Ancient beliefs and evolution.

[cladking]

So, you're saying that even though we know that written works -- using a form of storage that is inherently significantly more permanent than human memory -- incur a significant number of errors, you're assuming that oral histories were kept perfectly. Okaaaaaaay.

 

I don't know any off the top of my head because I've never looked into it, but I have to suspect that there is some evidence of this. Surely groups that fractured and at one time shared a history ended up telling different versions of the same story after it drifted through the years. I know that several fables and myths ended up with many different versions told, for example. It is just my opinion, but I think you are severely underestimating the natural effects.

 

The problem here is the paucity of any writing that exists from before 2000 BC. It's recently come to my attention that there could be significant amounts of Sumerian writing but anything I find on the net isn't dated so I haven't even tried to study it in detail yet.

 

 

 

 

 

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/

 

It will be a major project if I ever do. I have read everything that I know is pre-2000 BC but this is almost insignificant.

 

Basically this leaves only the Egyptian writing and, according to the experts, it is all religious in nature and reflects a highly superstitious people who even vary the meaning of words in context: Words have only "shades of meaning" rather than definitions. These writings are not extensive and one is said to be just incantation to get the king to heaven and the other is an agglomeration of spells and magic that was written on coffins between about 2400 BC and 1800 BC. This leaves us with no information whatsoever about the people and their beliefs other than interpretation of job titles and bottle labels based on their "religion". In other words if the Egyptologists are wrong about these words being superstitious gobblety gook than nothing is known from before 2000 BC when numerous other works begin appearing.

 

I believe that there is a coherent meaning to these words and this meaning is expressed such that it is not as susceptible to deterioration as modern language. The meaning appears to be expressesd in context like computer code or animal languages;

 

http://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/researcher-decodes-praire-dog-language-discovers-theyve-been-calling-people-fat.html

 

If a person's only job were to remember as much of a subject as he were capable a great deal of information could be retained over generations. When writing was invented it would have been the first thing recorded. None of this seems to survive. No books (from Egypt) survive from before 2000 BC except the hocus pocus (per Egyptology) inscribed in pyramids. We know that papyrus can last for millinea because we actually have some of the first papyrus paper made which is a blank scroll from 3300 BC. This leaves the question of what happened to our history and all those books. I'm betting that there was an actual change in the language and the books looked like hocus pocus to people so no care was taken to preserve them. Now the ancient beliefs, science, and history are all primarily lost except for snippets and fragments in the Bible, hermetic writings, Koran, as well as legend and myth.

 

Ancient people are greatly misapprehended. I don't know how much they knew about paleontology but there's little doubt it was studied. And since they did study such things and exhibited a deep and abiding concern for both future and past generations, it stands to reason they also passed history down from generation to generation as well as all the sciences. They didn't lack writing because they weren't smart enough, they lacked it because no one had thought of it yet. We don't understand the formatting of the ancient language so it's as incomprehensible as most animal languages. We're only now starting to comprehend some of the animal languages.

[Bignose]

The problem here is the paucity of any writing that exists from before 2000 BC.

So, you're trying to say that before 4000 years ago, the oral histories were perfect, and then once we invented writing, THEN we started making mistakes?

 

I find that rather difficult to believe.

[cladking]

So, you're trying to say that before 4000 years ago, the oral histories were perfect, and then once we invented writing, THEN we started making mistakes?

 

I find that rather difficult to believe.

 

Not exactly.

 

 

 

 

All we really know for fact is that in the last 4000 years we have been making mistakes.

 

I believe that this was when the language changed and all the writing and the oral tradition that preceded it was lost. It might not be permanently or entirely lost.

[ACG52]

 

 

I believe that this was when the language changed

What language changed? From what to what?

[Sayonara]

 

Not exactly.

 

All we really know for fact is that in the last 4000 years we have been making mistakes.

 

I believe that this was when the language changed and all the writing and the oral tradition that preceded it was lost. It might not be permanently or entirely lost.

 

People change stories and accounts for all sorts of reasons, whether its modifying a historical record for reasons political in nature, or altering a story just because they prefer a different ending or for the villain to be scary in a way that's suitable for children. You only have to look at the way the same fairy tales are told in different areas to see this. It shouldn't come as any great surprise that this results in lots of different written versions of the same thing. And because not everyone who writes things down is a professional, infallible writer, sometimes they use ambiguous meanings or use a word incorrectly.

 

I see no reason to believe that people somehow used to avoid doing this a long time ago (if that's what you're suggesting?)

 

Although I have heard reference to cultures in which "oral tradition is passed down through the generations, and has remained unchanged for squillions of years", I'd have to question how anyone knows it's still the same... what with it being orally recorded.

[Delta1212]

Cladking, I have to ask just to get it out of the way so that I know what kind of conversation this is: Do you have any thoughts on Atlantis or similar lost ancient civilizations?

[cladking]

What language changed? From what to what?

 

Human language changed.

 

In modern language things are stated directly and words get their meaning from context. It is symbolic as words are expressed to take the place of actions, processes, etc. "He ran to the store" can have a virtually infinite number of meanings dependent on context and the shared referents and word usage of the participants in the conversation. There are also infinite shades of meaning and implications if this is in response to a question like "Where's Joe?". If our words are lifted from context, even in aggregate, they will have no meaning to anyone who isn't privvy to referents and the nature of the language. Modern language requires a great deal of intuition to phrase or comprehend. There are no road signs to tell us when we misconstrue meaning because we automatically assign meaning to each word dependent on context. Since almost any statement can make sense then barring internal inconsistency, it will make sense. Of course there's no reason this sense will be shared by other listeners or the speaker.

 

Ancient language was wholly distinct. Words didn't vary in definition and meaning was in context like computer code or prairie dog language. Words were used to "paint a picture" and if the meaning weren't comprehended then the words would sound like gobblety gook or word soup. It is likely that everyone used this exact same language which required remarkably few words to express meaning. Of course, the exact vocabulary and pronunciations varied but the format was the same so it was very easy to learn a new "language". The strenght of the ancient language was that there was very little misunderstanding. It might require some effort for two disparate people to establish communication but there was no misunderstanding as they worked. To us the ancient language appears to be gobblety gook and magic and no useful information has ever been extracted from it. Because it looked like nonsense ever since 2000 BC there was no real attempt to preserve it. It couldn't be readily translated into modern language so it wasn't preserved in any fashion. The language was metaphysics and contained the theory and knowledge that allowed ancient man to progress; it was the knowledge derived from as well as the logic and observation that underlay mans' progresss. But this language became geometrically more complicated as knowledge increased aritmatically so it collapsed as a tool of communication.

 

Today language must be in flux and meaning far moreso. Even the meaning of something written long ago will change over time. Look at the vast difference between modern interpretation of something like the Declaration of Independence and the author's intent!!! Science largely overcomes this by having set definitions and axioms that can be expressed in math. Experimental results are generally more easily translated than a simple description. But it took us about three and a half millinea to recover from the loss of the old language. Now "recorded" history dates only back to 2000 BC because earlier writing is misinterpreted as being religiuous mumbo jumbo. When it finally becomes properly stuidied a whole new world is going to open up to us. It's not just our history lying in wait but the knowledge we gained in our first 40,000 years of language. Unfortunately much of this is lost but it matters little because much of what's lost should be deducible and there will be information in what survives to uncover much of the rest. Only what was written on paper as been discarded in utter frustration.

I see no reason to believe that people somehow used to avoid doing this a long time ago (if that's what you're suggesting?)

 

Although I have heard reference to cultures in which "oral tradition is passed down through the generations, and has remained unchanged for squillions of years", I'd have to question how anyone knows it's still the same... what with it being orally recorded.

 

 

I have no proof at this time. I believe that something passed down in a language like computer code is relatively impervious to being changed since each generation will perform something equivalent to a "spell check" on it.

 

Somehow "recorded history" doesn't begin until 2000 BC or 1200 years after the invention of writing. Additionally, we know nothing about ancient people, how they lived, and what they "believed". We don't know such basic things as how they invented cereal grains or passed knowledge across generations. Logically if there was much degradation of this passing of knowledge there would not have been progress.

 

We are missing something fundamental. We are missing all the knowldege that existed before 2000 BC.

Cladking, I have to ask just to get it out of the way so that I know what kind of conversation this is: Do you have any thoughts on Atlantis or similar lost ancient civilizations?

 

Are you exploring for "new age" beliefs?

 

I have none at all. However I've stumbled onto a vast store of lost knowledge that applies to everything and could even apply to the concept of "Atlantis". Any such connection is somewhat speculative though.

 

Until even the most basic science gets done I'm avoiding speculation to the degree possible.

 

...now if you want to talk about alchemy or "fossilized" auric sulfate then I'm your man. ...but we'll need a new thread.

 

 

[Sayonara]

Somehow "recorded history" doesn't begin until 2000 BC or 1200 years after the invention of writing. Additionally, we know nothing about ancient people, how they lived, and what they "believed". We don't know such basic things as how they invented cereal grains or passed knowledge across generations. Logically if there was much degradation of this passing of knowledge there would not have been progress.

 

We are missing something fundamental. We are missing all the knowldege that existed before 2000 BC.

 

The gap between the invention of writing and the start of "recorded history" is easily and very reasonably explained.

 

You are starting from a false premise: that if your hunch is not correct, then the meaning of verbally shared information would end up being so corrupted as to be useless for allowing a civilisation to arise. That is not a correct assumption. You don't need to write someone a letter or give a speech to teach them how to mill grain between two stones or tend to livestock or mix dyes; you just show them. Even as the great civilisations emerged the materials and the education required to allow reading and writing were still in the purview of the elite. Historically this has only changed when technology has caught up with writing, and when the civilisation in question recognises the value of having literate citizens. The power of education and texts that can be referenced is why the development of civilisation (not to mention our population) exploded - they are vastly more efficient at sharing and improving good ideas than are experiential parent-to-child lessons.

 

The problem with your idea of the next generation "spell-checking" oral records is that although the words may be preserved, meanings change. An example: to me, "sick" means either ill, or perverse. But people in my area who are as little as 10 years my junior now use it to mean awesome, inspiring, or 'cool'. That's just one example. What would the generation that follows them make of a present day document littered with terms they've hijacked? Because that generation will no doubt do some hijacking of its own too.

[Strange]

We are missing something fundamental. We are missing all the knowldege that existed before 2000 BC.

 

Then how do you know that "ancient language was wholly distinct. Words didn't vary in definition and meaning was in context like computer code or prairie dog language" and all the other mumbo-jumbo?

[cladking]

 

The gap between the invention of writing and the start of "recorded history" is easily and very reasonably explained.

 

You are starting from a false premise: that if your hunch is not correct, then the meaning of verbally shared information would end up being so corrupted as to be useless for allowing a civilisation to arise. That is not a correct assumption. You don't need to write someone a letter or give a speech to teach them how to mill grain between two stones or tend to livestock or mix dyes; you just show them. Even as the great civilisations emerged the materials and the education required to allow reading and writing were still in the purview of the elite. Historically this has only changed when technology has caught up with writing, and when the civilisation in question recognises the value of having literate citizens. The power of education and texts that can be referenced is why the development of civilisation (not to mention our population) exploded - they are vastly more efficient at sharing and improving good ideas than are experiential parent-to-child lessons.

 

The problem with your idea of the next generation "spell-checking" oral records is that although the words may be preserved, meanings change. An example: to me, "sick" means either ill, or perverse. But people in my area who are as little as 10 years my junior now use it to mean awesome, inspiring, or 'cool'. That's just one example. What would the generation that follows them make of a present day document littered with terms they've hijacked? Because that generation will no doubt do some hijacking of its own too.

 

No matter how I attack these points it's always going to come down to the fundamental problem which is the lack of evidence and the lack of written records after the invention of writing. This lack is due to the facts that not only does so little exist but it's all incomprehensible gobblety gook that can shed no light on how the ancients thought and believed.

 

I haven't really made any assumptions in my work with one possible exception and that is ancient people were intelligent and sophisticated. So now I've gotten to the point that I believe I understand the ancient writing and that it reflects a highly scientific perspective which comes as little surprise. But it doesn't prove I'm wrong and this exact perspective can be used to help show that maybe the ancient writing really isn't gobblety gook. This aspect is off topic so I don't intend to dwell on it except to answer the specific point and to observe that the underlying meaning in the ancient work is proving to be supported by the physical evidence and capable of making accurate predictions about undiscovered evidence (predicting the news). That computer like languages are less susceptible to corruption seems almost a given. With few words in the language and the meaning of words not being dependent on context there's little reason to have drift. Look at a word like "print" in computer languages. Yes, the word will probably mean something different in the future, and printers have already evolved greatly in the last half a century but the sense of this word will probably remain intact until and unless it is superceded by a more accurate word. We've only very recently been able to understand prairie dog communication but I'd wager it would be quite similar over time. It's not really the words in question in the old writing so much as the meaning and the referents of those words. If the referent for a single word like "sick" changes then this change should be expected to be apparent.

 

Truth to tell it's largely just my opinion that suggests the language was resistant to change but this opinion is based on the fact that if my understanding of the meaning is correct then language was the metaphysics of ancient science founded upon observation and logic. As such language would be very much sacrosanct and the users actually called the language (especially in its written form) "the words of the gods". No matter how these words are inrterpreted it is very much apparent that they cared deeply for past and future generations.

 

It is apparent and logical that theory must precede all advancement. It is unlikely that a beaver accidently created a dam and then passed the knowledge and ability down through the generations. It's far more likely that a beaver observed nature making a dam and realized it could duplicate it through intention. By the same token man didn't inadvertantly domesticate cattle or corn. First they had to frasp the concept that tamer animals and choicer corn could breed true. It required a lot of time and effort to accomplish this and to produce enough surplus to create cities. While beavers aren't obviously progressing it might be simply the lack of complicated language to pass down knowledge and the fact that their primary natural gift is to fell trees and shape them. Human progress by this perspective simply demands the ability to pass theory between generations. Yes, we could maintain stasis or a specific habitat by merely passing knowledge father to son or teacher to student but it requires the ability to pass down actual knowledge, actual theory, to progress. The fact that we accomplished this (progress) is probably indicative of the ability to pass theory unchanged. This doesn't necessarily support the contention that history and other (hopefully) more static ideas could be relayed but it still suggests a mechanism which we haven't understood. The existence of myths and legends seem to support this. The lack of any ancient scientific knowledge simply screams that we are missing something. Obviously, scientific precepts would be among the very most important things they'd record yet all we have is religious hocus pocus and a void of history and science until 2000 BC. We make assumptions about such things based on drawings and single words in the record.

 

It's simply not logical that the evidence would be laid out the way it is if our assumptions were true. It's not logical to assume that ancient people looked at fossils and simply made no record or inferences about them. It's not logical to suppose that the superstitious bumpkins as seen from the modern perspective could invent agriculture and cities or build pyramids.

 

I believe it took 40,000 years to get to the invention of writing was largely low population caused by food scarcity and the irregularity of its availability. There may also have been a relative lack of need of writing if knowledge could be passed down intact. Writing wasn't invented until farmers stumbled on the concept of symbols representing assets and this was extrapolated to representing sounds. The explosion of knowledge made possible by writing simply overburdened a language with so few words and that was already stressed in expressing new concepts. It was a natural language ill equipped to deal with a lot of new knowledge made possible by widespread dissemination of books. By 3200 BC when writing was invented there was thousands of times more human effort available for study of things like paleontology than there had been only 6000 years earlier.

 

Agriculture drove the invention of cities which drove the invention of writing which drove the collapse of the ancient language leaving the massive void before 2000 BC.

 

 

 

 

Then how do you know that "ancient language was wholly distinct. Words didn't vary in definition and meaning was in context like computer code or prairie dog language" and all the other mumbo-jumbo?

 

Let me put it this way;

 

I once designed a computer system that controlled a little processing plant. The objective was to give operators a fine control over every stage of production and mixing. I hadn't done any computer programming since the 1960's so the actual programming was done by a consultant. Upon completion they were asked to write up a little synopsis of what they had done to aid the operators in using the interfaces and controlling the processes. When I first saw this report I thought they had accidently forwarded the wrong thing but there were a few key words that suggested it might apply to the project. I read it over and over because it made no sense at all. Finally after reading it about the tenth time it all made perfect sense. They had simply set the computer code to English!!! They described this in the only terms they knew.

 

I've read and studied all the ancient literature (one massive corpus in particular) hundreds of times and it makes perfect sense. There are two possibilities for this; either archaeologists and scholars have very poor reading comprehension skills or it is written in a distinct language. I can no more believe that scholars are so stupid than I can believe the meaning of the words is coincidental. The problem is apparently translation and interpretation.

 

The ancients must have had the ability and means to pass theory and knowledge between generations and it's nowhere else in evidence. It is most highly illogical to presume that our ancestors were very highly superstitious yet still managed progress from one generation to the next. Superstition is a very destructive force yet they survived and prospered.

 

There must be a very fundamental problem and such a language change would explain not only the problem but how we missed it. Perhaps there are other explanations but it's this explanation that defines the problem. It gets back to the heart of the issue which is the predictive ability of theory. It gets to the heart of the very nature of science. It is not necessarily observation and experiment but can also be observation and logic. It might not even be coincidental that this is the direction we seem to be heading.

[Deidre]

Evolution says that humans came from an ape, baboon, chimpanzee, gorilla, or monkey (not quite sure what the difference is).

So why, then, do all ancient cultures say that humans (and some of our earliest technology) were made by gods? None of them say we came from animals, as far as I know.

What's going on, here?

They didn't have an understanding of science and biology as to even begin to assess the origin of man. Edited September 8, 2013 by Deidre

[arc]

 

The problem with your idea of the next generation "spell-checking" oral records is that although the words may be preserved, meanings change. An example: to me, "sick" means either ill, or perverse. But people in my area who are as little as 10 years my junior now use it to mean awesome, inspiring, or 'cool'. That's just one example. What would the generation that follows them make of a present day document littered with terms they've hijacked? Because that generation will no doubt do some hijacking of its own too.

 

To add to this generational language-culture context flux; Life expectancies were exceedingly short, maybe in the late twenties to early thirties, allowing easier modification of language due to the elimination of what would be in modern context a large middle age and older generation to use and maintain a consistent understanding of a language. One that would counter possible misunderstandings and modifications common in youth.

 

With the parents natural demise at near thirty years of age, the average age of Independence of their children could be as young as infant and as old as 17, not the model for any type of cultural and language consistency. With short life expectancies and reduced generational overlap there would undoubtedly be changes imposed by migration, cross cultural trade and marriages outside of culture, language and geography. Add periodic war, disease and famine and you can expect continuous change of culture and language throughout human history.

[Strange]

Given this thread is (I think) about communication of information, it is remarkable how difficult it is to work out what you are trying to say.

No matter how I attack these points it's always going to come down to the fundamental problem which is the lack of evidence and the lack of written records after the invention of writing. This lack is due to the facts that not only does so little exist but it's all incomprehensible gobblety gook that can shed no light on how the ancients thought and believed.

We only have written records after the invention of writing. Rather obviously.

We do, however, have written records of things prior to the invention of writing. Little of that is "incomprehensible gobblety gook".

I haven't really made any assumptions in my work with one possible exception and that is ancient people were intelligent and sophisticated.

I guess most people assume that humans have always been intelligent. And societies have varied in sophistication (I don't know how you define or quantify that). They are generally assumed to have been the same as us.

So now I've gotten to the point that I believe I understand the ancient writing and that it reflects a highly scientific perspective which comes as little surprise.

Which ancient writing are you referring to? Indus? Rongo-rongo? Linear A? Other? If you have managed to decode a currently indecipherable script that would be big news that you shouldn't have trouble getting published in an reputable journal.

Truth to tell it's largely just my opinion that suggests the language was resistant to change but this opinion is based on the fact that if my understanding of the meaning is correct then language was the metaphysics of ancient science founded upon observation and logic. As such language would be very much sacrosanct and the users actually called the language (especially in its written form) "the words of the gods".

There is no case in which language does not change over time. And people over all of recorded history have though of their version of the language (or, more frequently, a version from the recent past) to be the perfect form and "young people today are ruining it". This is one of the earliest recorded reasons for writing a grammar text!

Writing wasn't invented until farmers stumbled on the concept of symbols representing assets and this was extrapolated to representing sounds.

It is almost certain that the invention of writing was not led by farmers. In most cultures, the earliest written symbols seems to be associated with trade, accounting and administration.

The explosion of knowledge made possible by writing simply overburdened a language with so few words and that was already stressed in expressing new concepts.

What makes you think that language then had fewer words than now?

Agriculture drove the invention of cities which drove the invention of writing which drove the collapse of the ancient language leaving the massive void before 2000 BC.

From historical linguistics, we have good evidence of the evolution of languages prior to the invention of writing. Although writing had a small effect (on, for example, standardisation of certain forms) it didn't cause the sort of massive change you seem to be suggesting.

They had simply set the computer code to English!!!

I have no idea what that sentence means. And it doesn't seem to address the question.

I've read and studied all the ancient literature (one massive corpus in particular) hundreds of times and it makes perfect sense.

All ancient literature? Really? There are hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of texts and fragments in dozens of scripts in hundreds of languages. And you have read them all? That is pretty impressive. (If true. For some reason, I remain slightly sceptical.) And, yes, most of them make sense. Why shouldn't they?

 

The ancients must have had the ability and means to pass theory and knowledge between generations and it's nowhere else in evidence.

Yes it is. We have written records of oral histories going back thousands of years. Much of it is supported by, for example, archaeological and other evidence. You seem to have little in the way of evidence other than your own beliefs.

It is most highly illogical to presume that our ancestors were very highly superstitious yet still managed progress from one generation to the next. Superstition is a very destructive force yet they survived and prospered.

Evidence they were "highly superstitious"? Evidence that this is a destructive force?

The problem with your idea of the next generation "spell-checking" oral records is that although the words may be preserved, meanings change. An example: to me, "sick" means either ill, or perverse. But people in my area who are as little as 10 years my junior now use it to mean awesome, inspiring, or 'cool'. That's just one example. What would the generation that follows them make of a present day document littered with terms they've hijacked? Because that generation will no doubt do some hijacking of its own too.

Although, oral traditions do use various techniques to ensure that stories are transmitted accurately. The use of verse and song, is an obvious one. They also use repetition and different versions of the same story as a sort of "error checking" mechanism (if we are going to stick with the rather silly computer analogies).

Because words retain their old meanings (for some time) after new meanings appear (sick does still mean "sick" to most of us) that is not too big a problem. And the transfer of information between generations (whether written or oral) tends to preserve the older meanings. But the stories also get updated and translated as language changes and populations move, so they are kept contemporary in that way.

But of course, errors, misunderstandings can occur in the translation process.

Note that we have many societies that still use oral traditions that tell us a lot about how these processes work.

Which also seems to argue against cladking's beliefs: many pre-literate, oral societies have been studied. They are just like us.

[cladking]

 

Add periodic war, disease and famine and you can expect continuous change of culture and language throughout human history.

 

 

This all is probably true enough I needn't quibble with it.

 

I certainly agree strongly with one of the conclusions; that change in language should be continuous throughout human history. Of course the veracity of this conclusion is contingent upon those things which apply to our language also applying to the ancient language. This is where we run into trouble with the current paradigm; in order to understand the ancient language word meanings and beliefs from many centuries after the origin of the writing have been inserted to understand it. There simply is almost nothing available to solve the meaning internally from the actual words so definitions and ideas are imported from later religious works. It's hardly surprising that this has made the earlier work incomprehensible and made it appear to be religious in nature.

 

If we were talking about a single work here or there were in existence writing that could be understood, if the our understanding of the writing were consistent with known facts, if any of this understanding were internally consistent or otherwise comprehensible none of this would be at issue. The fact is almost no writing survives from before 2000 BC and none of it is comprehensible. Experts believe words change meaning by context and none of these meanings are known except as they relate to later definitions.

 

Since we believe almost every word they left was about magic, incantation, and paganism we tend to assume everything they did and thought was magic. This is most probably impossible. There is most probably a very fundamental problem in our understanding. Using observation and logic would be nearly as likely to lead to evolutionary success as language itself. Indeed, if the only thing language is used for is to communicate superstitions language would become a massive liability rather than an asset. So which groups of humans hunting mastadons had a greater likelyhood of surviving the cold wimter? Was it the group which saw, knew, amd planned or the group that prayed the hardest and invented the more gods?

 

Since 2000 BC humans have been riding the coat tails of our ancestors for survival. We have been surviving on the fruits of their effort. It was only the discovery of a new kind of science that could be done in the new language that allowed progress to resume.

[Strange]

I certainly agree strongly with one of the conclusions; that change in language should be continuous throughout human history. Of course the veracity of this conclusion is contingent upon those things which apply to our language also applying to the ancient language.

 

You haven't yet presented any evidence that this "ancient language" existed.

 

 

The fact is almost no writing survives from before 2000 BC and none of it is comprehensible.

The oldest written records are about 1,000 years older than that. And entirely comprehensible.

From wikipedia:

 

The tablets from Jemdet Nasr are primarily administrative accounts; long lists of various objects, foodstuffs and animals that were probably distributed among the population from a centralized authority. Thus, these texts document, among other things, with the cultivation, processing and redistribution of grain, the counting of herds of cattle, the distribution of secondary products like beer, fish, fruit and textiles and various objects of undefinable nature. Six tablets deal with the calculation of agricultural field areas from surface measurements, which is the earliest attested occurrence of such calculations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jemdet_Nasr#Proto-cuneiform_texts

 

 

Since we believe almost every word they left was about magic, incantation, and paganism we tend to assume everything they did and thought was magic.

Citation needed. My understanding is that most of the oldest texts are about business, war, genealogy, trade, astronomy, hunting, astrology, agriculture, fishing, story-telling, gossip, administration and some religious matters.

Edited September 8, 2013 by Strange

[Sayonara]

Cladking, strange has replied to most of what you said but I wanted to add these points:

 

 

It is apparent and logical that theory must precede all advancement. It is unlikely that a beaver accidently created a dam and then passed the knowledge and ability down through the generations. It's far more likely that a beaver observed nature making a dam and realized it could duplicate it through intention. By the same token man didn't inadvertantly domesticate cattle or corn. First they had to frasp the concept that tamer animals and choicer corn could breed true. It required a lot of time and effort to accomplish this and to produce enough surplus to create cities. While beavers aren't obviously progressing it might be simply the lack of complicated language to pass down knowledge and the fact that their primary natural gift is to fell trees and shape them. Human progress by this perspective simply demands the ability to pass theory between generations. Yes, we could maintain stasis or a specific habitat by merely passing knowledge father to son or teacher to student but it requires the ability to pass down actual knowledge, actual theory, to progress. The fact that we accomplished this (progress) is probably indicative of the ability to pass theory unchanged. This doesn't necessarily support the contention that history and other (hopefully) more static ideas could be relayed but it still suggests a mechanism which we haven't understood. The existence of myths and legends seem to support this. The lack of any ancient scientific knowledge simply screams that we are missing something. Obviously, scientific precepts would be among the very most important things they'd record yet all we have is religious hocus pocus and a void of history and science until 2000 BC. We make assumptions about such things based on drawings and single words in the record.

 

Beavers didn't realise anything. Those which exhibited certain behaviours were more evolutionarily fit in their niche and they were favoured by natural selection. This in turn encouraged the proliferation of those behaviours in the subsequent breeding populations. It's the same mechanism that leads to pretty much all characteristic species behaviours and has nothing to do with language or sharing conscious thoughts.

 

My whole point was that man took a long time learning to domesticate animals and grow crops. Because these things were transmitted orally within in small groups. It was the written word that allowed the distant and accurate sharing of knowledge and it was from this that processes and technologies were developed and optimised by large, widespread populations.

[cladking]

They didn't have an understanding of science and biology as to even begin to assess the origin of man.

 

 

How did they breed animals and keep them alive without knowledge of biology.

 

They not only had to do all they did but they had to do it at a profit or they would have all died. Nature is the ultimate accountant as well as a cruel one, and feeding cows to chickens just might be more a liability than an asset.

 

We do, however, have written records of things prior to the invention of writing. Little of that is "incomprehensible gobblety gook".

I'm not sure what you mean here or intended but there is nothing from before 2000 BC other than what we understand to be "religious writings" and incantations but which make no sense. There is no science and no records from before this date according to modern understanding.

 

I have no idea what that sentence means. And it doesn't seem to address the question.

This is how easy it is to lose one's audience in the modern language we are using here. Most people can't understand directions for almost anything. The directions are written in computerese that make sense only to those who know the language and think in pure logic with no intuition. When computer language is expressed in everyday English it makes no sense to most people.

 

I have no idea what that sentence means. And it doesn't seem to address the question.

I do not believe this is true. There is almost nothing in Egyptian and the only other source to my knowledge is Sumerian but these are all short works and undatable apparently. It appears that the ancient books were unintelligible and discarded after the change in language. Most all of what survives was inscribed in stone or clay.

 

Yes it is. We have written records of oral histories going back thousands of years. Much of it is supported by, for example, archaeological and other evidence. You seem to have little in the way of evidence other than your own beliefs.

I'm confident you know of none of this from before 2000 BC.

 

Evidence that this is a destructive force?

This is the nature of nature. People act on their beliefs and if there are beliefs are unnatural there will be no benefit to them collectively. Even if some unnatural belief were able to protect them through mere happenstance, eventually conditions would change. Reason and logic are puny tools but superstition and foolishness are very powerful tools against survival.

They were not superstitious at all. They were not religious and didn't believe in magic. This is a misunderstanding caused by a misinterpretation of ancient writing.

 

Which also seems to argue against cladking's beliefs: many pre-literate, oral societies have been studied. They are just like us.

No ancient pre-literate societies left enough evidence to understand their beliefs and knowledge. Even literate societies before 2000 BC are assumed to be superstitious because all the writing they left appears to be gobblety gook. There are no known cultures before 2000 BC. Later ideas have created our understanding and not the evidence left by those societies. This is just the way it is. It doesn't prove I'm right but it leaves the door open to me being right and the fact that my understanding of the ancient writing makes accurate peredictions indicates very strongly that I am right.

[Delta1212]

I fed my dog just fine before I knew how the digestive system functioned.

[cladking]

quote]You haven't yet presented any evidence that this "ancient language" existed.

 

It would be considered OT here. I’ll start another thread at some point.

 

If you’ll notice I did sneak in one earlier that implied the ancients were aware that some land had come out of the ocean.

 

 

 

The oldest written records are about 1,000 years older than that. And entirely comprehensible.

From wikipedia:

 

 

Wiki is an immensely valuable tool but it’s always wrong. They’re closer here than usual; “administrative accounts; long lists of various objects, foodstuffs and animals that were probably distributed among the population from a centralized authority.”.

Again, it’s not the words which are the problem. When the language changed the vocabulary did not change. The only change was the way words were put together to express meaning. This is why things like account, lists, and labels survived. They were understood quite clearly. Writing such as “I believe there are many gods which protect me” or “add natron to the solution to produce a very powerful soap” simply do not exist at all. Everything that survives makes no sense. Indeed, only a single sentence from before 2500 BC might survive, “Nefermaat is he who makes his gods in words that can not be erased”. My own opinion is that this is a mistranslation of a title rather than a sentence. In any case it has no meaning without interpretation.

If you’re aware of any such writing I’d truly love to see it.

 

 

 

Citation needed. My understanding is that most of the oldest texts are about business, war, genealogy, trade, astronomy, hunting, astrology, agriculture, fishing, story-telling, gossip, administration and some religious matters.

 

No. This is what is projected to the public by Egyptology but it’s simply not true. If you’ll look more closely they never say this. We can make extremely good inferences about things like geneolgy from written information but no sentence regarding geneology exists. It’s names and titles extracted from tombs and not books. Everything is “religious” such as “the dead king inundates the earth after it came out of the ocean”. I simply do not believe that this sentence or any other that was actually left involves religion or magic. It is misinterpreted and it needs retranslation to reflect intended meaning rather than our estimation of what these people must have believed.

I fed my dog just fine before I knew how the digestive system functioned.

 

Purina Dog Chow?

 

 

 

 

A great deal of behavior can be instinctive if you lack the learning to supercede it. It might be possible for a human to raise a dog from a puppy without knowing anything about digestion but then why would such an individual believe he and his dog eats and eliminates waste at all? Surely even an animal knows there's a link between food and waste. Eventually we almost all have even visceral knowledge of this process. If that's a pun then please forgive me.

 

It's very difficult to remove oneself from his place and time to see how others might see things. This is why the ancient writing is mistaken for incantation and magic.

Cladking, strange has replied to most of what you said but I wanted to add these points:

 

 

Beavers didn't realise anything. Those which exhibited certain behaviours were more evolutionarily fit in their niche and they were favoured by natural selection. This in turn encouraged the proliferation of those behaviours in the subsequent breeding populations. It's the same mechanism that leads to pretty much all characteristic species behaviours and has nothing to do with language or sharing conscious thoughts.

 

My whole point was that man took a long time learning to domesticate animals and grow crops. Because these things were transmitted orally within in small groups. It was the written word that allowed the distant and accurate sharing of knowledge and it was from this that processes and technologies were developed and optimised by large, widespread populations.

 

I believe things like dam building in beavers and fungus farming in termites is far too complicated behaviors to be the result of natural selection. Nature can't select for those who build rockets until someone builds a rocket. Nor can she select for dam building until someone builds a dam. I believe the simplest explanation is we are looking at the problem wrong. People tend to believe that humans alone are intelligent and that humans got here from highly superstitious ancestors who thought they could talk to gods and animals. Logic suggests we are mistaken. Observation suggests it's not intelligence that sets man apart but language.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think it took a long time to domesticate animals and grow crops because it is extremely complicated. It couldn't begin until there was enough theory to support it which means man had to understand some genetics and the myriad other subjects necessary. Obviously they didn't understand DNA and the like but they had to observe how offspring were like and dislike their parents. They had to know how to care for the animals at less expense than their ultimate value as farm produce or meat. They had to know the hydration requirements or risk expending more effort than the value of the animals. A huge amount of knowledge was necessary. They also would require some sort of security or human marauders would make off with their handiwork. A great deal of sophistication was absolutely required abnd this sophistication is reflected in the evidence. It is merely opinion that the ancients were superstitious and this opinion is founded almost solely on what, I believe, is obvious misinterpretation of the written material that survives. The interpretation is simply illogical and not even consistent with the written material. In each case what is said is interpreted to mean something else.

 

I'm sure you're right that the knowledge was transmitted orally but it appears that the language used was distinct from our own and more like prairie dog language or computer code. Until some effort is made to recover the language, its syntax, and grammar it is very difficult to make many statements about it. In the meantime the general concensus remains that humans used to be superstitious but we're all better now. The concensus is that it was easier to live with predators and a lack of most basic tools and weapons so long as you are superstitious. It was easier to drag stones up ramps if you were building a tomb for a god. There was no need for logic or common sense if you were sufficiently primitive.

 

There's no logic to our beliefs about ancient times and this is why the evidennce doesn't fit the beliefs and why there is a void before 2000 BC instead of a record of numerous oral traditions and scientific works. This is why we have myth instead of history.

[Strange]

How did they breed animals and keep them alive without knowledge of biology.

I can't believe I just read that.

 

I'm not sure what you mean here or intended but there is nothing from before 2000 BC other than what we understand to be "religious writings" and incantations but which make no sense. There is no science and no records from before this date according to modern understanding.

I have already given other examples from earlier: mainly accounting and administration. I'm not surprised there is little "science" (although how you define that word at this period is debatable).

 

 

It appears that the ancient books were unintelligible and discarded after the change in language.

You have provided no evidence for any such "ancient books" (I am assuming you are referring to some imaginary books that precede the known invention of writing, but it is hard to tell with your vague statements) or a change in language.

 

I'm confident you know of none of this from before 2000 BC.

Examples already provided from 3000BC.

 

 

This is the nature of nature. People act on their beliefs and if there are beliefs are unnatural there will be no benefit to them collectively. Even if some unnatural belief were able to protect them through mere happenstance, eventually conditions would change. Reason and logic are puny tools but superstition and foolishness are very powerful tools against survival.

People have been religious for all of recorded history and, despite your unsupported claims, almost certainly longer. This hasn't stopped the survival of the species. It could be argued it place an important practical role.

 

They were not superstitious at all. They were not religious and didn't believe in magic. This is a misunderstanding caused by a misinterpretation of ancient writing.

More unsupported claims.

 

No ancient pre-literate societies left enough evidence to understand their beliefs and knowledge.

We have their oral histories documented at many stages after the invention of writing, by many different peoples. But I suppose you are going to make another unsubstantiated claim that this were all invented after writing was developed.

 

Even literate societies before 2000 BC are assumed to be superstitious because all the writing they left appears to be gobblety gook.

The word is "gobbledygook". And no. The earliest proto-writings are nothing to do with superstition but trade.

 

There are no known cultures before 2000 BC.

That claim is not even worth responding to.

 

This is just the way it is.

Another unsubstantiated claim.

 

It doesn't prove I'm right

Nothing proves you are right. All I have seen is unsupported claims and factually incorrect statements.

 

You have not even said what culture, writing system or languages you are talking about. And yet, apparently, you have read all of them.

 

You haven't yet presented any evidence that this "ancient language" existed.

It would be considered OT here. I’ll start another thread at some point.

 

As it forms the entire basis of your argument, I fail to see how it could be (more) off topic.

 

Wiki is an immensely valuable tool but it’s always wrong.

How can it be immensely valuable if it is always wrong. And, obviously, it isn't always wrong. On many subjects it is a good resource and usually provides good references. I usually only use it as a simple reference for information I know to be correct.

 

When the language changed the vocabulary did not change.

Unsubstantiated claim.

 

I believe things like dam building in beavers and fungus farming in termites is far too complicated behaviors to be the result of natural selection.

Oh god. Are we getting into evolution denial now? What next, ancient aliens?

 

There's no logic to our beliefs about ancient times

There's no logic to YOUR beliefs about ancient times. And no evidence to support it either, apparently.

[cladking]

I have already given other examples from earlier: mainly accounting and administration. I'm not surprised there is little "science" (although how you define that word at this period is debatable).

 

 

You most assuredly have done no such thing. You quoted a wiki page thatr supported my argument that the vocabulary didn't change so lists, labels, accounts and the like survive But no written sentences. There is no science, no literature, no anything at all except what is interpreted to be nonsense and religious gobblety gook. We don't understand one of their gods, sceptres, icons or most of their heiroglyphs so it's rather baseless to claim that we understand the religion. We're told their religion was magic but we don't know how the magic was supposed to have worked because the writing is internally inconsistent as it is interpreted today.

 

I can phrase this in many ways but the fact remains exactly the same; there is no comprehensible writing of any sort from before 2000 BC. It's true that some of the gobblety gook looks comprehensible when taken a sentence at a time but it will be contradicted or unsubstantiated.

[Strange]

You most assuredly have done no such thing.

 

I can phrase this in many ways but the fact remains exactly the same; there is no comprehensible writing of any sort from before 2000 BC. It's true that some of the gobblety gook looks comprehensible when taken a sentence at a time but it will be contradicted or unsubstantiated.

 

You said, "there is nothing from before 2000 BC other than what we understand to be "religious writings" and incantations but which make no sense"

 

I provided evidence of writing 1,000 years older that were NOT "religious writings and incantations".

 

Also, however little evidence I have provided it is still infinitely more than you.

 

 

We're told their religion was magic

 

Their religion was no more or less "magic" than any other religion.

 

By the way, can you say which religion, culture, language and/or writing system(s) you are talking about? Or does this apply to every form of pre-literate society, every proto-writing, and every language throughout the world?

 

 

It's true that some of the gobblety gook looks comprehensible

The word is gobbledygook.

Edited September 8, 2013 by Strange

[cladking]

You have provided no evidence for any such "ancient books" (I am assuming you are referring to some imaginary books that precede the known invention of writing, but it is hard to tell with your vague statements) or a change in language

 

.

No books at all survive. Papyrus could have survived and a blank scrill exists. But not one single papyrus book survives or one single scroll survives with writing on it. I don't understabnd what's vague since I try to speak in tautologies and absolutes as possible. No books. There are not even any sentences that survive from before 2500 BC unless the Nefermaat title is actually a sentence. I'm aware that it's possible Sumerian writing exists but If it can be found it will be just as incomprehensible as the Egyptian. I have read all the Sumerian writing I can find that positively pre-dates 2000 BC and it is not necessarily written in modern language. All of it can be described as being superstitious as it is translated.

 

The only corpus that survive is the Pyramid Texts. It was inscribed in tiny little tombs euphimistically called "pyramids" by Egyptology. This dates to between 2500 BC and 2000 BC but does not exist on papyrus. A few of the utterances have been found in similar form and language on wooden coffins that date to between 2300 BC and about (probably) 1900 BC. There is a collection of various writings on coffins which is apparently all superstitious and some are written in modern language (after 2000 BC).

 

These are the PT;

 

http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/

 

 

Unsubstantiated claim.

 

 

Rather than addressing the logic and evidence presented you are merely claiming it is unsupported while even failing to specify what is unsupported. If you want to actually argue the points then please say what you disagree and then say why.

 

You've already allowed numerous points to stand that would answer your charges here that my argument is unsupported.

 

In point of fact the only argument that is unsupported is that statements like "Men and gods, your arms under me as you raise me and lift me to heaven", must be accepted as "religious" in nature. That it is religious is an interpretation that has failed to answer basiuc factual questions like how the pyramids were built or how the ancients knew the land came upout of the ocean. Listen carefully to this sentence: It has even failed to explain the ancient religion. It's the interpretation that is in error. It is the logic that is in error.

 

Please list any ancient writing or specific objections for a further response.

[Strange]

No books at all survive.

 

God. It's like pulling teeth. Please stop being so bloody vague and cryptic. Stop talking in generalizations and be specific. It is really hard to know what you are talking about (apart from the fact you are making it all up).

 

Of course books survive. I have a shelf full of them.

 

I assume you mean something like: "no books that I think existed before the invention of writing survive". Well, no. Because writing hadn't been invented and so there were no books.

 

If you are trying to imply that there is a forgotten form of writing that pre-dates known writing systems then why didn't these "ancients" leave any texts on stone or metal as many later civilizations did?

 

p.s. Am I to assume from your vague references to Egypt, that you are only or mainly concerned with an Egyptian society?

[cladking]

Of course books survive. I have a shelf full of them.

 

 

Now this might be progress.

 

Tell me, what exact books do you have from before 2000 BC?

 

I'm of course willing to accept translations of any such books.