History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedSumeria Older Than Ancient Egypt??

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2009 at 12:45
Originally posted by AksumVanguard AksumVanguard wrote:

Now I never said Stonehedge is that old..... archealogist always suspected it to go back further than Neolithic period,around 8000 bce because it is suspected to take very long to construct and it was always annexed in construction.
 
No completely wrong.
 
Maybe a few cranks said it, I don't know, but they're no archaeologists.
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 01-Feb-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 125
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2009 at 12:59
Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

Originally posted by AksumVanguard AksumVanguard wrote:

Now I never said Stonehedge is that old..... archealogist always suspected it to go back further than Neolithic period,around 8000 bce because it is suspected to take very long to construct and it was always annexed in construction.
 
No completely wrong.
 
Maybe a few cranks said it, I don't know, but they're no archaeologists.

I'm not to sure about the different inquering constructing theories of Stone henge but  you cannot deny there is strong possibilty of sophisticated civilzation before before the Bronze Age,particularly in the Upper Paleothic ,Mesolithic and Neolithic periods.
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2009 at 14:28
The Upper-Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic periods are different eras and cannot be vagely lumped together when looking of a non-existent prehistoric Atlantis,
 
And I can say there was no such civilisation, because every credible archaeologist and piece of evidence found backs me up.
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 01-Feb-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 125
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2009 at 14:56
Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

The Upper-Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic periods are different eras and cannot be vagely lumped together when looking of a non-existent prehistoric Atlantis,
 
And I can say there was no such civilisation, because every credible archaeologist and piece of evidence found backs me up.


I never said there was an prehistoric Atlantis, I was implying that we do not fully grasp the history of civilisation no matter how much archaeologist blabber on.  And maybe there were periods of Dark Ages through out history.  Maybe they have been metropolitan cities decimated that have not been known.
Back to Top
Arthur-Robin View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 23-Feb-2006
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 199
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Arthur-Robin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2009 at 19:29
Some of the arguments are based on the faulty orthodox modern evolutionary/geological theoretical constructs and dating methods (ie "ice age/paleolithic -> mesolithic -> neolithic -> dynastic//Sumerian).

Stonehenge had mycenaean and egyptian arefacts.
Lake Dwellings (= Western/Windmill Hill ~ Merimde) had Egyptian wheat [Joseph].
Sumerian (& Indus & pr-Elam) bones were Combe Capelids (Aurignacian).
Cambridge Anc Hist (& Sphinx) evidence that Old kingdom was cooler/wetter, [likewise with Mohenjo-daro].
Atlantis 9000 was 900 [10 month year] of Moeris (ca 1400) in Herodotus.
Ice Age(s)/shifts mentioned by Hopis, in bk of Job, in Thor &/or fimbulvetr myths, etc.
Jim Nienhuis points out 2 submerged delta cities of 12th dyn in Herodotus maybe evidence of end of ice age (rising sea levels).
Uruk 1 can't be after Uruk phase (which contemp with Semainian of Egypt).

Ethiopia/Egypt was Silver Age in classical. (bk of Daniel says Golden was Babel, Genesis says golden was Havilah?)
Bey said lower egypt older than upper not v-v.
Punt[1] was not necessarily sth Arabia or somalia, (the Punt[2] of Hatshepsut at least was Ponape?)
Egyptians called Kush "vile/wretched". (Kush maybe Kur with r/sh intchge [bit-agusi? hindu kush/kushana? cissian/kassi? kish? caucasus?])
proto-dynastic Egypt was invaded by sea (arak knife handle etc) and not necessarily via  sinai/arabia.

cheers,
Sean.
Life is about Love!
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2009 at 20:13
Originally posted by Arthur-Robin Arthur-Robin wrote:

Stonehenge had mycenaean and egyptian arefacts.
 
 
falls over laughing......
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Arthur-Robin View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 23-Feb-2006
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 199
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Arthur-Robin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2009 at 05:02
sorry to go slightly off topic.
are you laughing at or with? if at what so funny, correct me if i'm wrong - i dont necessarily know all that much or everything.
source for Stonehenge (#?)/Wessex having mycenaean beads, amber discs, arrowshaft straighteners and gateway similarity are Chadderton (Time Detectives) and Gerald Hawkins (Stonehenge Decoded).
I think the source for Egyptian faience beads at Henge &/or in Wessex was Hawkins too.
(Stonehenge trilithon related to Mystery Hill, Tonga trilithon, mycenaean gateway, and maybe grt pyr trilithon/niche?
henge may perhaps relate to Atlas temple of spheres, Atlantis concentric, ring & cup marks, etc??)
(someone else on this forum in atlantis topic also mentioned egyptian pharaoh name on balearic megalith?)
I once thought that maybe Neanderthals were the labour since Coon says they were pushing heavy loads, or giants.
Stone Age = mega-lithic = giants; or Heliolithic?
Life is about Love!
Back to Top
truth of the matter View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 23-Mar-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 15
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote truth of the matter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Mar-2009 at 18:34
well i agree with the fact that a city is different than a civilization. the city sumer "sumeria" is dated back to like 5000 b.c. But as far as a civilizations such as egypt i beleive that they originated around 3150 b.c. The city and early civilization of sumeria with such cities as Uruk,Ur,Eridu and Sippar but they have pottery and the first agriculture in the Ubaid period: 5300 – 4100 BC (Pottery Neolithic to Chalcolithic)
Uruk period: 4100 – 2900 BC (Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age I) but so does egypt with agriculture and using animals for work at 4500-5000 b.c. so it's hard to say but i would guess maybe sumer over egypt but maybe not. they are close. Both the cradles of civilization. and yes gilgamesh is noted in the dynastic era 2900 b.c. Then in the dynasty of lagash 2500-2250 is where we here of sargon the great of akkadia
m.d.h.m.
Back to Top
Dacian View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 13-Mar-2009
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 43
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dacian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Mar-2009 at 19:26
About the sphinx I believe the 30000BC is a bit too much.

Last serious and constant "rains" in the area are believed to be around 15-10000BC (strong connection with the ending of the last Glacial period ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period )

Like with all systems there is a certain inertia to it from the constant rain period and constant drought period of the region.

Moreso specific to the rain erosion it would have been nothing left of the sphinx at all if it would have been under the "rain" for 15-20000 years. For what it's worth generally limestone gets dissolved by water quite fast certainly in 5000years of rain it would have been just a shapeless mound.

I didn't look extremely focused on the issue but the rain errosion proof (few pics I've seen) certainly seems the most likely explanation of all I've read so far (I'm a geophysicist myself and have done quite a few geology courses).

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Mar-2009 at 02:06
Originally posted by truth of the matter truth of the matter wrote:

well i agree with the fact that a city is different than a civilization. the city sumer "sumeria" is dated back to like 5000 b.c. But as far as a civilizations such as egypt i beleive that they originated around 3150 b.c. The city and early civilization of sumeria with such cities as Uruk,Ur,Eridu and Sippar but they have pottery and the first agriculture in the Ubaid period: 5300 – 4100 BC (Pottery Neolithic to Chalcolithic)
Uruk period: 4100 – 2900 BC (Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age I) but so does egypt with agriculture and using animals for work at 4500-5000 b.c. so it's hard to say but i would guess maybe sumer over egypt but maybe not. they are close. Both the cradles of civilization. and yes gilgamesh is noted in the dynastic era 2900 b.c. Then in the dynasty of lagash 2500-2250 is where we here of sargon the great of akkadia
 
I don't agree. City means civilization. In any case, Jerico is way older than Sumer an Egypt, and a city in Turkey that I can't recall is even older.
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
Vorian View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2007
Location: Greece/Hellas
Status: Offline
Points: 566
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Mar-2009 at 09:59
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
I don't agree. City means civilization. In any case, Jerico is way older than Sumer an Egypt, and a city in Turkey that I can't recall is even older.
 
What's interesting is that the people that built that city in Turkey (still can't remember the name) were not farmers but hunters/gatherers that chose to settle together in an area. I read that in Science Illustrated and it said that previously scientists thought that farming came before cities but to their surprise it didn't.


Edited by Vorian - 24-Mar-2009 at 10:00
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Mar-2009 at 16:12
The old idea of a farming revolution, or transition from hunter gather to farmer is largely a myth.
 
Nowadays it's seen as a slow process where the two intergrated at various levels and there was a slow change across millenia. Farming also began long before crop cultivation was discovered, so it's possible to have purely hunter gatherer farming communities. In fact that farming communities already existed before crop cultivation came along probably made it possible for crop farming to take off in the first place.


Edited by Paul - 24-Mar-2009 at 16:14
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Mar-2009 at 16:34

If cities appeared without agriculture, the opposite is also true. In the highlands of New Guinea, agriculture exists since, at least, 5.000 years ago. No city was ever developed there though, before the arrival of westerners.

"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
Dacian View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 13-Mar-2009
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 43
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dacian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Mar-2009 at 20:29
hunter-gatherers presume a nomadic lifestyle

agriculture a sedentary one


you cannot have hunter-gatherers building cities as even a small community would definitely strip the surrounding lands pretty fast and as a consequence they would have to move in search of other rich places (rich in food supply that is)


you can have farming without cities but there is no way to have cities without farming (until trade was developed enough)


plus to be honest I believe fishing had alot more importance than believed in turning people from hunter-gatherers to farmers as its the only fast renewable meat source that I can think off and maybe the ancient communities having the "survival" ration assured they could have started turning to agriculture

Back to Top
Vorian View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2007
Location: Greece/Hellas
Status: Offline
Points: 566
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Mar-2009 at 20:49
Actually it makes sense. Who would choose a lifestyle of hard work in the fields and the unhealthy environment that was the ancient city when there was an abundance of resources to harvest and hunt?
Back to Top
Dacian View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 13-Mar-2009
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 43
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dacian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Mar-2009 at 21:09
Originally posted by Vorian Vorian wrote:

Actually it makes sense. Who would choose a lifestyle of hard work in the fields and the unhealthy environment that was the ancient city when there was an abundance of resources to harvest and hunt?



i mean everything in nature is guided by the simple rule of "path of least ressistance", in other words least effort for maximum result


the catch is that you need to see the whole picture and take all factors into account.
working in the fields maybe or may not be easier than running after whatver wild beat to kill it, or gathering from the bushes/trees and so on but certainly it is much safer as it keeps people closer togheter (defense bonus if you wish that)

plus you get a increased food reliability/availability factor as the crops are more likely to grow than the odds of the group constantly hunting...and again less danger involved.

a change doesnt happen for no reason, it just happens because the new way obeys the above mentioned rule more than the previous way of doing things in the general perspective.





Edited by Dacian - 24-Mar-2009 at 21:11
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Mar-2009 at 21:47
Originally posted by Dacian Dacian wrote:

hunter-gatherers presume a nomadic lifestyle

agriculture a sedentary one


you cannot have hunter-gatherers building cities as even a small community would definitely strip the surrounding lands pretty fast and as a consequence they would have to move in search of other rich places (rich in food supply that is)

 
Actually the opposite, that's what my previous post explains. Hunter gatherers are not always nomadic and did live in communities.
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Dacian View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 13-Mar-2009
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 43
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dacian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Mar-2009 at 22:01
Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

Originally posted by Dacian Dacian wrote:

hunter-gatherers presume a nomadic lifestyle

agriculture a sedentary one


you cannot have hunter-gatherers building cities as even a small community would definitely strip the surrounding lands pretty fast and as a consequence they would have to move in search of other rich places (rich in food supply that is)

 
Actually the opposite, that's what my previous post explains. Hunter gatherers are not always nomadic and did live in communities.



yes I got your point and said my point is different

a hunter-gatherer comunity is not self-sustainable in the same area for long time

and I explained my point on it...the community will exhaust all valuable products the area has to offer, proccesing this they will increase their numbers for sure but at a point they will have to move out or starve to death


how do you see a sedentary population of hunter-gatherers working in balance with the enviroment around them? how would they cope with the increasing population?


Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Mar-2009 at 22:14
Originally posted by Dacian Dacian wrote:

[QUOTE=Paul][QUOTE=Dacian]
the community will exhaust all valuable products the area has to offer, proccesing this they will increase their numbers for sure but at a point they will have to move out or starve to death
 
how would they cope with the increasing population?

 
Actually what many used to do was adopt proto-farming.
 


Edited by Paul - 24-Mar-2009 at 22:16
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Vorian View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2007
Location: Greece/Hellas
Status: Offline
Points: 566
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Mar-2009 at 22:19
Originally posted by Dacian Dacian wrote:





how do you see a sedentary population of hunter-gatherers working in balance with the enviroment around them? how would they cope with the increasing population?




By inventing agriculture!! Smile

The idea of cultivating crops probably appeared when someone was really really hungry and decided to eat some wild grain...and after that thought, hey I could grow this to feed myself until the resources grow back. Only when they did, society had changed already.


EDIT: Paul beat me dammitAngry


Edited by Vorian - 24-Mar-2009 at 22:20
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.047 seconds.