Archaeologica.org

Putting the ruler in the last three really helps.

(Pass that message along, would you?)

Katherine Reece wrote:

stellarchaser wrote: I'm very sorry that both of you have no will to investigate further

I have already said that I was willing to look at this ... I was merely ageeing with Rene that these things can be overstated.

It is really not my intention to overstate anything, because I think that such discussion is not appropriate. Nor my intention is to make any "sensational" claims which belong, in my opinion, rather to "yellow press" than to site like this.

As for advanced mathematics of habitants of Lepenski Vir, I was reading in many interviews of respected archeologists who excavated (and they still excavate sites of that culture).
As I said before, they used some mathematical method discovered 8000 years later in 18th century BC. I'll give my best to find it in english.

ReneDescartes wrote:Just finished examining the claim made by some that the Vinca script was the first form of writing in human history .May I remind the authors of this thesis that their claims are not accepted by international scientific community unanimously as is the theory that sumerian scripture is the first example given by history .A good source of information is wickypedia on this subject or google,just type vinca script and enjoy .At least I did my homework and took time in examining all available sources on the internet to come to the conclusion that the theory of vinca symbols to be the first known example of human script is based on speculations lacking solid evidence .Sorry stellarchaser it seems to me we reached different conclusions .What made you and others so certain of your statement ?Do you have better information ?Again feel free to share .From the confrontment of ideas knowledge is born .

I'm very sorry, but I hope you've seen the link I gave you - this is a script. (or you suggesting that those letters came to existance when few neolithic hippies had too much "grass"?) Numerous scientists now accepting the fact that first letter appeared in this region. I would like also to underline that Vinca script is not appearing only in Serbia, but it has been found on rather much larger teritory, covering south-east and east Europe.

Again, I will try to get you informations from archeological seminars and symposiums where serious archeologists have no doubts about Vinca script. Only problem with the script is that it's very difficult to decipher it, since no one knows which language it is.

May I remind the authors of this thesis that their claims are not accepted by international scientific community unanimously as is the theory that sumerian scripture is the first example given by history

Science is sometime like church - it doesn't like to change its dogmas, although it is obvious that in science cannot be any dogmas. Sometimes its very hard to accept the fact that history books have to be rewritten. Science is about discovering new facts, not preserving existing ones. I hope you'll agree with me in this.

main argument of "truth keepers" was that Vinca script isn't script, but "bunch of signs". Silly argument, because each alphabet is bunch of signs. If you pay attention on Vinca Script letters, you'll notice that they have some (though distant) simmilarities with latter Greek alphabet and Etruscan script.

Thanks for researching this. I'll give my best to post any useful information I can find too

Yamemaru wrote:http://www.piramidasunca.ba/news/300606/P1010030.jpg
http://www.piramidasunca.ba/news/300606/P1010029.jpg
http://www.piramidasunca.ba/news/300606/P1010028.jpg
http://www.piramidasunca.ba/news/300606/pm_plato_6.jpg
http://www.piramidasunca.ba/news/300606/pm_plato_8.jpg
http://www.piramidasunca.ba/news/300606/P1010021.jpg

images.

another bunch of shots of jointed bedrock, eh?

Science is sometime like church - it doesn't like to change its dogmas

An apt analogy, SC. Although in science sometimes the big dog has to die in order for the little dogs to be able to bark.

In church they always hunt around for the guy who most thinks like the guy who just died. No wonder they never progress.

stellarchaser wrote: Science is sometime like church - it doesn't like to change its dogmas, although it is obvious that in science cannot be any dogmas. Sometimes its very hard to accept the fact that history books have to be rewritten. Science is about discovering new facts, not preserving existing ones. I hope you'll agree with me in this.

Man, that's quite a bad comparison.

In science new ideas are very strictly tested and peer reviewed, sometimes very harshly, yes. It's the scientist's duty to defend his new idea with facts and experimental evidence, and if he succeeds that new idea will be adopted by the other scientists.

This doesn't happen because scientists don't want to change their dogma, it's because they don't want wrong theories on their books!!!

It's not a dogma at all because by definition scientific theories are bound to change.

The problem here is that there's people that won't accept this strict test. When those rocks were claimed to be natural, instead of answers like "well no, they're man-made because as you can see in that picture blah blah" we had "Mr. Harding is an idiot" or "you're just jealous because we have a pyramid and you don't". (I don't mean you did it, eh? you're being quite reasonable

AND, Osma is a very bad scientist. He already made up his mind about the pyramids by just looking at that hill. He did drawings showing step pyramids under hills, put up names related to sun and moon cults etc. and then he started digging. That's as anti-science as it can be: instead of creating a theory from facts and experimental findings, he is adapting the findings and facts so they fit his theory.

alrom wrote:

stellarchaser wrote: Science is sometime like church - it doesn't like to change its dogmas, although it is obvious that in science cannot be any dogmas. Sometimes its very hard to accept the fact that history books have to be rewritten. Science is about discovering new facts, not preserving existing ones. I hope you'll agree with me in this.

Man, that's quite a bad comparison.

In science new ideas are very strictly tested and peer reviewed, sometimes very harshly, yes. It's the scientist's duty to defend his new idea with facts and experimental evidence, and if he succeeds that new idea will be adopted by the other scientists.

This doesn't happen because scientists don't want to change their dogma, it's because they don't want wrong theories on their books!!!

It's not a dogma at all because by definition scientific theories are bound to change.

The problem here is that there's people that won't accept this strict test. When those rocks were claimed to be natural, instead of answers like "well no, they're man-made because as you can see in that picture blah blah" we had "Mr. Harding is an idiot" or "you're just jealous because we have a pyramid and you don't". (I don't mean you did it, eh? you're being quite reasonable

AND, Osma is a very bad scientist. He already made up his mind about the pyramids by just looking at that hill. He did drawings showing step pyramids under hills, put up names related to sun and moon cults etc. and then he started digging. That's as anti-science as it can be: instead of creating a theory from facts and experimental findings, he is adapting the findings and facts so they fit his theory.

This doesn't happen because scientists don't want to change their dogma, it's because they don't want wrong theories on their books!!!

Alrom,
have you seen Vinca Script letters on the link I posted few pages ago? What is this in your opinion? Script or something else? Please, just tell me your opinion, bacuse I would like to believe that you're having one of your own.

we had "Mr. Harding is an idiot"

Harding didn't do his assessment properly. I think it's obvious to any archeologist.

AND, Osma is a very bad scientist.

Osma, as you said, is NOT scientist at all. So it's pointless to acuse him to be anti-scientist.

Minimalist wrote:

Science is sometime like church - it doesn't like to change its dogmas

An apt analogy, SC. Although in science sometimes the big dog has to die in order for the little dogs to be able to bark.

In church they always hunt around for the guy who most thinks like the guy who just died. No wonder they never progress.

you're right there. Big dogs in science are like old politicians - when they can't have sex anymore, they screw whole world instead. Worst thing is when big dog suffers from impotency, in creativity and ability to understand that little dogs will do his job better.

stellarchaser wrote:
This doesn't happen because scientists don't want to change their dogma, it's because they don't want wrong theories on their books!!!

Alrom,
have you seen Vinca Script letters on the link I posted few pages ago? What is this in your opinion? Script or something else? Please, just tell me your opinion, bacuse I would like to believe that you're having one of your own.

I must tell that I'm not sure about it. It's quite over me to say if it's a script or not, but to me it looks like a proto-script -> symbols with meanings, but not a full script, li.e. a symbolic representation of a language.

we had "Mr. Harding is an idiot"

Harding didn't do his assessment properly. I think it's obvious to any archeologist.

I'd really like to see or read what did Dr. Harding do there. I mean, we only have a press note citing his words and then what the Pyramid Foundation says he did (which knowing the Foundation's record I won't give much credit to it).

But anyway, do you understand that an expert can check if some rocks are natural or man-made in less than 10 minutes, IF those rocks are obviously natural (or man-made?) I mean, you could take Dr. Harding to Notre-Dame and ask him, are those stones natural or man-made? he would answer at the moment without the need for further analysis. I know this is an exaggeration, but I hope it serves to show my point of view.

AND, Osma is a very bad scientist.

Osma, as you said, is NOT scientist at all. So it's pointless to acuse him to be anti-scientist.

But he's trying to do science. He tries and he does it awfully!

alrom wrote:

stellarchaser wrote:
This doesn't happen because scientists don't want to change their dogma, it's because they don't want wrong theories on their books!!!

Alrom,
have you seen Vinca Script letters on the link I posted few pages ago? What is this in your opinion? Script or something else? Please, just tell me your opinion, bacuse I would like to believe that you're having one of your own.

I must tell that I'm not sure about it. It's quite over me to say if it's a script or not, but to me it looks like a proto-script -> symbols with meanings, but not a full script, li.e. a symbolic representation of a language.

we had "Mr. Harding is an idiot"

Harding didn't do his assessment properly. I think it's obvious to any archeologist.

I'd really like to see or read what did Dr. Harding do there. I mean, we only have a press note citing his words and then what the Pyramid Foundation says he did (which knowing the Foundation's record I won't give much credit to it).

But anyway, do you understand that an expert can check if some rocks are natural or man-made in less than 10 minutes, IF those rocks are obviously natural (or man-made?) I mean, you could take Dr. Harding to Notre-Dame and ask him, are those stones natural or man-made? he would answer at the moment without the need for further analysis. I know this is an exaggeration, but I hope it serves to show my point of view.

AND, Osma is a very bad scientist.

Osma, as you said, is NOT scientist at all. So it's pointless to acuse him to be anti-scientist.

But he's trying to do science. He tries and he does it awfully!

But anyway, do you understand that an expert can check if some rocks are natural or man-made in less than 10 minutes, IF those rocks are obviously natural (or man-made?)

You see that there is "little war" about the alleged pyramids in Bosnia; proper archeological assessment would definitely give some answers. Harding, God knows why, failed to do that. Now we have only his word, and I don't trust anyone on his word, when we talking about the science. Neither to Harding, neither to Osmanagich. I wait results of excavations.

one picture looks like an old well not an entrance and if it was an entrance, where does it lead to? why haven't they dug around it or through it yet to see where it goes?

archaeologist wrote:one picture looks like an old well not an entrance and if it was an entrance, where does it lead to? why haven't they dug around it or through it yet to see where it goes?

I think thet they too much work, and only few archeologists. That's why excavations are going bit slow.

stellarchaser wrote:

archaeologist wrote:one picture looks like an old well not an entrance and if it was an entrance, where does it lead to? why haven't they dug around it or through it yet to see where it goes?

I think thet they too much work, and only few archeologists. That's why excavations are going bit slow.

A proper excavation, especially of an obviously man-made area, must be by its very nature slow, careful, and meticulous.

Beagle wrote:

stellarchaser wrote:

archaeologist wrote:one picture looks like an old well not an entrance and if it was an entrance, where does it lead to? why haven't they dug around it or through it yet to see where it goes?

I think thet they too much work, and only few archeologists. That's why excavations are going bit slow.

A proper excavation, especially of an obviously man-made area, must be by its very nature slow, careful, and meticulous.

I fully agree. I noticed that Nancy Gallou (greek archeologist) is working on this very spot for days.

I would like to add my two cents about the Vinca script. First, let me say right off that I am no formally ecucated expert on ancient scripts. That said ancient scripts have been of great intrest to me for much of my life and so, in spite of my lack of university training on the subject, I feel I might be able to add something of worth here.

It is my understanding that that the current consensus regarding the Vinca characters is that they represent a form of proto-script...not quite a written language but meaningful and more advanced than mere decorations to be sure. To the best of my knowledge only short groupings of the characters have been found, no long texts, making translation as such extremely difficult. The writing of the Indus civilization shows similar short character groupings and similar translation difficulties. It is speculated that the Vinca script is actually more akin to proto-Egyptian (not linguistically) writing in that regard...more likely a system of symbols designating such information as container content and personal identification markers than to an actual fully formed writing system capable of recording the spoken language of its users.

Certainly the Vinca symbols are very interesting and a very early example of humanity's march towards literacy but the claim that they represent the worlds earliest writing system, at this time, is not proven or accepted by the majority of scholars. I would love to discuss the Vinca characters (and all other ancient writing systems) further, but maybe that is the topic for another thread? This thread is a little top heavy already...