Originally posted by newspig
Well, speaking as a former journalist and long-time science writer, I have to say this story is specious.
While the first source is legitimate, he isn't saying there was a universal language ... If you read it carefully, he says the symbols he studied were "proto-Canaanite."
Then, all of a sudden, you have this "amateur archeologist" being quoted ... saying there is some sort of ancient universal language, insinuating the two sources somehow agree ... this is an old tabloid journalism trick ... you quote a good source and then inject comments from some questionable source back-to-back, making it appear that their comments are mutually supportive ... at any rate, it is bad journalism.
Another defining feature of Upper Paleolithic culture is its potent infectiousness. Innovations no longer flare up in little pockets and disappear. They metamorphose and diversify and inspire innovations. According to White, the ivory beads made in one site in France 33,000 years ago are exactly the same, in raw material, workmanship, and design, as the ivory beads in another French site two hundred kilometers away. Yet the ones from Germany are utterly different, bespeaking another tradition, another variation on the theme of bead. The Aurignacian industry itself is characterized by an abundance of large, unbeautiful blades, "beaked" buries, and carved-bone projectile points whose bases had been split to accept a shaft. The earliest known Aurignacian sites are in the Balkans, around 43,000 years old. Three thousand years later at the most, the Aurignacian appears across the continent in Spain. Within a few thousand years it covers most of the rest of Europe, picking up regional styles and acquiring new complexions as it goes. This is not simply a little more culture than there was before. For some reason, culture has become an epidemic.
"After two or three hundred thousand years of nothing new," says Berkeley's Tim White, "suddenly, in a tiny segment of time, after this huge gulf of nothing, you've got everything. There's one style over here and another one over there; there's trade, there's art, there's differentiation, all of this stuff just blowing up in your face. So you say to yourself, how come?"
Tim White is a demandingly meticulous researcher, one who does not like to waste time with speculations on grand questions. But on this one, he hardly hesitates a moment before answering his own question. "There's only one thing that I can think of that is big-time enough to render such a huge behavioral shift," he says. "It's got to be language."
It seems almost too obvious. Take any other innovation - a bone harpoon, for instance - and lay it down on the landscape. Now wrap it up in words. How to make it. How to use it to catch fish. When to expect what sorts of fish to arrive at what time of year, and communicate that information to others with whom you have dealings. How to have dealings. How to fillet fish in long thin strips and dry them on racks, extending their nutritional benefit into a future-a concept incommunicable without language. How to organize a cooperative fishing strategy and trade fish for other goods. While we are at it, how to name the river god and seek his intervention so that the catch will be plentiful. Which innovation will travel faster: the naked harpoon, or the one dressed up in language? Language similarly greases the flow of other ideas and inventions-new hunting tactics, new ways of constructing a hearth, preserving meat, or tanning hides. These may have been conceived of before. They may even have been a part of life in one isolated area or another for a thousand years. But language supplies the medium needed to send them zipping across space, human group to human group, brain to brain. It explains the contagion, the pumping up of the cultural volume, even the Neandertals' demise. One has only to imagine two populations, one talking freely among themselves and the other communicating only with grunts and gestures. If they came into competition, would there be any doubt which would survive and which vanish? No wonder so many influential evolutionists from different disciplines ponder the Upper Paleolithic and converge on language as its prime mover: paleoanthropologists like Tim White, archaeologists like Lew Binford, Desmond Clark, Paul Mellars, and Richard Klein, geneticists like Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza and Allan Wilson before his death, to name just a few.
Researchers say this possibly points to a common ancient language.
Originally posted by Kliskey
One of these so called sites in South America is in Rio, Brasil. On one of the big rocks/mountain (though not quite), Its called Pedra da Gávea or Gavea rock
It just so happens that I used to live in Rio and that I used to climb this rock once every couple of months with friends.
I lived in Rio for 4 years, and only towards the end did I hear about these inscriptions.
Anyhow, I did my research and went up there several times to find them but I never had any luck
Most of the locals and historians think that they are rumours only.
However, it has been said that this rock was carved to look like one of the Phonetician kings, and depending on the angle you can kinda make out a face.
Originally posted by rixhell Notice the Omega symbols on the petroglyph , i`m no historian, but was it not years leater when the Omega symbol came to use?
Originally posted by Jadette
This guy is a professor for Brigham Young University, and I can find no legimate research done on the matter other than what he and Dann W Hone have done. Knowing that the Mormon church claims that Jesus lived in America and that the indians are some lost tribe of israel, it's not surprising that this professor seems to find evidence to support this when no other archeologist ever has.