So as the title implies, I am going to share with you some of my most pondered questions. They are not in any specific order. For I believe that they are all, in their own way, of equal importance to our understanding of our past and our hope for our future.
Why are their 2 distinct construction designs visible at Giza if everything was built during the same dynasty?
If you observe closely all the structures of Giza, you will notice that a handful of structures are constructed using blocks that are much larger than even the 2 to 5 ton blocks that comprise a majority of the construction of the plateau.
Why do scholars refuse to believe the stories of ancient indigenous peoples who claim that they did not build certain places that they occupy?
How knowledgeable and intelligent were past peoples, such as the Neanderthals and Denisovans?
There are theories that propose that Neanderthals were the primary artists of a majority of European cave art and that Denisovans were the constructors of Gobekli Tepe. One of the newest theories that has been years in the making is that they were also accomplished astronomers and may have used those skills to date specific times, possibly as a method of recording historic events.
 |
| Africa is at the top. |
In addition to this tidbit, there are also references to a singular ocean or sea, which when you view the Earth from the South Pole as opposed to the North, is a very accurate statement.
Does coming from Orion or Sirius or Pleiades mean coming from the stars or merely refer to celestial navigational points?
The least hi-tech method of navigation is celestial. To use the placement of the stars and constellations along with the rising and setting of the Sun and or Moon to track one's course. Something that the ancients did very well and with high specificity.
Why do scholars hold so tight to the Out Of Africa theory, preaching it as fact?
While it can be supported that Africa has a very rich evolutionary history, we do not know for certain that it is the only such place or that it is as completely the whole of homo sapiens sapiens origins as scholars claim. If for no other reason than that we have not put one-quarter the effort into looking in any other location for the evidence that we have in Africa.
 |
| Gobekli Tepe |
If you have watched any of the documentaries on the construction of any ancient structures of note, such as the Pyramids of Giza or Stonehenge or Gobekli Tepe, you will hear that it was all done with the most rudimentary tools and or pure hard-labor of man. Another comment that you might hear is from construction experts of our time that claim that such undertakings are basically impossible with all our machines and technology today. Forgetting all that, what logic made working with 2- to 10- to 40-tons plus blocks of stone necessary?
 |
| Linar A |
If you listen to the ancients that are given status and credit by the scholars, all of them speak of epochs of time before them that were of greatness in terms of the feats of men and the standards of living of the peoples of those long ago eras. Yet, scholar after scholar refuses to even consider that there has to be some truth to their stories.
When, where and why did writing begin?
We define writing as the systematic use of symbols to convey our thoughts and ideas and information without the use of oral expression. But, what really makes up a writing system? And with all the unknowns how do scholars decide that one set of symbols is absolutely writing and other symbols are not. Especially, if their only rebuttal is that some symbols predate the labeled fact of writing originating in Sumeria around 5000YAG.
How much truth and historic fact can really be found in the lines of myths?
Many a child has been so lured by the lines of a story as to become obsessed with proving that it is a real story. That very obsession is how we discovered Troy. So why not put more faith in the reality of our ancients histories by remembering that absence of proof is not proof of absence.
These and more are the questions that feed my curiosity and kindle my desire to know more. It is the desire to find the truth of our history and the journey of our ancestors that inspires me to write this blog. It is my hope that at least one of my articles inspires you to begin or continue your own curious journey for the truth.
Photo Credit: via workplacelanguages.com
via en.wikipedia.org
via wikimedia commons
You might not like my answer. It will probably sound too simplistic. But I have had some evidence in watching a movie that described the state of Earth years after mankind as we know it has gone, e.g. because of a real world war. The movie shows what happens with the plants and also with some animals. Life will not be completely extinct, only men will become extinct - in their current version. If I recall correctly, the only artefact of our civilisation that will still be visible a few hundred years from now will be the Hoover dam. (Ok, I don't know whether this can be proven, but the movie was very impressive. It was call a documentation.
ReplyDeleteKeeping this in mind, all the ancient artefacts that we admire have not been built by those ancestors of whom we know. My deduction runs like that.
Darwin is alright. Evolution takes place. Constantly. From what we know there was a time when some primates decided to walk on two feet than on four. They could not run as fast as before. Therefore it was new problem to get enough food. Evolution or nature had to decide between two possibilities. Either the digestive organs should work like in a cow, storing energy for a longer time than a day, or the brain had to develop. During the time when moving had changed, the brain size had doubled as a result of an evolutionary choice.
The development of the brain has granted a better chance for a human being to get additional food by hunting and killing. The atavistic capabilities improved over the time. Killing has become not only a way to defend oneself or to defend the family and group. It has also become a viable means to gain, whatever seemed desirable.
Now, the brain was growing and growing, the intellectual capacities were enhanced but only in one direction. There was no improvement in terms of moral or ethics. It could have been, but the gains achieved by behaving morally or following some ethical rules were and are not enough.
A certain behaviour in the human being has not improved at all. E.g. jealousy was a problem 2000 years ago, 500 years ago and it remained a problem today. Especially in countries where jealousy can only be overcome with the "knife". Greak dramas, Shakespeare, today's life shows that there is reasonable way to cope with the wrong feeling of posession and loosing something that is to be believed being posessed.
My reasoning runs along the following lines. The evolution of the homo sapiens has shown quite remarkable results, but the improvement over all will not protect it from becoming extinct by its own actions.
Now we come to the artefacts listed above. We had climatic changes that were lasting much longer that the times which we look back. When we detect today some fossils like human bones the oldest seem to be 4 million years old. So what has happened on Earth 6 million years ago. Maybe there already were some "human beings", just as clever or even more technically gifted than we are. They have set the course of some of the artefacts. When they were gone, those artefacts were still available, maybe damaged, but visible. And the "later homo sapiens" thought, hey cool we use them for magical and religious symbols. Those who were thinking that way could tell wonderful stories that would harden their status as gifted priests, being connect to some higher forces.
To collect these thoughts together, as I have to get a rest for today's recital (Chopin, Janacek, Mozart, Brahms, Beethoven) my conclusion is that we are not the version 1.0 of mankind. Maybe we are not even 2.0, but I believe that there might be a version 3.0 later, after we have got rid of ourselves.
First, I would like to say thank you for taking the time, not only to read the article, but also to think about it and respond. That being said I do not dislike your comment, and in the forum of online posting, such as here on a blog, sometimes we need be simplistic in our presenting or explaining of ideas, theories, or thoughts.
DeleteI agree that we as a species will not destroy the Earth, that she will go on, probably even better after us. I also think that I have possibly seen the same piece as you and seem to recall hearing similar about the Hoover dam lasting longer than other evidence of our presence.
As for Darwin, I agree that evolution is part of the process of life, that being said, I think that Darwin only had an elementary concept of evolution. I do not mean that to negate his contribution, which in its time and as a first step was outstanding. However, I do not hold the current, while expanded still simplified, version that evolution can be traced back to a single primordial ooze pond and that it occurs in an ever forward progressing line, at a slow methodical funeral march rate into the future. I believe that it is much more chaotic and random and even circular than any biologists imagine. In general they are too limited by their educations to have the imagination and creativity to see anything that is outside their dogma.
So, I certainly find merit in your suggestion about us not being the first cycle of man nor the last cycle either. While it might be that evolution and geology in vacuums might take thousands to millions of years to make the slightest noticeable change, we do not live in a vacuum and life survives much chaos and randomness and instantly significant interferences as to consider the lab study theory more of the exception than the reality of how life progresses. In addition, you are correct that we are known to find and claim the remains that we stumble across in our travels and this makes learning and knowing the history before us more challenging. Experts ignoring those challenges limits our ability to overcome them. I do hope to make some small progress in spite of that.