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.

 

Every human language evolved from 'single prehistoric African mother tongue

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by "Sounds_of_Silence"
 




The Secret Doctrine: Anthropogenesis


"The yellow-faced giants of the post-Atlantean day, had ample time, throughout this forced confinement to one part of the world, and with the same racial blood and without any fresh infusion or admixture in it, to branch off during a period of nearly 700,000 years into the most heterogeneous and diversified types.

"The same is shown in Africa; nowhere does a more extraordinary variability of types exist, from black to almost white, from gigantic men to dwarfish races; and this only because of their forced isolation. The Africans have never left their continent for several hundred thousands of years.

"If to-morrow the continent of Europe were to disappear and other lands to re-emerge instead; and if the African tribes were to separate and scatter on the face of the earth, it is they who, in about a hundred thousand years hence, would form the bulk of the civilized nations.

"And it is the descendants of those of our highly cultured nations, who might have survived on some one island, without any means of crossing the new seas, that would fall back into a state of relative savagery.

"Thus the reason given for dividing humanity into superior and inferior races falls to the ground and becomes a fallacy."

– H.P. Blavatsky


See also:



The Golden Language: Developed Languages

And:

". ..the truth is that the first Root Race that existed in the world was of a very beautiful black color." – Samael Aun Weor



edit on 16-4-2011 by Tamahu because: punctuation




posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Honestly this just adds to the notion that language evolved from the people in Africa. Known for having cattle at the time, the shrooms and shamanic cultures eventually bore language for the early hunter and gatherers.

There were many types of hominoids back in this time, how do you think homo sapiens made it? Why do most early civilizations praise the bull or cow?



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Big Trouble in Little Chi
 


Yep, the protobull of the Norse is captured in the Runes as a symbol of wealth...



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
This makes sense. When it comes to organized hunting and teaching of rock tool making (which was done for a few million years by human ancestors), it only makes sense that some form of language was developed to help describe the things they wanted to do. The neat thing about rock tools is that it shows a difference in thinking only in the present. These guys weren't focusing on the now like most animals. They worked at a stone until it became what they wanted it to become, and then used it to aid in their survival.

Language developing in Africa just makes sense since that's where most of our ancestors were.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itop1

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Itop1
 


Wonder what they would say about the Tower of Babel as a theory now?


Tower of Babel is linked to religion and god, if im not mistaken?



Though it's captured in a biblical text, the tower of babel is simply an archetypal story describing the rise of civilization, the fall of empires, and the subsequent individuation of the peoples of those empires...

Just because you are not into religion doesn't mean you should be blind to archetypal stories found in all cultural writings....
edit on 16-4-2011 by HunkaHunka because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-4-2011 by HunkaHunka because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Itop1
 


Oh man I totally hope they pinpoint the origin of that language. When they DO, I bet we will find evidence of the flood that has made its way into virtually every single cultures body of myths. My belief, which I cannot prove, is that some of our myths are actually at LEAST 35-40k years old. I believe that tales of Leprechauns and Menehunes are real. But not real in the sense that they were what we think they are today, but real in the sense that they relate real encounters our distant ancestors had with the people anthropologists call the "hobbits."

I think stories of trolls might be based on us actually encountering Neanderthals. And there are even tales of trolls taking human wives and such. (Which would explain the 4% Neanderthan DNA thing.) So I think not only is language a lot older than we think it is, I believe many of our myths are based on true stories of our "origin" as a tribe, just all muddled through time and retelling.

VERY cool thread. Thanks for posting.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Itop1


Well i dont really have much to say about this except i find it VERY interesting, so apparently 100k years ago we all spoke the same language..... so could it be that sometime since then something happened to the human race that changed us forever? gave us our own unique languages which has evolved from one super language (mother language)

100k years is also a F****** long time


www.dailymail.c o.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)


Being that it was just a rudimentary language to start and used with a combination of hand, eye and body language, it is not too difficult to see how the development of more languages started.

As people started moving further and further away into different regions, each group of people would have continued to develop on their own with new words and gestures to express their new understanding of the World around them.

One faction goes East and discovers a turtle. They need a new name so they call it 'A'. Another group a few hundred miles to the West discover a turtle as well but they call it 'B'. Same object, 2 different words as there was no way to communicate their new discoveries between each other.

More groups move in different directions and further apart and that turtle gets many different names because there is no one to say "Hey, this has already been named"

Always fascinated with human migration. Good Post!



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sounds_of_Silence
Why hasn't there way of life evolved? The people that live in Africa, have they always been there or? Why haven't the progressed in way of technology...please explain.


Do you know that all non- Africans have Neanderthal DNA? And I am not sure what the cut off is, what part of Africa, because I do know that they believe the mixing happened at the top of the continent, near what we call the Mid East.

But, and I am not saying this IS the case, only that it COULD be that the Neanderthal DNA or contact with their culture is somehow responsible for the cultural head start people from Northern Africa and outward got.

But saying that, one has to bear in mind that it is a CULTURAL head start, Northern Europeans were only marginally more advanced than some of the tribal peoples in Africa before that culture spread to Europe from the Mid East. Just like the Europeans learned that culture from the southerners, Africans are learning that culture from the northerners.

Europe and Europeans did not becomes civilized if you want to call it that, over night after getting that cultural contact, either. It took many hundreds of years for us to change from what we were then to what we are now. And the way culture works is it accumulates over time. So the length of relatively uninterrupted time any given people has to develop culture and their ability to retain in detail the gains made by their ancestors plays a big part in their level of advancement.

This means the ability to read and write and record things causes culture to take off like a rocket, where people who have to pass everything along verbally gain more slowly. Its the difference between carrying water in a bucket, or carrying water in a sieve.

So, perhaps the intermingling of Neanderthal and human culture gave an advantage, or maybe it was just dumb luck in the development of writing.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 



Grunt, ug, ug, grunt, oooo, yuch, ewww, grunt, arrrggh.

A versatile language where clubs were often used to hit people to stress certain words!


This made me laugh. Funny because the world seems like it's heading back in that direction the farther along we go along.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
If the African origin of language was true; the people of India would probably have been dumb!

If one take a look at the evolution of the T-DNA haplogroups one must trace the language farther back than 55000 BC to have direct genetic linkage to Africa!



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


When you say something is untrue, why would you not then elaborate by telling us the answer YOU think is correct? Little is gained by one person saying another is a liar without that person making that accusation giving the factual evidence to support said accusation.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misterlondon

Originally posted by Sounds_of_Silence
Why hasn't there way of life evolved? The people that live in Africa, have they always been there or? Why haven't the progressed in way of technology...please explain.


there are many reasons for this... alot has to do with the lack of natural resources in africa that were available in europe and other parts of the world at the time. as i said before there are many reasons, if you do a little research and look at the history of our and many other civilizations you will understand why...
anyway the indiginous people of the world are the ones who live as nature intended, they live of the land and respect the earth and nature.. not like us that destroy everything in our path...

and to the op... of course we would have had a master language, thats pretty obvious. if the theory of evoloution is to be believed, then early humans would have had to communicate with each other, before they started spreading across the planet.. this probably changed to dialects as they progressed further evolving into to completely separate languages as we moved futher away..
edit on 16/4/11 by Misterlondon because: (no reason given)



Deny Ignorance right... Maybe they arent "technologically" advanced cause they choose not to be. How can technology determine how advanced a culture is. You all are so stuck in this fabricated reality, you are taught to beleive that this technology makes you civilized, and everyone living off the land are savages, when in actuallity it is very much the other way around. African were doing brain surgery before any of this technologically advanced societies, google it, you may learn some # you didnt know. The Dogon tribe new about the multiple stars in the sirius constellation before science even considered it, even knew about the 50 year revolution of sirius a and B with out technology. Then you bring evolution into it. Do you know why "science" cant find the missing link, because there is no link. Alot of people try anything they can to down play even scientific facts that intelligent life was originated in Africa.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by Sounds_of_Silence
Why hasn't there way of life evolved? The people that live in Africa, have they always been there or? Why haven't the progressed in way of technology...please explain.


Do you know that all non- Africans have Neanderthal DNA? And I am not sure what the cut off is, what part of Africa, because I do know that they believe the mixing happened at the top of the continent, near what we call the Mid East.

But, and I am not saying this IS the case, only that it COULD be that the Neanderthal DNA or contact with their culture is somehow responsible for the cultural head start people from Northern Africa and outward got.

But saying that, one has to bear in mind that it is a CULTURAL head start, Northern Europeans were only marginally more advanced than some of the tribal peoples in Africa before that culture spread to Europe from the Mid East. Just like the Europeans learned that culture from the southerners, Africans are learning that culture from the northerners.

Europe and Europeans did not becomes civilized if you want to call it that, over night after getting that cultural contact, either. It took many hundreds of years for us to change from what we were then to what we are now. And the way culture works is it accumulates over time. So the length of relatively uninterrupted time any given people has to develop culture and their ability to retain in detail the gains made by their ancestors plays a big part in their level of advancement.

This means the ability to read and write and record things causes culture to take off like a rocket, where people who have to pass everything along verbally gain more slowly. Its the difference between carrying water in a bucket, or carrying water in a sieve.

So, perhaps the intermingling of Neanderthal and human culture gave an advantage, or maybe it was just dumb luck in the development of writing.


Although there is truth in your statement I cannot agree to your assessment. It is true that the Hue-mans from Africa "intermingled" with the Neanderthal. But what you may see as a boost in "civilization" I see as an animalistic trait manifesting. Lust, greed, sexual prowess, power, Those all seem to be more animalistic traits. Which leads that animal to want more than what it needed. We humans typically only eat until we are full. But a healthy dog will eat anything you put near its mouth, it doesnt know when to stop. So in humans some have that same animalistic trait, wanting more... Money, Power, technology, sex....All this intelligence as a human, mix with the greed of an animal, and thats what most people call technologically advanced. When you look at tribes in africa, or native american tribes in the past here, they lived only according to there needs for survival. You dont need an iPad to hunt a gazelle for dinner, it may help in some way to get you more, but why would you need more than what you can eat.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Itop1
 


This is SO cool... Language and DNA are more complex closer to the "source." ...I wonder why?



...he counted the number of distinct sounds, or phonemes, used in 504 languages from around the world and charted them on a map.

The number of sounds varies hugely from language to language. English, for instance has around 46 sounds, some languages in South America have fewer than 15, while the San bushmen of South Africa use a staggering 200.

Dr Atkinson found that the number of distinct sounds in a language tends to increase the closer it is to sub-Saharan Africa.

...Professor Mark Pagel, an evolutionary biologist at Reading University, said the same effect could be seen in DNA.

Modern-day Africans have a much greater genetic diversity than white Europeans who are descended from a relatively small splinter group that left 70,000 years ago.



S&F&



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Ooh I read about this in the NY times Friday. It's pretty interesting.

On a side note, I've known for a few years that languages "evolve."
I've taken five years of Latin, four French , a year of Spanish, and a year of ancient Greek. It's so obvious languages evolve over time.
I wonder what we will be speaking in 1000 years.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Itop1
 


I dont believe language or modern man came from africa at all.
The Bible speaks of one tounge and then at the tower of Babel, God confounded the tounges and different languages arose in an instant.
I trust the Bible has it right



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirKnightE
But what you may see as a boost in "civilization" I see as an animalistic trait manifesting. Lust, greed, sexual prowess, power, Those all seem to be more animalistic traits. Which leads that animal to want more than what it needed.


No, you really cant call them animalistic in the way that you are using the term animal. Humans are animals of course, so anything we DO is animalistic, but the ability to think ahead and stock up is not a "base" trait, but one only a few species have acquired. (And not ONLY humans, btw, squirrels do, Jays hide things for later, etc.)

To claim that African peoples, who have not mixed with Neanderthals are not lustful, or greedy, sexual and power hungry is simply NOT true. Native Americans on the other hand, are part of the group that DOES have Neanderthal genetic influx.


Originally posted by SirKnightE
So in humans some have that same animalistic trait, wanting more... Money, Power, technology, sex....All this intelligence as a human, mix with the greed of an animal, and thats what most people call technologically advanced.


All humans have these animalistic traits. Even other primates behave in these ways. It seems as if you are basing your argument on a mixture of dislike for modern civilization, some attribution of that dislike to only specific ethnic groups, (racism in other words) and a really shoddy understanding of human and animal behavior. You are idealizing some ethnic groups and denigrating others when in fact, for the most part, they behave exactly the same.


Originally posted by SirKnightE
When you look at tribes in africa, or native american tribes in the past here, they lived only according to there needs for survival. You dont need an iPad to hunt a gazelle for dinner, it may help in some way to get you more, but why would you need more than what you can eat.


One, Native Americans have the Neanderthal admixture too. ALL non middle/southern African peoples do.

Two, Native Americans in South America were all the "bad" things that you want to attribute to whatever your target ethnic group is that you have chosen to focus your dislike on. They were greedy, power mad, environment destroying, all of the above.

What I am wondering is, did our contact with the Neanderthal somehow, (either genetically or culturally) give those hybrid humans a boost that prompted the development of the two keys that led us to where we are now, agriculture and writing. We know Neanderthals had the same Fox2p gene we do, but could there be some other thing we either inherited genetically or learned culturally, that prompted the rise of written language and agriculture in the places those hybrid humans spread. Those two things more than anything else are the foundation of the avalanche of human technological advancement. One allowed us to settle in and build cities, the other allowed us to pass the wisdom of our elders down intact generation to generation, without requiring years of memorization, like the Druids had to do, for instance. That freed up the most intelligent of the group to experiment and add even more to the body of cultural knowledge.

Now mind you, I am not saying "civilization good" and "hunter gatherer bad." That not at all my point. Im just wondering if maybe the ingredient that prompted many of the people who spread outward from Northern Africa to develop those two tools wasnt something we got from the Neanderthal.

edit on 16-4-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 



What I am wondering is, did our contact with the Neanderthal somehow, (either genetically or culturally) give those hybrid humans a boost that prompted the development of the two keys that led us to where we are now, agriculture and writing. ....could there be some other thing we either inherited genetically or learned culturally, that prompted the rise of written language and agriculture in the places those hybrid humans spread. Those two things more than anything else are the foundation of the avalanche of human technological advancement.


Interesting that the simplification of language and DNA is synchronized with the need for technological advance, dontcha think?






And oh yeah, another consideration: Gigantic New SuperOrganism with 'Social Intelligence' is Devouring the Titanic


edit on 16/4/11 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


It is, when you posted that clip I also thought that perhaps there might be some correlation with the less "rich" spoken language as well. Maybe the language genes in the hybrids had some element to them that prompted them to compensate.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
The Daily Mail always contradicts itself beause a while ago it had an article saying that the oldest remains have now been found in the Middle East,therefore we did not come from Africa but here they are carrying on the already debunked 'theory' that we came from Africa.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join