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.

 

Pre-Sumerian Civilizations of Ancient Ukraine (20,000 BCE)

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte



Yes, it's a higher standard than a lot of people around here use, but that IS the standard and has been for a century. Misuse of the word "civilization" is rampant on boards like this. And that's okay sometimes.
But not when somebody tries to compare an ancient culture to an ancient civilization, thinking they've "disproven the experts."

If a person wants to claim the experts are wrong about the rise of civilizations and which are the oldest, that person is obligated to use the same standard as anthropologists use.

I love it when you rub it in... yes, I'm the poster boy of Byrd's memo on the official definition of civilization.



If they don't, it's like saying "My chicken is a horse, and that proves that not all horses have four legs."

If you'll permit me to suggest a more apt analogy, maybe a dog instead of a chicken? Both are four legged, I might need a new pair of glasses for mistaking a dog for a horse from a distance... a chicken is too much unless...




posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Byrd



I understand it's frustrating but it shows the need for a clear definition. The average person, like Tim and Heatherlee Hooker, doesn't understand the difference.

If you are a researcher, exact definitions are a necessary tool to make sure you are comparing two things that are alike. The definition I use comes from researchers... specifically anthropology and archaeology.


If frustration and humiliation is the price to pay in order to learn, I'll gladly accept it yet again. Much obliged.



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Apologies for the late reply.


If an English speaking person was asked today and presented part of Beowulf's manuscripts, will that person recognize that it was Old English? How about manuscripts of The Canterbury Tales of Geoffrey Chaucer or a specimen of Shakespeare's handwritting?

Certainly people will recognize these examples as related, yet dissimilar, languages. Importantly, it is clear that the alphabet in use (Latin) is the same. This does not compare appropriately to the "proto-Sumerian" claim, wherein the symbols are neither clear nor the same as what we know to be proto-Sumerian.




I think that we can all agree that it is a contentious topic but can't we at least agree that there might be some artifacts out there that could be older than what is presently generally accepted? If not from the Ukraine, maybe in Iran, Turkey or even China?

I have yet to meet an archaeologist who is against the idea that history can be "pushed back", so to speak. However, the people typically promoting this idea are neither scholarly archaeologists nor anthropologists. They tend to be authors looking to make a quick fortune by pandering to an audience craving mystery.

In reality objects are found relatively frequently which change notions of development.
Discovery of oldest metal object in Middle East


The awl suggests people in the area started using metals as early as 5100 B.C., several centuries earlier than previously thought.



posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: SargonThrall
No worries... thank you for bumping the thread and reminding me of the butt kicking I received from Harte and Byrd.

I appreciate your take on my inept analogy but if you wouldn't mind having a second look at the screen grab I posted earlier in this thread and watching a 2 minute 22 second long video about a demonstration of Cuneiform writing.

Did I also contracted Sumeritis, a classic case of seeing what I want to see and not seeing what I don't want to see?



Certainly people will recognize these examples as related, yet dissimilar, languages. Importantly, it is clear that the alphabet in use (Latin) is the same. This does not compare appropriately to the "proto-Sumerian" claim, wherein the symbols are neither clear nor the same as what we know to be proto-Sumerian.

I used English as an analogy for the obvious reason that we can all relate to it, we can recognize the Latin alphabet from the manuscript of Beowulf which is more or less only a thousand year old compared to Kifishin's petroglyphs that were said to be dated around 20,000 BCE. If we can barely read Beowulf from one of it's oldest surviving manuscripts just imagine what it's like for a proto-Cuneiform writing artifact millennia older than what we know as Cuneiforn writing used by the Sumerians at the height of its civilization.

What Tim and Heatherlee Hooker said makes a lot of sense to a layman like me, that all proto-Sumerian scripts will look different in varying degrees from one another depending on the place where it was found and the time it was dated.

What I find highly intriguing in the presentation of the husband and wife team, granting their misuse of the word "civilization"... not that I'm passing the buck to them, is the unlikelihood that the word Inanna is an accidental bear-claw mark when several coherent sentences were presented as examples. How can one disprove this unless it was faked?

That's exactly what the critics of Anatoly Kifishin said, the link that was kindly provided by Harte Selective Remembrances where Victor A. Shnirelman, a Russian behavioral scientist, declared that Kifishin just invented all of the petroglyphs. Digging a little deeper, Shnirelman could probably be correct because of the not so sterling academic background of Kifishin to put it diplomatically... end of the story right?... what if I'm still looking for the metaphorical nail in the coffin? Maybe an article from another Sumerologist or an expert in proto-cuneiform writing explaining definitively that there's nothing to see here folks, you've been had.



I have yet to meet an archaeologist who is against the idea that history can be "pushed back", so to speak. However, the people typically promoting this idea are neither scholarly archaeologists nor anthropologists. They tend to be authors looking to make a quick fortune by pandering to an audience craving mystery.


Shouldn't these scholarly academic experts be above all the frills and side issues of nationalist and personal agendas and deal directly with Kifishn's petroglyphs and examine it? Shouldn't they be excited and curious about this find? Don't they have any responsibility of warning the public precisely from these "authors looking to make a quick fortune by pandering to an audience craving mystery?" Are these unreasonable expectations from the experts? Are these things beneath them and not worth their time?... see the pun there?... nevermind.



In reality objects are found relatively frequently which change notions of development.
Discovery of oldest metal object in Middle East


Interesting find, I appreciate it. If an ancient copper awl artifact can be considered as an indication of advanced technology or high culture, what more if it is a possible evidence of written language?

I wouldn't mind receiving another round of butt-kicks.











edit on 09 11 2015 by MaxTamesSiva because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva

What I find highly intriguing in the presentation of the husband and wife team, granting their misuse of the word "civilization"... not that I'm passing the buck to them, is the unlikelihood that the word Inanna is an accidental bear-claw mark when several coherent sentences were presented as examples. How can one disprove this unless it was faked?


Both the Akkadian and Sumerian forms of the name "Inanna" appear on this page.

Neither looks like a bear claw mark to me.

Hart



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte
I have to admit that they look different but if it's a matter of millennia apart, does being different necessarily means not related? Again, going back to my inept analogy... don't worry, this will be the last time, if we take for example the very first word in Beowulf Hwæt from an old manuscript and Lo from a contemporary English translation, both means listen or pay attention... this might initially seem like a head scratcher. Language evolve over time and the places it was spoken and written.

bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts

I will concur with your insightful diagnosis of Sumeritis, not to avoid to get my butt kicked again but to move on to the prognosis and maybe the treatment... if there is a cure or at least a way contain this disease. I'll be willing to be your lab rat for experimental treatment.

Should we alert the whole ATS of an outbreak and recommend a quarantine?


edit on 09 11 2015 by MaxTamesSiva because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
a reply to: Harte
I have to admit that they look different but if it's a matter of millennia apart, does being different necessarily means not related? Again, going back to my inept analogy... don't worry, this will be the last time, if we take for example the very first word in Beowulf Hwæt from an old manuscript and Lo from a contemporary English translation, both means listen or pay attention... this might initially seem like a head scratcher. Language evolve over time and the places it was spoken and written.

bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts

I will concur with your insightful diagnosis of Sumeritis, not to avoid to get my butt kicked again but to move on to the prognosis and maybe the treatment... if there is a cure or at least a way contain this disease. I'll be willing to be your lab rat for experimental treatment.

Should we alert the whole ATS of an outbreak and recommend a quarantine?


Nah. The outbreak was over with years ago.
I'm just going around pissing on the ashes, making sure.

Harte



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte
Looks more like Ogham. Too bad we can't call Barry Fell.

Looks like somebody counting sheep or goats or something.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 02:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
a reply to: Harte
I have to admit that they look different but if it's a matter of millennia apart, does being different necessarily means not related?


Yes. And your example looks more like Ogham (a script that wasn't invented until 400 AD (not BC... AD))

There's a couple of assumptions about language that you might want to be aware of:
* if a language is dead, we're guessing at the pronunciation. What we call a deity/person/etc is not necessarily what they called the deity (example: "Anubis" is actually a Greek pronunciation of what appears to be "Anpu." "Isis" is actually "Aset." Our modern pronunciation is actually a new English version of an ancient Greek name (pronunciation was different) of an even older name from Egyptian. So it's far removed from the original.)
* most of the early ancient alphabets didn't include vowels. "PR" could be "perr" or "purr" or "par" or "pear" or "appear", etc, etc.
* Cuneiform and other early writing systems develop from pictures/chop marks. Of all the ones we've seen, this seems to hold true in the early stages. In later constructed alphabets, this is not true...but it is for the first ones.

Lines can appear anywhere as the result of many things.

edit on 24-8-2017 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte


Nah. The outbreak was over with years ago.

I beg to disagree, you should visit the threads at the Conspiracy Theory Forums... not your cup of tea? There are regular outbreaks there specially on threads about Mars and the moon... I might have acquired it there... or maybe I have the gene that makes me predispose to acquire it?



I'm just going around pissing on the ashes, making sure.

I love that expression "pissing on the ashes," thanks, it's been a long time since I heard it... could be a catchy song title, maybe a painting, a poem or even a potential thread title.

I'd rather err in trying to see more about things rather than less or none at all.


a reply to: Blue Shift


Looks like somebody counting sheep or goats or something.

Yes, and to think that we still use it. I still use the tally marks, not to count sheep or goats but to make a semblance of order to my primitive hard copy files.


a reply to: Byrd


Yes. And your example looks more like Ogham (a script that wasn't invented until 400 AD (not BC... AD)

If a script was found in the Ukraine that looks like Ogham regardless of the claim of the time it was dated, wouldn't that be still an item of interest for the experts to look into?



There's a couple of assumptions about language that you might want to be aware of:

* if a language is dead, we're guessing at the pronunciation. What we call a deity/person/etc is not necessarily what they called the deity (example: "Anubis" is actually a Greek pronunciation of what appears to be "Anpu." "Isis" is actually "Aset." Our modern pronunciation is actually a new English version of an ancient Greek name (pronunciation was different) of an even older name from Egyptian. So it's far removed from the original.)

* most of the early ancient alphabets didn't include vowels. "PR" could be "perr" or "purr" or "par" or "pear" or "appear", etc, etc. * Cuneiform and other early writing systems develop from pictures/chop marks. Of all the ones we've seen, this seems to hold true in the early stages. In later constructed alphabets, this is not true...but it is for the first ones.

Lines can appear anywhere as the result of many things.

I appreciate it, if you wouldn't mind going back for the time being to Kifishin's petroglyphs and later Shilov controversial claims, can you please give us an idea as to whether there are protocols to follow among academic experts to study their peers findings.

For instance:
1. If Kifishin or Shilov send a request to study their findings to another university or academic organization that specialize in their field, will this be common or a rare occurrence?

2. If an expert from the same field from a Western university send a request to Kifishin or Shilov to examine their findings, will this be within protocol?

3. Can anyone with access to these papers assuming they are published on-line, even a student or faculty of the same field, can they examine the papers without permission from the authors of the initial papers as a topic of discussion in their class and even publish their own findings on-line?

How does this all work or do every universities and organizations keep their cards close to their chests and are more likely not to share?


Anything that you can share will be very much appreciated.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
a reply to: Harte


Nah. The outbreak was over with years ago.

I beg to disagree, you should visit the threads at the Conspiracy Theory Forums... not your cup of tea? There are regular outbreaks there specially on threads about Mars and the moon... I might have acquired it there... or maybe I have the gene that makes me predispose to acquire it?

No, those people don't count. They're part of a permanent cadre of the purposefully ignorant.



originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva


I'm just going around pissing on the ashes, making sure.

I love that expression "pissing on the ashes," thanks, it's been a long time since I heard it... could be a catchy song title, maybe a painting, a poem or even a potential thread title.

Learned it in the scouts.


originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
I'd rather err in trying to see more about things rather than less or none at all.

I understand this, and I also understand your belief that I am trying to see less.
However, that's exactly the opposite of how I came to the conclusion I've posited here.
Trying to see more, I actually saw more. When you see more, you see that the whole Anunnaki thing is a scam invented by a con man who wanted more than he could get as a second-rate economic historian/journalist.



originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
a reply to: Blue Shift


Looks like somebody counting sheep or goats or something.

Yes, and to think that we still use it. I still use the tally marks, not to count sheep or goats but to make a semblance of order to my primitive hard copy files.

I find them particularly useful on me banana.



originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
If a script was found in the Ukraine that looks like Ogham regardless of the claim of the time it was dated, wouldn't that be still an item of interest for the experts to look into?

Yes, except Ogham looks very much like simple scratches/tally marks. Daylight come and me wan' go home.

Harte



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 06:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte
Day-o, day-ay-ay-o!... that's funny, catchy song.


No, those people don't count. They're part of a permanent cadre of the purposefully ignorant.

Again, I beg to disagree. I think curiosity is a sign of intelligence, even if it is regarded as purposeless.



I understand this, and I also understand your belief that I am trying to see less. However, that's exactly the opposite of how I came to the conclusion I've posited here.
Trying to see more, I actually saw more. When you see more, you see that the whole Anunnaki thing is a scam invented by a con man who wanted more than he could get as a second-rate economic historian/journalist.

It's not a belief but a preference, you know, like I prefer to wear cargo pants even if it's not in fashion than wear those skinny jeans.

Granting that the petroglyphs was a scam, does the stone mound in Shu Nun and other burial mounds in the Ukraine deserve a fresh second look?

... Worked all night, I think I'm going to have a drink a'rum. Cheers to you and Harry!




edit on 09 11 2015 by MaxTamesSiva because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 07:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
a reply to: Harte
Day-o, day-ay-ay-o!... that's funny, catchy song.


No, those people don't count. They're part of a permanent cadre of the purposefully ignorant.

Again, I beg to disagree. I think curiosity is a sign of intelligence, even if it is regarded as purposeless.



I understand this, and I also understand your belief that I am trying to see less. However, that's exactly the opposite of how I came to the conclusion I've posited here.
Trying to see more, I actually saw more. When you see more, you see that the whole Anunnaki thing is a scam invented by a con man who wanted more than he could get as a second-rate economic historian/journalist.

It's not a belief but a preference, you know, like I prefer to wear cargo pants even if it's not in fashion than wear those skinny jeans.

Granting that the petroglyphs was a scam, does the stone mound in Shu Nun and other burial mounds in the Ukraine deserve a fresh second look?

... Worked all night, I think I'm going to have a drink a'rum. Cheers to you and Harry!




I think everything deserves a fresh second, third or fourth look. Most things of interest have had many more fresh looks than this.

Harte



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte
Maybe this thread deserves an intermission...

... could be the fitting song to conclude the discussion and move on to other more interesting threads?



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
a reply to: Byrd


Yes. And your example looks more like Ogham (a script that wasn't invented until 400 AD (not BC... AD)

If a script was found in the Ukraine that looks like Ogham regardless of the claim of the time it was dated, wouldn't that be still an item of interest for the experts to look into?



Well, yes... IF it looked like the Ogham writing system.

Writing (and proto-writing) looks different. You see a large but limited number of forms along with shapes, including a lot of representational shapes ("Oh look! That looks like a horse. And that looks like a jar." ). It will be something done by one culture (and one only because writing arises from language)

This COULD be someone counting something (deer, other people, hides, arrows, etc) but there's no indication of a language. You can see some good examples of proto-scripts on the Wikipedia page



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I guess not.

a reply to: Byrd
Thank you for elaborating on Harte and Blue Shift's point... is there any chance that it could only be just a mesolithic or neolithic version of Killroy was here?



posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: MaxTamesSiva

No worries... thank you for bumping the thread and reminding me of the butt kicking I received from Harte and Byrd.

Oh fret not, directness is the hallmark of a learned mind! None of us here mean you any harm (to ego or otherwise), we are here to share knowledge like everyone else.

That was a wonderful demonstration video and reminds me that I promised many months ago to write a thread on cuneiform! I will have to make time.


Did I also contracted Sumeritis, a classic case of seeing what I want to see and not seeing what I don't want to see?

I hope so, that sounds like a fantastic disease! In this specific case I think calling these marks "proto-Sumerian" is quite the stretch.


What Tim and Heatherlee Hooker said makes a lot of sense to a layman like me, that all proto-Sumerian scripts will look different in varying degrees from one another depending on the place where it was found and the time it was dated.

Expand on this idea with me. Sumerian cuneiform began as a very picturesque hieroglyphic type, which had evolved out of actual representative images. It then became ever more abstract over time. A period of 2000 years made the former writing completely unrecognizable.

Now, imagine how much writing would change over 17,000 years. Add to this equation the fact that Akkadia, Babylonia, Assyria, and others succeeded the Sumerians in a few millenia. We know that they are quite distinct from one another. Why would a (non-)civilization in Ukraine be called Sumerian when it would not have resembled it in the slightest? Likewise with the script, why try to force-fit a title of "proto-Sumerian" when it looks nothing like it?

First they would need to establish that there was a direct connection to Sumeria. Subsequently, they would need to establish a clear evolution from one glyph to the next. But they have not even proven that this is writing, period. They can interpret it as wildly as they wish because no one can prove that it is not writing. Similar to why prophecies are vague; they cannot be called inaccurate if they have flexible interpretation.


Shouldn't these scholarly academic experts be above all the frills and side issues of nationalist and personal agendas and deal directly with Kifishn's petroglyphs and examine it?

No human being is above nationalism or other bias. In the case here it almost sounds like they are trying to associate Europeans with the creation of civilization (which Byrd and Harte proved to you this is not).


Shouldn't they be excited and curious about this find? Don't they have any responsibility of warning the public precisely from these "authors looking to make a quick fortune by pandering to an audience craving mystery?" Are these unreasonable expectations from the experts? Are these things beneath them and not worth their time?... see the pun there?... nevermind.

Why would a Mesopotamian scholar waste time inspecting an artifact that is distant from Mesopotamia and has no clear connection to it? A student of prehistory in Ukraine would be mighty interested in such an artifact, pertaining to their own development, but trained archaeologists and anthropologists in Mesopotamia will not fall for every bold claim. We have no obligation nor the time to disparage every absurdity proffered by people. And when we do disprove things scientifically, people still do not wish to believe there is no mystical alien involvement!



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join