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.

 

How smart was ancient civilizations?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 12:45 AM
link   
How smart was ancient civilizations?
We always here that some civilizations where smart for there time, but they never state that civilizations like the Myans or the Egyptians, might have had technology, that is better than ours. If you suggest that some of these ancient civilizations had some technology or philosophy greater than ours, you are labeled a quack

Here are some examples of Technology and discoveries that some Ancient civilizations had.
.There is a map that shows Antarctica, not fully covered in ice. The map is in great detail, proving that some one landed and mapped it, before it was discovered, by NATHANIEL BROWN PALMER.
There are tools the Egyptians used to drill through stone that we just developed in the last 50 years, it still baffles scientist today.
I wonder how much important information has been lost.




posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 01:02 AM
link   
How old is this universe again?

Well the full circle of life assumes that whatever exist and would be discover has been discovered.

This world is far too old not to have had thousands of advance civilizations.

Wheres the proof? Geeez if I had it wouldn't I be GOD? So all I can go by is assumption, my instincts,my knowledge, my oh my just seek and you'll find it, for if in a 100 years we jump from horses to Space Shuttles, imagine if we destroy ourselfs and all our records in a Nuclear Holocust...

It would take a few survivers about 2500 years to get back on track to what we are of current.

History repeats.....so we are just a new generation of what has been....



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2ndSEED
How old is this universe again?

Well the full circle of life assumes that whatever exist and would be discover has been discovered.

This world is far too old not to have had thousands of advance civilizations.

Wheres the proof? Geeez if I had it wouldn't I be GOD? So all I can go by is assumption, my instincts,my knowledge, my oh my just seek and you'll find it, for if in a 100 years we jump from horses to Space Shuttles, imagine if we destroy ourselfs and all our records in a Nuclear Holocust...

It would take a few survivers about 2500 years to get back on track to what we are of current.

History repeats.....so we are just a new generation of what has been....


I have to disagree, while the Earth is around 4 1/2 billion years old, complex life forms are relatively recent. We have a clear fossil record of the evolution (or appearance or whatever) of species throughout time. There is absolutely no fossil evidence whatsoever of any other Earth creature that could have been intelligent enough to have any sort of technological society. There is no archeological evidence that humans could have had a lost technological society either. Also, any fairly recent (in geological terms) society would have used up Earth resources lying near the surface that are easily obtained such as metals and fossil fuels, which we see no evidence of. If our technological society fell now, it would be difficult to rebuild a new technological society from scratch because we have already used up much of the easily extracted Earth resources and now have to use complex mining techniques.

There are examples of inventions that seem way before their time, but they never really amounted to anything. For example, the Greeks had a steam engine, but for some reason never tried to put it to use to do work. The Babylonians may have had some type of electrical battery probably used medicinally, but apparently never moved beyond that into lighting or computers et al.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Snowman9
.There is a map that shows Antarctica, not fully covered in ice. The map is in great detail, proving that some one landed and mapped it, before it was discovered, by NATHANIEL BROWN PALMER.

If I'm not mistaken, that map is quite flawed.



There are tools the Egyptians used to drill through stone that we just developed in the last 50 years, it still baffles scientist today.
I wonder how much important information has been lost.

Never underestimate TIME.

They had tools similar to what we developed in the past 50 years?
Now imagine if we had tools we have been using for for 500 years! (counting from 50 years back of course, not tools that we HAVE been using for 500+ years, lol
)

THAT is the difference. We are talking a craftsmanship expertise and construction times that are beyond our modern fastlane-society comprehension.

The fact that it baffles scientists baffles me. A scientist should know this.

[edit on 25-1-2005 by merka]



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Even with a nuclear holocaust or any other major catastrophe you can invent, while information may be lost, it is not always forgotten. For example, with the colapse of the roman empire, the expertise of aqauducts and plumbing was lost. This is not to say the the knowlege OF plumbing was lost, people knew it had existed, they were simply unable to replicate it for hundreds of years. My point is, that if a civilization was markedly advanced, we would know more about it and about the technology it possesed just from oral tradition.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   
.
When discussing ancient technology, these are some of the thoughts that come to mind (IMO):

There seems to be almost no archaeological evidence of ancient high technology, at least as we recognize it—electronics, synthetic materials, avionics, etc.

There are some intriguing and tantalizing mysteries, such as ancient Indian writings, vast megalithic structures and such, but virtually no artifacts of actual high technology.

Having said that, I think it is interesting to consider what kind of technology the ancients might really have had.

In cultures removed from the constant distractions we experience (television, internet, radio, books, magazines, newspapers, advertising, telephone) it would be plausible to suggest that people may have had greater awareness of their internal mental states.

Some areas like Kundalini yoga, charkas, astral projection, remote viewing, trance states and such may have been more developed. It is hard to know what benefits the ancients may have received from these “internal” mental/spiritual technologies.

I think the ancients also enjoyed a closer relationship with their environment. Their knowledge of rocks and earth, sky, seasons, plants and farming was without doubt extensive. Their lives depended on it.

Another thing I find interesting is the history of consciousness as it has changed along with technology. If we assume that mankind has evolved from a more or less animal consciousness to our present ability to have rational abstract ideas as well as concrete thoughts and emotions, then there must have been certain steps along the way.

Early on, such things as numbers and language must have seemed miraculous and magical.

It strikes me that ancient Egyptian culture seems to have existed at a time when mankind experienced a massive burst in the ability to think symbolically. Everything was symbolic: the sky, the landscape, buildings, art, writing, animals, everything. It seems like people made a leap from seeing everything concretely (everything is just what it is physically), to seeing everything abstractly (everything is somehow more than just what it is physically). Nowadays, our culture seems .ed back toward seeing things concretely.

So I guess what I’m trying to say is that I have no doubt that the ancients were very clever and knew things that the average person today does not know. They probably knew more, sooner, than we give them credit for. They may have even gone through stages of thinking in ways that modern people do not think. But I don’t see much evidence of any technology that would be considered advanced compared to today’s tech.
.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Very smart, and far more advanced than our own. I suggest you click onto my topic "Proof: Advanced Ancient Indian Civilization existed" There is a lot of evidence and analysis.

[edit on 25-1-2005 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by contraa
Even with a nuclear holocaust or any other major catastrophe you can invent, while information may be lost, it is not always forgotten. For example, with the colapse of the roman empire, the expertise of aqauducts and plumbing was lost. This is not to say the the knowlege OF plumbing was lost, people knew it had existed, they were simply unable to replicate it for hundreds of years. My point is, that if a civilization was markedly advanced, we would know more about it and about the technology it possesed just from oral tradition.


The Dark Ages are a perfect example of knowledge being lost for centuries. It was not until the Crusades that Aristotle, Pythagoras, etc., were rediscovered by Europeans. The oral traditions do mention it. See the "ancient Indian Civilization" thread.
The great pyramid is the proof that they were more advanced than us. If one actually takes the time to study it in depth, (as opposed to just scoffing), the ability for us to exactly reproduce it becomes remote.
At first glance it looks like we could, but after years of study, the detail and precision are much more obviously doubtful for us to duplicate.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 11:31 PM
link   
The map
www.ancientx.com...
is loved by YEC'ers as it supports the timeline of the bible nicely.
Recorded history also favors it with the 3K BC start.

If you read that page you will see that knowledge to make the map was way a. of its time, along with the extensive travel required.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Snowman9
How smart was ancient civilizations?

They were just as smart as we are. People of the time were better at remembering things than we are (because they had an oral tradition and didn't write much) and they were better at figuring out problems that involved physical labor.




.There is a map that shows Antarctica, not fully covered in ice. The map is in great detail, proving that some one landed and mapped it, before it was discovered, by NATHANIEL BROWN PALMER.
There are tools the Egyptians used to drill through stone that we just developed in the last 50 years, it still baffles scientist today.
I wonder how much important information has been lost.


The Palmer map has already been discussed. The tools that the Egyptians used were stone...not advanced ceramics or strange metals or so forth. We know what they used; we just don't know how they used them.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   
One thing's for sure,

this one are rubbish by comparison!



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Wasn't Atlantis suppossed to be pretty advanced. They had some sort of super-powerful energy source.

There's no proof of their existence though.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Webmonkey336
Wasn't Atlantis suppossed to be pretty advanced. They had some sort of super-powerful energy source.

There's no proof of their existence though.


And there you have it.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by contraa
My point is, that if a civilization was markedly advanced, we would know more about it and about the technology it possesed just from oral tradition.


Let's see. Greeks: Golden Age; Egyptians: Age of the Gods; Babylonians: When Those From Heaven Came Down; India: The Age of Vimana; China: The Sons of Heaven... almost every tribe on Earth speaks of a previous Golden Age.

My own People, the Cherokee People of the Americas, have extensive teachings about the previous age, and Atlantean technology. One example: our Ancestors told the first Europeans to arrive in America that Quartz was more valuable than gold, for it could be used to hold memories, transmit thoughts across space and time, and could be made to speak. Hundreds of years later, someone took them seriously- and now you are reading this thanks to semiconductor tech.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence:


For example, there is a grassy field by the airport. It is as devoid of technology today as it was a thousand years ago. I land there, along with three other helicopters, and for days mount an aerial powerline rennovation campaign. For those few days, that field is God-Tech central. Then we leave. Without a trace. And no, I don't drop my gum wrappers.

There is no 'proof' left that God Machines were there.

Unless someone starts a legend.


How smart were dinosaurs, anyway? Anybody know for sure? The Cherokee Legends seem to say Quartz (silicon) was some kind of Dragon Tech...

[edit on 7-2-2005 by Chakotay]



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 02:42 AM
link   
never heard that one before chakotay, it's strange how some native people have stories like that, but some other's don't. Some american indian tribes, some african tribes etc have stories like that. Did anyone ever read the one about ancient heirogyphics found in a cave in australia? Or the one were they found the same heirogyphs in the grand canyon?



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   
we all have a super power energy source
once we all quiet down our inner dialogue then only then will we fully become aware of this..
some of us still contain this,somehow,with in ourselfs..
being in harmony with the natural world does help..
its a powerful energy thou at the same time it is subtle.

we are allways dreaming



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 03:00 AM
link   
As Byrd said, ancient peoples were just as smart as modern ones. On agerage, I would assume that they would have an average IQ of 100, just like we do now.

This question is one of the things that really burns me, really. It assumes that information=intelligence, which is patently untrue. Intelligence is a measure of your ability to use information, not a measure of how much information you possess.

To give a concrete example: If I were to give a child a DVD that held the amassed knowledge of a Phd in Physics, Chemistry and Engineering, would that possession, in itself, make the child more intelligent than someone with a doctorate in only one of those subjects? Of course it wouldn't. Similarly, the modern age's collection of information does not make us any more intelligent than people in ages past.

There are conditions, though, that are letting us make more efficient use of that information than other peopls in [mainstream-accepted] recorded history[1]:
  • The prevalence of education in modern developed countries means that there are relatively more people with the information we've collected. Because of the increase in numbers, there are a greater number of highly-intelligent people able to work with this information. (Simple statistics. If you have a group of 200 people, on average 5 of them will have an IQ of 130 or greater. If you expand that to a group of 200,000 people, 5000 of them will have an IQ of 130 or greater.)
  • Modern hygene means that we are able to function at full physical and mental capacity for a longer period of time than we have done in the past. It's not unsual, at a research college, to see emeritus (retired) faculty still participating in research and other academic pursuits. This keeps experienced people in the work-pool longer, and allows them to accomplish more.
  • Modern communications technologies allow near-instantaneous transmission of information across large distances. While practical matters (such as time of day, etc) limit this somewhat, it still means that a group in the US can easily collaborate with a group in India. Because of this, ideas are more easily transmitted, tested, and refined.
  • The developed nations of today work strongly to keep the status quo. Say what ill you will about this enforced stability, the lack of widespread violent conflict in the developed nations allows the more abstract sciences to flourish.

    Pretty much, we have, today, a machine set up for the efficient collection and dissimation of information. We're not any smarter than we used to be, on average, but we're doing a better job of allowing the smart people to work together.

    This doesn't mean that cultures in the past weren't able to innovate or to figure things out, it just means that innovations tended to die out with the culture that sparked them.[2]

    [1] Yes, I know that some find compelling evidence for past high-technology human civilizations. While I find such theories very interesting, and sometimes hard to dismiss out of hand, I'm by no means an authority on that. As such, I'm limiting myself, here, to what I do know.

    [2] It should be emphasized here, that not all innovations died out, indeed many of them were transmitted to other cultures, but it was easier for innovations to die out with their parent culture because communcations technologies were not as well developed.



  • new topics

    top topics



     
    0

    log in

    join