Neolithic pottery burials sign of 1 worldwide civilization?

[PaulMarcW]

http://www.beforebc.de/Made.by.Humankin ... 08-10.html

At the link are six other pages (there are more not shown) each presenting a group of common artefacts where all pages taken together may be an indication of a single, prehistoric, worldwide civilization. Or maybe not an indication of a single, prehistoric, worldwide civilization.

[PaulMarcW]

Here is an example of further evidence of a single, worldwide culture that predated the Bronze Age. And was this the precedent for the hieroglyphics found in early Egypt (see 3, 4, and 5 as a precedent for 8, 9, and 10)?


http://www.beforebc.de/Made.by.Humankin ... 00-08.html

I will be away for some days.

All the best,


.

[War Arrow]

Minor point here. You've mislabelled 16 on the first of these pages. It's unlikely that anyone ever calling themselves Aztec arrived in the Valley of Mexico until about 1100ce, 900ce at absolute earliest - and by the time they did, they'd ceased to refer to themselves as Aztec (although that's another topic altogether - the posthumous term has become useful if less than accurate). The major civilisation circa 500ce were Teotihuacano and I've heard it argued that they spoke Mixe-Zoque and were thus from an entirely different cultural group to the later Uto-Aztecans (though have also heard it suggested that the Teotihuacanos may have been Uto-Aztecan after all, which is absolutey not the same as being Aztec).

Still disagree with the basic premise, but I ain't getting into that one!

[Minimalist]

Now that I finally have some free time, I visited your web site, Paul. (It's a lot easier to read.)

1) The dug-out canoe click.
2) Common hair care products – the comb click
3) Pyramids click.
4) Neolithic pottery burials click .
5) Board games part 1 click .
6) Rock art click.

Let me take these in order.

1 and 2. I don't buy this. There is a theory in anthropology (can't think of the name of it offhand) which basically says that there are only a certain number of logical ways to do something. The best example is an oar. No matter how you decorate it, shape it, carve it, at some point it has to have a wide part to go in the water and a narrow part to serve as a handle. So it doesn't take a great deal of imagination for someone to see that a log they could ride on could also be hollowed out to sit in. Likewise, a comb with teeth to go through the hair makes a great deal more sense than a solid block of wood.

3 - Yes there are pyramids all over the world and their function may or may not be similar. But the disparity in age between them argues against much in the way of a remote common ancestor.

4 - Jomon pottery in Japan dates back to 14,000 BC and I would not be a bit surprised to eventually find pottery in the Sahara dating back to the end of the Ice Age. The Sahara only started drying out in relatively recent geologic times. Were I looking for a remote common ancestor I think I'd start there.

5 - Again an interesting idea which can't be dismissed outright. The possibility of independent creation can't be ignored but sometimes one has to weigh the odds.

6 - I agree with you. The similarity in rock art has been mentioned before around here. Some of it far pre-dates your time frame but all that means is that you might want to go back further. Unlike the canoe and the comb, art is not "technological." The mind of the artist controls what he wishes to draw. Art does not have to perform a function - it has to convey an idea. Thus, it does not really matter if a picture of a buffalo really looks like a buffalo as long as someone looking at it gets the idea. The similarity in artistic ideas seems to back the remote common ancestor idea.

I'll give you another one to think about.

The repeated use of red ochre in burials from Neanderthals down to HSS. That's another one that seems to serve no practical purpose so why the shared symbolism? Do we have red-ochre burials in Africa?


BTW, I wasn't breaking your balls with the X. I was just playing with Ish and Monk.

[PaulMarcW]

[WA writes] Minor point here. You've mislabelled 16 on the first of these pages.

[Marc writes] Hello WA. You are referring to image 16 here: http://www.beforebc.de/Made.by.Humankin ... 08-10.html

Thanks for pointing that out. I will get around to changing it. Not immediately (not too much time these days); but I will change it.

[WA writes] Still disagree with the basic premise, but I ain't getting into that one!

[Marc writes] I’ll mention it elsewhere where someone brought up the point as to why I don’t respond much. Three reasons:

Anything of value (to others it may have none – that’s okay) that I have to say I have put on some given page – so I have often nothing further to say about the matter. And, to be honest, a few times someone has raised a question about something that a more careful read of the page would have shown I already addressed.

The second reason is that years back, I’d debate and argue at the drop of a hat. These days I’m so much not into that - though there are sometimes exceptions. If someone disagrees, that’s their right and that’s okay. (I see you have the same feeling).

The last reason is I have little time at the computer as taking care of the kids often has me out of the city and away from my computer for four days out of seven during the summer. When I'm here, I'm trying to put seven days into three - so little computer time left.

[Minamalist writes in italic and Marc’s comments regular]

1 and 2. I don't buy this. <snip>

I'd note that where the black, red, and brown stick figures are found is where these other things are found.

On a different note, I was involved with researchers looking at the occurrence of the shoulder-blade used as an oar from at least middle paleolithic times. In Hungary where I am, the word "lap" means both shoulder blade of a deer calf and it was used as a paddle in early canoes. Soft as it was, it was also inscribed on by shaman and took on the name and meaning of paper. And paper today in Hungary, 15,000 years later, has the same name (lap) as does paddle (lap), and many flat things are still called lap. Hungarian, as you know, is a Finn-Ugrik language (the Ugrik part) and Finnish also has a zillion words with the lap root and same meaning as found in Hungarian. The name for paper in Hungary (and newspaper, too) is "lap."

As you know, from the Amur River Basin in Siberia was the "axis" as it were, extending between Japan and Alaska and boats and this technology went in each direction. You can find "Lap" in Polynesia (I'd say it wasn't accident but it's a long, long discussion and I don't expect you to buy it).

Anyhow, just really interesting stuff.

3 - Yes there are pyramids all over the world and their function may or may not be similar. But the disparity in age between them argues against much in the way of a remote common ancestor. <snip>

4 - Jomon pottery in Japan dates back to 14,000 BC and I would not be a bit surprised to eventually find pottery in the Sahara dating back to the end of the Ice Age. The Sahara only started drying out in relatively recent geologic times. Were I looking for a remote common ancestor I think I'd start there. <snip>

I spent a zillion hours looking for Saharan pottery dating to the earliest Jomon (and as you know, Jomon pottery has roots to a still earlier occurrence of pottery in Siberia and was carried to Japan by demic transfusion of early seafarers). Fascinating subject here of pottery origins. I do hear you, though.


Thanks for the comments and all the best,

[Minimalist]

Anyhow, just really interesting stuff.

And, Paul, you also have a talent for understatement!