There is absolutely nothing extraordinary to claiming that some writing is 8,000 years old. think about it. Writing officially appeared in Sumer in and around 2700 BC... that is almost 5,000 years ago. To suggest that writing in some areas appeared as early as 6700 BC is not so much of a stretch... that would put it smack dab in the middle of the Neolithic period... there are small "cities" in Turkey that is as old as that. There are symbolic and ritual markings and designs that go back 20,000 years. It is not a far leap from a design that represents a god and one that represents a numerical amount or a sound or an idea. Also Chinese has always pictorial so the leap is even less. The question would, so should be... what was happening in that area that would require some form of writing.

Thanks Grover, i agree, even if it isnt 'writing' in the traditional sense it could well be the precursor to what became the Chinese language, and still an interesting discovery to discuss.
I am trying to find a link that i came across the other day dealing with some finds in Turkey that were along the same lines.
I think the oracle bones and jiahu script tying in with this possible discovery is not a huge stretch. If it does it would be a great tool for discovering how writing evolved in China.





(edit for spelling)

[edit on 22/5/07 by mojo4sale]

Originally posted by mojo4saleI think the oracle bones and jiahu script tying in with this possible discovery is not a huge stretch. If it does it would be a great tool for discovering how writing evolved in China.

Given the differences in the cultures, it really wouldn't be surprising if part of the foundation for writing was the I Ching oracle. There are other cultures where writing was considered a very high magic and where the letters had symbolic meanings as well as a regular meaning.

Originally posted by mojo4sale
If it was already highly developed in 1200bc then is that such a large leap for the formative stages for that writing to have begun around 6500bc?'

Ah... there we run into differences in culture and regions. There's no way to construct a timeline because of human nature. If making tribal markings was seen as the most significant thing, then writing takes a back seat to design. If writing is seen as magical, then it's the domain of only a very few and can be eliminated if some chief finds those writing priestly devils a threat to his existance.

In Egypt (if I remember correctly) the timespan between marks and writing was about a thousand years. But we don't have an accurate record of the culture (as we do with those that write), so it's hard to say what was going on.

As far as we know, all phonetic systems at one point evolved out of pictographic ones. This circumstance had led certain scholars to the belief in "developed" and "primitive" writing systems; the idea was that those scripts which were still using pictographic characters were merely at a lower stage of evolution than those with alphabetic or monosyllabic symbols.

Not entirely true. Cherokee, for instance, developed without a pictographic predecessor, as did Ogham. SOME scripts did, but some didn't. If you had encountered writing for the first time and found it useful but the language of that culture wasn't suited for writing your own language, you could develop a script on your own without going through the pictograph state.

I think Soficrow had some information on this. She was trying to connect the I Ching at one time to other things. While some of the points were speculation, I believe she had some decent info on the origins.

I have to agree with Mojo4sale's opening comment:

I've often felt that our view of ancient history is no where near as accurate as some claim and that there will continue to be some amazing discoveries.

I don't doubt your interesting news at all Mojo4sale. It's quite plausible.

Rather I think it is just one of many examples that what we understand of history is often formed by archaeologists with their own pet theories and desire to promote themselves or their discoveries.

For example the ongoing controversy that the Sphinx is much older than the rule of Pharoh Chephren. If proved correct the oldest writing there could be 10,000 years old.

As an echo of your opening comment quoted above it is worth noting that the oldest Egyptian mummies (of non royalty) were often found buried with traces of cocaine, which as we know comes from South America.

Stone tablets in Phonecian writing were found in various parts of north America.

As a Welshman, the folklore of my countrymen (mabanogion) relates to voyages across the Atlantic. Indeed a tribe of red Indians were discovered speaking fluent Welsh, but the tribe died out from smallpox infection.

This is not to prove or disprove anything but rather to illustrate that one needs an open mind because we only see the tip of the ice berg about ancient history.

Thanks sy.gunson, i particularly think that the phoenicians discovered or visited a lot more of the world than the traditional view, there is quite a lot of circumstantial evidence to back up this claim.
Not sure were i stand regarding the Egyptian mummies and the Sphinx, there is so much conflicting evidence.
Ive been researching alot of Irish legends and there is a heap of folk lore regarding invaders from across the sea, The Milesians being just one.
I'm interested in your comment about welsh legends, do you have any links i could check out.

thanks mojo.

Oh great Mojo, I got really excited just from reading the thread title and then came in started to read and was thinking ... 'Whats Byrd's take on this? lol

I don't have time to read it all now as off to work... but will be back and check this out.

Just quickly and hope I don't go off topic but the dates got me excited because I have just finished reading a book called the Gods of Eden and that discusses the Sphinx and other things, it suggested the date around 10500BC, so I was feeling a little warm and fuzzy with my thoughts on Minoans... and then I see your thread... (that is another issue altogether)
But any evidence to support anything lol around 8000 BC is good... *rubbing my hands

Anyway, must get a move on...
but, I will be back... !

Originally posted by NJE777
Oh great Mojo, I got really excited just from reading the thread title and then came in started to read and was thinking ... 'Whats Byrd's take on this? lol

I don't have time to read it all now as off to work... but will be back and check this out.

Hey nat, be great to get your thoughts on this, just dont exert yourself too much at work, ho hum i'm off to the pub.

Originally posted by Byrd
Don't confuse this with pictographs and petroglyphs depicting spiritual beings or stories... some of those are far older. In California, there are ones that are over 9,000 years old -- but they are not a type of writing.

Hi Mojo... I read the three original sources you provided and did a quick search for other info but found very little. Perhaps it indicates that the findings are considered pictographs rather than 'writing' or at least that is the general consenses? In one of the articles you provided it stated:

Though many scholars had devoted to the study of Damaidi rock art for over a decade, the archaeological findings hardly came to light until late 2003.

I feel this area has had quite a lot of study and only just now these claims are coming forward? There is a lot happening in China recently, or so it seems...

I think the issue here is definitely, whether or not the pictographs are considered writing as Bryd notes.

I am still looking for info but when I read the sources, it actually looked like rock art, pictures rather than structured writing... but I am not convinced as yet... especially as the Egyptian hieroglyphic writing system consists of several hundred picture signs.

cheers






[edit on 27-5-2007 by NJE777]

One more point which may interest you people. It was not merely the greeks who retained memories of Atlantis.

I mentioned previously that welsh folklore goes back way beyond the voyages of Madoc to the Americas.

The Welsh historical tradition, the Mabinogion (previously misspelled) recounts a glorious civilisation from far out in the Atlantic Ocean which sank beneath the waves. Welsh folklore has it that when there are powerful storms off the sea you can sometimes still hear the bells of a missing city sunk beneath the waves chime out in sorrow.

The Mabingion was handed down by gnerations of Druids and Bards as an oral history, long before the Romans invaded Britain. Other cultures also handed down their history in epic tales similar to the mabinogion. The Tibetan saga, Gesar of Ling is a similar Oral tradition. Those who recount it learn it as travelling apprentices under a master story teller. As children they learn to recount it exactly from memory and made their livings travelling from village to village telling their story.

Some of the Celtic folklore therefore is almost 10,000 years old.

Another pointer about the lost race of Atlantis if one accepts the existence of Atlantis that is... the Basques of Spain are linguistically and genetically vastly different from the other races of Spain and Europe.

Originally posted by Byrd
The silk road connection mentioned does bring up an interesting point... travel and trade. If you were sending your goods on a long journey, you would want some sort of "chop mark" on them to show which were yours (in case of bandit attacks or floods or other situations where animals and items might get confused.)

Yes that connection interests me too Byrd. Not only marks for identifying your goods but a system for accounting for them as well. If they were using pictographs at this stage as was the Mesopotamian civilisation they may have been trading with, some exchange or similarity of symbols is a definate possibility.
Unfortunately im unable to find any pictures yet from the Chinese discovery to compare to the find in Turkmenistan.

mojo

Byrd like your friend Marduk you selectively only quote that which serves your arguments.


Welsh Indians

The "welsh speaking" comes from the indians of the area having some words that sounded Welsh... as recorded by a Welsh nationalist who was tracing the route of Madoc:

True John Evans a Welsh Methodist minister employed by the Spanish did set out on an expedition in 1795 to discover Welsh speaking indians and a route to the pacific.

Your portrayal however makes it sound as if John evans was driven by a fanatical need to prove his obsession. that is not true and you mislead the rest of us.

French fur trader Jacques d’Eglise first reported the welsh speaking tribe in 1792. It may interest you that several words in Welsh are similar to their french equivalents.

It was d’Eglise who reported that they used fortifications different from other tribes, that there customs were unlike those of other indians and that the Mandan indians were fair skinned "like Europeans"

John Sevier, Governor of Tennessee also reported a conversation which he had in 1792 with a chief of the Cherokee who said his forefathers had a massive battle on what is now known as the Carolina river with a large force of white people who were called "Welsh." The chief recounted that there was a peace agreement with the Welsh tribe who agreed to move away and settle elsewhere. The cherokee chief also recounted that the Welsh people came from across the "great water."

John Sevier had been in the company of d'Eglise and shared experiences with him before the expedition of John Evans. French fur traders took their fur south to sell them so that news also spread to Spanish territory.

Both these accounts independent of each other predated the expedition of John Evans, but had undoubtedly reached his ears.

Your attempts Byrd to discredit the Welsh Indians Byrd is as you so eloquently put it ever so "biased"

Egyptian Mummies

As for the Egyptian mummies your dismissal is also biased and misleading. These mummies were not displayed at 18 century parties. Instead there was a craze for grinding them up to dust and then consuming their dust infused in drinks.

It is highly likely that IF the mummies used at 18th century parties did contain traces of narcotics that they were being ground up in part at least to derive some narcotic effect.

It is an oxymoron to say these mummies came from such parties because the hosts of such parties would grind them to dust. A mummy mistreated this way would not likely have survived in a forensically useful state. Not all of Balabanova's test subject mummies however came from such uncertain origins.

It's also slightly misleading to say that no other mummies since have yielded such results. The fact is that the Egyptians nowadays would resist mummies being exhumed for such analysis and many museums would probably not allow it either. If there are a limited stock available to examine one cannot say that the lack of wider cocaine samples is evidence of a one off result.

Balabanova's first tests were not on mummies from 18th century parlours, but rather from well documented exhibits in the Munich museum. It was only after discovering cocaine in these mummies that she obtained other mummies for testing of more dubious origins from 1992-93.

Balabanova had examined more mummies than just the handful at Munich which revealed cocaine. She revealed that a third of all mummies in the total population she examined bore traces of tobacco.

Three of Balabanova's Munich mummies had trace of cocaine from the bones and not just from hair. Cocaine could not have been laid down in bone except whilst the host person was still alive.

Neither Byrd nor Marduk can explain away this by accusing lab technicians of smoking in the lab. The laboratory was a properly structured forensics laboratory.

Larry Cartmell, Clinical Laboratory Director of the Valley View Hospital in Aida, Oklahoma also conducted tests on 14 Egyptian mummies which returned similar nicotine evidence to Balabanova's Munich examinations.

As if this were not enough, three mummies tested at Manchester in 1996 also gave similar nicotine results.

Both Balabanova and Cartmell found that nicotine levels in samples that were excavated and stored together varied widely. The differences must have originated during the mummies' lifetimes.

Whilst the lack of Nicotine in Egyptian tombs does rule out it's use in Egypt as a recreational drug, it does not rule out it's highly secretive use by the Egyptian priesthood for medicinal reasons during the lifetime of the host person.

Which brings us back to a fairly credible and hard to dismiss pathological result.


[edit on 28-5-2007 by sy.gunson]