[deleted]
Indigenous civilizations are far older and more complex than history suggests
11–20 of 82 posts
Re: Indigenous civilizations are far older and more complex than history suggests
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
I highly recommend the book 1491, which goes pretty deeply into what we can infer about the pre-Columbian Americas.
I’m currently reading it. It’s mind blowing to see that there were peoples in Americas further than 13k years ago. For those looking to read it, make sure to get the 400-some page version of this book. There is a similarly named book aimed at grade school kids. https://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelations-Americas-Before-Colu... https://www.amazon.com/Before-Columbus-Americas-Charles-Mann...
there's also the sequel, 1493, about the post-contact era:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1493:_Uncovering_the_New_World...
https://www.amazon.com/1493-Uncovering-World-Columbus-Create...
Re: Indigenous civilizations are far older and more complex than history suggests
#13Major factual error in the article that undermines the significance of these findings:
> Like the Meadowcroft site, Monte Verde has been dated to as many as 19,000 years ago. Together the sites are important and do more than help us understand how and when North America was settled; they also show that there were people in North America well before the Bering land bridge formed about 10,000 years ago, throwing into dispute the theory that North America was settled primarily by Asiatic wanderers over the bridge.
The Bering land bridge was NOT formed 10000 years ago -- that's when it was covered by water.
All this proves is that people settled in one place 19000 years ago. They probably still came from Asia. Nothing revolutionary here.
Re: Indigenous civilizations are far older and more complex than history suggests
#14Aren't all civilizations far older and more complex than history can account for? We don't really know how the pyramids arrived, or a detailed history of England back very far -- who created Stonehenge? It's interesting that the migration out of Africa and over to the Americas happened so much longer ago than previously thought, but it doesn't change what happened when the European settlers arrived. The author seems…
The justification frequently used for western colonialism/conquest is the principle of “Terra Nullius”, in short, the native peoples with their primative technology are not fully utilising the land, and we’re doing them a favor by conquering them.
it turns out after the fact that in many respects, particularly with regards to agriculture, land management, diplomacy, and some areas of engineering, the native people were more advanced, and the permanent loss of that knowledge is a tragedy for the world.
Re: Indigenous civilizations are far older and more complex than history suggests
#15I was looking at some of Egypt's history. Kind of interesting the Old Kingdom figured out pyramids, built the biggest only around 100 years after the first, then it was all downhill from there. Makes me wonder if we hit a high point landing people on the moon, and everything's just going to go downhill for the next few thousand years.
How was it “downhill” from there? The great pyramid is rather simple as far as art and cultural complexity goes. I would actually say it is quite crude, and later middle and new dynastic period works are much more impressive, even if they are less gargantuan in scale.
> The great pyramid is rather simple as far as art and cultural complexity goes.
That may be so, but it remains as a feat of project unmatched in their history, the one great wonder that survived. I am not sure how many would be able to name the pyramids that came after. There's a huge amount of precision involved and a huge amount of effort required of the culture to complete.
Similarly you could argue that with space exploration we've become significantly more advanced, our probes and instruments can do things the ones in the 60's couldn't. Yet, we haven't sent anymore humans past low earth orbit. In a sense we've advanced, the individual efforts remain great, but our cultural efforts have retreated, the weight of humanity is not where it once was.
What's most going to be remembered of our culture in 5000 years?
Re: Indigenous civilizations are far older and more complex than history suggests
#16Aren't all civilizations far older and more complex than history can account for? We don't really know how the pyramids arrived, or a detailed history of England back very far -- who created Stonehenge? It's interesting that the migration out of Africa and over to the Americas happened so much longer ago than previously thought, but it doesn't change what happened when the European settlers arrived. The author seems…
> We don't really know how the pyramids arrived, or a detailed history of England back very far -- who created Stonehenge? We actually know answers to both of those questions fairly well now. Archeology has advanced, and what questions remain are mostly a matter of details.
It doesn't seem likely Khufu had actually built the pyramids, but modified them into his own vision. We still don't know what the pyramids were originally designed for, but it seems unlikely the previous owner had intended it to be a tomb.
Re: Indigenous civilizations are far older and more complex than history suggests
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
How was it “downhill” from there? The great pyramid is rather simple as far as art and cultural complexity goes. I would actually say it is quite crude, and later middle and new dynastic period works are much more impressive, even if they are less gargantuan in scale.
> The great pyramid is rather simple as far as art and cultural complexity goes. That may be so, but it remains as a feat of project unmatched in their history, the one great wonder that survived. I am not sure how many would be able to name the pyramids that came after. There's a huge amount of precision involved and a huge amount of effort required of the culture to complete. Similarly you could argue that with spa…
The International Space Station gas happened since, which has been continuously lived in. That's an achievement compared to a short trip on the moon kicking a few rocks.
Re: Indigenous civilizations are far older and more complex than history suggests
#18[deleted]
Re: Indigenous civilizations are far older and more complex than history suggests
#19Aren't all civilizations far older and more complex than history can account for? We don't really know how the pyramids arrived, or a detailed history of England back very far -- who created Stonehenge? It's interesting that the migration out of Africa and over to the Americas happened so much longer ago than previously thought, but it doesn't change what happened when the European settlers arrived. The author seems…
The justification frequently used for western colonialism/conquest is the principle of “Terra Nullius”, in short, the native peoples with their primative technology are not fully utilising the land, and we’re doing them a favor by conquering them. it turns out after the fact that in many respects, particularly with regards to agriculture, land management, diplomacy, and some areas of engineering, the native people we…
For sure. But there are countless other examples of people being conquered too, all over the world, and not just by Europeans. There is no justification needed, other than that's what humans did back then. It was a much more primitive and brutal example of survival of the fittest. And as much as it offends our sensibilities now, it is the very path that leads us to where we find ourselves today.
We can struggle to be more just and compassionate with each other today, but our ancestors lived in a very different and harsh reality. It's not pretty, but it was a reality for a lot longer than this brief period we're living in now.
Re: Indigenous civilizations are far older and more complex than history suggests
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We don't really know how the pyramids arrived, or a detailed history of England back very far -- who created Stonehenge? We actually know answers to both of those questions fairly well now. Archeology has advanced, and what questions remain are mostly a matter of details.
It doesn't seem likely Khufu had actually built the pyramids, but modified them into his own vision. We still don't know what the pyramids were originally designed for, but it seems unlikely the previous owner had intended it to be a tomb.
AFAIK that’s a YouTube myth. The burial chamber is built into the structure of the pyramid, not mined out of it; there is no evidence of retrofitting. We’ve uncovered and dated work sites and living areas for the people who constructed it, which coincide with known old kingdom chronology. That theory also doesn’t explain why there happens to be exactly three major pyramids at that site with minor pyramids in numbers that coincide with three generations of pharaohs and their consorts. It also doesn’t explain the clear progression of pyramid building leading up to the Great pyramids at Giza.