human arrogance

I was having a discussion about mankinds past and ancient civilizations, and one of the individuals involved was of the opinion that because a particular society left no written(and deciferable) records, then it could not have been a society of educated and talented people, and that most were peons and that only a very select few had any education. that is when it hit me that he like countless others that think they are looking at an issue with unbiased objectivity, are in fact tainting the results with their own preconseptions about how a certain group of peoples(seperated from us by countless millenia) might act. what their moral issues might be, and how they may choose to communicate.

I agree. Imo it's possible some ancient people didn't need written language because maybe they had other means of communicating perhaps even telepathically. Maybe their memories were far greater than ours, maybe they already knew recording their history would serve no purpose because we wouldn't learn from their mistakes or be able to decipher it either.

My thoughts exactly. Maybe some races, cultures etc. had the capacity to "remember" and didn't need to write everything down. Thru our ethnocentric way of thinking; we think we're "all that", but just possibly we are more primitive, backward and stupid because we have writing.

I have heard of people with photographic memorys: maybe at one time all people were like that and we devolved mentally, emotionally, spiritually etc.

However if this is the case: where are the evolved? You would think with their superior stuff, they would still be around. Maybe thats who the Illumanati are.

Most ancient peoples used oral traditions and myths to carry information that they needed. They often used devices like rhyming words and descriptions that were repeated for certain gods or characters, so that the reliance on the written word was not as important as the spoken word. Even the early church used artwork in the form of stained glass and paintings and plays at certain times of the year to tell the people who could not read and often who could not understand the services which were often recited in latin--where most of the congregation did not understand more than a couple of words of latin. But the pictures and the actions of the actors explained what they were to understand. I assume that many early peoples had similar methods of passing on the meanings of celebrations and histories without much need of the written word for hundreds of thousands of years. That doesn't make the people of these societies dumb or stupid, often the memory was often very developed to keep the stories to pass on to further generations.

as posted by jurasicdog
...mankinds past and ancient civilizations...that because a particular society left no written(and deciferable) records, then it could not have been a society of educated and talented people...

While I have a tendency to agree with some of the mentions expressed here, one thing has marked virtually all known discovered ancient civilizations or societies: written language, be it alphbetic, symbology, etc. As such, mentions of records, educated, and talented become subjective defintions within themselves. You have to remember that cavemen, after learning to draw and communicate through drawing, left drawings on cave walls, etc. This is a form of written communication and language. Furthermore, it can also be viewed as written records, etc. Whether by the use of drawing, abstract symbolizing, or alphabetics, the ability to do these lends to the notion that they would have some degree or attempted written records [ie: be cavemen drawing pictures to tell a story on cave walls, or Egyptians using hieroglyphics, etc].

Also, then comes into question: What was meant or what was included in the expression of mankinds past and ancient civilizations?

At any rate, there is no conclusive proof that Atlantis existed, thus no one has any type conclusive clue as to what their written language would have been or may have looked like, etc. For all we know, the Atlantians, if factual, could have had a written language similiar to the Egyptians or Greeks, or even the Babylonians. The same applies to and holds true for the other myth-based ancient civilizations and/or societies [ie: Lemuria and MU, etc].

I probably stand corrected on some of the above points, but perhaps, if we are all lucky, Bryd will drop in and give us all an education, being this is right up Bryd's alley of study [ie: knowledge base], per se'.







seekerof

[edit on 22-11-2005 by Seekerof]

Here is an example of an ancient people that did not have a written language, yet they were considered to be the builder of one of the pillars of the ancient European civilizatiation, and well known through most of europe. They were well known for trade and for their warrior skills.

In fact, you have probably heard of at least one of them. Spartacus.

www.bulgaria.com...
Without doubt the basis of the Thracian economy during the first centuries of the development of the Thrace people had been the production of foodstuffs, raw materials and other goods which fully satisfied the local needs, leaving considerable quantities for exports in all directions. This inevitably led to active exchanges of people, of political and cultural ideas and of technological information.

en.wikipedia.org...

They actually had a written language but it is/was barely documented.
Centum-Satem isogloss




seekerof

[edit on 22-11-2005 by Seekerof]

Thanks Seeker. I stand corrected.

Sort of.
I am not sure that the word perhaps is definitive. It seems the jury is still out on this? But I welcome the information. I did not know... Perhaps you are right.

and perhaps also a number of barely documented extinct languages, such as Thracian, and Dacian.

*exits muttering about never finding Bryd around when needed.*

[edit on 11/22/05 by makeitso]

"If you are ever in doubt about the purpose or function of a particular artefact, just tell them it had some kind of religious significance"

My archaeology professor said that in jest, bemoaning the fact that archaeologists too frequently impose their own understandings or assumptions about a society onto the evidence they uncover. Too often we formulate a theory concerning the behaviours or origins or development levels of a particular culture and then attempt to make the evidence fit into our theory, as opposed to scrapping or modifying our theory in light of what new evidence tells us.

To illustrate how our assumptions can lead us to the wrong conclusions, he showed us a picture of an archeaological find from the future - the year 4500, after our civilisations had long since died out. Because most of our records were kept on paper and not stone, most knowledge of our present cultures has long since been destroyed. The find was of a skeleton of a person lying on their couch in their lounge room, facing the TV with the remote in hand. Now, the archaeologists from the future reasoned that the television set must have been an altar or place of great religious worship. They based this assumption on the fact that everything in the room faced towards the TV, including the long-dead primitive. Surely this was a meeting place for religious congregation and a site of great spiritual significance and the strange artefact at the head of the room was symbolic of some forgotten, barbaric God?

Viewing the past through the lens of the present can be fraught with errors. Although it is difficult, we must attempt to minimise the number of assumptions we make concerning the cultures which have gone before us.

australian aboriginals had no written language, aside from rock paintings, i dont think.

Originally posted by Jeremiah25
"If you are ever in doubt about the purpose or function of a particular artefact, just tell them it had some kind of religious significance"

My archaeology professor said that in jest, bemoaning the fact that archaeologists too frequently impose their own understandings or assumptions about a society onto the evidence they uncover. Too often we formulate a theory concerning the behaviours or origins or development levels of a particular culture and then attempt to make the evidence fit into our theory, as opposed to scrapping or modifying our theory in light of what new evidence tells us.

To illustrate how our assumptions can lead us to the wrong conclusions, he showed us a picture of an archeaological find from the future - the year 4500, after our civilisations had long since died out. Because most of our records were kept on paper and not stone, most knowledge of our present cultures has long since been destroyed. The find was of a skeleton of a person lying on their couch in their lounge room, facing the TV with the remote in hand. Now, the archaeologists from the future reasoned that the television set must have been an altar or place of great religious worship. They based this assumption on the fact that everything in the room faced towards the TV, including the long-dead primitive. Surely this was a meeting place for religious congregation and a site of great spiritual significance and the strange artefact at the head of the room was symbolic of some forgotten, barbaric God?

Viewing the past through the lens of the present can be fraught with errors. Although it is difficult, we must attempt to minimise the number of assumptions we make concerning the cultures which have gone before us.

Very true, I'm glad you brought that up and you explained it perfectly, IMO anytime that we make scientific decisions based simply on artifacts or a few cave drawings or even the complexity of a language we are making incorrect assumptions. Afterall, how can we really be 100% sure how advanced any given society is/was unless we have extensive written records of some sort, we always compare them to ourselves for a contrast, we always assume we are the most advanced.

I have really given a lot of thought to the idea that perhaps some global event(s) caused such catastrophic conditions to occur that many/most advanced civilizations were more or less swallowed up by the earth, or just completely destroyed. For me, being a Bible follower, that event just may be something like the great flood, I dont want to turn this into a flood arguement, I just think that its one of the best explainations to a lot of these questions.

Look at the recent (I think) discovery of that alleged sunken temple or building of some sort off the coast of Japan I think it was, it sure looks man made to me, very intriguing statues and sculptures carved into rock outcrops that are fairly old...not to suggest that the people who created it were more advanced than any documented but hey, it was under water for thousands of years right under our noses and we didn't even know it was there...

[edit on 11/30/2005 by JKersteJr]

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by jurasicdog
...mankinds past and ancient civilizations...that because a particular society left no written(and deciferable) records, then it could not have been a society of educated and talented people...

While I have a tendency to agree with some of the mentions expressed here, one thing has marked virtually all known discovered ancient civilizations or societies: written language, be it alphbetic, symbology, etc. As such, mentions of records, educated, and talented become subjective defintions within themselves. You have to remember that cavemen, after learning to draw and communicate through drawing, left drawings on cave walls, etc. This is a form of written communication and language. Furthermore, it can also be viewed as written records, etc. Whether by the use of drawing, abstract symbolizing, or alphabetics, the ability to do these lends to the notion that they would have some degree or attempted written records [ie: be cavemen drawing pictures to tell a story on cave walls, or Egyptians using hieroglyphics, etc].

Also, then comes into question: What was meant or what was included in the expression of mankinds past and ancient civilizations?

At any rate, there is no conclusive proof that Atlantis existed, thus no one has any type conclusive clue as to what their written language would have been or may have looked like, etc. For all we know, the Atlantians, if factual, could have had a written language similiar to the Egyptians or Greeks, or even the Babylonians. The same applies to and holds true for the other myth-based ancient civilizations and/or societies [ie: Lemuria and MU, etc].

I probably stand corrected on some of the above points, but perhaps, if we are all lucky, Bryd will drop in and give us all an education, being this is right up Bryd's alley of study [ie: knowledge base], per se'.

seekerof

[edit on 22-11-2005 by Seekerof]

While I have a tendency to agree with some of the mentions expressed here, one thing has marked virtually all known discovered ancient civilizations or societies: written language, be it alphbetic, symbology, etc. As such, mentions of records, educated, and talented become subjective defintions within themselves. You have to remember that cavemen, after learning to draw and communicate through drawing, left drawings on cave walls, etc. This is a form of written communication and language. Furthermore, it can also be viewed as written records, etc. Whether by the use of drawing, abstract symbolizing, or alphabetics, the ability to do these lends to the notion that they would have some degree or attempted written records [ie: be cavemen drawing pictures to tell a story on cave walls, or Egyptians using hieroglyphics, etc].

from a documentary on towers in tibet

At first, Peissel and Darragon found the answers to such questions elusive. Until recently there were no roads in the region, which is plagued by heavy rains and mudslides in the summer and snow and avalanches in the winter; at times Darragon traveled by horseback and yak. The towers dot four regions—Qiangtang, rGyalrong, Miniak and Kongpo—that cover an area roughly the size of Texas. But the tribes who have lived there for centuries speak different dialects and do not have written languages. “Even from one valley to the next, the locals couldn’t speak to each other,” Darragon says.

She turned to local Buddhist monasteries for help, but the monks found no mention of the towers in their ancient texts. Chinese scholars late in the Ming dynasty (1368-1644) wrote about some of the towers in various kingdoms that no longer exist. British explorer Isabella Bird mentioned them in one of her books, but gave no explanation. “No one has ever studied them,” Peissel concludes in the film. “Their stories are lost in time.”

As Darragon continued her research, she made several surprising discoveries. By carbon-dating bits of wood she sawed off beams of the towers, she confirmed that the structures are 600 to 1,000 years old. She learned that the towers—some of which are as tall as modern 15-story buildings and contain very little mortar—were able to withstand centuries of violent earthquakes because of their star-shaped corners, an antiseismic device that villagers also use in constructing their homes. Darragon found that many of the villages where the towers are located bear the same names as 18 kingdoms described previously only in legends.

I hate it most when people are so arrogant as to think we are the first sentient beings on this planet.

Why is it so hard to believe that peoples of the past could have been as or more advanced than us?

Originally posted by christkiller
Why is it so hard to believe that peoples of the past could have been as or more advanced than us?

Because, from an archaeological perspective, we simply have not found any shred of evidence to indicate this. Whilst it is true that opinions regarding the capabilities of ancient civilisations are constantly being revised and challenged, we have yet to find any tangible evidence to indicate that any ancient civilisation possessed a level of technology beyond our own, or even vaguely approaching it.

We have never found ancient vehicles as or more advanced then our own. We have found no evidence of high technologies in ancient peoples - technologies such as computers, vast bridges or towering skyscrapers. There are no ancient sattelites in orbit, no ancient subway systems or airports or hospitals. No evidence whatsoever that any ancient civilisation possessed any form of truly advanced technology.

Others are sure to refute these claims, arguing that such evidence must have been destroyed. However, for their claim to be true, we must accept that every single piece of advanced technology has been destroyed, since we have not found any thus far and have searched fairly thoroughly.

Originally posted by jurasicdog
I was having a discussion about mankinds past and ancient civilizations, and one of the individuals involved was of the opinion that because a particular society left no written(and deciferable) records, then it could not have been a society of educated and talented people, and that most were peons and that only a very select few had any education.

That is one of the things we first unlearn when we study anthropology. 100 years ago, it was believed that civilizations went through stages, from the "savage" to the "civilized." Lately, we've come to understand that this is not so and that thinking of a non-industrial society as "primitive" or "simple" or "ignorant" is just plain ignorant of us!

Sadly, we anthropologists aren't very good at conveying this to the rest of the world. And documentaries about "quaint native people" sure don't help any.

that is when it hit me that he like countless others that think they are looking at an issue with unbiased objectivity, are in fact tainting the results with their own preconseptions about how a certain group of peoples(seperated from us by countless millenia) might act. what their moral issues might be, and how they may choose to communicate.

And recently there's been a move in archaeology (not anthropology) to do a strict interpretation of records. No "assuming" about artifacts. No "assuming" about structure. Just "this is this and we found it here" and if they can read it, what it says and who it's about.

However, as I understand it, this is only a fairly recent development -- last 25 years in archaeology or so.

Anthropologists drive archaeologists nuts. We like to survey surrounding cultures and survivors of the cultures (if any) and find out "what did you think these people were like" and "what customs did they have" and extrapolating from that if the artifacts are similar.

I'm an anthropologist, but I'm in sympathy with the archaeologists on this one.

Originally posted by makeitso
*exits muttering about never finding Bryd around when needed.*

[edit on 11/22/05 by makeitso]

EEEEEEEEEEEK!

I was... ah... kidnapped by aliens! Yeah, that's it! Alien-napped!!! Those darn gray-thingies!

Originally posted by christkiller
Why is it so hard to believe that peoples of the past could have been as or more advanced than us?

Jeremiah answers it well --

Originally posted by Jeremiah25
Because, from an archaeological perspective, we simply have not found any shred of evidence to indicate this. ...

Others are sure to refute these claims, arguing that such evidence must have been destroyed. However, for their claim to be true, we must accept that every single piece of advanced technology has been destroyed, since we have not found any thus far and have searched fairly thoroughly.

Exactly.

You see, the presence of humans changes the earth. We have garbage dump areas and even if somehow they managed to turn all the garbage into fissionable material and burned it without radioactivity and without ash, we still drop and lose stuff. That gets buried into the land and left in places.

Land where houses sat is compressed in a way very different from the rest of the land. Ancient roads through the Sahara are still findable by satellite because of the pounding of all those feet that changed the density of the land below it.

Land where crops are raised is chemically different because of the aeration and fertilization (even if it's only mulching) and watering (which leaves behind salts and leaches other minerals from the earth.) And material for technology has to be mined (ores) or fabricated (plastics) and that means more visible raw material.

...not to mention the changes in the environment when the new food crop plants are allowed to run wild.

As Jeremiah says, there's none of this.

Originally posted by Jeremiah25
Because, from an archaeological perspective, we simply have not found any shred of evidence to indicate this. Whilst it is true that opinions regarding the capabilities of ancient civilisations are constantly being revised and challenged, we have yet to find any tangible evidence to indicate that any ancient civilisation possessed a level of technology beyond our own, or even vaguely approaching it.

This is true to a point I suppose, but IMO that is still making a dangerous assumption, because the only "level of technology" that we know of is that which we have achieved and that which has been descriptively documented.

We have never found ancient vehicles as or more advanced then our own. We have found no evidence of high technologies in ancient peoples - technologies such as computers, vast bridges or towering skyscrapers. There are no ancient sattelites in orbit, no ancient subway systems or airports or hospitals. No evidence whatsoever that any ancient civilisation possessed any form of truly advanced technology.

Your right, ancient societies didn't have a lot of that but I like to ponder the practicality of things, would ancient societies need computers? Did they build vast bridges, yea they did to a point. Why are thousand ft tall skyscrapers built, because they can fit more people in a really tall building and take up less room, there is a need for office space today, did Ancient people have a need for them? What are a lot of satellites used for today, media right, weather tracking, etc. again, did they really have a need for these things? Subways, well its a lot faster, but were they really in that much of a hurry to get to work like it seems a lot of us are today? Airports, thats one thing I'm fairly certain they did not have, but did they have to fly across the country to visit family or go on vacation? No, they wouldn't know where to fly even if they had a plane.

Others are sure to refute these claims, arguing that such evidence must have been destroyed. However, for their claim to be true, we must accept that every single piece of advanced technology has been destroyed, since we have not found any thus far and have searched fairly thoroughly.

I do not agree with that statement, so you think that we haven't found any advanced technology, no archaeologists have found anything ancient that was previously thought to have been invented by us present day humans, even if its really primitive, its still technology. Also, everyone seems to think that because we have dug up a few hundred ancient cities that we have searched thoroughly, aren't there a few places left to explore, how much of the deep oceans have been charted, what about these artifacts found in "ancient" layers of rock, how did they get there, is there potentially a huge find buried down there?

I guess to date, from what we can determine, we would be the most advanced civilization to date, I would even agree at this point, but remember that your only comparing things you know both peoples had, I think everyone should still keep an open mind, if you dismiss certain unheard of theories as fairy tale then you will never realize full potential. Perhaps that is why these ancient civilizations never progressed as far as us, because they restricted their thoughts to match certain standards and traditions.

We must seek the truth and somewhat abandon these traditions if we want to move forward, IMHO all the evidence we need is out there, maybe we just aren't looking hard enough or in the right places.

Peace,

Jim

Whoever said a written language was proof of intelligence?


The internet proves that wrong....