The platform of anthropology gives one account of history - you get different accounts of history (that don't necessarily intergrate) even in sciences like archeology
Why do you believe (or not believe)
- Thread starter The Evelyonian
- Start date
The platform of anthropology gives one account of history - you get different accounts of history (that don't necessarily intergrate) even in sciences like archeology
Its not uncommon to encounter the contraversy that archeologists determine that 10 000 years is the ceiling for the time we have developed as a culture of humans - anthropologists contend that such a brief erea does not account for what we have at the moment interm of diversity in language - hence the notion of unifying the two schools to lead to a logical conclusion of sorts seems questionable
Nonsense. Even the introduction of people to the Americas is known to have been 30,000 years ago, possible more.
10 000 years is the given for "civilized" culture - so in other words complexities of language and culture that we see visible in this world all have to be crammed in a 10 000 year timeline - this is the specific arduous task of anthropologists
So, what's the problem? Verbal language could have preceeded civilization by many thousands of years, because there is no physical record of it.
Why do you accept some scientific data (10,000 years for civilization) and not others that you have an ideological disagreement with?
Why do you accept some scientific data (10,000 years for civilization) and not others that you have an ideological disagreement with?
spidergoat
actually all I am doing at the moment is establishing that forming a hypothesis based on the the findings of both anthropology and archeology is difficult because they both establish conflicting foundational conclusions
you don't understand - we have different languages in the world that indicate routes of cultural influence and language corruption - cramming the network of routes into 10 000 years is the difficulty
actually all I am doing at the moment is establishing that forming a hypothesis based on the the findings of both anthropology and archeology is difficult because they both establish conflicting foundational conclusions
I'm going to have to ask you for some proof of this statement.
There are no findings of anthropology and archeology! There are works by scientists - all versions of what might have been.
For example, there is no discovery of DNA by biology, double helix was discovered by Crick, Watson, Wilkins and Franklin in 1953.
If some scientist says that the earliest civilisation was 10 000 years ago, then it is just the date for the earliest concrete scientific evidence we have got at the moment, nothing more and nothing less.
Others might have other evidence and base their hypothesis of what might have been on that.
You talk nonsense and I am still laughing from what you write and what you write has nothing to do with the theme of this thread, it is offtopic.
For example, there is no discovery of DNA by biology, double helix was discovered by Crick, Watson, Wilkins and Franklin in 1953.
If some scientist says that the earliest civilisation was 10 000 years ago, then it is just the date for the earliest concrete scientific evidence we have got at the moment, nothing more and nothing less.
Others might have other evidence and base their hypothesis of what might have been on that.
You talk nonsense and I am still laughing from what you write and what you write has nothing to do with the theme of this thread, it is offtopic.
Avatar
I research world mythologies in relation to anthropology and human (animal) psyche. Read and compare works by scientists, read folk tales, myths, old songs, accounts of different societies, talk with people, record and analyse dreams, human behaviour.
then why do you consider the statements of scientists as fact and the statements of scripture as myth and folk tales?
as long as you don't hurt yourself I guess its okay - but remember its not off topic to look into the why of "why do you believe"
then it raises the question why do you use such things as a foundation for determining the nature of religion ......
I research world mythologies in relation to anthropology and human (animal) psyche. Read and compare works by scientists, read folk tales, myths, old songs, accounts of different societies, talk with people, record and analyse dreams, human behaviour.
then why do you consider the statements of scientists as fact and the statements of scripture as myth and folk tales?
as long as you don't hurt yourself I guess its okay - but remember its not off topic to look into the why of "why do you believe"
Religion is just misinterpreted mythology really, it happens when mythology is interpreted literally not metaphorically, i.e., belief in actual gods and not in the mystery behind the image of god.
And I'm applying the methods which I think give me the most objective results. "The truth" is just a fictional concept.
And that's not even the goal of my research anyway, just a byproduct.
Not fact, an educated guess, yes.
Myths and folk tales have more to do with the inner world of human psyche than "real world" events. I'm sure you'd come to the same conclusion after some time of study applying various methods of research.
And anyway any fact is just what our brain believes is a fact, our perception is not ideal.
Archaeology is a sub-discipline of anthropology. They aren't separate. There is no "10 000 years is the ceiling" for the development of human culture. Much of human culture *did* however develop at around 10,000 bp for several reasons, not the least of which was changes in the environment and increased populations that challenged the carrying capacity of that environment. This gave rise to new technologies and subsistence strategies that are evident in the archaeological record between 40,000 - 10,000 bp. The Nartufian culture is a good example of this. A neolithic culture that archaeological remains show the points at which pottery is introduced; buildings are used; storage pits for grains are used; querns are introduced; and microlithics are developed to create cutting tools that reap grains like wheat and barley.
Not all cultures develop their technologies at the same rates, but many do at around 10,000 bp with the end of the last ice age.
With regard to language, anthropologists such as archaeologists and linguists have long suggested a far more ancient origins of speech than 10 kya.
LightG., I have to say, it looks like you're pulling some of your facts out of thin air.
Not all cultures develop their technologies at the same rates, but many do at around 10,000 bp with the end of the last ice age.
With regard to language, anthropologists such as archaeologists and linguists have long suggested a far more ancient origins of speech than 10 kya.
LightG., I have to say, it looks like you're pulling some of your facts out of thin air.