PROOF that Ancient Civilizations were as advanced as us!

I have to quote from Plato's Timaeus as he describes the formation of the world,

"Wherefore he made the world in the form of a globe, round as from a lathe, having its extremes in every direction equidistant from the center, the most perfect and the most like itself of all figures; for he considered that the like is infinitely fairer than the unlike. This he finished off, making the surface smooth all around for many reasons:..."

How did he know this?

Standing upon the surface of this planet one can hardly say that it is smooth. Only when viewed from a distance in space does the world resemble Plato's description.

Plato also discusses the rise and fall of civilization in another Dialogue (though I cannot remember which one exactly--maybe Critias). He quotes knowledge gained from Egyptian scholars that civilizations repeatedly have risen and then fallen due to natural disasters.

Maybe that's why we are so enamored with the Mad Max scenario. Our ancestors have lived through it. But I digress...

So I add this to the original argument. I do believe that in many ways ancient civilizations were as advanced as we are today.

reply to post by JoeBarna

So I add this to the original argument. I do believe that in many ways ancient civilizations were as advanced as we are today.

That begs the question, why we cannot detect them? We can detect the prehistoric cultures of man, why not these ancient advanced civilizations?

Originally posted by JoeBarna
I have to quote from Plato's Timaeus as he describes the formation of the world,

"Wherefore he made the world in the form of a globe, round as from a lathe, having its extremes in every direction equidistant from the center, the most perfect and the most like itself of all figures; for he considered that the like is infinitely fairer than the unlike. This he finished off, making the surface smooth all around for many reasons:..."

How did he know this?

The same way he "knew" this?

Are we right in saying that there is one world, or that they are many and infinite? There must be one only, if the created copy is to accord with the original. For that which includes all other intelligible creatures cannot have a second or companion; in that case there would be need of another living being which would include both, and of which they would be parts, and the likeness would be more truly said to resemble not them, but that other which included them. In order then that the world might be solitary, like the perfect animal, the creator made not two worlds or an infinite number of them; but there is and ever will be one only-begotten and created heaven.

Timaeus speaks not of the Earth but of all existence and its creation. The "world" is the universe (a geocentric universe) which becomes apparent when you read the entire text instead of taking a single portion out of context.

classics.mit.edu...

[edit on 1/6/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Hanslune


There are some that would say that we already have evidence. There's a collection of articles in a book "Discovering the Mysteries of Ancient America" that shows evidence of activity in North America before recorded history. Also a book by Malkowski, "Before the Pharaohs" that hypothesizes Kemitian society is much older than the current estimates of dynastic Egypt.

But back to the Plato reference, which may have been taken out of context ('') It was again in Timaeus that Plato discusses calamities that have affected developing civilizations, not Critias as I had initially thought.

I don't claim the expertise to make an authoritative statement on the presence of other ancient civilizations, but books such as these make me wonder. I enjoy that.

reply to post by Phage


Out of context? Maybe. Plato was an extremely intelligent man for his time, probably even for today. Timaeus does discuss a myriad of topics. The paragraph right above your cited section discusses the universe and then the world. So I did take the term world literally. But I can see how he continues to develop the concepts to later include the planets Mercury, Venus, Saturn, Mars, Jupiter, Moon, and the Sun. Only Plato truly knows what he was trying to say.

Is this discussion thread creep? Yes and no. Part of it again validates the original discussion on proof of ancient civilizations. I took on a personal quest a while back to study early texts to see if I could determine how human thought has evolved over the past 3000 years. I only see an evolution in knowledge, not the basic thought structure.

I am still searching for the answer of when and where we humans developed the capability for rational thought. For if we haven't developed all that much over the past 3000 years and development is linear (a big assumption, I know) then we may have been around for a lot longer than we know. But this again is merely my hypothesis.

It does formulate the basis for my agreement with the initial post's premise that ancient civilizations were in some ways as developed as we are today.

reply to post by JoeBarna

I only see an evolution in knowledge, not the basic thought structure.

Have you had a look at bicameralism? It was outlined in the book

The term was coined by psychologist Julian Jaynes, who presented the idea in the 1976 book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, wherein he made the case that the bicameral mentality was the normal state of the human mind everywhere as recently as 3000 years ago.

Bicameralism

Kuijsten, Marcel (2007). Reflections on the Dawn of Consciousness: Julian Jaynes's Bicameral Mind Theory Revisited. Julian Jaynes Society. pp. s. 96–100, 169–202. ISBN 0-9790744-0-1.

Just informational I cannot speak to the theory as it's way, way out of my area of expertise and interest.

Originally posted by Ketzer22
I've read a lot of stuff about the Sumerians. And to answer your question bert- The Sumerians believed in the Annunaki which translates to "those who from heaven came to earth" and they believed the Annunaki were their gods. The way they knew about all this stuff was that they were told by the annunaki who are supposedly from the 12th planet of the Sumerians.. or our 10th planet.. or 9th if you don't want to include pluto anymore. Sumerians are very interesting indeed.. But what I don't understand is if they were so advanced, why make drawings on clay? Why not do something on photoshop?

Or maybe the ancients realized that there is a tipping point of technology and waste and learned to live with "just enough".

They made their buildings to be warm in winter and cool in summer naturally with no electricity bills.

They ate better foods.

They had running water and flushing toilets in many cases.

They spent more time with their families.

They had a sense of purpose.

Their medical industry was good enough to save the strong and not so advanced to save the weak (social Darwinism, anyone?)

They lived in perfect population control.

What has advanced technology gotten us?

We now have near godlike powers without the wisdom. The Terry Schiavo case where the concept of "what defines quality of life thereby defines life" is something that left millions wrecked over and polarized. The ancients would not have had this angst. She would have died after collapsing and her mother could have grieved and moved on.

We have waste out the wazoo.

We have less time with our families.

We have to pay for water and electricity.

I think that we've lost more than we've gained.

Go ancients!

Or maybe the ancients realized that there is a tipping point of technology and waste and learned to live with "just enough".

Hans: Probably not that concept doesn't seem to appear in their literature

They made their buildings to be warm in winter and cool in summer naturally with no electricity bills.

In some cases, not in all the farmer was in general warmer or cooler but not the hunter-gatherer.

They ate better foods.

Hans: Which is why we see ground down teeth and dental problems even in the elite in most cultures. However you are correct in some way, very little additives but then they absorbed large amounts of parasites and toxins from the environment.

They had running water and flushing toilets in many cases.

Hans: Rather rare based on the percentage of such systems vs the number of people

They had a sense of purpose.

Hans: They had mind boggling fear of demons, spirits and sudden violent death - what sense of purpose did they have. They survived.

Their medical industry was good enough to save the strong and not so advanced to save the weak (social Darwinism, anyone?)

Hans: Not really an infection would kill them and they suffered greatly from small pox, malaria, typhus and cholera = They lived in perfect population control.

What has advanced technology gotten us?

Hans: The ability to not be wiped out and our culture lost. Sooner or later humans will be wiped off this earth. We can use technology to escape that dead end

We now have near godlike powers without the wisdom. The Terry Schiavo case where the concept of "what defines quality of life thereby defines life" is something that left millions wrecked over and polarized. The ancients would not have had this angst. She would have died after collapsing and her mother could have grieved and moved on.

We have waste out the wazoo.

We have less time with our families.
Hans: Farmers spend a great deal of time working, hunter-gatherers less, but yes we have lots of waste, hopefully we can surmount that problem

We have to pay for water and electricity.

Hans: other cultures paid for it too just in a different way. We also rarely (westerners) die from contimated water or die of thirst

I think that we've lost more than we've gained.

Hans: one can rejoin the land and renounce your involvement in a modern technical society, a number of organizations have done that, with varying degrees of success. Few do so.

Originally posted by Hanslune

Or maybe the ancients realized that there is a tipping point of technology and waste and learned to live with "just enough".


Hans: Probably not that concept doesn't seem to appear in their literature

Hence "maybe". I'm supposing.

They made their buildings to be warm in winter and cool in summer naturally with no electricity bills.

In some cases, not in all the farmer was in general warmer or cooler but not the hunter-gatherer.

Sorry. Should have used the caveat of "civilization" or "level of civilization"/"civilized culture". Rome. Egypt. Sumer. Greece.

Rome had natural cooling methods. Egyptians had natural cooling methods.

They ate better foods.

Hans: Which is why we see ground down teeth and dental problems even in the elite in most cultures. However you are correct in some way, very little additives but then they absorbed large amounts of parasites and toxins from the environment.

Ground down teeth exists in some remains of humans, not all. Moreover, see my point on population control.

They did not eat artificial preservatives. They did not consume mass quantities of Splenda or Equal. They did not have artificial dyes and colorings in their food. They did not have to worry about trans fats.

They had running water and flushing toilets in many cases.

Hans: Rather rare based on the percentage of such systems vs the number of people

Running water was not rare. Flushing toilets, yes, rare. Only the rich had that luxury in most cases. However, in Rome they did have public toilets that flushed for the city residents.

They had a sense of purpose.


Hans: They had mind boggling fear of demons, spirits and sudden violent death - what sense of purpose did they have. They survived.

You have no idea that they had a mind boggling fear of these things. They wrote about the gods with great respect and, yes, fear, but mind boggling? Now you are supposing.

Their sense of purpose was built into their culture. To preserve family and personal honor was of great importance to the ancients. Yes, their writing proves this. Perhaps, it is not a sense of purpose that modern man approves of, but men held this purpose so tightly to the chest that they would die for it.

What would you die for? What would I?

Their medical industry was good enough to save the strong and not so advanced to save the weak (social Darwinism, anyone?)


Hans: Not really an infection would kill them and they suffered greatly from small pox, malaria, typhus and cholera = They lived in perfect population control.

Again, having dug up more than my share of "ancients" I can tell you that many lived with horrendous woundings. An infection might have killed some of them, but it certainly did not kill all of them.

A close inspection of gladiators, for example, shows just how wounded they were and still lived.

Look at how overpopulated our current world is and how weak and disease ridden we are? The strong survived. Now we pick and choose who survives and that is not always for the betterment of the species.

What has advanced technology gotten us?


Hans: The ability to not be wiped out and our culture lost. Sooner or later humans will be wiped off this earth. We can use technology to escape that dead end

Egypt, Greece, and Rome thrived for thousands of years. Their culture permeated the world we live in today. What was lost? Look at our language, our ideals, even our flaws...we are their children. They are not lost.

Moreover, our advanced technology has not prevented us from being wiped out. History will decide that, but for now the jury is out.

Egypt's culture at it's height of civilization existed a hundred times longer than the US, and they did this without laptops.

We now have near godlike powers without the wisdom. The Terry Schiavo case where the concept of "what defines quality of life thereby defines life" is something that left millions wrecked over and polarized. The ancients would not have had this angst. She would have died after collapsing and her mother could have grieved and moved on.

We have waste out the wazoo.


We have less time with our families.
Hans: Farmers spend a great deal of time working, hunter-gatherers less, but yes we have lots of waste, hopefully we can surmount that problem

Family farmers spend a great deal of time working with their family. That is my point. Hunters (pre-civilization) spent time with their sons.

As for waste, "hopeful" is the key word. I doubt it will happen because we are sick with greed. Until the garbage piles up in the lawns of the rich I find it highly unlikely we will consider it a priority.

We have to pay for water and electricity.


Hans: other cultures paid for it too just in a different way. We also rarely (westerners) die from contimated water or die of thirst

And yet I have dug up countless remains and worked with forensic scientists and found this not to be a proven case.

I think that we've lost more than we've gained.


Hans: one can rejoin the land and renounce your involvement in a modern technical society, a number of organizations have done that, with varying degrees of success. Few do so.

True. Technology is an addiction. We believe we need it to live.

reply to post by Hanslune


Most interesting Hanslune! Thank you. I do agree with the author, especially after reading Homer's Iliad and Odyssey that ancient man often blamed the gods intervening force to explain why he did certain things. I personally thought it was just an excuse. I never attributed this to a condition now identified as bicameralism.

But if I do accept this as true, I cannot accept the existence of advanced early civilizations because this characteristic seems to me to negate man's ability to accomplish great things. But most interesting.

reply to post by JoeBarna


I reviewed my own recommendation. I don't completely buy it, it means a mutation or way of thinking spread incrediblly rapidly in a very short time frame.

However food for thought.

Originally posted by Rintendo
They did not eat artificial preservatives. They did not consume mass quantities of Splenda or Equal. They did not have artificial dyes and colorings in their food. They did not have to worry about trans fats.

This is true.

What is also true is that, based on the ages of all the remains we've been able to recover, they lived to the ripe old age of (approximately) thirty, on average.

Today's average lifespan is more than double that, even with everyone gulping down hog fat, Crisco and Splenda.

Regarding Plato's claim of the smooth sphere, that is Plato's philosophy.

Everything in existence is a copy of it's own "ideal" form. What Plato is talking about in the quoted part is the ideal, or perfect, sphere, from which all other spheres are derived.

It's part of what we today call "Platonic Idealism."

Harte

"There are now more slaves on the planet than at any time in human history." www.foreignpolicy.com...

So much for progress. (Edit: But this is a bit off topic, I admit!)

Originally posted by Phage
Timaeus speaks not of the Earth but of all existence and its creation. The "world" is the universe (a geocentric universe) which becomes apparent when you read the entire text instead of taking a single portion out of context.

He also mentions in Phaedo that it appears as a ball (or, perhaps, as a dodecahedron!)

In the first place, the earth, when looked at from above, is in appearance streaked like one of those balls which have leather coverings in twelve pieces, and is decked with various colours, of which the colours used by painters on earth are in a manner samples.

[edit on 9-1-2009 by Eleleth]

reply to post by Eleleth


Actually that is progress, it is now illegal in most all countries, instead of being legal and practiced in most. But....we are careening off topic I do believe.



[edit on 9/1/09 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Eleleth


Thank you Eleleth! Contrary to some people's belief, I have read the entire text of Timaeus and Critias, and am struggling my way through the Republic. (Though I definitely do not get the same message from the text that some others do '') I am going to have to get to Phaedo to see that reference.

Which will bring me back to the question: How did he know?

Proof of advanced ancient civilizations may be right under our noses. We just haven't found the secret to interpreting the signs and symbols yet. But since I made my first post on this subject, I have done some searches on ATS to see what has been previously posted. There's a lot to be learned from these. My thanks to all the learned ones who contribute--and you know who you are. ''

reply to post by Trauma


Hoe exactly do you know that the tiny circles/spheres indicate Pluto and Charon....why not other planets or the moon.???

You are making an assumption. Thats all.

Originally posted by JoeBarna
Which will bring me back to the question: How did he know?

If you mean how did he know the Earth is spherical, the Greeks were aware of this fact.

Truth is, many of the ancients were aware of it.

Originally posted by JoeBarna But since I made my first post on this subject, I have done some searches on ATS to see what has been previously posted. There's a lot to be learned from these. My thanks to all the learned ones who contribute--and you know who you are. '

'

I agree. I've posted a heck of a lot of info here, and there are a huge number of others that have posted far nmore than I.

Harte

reply to post by bigbert81

im very interested.
thank you i needed this for a project
at school thats the answer i
waas looking for..

It would depend which civilization was technologically advanced than we are.

Some were some were not, like the ancient Egyptians they were more advance than us like the pyramids coincide with the stars, then we have the stuff to explore the planets in a more deeper sense with being able to send back pictures and sound waves stuff like that.

Originally posted by xxstarlightxx
It would depend which civilization was technologically advanced than we are.

Some were some were not, like the ancient Egyptians they were more advance than us like the pyramids coincide with the stars

They don't... and you do know that there's 11 pyramids at Giza alone, right (and over 110 in all of Egypt.) We have maps of the sky on stone floors that are far more accurate than anything they produced -- and we could predict eclipses, which they can't.