mankind's past

As I was reading up on some of the newest archeological discoveries, my old belief that mankind's history is FAR out of line with reality is becoming increasingly apparent and supported by fact. For instance, read this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1768000/1768109.stm) and ponder for a moment how history is currently taught in all of academia. Now one of the primary scientists involved begs for us to wait for carbon dating of more site artifacts before we conclue it's true end date (which makes no sense to me, as many other sites and older paleolithic finds have been convincingly dated off single artifacts... so long as they fit our current historic models), but I don't see much point in that. The whole idea here is that we know about as little of our true history as we do our true future, and in seeing this point we can learn a lot about ourselves. Why is it that people always shoot down the theory that man has had technological and cultural high points in the far past which have been lost, and that we are only now getting back to some of those levels in the developed nations of today? Why is it so implausible when current anthropology teaches us that mankind has had the same ability for thought as we ourselves have for at least 50,000 years? If the scientific community is so open for rational and supportable ideas regarding our distant past, why are they so focused shooting down any small bits of evidence supporting alternate theories of it? It's now believable that the Chinese not only had massive junks which could travel to continents as distant as the Americas (supported by documentation only recently available from the Far East in the form of bluepirnts on these vessels and tales of expeditions), but also supportable by archeological evidence in South America (such as carvings of bearded men in an area where no humans had facial hair). Yet current teachings ignore this and MANY other plausible theories, which are based on as little evidence as most other theories regarding our distant past. So my question to you philosophers is... what do you think? If mankind has posessed the ability to think for so long, does it make any sense that we are only now exploring new limits in technology and culture? Or instead is it possible we still have much to learn, both culturally and technologically, from our distant past? Any alternate theories to suggest?

Time will tell. We have much to learn about our history. But if we wait to long, we will never know our past.

Well it's a western-centric world. Here's how academia teaches history (in this order): Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greek, Rome, and Europe. No American, African, or Asian history. It is pretty well known that the Chinese had advance science and math early on, and had developed some things long before the west.

Although scientists often say how open they are to ideas, they are as stubborn and closed minded as any other zealot. They will argue tooth and nail, siting examples and reasons why they are right and the other scientist is wrong. The same facts can be interpreted in different ways which give different results.

The truely open minded are the ones drowned out by the scientific community who doesnt believe in anything thats outside of what "they" have defined.

As a simple example (and there are countless others). On one of the Discovery Dinosour episodes, one archiologist believes that T-Rex was a scavenger because of its body. The next archiologist they had on there explained how T-Rex was a hunter based on the the structure of its body. The same data, different results. And they say theologists cant get their story straight.

That sounds nice and all, but I'll need more before I buy into a civilisation of that nature being around 9000 years ago. Surely such a large city at that point in time would have been famous(understatement). And being near the coast(I assume) and needing to sustain its dense population, it would have traded extensively, so it would have been known to many people. So where are the records? At what point did history forget about something that big? Surely a culture like that had a written language, so why don't we know about it? Basically, if it wasn't important enough to be around in any records we've uncovered so far, I find it hard to believe history should be re-written around it.

Originally posted by YogsVR4
Although scientists often say how open they are to ideas, they are as stubborn and closed minded as any other zealot. They will argue tooth and nail, siting examples and reasons why they are right and the other scientist is wrong. The same facts can be interpreted in different ways which give different results.

The truely open minded are the ones drowned out by the scientific community who doesnt believe in anything thats outside of what "they" have defined.

As a simple example (and there are countless others). On one of the Discovery Dinosour episodes, one archiologist believes that T-Rex was a scavenger because of its body. The next archiologist they had on there explained how T-Rex was a hunter based on the the structure of its body. The same data, different results. And they say theologists cant get their story straight.

And when there's a preponderance of data supporting something, most scientists will agree on it. Science is about finding things, not just accepting "the absolute truth". Unlike a "zealot" or "theologist" who pick and idea and then go on to fabricate the proof.

Originally posted by YOGSVR4:

Although scientists often say how open they are to ideas, they are as stubborn and closed minded as any other zealot. They will argue tooth and nail, siting examples and reasons why they are right and the other scientist is wrong. The same facts can be interpreted in different ways which give different results.

The truely open minded are the ones drowned out by the scientific community who doesnt believe in anything thats outside of what "they" have defined.

As a simple example (and there are countless others). On one of the Discovery Dinosour episodes, one archiologist believes that T-Rex was a scavenger because of its body. The next archiologist they had on there explained how T-Rex was a hunter based on the the structure of its body. The same data, different results. And they say theologists cant get their story straight.



Unfortunately this is the nature of Academia......When presented with a finite amount of scientific data, adademics will attempt to draw conclusions to support a theory.........some of these theories may conflict, drawing different conclusions from the same data.

Generally the academic that presents the "strongest" argument will draw the most acceptance from his/her peers, and that theory becomes more "accepted" in the academic community, and eventually the general community.

Originally posted by V.S.
And when there's a preponderance of data supporting something, most scientists will agree on it. Science is about finding things, not just accepting "the absolute truth". Unlike a "zealot" or "theologist" who pick and idea and then go on to fabricate the proof.

Sorry, but thats splitting hairs. I'd agree taht science is "about finding things", but the scientist themselves can be as much a zealot as anyone else.

Originally posted by YogsVR4


Sorry, but thats splitting hairs. I'd agree taht science is "about finding things", but the scientist themselves can be as much a zealot as anyone else.

Sure, but that's also splitting hairs. It's often in our nature to fervently believe in our conclusions, but at least the method of science doesn't automatically produce this type of reasoning. Religious zealots are produced by the very system in which the participate, which instills and encourages absolute belief structures. There's no proving God wrong, but the scientist always has to contend with that possibility.

Originally posted by YogsVR4


Sorry, but thats splitting hairs. I'd agree taht science is "about finding things", but the scientist themselves can be as much a zealot as anyone else.

The individual scientist can do anything, that's a given. But what matters is what the majority of scientists believe, because that gives the public its knowledge. And the majority of scientists do favor the arguement that is best supported.

Although I don't know a lot about archeology, I know enough to think that article is very misleading. :(

They claim the new city to be over 9,000 years old, placing it somewhere around 7,000 BCE. They then compare it to the Harappan civilization, which covered what is now Pakistan approximately 3,000 - 1,500 BCE. Yes, that seems like a big jump - over 4,000 years! - but the author didn't bother to mention all the other contemporary civilizations around the world:

The earliest artifacts in Jericho date to around 8,500 BCE, and much of the city appears to have been built around 6,000 BCE by the Mesopotamians.
The Anatolian city of Catalhoyuk (now in Turkey) dates to 5,500 BCE.
Much of the city of Sumer (the Sumarian culture) dates back to 5,000 BCE.
The city of Vra in Sweeden dates to 4,000 BCE.
Heck, even the Egyptians starting to build some really impressive stuff by 3,200 BCE. That's before the Happrian civilization even got on the map!

The reporter was just going for sensationalism - it kind of pisses me off. :mad: The only reason the Happrians were brought up by the archeologists is that it was a physically close civilization. And there may now be some minor confusion about the historical timeline in that area. But the reporter just had to make it seem all big - or was duped into it and failed to do any research at all. This find does not majorly upset anyone's overall historical timeline whatsoever. This is a big enough story in it's own right, it is a major find of another very early civilization, it's a shame how it gets sensationalized into things it isn't. :mad:


One more point - not about that specific article. It's important to distinguish between science and non-science. If you draw a hard line, archeology is non-science. You cannot usually make hypothesis and test them. For this reason it's often called a 'soft-science' although I still think that gives it a little too much credit. Same goes for most of psychology, anthropology, ecology, sociology, criminology, epidemiology, etc. You just can't make testable hypotheses in these 'soft' sciences. I'm not saying that they aren't worth persuing, just that the knowledge they generate does not have the same basis as the knowledge generated by the more 'hard' sciences.
:cool:

Originally posted by texan
As I was reading up on some of the newest archeological discoveries, my old belief that mankind's history is FAR out of line with reality is becoming increasingly apparent and supported by fact. ... Yet current teachings ignore this and MANY other plausible theories, which are based on as little evidence as most other theories regarding our distant past. So my question to you philosophers is... what do you think? If mankind has posessed the ability to think for so long, does it make any sense that we are only now exploring new limits in technology and culture? Or instead is it possible we still have much to learn, both culturally and technologically, from our distant past? Any alternate theories to suggest? Very interesting idea. But I am skeptical of the idea of the items listed above as having as much (or rather as little) evidence supporting their validity as other "known" pieces of history. Seems to me that while the paradigm of our academia is, like most things, imperfect, it is a certain way for a reason. If what you say is true, then Items that are supposedly established are (**I have lost myself right now, I will revisit this later**).

In addition, advancements in technology pretty much always seem to be accompanied by the production of large amounts of industrial waste, which is often harmful and none too quick for degrading. Finding clean ways to do anything takes trial and error unless one happens to get it brilliantly right the first time. Otherwise, first comes being able to do something, then comes being able to do it well, and then comes being able to do it cleanly and efficiently. The trial and error period leaves its marks. It will be many thousands of years before any traces of our technological advancement are wiped clean from the face of the earth, and I beleive the same should hold true for previous cultures on earth that have had such technological advancement.

The more noxious waste products of industrialization should be readily visible, were previous cultures to have enjoyed similar periods of technological flourishing to that which we call the present. The only ways to eliminate such waste products that I see are 1) lauching them into space, 2) burying them very deep in the earth's crust, 3) placing in subduction zones of continental margins to put them into the earth's mantle to be "recycyled", or 4) avoiding their production with advanced methods of biodegradable biproduct manufacturing.

Let's take the atom, for instance. Atomic structure theories have existed for close to 100 years now, and every so often a new theory is intorduced that blows the old one out of the water. A stretch perhaps, to make an analogy relating this to world history, but like atom, the history of the world is a work-in-progress. With many layers to peel like an onion, humanity will continue to unearth and explore all that we can about the history of our people, and the planet itself.

I understand your meaning JD. And fritz, as always I value your opinion and admire your great base of knowledge.

However, using the best current theories of mankind's origins available to me, I surmise that0 we have basically been genetically static for at least 32,000 years (this is older knowledge bouncing around in my brain, but was based upon mitochondrial DNA evidence as I last recall). Which to me means that mankind has had the same mental capacity for at least 32,000 years, and as such the idea that we only achieved modern levels of civilization in the last 5,000 years is laughable. Like multiple hypothesis based upon a single body of evidence, I believe that our true history has yet to be found. Much like the argument that there must be life on other planets because there's just so much room for possibility out there, I reach back and think the same things about lost civilizations that are waiting to be found. Ones which are technologically and culturally advanced for which we as yet have no knowledge of, much like the recent multiple underwater cities being uncovered around the globe. Yes, the arguments the author gave are "thin", but ponder for a moment that no one even thought to look for these very important archeological sites in the first place. That we are continually stumbling upon evidence of previously unsupported past historical theory is proof to my believing mind that we are a LONG way from understanding our true past, and in doing so are also a long way from having any accurate self identity as an intelligent species. There are many holes which must be filled, and there are many theories which try to predict this outcome, but for myself I reject the idea that the whole of humanity has only recently moved forward in terms of culture, science and lifestyle. Call it faith or whatever you like but I side with the author in that we have much more to learn than we currently know.

aha.

We will never accurately know our past. It's a null hypothesis problem - we try to make up stories to fit some of the things we've found, but there are two major problems: 1) We never know what we'll dig up in the future - we can't even guess! 2) Even if we could magically find every shred of evidence of past cultures, we could never really understand what they were like - primarily because we can't even understand what our current cultures are like (see above 'soft-science': anthropology).

There could well be thousands of huge, ancient, lost civilizations, but at this point, I find no compelling evidence to believe that there were. Via Occam's razor, it doesn't help to construct possible truths when there are simpler ones that fit the evidence. When new evidence occurs, we'll change our theories. Just like JD's atom example, although a lot less rigorus because we can't perform experiments.

---
From what I remember, Homo sapiens are classified as emerging around 1-200,000 BCE (evidence including, but not limited to, the mitochondrial "Eve"). Right now there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there was any sort of "civilization" prior to around 10,000 BCE (the beginning of the Neolithic period). The last major ice age ran from about 130,000 to 10,000 BCE. Coincidence?

Civilization is not a issue of genetic makeup. It is a conglomeration of technology. Technology takes time to develop, as each advance is built on the previous advances. For the most part, much of early civilization was formed because of the invention of agriculture. And this in turn, was utilized for the first time because of the major climatic change as we emerged from the ice age into the Holocene. For the first time, Homo Sapiens could to remain in one place for 6-12 months at a time and cultivate crops. This is usually regarded as the major shift from uncivilized (hunter-gatherer) to civilized (agrarian) cultures. The earliest evidence we have of plant and animal domestication lies between 10,000 and 6,000 BCE. Not surprisingly, this is when it appears the first real villages and cities began to spring up. Around 4,000-3,000 BCE it seems things really got going with pottery, irrigation, and the wheel.

None of this seems that far-fetched to me. Without a written language, fast communication and fast transportation, technology evolves very slowly. On top of that, you can't build cities without agriculture, and you have a lot of trouble farming in the middle of an ice age. Imagining the ancient lost city of Atlantis with all sorts of advanced technology is wonderful fantasy, but I just won't believe it until I hear some very strong evidence.

I certainly do believe that we will discover new things in archeology (and in atomics), and some of the old theories will have to be modified or discarded. But I do not believe I could possibly even come close to guessing what they might be or when they might be known or even how big of a paradigm shift they might cause.


Ack. I blathered on much longer than I expected to. :o I hope you get my point...
:cool:

I think you've pretty much summed up what I was going to say Fritz.
Iv been feeling a bit dumb lately so you've saved me a but of trouble. :)


Anyway I personaly believe we are not at any kind of cultural peak, as I believe how civilised and culturaly advanced a society is, is independant of its technology level.
However I do believe we are at a peak in terms of technological development. A simple look at the landscape around us, and the degree to which we have changed it I think shows that any similar or more advacned level or technology would also be clearly visable. Cetianly if we can find the remains of a 10,000yr old camp site, then surly a City of the same age would stand out like a zit on the face of the world.

As Fritz mentioned technology builds upon its own advances, with out one you can not have the other. This of course means that the more technology you have, the more it can build upon itself. This explains why over the past 100yrs there have been more technological advances than in the 500yrs before, or the 10,000 years before that.

You also need a society and culture with an attitude that is conduceive to change, and allows for technological development. Look at the Dark ages in europe, 600 years of nothing, then wham! The Chinese can show a similar history of long periods of zero technolgical development.
(note that science often continued to thrive, but was kept well hidden, and put to no practicle use).


I supose its possible some very small city on a small long gone Island was able to develop very advacned levels of technology, but I think its about as likely as us fnding a monolith on the moon before the end of the decade. ;)

Originally posted by Moppie
I supose its possible some very small city on a small long gone Island was able to develop very advacned levels of technology, but I think its about as likely as us fnding a monolith on the moon before the end of the decade. ;)
Also Sprach Zarathustra :D