So what actually did happen?
Longfellow
maybe a relevant question might be: Can we discern something of what
actually happened in prehistory that resulted in what history records?
Probably the most important thing to consider is the state of the
environment. Latest Ice Age got prematurely terminated not all that long
before the beginning of historical records. Evidence demonstrates that
h.sap most probably evolved during that Age, so it's of interest to
note that glacial advances and retreats occured throughout.
One might guess that a major parameter of the development of the human
being was those advances and retreats, and thus a fundamental attribute
of said being was adaptability to widely varying climate and territory.
It would appear that part of that territorial adaptability involved
successfully inhabiting both coastal and inland territory when the
differences between these areas was markedly greater than today.
The evidence of differences of physical characteristics, formerly noted
as racial differences, indicates that this development was not globally
homogenous. Strong geographical boundaries such as ice sheets, etc,
might be regarded as contributors to these differences. But we also
know that some significant amount of interaction between disparate
peoples did occur. However tenuous, travel and trade did take place.
It is therefore not unreasonable to expect that a general level of
technical sophistication arose as a result. In fact, the isolation of
knowledge due to geographical segregation is not at all probable,
however possible: Power depends on knowledge, and the traveler who
brought new knowledge possessed power, then as today.
The dissemination of knowledge had, then as now, an immediate reward, it
is not reasonable to assume that it did not take place such that some
amount of redundancy of dissemination occured. Thus, to the extent that
any knowledge was known to possess important power, it was conserved by
those who could wield it, hence the wise elders in whatever guise.
We have reason to believe that current humanity descended from rather
small surviving groups, probably tribes. We would also expect that some
amount of valuable knowledge would accompany each of these groups, each
with the understanding that they did not possess the sum of what
existed. As times of environmental stress came and went, we would
expect that such knowledge as was generally regarded as valuable would
be given exceptional care and curation.
Let us take this scenario and apply it to the evidence we have of the
origins of civilized humanity.
Classically, we begin with the Sumerians about 6000 years ago. It is
one of those "unsolved mysteries" that the culture appeared almost fully
developed, though from whence and how is controversial. From this, we
can conclude that an unknown previous culture, presumably civilized,
existed, though no generally recognized evidence of same is extant.
And so we can turn to the written evidence that is without provenance,
classically regarded as myth. Relevant religious scripture is regarded
as a special case of mythology. We do so because it's there, and we
can; indeed, to be fair, we should and for the following reasons:
It is fatuous to regard what one cannot comprehend as fantasy. That
sort of thinking derives from the priests of Scientism, who still
persist in claiming that what cannot be demonstrated does not exist.
Most scientists are not such priests, and not only know better, but are
at pains to do so. Academics who fancy themselves as "scientific" set
these sorts of standards for the rest, and "standard models" jealously
guarded by their founder/developers reign supreme even in the face of
evidence said models don't satisfy.
There are other equally strong forces that drive this sort of thinking,
not the least by far of which is institutional religion. But be that as
it may, the disregarded evidence exists, abused, misused and ignored.
From my last post, it is relevant to ask, what of those whom the
Canaanites called the Elohim, the Sumerian/Akkadian called the Annunaki,
and other cultures called by other names?
All agree that they were human beings. All agree that they had powerful
technology. All agree that their home/source was problematic and
controversial. All agree that they were somehow related, familially,
tribally, or of a clan.
Am I the only one who suspects that these people were one of those
surviving tribe/clans, replete with a powerful knowledge base and on the
lookout to re-establish themselves in new territory?
If indeed they were, what can we suspect in consequence? What myth
becomes potential history? What history becomes myth? What can we come
to understand about ourselves as human beings that was not available to
us before; how do we profit from this insight?
When did they die out? Or did they? What happened to them? They
certainly caused a furor historically!
We are still reeling from the consequences even today: Wars have been
fought down through the centuries, instigated by institutions of
religion that profess to represent what is obviously a caricaturization
of those folk. What are the real issues behind those wars, and how do
they manifest today; I presume they do as they've never been resolved.
In short, if we get rid of the vast amount of interpretive crap that
defines our general "knowledge" of these matters, what can we discover?
What can we suspect strongly enough to investigate? What is the real
truth of humanity and how does it vary from what we have been lead to
believe?
And finally, what are our real prospects, and what is our real heritage?
Assertions of fact here are distinctly separate from speculations and
questions. Claims that I've mixed these are baseless. Otherwise,
comments?
Longfellow
Robert J. Kolker
> Since this is talk.origins and not talk.creationism.versus.evolution,
> maybe a relevant question might be: Can we discern something of what
> actually happened in prehistory that resulted in what history records?
If you assume physical laws held from the git-go you could not say for
sure what did happen, but you can say what did not happen. Given the end
state and non-deterministic laws one could not come up with a specific
initial state.
Bob Kolker
rja.ca...@excite.com
Longfellow wrote:
> Since this is talk.origins and not talk.creationism.versus.evolution,
> maybe a relevant question might be: Can we discern something of what
> actually happened in prehistory that resulted in what history records?
>
> Probably the most important thing to consider is the state of the
> environment. Latest Ice Age got prematurely terminated not all that long
> before the beginning of historical records. Evidence demonstrates that
> h.sap most probably evolved during that Age, so it's of interest to
> note that glacial advances and retreats occured throughout.
If h.sap basically walked out of Africa mostly fully formed, do
glaciers still apply?
Bobby D. Bryant
> Since this is talk.origins and not talk.creationism.versus.evolution,
You might be surprised if your newsreader showed the description field.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
dkomo
> Since this is talk.origins and not talk.creationism.versus.evolution,
> maybe a relevant question might be: Can we discern something of what
> actually happened in prehistory that resulted in what history records?
>
> Probably the most important thing to consider is the state of the
> environment. Latest Ice Age got prematurely terminated not all that long
> before the beginning of historical records. Evidence demonstrates that
> h.sap most probably evolved during that Age, so it's of interest to
> note that glacial advances and retreats occured throughout.
>
A quibble here. We are currently in the Pleistocene Ice Age, which
began about 3 mya. During that entire period of time, the earth's polar
regions have been iced over. What are colloquially known as "ice ages"
have been periods of glacial advances and retreats within the
Pleistocene Ice Age. The climate of the earth has cyclically varied,
affecting Africa mainly through droughts. These droughts are believed
to have had a major influence on all hominid evolution, not just on homo
sapiens.
"Sometime near 35 million years ago there was an especially sharp drop
in global temperatures -- this is when, most researchers believe,
glaciers began to form in Antarctica. However, although temperatures
continued to fall as the Antarctic icecap grew, it was not until about 3
million years ago that permanent glaciers appeared in the Northern
Hemisphere, again accompanied by an abrupt temerature decrease. This is
generally agreed to be the start of the current ice age, and since that
time, most climate changes around the globe have associated with the
waxing and waning of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere."
--Doug Macdougall, _Frozen Earth_, p. 8
Longfellow
I asked whether *something* of what actually happened could be
discerned. We're not talking about a laboratory experiment calling for
that kind of rigor, and we have far more than the end state at hand.
Physical laws, as applied to human affairs, are far too poorly
understood in sufficient detail and scope to be relevant beyond well
described limits.
Longfellow
Longfellow
Probably so. However, it's far from certain that h. sap walked out of
Africa anywhere near fully formed. But be that as it may, what I asked
was whether or not something could be discerned of the state of
prehistory immediately prior to the historical period. That's a far
piece down the line from the scenario you pose.
Longfellow
Longfellow
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005, Longfellow <n...@this.address> wrote:
>
>> Since this is talk.origins and not talk.creationism.versus.evolution,
>
> You might be surprised if your newsreader showed the description field.
Yes, I guess I would be, as it's not configured to do so. But I take
your meaning ;)
Longfellow
Longfellow
> Longfellow wrote:
>> Since this is talk.origins and not talk.creationism.versus.evolution,
>> maybe a relevant question might be: Can we discern something of what
>> actually happened in prehistory that resulted in what history records?
>>
>> Probably the most important thing to consider is the state of the
>> environment. Latest Ice Age got prematurely terminated not all that long
>> before the beginning of historical records. Evidence demonstrates that
>> h.sap most probably evolved during that Age, so it's of interest to
>> note that glacial advances and retreats occured throughout.
>>
>
> A quibble here. We are currently in the Pleistocene Ice Age, which
> began about 3 mya. During that entire period of time, the earth's polar
> regions have been iced over. What are colloquially known as "ice ages"
> have been periods of glacial advances and retreats within the
> Pleistocene Ice Age. The climate of the earth has cyclically varied,
> affecting Africa mainly through droughts. These droughts are believed
> to have had a major influence on all hominid evolution, not just on homo
> sapiens.
The notion that h.sap originated in Africa has been challenged several
times and, I think, successfully so. The original idea was based on the
evidence, and on computer models of genetic evolution designed with that
idea in mind. Further data suggests that h.sap actually evolved more
globally, with strong centers of development in Asia as well.
Again, I'm not looking for the point at which we could say that h.sap
first emerged, wherever that occured. I'm looking at the point where
pre-history meets history. Note that I'm following up on a previous
post of mine which supplied the context here.
And, yes, I'm drawing the c/e controversy away from their current
trenches back into some semblance of rationality.
<snip citation>
Longfellow
VBM
"Longfellow" <n...@this.address> wrote in message
> Again, I'm not looking for the point at which we could say that h.sap
> first emerged, wherever that occured. I'm looking at the point where
> pre-history meets history. Note that I'm following up on a previous
> post of mine which supplied the context here.
>
> And, yes, I'm drawing the c/e controversy away from their current
> trenches back into some semblance of rationality.
Well, history began with writing (by definition), so everything before
writing is pre-historic, and thus history meets pre-history precisely at the
time Man first expressed itself in writing (which can be defined, I suppose,
variously).
David Jensen
Longfellow <n...@this.address> wrote in
<11g1qp5...@corp.supernews.com>:
...
>
>The notion that h.sap originated in Africa has been challenged several
>times and, I think, successfully so.
By whom? Do you have a citation?
>The original idea was based on the
>evidence, and on computer models of genetic evolution designed with that
>idea in mind. Further data suggests that h.sap actually evolved more
>globally, with strong centers of development in Asia as well.
Citation?
>Again, I'm not looking for the point at which we could say that h.sap
>first emerged, wherever that occured. I'm looking at the point where
>pre-history meets history. Note that I'm following up on a previous
>post of mine which supplied the context here.
This isn't making sense.
>And, yes, I'm drawing the c/e controversy away from their current
>trenches back into some semblance of rationality.
I don't see it.
Longfellow
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:21:09 -0000, in talk.origins
> Longfellow <n...@this.address> wrote in
><11g1qp5...@corp.supernews.com>:
> ...
>>
>>The notion that h.sap originated in Africa has been challenged several
>>times and, I think, successfully so.
>
> By whom? Do you have a citation?
I'm not going to post a list of citations, but will give the latest I've
run across below.
>>The original idea was based on the
>>evidence, and on computer models of genetic evolution designed with that
>>idea in mind. Further data suggests that h.sap actually evolved more
>>globally, with strong centers of development in Asia as well.
>
> Citation?
Science News, Aug 6, 2005, vol 168 p 91: Bruce Bower, "The Human Wave".
"One vein of research - typically cited in support of relatively recent
human origins solely in Africa - examines mitochondrial DNA. This
material is inherited solely from one's mother and exhibits far more
mutations in modern Africans than it does in Asians and Europeans.
Accounting for the estimated rate at which mitochondrial DNA mutations
accumulate, the patterns are consistent with a diffusion wave of H.sap
moving out of Africa at least 130,000 years ago.
One the other hand, analyses of DNA rom the cell's nucleous indicate
that human genetic heritage in Asia is far older than it is in Africa,
making it appear that modern humans originated in Asia"
A bunch of stuff appears to be debated in these regards, but it would
seem that our lack of a complete understanding of the mechanics of DNA put the
human evolution issue back on the table for reconsideration.
Note that I've not stated that Africa did not play a role, even the
dominant role, in human evolution. I'm saying I think it was a more
global process, and that h.sap didn't initially walk out of Africa fully
developed.
>>Again, I'm not looking for the point at which we could say that h.sap
>>first emerged, wherever that occured. I'm looking at the point where
>>pre-history meets history. Note that I'm following up on a previous
>>post of mine which supplied the context here.
>
> This isn't making sense.
History comprises only the material that is accepted by academia. The
difference between historical and non-historical data can indeed be the
failure of academia to grasp the latter's significance; obviously this
it's not always the case, but it sometimes is, and that's why research
is done, you know. Plow through the material again to see what we
missed for whatever reason, etc.
At the moment, with the advent of the Qumran material on the open
academic marketplace, we are finding that our assumptions are subject to
re-examination. This is quite likely to change the boundary between
what is accepted as history, and earlier material not previously
understood; how dramatic that change might be is anyone's guess.
The short version here is that we have solid reason to expect that a
people came out of somewhere to found the Sumerian civilization; we have
solid reason to suspect that said people constituted some sort of
migration, though from where is unclear. It is not so unclear as it was
not all that long ago, though. Central Asia is looking like a better
and better bet, I suspect.
>
>>And, yes, I'm drawing the c/e controversy away from their current
>>trenches back into some semblance of rationality.
>
> I don't see it.
Look, I think that the entire business about the so-called gods can be
explained by the emergence of a technologically superior culture at a
time when natural disasters of one sort or other had troubled the
habitat of the locals (Middle East). Technology does not have to be
entirely mechanical, ie machines and such, and it does not have to
depend on science as we practice it.
The craftsman model (apprentice, journeyman, master) existed long before
the academic model that now supports science. In fact, the earliest
efforts of modern science were to understand what the craftsmen already
knew, and it was their technology that supported science. It's only
been a few centuries since science yielded technology.
Which means that it is not at all certain that we can establish
prehistoric man (pre 5th millennium) as technically illiterate and/or
powerless. We have not found evidence for such cultures, but that's not
surprising: technologically advanced cultures arise at the seashores,
and those are now long gone under much silt etc. It's not realistic to
expect the kind of mechanistic technology we possess to be readily in
evidence in areas where we would be "camping out", hoping to survive
long enough to re-establish ourselves.
If you think that technology requires a long and consistent platform to
arise, look at our history. At most, six thousand years, and that in
the context of at least hundreds of thousands of years. I argue that it
can happen spontaneously, given a sufficiently powerful discovery, and
that it does not necessarily leave a trace we can recognize as such.
Consider bio-technology: the ability to manipulate living organisms
with predictable results. Relevant? Of course: food, medicine, etc. I
doubt I have to belabour this line of thought, or shouldn't, I should
think.
What am I after? A decisive resolution of the creationism problem, by
demonstrating that the entire basis of creationism can be more
believably explained. I would think a rational model based on what we
can demonstrate scientifically could be developed that would satisfy all
the data currently mis-interpreted (misused, abused, and exploited) by
religion in general and creationism in particular.
Doesn't need to be "proven". All that is needful is for an alternative
story that both science and the populace can accept as not only possible
but having some degree of probability. In my view, that's the only way
science can ever meet with religion: It must succeed on religion's own
turf.
Does that make sense?
Longfellow
rja.ca...@excite.com
There's prehistoric art, some of which may be factual in original
intention, but it's hard to read history out of it.
Certainly there are various places where people who didn't write down
what they were doing in words any medium that survives (including
painting and stone carving) left some informative trash, as well as
works of art.
VBM
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1124281336.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Right, I was not addressing your underlying question of when h.Sapiens could
be defined as a separate and distinct species (always impossible really,
since it is a continuum, not a specific moment), just the
"history/prehistory" question.
rja.ca...@excite.com
Sorry, perhaps I wan't clearly enough not trying to argue a case, but
just musing.
For that matter, early written-down things, and today's newspapers,
should be read sceptically. Aeneid, bad. Caesar, good - ish. World
News Daily...
As for "knowing prehistory to explain history", there's archaelogical
and also modern genetic evidence of population movements, i.e. "these
people are related to those people so they must have come to here from
there". So you can keep track of people moving around before they
start appearing in history.