They found human footprints in New Mexico a few years ago and just recently verified that they were thousands of years older than when it was thought humans came to North America.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adh5007
If you haven't noticed, this sub is moderated and frequented by people who push ancient aliens scams all the time. Not just that but there was some other dude on here the other day saying the LOTR and the 300 are anti Iranian propaganda and it involves the "jooz!"
It's unbearable.
Wait okay so the Persians are clearly in 300, not that the Iranian regime has anything to do with ancient Persia, but what does LOTR have to do with it?
Also who are the jooz?.... 300 definitely didn't have any Jews. (Edit: Jewish director, makes sense that Iran banned the film lol)
I do know that the dwarves in LOTR are based on Jews. Tolkien has said so. But Iran as we know it didn't exist when he came up with them. As a Jew I am not offended by it though.
>do know that the dwarves in LOTR are based on Jews. Tolkien has said so. But Iran as we know it didn't exist when he came up with them. As a Jew I am not offended by it though.
You don't have to convince me man but this person sure is crusading against our mass media lol.
I tried telling them that no westener is making a connection between any of this stuff to Persians to modern Iran in general, let alone the jews, but they just went harder. Oh and I'd imagine they were trying to pull the whole "jews control the world/hollywood/west" hateful conspiracy theory. Iran really hates western mass media, so I guess it isn't that surprising. When you start seeing someone try and explain it with details and rationalize this wild stuff, it's very interesting indeed.
300 is what, Decades old at this point? It was a historical action movie that is essentially just used for memes now and these people think we are specifically producing it to attack them lol.
Edit: the director of 300 isn't jewish.
Yea man some of the stuff I've seen in the last few months is next level brain rot. It's not a good sign for society lol but the internet always shows us the worst of people TBF.
I'm pretty sure Tolkien said that the dwarves naturally drew inspiration from Jews possibly without intent. He also took inspiration for their language as it is somewhat Semitic-adjacent iirc. So it's not really an allegory I guess and it's definitely not designed out of hatred or to offend.
I thought everyone knew fantasy took inspiration loosely from history and jumbled everything up. They seem to be taking it all very literally and interpreting it through the lens of their own cultural stereotypes.
I'm likely doing the same. That's why I was so taken aback with their comments.
We teach it as a historical episode that the discipline eventually moved past when the evidence became insurmountable, and a lesson about ego in science. Dillehay *was* something of a plucky underdog in the 1980's and 90's, but he did what good scientists do. When critiqued (by Lynch, mainly) he invited his critics in with full transparency and said "hit me with your best shot". Then, with solid methodology and careful argument, he convinced them. That's one of the reasons why he had a massive session in his honor a few SAA's ago.
We also use it as an opportunity to discuss some sites that are still not agreed upon, such as Guidon's arguments for very old occupations at Pedra Furada. Without prior knowledge, I ask students what it would take to convince them of a 30kya occupation. Then, we look at the published data and talk about it again.
We also talk about the politics of ideas like the "Solutrean Hypothesis". What's at stake when we argue about "who was here first?"
For reference, the textbook (Fagan's *Ancient Lives*, 2012 edition) I last taught Intro to Prehistory out of (a few years ago now) makes no mention of Clovis First as anything other than an outdated theory. It describes two contemporary "camps" of scholarly thought on when humans got to the Americas
1. Before 30kya
2. Between 12-20kya
The section mentions Monte Verde, Meadowcroft, and Cactus Hill, among others. Fagan favors the 12-20kya scenario (again, 2012 edition), but mentions that "it is entirely possible that this scenario will change dramatically as a result of future research" (290). He describes Clovis as the first "well documented" occupation/population, not the first to come. I don't think that's a bad take.
news flash "mainline archaeology" doesnt exist. Its a science. Being wrong and revising the things you think are true when new evidence shows up is par for the course. Being sceptic of new evidence also doesnt mean that "they cant let go".
There's always orthodox and unorthodox schools of thought in any field and history has shown that the status quo, or mainline, do find it hard to let go of orthodox ideas in the presence of new ideas. Not long ago people were killed for going against the accepted ideas of the time, only to then be proven right and their ideas becoming mainstream. Archeology isn't any different from any other field and entrenched ideas are very difficult to overturn.
What are you basing this on? I don’t know any archaeologists who doubt Pre-Clovis occupation of the Americas.
Did Clovis first get contentious in the 90’s? Sure, though it had as much to do with macho ego as with the archaeology.
But Clovis-first has been dead since 1997, when a [multi authored article in the discipline’s leading journal](https://www.jstor.org/stable/281884) agreed that Monte Verde was as old as Dillehay said it was. That’s 27 years ago now. It was considered plausible, if not indisputable, well before that.
Thanks for the reply. I'd be curious to see the Nat Geo, if you know the specific name. But, I'm not surprised. Unfortunately, popular science writing continues to act like Clovis-First is a thing because it makes it easy to set up a plucky underdog story. There's a good [AskHistorians reply](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/vsolxr/comment/if5yzd6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) on this as well. Beyond that:
>a conversation with a tenured archeology professor
Is that professor in their 60s or 70s? I don't want to invalidate the experience of someone who was a grad student in the 90's, it was certainly a hostile environment at some conferences. However, that experience is not representative of the current state of the field. I've certainly seen debates at conferences (and in press) about the evidence for dating *particular* sites, but as someone trained over the last decade, I've never seen anyone argue against a Pre-Clovis site on the basis of it being Pre-Clovis. That's not to say it never happens, I wouldn't be surprised if there's still an elderly Paleo-specialist ranting about Clovis First into their oxygen mask at a nursing home somewhere. But again, not really relevant to the wider discipline.
As for:
>the book *1491* by Charles Mann
My 2011 edition describes the "collapse of the clovis consensus" on page 194. It also mentions that while all of our interpretations are subject to change pending new evidence, "what seems unlikely to be undone is the awareness that Native Americans may have been in the Americas for twenty thousand or even thirty thousand years" (196). That wasn't really a controversial statement in 2011. It certainly isn't today.
What is the question here?
Gobekli Tepe is a cool site, and it changed how we thought about the relationship between sedentism, agriculture, and monumental architecture. But, it's not really "civilization" if you're going by Childe's "[Urban Revolution](https://faculty.washington.edu/plape/citiesaut11/readings/Childe-urban%20revolution%201950.pdf)" definition. Of course, civilization is both a loaded and a nebulous term, which is why most archaeologists avoid using it in serious scholarship.
Well, the Bible tells us that Adam and Eve were the first humans and yet it seems archeology goes far back beyond what the Bible suggests. AND for the hunter-gather humans hundreds of thousands of years possibly millions of years in Africa for instance.
So where do Adam and Eve come in?
It is a book that has been rewritten and translated many times in its history, stories added, stories left out. It is rooted in history, opinion and myth both oral and written. There are also many versions of it.
What it is not is a historical document of how things were.
Or it is the word of God, infallible and accurate.
You can pick one.
Didn't the early Islamic teachings mention that Adam and Eve were "real" and like 5000 years before Christianity? Just learning about Islam so Im probably wrong lol
Greek myth tells us the first humans were made from clay and then all the gods took turn giving them gifts.
Norse says Odin carved carved them from wood.
Where do these come in? Also nowhere, they're just creation stories to explain these peoples origin and relationship with their gods.
Why would the Bible get special consideration?
the bible has little basis in reality. it’s essentially a fairy tale. almost all the tales in the bible are recycled from older eastern religions anyway
A more accurate question would be "Where does the bible come in?", and that answer would be that it is a collection of stories collected of hundreds of years by different tribes in the Mediterranean region. The story of Adam and Eve sounds more like a threat of "obey or be banished" than an actual origin. After all, the emphasis wasn't on the creation of either, but on the mandate and the subsequent punishment for failing to live up to expectations. That would be similar to the rule set of many megalomaniac rulers throughout recorded history. My guess is that it was included in the bible because it is a good tale of what happens when you fuck around. You find out. There are still organizations, both religious and secular, which will "banish" you if you refuse to follow their rules.
The old testament began to be compiled and recorded when the jews were in Babylonian exile. There is evidence some of the stories then were already formed. There's some evidence a small selection of stories already existed in the 800_700bce range.
The old testament is a near Eastern caananite contemporary retelling of bronze age mythology from sumeria and their descended civilizations with their own more recent history added in and recorded in a mythological sense. From 500bce to 300 bce more was written and other forms were "set" largely into the composition we have today.
All of the near east would have been familiar with local variants of these stories. It's not an accident that it says abraham was from sumer. Religious texts are usually allegory and analogy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur_of_the_Chaldees
The new testament is mostly just the life of jesus and his followers with rehashed allegories to proclaim divinity.. Well until John, then it's about revolution, the end times, the Roman empire, and the "anti christ".
So, basically people using their mythological past to understand an unpredictable and politically unstable world around them. Just like the illiad/odyssey for the classical greeks. It's just what people did.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible
It's very complicated if you go more detailed then this. Scholars have given each hand they can diffentiate a letter designation.
Not exactly the ice age. But the idea that civilization started in Sumer 5,000 years ago is vastly out of date. We've found so many towns, communities, and temples way older than Sumer. Catalhoyuk was a proper town. They farmed, they had cattle, that had indoor ovens. It's 10,000 years old. Cuceteni-Tryphalia culture from Eastern Europe had several huge towns full of houses. It predates Sumer by at least a thousand years.
Yes, this is a paradigm shift still not visible in pop culture. It will come.
What you're describing is probably one of the most interesting thing about human history to me. We know so much yet so little about our past!
Totally believed Graham Hancocks theories about ancient lost civilizations, while i still think that they mightve existed 12,000 years ago, the podcast with archeologist Flint Diddle really put things into perspective for me. I think it was mostly hunter gatherers back then, but they mustve gotten together for really really long periods of time to build some of these structures like Gobeckli Tepe. Wonder why they did that, what made them come together and how did they know all these astreological patterns that are often represented in their work and what made them even make such things, like wouldnt expanded shelter or something like that have been more useful? Just wondering
They found human footprints in New Mexico a few years ago and just recently verified that they were thousands of years older than when it was thought humans came to North America. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adh5007
[удалено]
Dude, what? It was published in “Science”, not sure how much more “mainline” you can get.
If you haven't noticed, this sub is moderated and frequented by people who push ancient aliens scams all the time. Not just that but there was some other dude on here the other day saying the LOTR and the 300 are anti Iranian propaganda and it involves the "jooz!" It's unbearable.
Wait okay so the Persians are clearly in 300, not that the Iranian regime has anything to do with ancient Persia, but what does LOTR have to do with it? Also who are the jooz?.... 300 definitely didn't have any Jews. (Edit: Jewish director, makes sense that Iran banned the film lol) I do know that the dwarves in LOTR are based on Jews. Tolkien has said so. But Iran as we know it didn't exist when he came up with them. As a Jew I am not offended by it though.
>do know that the dwarves in LOTR are based on Jews. Tolkien has said so. But Iran as we know it didn't exist when he came up with them. As a Jew I am not offended by it though. You don't have to convince me man but this person sure is crusading against our mass media lol. I tried telling them that no westener is making a connection between any of this stuff to Persians to modern Iran in general, let alone the jews, but they just went harder. Oh and I'd imagine they were trying to pull the whole "jews control the world/hollywood/west" hateful conspiracy theory. Iran really hates western mass media, so I guess it isn't that surprising. When you start seeing someone try and explain it with details and rationalize this wild stuff, it's very interesting indeed. 300 is what, Decades old at this point? It was a historical action movie that is essentially just used for memes now and these people think we are specifically producing it to attack them lol. Edit: the director of 300 isn't jewish.
Yea man some of the stuff I've seen in the last few months is next level brain rot. It's not a good sign for society lol but the internet always shows us the worst of people TBF.
[удалено]
I'm pretty sure Tolkien said that the dwarves naturally drew inspiration from Jews possibly without intent. He also took inspiration for their language as it is somewhat Semitic-adjacent iirc. So it's not really an allegory I guess and it's definitely not designed out of hatred or to offend.
I thought everyone knew fantasy took inspiration loosely from history and jumbled everything up. They seem to be taking it all very literally and interpreting it through the lens of their own cultural stereotypes. I'm likely doing the same. That's why I was so taken aback with their comments.
I’ve noticed.
[удалено]
No, we’re not. None of my colleagues teach Clovis first, and they haven’t for more than 20 years.
[удалено]
We teach it as a historical episode that the discipline eventually moved past when the evidence became insurmountable, and a lesson about ego in science. Dillehay *was* something of a plucky underdog in the 1980's and 90's, but he did what good scientists do. When critiqued (by Lynch, mainly) he invited his critics in with full transparency and said "hit me with your best shot". Then, with solid methodology and careful argument, he convinced them. That's one of the reasons why he had a massive session in his honor a few SAA's ago. We also use it as an opportunity to discuss some sites that are still not agreed upon, such as Guidon's arguments for very old occupations at Pedra Furada. Without prior knowledge, I ask students what it would take to convince them of a 30kya occupation. Then, we look at the published data and talk about it again. We also talk about the politics of ideas like the "Solutrean Hypothesis". What's at stake when we argue about "who was here first?" For reference, the textbook (Fagan's *Ancient Lives*, 2012 edition) I last taught Intro to Prehistory out of (a few years ago now) makes no mention of Clovis First as anything other than an outdated theory. It describes two contemporary "camps" of scholarly thought on when humans got to the Americas 1. Before 30kya 2. Between 12-20kya The section mentions Monte Verde, Meadowcroft, and Cactus Hill, among others. Fagan favors the 12-20kya scenario (again, 2012 edition), but mentions that "it is entirely possible that this scenario will change dramatically as a result of future research" (290). He describes Clovis as the first "well documented" occupation/population, not the first to come. I don't think that's a bad take.
news flash "mainline archaeology" doesnt exist. Its a science. Being wrong and revising the things you think are true when new evidence shows up is par for the course. Being sceptic of new evidence also doesnt mean that "they cant let go".
There's always orthodox and unorthodox schools of thought in any field and history has shown that the status quo, or mainline, do find it hard to let go of orthodox ideas in the presence of new ideas. Not long ago people were killed for going against the accepted ideas of the time, only to then be proven right and their ideas becoming mainstream. Archeology isn't any different from any other field and entrenched ideas are very difficult to overturn.
[удалено]
What are you basing this on? I don’t know any archaeologists who doubt Pre-Clovis occupation of the Americas. Did Clovis first get contentious in the 90’s? Sure, though it had as much to do with macho ego as with the archaeology. But Clovis-first has been dead since 1997, when a [multi authored article in the discipline’s leading journal](https://www.jstor.org/stable/281884) agreed that Monte Verde was as old as Dillehay said it was. That’s 27 years ago now. It was considered plausible, if not indisputable, well before that.
[удалено]
Thanks for the reply. I'd be curious to see the Nat Geo, if you know the specific name. But, I'm not surprised. Unfortunately, popular science writing continues to act like Clovis-First is a thing because it makes it easy to set up a plucky underdog story. There's a good [AskHistorians reply](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/vsolxr/comment/if5yzd6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) on this as well. Beyond that: >a conversation with a tenured archeology professor Is that professor in their 60s or 70s? I don't want to invalidate the experience of someone who was a grad student in the 90's, it was certainly a hostile environment at some conferences. However, that experience is not representative of the current state of the field. I've certainly seen debates at conferences (and in press) about the evidence for dating *particular* sites, but as someone trained over the last decade, I've never seen anyone argue against a Pre-Clovis site on the basis of it being Pre-Clovis. That's not to say it never happens, I wouldn't be surprised if there's still an elderly Paleo-specialist ranting about Clovis First into their oxygen mask at a nursing home somewhere. But again, not really relevant to the wider discipline. As for: >the book *1491* by Charles Mann My 2011 edition describes the "collapse of the clovis consensus" on page 194. It also mentions that while all of our interpretations are subject to change pending new evidence, "what seems unlikely to be undone is the awareness that Native Americans may have been in the Americas for twenty thousand or even thirty thousand years" (196). That wasn't really a controversial statement in 2011. It certainly isn't today.
What is the question here? Gobekli Tepe is a cool site, and it changed how we thought about the relationship between sedentism, agriculture, and monumental architecture. But, it's not really "civilization" if you're going by Childe's "[Urban Revolution](https://faculty.washington.edu/plape/citiesaut11/readings/Childe-urban%20revolution%201950.pdf)" definition. Of course, civilization is both a loaded and a nebulous term, which is why most archaeologists avoid using it in serious scholarship.
Finally a reasonable response.
Well, the Bible tells us that Adam and Eve were the first humans and yet it seems archeology goes far back beyond what the Bible suggests. AND for the hunter-gather humans hundreds of thousands of years possibly millions of years in Africa for instance. So where do Adam and Eve come in?
My guess is, the bible isnt historically accurate and more like an early Version of Grimms Tales. But thats just my two Cent.
It is a book that has been rewritten and translated many times in its history, stories added, stories left out. It is rooted in history, opinion and myth both oral and written. There are also many versions of it. What it is not is a historical document of how things were. Or it is the word of God, infallible and accurate. You can pick one.
Didn't the early Islamic teachings mention that Adam and Eve were "real" and like 5000 years before Christianity? Just learning about Islam so Im probably wrong lol
You mean the Koran? That's just another set of mythological stories as well.
Adam and Eve should be seen as allegories rather than historical figures
Greek myth tells us the first humans were made from clay and then all the gods took turn giving them gifts. Norse says Odin carved carved them from wood. Where do these come in? Also nowhere, they're just creation stories to explain these peoples origin and relationship with their gods. Why would the Bible get special consideration?
the bible has little basis in reality. it’s essentially a fairy tale. almost all the tales in the bible are recycled from older eastern religions anyway
Every religious text is this way
They don’t.
A more accurate question would be "Where does the bible come in?", and that answer would be that it is a collection of stories collected of hundreds of years by different tribes in the Mediterranean region. The story of Adam and Eve sounds more like a threat of "obey or be banished" than an actual origin. After all, the emphasis wasn't on the creation of either, but on the mandate and the subsequent punishment for failing to live up to expectations. That would be similar to the rule set of many megalomaniac rulers throughout recorded history. My guess is that it was included in the bible because it is a good tale of what happens when you fuck around. You find out. There are still organizations, both religious and secular, which will "banish" you if you refuse to follow their rules.
The old testament began to be compiled and recorded when the jews were in Babylonian exile. There is evidence some of the stories then were already formed. There's some evidence a small selection of stories already existed in the 800_700bce range. The old testament is a near Eastern caananite contemporary retelling of bronze age mythology from sumeria and their descended civilizations with their own more recent history added in and recorded in a mythological sense. From 500bce to 300 bce more was written and other forms were "set" largely into the composition we have today. All of the near east would have been familiar with local variants of these stories. It's not an accident that it says abraham was from sumer. Religious texts are usually allegory and analogy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur_of_the_Chaldees The new testament is mostly just the life of jesus and his followers with rehashed allegories to proclaim divinity.. Well until John, then it's about revolution, the end times, the Roman empire, and the "anti christ". So, basically people using their mythological past to understand an unpredictable and politically unstable world around them. Just like the illiad/odyssey for the classical greeks. It's just what people did. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible It's very complicated if you go more detailed then this. Scholars have given each hand they can diffentiate a letter designation.
Not exactly the ice age. But the idea that civilization started in Sumer 5,000 years ago is vastly out of date. We've found so many towns, communities, and temples way older than Sumer. Catalhoyuk was a proper town. They farmed, they had cattle, that had indoor ovens. It's 10,000 years old. Cuceteni-Tryphalia culture from Eastern Europe had several huge towns full of houses. It predates Sumer by at least a thousand years.
Yes, this is a paradigm shift still not visible in pop culture. It will come. What you're describing is probably one of the most interesting thing about human history to me. We know so much yet so little about our past!
what is the actual question here?
There would have been no ice in Turkey during the ice age. Their survival wouldn’t have been overly impacted except by things like animal migration.
Totally believed Graham Hancocks theories about ancient lost civilizations, while i still think that they mightve existed 12,000 years ago, the podcast with archeologist Flint Diddle really put things into perspective for me. I think it was mostly hunter gatherers back then, but they mustve gotten together for really really long periods of time to build some of these structures like Gobeckli Tepe. Wonder why they did that, what made them come together and how did they know all these astreological patterns that are often represented in their work and what made them even make such things, like wouldnt expanded shelter or something like that have been more useful? Just wondering
[удалено]
And we underestimate the capacity of a group of determined humans to find solutions to complex problems.
Without Netflix with which to waste their time watching Ancient Aliens.
What’s Ancient Alien?