Anyone seen the documentary where the case of the sphynx was placed in a more
global picture. Featuring the Easter Isles, those giant rockpictures in South
America, the Anchor (sp?) temple in Cambodja and I think that strange pyramidal
like contraption underwater on the coast of Japan and then those huge, a bit
afro american looking heads in South America. It looked really smoothed out. A
bit too polished and perfect for my taste but still neatly done.
Sonja
dendriite schreef:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Damon Agretto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 7:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Ancient Civilizations
>
> > >Civilisation tends to develop around waterways, coastal areas and rivers.
> > >There has been quite a bit in the news over the last few years about
> ruins
> > >just off the coast of places like Egypt and Japan. It isnt impossible or
> > >improbable that there could be cities under the sea, just out of our
> sight.
> > >Im sure you are aware that the age of the Sphynx is under assault. And
> the
> > >arguments are pretty interesting and self consistant, true or not. The
> > >timeline for the first Americans looks to be modified somewhat radically.
> >
> > There were a few scholarly book published a few years ago challenging the
> > timeline. However their thesis is that the dates are too OLD, and adjusts
> > them about 150-200 years forward. One of the more significant
> ramifications
> > of this is that it means that the Greek "Dark Ages" did not exist!
> >
> > If anyone is interested I'll get the titles. Only one is currently in
> > print, and available from Amazon UK.
> >
> > As for the "lack of progress" and ancient peoples, one thing that we must
> > remember is that we live in one of the most tremendous eras of change in
> > history. There WAS change amongst mezolithic and neolithic man, but the
> > period of change was not as rapid as we are used to. And even just small
> > changes can mean tremendous benefits for the people living in the time.
> The
> > transition from stone and obsidian tools to copper (Chalcolithic Era)
> > rendered great benefits to neolithic people, just as the transition from
> > copper to bronze conferred tremendous benefits to ancient peoples.
> >
> > >I agree with you here. I suggest that civilisation may have been around
> 10K
> > >longer than we are taught. But none of these proposed civilisations was
> as
> > >advanced as say Egypt.
> >
> > As I said in a previous post, are we talking about a CIVILIZATION
> > (characterized by a complex social organization, writing, and the
> > development of more sophisticated governments and laws) or a CULTURE
> > (characterized by a simple social organization, simple governmental forms,
> > and lacking writing). As I said, these words have very specific meanings
> > and shouldn't be used haphazardly.
> >
> I meant civilisation, Damon. I understand your definition and agree with it.
> To be clearer, I'm suggesting that we might discover signs of true
> civilization under the Mediterranean and perhaps other places now covered by
> the post ice age inunduation.
> This theory about water erosion on the sphynx is very interesting, and its
> corrollary theories concerning the constellation Leo and its relation to the
> sphynx seem to be internally consistant and consistant with the physical
> evidence.
> Of course I have never seen any rebuttal to the theory, and it may in fact
> be contrived, but it is still a remarkable idea. Archaeology is a fairly
> young science, there may still be some interesting things to learn.
>
> As for the question of the Americas, the idea that humans first arrived
> around 20K ago, when both continents are dotted with sites dating from near
> that same time make me think that the experts on the subject have been far
> too conservative.
>
> xponent
> rob
