentalized and jurisdictional in nature because of the myriad of scientific specializations and the diverse locations in which research is carried out. So is law and medicine, for the very same reason. Specialization today is an unchangeable reality. In my opinion, the greater scientific community should try to put the jigsaw puzzle pieces together to see how they fit in an overall view. Not continue as is, with each science specialist merrily plugging away in his/her own specialized scientific domain, and never comparing, consolidating, or joining data to attempt to produce the greater picture. Even if the greater picture that emerges might not agree with science’s preconceived Darwinian notion that there is no higher being and that all of life on earth was the result of a fortunate accident. (Since plants and animals are so genetically different, wouldn’t it have required two separate fortunate accidents? OR did animals evolve from plants or vice versa?)
It is not my intention to alienate or insult anyone, least of all the scientific community. Nor is it my intention to let you insult me. I have spent 40 years reading the research your colleagues have written and published, along with a great many other things you folks likely never considered reading because of YOUR preconceived idea it had no merit. Vetting PROVES nothing. It is a process of elimination wholly dependent upon the factors that are included in the question in the first place. Who decides what factors to include? You folks do. And you consistently ignore religion as a causal factor despite the fact is has had continuing influence on man’s development and activities.
Comparing the Theory of Gravity to the Theory of cross-species Evolution (as I said, the only part of evolutionary theory I have any problem with) is like comparing apples to oranges. Every step I take, I’m stuck fast to the ground. That’s proof enough of the Theory of Gravity. Yet, by your argument, I’m supposed to believe in trans-species evolution just because you science folks and Darwin say it happened, repeatedly, way, way back during prehistory, during an era when none of us was alive to see it.
I can’t feel it like I do gravity. I can’t touch it. I can’t smell it. I can’t taste it. I can’t hear it. So, show me the missing link between man and ape. You can’t. Show me the dinosaur whose anus was located in its hip as its pelvic bone slowly “rotated “ over eons. You can’t. Show me anything plant or animal that can reproduce without a complete DNA strand. You can’t. Show me how at the dawn of the earth, DNA could have slowly evolved in the primordial slime without a living organism to support it. You can’t. Show me one single living example of cross-species evolution. You can’t. Show me one single living example of creating a third species by mating any two existing species, plant or animal. You can’t. Show me even one certain living example of spontaneous mutation of one species into a second different and distinct species. You can’t. Comparing finger bones in aquatic and terrestrial animals doesn’t do it either as its construct is based on successful specific application. (Survival of the Fittest and Natural Selection) You can’t prove it, even after all these years of trying. And I can’t disprove it. Your faith however, in a belief you can’t touch, hear, see, taste, smell, or conclusively PROVE, smacks of religious belief.
So I do expect facts, as you know them, not supposition or assumption. I do understand the requirement for theorizing while the research is ongoing. What I am interested in is your findings after all the theorizing has been put to rest. I can supply plenty of theorizing on my own, just as I have here, utilizing many of science’s own findings. That is the reason I am blogging away on this “scientific” website, to get answers to the questions that I still have, after all these years of waiting for you to answer them.
Of course, since I am a layman and didn’t spend half my life learning the specialized jargon, lab techniques, and protocol that you did, you’ll have to keep it simple enough for me to understand. Don’t try to bamboozle me or prove a point with technical jargon that it took years of schooling for you to learn. And don’t try to intimidate me with chest thumping or a superior air of authority. I will be the first to admit I do not have the educational background to meet you on your own terms. But, just whom are you doing all this research for? Your own satisfaction? Who pays your salaries, or for the grants you receive, in order for you to have the time and technical resources to do the research? The rest of us do, the laymen you disparage with your pompous egocentric comments about our collective ignorance.
Do you know how to navigate a ship by the stars? Do you know how to drill an oil well or refine gasoline? Do you even know how to operate the trucks, or aircraft, that carry you and your equipment to the remote sites you study? Do you know how to perform the surgery you referred to? Do you know how to operate an M-1 tank, or a bulldozer, or a maintainer? Wasn’t it a bulldozer operator that actually discovered the remains in Ethiopia had the foresight to stop his work before he completely destroyed the evidence and call scientific folks about it?
If the moon were inhabitable, we would already have colonized it to beat the Soviets to it. Many of your colleagues would be living there. If Mars could support life, we would be in the process of colonizing it. If man is truly a recent arrival, what is so preposterous about some more advanced extraterrestrial people colonizing the earth? Do you believe we are the only people in the universe? Upon what do you base this assumption? Can you prove it didn’t happen? How? Please, please explain it to me.
We have our jobs and you have yours, which is division of labor in a mature society. And part of your job is to inform us laymen of your scientific findings and to back them up with convincing evidence that supports your conclusions. Once you do that, none of us will have any trouble coming to believe the same things you do. Until then however, my guess seems to be as good as your guess. We are all searching for answers.
To Adpayne- I found Charles Hapgood’s, Maps of the ancient sea kings; evidence of advanced civilization in the ice age, as well as another of his works, The Path of the Pole, about shifting magnetic polarity and tectonic plate movement. I had to order the Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings title through my local library. Is this what you read? I’m almost positive he had other papers published through the University of New Hampshire. I did a Google search, however and found nothing else but these two books online, or through the county library’s Worldcat database. Hopefully I found the work you referred to concerning the Portolano chart. The book will arrive in 10 days or so.
To Emma- I found, The Earth Chronicles, books 1-6 by Zecharia Sitchin. I also found Sitchin’s Genesis Revisited, which appears to be a condensed version of his earlier multi-volume works. Genesis Revisited was copyrighted in 1990. The Earth Chronicles are a 2007, paperback reprint that is currently available in bookstores.
I read fast, but I never took the Evelin Woodhead sped readin’ corse, [refer to Cheech and Chong] so this may take a while.
To Kris- I am not sure I understood what you meant when you said “In terms of cultural change and whether it results from an influx of people or an idea that is learned by people traveling around and then returning home has always been a tough nut to crack, until genetics showed up.” How did genetics impact the learned behavior of culture? Or are you referring to ethnicity or ethnic culture?
Also “the differences in gene populations are going to vary by whose cemetery you are looking at.” Again, are you referring to the ethnicity of those buried there? I have the feeling you are in both instances, but I don’t want to assume.
Forgive me, but I somehow had the idea that archeological culture studies depended more upon the unearthing of building techniques, living quarters, work spaces, artwork depicting the inhabitants, writings, hieroglyphics, and subsequent graffiti than upon the items buried with the deceased. Maybe I misunderstood.
To Uravoan Paz- Your observations about the lotus flower in various religions are excellent. I personally am not familiar enough with Indian or Chinese culture, Hinduism, Buddhism, or Shamanism to have any kind of opinion, other than that Shamanism is appears to be part of most emerging tribal religions. The American Indian tribes practiced varying versions of Shamanism, with the “medicine man” or in rare instances “medicine woman” filling the role of Shaman. Yes they even practiced using mid altering chemicals to assist them in their spiritual journeys. Peyote was commonly used in southwestern Native American tribal ceremonies by the Shamans, as was tobacco.
I do have questions if you will permit me to ask them of you, such as: Do you know the Hindu version of earth’s creation? Do you know the Buddhist version of earth’s creation? Does either religion speak about a great flood in prehistoric times as the bible does? Do you know the Indian people’s version of the birth of mankind? Do you know the Buddhist peoples’ version of the birth of mankind? Do Indians consider themselves to have originated separately from the Pakistani or Afghan tribesmen? Are Indians a homogeneous culture or made up of disparate tribes? Sorry, I am only trying to take the easy way out by asking, in order to plug holes in my own knowledge.
I have already accumulated some knowledge of the Moslem religion and the Middle Eastern people by having spent time there. I learned as much as I could about them before I went, and learned even more after I got there. Some of it stuff I wish I’d never had to learn.
My computer is not fast enough for Google Earth, but my brother has DSL. I intend to look up those coordinates you referred to. I am sure they will only cause more questions for me.
Anyone who would prefer to continue these non-scientific discussions in another venue can call me at 432-756-5482 and I will give you my home email address.
Hi Steve:
If it’s not appropriate to discuss popular culture on an archaeology website, why are you discussing it? Most of the theories you discuss are popular culture notions of what archaeology is, not religious perceptions of the past.
But, whatever. What I meant when I said “In terms of cultural change and whether it results from an influx of people or an idea that is learned by people traveling around and then returning home has always been a tough nut to crack, until genetics showed up.” is that scientists had a hard time figuring out who was moving ideas around the countryside until genetics showed up as a technique, not that genetics had anything to do with moving ideas, but that we now can trace who is who (to a degree) using genetics. Stuff that is buried with somebody, or the contents of an archaeological site, may well belong to somebody who has brought the stuff along from his or her homeland or has simply adopted it because. In other words, you can’t, by and large, look at a set of bones all by themselves and identify ethnicity. That is also why I say people choose their ethnicity; it’s your stuff that brands you as an ethnic person of one sort or another. Sure there are physical differences, primarily in the face that have been associated with specific ‘ethnic’ groups, and specific diseases–but those are on the population level, not on an individual level. Despite what the TV shows tell you.
And yes, if you open an ethnic cemetery–or a community of people who self-identify as a particular ethnic group–you’re going to get results that are for that particular self-identified ethnicity.
Sounds like you should build a website or blog of your own, Steve, so you can set your own agenda.
Kris
Which is not to say, Steve, that you can’t discuss whatever you’d like here or on the bulletin board. As long as civility reigns, I’m happy.
Here’s the bulletin board if you want to write there:
http://archaeology.about.com/mpboards.htm
Kris
Hi Kris,
Last night was the premiere of 10.000 BC here in Rhodes/ Greece and i must admit that although i enjoyed the story behind it ( as it was a love story basically) i was confused about the historical facts…
Myself i am not a scientist nor an archaeologist, i am just fascinated about history and the untold secrets and myths around human civilisation and coulture.
to get to my question…
referring to the aspects of the movie.
Did Mamoths exist back then ? and if they did surelly they did not live in Egypt!!! It doesnt make any sence that a wholly Mamoth whos “design” is to endure cold would actually thrive in Africa and specifically captured and building pyramids!!!
I have read that in the period of 10.000BC the global climate was drastically changing and immence heat took place in the tropical zone of the planet.
How did the Mamoth evolve to what we know today as an elephant?
Thank you for your time ,
mary
Kris
Thank you for responding to my questions. I agree that ethnicity or culture can sometimes be chosen. Race, however, which is what I was talking about earlier, is imposed genetically through ones parents. As such, it should be traceable genetically.
I am not interested in establishing a website or blog so I can set the agenda. I already established web sites in the late 90’s so I know how the information on them gets put there and how easily it can be altered. For this reason alone I am very skeptical about anything I read on the Internet that the author asserts as fact. Strange how we humans believe that anything in print is inherently true, including The National Enquirer. Besides, I already know what I think, and I think my knowledge is incomplete.
Before I back out of here and stop taking up so much space, I am interested in new information or resources to study. Any other non-fiction suggestions besides Swigart, Jacobsen or Stiebing? I would prefer newer published research to 20 or 30 year-old arguments. Thanks
For Mary,
Yes, there were mammoths around in 10,000 BC. It’s estimated that the mammoth died out around 1,700 BC. As for them living and being domesticated closer to the equator, there is some speculation that mammoths could have migrated south during the winter.
Also, the world wasn’t as hot as you may think. 10,000 BC. was about the time the planet was coming to the end of the last ice age, so the area around Egypt would have had a milder and wetter climate than it does today.
The fundamental adage holds true here that one must crawl before one learns to walk. Those who are willing to accept credulously some of the more outlandish theories in alternative history should first take the time and effort to study the conventional work of untold thousands of academics. Just as Picasso and the other Cubists were masters of representational painting before they began to manipulate and experiment, so too should those who wish to speak intelligently on archaeology and history know what is widely accepted before traipsing down strange paths. The sense I get from the tone and rhetoric of this forum is that many believe there is some secret history, some vast store of knowledge that is being withheld from the general public by those breathing the rarefied air of their academic ivory towers. This is so far from the truth. The knowleddge is out there. Certainly, the academic literature can be dry and obtuse, and doesn’t have the excitement of Graham Hancock or the fun of an Art Bell broadcast. Blame academics for not communicating to the general public. This is why Kris’s site is valuable.
Brent, my late wife taught archaeologically for some 30 odd years. She’s worked in Egypt, Turkey, Mexico and the Middle East. After her time in Baalbeek,Lebanon, she decided it was time to write a book of her own. My wife, who -was very well educated, had always felt a certain uneasiness with a overwhelming blindness that ran through the archaeological community. So many times she would come home frustrated with the smug attitudes of her colleagues whenever she had tried to propose an explanation that differed from what was considered fact.
Unfortunately, my wife passed away before completing her book. But according to her, there was a great deal of information that was being ignored. I just pulled out a few of her notes and some things she felt didn’t fit or were over looked were as followed.
- Giant stone carvings African/black males in South America that were thousands of years
old.
-Giant stone carvings of Cuzco, precision cut into strange angles without any sign of chisel marks and held together without mortar.How were these stones lifted and fit together like giant jig saw?
-Giant Stones of the original base of the Temple of Jupiter weighing an estimated 200 tons moved several miles and lifted 20 feet in the air- a modern crane couldn’t lift this weight, so how did our “primitive” ancestors?
How is it that the peoples on different sides of the globe-Egypt,Lebanon,and South America, managed to lift the weights modern equipment, but we have no idea how they did it?
- Last but not least, long before it became fashionable to discredit the Egyptians with building the pyramids, my wife said she didn’t buy the Egyptian explanation for a minute. When she saw them for the first time back in the 40′s, my wife said there was no way a people barely out of the stone age built those things.
I know some people think they were built by aliens, but my wife had a more terrestrial explanation – humans are much, much older than we think. She reasoned the we couldn’t find the missing link was due to the fact we weren’t looking back far enough.
So how’s that for someone with far out explanation having a education. You should never assume people are lacking in some way without first getting to know them.
If my wife had live to see the internet explosion and all the people putting their idea’s out there for everyone else to discuss- she would have loved it.
As for the secrets that are being withheld – my dad was a fourth generation top ranking Freemason. Ha told me many times that if the world new what was really going on and had gone on, society would fall apart. Today people don’t much believe in the Freemasons and thats the way they like it.
Thank you for your comments, George. I intend no disrepect but before I could even begin to respond directly to your post, I would have to know more about your wife’s credentials. But just generally, many of the achievements you cite as being mysterious have perfectly good explanations. One of the first things one learns in archaeology is never to dismiss the organized brute strength of thousands of humans working toward a monumental goal like a pyramid.
Brent
If it’s out there and readily available, point me to it. I read textbooks like most people read novels. How many times do I have to ask? Just point and shoot names and titles.
Steve:
I’m not exactly sure what you’re looking for, when you say “if it’s out there”. We’ve touched on numerous pop culture myths in this blog—what specific data are you interested in? If you want general texts that debunk popular myths in archaeology, anything by Kenneth Feder is good. My favorite generalist is Brian Fagan.
But if you’ll be more specific, I’ll be happy to provide some more refs.
Kris
Hello, Steve,
I would merely recommend that you look to the syllabus of an introductory course on archaeology and ancient history–you can find course websites online. Pick up the main text and let its bibliography guide you to the more advanced and specialty research. There’s no one tome that will answer all your questions. It’s a totality of contemporary knowledge supported by academics working within the framework of the scientific method.
Unfortunately, for some I again point to academia as the point of departure. It’s a fact of life that unless one is part of an archaeology program or in professional cultural resource management that there are few opportunities to practice. Gone are the days for the most part of cowboy archaeology–most people don’t have the resources nor the time like some of our 19th century predecessors, who did a great deal of damage in any event promoting their pet theories. If you want the fun and adventure, join an expedition to find shipwrecked Spanish galleys in the Caribbean. Or better not, don’t as you’re promoting the worst kind of “archaeology.”
I have to stress again that this isn’t a sport but science based on evidence. And science is conservative for good reason—it requires that one stop, think, organize, and set out one’s thoughts in a logical framework. One just can’t pick it up overnight. It does literally take years to incorporate all the research of those who came before.
Brent- Science based in evidence? You mean like the evidence that Khufu built the pyramids?How about the ancient map of Antarctica? The giant carvings of Africans in South America?Shall I go on? As its already been pointed out by a few people, archaeologically is great deal of speculation. I’m in my third year of university and I have yet to find anyone willing to discuss all that anomalies that plague this field. Everyone simply turns to the “what we know” crap or refers to the work of others who have speculated.
As long as we continue to avoid looking at all the evidence and brush over the tings that can’t be explained with a generic answer, were never going to put the pieces together. I myself want answers and I’m not satisfied with the ones I’m getting, because they don’t always fit.
People like Steve are putting themselves out there looking for answers. The last thing they need is some condesending , smug…I better stop here before I’m deleted.
Any way, there are a lot of people out there who don’t agree with “what we know” And these people are well educated. Why are they discounted for simply straying from “what we know?”
Sitchen, for example is extremely well educated and yet he’s considered a crack pot. Why? because he believes in something that most people consider impossible. But why is it so impossible? I’m not saying he’s right, but this community should at least give him the respect he deserves for the four decades of research he’s put into the matter.
For Steve, not everyone in this field is a stuck up stuffed shirt. There are some of, the new generation, that want answers and aren’t willing to believe what were told.
I’m not as generous as Kris. Yes, I’m smug, condescending and you can throw in pompous and pedantic as well. But to my credit I shave regularly with the razor handed down by Occam. Luckily this “infinity razor” lives up to its hype and never grows dull.
And, Brent, you have a sense of humor, which is somewhat less common in the general population than would be pleasant.
Oh Brent, too bad you weren’t more like your “infinity razor.”
As for a sense of humor, I’m not surprised you find him funny Kris…some of your own comments are equally condescending.
One last thing…I notice that neither Kris or the almighty Brent are bothering to address the comments regarding the questionable evidence on the matter of “Khufu’s pyramid.”
Emma:
You are borderline rude, and I think you are aware of that. FYI: I don’t engage with people who insult me and others who are trying to discuss things; I don’t see that you have been insulted at all in this discussion, while you have called people smug, condescending, racist, and stuffed shirts.
Stop. Now. Ask your question politely and perhaps somebody will talk to you.
Kris
Emma is borderline rude? I was reading over everyones comments and it seems to me that Emma was having a friendly conversation and trying to be of some help. And if I’m not mistaken, she was sticking well within the topic – a movie that deals with an alternate view of history.
Others on here, however, felt the need to belittle these people for their beliefs. If anyone here deserves to be chastised, it’s Brent. I’m a teacher and I can’t stand to see someone browbeat others for speaking their mind. When I read stuff like that, I can’t help but be reminded of a few of the unhappy bullies I’ve seen over the years.
If you don’t agree with what these people are saying, why not give them some evidence to help them see your point of view. From what I’ve seen, Emma has a point – you Kris, have yet to respond to the questions regarding the lack of evidence in archaeology. What about the Khufu pyramid thing? For that matter you said the Sphinx was built in the fourth dynasty for Khafre…”probably” Isn’t this what Emma was talking about… archaeology is filled with a lot of probably’. I’m asking you politely, how do you know who built the Sphinx and the pyramids. And please, I’m looking for proof, not maybes and what we knows. I want to know exactly what proof do you have that allows you to be so condescending towards others. Incase you don’t think yourself condescending… when you call another person’s beliefs “odd,” that’s exactly what you’re being. Not to mention a rude as well.
Bravo Emma, for rightfully defending someone who you felt was being attacked. And Brent, too bad you weren’t a little more like your “infinity razor.”
Adpayne- Thanks for recommending Charles Hapgood’s work, Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings.
I was particularly struck that the assistance he got came from his university students, and from the laymen in the U.S. military-Captains through Colonels in the U.S. Air Force Mapping Agency who put the agency’s resources at his disposal. As well as those other laymen employed by the Library of Congress who provided hundreds of maps for him to sift through in his search for other examples of the Twelve Winds system based maps.
Emma- Thank you for your support. I recommend you take the time to find a copy of the above and read it. It has nothing to do with Sitchin’s work, but references allegations that ancient man was aware of the moons of Saturn and Jupiter before known scientific means was available to know they existed.
Hapgood’s work is a very specific study of a series of ancient maps, of which the Peri Reis map was only one. These ancient maps were all based on the Twelve Winds map making system. Copied portions have shown up added on to other later maps. Including some used by 15th century explorers. As Adpayne said, it is persuasive evidence of an unidentified but scientifically advanced civilization predating the Sumerians. An advanced people who mapped the earth, including the Americas and Antarctica, during a time when Antarctica was not covered over with ice. Spherical trigonometry was used in the calculations of longitude and latitude based on magnetic north with a baseline running through Alexandria, Egypt. Methods for calculating longitude and latitude modern science asserts was not developed until the 15th century by European seafarers. Interestingly, he also advances a theory of tectonic plate movement to explain the long period of temperate climate in Antarctica, a theory that was not well received at the time by his fellow scientists. The very same theory that today we largely accept as geological fact. He made no assertion that I could find of an extraterrestrial influence; rather he credited the maps to an ancient civilization gone extinct long before the Sumerian rise.
George – I’m so sorry about your wife’s death. I wish she had lived long enough to join this discussion and to finish her book. You would also enjoy the above referenced work as some of it deals with an ancient civilization in Central America, predating the oldest known inhabitants.
Kris – Thanks for the names. I will put them on my reading list.
“…But the sad story of destruction, whereby man destroys almost as much as he creates (even in the best of times), does not begin with the 20th century. Consider the question of libraries. There is something particularly upsetting about the burning of a library. Somehow it symbolizes the whole process. The ancient world of Rome and Greece had many libraries. The most famous of these was the Library of Alexandria, founded in Egypt by Alexander the Great three centuries before the Christian Era. Five hundred years later it is said to have contained about one million volumes, and into it was gathered the entire knowledge of the ancient western world-the technology, the science, the literature, and the historical records.
This library, the heritage of untold ages, was burned. The details are not very well known, but we think there were at least three burnings. The first happened when Julius Caesar captured Alexandria. The citizens resisted him, and in the battle about a third of the library was destroyed. Caesar is said to have lectured them, sadistically accusing them of being guilty of the destruction-because they had resisted him! In his view, Rome had a perfect right to conquer Egypt, and so the Alexandrians were guilty of misconduct in resisting him. This is the way people still think today.
There is evidence that most of the library-restored and enormously enlarged after the time of Julius Caesar-was destroyed by a Christian mob, inflamed by a fanatical bishop, who pointed out to them-rightly, of course-that the library was no more than a repository of heathen teachings, and therefore a veritable timebomb ticking away, preparing an explosion that could wreck the Christian world. But how can we afford to point the finger at the ignorant mob? We have had our book burnings in the in the 20th Century. And I don’t refer only to Hitler’s infamous Burning of the Books…
“The final chapter in the destruction of the Library of Alexandria was a burning carried out by the Arabs after their conquest of Egypt in the 7th century. There are two stories. According to one, the conquering Caliph said, on being asked what to do with the library said, that anything in it contrary to Islamic teaching should be destroyed, and everything else was in the Koran already. The library was therefore totally destroyed. The other version is that the hot, dusty, dirty Arab legions, just out of the desert, found the enormous Roman baths of the capital city ready for use, but out of fuel for heating the water, and that the parchments from the library furnished fuel…
“The Romans were guilty of another destruction of a library, which is important for our story. In the year 146 B.C. they burned the great city of Carthage, their ancient enemy and their incalculable superior in everything related to science. The Library of Carthage is said to have contained about 500,000 volumes, and these no doubt dealt with the history and the sciences of Phoenicia as a whole.”
Charles Hapgood, Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings
I can’t remember where, but I read that at one time ancient Baghdad contained 600 libraries. Does anyone know whether this assertion was based in fact?
I’m sorry Dawn–using words like “smug”, “racist”, “condescending” and “stuffed shirt” is not what I call “friendly”.
The pyramids at Giza: deep within the interior of the Great Pyramid are graffiti written in hieroglyphs referring to Khufu as the builder. See John Romer’s The Great Pyramid:
http://archaeology.about.com/od/oldkingdom/fr/romer.htm
It’s a fascinating book about pyramid construction.
About “probably”: You are quite right. We use “probably” a lot. That’s because scientists admit we don’t know everything; what we understand today may change based on future data. Should make you feel better, I would think. Science deals in facts, not Truth.
Kris
Emma here again…I don’t recall ever calling anyone a racist, nor did I call anyone on here a stuffed shirt – that comment was a generalization regarding a large number of people within archeology community…working closely and studying with these people gives me the right to make that observation.
As for smug, I was pointing out a behavior that was exactly that. I guess because I was calling out a person who shares your pedestrian beliefs, I was being rude. Why else would you not point out Brent’s obvious attitude toward Steve?
Thanks Dawn. That’s exactly how I feel. And not only is it rude to refer to someone’s beliefs as “odd,” it’s belittling as well. He’s basically saying I’m right and your wrong -end of discussion. I noticed Kris still is avoiding giving a personal answer on his thoughts to the idea of the questionable evidence of Khufu; instead, giving you a link to a book that, according to his review, assumes that Khufu is the builder.
Once again, Kris, what is your opinion on the controversy surrounding the discovery of the hieroglyphs? Why, when they first came out, did some members of the archeology community declare them to be frauds based on misspelling, general poor execution and – not to mention the remarkable fact that the wall that was blasted through just happen to be the only wall without any hieroglyphs.
And what about that Sphinx? Would you bet you life that you have the information correct?
One last thing – may I recommend the works of Zacharia Sitchen. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the “odd” works of this man, you might actually understand the research that went into his many books. I only suggest this as I myself, as student of archeology and ancient philosophies, am well read on the matter and find useful to be well versed in all areas – even the one’s I might not agree with.
Kris,
I apologize for becoming a lightening rod here. I haven’t promoted the discipline well and instead of advancing its scientific foundations, have inadvertently set it back for most of your audience. Personality seems to be at issue, rather than archaeology (yes, I guess I am a grumpy old academic). And it’s counterproductive to associate good science with one’s negative view of its source.
As for Khufu and other questions, the point being made is that Kris is directing you to a well established academic source who has been vetted by his peers. I don’t fault students for having questions but one can go on through the whole pseudoscience catalog for an eternity, debunking this or that theory. If you want to know what contemporary science thinks of the pyramids, the Sphinx or African carvings in PreColumbian South America, the literature is available. The truth is out there, you just won’t find it in the X-Files.
Okay, I’m closing this discussion. It’s wandered far afield from the original blog, and there are better places to discuss the various ideas that are being expressed here–on the bulletin board:
http://archaeology.about.com/mpboards.htm
There is even a place called “Alternative Archaeologies” that is a perfect spot to break all these questions down and examine them in some detail. As long as people respect one another, I don’t care what you all talk about. No matter what side you’re on in a particular issue, please be careful of one another; arguments will ensue, no doubt, but saying one or another person is wrong is not disrespect, in my book, but part of a civil argument.
What Romer says about the graffiti is that there is no doubt that the graffiti is legitimate. It was sealed within the interior of the pyramid and not opened until 1837. At that time, Champollion was still in the process of deciphering the hieroglyphic language. The characteristic of sloppiness is put down to the glyphs being placed hastily.
My opinion is–Romer knows what he’s talking about.
One other comment–I’m female.
Please, all of you, join me and others on the bulletin board to discuss whatever issues you’d like to.
Kris