Archeologists have uncovered surprisingly sophisticated grain storage that PREDATES plant domesticat

reply to post by whatukno

Yeah -- you're right. it IS interesting to consider all the things that we don't know about human history.

However, this discovery does not really change that much (at least yet). All they have found was proof that Early humans stored wild barley -- that's wild barley -- in holding bins. This is not proof of agriculture.

Like I said before, humans from 11,000 years ago were modern humans just like us, so they were just as intelligent as us -- nobody is disputing the fact that these people were as smart as us. However, they did not have the knowledge base we have that is added to with each successive generation. Without writing, it was very difficult to preserve their knowledge base for the next generation to build upon.

They were just as intelligent as us, so I don't find it that amazing that they thought about keeping the wild grain they pick in an enclosure away from animals. If a group of humans today with no knowledge of civilization were put on a secluded island, I think they would figure out how to make an enclosure to store the food they find. Why do we find it difficult to believe that these people could do the same?

[edit on 6/25/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

The discovery of the 11,000 year old grainaries indicates that this is not the actual site for Gilgal. Gilgal was first established by the Israelites when they entered the Promised Land after the Exodus from Egypt. The ancient Israelites never used the Gilgal site for agriculture purposes. It was a Religious site they encamped at for fourteen years.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


I wonder, even papyrus ages and decays, animal parchment does as well. But suppose for a moment that mankind reached an age in its history where paper of any kind was no longer used. Doesn't seem too far fetched today now does it?

What if we had reached that age before. If after a collapse of that society, it's technology lost, what would be left to tell us of it's existence?

reply to post by whatukno

What if we had reached that age before. If after a collapse of that society, it's technology lost, what would be left to tell us of it's existence?

There is a good documentary series on either the history channel, discovery or science channel, I can’t remember which, that is called “Life after People”. In each episode it discusses what traces would be left if we disappeared and it discusses after 20, years, 40, 100, 1000 it usually ends up with 500,000 years. Each episode it talks about different things, tech is one, and buildings are another. I highly recommend this series, it is interesting, though I think some of their theories might be off a tad but interesting none the less.

The reason I mention this is because it gives good insight of what could possibly have happened in the past as well with other civilizations, or if nothing else it does make one wonder.

this is huge news it just adds to how all the information we are finding about our Ancestors they were a lot smarter than we think they were.

lol yea this definately proves we are being withheald info about human history... or maybe its because we have yet to discover things.... nice try though I hope one day it is revealed with air tight evidence that a NWO, jews, aliens, or something beyond our imagination runs the show. until then, i accept nothing.

Just one more oddity they won't be able to explain away. Just like all those other oddities that are man made from thosands of years before. To me it just shows that we've been living here on the world more times than records have survived. Who's to say its not one of the annunaki grain facilities that the lizards used when they had bases in and around the sinai, and persia. Or it could be from a older past. Mysteries of the past, or are they of the future. Depends on how you look at it, and if humans are destined to repeat the past, over, and over again.

Something to ponder..

Originally posted by Relentless.D
lol yea this definately proves we are being withheald info about human history... or maybe its because we have yet to discover things.... nice try though I hope one day it is revealed with air tight evidence that a NWO, jews, aliens, or something beyond our imagination runs the show. until then, i accept nothing.

How does this prove that we were withheld information about human history? Is every new announcement a scientist makes something that was actually being "withheld".

As I said before, scientists would not dispute the fact that people from 11,000 years ago were exactly as intelligent as us -- that's because they are the same species as us.

Same species = same brain = same intelligence.

Nobody is hiding that fact from us. If the common person thinks people 11,000 years ago were some inferior stupid cavemen, then that's the common person's fault for not learning enough about human history...don't blame some conspiracy. The information is out there to be learned.

So the fact that they new how to store wild barley so animals didn't eat it does not really surprise me that much. They were smart people.

Were they smart enough to discover agriculture? Sure they were -- in fact man later DID discover agriculture. They do, after all , have the same brains we do.
Does this prove that they actually HAD agriculture 11,000 years ago? No -- it does not prove that they did. It only proves they knew how to store wild grain.


[edit on 6/25/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Eye of Horus

annunaki grain facilities

WTF?! I can't tell if ATS people are joking anymore...I'll pretend you aren't joking and recommend that you 'research' the guy that invented the idea of annunaki. ( Sitchin is full of BS )

Sometimes an old granary is just an old granary. It isn't a 'grain facility,' proof that 'they' lie to us or evidence that 'we're not allowed to know.' It isn't an 'oddity' to be 'explained away.' It adds detail to our ever expanding knowledge of the past...

Think of it this way.

Simple structures will endure far longer than complex ones. A grainery for instance is quite the simple structure. Built out of stone it will last far longer than a temple.

Why is that you say? Cause a grainery is useful no matter what god you pray to. It would be in any armies best interest to preserve such a resource so that they wouldn't have to build it again.

An effective grainery is a prize in war, it is a prize because it is useful and unobtrusive to the religious beliefs of whatever civilization you wish to implant on the people you conquer.

Man is far older than text let's us believe. Man is far older than what the pyramids dictate to us. The first steps toward civilization are in the agricultural resources of a aspiring empire.

Really how hard is it to store what we consider wild grains? How hard is it to take those wild seeds and plant them? Just because they are wild doesn't mean they weren't cultivated.

After all how hard is it to dig a trench to irrigate a field? It doesn't take Archimedes to know that water flows downhill. Just because they are wild grains does not mean we did not cultivate them. It does not mean that we didn't harvest them when the time was right. It doesn't take a genius civilization to know how to survive.

Originally posted by Kandinsky

WTF?! I can't tell if ATS people are joking anymore...I'll pretend you aren't joking and recommend that you 'research' the guy that invented the idea of annunaki. ( Sitchin is full of BS )

WTF?! I can't tell if ATS people are joking anymore...I'll pretend you aren't joking and recommend that you 'research' anunnaki

Originally posted by whatukno
...Really how hard is it to store what we consider wild grains? How hard is it to take those wild seeds and plant them? Just because they are wild doesn't mean they weren't cultivated...

They need to have the insight to realize that barley plants actually come from planting a barley seed. That's what's hard. If it is so simple, then early man should have had agriculture 35,000 years ago.

I'm not saying they didn't figure this out 1,000 years earlier than we thought (11,000 years ago as opposed to 10,000 years ago) -- all I'm saying is that the discovery of a granary does not necessarily mean the people who built the granary were also growing the plants. More evidence is needed before we can jump to that conclusion.

Perhaps early man did have agriculture 11,000 years ago -- they were certainly intelligent enough. However, this discovery alone does not prove that they actually did posses the knowledge of agriculture, as others here have suggested.

[edit on 6/26/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Parta

WTF?! I can't tell if ATS people are joking anymore...I'll pretend you aren't joking and recommend that you 'research' anunnaki

The member is clearly referring to Sitchin's 'annunaki' (lizards, grain facilities)......hence the link

Another great thread warrenb, S&F, sir!

Archeologist need to get out of their small box and realize that humans were more advanced than earlier thought.

Mesopotamia did not wake one day more advanced...it began thousands of years earlier...the information you provided for this thread is evidence.

You my friend, deliver more great information!

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Parta

 

WTF?! I can't tell if ATS people are joking anymore...I'll pretend you aren't joking and recommend that you 'research' anunnaki

The member is clearly referring to Sitchin's 'annunaki' (lizards, grain facilities)......hence the link

true dat. clearly they needed to see the difference. i actually thought you might be another incarnation of harte since you didn't point that out.

reply to post by Parta
Fair enough. As for Harte, I'm on the same page as him. I don't like speculation dressed as fact, don't think science is hiding stuff and like good evidence. I admire 'informed skeptics' and consider myself one too. Check the profile...80% ATS skeptics on the friend list.

I'm nowhere near as grumpy as Harte though...

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Parta

 

Fair enough. As for Harte, I'm on the same page as him. I don't like speculation dressed as fact, don't think science is hiding stuff and like good evidence. I admire 'informed skeptics' and consider myself one too. Check the profile...80% ATS skeptics on the friend list.

I'm nowhere near as grumpy as Harte though...

i can tell you aren't a post-grad in misanthropic intonation like mr grumpy & co are.

those who follow orthodoxy too closely are generally 10 years behind reality right? ie. in 10 years you might know what was going on today... thats the way the system works. i would think people would want to know today what is going on today. why waste 10 years of good fun. it might be your last 10 years.

weird things really do happen. thats just the way history and science work sometimes.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Parta

 

Fair enough. As for Harte, I'm on the same page as him. I don't like speculation dressed as fact, don't think science is hiding stuff and like good evidence. I admire 'informed skeptics' and consider myself one too. Check the profile...80% ATS skeptics on the friend list.

I'm nowhere near as grumpy as Harte though...

Exactly --

Speculation is fun, and we need to speculate to postulate a hypothesis, but too many people take that speculation too far and begin to treat it as "fact"

As I said, I'm not saying that early man DEFINITELY did not develop agriculture earlier than scientists now think, I'm only saying the discovery mentioned in the OP does not prove that they did.

So the scientists who discovered this granary now have a possible hypothesis:

"Does this granary imply that early man had agriculture 11,000 years ago"

Now it's up to those scientists to test the hypothesis and find more evidence.



[edit on 6/26/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

what evidence could there be of man cultivating wheat that naturally didn't need his help to perpetuate itself? the date of agriculture is currently determined by the date man started using wheat that probably needed his help to perpetuate itself. oi. got tools, facilites... what else?

reply to post by Parta

I would say that finding cultivation tools and evidence of large numbers of people living in one place for an extended period of time would be evidence for agriculture.

For a small group of people, it would probably have been easier to gather wild food rather than cultivate it. Therefore, for small nomadic tribes, there was probably no real necessity to grow food.

I don't see how agriculture would have been an advantage to small groups of nomadic people.

It would not have been until large groups began to live in permanent settlements that would bring about the necessity to have larger amounts of food -- and necessity is the mother of invention. One can almost assume that agriculture MUST have been present in places where large groups lived. In that case, SETTLEMENTS are the evidence of agriculture -- albeit indirect evidence.

In general, it seems that agriculture and permanent human settlements both started about 10,000 years ago. The question is: Did agriculture come first, allowing humans to create permanent settlements -- or did settlements come first, requiring humans to create agriculture out of the need to feed these settlements?

As I said, I think necessity is the mother of invention, so I personally think that large permanent settlements came first, which created the need for agriculture -- which in turn allowed those settlements to become even larger.


[edit on 6/26/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]