Educated cavemen.

[cladking]

I never know where I'm headed next. Right now I'm trying to convince scientists that that logic dictates an overhaul of the paradigm. No one has had the guts to ask how this knowledge was generated. I'm still working on it though.

The lack of a written language only impeded cavemen to the degree they could have individully learned to read and write. Generally groups were too small to have a "school" with more than a single student so the lack of books was not very limiting. They lacked paper, and access to those who might overcome this handicap. Trade was extremely limited before cities for logistical reasons. It's necessity that is the mother of invention and they had very little need for writing. There were, apparently, many individuals whose primary or sole function was to pass down history in oral form. But writing developed much later and possibly primarily by accident and serendipity.

Natural phenomena were defined anthropomorifically and became part of the language. These are what we misunderstand as "gods". For instance a natural phenomenon is the concept of inertia and was one they called "neters". When you see this word think "nature" because everywhere it's used in the ancient literature you can substitute these terms without changing meaning. This phenomenon was named "shu" and shu could stand without getting tired. His consort was "tefnut" which is what objects do when they stop "standing"; they fall. Tefnut was the goddess of downward. There's great evidence for this and I'll be happy to provide it if there's interest. Let me point out that part of the ancient understanding of nature appears to exceed our own since part of the defining characteristics of tefnut is that she was "sneezed out". Where modern man sneezes into a clothe that spreads the germs in all directions they knew to point the sneeze downward so it would fall to the floor. There was no need to point a sneeze at the floor unless they understood the concept of germs. Shu, on the other hand, was spewed out of his father atum. People might consider such things trivial but a literal understanding of the words is possible and it says who these people were and gives a description of the processes by which they built the pyramids that is actually in evidence.

For the Egyptians to know so much there is an implication that the knowledge couldn't come easily since they lacked modern science. It's apparent that at the very least they had huge amounts of observation behind them. Either philosophy was a common occupation which seems highly improbable in an era with no books or there was some other way to maintain the metaphysics by which they observed and understood nature. This strongly suggests that the most likely means was, indeed, language. Language which expresses itself through word order like computer code can generate quite complex ideas with very few words. This is exactly what exists in ancient times; very few words. Caveman knowledge grew until they could grrow their own food giving rise to cities. Cities gave rise to the need and ability to economically employ writing. Writing caused an explosion in human knowledge which so greatly complicated the language that it failed with the epicenter of this failure; "babel".

This is the state of afairs.

Today we have the opportunity to easily model this knowledge in computers. And then it can be brought up to date. The result would be extremely complicated and far beyond the ability of humans to speak or understand. It should be possible for computers. the results might be interesting.

I think the fact that "intelligence" is virtually disproven is one of the more interesting implications. I think people should know we are speaking what the ancients called "confused language". It's impossible to go back but this might help guide us going forward. People have a right to know their very distant ancestors weren't brutish and ignorant. Perhaps we can gain some insight into what it means to be human.

[Duchess]

Why are they almost always portrayed as dumb & often seen dragging their woman from place to place by their hair?

I think it's much easier to be a dummie in the modern world, people with no drive don't have to use their head for anything, anything they could possibly want is handed to them. In the days of cavemen you had to use your head in order to survive.

[cladking]

It's probably mostly caused by the change in the language. People didn't understand the writing of those who lived before the change and misunderstood everything. The misunderstanding engendered led to the belief that they were superstitious, religious, and barbaric.

Life itself before civilization in 8000 BC was brutal in most places and this brutality left its evidence in bones. People extrapolate all this to see the ancients as barbaric and highly primitive as well as violent by nature.

[HairOfTheDog]

Why are they almost always portrayed as dumb & often seen dragging their woman from place to place by their hair?

I think it's much easier to be a dummie in the modern world, people with no drive don't have to use their head for anything, anything they could possibly want is handed to them. In the days of cavemen you had to use your head in order to survive.

I don't know much about the language or lack thereof. But, it's true that cavemen had to be smart to survive as long as they did in the environment without modern conveniences.

In the scientific world, Neanderthals are no longer seen as dumb at all, though cavemen seem to continue to be depicted as such in movies and pop culture. Newer studies using more advanced science show that the caveman's brain was actually very similar to ours. Also, their diets were more advanced than commonly thought and their tool-making skills were excellent. Discovery has produced some good documentaries and articles about it over the last couple of years. Really interesting stuff.


Clad: I read something about a year ago (can't find it now) about how advanced dating technology used on recent Neanderthal findings has led archeologists and paleontologists to believe that Neanderthals and modern humans didn't actually co-exist for a couple of thousand years, as previously thought. Instead, it's contended that the overlap was only a couple of hundred years, or less. IIRC, the new researchers believe that the previous estimates were off because remains and fossils which had been processed and dated had included particles from later times which had accumulated on or around the bones and fossils.

Anyway, I think it's interesting how emerging science and/or advancement in existing technologies continues to change how history is viewed. I don't know if you're interested in any of this, but if I find that article that I referenced, I'll post the link.

[cladking]

I do keep up with the latest evidence much more than I used to but it's still not of great importance to me. I've been finding out that an awful lot of what we've been told about all the pre-historic people is largely interpretation and opinion.

Logically they were intelligent and logical so until someone has evidence to show otherwise I won't be extremely interested. It appears to me that there was a lot of "primitiveness" that affected some ancient people but it didn't affect their faculties. I believe that most of the truly heinous acts inflicted on innocent people didn't happen until after the languages were confused. War existed in the distant past ever since the invention of cities but it wasa more for the purpose of settling disputes and merging of cultures than it was for a grinding of the axes and massive blood letting.

[HairOfTheDog]

I do keep up with the latest evidence much more than I used to but it's still not of great importance to me. I've been finding out that an awful lot of what we've been told about all the pre-historic people is largely interpretation and opinion.

It's definitely interpretative and seems to be ever-changing, I agree. As an example, I watched a Nat Geo program about how DNA was extracted from a 40,000 year old Neanderthal and compared against current Homo Sapien DNA around the world. It was very exciting and considered a breakthrough when results showed that an average of 4% DNA was shared between us Homo Sapiens and all non-African Neanderthals. At the time, it was haled as proof that there was cross-breeding between the two.

Not long afterwards, other researchers began and continue to gather data that seems to refute the cross-breeding possibility and indicates that we are indeed a completely separate species of human and instead simply share the same ancient ancestry with no mating having occured between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens. So, back to the starting point and the debate goes on...

It's like a mystery to me and seems very competitive amongst the scientists. I just find it all interesting and casually follow the developing/changing theories and applications of new science to paleontology when I have time.

Logically they were intelligent and logical so until someone has evidence to show otherwise I won't be extremely interested. It appears to me that there was a lot of "primitiveness" that affected some ancient people but it didn't affect their faculties. I believe that most of the truly heinous acts inflicted on innocent people didn't happen until after the languages were confused. War existed in the distant past ever since the invention of cities but it wasa more for the purpose of settling disputes and merging of cultures than it was for a grinding of the axes and massive blood letting.

I'm over my head here as far as the language implications in regards to perceived intelligence and brutality, but I bet your interactions with scientists are interesting.

From my limited readings, I do know that it's by far the prevalent belief in the scientific world today that cavemen were intelligent; some contend as intelligent as modern humans. Recent excavations and studies have definitively shown that Neanderthals built fire, improved their craftsmanship of arrows and spears and other weapons, provided wound care for the ailing and comfort care for their elderly, buried their dead, etc.. Were they also brutal? IDK, but the old stereotype of dumb club-dragging barbarians doesn't really exist within the scientific community any longer. It's also known from remains found in an Israeli cave that Neanderthals had a hyoid bone, so speech (not limited to grunting only) was possible, at least physically.

Strange how the old hunched over dumbass caveman stereotypes continue to sometimes be perpetuated in pop culture despite all new evidence to the contrary. I think maybe the general public as a whole just isn't as interested in the unraveling of history as we were when the (unknowingly) arthritic hunched remains were discovered and analyzed all those years ago.

Anyway, I hope your language misinterpretation theory takes you where you wanna go with the scientists, even though I don't always understand all of your points and will probably just read rather than comment.

[cladking]

I'm over my head here as far as the language implications in regards to perceived intelligence and brutality, but I bet your interactions with scientists are interesting.

You're very perceptive.

Truth to tell I never got along with scientists because not one in a thousand knows the metaphysics which define his knowledge and the results of experiment. The vast majority are specialists who can't see the forest for the trees and can't use all his knowledge at one time. Certainly their work is impressive especially in aggregate but the bottom line is we still don't know much more about the nature of gravity than caveman knew. At least the caveman could use all his knowledge to focus on any issue. This lack of understanding among scientists results in absurdities like the politics of global warming. Every single thing we've done so far has exascerbated the problem while a few grow rich and governments usurp ever more power.

This is the insanity that is modern day science. Anything that has no military implications is shelved so even basic research doesn't happen. One of these days there will be a mouse that roars then we'll know the difference between science and arms research.

From my limited readings, I do know that it's by far the prevalent belief in the scientific world today that cavemen were intelligent; some contend as intelligent as modern humans.

I wish this were true but it's not really. They call all ancient people backward and superstitious and think that adding "not that there's anything wrong with that" changes their description.

It is modern man who is backward and superstitious and not the pre-historic and early post-historic peoples.

Anyway, I hope your language misinterpretation theory takes you where you wanna go with the scientists, even though I don't always understand all of your points and will probably just read rather than comment.

My sole objective is to get those who call themselves scientists at Giza to get out there and do some actual science. Somehow or other science went out of style in Egyptology back in the mid-1980's and they ought to be ashamed. I wager when they get out there they'll find I'm right or they'll uncover data that discloses how the pyramids were built.

When I know how the pyramids were built I'll probably move on to some other interest. Actually if my theory were proven wrong I'd probably move on also.

I believe we will know that cavemen were scientists firsat and animals second within the next couple decades. As animals they probably had a better handle on the nature of humanity than most philosophers today. They will be vindicated.

[HairOfTheDog]

From my limited readings, I do know that it's by far the prevalent belief in the scientific world today that cavemen were intelligent; some contend as intelligent as modern humans.

I wish this were true but it's not really. They call all ancient people backward and superstitious and think that adding "not that there's anything wrong with that" changes their description.

It is modern man who is backward and superstitious and not the pre-historic and early post-historic peoples.

I believe we will know that cavemen were scientists firsat and animals second within the next couple decades. As animals they probably had a better handle on the nature of humanity than most philosophers today. They will be vindicated.

Everything that I've read since 2008 regarding Neanderthals directly states that recent findings and research demonstrate definitively that cavemen were far more intelligent than archeologists and paleontologists previously believed.

I think that the old "dumb cavemen" myth existed because there was a pre-conceived notion that if they weren't unintelligent, they wouldn't have gone extinct. With each excavation and glimpses into the caveman's lives, tools and environments, that notion gets chipped away. Over the last 5+ years, new forensic, reconstructive and DNA technologies have been applied to the research and pretty much shattered the old "dumb caveman" myth for any rational thinker (as far as I'm concerned).

I don't read specifically about Egyptologists though, so maybe the scientists that you're corresponding with are old school archeologists who are resistant to accepting well researched and documented findings by scientists from different disciplines; clinging on to old notions? What little I've come across pertaining to Egyptologists specifically seems to indicate that they have at least concluded/accepted that the Pyramids weren't built (whether by ramp, pulley or some other method) on the backs of slave labor, as previously believed. Instead, the widely held belief amongst them now is that they were built by workers (migratory possibly) who may have been compensated and committed their time and effort in honor of the Pharaohs. That's my understanding, at least.

Anyway, I agree with your assertion that cavemen were far from dummies and its a fascinating topic. Logic and solid research findings make it clear to me that they were a reasoning, adaptable, progressive, and intelligent human species. I can understand your frustration in dealing with scientists who still believe otherwise. I don't know to what extent Neanderthals could be considered scientists or philosophers, nor how the Pyramids were built; still many compelling mysteries and possibilities regarding ancient man. I understand the lure.

[cladking]

Egyptologists have not believe the great pyramids were built by slaves in a very long time. They consider them "conscripted labor" even now and name it "corvee labor"; a sort of tax on labor. Egyptologists speak "highly" of the pyramid builders except that they ascribe only religious and superstitious beliefs as their motivation. If you want someone to speak at your funeral, don't hire an Egyptologist.

This is similar in all the descriptions of ancient practices into the stone age; people are invariably ascribed primitive and superstitious motivations. Cavemen simply didn't survive by employment of shamans or charms but by observation. It was the natural science built on observation that allowed man to progress to building pyramids and going to the moon not superstition. Superstition mostly arose with the advent of modern language.

[Teacher]

Wanted: 'Adventurous woman' to give birth to Neanderthal man - Harvard professor seeks mother for cloned cave baby
Professor George Church of Harvard Medical School believes he can reconstruct Neanderthal DNA
His ambitious plan requires a human volunteer willing to allow the DNA to be put into stem cells, then a human embryo

By ALLAN HALL and FIONA MACRAE
PUBLISHED: 10:36 EST, 20 January 2013 | UPDATED: 04:16 EST, 21 January 2013







Neanderthals have been extinct for 33,000 years, but George Church, a genetics professor at Harvard Medical School, believes he can bring them back with the help of a surrogate human mother.They're usually thought of as a brutish, primitive species.
So what woman would want to give birth to a Neanderthal baby?
Yet this incredible scenario is the plan of one of the world’s leading geneticists, who is seeking a volunteer to help bring man’s long-extinct close relative back to life.

Professor George Church of Harvard Medical School believes he can reconstruct Neanderthal DNA and resurrect the species which became extinct 33,000 years ago.
His scheme is reminiscent of Jurassic


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...z2IdRARD1A
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Jimbone]

Yeah, because what could go wrong here?

[Maggot]

There was a special a few weeks ago on PBS on this. In the end the show said that modern humans and neanderthals inter-bred and most likely had a form of language.

[HairOfTheDog]

There was a special a few weeks ago on PBS on this. In the end the show said that modern humans and neanderthals inter-bred and most likely had a form of language.

Whether Neanderthals and modern humans inter-bred or simply share DNA from a common ancestor is probably the biggest point of contention right now amongst the scientists, at least based on what I've seen recently published and televised. Well, that and whether/how long modern humans co-existed with Neanderthals and if any co-existence was peaceful or if we instead drove them to extinction.

Seems like every month new research and opinions are rendered by equally legitimate sources who've come to opposite conclusions regarding the inter-breeding debate. If you search "did Neanderthals breed with modern humans?" you'll get a mix of recent "mostly likely" and "not likely" article results by scientists from both camps. Seems that it's still an unanswered question and open to interpretation.

Regarding Neanderthal cloning, the concept is interesting from a scientific perspective. Still, putting aside any moral objections, I don't see how cloning by using the Neanderthal DNA profile could really tell scientists much about how cavemen lived or communicated since the environment is so different today. All it could really accomplish is confirming what they looked like and possibly the Neanderthal's capacity to speak and learn (unless they put multiple cloned cavemen in a cloned Neanderthal environment, which is going way too far for me).

But, I'm of the mindset that environment and society are significant influences in how humans behave. Maybe those who believe that genetics are almost solely responsible for human behavior and that environmental influences are only secondary can foresee more benefits from such an experiment.

Personally, I hope that the cloning concept gets nixed.

[Maggot]

Does this fit here? I was watching PBS the other day and there was a black guy on talking on some talk show about blacks and the problems they have. I was listening for 5 minutes and I looked over at my wife and said "That guy really needs sub-titles I cannot understand a word he says" she said she can't either but she was reading a book. I changed it to "The Rifleman'.

[HairOfTheDog]

Does this fit here? I was watching PBS the other day and there was a black guy on talking on some talk show about blacks and the problems they have. I was listening for 5 minutes and I looked over at my wife and said "That guy really needs sub-titles I cannot understand a word he says" she said she can't either but she was reading a book. I changed it to "The Rifleman'.

I think it fits here.

The Rifleman, The Big Valley, and Bonanza were the afternoon re-run line up on KTLA when I was growing up. They were great shows. Everyone was easy to understand (well Hoss sometimes slurred a bit) and the message of each episode was not subject to interpretation or political correctness. So few things are straight to the point these days.

I sound old.

[Clang McFly]

Does this fit here? I was watching PBS the other day and there was a black guy on talking on some talk show about blacks and the problems they have. I was listening for 5 minutes and I looked over at my wife and said "That guy really needs sub-titles I cannot understand a word he says" she said she can't either but she was reading a book. I changed it to "The Rifleman'.

I think it fits here.

The Rifleman, The Big Valley, and Bonanza were the afternoon re-run line up on KTLA when I was growing up. They were great shows. Everyone was easy to understand (well Hoss sometimes slurred a bit) and the message of each episode was not subject to interpretation or political correctness. So few things are straight to the point these days.

I sound old.

We ARE old.

I used to watch Little House on The Prairie and The Waltons.

[Duchess]

Getting older is not a negative.

[HairOfTheDog]

Getting older is not a negative.

I agree. It's not negative at all, but it is sometimes funny when I hear myself making statements about "the good old days", like my dad used to do.

[cladking]

Does this fit here? I was watching PBS the other day and there was a black guy on talking on some talk show about blacks and the problems they have. I was listening for 5 minutes and I looked over at my wife and said "That guy really needs sub-titles I cannot understand a word he says" she said she can't either but she was reading a book. I changed it to "The Rifleman'.

I think it fits here.

The Rifleman, The Big Valley, and Bonanza were the afternoon re-run line up on KTLA when I was growing up. They were great shows. Everyone was easy to understand (well Hoss sometimes slurred a bit) and the message of each episode was not subject to interpretation or political correctness. So few things are straight to the point these days.

I sound old.

We ARE old.

I used to watch Little House on The Prairie and The Waltons.

My family didn't even get our first TV until 1959.

Radio was good though. As a Twilight Zone character said shortly after we got one, "Radio is something that has to be believed to be seen".

I'm not all that old really but I am "old school". Now days they have people with various speech impediments reading the news. I can't watch half the damn Nova programs any more because they need translation or the grammar is so bad I turn it off in frustration. Language is being buthchered daily by the media and much of the population.

[username]

Night John Boy. Night Jim Bob.