Advanced knowledge in the ancient world

Originally posted by Blane2012
It's not like after a 10,000 year Ice age humans would just be able to craft rifles to hunt with.

Here you display an unreasonable desire to pretend that humans would simply sit there and allow a glacier, approaching at one inch per year, to completely wipe out their civilization.

Harte

Here you display an unreasonable desire to pretend that humans would simply sit there and allow a glacier, approaching at one inch per year, to completely wipe out their civilization.

Not quite sure I follow you, Harte. My proposition was that humans would in fact be active during an Ice Age, but would not nor be able to have proper knowledge to develop in an advanced sense as a collective whole. Although, your point probably went over my head.

reply to post by Blane2012


And to add Harte, I have lurked here for quite a while and I do think you're quite an intelligent and knowledgable poster. Your thoughts are appreciated.

Originally posted by Blane2012

Here you display an unreasonable desire to pretend that humans would simply sit there and allow a glacier, approaching at one inch per year, to completely wipe out their civilization.

Not quite sure I follow you, Harte. My proposition was that humans would in fact be active during an Ice Age, but would not nor be able to have proper knowledge to develop in an advanced sense as a collective whole. Although, your point probably went over my head.

My post was in response to what you (and others here) have been saying about civilizations existing prior to the last Ice Age.

To my mind, I have no doubt at all that an Ice age would have caused problems. But I also have no doubt at all that an Ice Age, which basically impacted only the top half of the Northern Hemisphere, certainly wouldn't have reduced humans to a level of breaking stones for tools, which is what we see in the (fairly) recent past.

For example, your post:

Originally posted by Blane2012
It's ridiculous to think that homo-sapiens have been walking the earth for an estimated 200,000 years (Mitochondrial Eve) and just recently we started building advanced culture, regardless of what science tells us. As I stated in my original post, there's also no way of knowing how intelligent the breeds of the genus homo were before us. 1 million years ago an advanced form of human could of been partying it up, even better than we can.

If you want to believe, on faith alone, that humans rose to reasonably "high" levels at such early dates, then that's simply a belief you want to hold. But your explanation for the only evidence we have - stone tools, nomadic and hunter-gatherer existence - that "the Ice Age wiped out all the evidence" is simply logically unsustainable.

You should note that we actually have evidence from the time period involved, and from earlier time periods. Where are the remains of this cfivilization you want to have existed, when we see wooden spears and stone implements in place even before the last Ice Age?

IOW, in reference to another post, if they could make rifles before the Ice Age, it's almost a certainty that the still could afterwards.

Clearer?

Harte

If you want to believe, on faith alone, that humans rose to reasonably "high" levels at such early dates, then that's simply a belief you want to hold.

Early dates is kind of a loose term, seeing as those early dates are actually very recent in the grand scheme of how long species and subspecies of homo have been walking the Earth. It is reasonable and common sense to think that over a long period of time (when the Earth allows humans to advance), that we start developing and over time we get better and better. It's almost impossible to prove that 160,000 years ago humans had electricity, but given that those humans had the same intelligence and capabilities as us, that it's not out of the realm of possibility. My beliefs are mainly based on common sense and the extremely long time we've been here. I think most people de-value our intelligence and capabilities that we had in our distant past.

Maybe I am over-valueing human ingenuity, but I don't believe so. Personally, I think it's a slap in the face of our ancestors to think that we haven't built up great civilizations in the distant past. Hence why I believe we have risen and done great things before and we weren't sitting around picking our noses for 200,000 years plus all the way until after the end of the last Ice Age where all of a sudden we started to get the ball rolling in an advanced direction. There have absolutely events that have caused setbacks throughout history. But like I said, given enough time where the Earth allows us to advance we will. There are very large windows throughout the history of humans where we could have built up and thrived. Did we? It's hard to prove, but common sense to me dictates yes we did. I very well could be wrong. Thanks for your response.

Originally posted by Blane2012

If you want to believe, on faith alone, that humans rose to reasonably "high" levels at such early dates, then that's simply a belief you want to hold.

Early dates is kind of a loose term, seeing as those early dates are actually very recent in the grand scheme of how long species and subspecies of homo have been walking the Earth. It is reasonable and common sense to think that over a long period of time (when the Earth allows humans to advance), that we start developing and over time we get better and better. It's almost impossible to prove that 160,000 years ago humans had electricity, but given that those humans had the same intelligence and capabilities as us, that it's not out of the realm of possibility. My beliefs are mainly based on common sense and the extremely long time we've been here. I think most people de-value our intelligence and capabilities that we had in our distant past.

IMO, "common sense" would also include looking at the evidence we do have.

Tools made by humans during the last Ice Age look like this:


And this:



Tools made by humans before the last Ice Age look like this:



The tool in that last image is what's referred to as Acheulian. Acheulian tools have been found that date everywhere from 1.5 million to 200,000 years ago.

If you think humans could craft a generator or a light bulb or an electric motor using such tools, I'd be interested in the method they used.

Originally posted by Blane2012Maybe I am over-valueing human ingenuity, but I don't believe so. Personally, I think it's a slap in the face of our ancestors to think that we haven't built up great civilizations in the distant past. Hence why I believe we have risen and done great things before and we weren't sitting around picking our noses until the end of the last Ice Age when we started to get the ball rolling in an advanced direction. I could be wrong. Thanks for the response.

You should think about what it takes to survive when living as a nomadic hunter-gatherer. One square mile is barely enough to sustain a single person under such conditions. Flights of fancy about having spare time and just sitting around such as you surmise are just that, your own flights of fancy.

Until people began to congrgate in villages, and began the process of the division of labor and specialization, there could be no leisure time that would allow for such things as experimenting with things that might lead to some sort of technological breakthrough.

Harte

Originally posted by Blane2012


These materials would certainly survive if left untouched, but I'm not certain these materials would survive the humans who would mess with them or what would happen over the course of 10,000-20,000 years, much less 100,000. After an ice age, of course there would be early tools that man possessed. It's not like after a 10,000 year Ice age humans would just be able to craft rifles to hunt with. There is evidence of ancient massive mounds that once were cities, still being uncovered. I'm not sure how this reflects on what kind of tech humans had such a long time ago. There's also evidence of ports and world-wide trade going back possibly 200,000 years ago.

Those satellites, would by then have fell from the sky and degraded. There would not be evidence of a satellite from 50,000 years ago, much less 100,000 years. I understand you're skeptical and there is a lack of evidence, and you don't have to agree with my views or beliefs. I actually respect that you're searching for answers, as am I. Have a great day!

Finally back so we can continue, tying to follow threads on an Ipad is just frustrating.

As Harte noted only a certain percentage of the world was effected by he glaciers the other parts did just fine and it was in those parts that early civilizations arose.

There's also evidence of ports and world-wide trade going back possibly 200,000 years ago

Yes there are signs of trade in sea shells, obsidians, flint and ocher etc - not sure what you mean by a 'port'....this isn't a claim dealing with the river/lake port on Lake Titicaca is it? If so - nope

Here is a pretty interesting article about Mayan Mathematics. These guys had a pretty significant mathematics system which I'm sure most of you know. In this article they talk about the 3 different methods of time keeping that the Mayans used as well (which I'm sure everyone on this site is aware of at least one of them). But I'm not here to talk about that day that will occur 2 and a half months from now, I wanted to mention something very interesting about their math. Using their complex astronomical configurations and presumably just sticks (unlikely) they were able to calculate the length of a year out to 3 decimal places and the length of the lunar month out to 5 decimal places.

With such crude instruments the Maya were able to calculate the length of the year to be 365.242 days (the modern value is 365.242198 days). Two further remarkable calculations are of the length of the lunar month. At Copán (now on the border between Honduras and Guatemala) the Mayan astronomers found that 149 lunar months lasted 4400 days. This gives 29.5302 days as the length of the lunar month. At Palenque in Tabasco they calculated that 81 lunar months lasted 2392 days. This gives 29.5308 days as the length of the lunar month. The modern value is 29.53059 days.

Mayan Mathematics

The quoted text occurs at the end of the article with the majority explaining how their system worked and was used and about their calenders. All of it is a good read.

Now I do want to talk about the Long Count a little bit in reference to their math (and like I said the previous article does touch on it slightly). Here is a better article that discuses the math and science behind the calender.Long Count Math

Here are some quoted parts of the article:

In our recent studies of the solar system, once again, we find that the ancient reckoning system of the maya, the maya long-count, reflects an almost exact representation of the distances traveled by the planets. Let us look a little closer at just how exactly the system represents the solar system's composition.

In previous essays, we have called attention to the possibility of utilizing the Mercury/Sun distance as the astronomical unit (AU), instead of the commonly accepted Earth/Sun distance. The reasoning is obvious, since the Mercury/Sun average mean distance is 36,000,000 miles, while that of Earth/Sun is approximately 93,000,000 miles. One could say that this is cheating; we are accepting an obvious relationship to the maya long-count by choosing the Mercury/Sun distance, since it represents a fractal expression of the 360c day-count. Naturally, all of the distances expressed in the Mercury/Sun distance shall reflect a direct relationship between time and distance because of the sameness of the terms (36c).

But, one has to wonder whether the maya may have chosen the 360c day-count for their long-count precisely based upon this measurement. In other words, such a choice would have multiple meanings, one of which would be that the ancient reckoning system was far more complex than currently imagined by scholars. We have suggested that from the perspective of matter-energy, it is more logical to employ the Mercury/Sun relationship for the concept of astronomical unit (AU), than the Earth/Sun relationship.

One can infer from these paragraphs that they knew the best way to calculate astronomical distances using their complex math and also that they knew about Mercury, a planet that is very hard to see with the naked eye (since they didn't have telescopes). Of course the second part isn't surprising when taking the Mayans into consideration since they spent much time looking into the sky. Anyways I'll continue.

The solar system appears to follow the day-counts of the ancient reckoning system, or maybe one should state that inversely. The ancients appear to have recognized the composition of the solar system, and incorporated its numbers into their reckoning system. There are many ways to state the obvious; the ancients appear to have been scientifically plugged into reality.

They appear to have symbolized many of the events in the sky in their reckoning system. It may have been easier to simply show a system of 36 : 360; but by creating a system of 36 : 2304, somehow reflects an even more creative mind. In different ways, the solar system is both of these systems, as we have examined in this extract. To find a number that is also equal, if not exactly the same, to the maya alautun (23040000000) in the ideal circumference of the outer limit of the solar system somehow defies the very concept of coincidence. Yet, that very relationship exists. There does not appear to be any concept of happenstance, but rather one of conscious design.

Now if you haven't read the whole article yet which I don't want to quote because it is long, has a lot of math that is hard to quote, and I'm already at two posts now, I will point out some things about what I just quoted. First they know about ALL the planets in our solar system, even the ones you can't see with the naked eye. Second, they are able to calculate their average distances from the sun, and third they have incorporated this math into their Long Count calender.

I urge you to read both of the articles I have posted. Now the questions I have are: How did these people come up with this knowledge while at the same time unable to create the wheel? How do they know what planets are in the solar system and how do they know their distances? How can they calculate so precisely the length of the Earth's year which today takes some very precise measuring tools?

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Actually they didn't know about the other, outer planets, if you believe they did please provide the Mayan names for Pluto, Uranus and Neptune?

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
reply to post by jokei

 

As a philosophy graduate, I have a huge interest in philosophy. There are basically three major philosophical traditions in the world, they are: Indian, Chinese and Greek. There is of course germs of philosophical thinking in other parts of the world too, expressed in myth, but what we can technically call philosophy as rationally argued propositions does not appear until around 600BCE, according to conservate dating. Before this period in China we have the I-Ching, in India we have the Vedas, and in Greece we have Presocratics, where abstract philosophical ideas are stated but not rationally argued.
...

Very informed and valid view - in complete agreement. Star for you.

reply to post by Hanslune


Did you not read the article? They clearly talk about how the calenders units are based around the distances from the sun of each of the planets in the solar system including pluto. They even have a large gap between the mars diztance and Jupiter's distance to represent the asteroid belt

Originally posted by Krazysh0t
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Did you not read the article? They clearly talk about how the calenders units are based around the distances from the sun of each of the planets in the solar system including pluto. They even have a large gap between the mars diztance and Jupiter's distance to represent the asteroid belt

Yes I did it's a very clever manipulation of numbers to try and impose modern knowledge on the Maya, again if they 'knew' about these 'stars' as they called them, what were there names?

reply to post by Hanslune


Well its tough to say. Many of the Mayan texts were destroyed by the conquistadors when they arrived in the Americas. Its possible that those words were lost at that time. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

reply to post by jokei


Most of the greatest philosophers were very enlightened people. They helped us evolve. It seems that sometimes, we have small clusters of people who are more advanced in some ways than others, and they are the ones who propel the rest of the world forward, this is what most of the philosophers have done for us, and possibly will continue to do ... in coming.

reply to post by phalanx001


Great short intro to philosophy facts. I've always appreciated the many different perceptions from so many different philosophers. I think it's beautiful and romantic in some ways, while attempting to better the world, and provide us with better understanding, and morals and ethics. and ect.

Originally posted by Krazysh0t
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Well its tough to say. Many of the Mayan texts were destroyed by the conquistadors when they arrived in the Americas. Its possible that those words were lost at that time. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It absolutely is evidence of absence.

After all, if a lack of evidence for the presence of a thing is not evidence of its absence, then what exactly would constitute evidence of that thing's absence?

Please note - "absence of evidence" is certainly not evidence of presence.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


But if there are other materials like what is mentioned in my article that suggest that they did know about these planets then it stands to reason that there is a possibilty that those words were lost when the conquistadors came to mesoamerica. Certainly I've produced more evidence in this thread to suggest that they did know about the planets than either of you have produced to the contrary.

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Krazysh0t
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Well its tough to say. Many of the Mayan texts were destroyed by the conquistadors when they arrived in the Americas. Its possible that those words were lost at that time. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It absolutely is evidence of absence.

After all, if a lack of evidence for the presence of a thing is not evidence of its absence, then what exactly would constitute evidence of that thing's absence?

Please note - "absence of evidence" is certainly not evidence of presence.

Harte

Well yeah, the Dresden codex is about astronomy and one of the reasons we know so much about Mayan astronomy and math

The sun by the way was called K'inich, Venus had two names one for the 'star' seen at sunrise they called it Ah-chicum-ek and at sunset Lamat and they also used the term of Chak-ek' for Venus in general, the moon was Tun'uc, the glyph for Mars is known but it is not understood as to how it would be pronounced (some say Cak ch'umil) as is the case for Jupiter or Saturn is perhaps Rominko K'anal but this is uncertain

Link to an explanation of what the Dresden Codex says

Now the Dresden doesn't have astronomical data on the outer planet...why? They couldn't see them....

reply to post by Krazysh0t


No actually you haven't

I find it highly unlikely that the Maya would have used 'Miles' as a unit of measure.....why not Kilometers? lol