Humans 80,000 years older than previously thought?

[Schuyler]

This just goes to show you what fabulous advances in science and art happened after the Christians took over.
This period was known as the Dark Ages, was it not?

It really wasn't all that dark. In fact, modern scholarship does not use the term at all. It's a term used in popular culture. The Renaissance didn't just 'happen' out of whole cloth. It came out of the Middle Ages which berthed it. There were many scientific advances during the so-called Dark Ages, especially in agriculture, smithing, and related infrastructure. In the same realm the Roman Empire didn't really 'fall' either. The western half fell apart, but that was after Constantine moved the seat of the Empire to what is now Istanbul and essentially abandoned Rome, which was taken over by barbarians--who really weren't that barbaric. They had well-developed art and literature, for example, and had lived 'in the country' of the Roman Empire for years and had soaked up that culture as well. Many of the so-called barbaric leaders were, in fact, Roman citizens who had spent time in the legions earning their citizenship and learning Roman tactics. That's what happened in teh Teutoberg Forest, for example, when a 'Roman Citizen' tricked Varus to send the legions into a trap, where they were slaughtered. It was the greatest military betrayal in history.

The Eastern Roman Empire lasted an additional 1000 years until finally overrun by the Ottomans. The Eastern Roman Empire actually considered taking back the western provinces, but abandoned the project as 'too expensive.' Constantine's 'conversion' to Christianity vaulted the Catholic Church into power virtually over night. There is a lot that can be laid at the feet of Constantine in what happened subsequently.

I'm not saying the 'dark ages" didn't happen, but what really happened is much more varied and complex than what is usually portrayed. Meanwhile, in China and India--civilization flourished.

 

[ddd999]

I once read that humans as a species suffers from a case of collective amnesia… so true, we don’t have a clue about our past. Than again, we aren’t suppose to know… because knowledge is power, and power is reserved… for a selected few . All throughout history up to a present day., we are treated as mushrooms, they feed us shit and keep us in the dark.

 

[Schuyler]

That's an interesting perspective, and if you take the conspiracy part put of it I think that's pretty close to what happened. It's more a matter of logistics than anything else.

For example, if the Flood really happened about 12,000 years ago when an ice dam broke and allowed the water in Hudson Bay to flood into the Atlantic (See Graham Hancock's 'Underworld'), then figure out what had to have happened. Here we had a near-Renaissance culture, particularly in India with cities near the seashore for commerce. The flood wipes them out by raising the sea level sixty feet and the people left have lost their infrastructure almost entirely. It's not like they could stick the stories on the Internet. All they can do is talk about it, so the oral tradition kicks in and he flood story seeps into mythology where we find it today--not just in the Bible, but in every other oral tradition that has been translated. Meanwhile, rebuilding efforts wipe out most of the evidence--just like when Cairo was built from the facing stones of the Pyrmaid. You might think it would be easy to just dive on the wreckage, but diving is tough and expensive and the water is murky in most places. besides, it's not as if you'll find whole buildings any more.

We tend to forget that the way most civilizations expanded in the past is not so much absorbing other cultures, but by wiping them out entirely. You kill all the men, burn the village (and the books and libraries), and place the women and children into slavery. You re-populate with your own people. It's easier that way and you don't have pockets of resistance to deal with. It's hard to preserve history when you take that approach.

Of course, oral traditions tend to peter out and morph into completely different stories with only a shadow of the truth. There have been attempts to get beyond this. That's what the Masons tried to do. The whole issue is to memorize given texts verbatim so that members are walking encyclopedias of precisely remembered knowledge. However, even here subsequent perversions and agendas wrecked the pure stories to the point that they are now a hodge-podge of mis-information. As usual, people paid more attention to the ritual than the message. At least they tried.

I don't think there is any secret cabal keeping us from the truth, it's just the nature of civilization and humanity that makes it impossible to preserve truth for any length of time.

 

[ddd999]

I agree with you Schuyler. On the other side I’m glad you mentioned freemasons and the way their secrets are communicated by the spoken word only . Absolute knowledge is reserved for only selected few and gives them the power over uninitiated. Same is/was in any religion/priesthood/kingship …. Knowledge of divine that gives them power to rule over masses. Than there is a privileged inner circle that's aloud to see the whole picture. It truly is a pyramidal structure and we are on the bottom of it.
I’m not saying that there was/is some big conspiracy going on from the year Zero till today, but there is a lot of stuff going on that we will never know… Reason being- corruption and ultimately ...god-like power of rule and control.
As they say - power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Hope you can make sense of my ramblings…

 

[Kieran]

Imagine for a moment the fossils of dinosaurs are actually reptilian alien fossils lol that would be one for the books No it was stupid to think man has not existed longer on this planet then stated by so called scientists.But in ways they can be forgiven not much of our pre-ancient past exists anymore.

 

[showflake]

I agree with you Schuyler. On the other side I’m glad you mentioned freemasons and the way their secrets are communicated by the spoken word only . Absolute knowledge is reserved for only selected few and gives them the power over uninitiated. Same is/was in any religion/priesthood/kingship …. Knowledge of divine that gives them power to rule over masses. Than there is a privileged inner circle that's aloud to see the whole picture. It truly is a pyramidal structure and we are on the bottom of it.
I’m not saying that there was/is some big conspiracy going on from the year Zero till today, but there is a lot of stuff going on that we will never know… Reason being- corruption and ultimately ...god-like power of rule and control.
As they say - power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Hope you can make sense of my ramblings…

Even if the elite didn't keep sicrets, there is a kid of a universal embargo on Earth, which prevents people from knowing too much. And it works on a personal level too. No matter what you research you will just not be able to connect the dots until the powers let you do that.

Which is ok, because people are dangerous, and should be kept in dark about certain things. You don't let children play with matches. One has to earn a right to know.
Not everyone can be trusted, specially not masses.

After the destruction (flood, and all that stuff) it became necessary that mankind "forgets" their technology and knowledge, and start over. It's the only way
we learn anything, which is why it happened in the first place, and will probably happen again

 

[Schuyler]

Even if the elite didn't keep sicrets, there is a kid of a universal embargo on Earth, which prevents people from knowing too much. And it works on a personal level too. No matter what you research you will just not be able to connect the dots until the powers let you do that.

At a certain kind of meta-level I think you are correct. (DISCLAIMER: I don't really claim to know, but...) if the whole issue revolves around reincarnation and the 'veil of forgetfulness' and all that stuff, then that would appear to be the case. Our being kept in the dark is, indeed, intentional (/Disclaimer). But at our mutually perceptive level "here on earth" I don't see any evidence. Of course, I'm not supposed to! My take on so-called conspiracies like the Masons is that even if they did have some secrets to share a long time ago, they have devolved into silly stories without current relevance.

The cool thing about conspiracies, though, is that you can't really disprove them, so people have kind of a perpetual license to let their imaginations run away with them. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with some pure abject speculation once in awhile. Who knows? We may come across something interesting.

 

[showflake]

I don't think that its any kind of conspiracy , because conspiracy is something based on bad intentions.

I think we are at times the embargo on knowledge has loosened, which is why we got so many new inventions and development in such a short time.
But they are still careful with us

And on individual level, well yea, essentially same rules apply, if you can prove you are responsible your eyes are opened and you discover something, or if you are a truly negative person, you might from time to time be let off the chain, so to speak, to cause some harm, for another purpose.
But either way, you are blinded to the truth until it is allowed for you to know.

And neither do I claim to know anything, I'm just putting some ideas here

 

[sandman]

i think that over the billions of years earth has existed there have been thousands of civilazations rise,fall and be forgotten. we are just the latest experiment and at the rate we are going the re-set button is going to be hit soon.

 

[jarshua]

It happened before, I don't see the rason why it won't happen again. And to illustrate my point, check European art in a 700 years period:

That is really interesting, but it makes me think. If I Painted a chapel ceiling next week and it looked much worse than the Sistine Chapel(which I'm sure it would) would future historians say we went backwards as a civilization? I don't know anything about art history, do most of the samples of art from those periods reflect the same skill level, or is it a case of individual talents no matter what the time period?

 

[Kevin Daly]

The quality of artistic output can vary over time for all sorts of reasons, and they don't necessarily equate to a loss of technology or knowledge overall - for instance, the introduction of mass-production (which has occurred more than once in historical times) can lead to a decline in the artistic quality of output. Skilled professions are also dependent on the health of the society in which they operate - that's one of the reasons skills are often lost during times of massive disruption - someone has to be able to pay for specialists and provide a secure environment for them to train and operate.

I would love to believe that there were advanced civilisations (human or otherwise) in the distant past, but I don't see that the facts support it. Where is the evidence for domestication of crops or animals? Where is the evidence that any significant part of the Earth was not in a wild or pristine state and full of either large and growly animals or our ancestors who were still demonstrably at a low level of technology? If it's there, great, but where?

 

[Schuyler]

I would love to believe that there were advanced civilisations (human or otherwise) in the distant past, but I don't see that the facts support it. Where is the evidence for domestication of crops or animals? Where is the evidence that any significant part of the Earth was not in a wild or pristine state and full of either large and growly animals or our ancestors who were still demonstrably at a low level of technology? If it's there, great, but where?

I agree. The evidence for anything past 1200BC is just anecdotal at best. Here's a great site that shows the archaeological evidence collected so far, including population dynamics. A lot of the newer studies using DNA have advanced our knowledge in this area: http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/. I frankly think there is plenty of evidence from a wide variety of sources for a near-Renaissance culture cica 12000BC, but as you go further back there is no evidence that the population was large enough to support anything really advanced.

 

[sandman]

just to entertain the whole art=knowledge and technolocical advancness thing, look at so called modern art we have, alot of it looks like piles of junk yet folks love it, imagine what beings in a million years might think of us if they just go by our art.

 

[Artyom]

The quality of artistic output can vary over time for all sorts of reasons, and they don't necessarily equate to a loss of technology or knowledge overall - for instance, the introduction of mass-production (which has occurred more than once in historical times) can lead to a decline in the artistic quality of output. Skilled professions are also dependent on the health of the society in which they operate - that's one of the reasons skills are often lost during times of massive disruption - someone has to be able to pay for specialists and provide a secure environment for them to train and operate.

I would love to believe that there were advanced civilisations (human or otherwise) in the distant past, but I don't see that the facts support it. Where is the evidence for domestication of crops or animals? Where is the evidence that any significant part of the Earth was not in a wild or pristine state and full of either large and growly animals or our ancestors who were still demonstrably at a low level of technology? If it's there, great, but where?

What percentage of the Oceans have we put on a map and explored so far? As far as I know only 2-3%, given the fact that Ocean level have increased for the last 10,000-12,000 years I believe the evidence is under water. The sad thing is nobody search for such evidence because scientists already sure there is nothing there because nothing can be there because we 'know' our history and 'know' that there was no advanced civilization prior to Egyptian. It's a catch 22, men made one.

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/atlantis-no-it-atlant-isnt.html

I'm not telling this image definitely shows Atlantis but I can't agree with the explanation given to this image - 'Ship tracks', why only here on this spot and not anywhere around. I think this explanation can be easily verified - just check records of various science labs to see if somebody actually checked this particular ocean bottom spot. I believe this spot has to be explored with a remote guided robot with a camera.

 

[Tommy Allison]

What percentage of the Oceans have we put on a map and explored so far? As far as I know only 2-3%, given the fact that Ocean level have increased for the last 10,000-12,000 years I believe the evidence is under water. The sad thing is nobody search for such evidence because scientists already sure there is nothing there because nothing can be there because we 'know' our history and 'know' that there was no advanced civilization prior to Egyptian. It's a catch 22, men made one.

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/atlantis-no-it-atlant-isnt.html

I'm not telling this image definitely shows Atlantis but I can't agree with the explanation given to this image - 'Ship tracks', why only here on this spot and not anywhere around. I think this explanation can be easily verified - just check records of various science labs to see if somebody actually checked this particular ocean bottom spot. I believe this spot has to be explored with a remote guided robot with a camera.

There will come a day when the oceans will reveal all their secrets. When technology and engineering know how stop looking at money as an obstacle, we'll find all manner of things on the bottom of the sea.

 

[ExoFly]

Perhaps 1.5 million years?

80,000 MORE years than previously thought--which takes us back approximately a quarter million years. Of course, finding a bunch of flint tools doesn't equate to 'civilization,' but it certainly pushes the envelope backwards significantly.

Perhaps 1.5 million years?
Though, there seems to be two tracks being discussed in this thread: [1] the appearance of anatomically modern humans and [2] the appearance of human "civilization." The NGS article cited in the lead post refers to the appearance of anatomically modern humans; to which this post is relevant:

From this Reuters article:
"Footprints found in Kenya that resemble those left in wet sand by beach goers today show that 1.5 million years ago a human ancestor walked like we do with anatomically modern feet"
...
"The size, spacing and depth of the footprint impressions allowed the scientists to estimate weight, stride and gait, which all were found to be within the range of modern humans."

"Our species, Homo sapiens, first appeared 200,000 years ago. But this shows that at least as far back as 1.5 million years ago, the human lineage walked with a modern stride, the researchers said."

 

[Schuyler]

Perhaps 1.5 million years? .... "Our species, Homo sapiens, first appeared 200,000 years ago.

As you can see from your own post, things can get confusing. Let's go back to the original post. My clarification is based on reading the original National Geographic article, which states:

"The tools were uncovered in the 1970s at the archaeological site of Gademotta, in the Ethiopian Rift Valley. But it was not until this year that new dating techniques revealed the tools to be far older than the oldest known Homo sapien bones, which are around 195,000 years old. <!--- deckend --->
<!-- GOING_NEWSCHOOL_ENLARGE -->
<!-- end rel stor subtemplate -->
Using argon-argon dating—a technique that compares different isotopes of the element argon—researchers determined that the volcanic ash layers entombing the tools at Gademotta date back at least 276,000 years."

So, I'd still say a quarter million, roughly. If you go back 1.5 million years you're getting into early Homo erectus territory or even to Homo habilis.

 

[Stillborn]

As you can see from your own post, things can get confusing. Let's go back to the original post. My clarification is based on reading the original National Geographic article, which states:



So, I'd still say a quarter million, roughly. If you go back 1.5 million years you're getting into early Homo erectus territory or even to Homo habilis.

I could be wrong, but I somewhat recall reading they found proof we go back to 1.5 mil recently. I just saw the headline, so don't know the details. Anyone else see something like this? If not, ignore my statements above. Don't want to start any rumors.

 

[Schuyler]

I'd love to see a reference. That would be exciting, for sure.

 

[Artyom]

I'd love to see a reference. That would be exciting, for sure.

The only reference I can find is the one to ground your statement
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/549430/

But I can't get rid off recalling what I read in Michael Cremo book about mainstream science rejecting any evidence which doesn't support previously accepted ideas, which quite often serves as a ground for someone's PhD.

Perhaps this news http://www.physorg.com/news152725389.html was spinning in StillBorn's mind, but it tells about tools, not bones or footprints to give us an idea about how did those tools creators looked like.