They mapped the stars and the moon... and we call them cavemen?

reply to post by Kandinsky

Also, just because she can explain 'how' they charted precession by measuring the distance stars traveled with sticks...doesn't mean they did.

Which is the problem with experimental archeology. We can work backward from what we have today and find a way to use relatively primitive technology to form a rough substitute.
And a archeologists preconceptions will likely shape the results, like with the Baghdad Batteries.


As for the people being as intelligent as we are today, you're right, in a way. However, some our intelligence is due to our upbringing.
For example, take someone from tribal Africa and toss them into our world, even with constant work, their mental process would be different.
Compare your thought process to your grandparents. Now multiply the difference by cultures and time.

reply to post by RuneSpider
Yeah, maybe 'intelligence' is too flexible a term. 'Potential' could be more useful. Raising a baby from the Lascaux population in our world would yield an individual with the same potential as a comparable peer. Tossing a young Lascaux adult into our world would have a different result. It's all moot anyway...

800,00 yrs of hominids with fire, 400,000 yrs of homo-sapiens, 60,000 yrs of modern man, its kind of a # you in the face of our ancestors to say they couldnt have accomplished much by themselves, this also gets in the way of the ancient astronaut theory too.
The first Homo-sapiens, 400,000 yrs ago, made simple rock tools, digging sticks and spears, they stored grain, they cooked their food, they didnt have the brains to do what we can now, but thye had the brains to do some pretty great things. 340,000 yrs of evolution took it's course, and bigger brains meant bigger ideas, they soon began to paint what they saw, carve obeservations into bones etc. THEY had 45,000 yrs of prehistory to study things, and we say that they were just hunter gatherers who knew nothing of the stars etc. Then suddenly, in 15,000 bc, the red indians show up out of nowhere, knowing about medicines etc. believing in spirtis and nature, building houses and etc. Then the sumerians, who had great structures even believed to have came from gods of another world, then the greeks, knowing science and philosophy, and developing the greatest politics, for 45,000 yrs man must have been dumb as hell to not develop these practices and arts, it makes absolutely no sense.

reply to post by unclekrabz
Welcome to ATS I'm assuming you have a thread idea in mind and are making all these posts in readiness? If it's a thread for this section (A&LC)...double-check your numbers first. Some of the dates you're throwing out there are a bit wrong....as in dead wrong. No criticism...just pointing it out to avoid disputes at a later date

reply to post by 2theC


There are two things wrong with this article.

First, it creates the straw man that "everyone thinks early man was stupid!" - no one with a lick of sense has thought this since the 50's, at least.

Second, "The caves light up on the solstice!" Yeah, so? I imagine they light up every day and the author is just using their own preconceived notions of the solstice's importance to try to make something of it.

Me? I would pick a south-facing cave because it keeps the wind from the GIGANTIC GLACIERS TO THE NORTH from blowing up my butt. If the sun happens to poke through on this day or that hey cool, gives me more time to gnaw my mammoth jerky, bang my cave-wife, and paint a picture of me totally kicking a sabertooth's butt.

reply to post by unclekrabz

The invention of a written language played a big role in the explosion of civilization 9,000 years ago.

Prior to the invention of a written language, there was no "permanent" and/or efficient way to pass knowledge down from one generation to the next. That passage of knowledge between generations relied on spoken language -- so it's quite obvious that some knowledge would be lost due to the inefficiencies of relying on a spoken language only for disseminating information.

There aren't too many scientists who would argue that humans from 20 or 30 thousand years ago were equally as intelligent as us. The common scientific understanding is that these people were identical to us -- including their brians.

However, they lacked an efficient way to record their knowledge in a permanent manner for future generations to build upon...
...and we know what we know today not because we are more intelligent, but because we have built upon the knowledge base passed down to us for the past 3000 to 5000 years through the writings of the Greeks, the Chinese, the Sumerians, the Egyptians and others -- even the more modern writings of Galileo, Newton, and Einstein.

Just think how little we would know of the Theory of Relativity if Einstein relied on telling someone his theory, who in turn told someone else, who in turn told someone else. Or even more basic knowledge -- such as the different recipes for making different kinds of breads.


[edit on 6/30/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

cool thread very good. lots of points made

reply to post by 2theC


At least we can recognize our own stupidity.