It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

How far back does recorded history officially go?

page: 2
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Quasiscientist

I have become a big skeptic on most things that we have been told about 'our' history. To many contradictions, time lines that just don't make sense, and my personal belief that there is global cover-up of the history of man. I am not posting any links or any disputed opinions. You all can look it up for yourselves, but, things just do not add up IMHO.

And, I do not believe the myth that our moon was the result of some major collision between the earth and a non-earth object that eventually formed the moon.

There are still many places right here on earth that have not been explored/discovered. New species are popping up especially in our oceans. However, there are remote regions on all continents that have yet been explored.

Science is wonderful, but it ain't the final word, and have been proven wrong on more than one occasion. Earth is not flat, nor is it the center of our solar system. As far as I am concerned, I love reading as much as I can about this fabulous world that we live in, however, history as we are told, just does not make sense, and there are many 'holes/gaps' that unfortunately we will never understand. Just an honest skeptic.

:life as we know it, is a big lie:

Cheers




posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Quasiscientist

the romans had a habit of destroying every culture's history pre their rule.
hence european history kicks in from roman times, before that we had caves and turnips, i guess.
guesswork is involved going any further back, apparently mayans believed the world ended four years ago.



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Winners rewrite history. Loser disappears. This is the West doing now.
edit on 2-9-2016 by makemap because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: Quasiscientist
Officially right now that would be about 3,500 BCE, attributed to both the Ancient Egyptians and the Sumerians of Mesopotamia.


But how did archaeologists and historians come up with that date? Where did that particular date come from?

I know that thanks to radiocarbon dating, Hor-Aha's reign (Hor-Aha being the second pharaoh of the first dynasty of Ancient Egypt) is believed to have been roughly between the years 3111 BCE - 3045 BCE. According to this article anyway: rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org...

Narmer generally seems to be considered to have been the very first pharaoh of a united Egypt, but there were also apparently a few other kings to have ruled different parts of Egypt before Narmer (kings such as: Iry-Hor, Scorpion I, Scorpion II, and some others that are yet to be confirmed.)

And then there's Sumer, which is often stated as having been the "first civilization" (believed to have emerged sometime around the year 6500 BCE during the "Ubaid period"), however; most of its "recorded history" before the emergence of the Akkadian Empire around 2334 BCE has yet to be confirmed (most of the kings on the Sumerian King List seem to be unconfirmed unless they are mentioned to have been contemporaries of figures like Gilgamesh and/or Sargon.) I've also read that Sumer developed the first writing system (cuneiform) around 3500 BCE, which then influenced all other writing systems that came after it (like Egyptian hieroglyphs.) But then I've also read that Egyptian hieroglyphs were developed independently around the same time.

Anyway, I see that a lot of people here are saying that recorded history actually goes much further back than is officially stated (which is the sort of responses that I was expecting.) But I was hoping to get more detailed information that is backed up by the "general consensus".

I don't know. I guess since for several years now I've been working on this historical fiction story (starting from the very "beginning" of recorded history) and I'm trying to make it as "historically accurate" as possible, but there seems to be even less information the further back in the past I go to read about. So it seems that I'll have to "fill in the blanks" to create a coherent story, and still somehow keep it both interesting and at the very least semi-historically accurate.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Recording of what?

What we know of what they knew in written form?

Not trying to be funny here. Seriously, not.

Standing stones tell us much about their history. Some tell us they knew much about the Earths size and relation to the moon and sun. Some about the constellations and the procession of the heavens. Some very old structures tell us their mathematics were pretty damned advanced. Still others tell us they knew a lot about acoustics.

All without a phone app or written word.

Good topic

edit on 6-9-2016 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69
Recording of what?

What we know of what they knew in written form?

Not trying to be funny here. Seriously, not.

Standing stones tell us much about their history. Some tell us they knew much about the Earths size and relation to the moon and sun. Some about the constellations and the procession of the heavens. Some very old structures tell us their mathematics were pretty damned advanced. Still others tell us they knew a lot about acoustics.

All without a phone app or written word.

Good topic


While I also think that a lot of pre-history is interesting, and a film revolving around the people who built the Stonehenge could be good, I can't help but notice that the majority of films set in pre-history tend to be either over-the-top (like One Million Years B.C. and 10,000 BC) or unsuccessful (The Clan of the Cave Bear.)

I suppose that I just find it disappointing how little information there is about the Bronze Age. You can probably write several volumes of textbooks about the 20th century CE, but only a single textbook of the period between 3000 BCE and 2000 BCE.

For example, there's evidence of warfare (believed to have occurred around 3500 BCE) at the archaeological site of Hamoukar (which is in present-day Syria) but there are absolutely no written records about the battle itself. There's no mention whatsoever in the historical record about what the war was about, the names of the kings, if any of the kings involved had their names recorded on the Sumerian King List, or anything like that. Even though writing apparently existed in some form a short distance from this area, there's simply no mention as to why that battle happened. It's all up to people to guess as to what happened.

I guess that's why there are so few films set during the Bronze Age, unless they're set in some Biblical story like the Exodus.



posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quasiscientist
But how did archaeologists and historians come up with that date? Where did that particular date come from?


Since I'm teaching history at the moment, I do have an answer for you -- it's through the study of multiple materials and is created (and refined and argued by) a number of branches of science. When you see a published "consensus" in a textbook, it isn't just one person spouting off something. It's been arrived at by a long process.

So... how do they do it?

History is like a gigantic "crime scene" where a detective (us) comes across a mystery (name of a ruler) and has to figure out "who done it" (when did they rule and where?) As with a crime scene, bits and pieces are missing (you didn't see the crime and we didn't observe that point in history). And as with forensic evidence, you have to "build a case" using a lot of different things.

So...to date Egypt, at first they used Manetho's kings' list because it was translatable, it was an old source, and it was the only (at that time)comprehensive list they had that gave kings and lengths of reign. When other lists showed up with some different names, they realized that Manetho actually did NOT have all the facts (he was writing 3,000 years after the earliest pharaohs after all) and that they needed to match his Hellenized pharonic names (he was writing in Greek and could only read more recent (written after 1200 BC) hieroglyphs accurately) with what was found in the hieroglyphs.

This uncovered more kings ... who were also mentioned in inscriptions elsewhere on temple walls and artifacts. Frequently these would mention either the father or a mother or another important person, so you could use that hint to place the person in the correct place in history. Then you had to look at monuments that gave "regnal years" to see how long their reign lasted (because they dated things as "year Six of the reign of Tutankamun" and so forth... not '1200 BC' or 'Year 675 after the founding of Cairo') Even the gravestones of common people yield clues- and so do the garbage heaps (where things that are broken end up.)

The more of this you uncover, the better you can adjust the dates. You also use trade material and diplomatic letters to match places and times - and books and histories written by people who lived somewhat close to that time and somewhat close to the location.

So a history is constructed from millions upon millions of pieces of evidence. You won't find all of the evidence for any one timeline in one place because the amount of material (scattered in hundreds of thousands of private collections and tens of thousands of museums) is vast.

Even the "losers" of history leave a lot of marks. You just have to know where to look for them (or to think to look for them. I'm teaching the Crusades and it would be easy (and lazy) to focus on the European histories... and forget that the OTHER side (Muslims) ALSO have histories of this and they tell a different part of the picture. This is something that ordinary people don't do, but scholars have to train themselves to consider.)

I hope this helps.
edit on 11-9-2016 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quasiscientist
I suppose that I just find it disappointing how little information there is about the Bronze Age. You can probably write several volumes of textbooks about the 20th century CE, but only a single textbook of the period between 3000 BCE and 2000 BCE.


You're just not looking in the right place. There are many textbooks covering that time period.... for Egypt alone, I have a collection of about 30 textbooks covering art and individual pharaohs and writing systems and amulets and parts of the history and tomb construction and professions and magical practices and translated writings -- and my textbook collection is very small. My professors have much larger collections and in many languages (German and French are the main ones.)

And that's just for Egypt.

And then there's the journals...

Assyria will have even more of this, as will Jordan and Israel and Greece and even Britain and continental Europe... and then there's the Far East and the Americas.

In all fairness, you wouldn't know about this unless you happened to be taking a degree in history... and some of it you wouldn't find out about (because it's so specialized) until you were in a Masters' or PhD program and needed the very very obscure and detailed research li ke this interesiting example.)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd
You're just not looking in the right place. There are many textbooks covering that time period.... for Egypt alone, I have a collection of about 30 textbooks covering art and individual pharaohs and writing systems and amulets and parts of the history and tomb construction and professions and magical practices and translated writings -- and my textbook collection is very small. My professors have much larger collections and in many languages (German and French are the main ones.)

And that's just for Egypt.

And then there's the journals...

Assyria will have even more of this, as will Jordan and Israel and Greece and even Britain and continental Europe... and then there's the Far East and the Americas.


Ha. Yeah. I definitely exaggerated the textbook thing... I think it might have been more accurate to say that one wouldn't be able to write an entire textbook about... the 20th century BCE maybe? Or the 30th century BCE? Needless to say, I doubt that there's enough material for any century of the Bronze Age compared to just the 20th century CE.


originally posted by: Byrd
In all fairness, you wouldn't know about this unless you happened to be taking a degree in history... and some of it you wouldn't find out about (because it's so specialized) until you were in a Masters' or PhD program and needed the very very obscure and detailed research li ke this interesiting example.)


That article seems to be more about the New Kingdom of Egypt, no? I am aware that there's a lot more information about the New Kingdom of Egypt compared to earlier periods of Egypt, such as the Old Kingdom and Early Dynastic. I am currently finding myself more interested in the First Dynasty, trying to find as much information as possible especially of the life and reign of that first pharaoh Narmer. I'm curious to find out more about the unification of Egypt (whether or not it was a violent unification like Qin's wars of unification in China, which "pre-dynastic" Egyptian kings were contemporaries of Narmer, the number of troops involved in the fighting, whether or not chariots were yet in use back then, whether or not horses had already been introduced to Egypt, whether or not Egyptians were already making face-to-face contact with peoples from nearby civilizations such as Sumer during that time or if they were only vaguely aware of each other's existence through trade, how large the ships used for naval combat were or if there even was any naval combat, etc.)

Right now my main source of information is, unfortunately, Wikipedia. Luckily, Wikipedia cites sources (for the most part) and a lot of those sources are freely available to read on the internet. Other sources I need to head on out to the Los Angeles Central Library to look for.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
the romans had a habit of destroying every culture's history pre their rule.


Is that why there are Sabine, Etruscan, Venetic, Ligurian and Umbrian artifacts in museums?



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
the romans had a habit of destroying every culture's history pre their rule.


It wasn't just the Romans destroying cultures' histories, though. Various different "barbaric hordes" regularly rampaged through civilizations. For example: the Gutian people (one of these "barbaric hordes") essentially wiped out the Akkadian Empire (sometimes stated as having been the "first empire" in recorded history.) The Gutians were so effective at destroying the capital city (named "Akkad") of the empire, that over 4,000 years after its destruction archaeologists have yet to figure out the city's exact location. So whatever rubble may remain of the ancient ruined city has been buried by layers of sand somewhere in the deserts of Iraq, and will probably never be found. This process seems to had repeated itself throughout the Middle East's history. Shortly after the Gutians wiped out the Akkadian Empire, the Sumerians re-emerged for a time before they were themselves wiped out by the "less civilized" Elamites. The Elamites' victory was short-lived, however, as the Assyrians came out on top and conquered a fairly large chunk of the Neo-Sumerian Empire's territory. The Assyrians were subsequently defeated by the Babylonians.

The Ancient Near East appears to had experienced a near-constant tug-of-war between its various different civilizations and barbaric hordes. Civilizations would rise and fall, barbaric hordes would conquer, barbaric hordes would assimilate and become "civilized", and the newly civilized barbaric hordes would themselves be conquered by other barbaric hordes.

I would say that European history probably starts kicking in right around the time that the centuries-long domination of the Assyrians' and Babylonians' was finally ended by the Medians and Persians. Right around this time, the Persians decided to fight the Greeks... and then about a century later, the Greeks steamrolled the Persians. Finally, the Romans showed up to take over from where the Greeks left off. And, of course, as we all know, the Romans were themselves picked apart piece-by-piece by barbarians (who themselves developed their own civilization that we are all so familiar with today: "Western civilization".)

I realize that this all an over-simplification of events, and I apologize.

edit on 12-9-2016 by Quasiscientist because: typo



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: SentientCentenarian

We could build pyramids again, we just don't want too. Wtf. Slaves dragged rocks and we have lasers in space and quantum levitation and power vehicles....

Maybe WHY they were built would influence us to build one but it's literally a huge pile of rocks.

Is the space station and skylines not impressive?



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   
"Slaves dragged rocks "

Did these slaves also have an intimate knowledge of mathematics and astronomy that are built into the placement of the 'rocks they dragged?' Not to mention the harmonics of the kind of rocks chosen for the inner chambers?

Also of some question is how they fed and organized the legions of 'slaves' that were needed to drag all those rocks in the time frames allotted, unless the Egyptologists are wrong and the 'tombs' were started long before the pharoahs were even born.

But have it your way if it makes you feel less conflicted about the possibilities.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Quasiscientist

Hardly far enough considering mankind has been a cognitve
sentient being for at least 250'000 yrs according to science.
But that's science where a lot doesn't add up. And I will be
pummelled for that I'm sure. By those that can tell by my use
of english I'm no secular academic.
edit on Rpm91216v40201600000013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quasiscientist
Ha. Yeah. I definitely exaggerated the textbook thing... I think it might have been more accurate to say that one wouldn't be able to write an entire textbook about... the 20th century BCE maybe? Or the 30th century BCE? Needless to say, I doubt that there's enough material for any century of the Bronze Age compared to just the 20th century CE.


Nope, and nope.

From genetics and patterns of migration to dendrochronology, camp sites, paleoclimates, paleoflora and fauna that humans interacted with etc, there's a vast wealth of material.


That article seems to be more about the New Kingdom of Egypt, no? I am aware that there's a lot more information about the New Kingdom of Egypt compared to earlier periods of Egypt, such as the Old Kingdom and Early Dynastic. I am currently finding myself more interested in the First Dynasty, trying to find as much information as possible especially of the life and reign of that first pharaoh Narmer. I'm curious to find out more about the unification of Egypt (whether or not it was a violent unification like Qin's wars of unification in China, which "pre-dynastic" Egyptian kings were contemporaries of Narmer, the number of troops involved in the fighting, whether or not chariots were yet in use back then, whether or not horses had already been introduced to Egypt, whether or not Egyptians were already making face-to-face contact with peoples from nearby civilizations such as Sumer during that time or if they were only vaguely aware of each other's existence through trade, how large the ships used for naval combat were or if there even was any naval combat, etc.)

Right now my main source of information is, unfortunately, Wikipedia. Luckily, Wikipedia cites sources (for the most part) and a lot of those sources are freely available to read on the internet. Other sources I need to head on out to the Los Angeles Central Library to look for.


Raffele's usually the go-to source for much of it, but his site isn't updated as often as one would like. In general, this material is at conferences. And no, chariots were not introduced until the time of Tutankhamun (his father, Akhenaten, was one of the first to have chariots. And no,they didn't have naval combat and no, Sumer didn't have a large empire back then. And no, horses weren't domesticated for chariot use until 2,000 BC and that wasn't anywhere near Egypt.

Googling would have gotten you all the above answers (so would university classes - but with more detail.)

The Oriental Institute of Chicago has free materials as does the Petrie Museum, the British Museum, and a lot of other places. It's an exciting time for folks interested in history.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: SentientCentenarian
"Slaves dragged rocks "

Did these slaves also have an intimate knowledge of mathematics and astronomy that are built into the placement of the 'rocks they dragged?' Not to mention the harmonics of the kind of rocks chosen for the inner chambers?

Also of some question is how they fed and organized the legions of 'slaves' that were needed to drag all those rocks in the time frames allotted, unless the Egyptologists are wrong and the 'tombs' were started long before the pharoahs were even born.


Couple of points you've missed...
* slaves did NOT build the pyramids - a workforce of around 50,000 men did, however.
* they didn't drag one block at a time up one ramp as is constantly depicted (much to Egyptologists' annoyance.) Over 100 work gangs were moving and lifting stones up all the sides at any giving minute.
* it's not actually solid, either. There's a lot of places filled with rubble.
* lining things up north/south is very easy. Put a stick in the ground at sunrise/early morning. Draw a line along the shadow. That's east-west and very accurate. Perpendicular to that is north-south.
* the granite blocks of the chambers aren't smooth and are of different sizes...hence, no 'harmonics' there.



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd
Raffele's usually the go-to source for much of it, but his site isn't updated as often as one would like. In general, this material is at conferences. And no, chariots were not introduced until the time of Tutankhamun (his father, Akhenaten, was one of the first to have chariots. And no,they didn't have naval combat and no, Sumer didn't have a large empire back then. And no, horses weren't domesticated for chariot use until 2,000 BC and that wasn't anywhere near Egypt.

Googling would have gotten you all the above answers (so would university classes - but with more detail.)

The Oriental Institute of Chicago has free materials as does the Petrie Museum, the British Museum, and a lot of other places. It's an exciting time for folks interested in history.


Hmmm yeah I've managed to gather a lot of information from Wikipedia, but Wikipedia unfortunately doesn't really get into specific dates.

For example: according to Wikipedia, horses were domesticated roughly around the year 3500 BCE. Camels and donkeys seem to have been domesticated roughly around the same time. Wheels were also invented roughly around this time. So this has made me wonder if the domestication of horses, camels, and donkeys influenced the development of the wheel. It has also made me wonder where, exactly, the wheel was first invented and how quickly the invention was introduced. I figure that if horses were domesticated somewhere in Central Asia, then the wheel must have been invented there. However, the Ljubljana Marshes Wheel (believed to have been created around the year 3150 BCE) is apparently the oldest wooden wheel yet discovered, and it wasn't discovered in Central Asia, but in Slovenia (in Eastern Europe.)

Wikipedia also has some articles about theories regarding Indo-European-language-speaking peoples that they very quickly migrated out of Central Asia into Europe around this time, suggesting that the domestication of horses and the invention of the wheel may have given them an edge over the peoples already inhabiting Europe during this time.

And the earliest depiction of wheeled vehicles (wagons drawn by "onagers") in Sumer seems to be on the "Standard of Ur" (dated to around 2600 BCE), while the earliest depiction of wheeled vehicles in Egypt doesn't seem to come until much later (until the time of Akhenaten, over a thousand years later.) This has made me wonder how soon after the invention of the wheel were wheeled vehicles introduced to Egypt, and whether or not they were drawn by beasts of burden (horses, camels, donkeys, etc.) or simply carts hand-drawn by humans. I am aware that African wild asses had been domesticated into donkeys approximately 3000 BCE, but I have been unsuccessful at finding out whether or not they were used to pull carts.

As for naval combat, I just sort of assumed that there was most likely no naval combat during the Early Dynastic Period of Ancient Egypt after I saw pictures of the boats built during that time (Abydos boat, Khufu ship), and noticed how small and ill-equipped they were compared to the galleys used for the naval warfare nearly 3,000 years later. The earliest known naval battles didn't seem to have occurred until the time of the New Kingdom of Ancient Egypt.

As for the Sumerians and Egyptians making face-to-face contact, this is something that I've also been curious about after reading of the foreign long-distance trade contacts that the Sumerians and Egyptians had. The Sumerians, for example, traded with far-away contacts such as the civilizations of "Magan" - "Dilmun" and "Meluhha", but it seems that archaeologists and historians are undecided as to where, exactly, these civilizations were located. Some sources seem to state that the Magan civilization may have been the Egyptian civilization, Meluhha may have been the Indus Valley civilization, and Dilmun may have been located somewhere in what is today Kuwait or further south along the Persian Gulf. But it doesn't seem as if any of this has been confirmed.

I also know that the Egyptians apparently received resources from as far east as what is today Afghanistan (receiving lapiz lazuli from there) and some artifacts from Mesopotamia during this time.

I just wonder: since the Egyptians and Sumerians both had boats, could they have at some point met face-to-face?

And I'm also wondering how big the Sumerian "empire" (if it could even be called an "empire") was during this time, but I seem to be getting contradictory information about which period came first: the Early Dynastic Period of Mesopotamia, or the Early Dynastic Period of Egypt. And there seems to be a lot more information about the extent of Ancient Egypt's "empire" during this time, but not much about the extent of Sumer's influence. So, for example, if Jushur (the first king listed on the Sumerian King List for the First Dynasty of Kish) really existed, how much influence in Mesopotamia did he have, and during what time?

Also thanks for that link, it's awesome!



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quasiscientist
It has also made me wonder where, exactly, the wheel was first invented and how quickly the invention was introduced.

The first wheel (non-transportation) was the potter's wheel, and it IS in Egypt in very early times. It's also a lot of other places.



I figure that if horses were domesticated somewhere in Central Asia, then the wheel must have been invented there. However, the Ljubljana Marshes Wheel (believed to have been created around the year 3150 BCE) is apparently the oldest wooden wheel yet discovered, and it wasn't discovered in Central Asia, but in Slovenia (in Eastern Europe.)


Note: A place with lots of easily available wood and logs. Hardwood (that's important. Egypt doesn't have native hardwood.) It has hilly plains (grasslands) and is over 50% hardwood forest.

Egypt is sand. And soft mud. There are no native hardwood trees there. You need fairly sturdy wood to construct chariots. However, you can construct sledges and sleds from soft wood such as palm trees.


Wikipedia also has some articles about theories regarding Indo-European-language-speaking peoples that they very quickly migrated out of Central Asia into Europe around this time, suggesting that the domestication of horses and the invention of the wheel may have given them an edge over the peoples already inhabiting Europe during this time.

That's possible, yes.


And the earliest depiction of wheeled vehicles (wagons drawn by "onagers") in Sumer seems to be on the "Standard of Ur" (dated to around 2600 BCE), while the earliest depiction of wheeled vehicles in Egypt doesn't seem to come until much later (until the time of Akhenaten, over a thousand years later.) This has made me wonder how soon after the invention of the wheel were wheeled vehicles introduced to Egypt, and whether or not they were drawn by beasts of burden (horses, camels, donkeys, etc.) or simply carts hand-drawn by humans.

Egypt is a long and narrow country. The only real "road"in ancient times was the River Nile (so their riverboat (not OCEAN boats... river boats) technology was good.

I'm not sure why you're focusing on the wheel. Wheeled vehicles can't run on sand. Roads in Egypt (in the non-sandy areas) were flooded each year by the annual floods that renewed the soil of the farms. Wheels aren't much use under water or in the water.

Initially, Akhenaten's was simply used to drive up and down the broad road (only) in his capital city of Amarna (set in the desert beyond the Nile.) Every day he and Nefertiti would (no kidding) get in their chariot and ride up and back along the road, with their generals and personal guard and the army running in front of the chariot.

It took the next dynasty to actually make use of chariots more effectively (as the technology improved) and by the time of Ramesses The Great there were chariot divisions in the Egyptian army.



I just wonder: since the Egyptians and Sumerians both had boats, could they have at some point met face-to-face?

Yes. Egyptians called them "wretched Asiatics." That was a basket term for "anybody who's not us but lives in the Levant. Oh, and those darn Libyans."


I seem to be getting contradictory information about which period came first: the Early Dynastic Period of Mesopotamia, or the Early Dynastic Period of Egypt.

It's actually debatable. We think Mesopotamia was first but only by a few hundred years. That's within the 'margin of error.'


And there seems to be a lot more information about the extent of Ancient Egypt's "empire" during this time, but not much about the extent of Sumer's influence. So, for example, if Jushur (the first king listed on the Sumerian King List for the First Dynasty of Kish) really existed, how much influence in Mesopotamia did he have, and during what time?

Also thanks for that link, it's awesome!

Alas, I'm not an Assyriologist... they're the ones who can really answer that. I'm getting a university degree in Egyptology so I'm really familiar with Egypt (but have a LONG way to go before I reach my teachers' level of understanding and knowledge) and know enough about the rest of the Middle East to understand that I know NOTHING about them!

edit on 16-9-2016 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd
I'm not sure why you're focusing on the wheel. Wheeled vehicles can't run on sand. Roads in Egypt (in the non-sandy areas) were flooded each year by the annual floods that renewed the soil of the farms. Wheels aren't much use under water or in the water.

Initially, Akhenaten's was simply used to drive up and down the broad road (only) in his capital city of Amarna (set in the desert beyond the Nile.) Every day he and Nefertiti would (no kidding) get in their chariot and ride up and back along the road, with their generals and personal guard and the army running in front of the chariot.

It took the next dynasty to actually make use of chariots more effectively (as the technology improved) and by the time of Ramesses The Great there were chariot divisions in the Egyptian army.


I suppose I'm just focusing on the wheel because I'm trying really hard to visualize what life and war was like during the First Dynasty of Ancient Egypt. Most of my mental imagery about this time comes from video games like Children of the Nile (I have no idea how accurate Children of the Nile depicts the cities of this time) and films like The Scorpion King (which I realize is extremely anachronistic.) I know that ancient armies generally had three different types of troops, them being: spearmen (or "infantry"), horsemen (or "cavalry"), and bowmen (or "archers"). But if neither horses nor wheeled vehicles had been introduced to Egypt during its Early Dynastic Period, then I guess that that must mean that they couldn't have had cavalry... right?

Wikipedia has this map that shows the spread of the spoke-wheeled chariot, showing that it first appeared somewhere in Central Asia around 2000 BCE, and then appeared later in the Ancient Near East 500 years later, in about 1500 BCE. But the Sumerians apparently already had wheeled vehicles (as shown on the Standard of Ur) as early as 2600 BCE, but their vehicles' wheels didn't seem to have spokes and were instead simply solid pieces of wood. So while the earliest known wheel to be used for a wheeled vehicle is the Ljubljana Marshes Wheel in Slovenia dated to around 3150 BCE, and wheeled vehicles appeared nearly 2,000 miles away in Sumer a little over 500 years later, I am feeling a bit surprised that wheeled vehicles did not appear 1,300 miles away in Egypt at the same time. I mean, after all, don't Egypt and Sumer both have very similar climates? Both civilizations developed along river valleys... the Sumerian civilization developed along the Tigris-Euphrates river system, while the Egyptian civilization developed along the Nile river system. And these river valleys were themselves surrounded by hot and arid deserts.

The whole wheeled vehicle thing isn't all that important, really... I realize that the Egyptians mainly used the Nile River as their "road" and that their vehicles were riverboats... but according to this article:

www.nytimes.com...

...the ancient Egyptians already had a paved road by 2600 BCE?

I'm also curious to know if Egyptians of this time used pack animals to carry goods (within the cities, not from one city to another) or if they just carried their goods on their backs.


originally posted by: Byrd
Note: A place with lots of easily available wood and logs. Hardwood (that's important. Egypt doesn't have native hardwood.) It has hilly plains (grasslands) and is over 50% hardwood forest.

Egypt is sand. And soft mud. There are no native hardwood trees there. You need fairly sturdy wood to construct chariots. However, you can construct sledges and sleds from soft wood such as palm trees.


Didn't the ancient Egyptians establish colonies along the Mediterranean coastline of West Asia, in places like: Tel Arad, Besor, and Rafah?

I also know that the Egyptians had cedarwood transported from Lebanon, according to this article:

www.touregypt.net...

I'm not sure how effective this type of wood might be for constructing wheeled vehicles.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 10:26 PM
link   
"Recorded history" starts with writing.

The problem could stem from the stand point of "if you didn't write it down, it didn't happen"

We put so much faith in written history even though we can look at our own books written with in the last 200 years and find historical errors.

Hell, look at the main page of this forum and all you will see is a bunch of made up nonsense and lies about American politics.

We went out of our way (western civilization) to destroy as much evidence of history that did not go along with European-centric civillization history, and even though the oldest books (the few that remain) we have tell stories of the past that differ from that dialogue.

Or we can look at Tutankhamen's tomb with a iron and gold dagger, he reigned from 1333-1323 and the Iron Age didn't start until 1200 bce - so either the first iron object created was in his tomb, or we can use logic and decipher that the craftsmanship was probably developed over time, and this weapon wasn't the first generation of iron devices.

Religious zealots have went out of their way to destroy as much evidence of history as they possibly could, and then want to push the agenda of world development from the aspect of Semitic->European origins.

But if you use logic you can see that the timeline just doesn't add up, but is still being pushed - because if you can get it in history books for long enough people will start to call the old ways "myths" or "mythology"

Just give it time, you children's children's children won't even care about what happened before the Internet, those old ways will be savage and archaic.

You didn't even have quantum computers???




top topics



 
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join