Archaeologica.org

Just a big picture question...

Are civilizations that have blossomed over the past ~10K years connected or independent?

Thanks in advance for any responses!

Interested Onlooker wrote:Just a big picture question...

Are civilizations that have blossomed over the past ~10K years connected or independent?

Thanks in advance for any responses!

IO-

Connected.

Hematite, boats.

Sorry, simply couldn't resist.

john

Yep. Thanks John and I didn't read your post until you replied.... but right on.

In response, imo, people do with what they are left with and they try to apply and adapt. Some fail and some don't. That's my interpretation of the oceanic islands. fwiw

That is the $64k question I/O. On the surface, it is hard to see any sort of relationship between Caral in Peru, China and Egypt. More of a case can be made for Harappa and Sumeria.

But perhaps Graham Hancock is right and there is a remote common ancestor?

Thanks Min! I called Graham earlier today but he had a bad connection. He was saying something about penguins...

I guess 'big picture' is taboo

Given that more than half of the world's haplotypes were trapped in three refugia at the end of the LGM (18kya), it is not surprising that ancient civilisations would bear striking similarities. However, those similarities are due to common cultural roots, not lost "civilisations" in the present sense of the word. Given that the world's population at the LGM was about 4 million there was no Atlantis with a population of millions -- that's just an embellishment on a fairy tale. However, there was a significant cultural group that worshipped the precursor to Harmakhis.

Penguins?

There is a reason they are all on big rivers.
Big rivers make good ports.

Right or wrong I believe that some connections can be made. At the same time, as an engineer, I could make an excellect argument that independent development is also perfectly possible.
A certain level of development seems to trigger the same conclusions elsewhere at the same time.
Radar is a case in point, at least five countries had secret plans for its development at the same time.
Whilst Darwin was struggling with his ideas he was almost pipped at the post by Wallace.
Einstein was accused of plagiarism till he was able to show that he had come similar conclusions as others quite independently of outside infulences.

Minimalist wrote:Penguins?

Min -

This is in reference to

the codename for a recently discovered

ancient Antarctic race of

FEATHERED HOBBITS.

Which puts the lie to

the "featherless biped" assumption.



john

The penguin reference was to Hancock's conclusion that a lost civilization was in Antarctica. Bad humor judgement on my part...apologies.

I think that conclusion has since been amended which is understandable.

Just high level, it would seem that who we are today is more than evolution can account for. Evolution's 'laws' are very scientific...all based on survival.

We have traits that are not in-line with evolution. Agreed?

Cognito, I agree with your thinking that the answers are more genetics related.

Bare with me...

Could there have been more of a genetic blending of people within the past 10 thousand years or so, globally? A very small group blending with a much larger, intrinsic (geographically) group. Could there be traits that could be tagged, genetically, to reflect this?

Interested Onlooker wrote:The penguin reference was to Hancock's conclusion that a lost civilization was in Antarctica. Bad humor judgement on my part...apologies.

I think that conclusion has since been amended which is understandable.

Okay. I went wild when I first read that too. Between that and Hapgood's crust displacement theory he almost drove me nuts. Still, other parts of the book were better.

Without getting the book out, I think Hancock was reporting on Posnanskys theory about people coming from Antarctica. I don't think he actually said that he believed that.