It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Skull that rewrites the History of Man!

page: 5
62
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by pai mei
reply to post by silo13
 


Thanks
But what kind of thread should I start ? Start one if you want , I am not sure of the question

I wanted to show that no society can be composed only of "cavemen", "brutes". It would disintegrate. Imagine the bad guys - the mafia kill us all. Only mafia left on Earth. But inside - they cannot kill each other no matter if they are "the bad guys". Else they disappear. It's not in their interest. This violence inside a group - and the group still remaining as it is, cannot exist.


Certainly nothing is "black" and "white" in this earthly realm, and not everyone can behave as a brute, however, some cultures, civilisations etc, during certain periods can be much more brutish than others




posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


Towards other groups. Never inside the group. If they do it inside the group : that is a "civilization". Each man for himself . Gollums. Police.

But people are not evil and materialist "by nature". Give them a group that accepts them unconditionally and they will be happy to participate in that group with a gift economy. People seek this, today we have no "us", only "fight against all" , and for what ?

See the Iroquois Confederacy. Giant tribes, communities with no police, can exist. Also there were thousands of tribes that were not "warrior tribes". They saw war as a foolish thing to do, their confrontations with the neighbors were more like rituals.
Even the Sioux : why did they invent the "coup stick" ? Nobody, not even the warrior tribes were not thinking like killing machines, interested in "efficient killing".

Also see this :

en.wikipedia.org...


Unlike traditional Western societies of the time, many pirate crews operated as limited democracies. Pirate communities were some of the first to instate a system of checks and balances similar to the one used by the present-day United States and many other countries. The first record of such a government aboard a pirate sloop dates to the 1600s, a full century before the United States' and France's adoption of democracy in 1789, or Spain's move to democracy in 1812. [28]

Both the captain and the quartermaster were elected by the crew; they, in turn, appointed the other ship's officers. The captain of a pirate ship was often a fierce fighter in whom the men could place their trust, rather than a more traditional authority figure sanctioned by an elite. However, when not in battle, the quartermaster usually had the real authority. Many groups of pirates shared in whatever they seized; pirates injured in battle might be afforded special compensation similar to medical or disability insurance.

There are contemporary records that many pirates placed a portion of any captured money into a central fund that was used to compensate the injuries sustained by the crew. Lists show standardised payments of 600 pieces of eight ($156,000 in modern currency) for the loss of a leg down to 100 pieces ($26,800) for loss of an eye. Often all of these terms were agreed upon and written down by the pirates, but these articles could also be used as incriminating proof that they were outlaws.

Pirates readily accepted outcasts from traditional societies, perhaps easily recognizing kindred spirits, and they were known to welcome them into the pirate fold. For example as many as 40% of the pirate vessels crews were slaves liberated from captured slavers. Such practices within a pirate crew were tenuous, however, and did little to mitigate the brutality of the pirate's way of life


A tribe - is the natural organization for any group of free people.


[edit on 10-9-2009 by pai mei]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by pai meiTowards other groups. Never inside the group. If they do it inside the group : that is a "civilization". Each man for himself . Gollums. Police.


It can occur within the group, brutal force can be used within the group





But people are not evil and materialist "by nature". Give them a group that accepts them unconditionally and they will be happy to participate in that group with a gift economy. People seek this, today we have no "us", only "fight against all" , and for what ?


I think there is inherent evil and materialism in human nature- it is whether some choose to give vent to it





See the Iroquois Confederacy. Giant tribes, communities with no police, can exist. Also there were thousands of tribes that were not "warrior tribes". They saw war as a foolish thing to do, their confrontations with the neighbors were more like rituals.


I do not see war as a good thing, but I have no doubt that there is inherent capability in evil within all of us, just as there would have been in the Iroquois Confederacy. In any event the iroquois confederacy was a form of imperialsim, absorbing conquered peoples




Also see this :

en.wikipedia.org...

Unlike traditional Western societies of the time, many pirate crews operated as limited democracies. Pirate communities were some of the first to instate a system of checks and balances similar to the one used by the present-day United States and many other countries. The first record of such a government aboard a pirate sloop dates to the 1600s, a full century before the United States' and France's adoption of democracy in 1789, or Spain's move to democracy in 1812. [28]

Both the captain and the quartermaster were elected by the crew; they, in turn, appointed the other ship's officers. The captain of a pirate ship was often a fierce fighter in whom the men could place their trust, rather than a more traditional authority figure sanctioned by an elite. However, when not in battle, the quartermaster usually had the real authority. Many groups of pirates shared in whatever they seized; pirates injured in battle might be afforded special compensation similar to medical or disability insurance.

There are contemporary records that many pirates placed a portion of any captured money into a central fund that was used to compensate the injuries sustained by the crew. Lists show standardised payments of 600 pieces of eight ($156,000 in modern currency) for the loss of a leg down to 100 pieces ($26,800) for loss of an eye. Often all of these terms were agreed upon and written down by the pirates, but these articles could also be used as incriminating proof that they were outlaws.

Pirates readily accepted outcasts from traditional societies, perhaps easily recognizing kindred spirits, and they were known to welcome them into the pirate fold. For example as many as 40% of the pirate vessels crews were slaves liberated from captured slavers. Such practices within a pirate crew were tenuous, however, and did little to mitigate the brutality of the pirate's way of life


not sure what your point is there, just confirms there was structures in place, not lack of brutality



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


Read more. About tribes. See the link in my signature, see all the links to the right in that blog.

Among your friends what do you do if one starts beating you ? Well - if he has gone mad and keeps beating you - he will be excluded from your group. That was done in a tribe - for stealing, killing and such things. The members of a tribe were not perfect - but their organization has evolved trough thousands of years of people seeking happiness - and the tribe was the perfect form suited for that. It was not something someone thought about in one day.

That was their greatest punishment - exile. Of course the murderer could be killed by the victim's friends. If he did not ran away first.
But this was very rare. You don't go around stealing from people you know since you were little.

The Iroquois Confederacy, same as the Sioux Confederacy - had no conquered people inside.

No, humans are not evil by nature. That is what we are taught and it's false.

Crazy Horse, Tashunkewitko of the western Sioux, was born about 1845. Killed at Fort Robinson, Nebraska in 1877, he lived barely 33 years.

As a boy, Crazy Horse seldom saw white men. Sioux parents took pride in teaching their sons and daughters according to tribal customs. Often giving food to the needy, they exemplified self-denial for the general good. They believed in generosity, courage, and self-denial, not a life based upon commerce and gain.

One winter when Crazy Horse was only five, the tribe was short of food. His father, a tireless hunter, finally brought in two antelope. The little boy rode his pony through the camp, telling the old folks to come for meat, without first asking his parents. Later when Crazy Horse asked for food, his mother said, "You must be brave and live up to your generous reputation."

It was customary for young men to spend much time in prayer and solitude, fasting in the wilderness --typical of Sioux spiritual life which has since been lost in the contact with a material civilization.




[edit on 10-9-2009 by pai mei]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by pai mei
Among your friends what do you do if one starts beating you ? Well - if he has gone mad and keeps beating you - he will be excluded from your group.


depends on the circumstances



That was done in a tribe - for stealing, killing and such things. The members of a tribe were not perfect - but their organization has evolved trough thousands of years of people seeking happiness - and the tribe was the perfect form suited for that. It was not something someone thought about in one day.


So that particular "culture" was less brutal than others, same ways as my culture is less brutal than others



That was their greatest punishment - exile. Of course the murderer could be killed by the victim's friends. If he did not ran away first.
But this was very rare. You don't go around stealing from people you know since you were little.


In non urban settings, even in the developed world there is less likelihood for people to release their propensity for evil




No, humans are not evil by nature. That is what we are taught and it's false.


in your opinion it is false, not in mine, man is inherently fallen, there is no perfection, and that alone is proof that there is a propensity for evil in all of us, whether or not we choose to act on it



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


My apologies. On reflection yes you are right. Honey would have been better. Although its no excuse, my post came at the end of a long session where I was very disappointed by the quality of threads being started. I unfairly singled yours out.

I should have directed my anger entirely at Professor David Lordkipanidze for his repeated regurgitaion of old findings, and at the MSM for giving everyone the impression that this is new science every time Lordkipanidze fancies some time in the limelight.

For anyone interested here are some links going back to 2002 regarding Lordkinpanidze's finds and other work questioning traditional 'out of Africa' theories.

www.newscientist.com...
www.nature.com...
www.newscientist.com...

There is mounting evidence in support of these 'into Africa', 'out of Europe', 'into Africa again' theories which push back the presence of anatomically modern humans far far further than the traditional 40-50,000 yrs. The subject is well worth a google.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by OpenMindCuriousMind
 


Brains develop in response to constant unrelenting and historically/geologically/palentological/climatic/social change happening in a very short period of time.

Brawn develops faster, to save your butt from being eaten or finding something to eat.

We changed because our environmental factors were unrelenting, body bodifications wasn't enough to keep up.

The usual debate about brawns or brains is retarded. Every other mammal on the planet answers that question. Body morphology is the first line of change.

The unique change in humans or advanced primates is the development of non-instinctual thought.

The usual modification would be for the species to respond by going extinct, or to dumb down and fertility up.

Ours instead went fertility limited but constant with a high demand infant requiring more work and resources.

Every step is odd, and pretty unique. For a long time not overly successful, and now almost successful to the point of being the replacement in the entire mammallian line that isn't useful to us directly.

But brawn and brains are NOT linked. Looking at every other mammal can tell you that.

[edit on 2009/9/10 by Aeons]

[edit on 2009/9/10 by Aeons]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by sharps
 


These bones aren't in Europe. They are in Asia. Georgia isn't Europe.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Funny how those wacky ancient earth people seem to be getting more and more evidence on their side from the mainstream as time goes on.

wonder when they will eventually admit that we dont know doodly squat about the history of man on earth...for all we know, we could have been here for millions, if not billions of years, rising and falling like the tide.


Discovery channel played this great series of when man is gone...in like a few thousand years, most traces of man will be gone...in a million years...almost nothing suggesting a civilization was ever here.

how long has the earth been in existance? how old is this skull? ya...we have no clue



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


that isn't strictly true, it is in a bit of a "grey" area in terms of the european/asiatic context, but it would be more viewed (certainly by Georgians themselves) as a European entity



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by sharps
 


My apologies.

No, no no.
No apologies needed.
My point is - you've got some great info, some great points and some really relevant facts so I just want people to hear them.
Even if it means spreading a bit a of *sugar*...

Thank you for the information.
I'm still pouring over it but enjoying every moment of it.
Thank you again.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
this is a pretty amazing find!



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13

A Skull that rewrites the History of Man!


www.independent.co.uk

The conventional view of human evolution and how early man colonised the world has been thrown into doubt by a series of stunning palaeontological discoveries suggesting that Africa was not the sole cradle of humankind.

Experts believe fossilised bones unearthed at the medieval village of Dmanisi in the foothills of the Caucuses, and dated to about 1.8 million years ago, are the oldest indisputable remains of humans discovered outside of Africa.
(visit the link for the full news article)



Fantastic find, Silo!!

That is amazing to me. Wow! Look how long we have been here on this beautiful planet. Fantastic...

S + F'd

Cheers,

Erik



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Something I have always wondered is, Why don't we see other apes who succeeded in surviving outside of the tropics?

Why is it that apes could not survive in cooler climates?

Could it be that Homo Sapiens wiped out all other apes because they viewed them as rivals.

If Home Sapiens only arrived in the America's 30,000 years ago, it seems that some type of ape would have found a way to survive in North America.

Especially if apes succeeded in surviving in the harsh climate of Kazakhstan.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
As much as this is a great discovery, I find it even more compelling and confusing. I am a huge subscriber to the Lost Continent of Atlantis-theory and I suspect we keep evolving then, wiping ourselves out (probably contributing mostly from greed and perhaps, some cosmic events too).

I think there have been many MANY civilizations of yesteryear that were far more intelligent, sophisticated and technologically advance than we are now but now---- this new find is setting the 'rise and fall again' theory back even further.

Just how many times do you suppose we have destroyed this race and restarted again (if in fact you agree with this theory that is)?



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by pai mei
reply to post by blueorder
 


Read more. About tribes. See the link in my signature, see all the links to the right in that blog.

Among your friends what do you do if one starts beating you ? Well - if he has gone mad and keeps beating you - he will be excluded from your group. That was done in a tribe - for stealing, killing and such things. The members of a tribe were not perfect - but their organization has evolved trough thousands of years of people seeking happiness - and the tribe was the perfect form suited for that. It was not something someone thought about in one day.

That was their greatest punishment - exile. Of course the murderer could be killed by the victim's friends. If he did not ran away first.
But this was very rare. You don't go around stealing from people you know since you were little.

The Iroquois Confederacy, same as the Sioux Confederacy - had no conquered people inside.

No, humans are not evil by nature. That is what we are taught and it's false.





[edit on 10-9-2009 by pai mei]



One mans evil deed is another mans good deed. I don't believe we are taught this, it's a matter of perspective and the the only thing thats taught is the term "evil"



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


Hey Doc, read half this post and a few before it by you. too lazy to read more


im gonna use racial terminology not because im a discriminatory racist but because it just removes ambiguities when you're talking about groups of people.

correcting a few things:

- negroids don't have lighter palms and foot soles b/c they have lighter pigment there; they have no pigment there. same thing in other races, you just don't notice the lack of pigment there in white caucasians because theyre already so pale from a low amt of pigmentation it just kind of blends in with their skin.

- original europeans that migrated there were actually dark skinned. we can infer this b/c early european cave paintings show dark brown skinned people. obviously they wouldn't re-evolve dark brown skin in europe so the evolution of skin color here is a 1-way street, not a 2-way one.

adding on neanderthals:

- they also have the adaptations in human vocal chords that allow for complex speech. so, they probably had complex spoken language too. then obviously they had fire, tools, religion, musical instruments (flutes have been found with their remains), etc. their brains were not the same size as humans either; they were actually larger, especially in the regions handling spatial memory (math/ geometry).

so, it's my personal opinion that neanderthals were actually more intelligent than modern humans, just physically inferior for the environment in the ending of the ice age. eg they had short torsos, so had to jab spears instead of throwing them (in fact, neanderthal spears found have been jabbing, not throwing, spears). not good when game started to run faster as climates warmed up. so, they had a dwindling ability to get food as time goes on. that alone in my opinion was enough to drastically reduce their population.

the extinction factor? the neanderthal body required an estimated twice the amount of calories of a normal human. in the wild, you struggle to get a few hundred calories. put in 2000/ day for a normal human, up it another 500-1000 for living an active lifestyle, and you're looking at a required 5000-6000 cals/ day for a neanderthal.

thats hard to just eat even if you have the food; that signifies that we probably didn't evolve eating anywhere near that amount, meaning the environments wouldn't support that caloric requirement (otherwise humans, since individuals evolve to be as powerful as their environment will allow b/c power leads to more reproduction opportunities, would have evolved to fit that capacity and we'd all be 6'+ 300 lb NFL players). living as a hunter gatherer, you're not going to be able to get that amount of food even if you can throw spears; jabbing them, you're one dead neanderthal.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


.. if humans were more advanced then obviously they could populate the entire globe. there aren't any hominid fossils in north or south america that would support this idea and modern native americans can't be the descendants of such people b/c we can trace DNA evidence to prove that they came here (i live in north america) by boat from polynesian islands by boat hopping from from china to islands to probably taiwan to more islands all the way to america.

so you have 2 options:

1) you're wrong

2) the entire americas fell from the sky some time over the past 20,000 years or something.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


no apes in north america b/c there's no way they could get here unless they could build boats........... and an ape that could do that is here.

(land bridge idea has been proven false with dna analysis. pretty much conclusive now that we island hopped here from polynesian islands. DNA comparing people from taiwain and the islands branching from there all the way to america with native americans is a match)


[edit on 9/10/09 by RedDragon]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   
This goes to support a personal theory (no real proof) I have had for a long time.

I believe human civilization has been cyclic in nature for a long time.

What I mean is man develops, goes modern and destroys itself or is destroyed by nature/aliens.

It explains things like atlantis, and finding what looks like a spark plug in a geode.



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join