> Hi Lee,
> I think what is linear is the medium of
> civilization not necessarily the people who later
> came to benefit from it.
> Well, while this is true for "History", I mean the
> written one, because we have trace of transmission
> culture by writing, which "writing" give
> explanation about living systems, laws, construct buildings such as
> houses, temples etc, religions and enlargement of
> population, when we go more back and back through millennia,
> this linear approach is seriously difficult and
> subject to many and many speculation due to "lack" of Beyond
> any doubts findings, as well as the a pproach and
> interpretation of who found reperts, dated them etc etc.
We don't see the effects of many of the principles of Nature that are in play all around us. We don't sense the infinitessimal shifts in time, mass, and energy as we increase or decrease our velocity, we don't feel a difference in gravity as we drive from the deep valley to the top of a high mountain. We mistakenly assume that "time" proceeds linearly -- we even have an atomic clock that attempts to convince us of that. And so most of us merely construct a simplistic approximation of reality according to the relevance of our environment to our day to day existence. And part of this 'path of least resistance' existence makes many of us look at things more linearly, through the filter of an equation containing maybe only 1 or 2 variables since our brains can't normally handle more than that. So we see mastabas, pyramids, "temples", pottery, bones, food, clothing, inscriptions, and papyrii, and jump to the conclusions that since it's all in the same geographic area it must have all been the result of a single, linear civilization. Mind you, there is virtually no hard logic behind that assumption other than it simply being an "easy" way to analyze the evidence. In fact, there is a slew of evidence that contradicts that assumption, but it is largely ignored or sequestered so as not to disrupt the far easier and otherwise self-consistent narrative. It reminds me of a cartoon I saw decades ago where the scammer mouse says "Hey, you want the truth, or an interesting story?!" Ironically, what is now appearing to be the truth is turning out to look a lot more fascinating than the mere "interesting story" of traditional thought.
Regarding the Dynastics, I think it's fascinating that there is virtually nothing in the historic documentation of that time attesting to "construct buildings such as houses, temples, etc." which leads me to my point about the "H", below...
> During the last 20 / 30 years many findings come
> to the light and new phisical methods were refined,which
> start to rewrite what what believed till middle of
> previous century, the "linear system and classification"
> which were applied before, show its weakness.
This speaks to the notion of "standards". The same ancient artifact, writings, etc., will be interpreted differently depending on the standards of scrutiny and proof that are appied. It's one thing to claim the Relieving Chambers in G1 relieve pressure from above, but it's another thing to delve into the actualy construction, forces, and physical evidence to reveal that if the RCs were designed to relieved any forces, it would be the forces that arose from below them, not from above them. Likewise regarding the so-called "Prism Stone" at the junction of the AP and DP, Once you take a close look at the context of the socket remaining at that junction, the notion that 'a block of stone was affixed there which served a security function to prevent detection of the upper structure' quickly vaporizes. The importance of applying modern standards of proof to traditional thought cannot be overstated. It's the first principle that must be applied before we can begin to glean what really happened back then.
> WHo new about "Denisovan" more than 30 years ago ?
> Who know that Nearderthals were more and more skilled
> than what nowadays we realise they were?
Those with a modicum of insight into human nature understand how easily an advanced civiliation can be thrown back to the "stone age" with a single destructive event. Just look at what's going on in Puerto Rico at this moment. Two huge storms hit them, back to back, and now weeks later 91% of the entire area is still without power and the people are scrambling for food, water, and medical supplies with no end in sight. There is no official law and order across the vast expanse of that island. Many of them are leaving in masses to the USA mainland. And that's just because of a few days of rain and wind.
It's not at all farfetched that many, far larger catastrophes have happened to this planet, due to its own climate change, natural tectonic cycles, solar cycles, other astronmical events, and any combination thereof, to cause vastly wider devastation than a "mere" focal surface storm. Entire swaths of infrastructure destroyed, covered with geological flows, up to dozens of yards thick, or more.
> Then the "linear" time line applied by
> archaeologyst must be reviewed and revisited
> posing to ourself,
> the Historical Researchers, the obbligation to
> apply the method of the " 5 W ", in many details and
> question: macro and micro geo-phisycal condition,
> and macro and micro climatic events and
> changements, which brought us a "new way to consider"
I submit to you that archaeologists are not qualified to establish such a timeline in isolation, especially when technological development contributes to that timeline. In my view, the Dynastic timeline is absurdly obsolete simply because it was established by experts in religion, language, and art with little or no considering put into the time required to develop the knowledge, tools, and methods to achieve what is arguably the most significant evidence: the stonework.
> Specifically in the question of Ubaid culture, one
> question is important:
> From South Iraq going to North Iraq Ubaid people
> (Who) had to walk a long distance in a not
> very comfortable land,
> an alluvional plan, or to boating against a
> certainly strong river stream(at that time) to the
> Why ? Where it appened ? For
> What purposes they did it ? When ?
> Asnwer to such " 5 W" question will lead
> toward what most probably went on.
This brings me to the "H" question: "How?" Discussing the migration of Ubaid is one thing, but what about any technology that's been attributed to a culture? As we see with the Dynastics, asking only the "W" questions has led the funerary paradigm essentially to a dead end in explaning all that stonework. But add "How did they do all that?" to the equation, and some new facets are revealed on the jewel we call 'ancient civilization' which must be reconciled with the physical evidence before being able to lay cliam to any credible timeline.
> ... that are just my prsonal opinion
> (and NOT inside the mainstream) toughs of mine.
Likewise, and I'm thinking that you don't really mean "personal opinion", but rather "hypothesis, based on the available physical evidence".
Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 07-Oct-17 14:42 by Origyptian.