Is Civilization much Older than we're led to Beleive?

[Hypno]

Ancient people. or any civilization, didn't have structural steel until about 150 years ago. So its not a matter of preferring to build with stone but rather stone and wood is all they had.

Today they have cranes, bulldozers, steel, and glass.

https://blog.nema.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Mexico-City-1024x571.jpg

 

[YoungBlade]

Inca writing system, called quipu. Can be used for messages, literature, and accounting:

That's not really writing, now, is it? Its a rudimentary message and counting system.

Can you show me their written literature?

Here it is. If you can read it.

 

[Super_Fire]

^It could have been whites or asians.

The Drunk Lounge is another thread, Pride Male.

 

[Pride male]

^Dont the Mayans themselves say they received the knowledge from a blue eyed man called Quaztcoatl.

 

[nomadbrah]

^Dont the Mayans themselves say they received the knowledge from a blue eyed man called Quaztcoatl.

Thor Heyerdahl said it was Kon-Tiki Viracocha, who is depicted with a beard and light skin.

There is now quite a lot of evidence to prove pre-Columbus contact with the new world. They recently found roman artifacts in Mexico dating back thousands of years. There's just no reason to believe otherwise. The coincidences are too many, the red-haired mummies of the Andes. The reed boats on Lake Titicaca. The abandoned civilization at the same place. The genetic proof of light skin, red haired Easter Islanders, the light skin New Zealanders etc (before European colonization).

It's all going to come to light if "archeologists" don't succeed in destroying the evidence.

 

[Super_Fire]

^Dont the Mayans themselves say they received the knowledge from a blue eyed man called Quaztcoatl.

The Maya didn't, but there's circumstantial evidence from the Aztecs.

Anything's possible, though we have to wonder why the architectural style found there doesn't match anything in Europe.

The big link would then be Teotihuacan. This is undoubtedly the earliest form of advanced civilization in Mexico, yet we know nothing about its inhabitants. What's more, the next big civilization, the Olmec, claimed they got their civilization from Teotihuacan. It was then passed on to the Maya when the Olmecs disappeared, and the Aztecs later on (being the least refined of these cultures).

People will likely claim that Teotihuacan was derived from a mythical Atlantis or Lemuria. A lot of people in Mexico believe it was aliens though.

P.S. I was being too hard on you Pride, sorry about that.

 

[Super_Fire]

^^Also, to amend my post, because I've been out of Maya studies for some years now, the Olmec were the oldest advanced civilization in Mexico. I should know this considering I've been to La Venta in Villahermosa more times than I can count, but that was mostly as a child.

For those who are interested, I'm currently getting back into this and focusing on the Olmec as well as El Mirador. Archeologists have recently found that the Maya's classical period is much older than they had thought based on their findings of massive pyramids at El Mirador in Guatemala, which is the largest Maya city ever and was built much earlier than what was previously thought possible.

Just for those who are curious:

This is only the tip of a much larger temple, the largest in the Maya world, known currently as El Tigre:

For reference, all of central Tikal fits inside just one temple at El Mirador, and the main temple is bigger than the pyramids at Giza:

The city as we know of it so far:

Unfortunately excavation work is proceeding very slowly because it's an extremely remote part of the jungle. It could take decades more before we see some of its glory.

El Mirador flourished in 600 BC, and reached its zenith from 300-100 BC, whereas Teotihuacan reached its peak in 100 BC.

 

[nomadbrah]

^ It's absolutely intriguing stuff.

Incredibly architecture.

If we're judged on what we can leave behind, what will they make of our "liberal democracy"? We can only get people to build cheap and ugly steel and glass. Forget about getting our "capitalists" and other rich people to pay someone to spend 20 years carving out stone for a statue.

These societies used slave labor of course, which was really more like indentured servants or basically, job security for life and one day off a week

In a lot of academic fields, they say there are no new discoveries. Like if you go into chemistry or medicine, you will spend your career going over minutiae of some theory.

In archeology and antrophology, I think we're due for a new golden age, when we combine our technology (dna, carbon 14, all kinds of stuff) with our "soft science" of historical record and word of mouth through the ages.

So much of actual, real history has been hidden and deliberately destroyed through 50 years of marxist studies. It's all there waiting to be rediscovered.

As for where I see the big discoveries being made.

Sumer and Indus Valley.

We got to figure out who these people were. Indus Valley was highly advanced and pre-dates the Egyptians. Likewise with Sumer.

 

[Pride male]

Are you familiar with Arthur Kemp and his Nordicist theory in March of the Titans, that all civilisation originated from the Europeans? He postulates that the Sumerians, Egyptians, original Chinese etc were whites.

 

[nomadbrah]

Are you familiar with Arthur Kemp and his Nordicist theory in March of the Titans, that all civilisation originated from the Europeans? He postulates that the Sumerians, Egyptians, original Chinese etc were whites.

I haven't read it, but I am aware of the book. I tried finding it online, but couldn't.

I don't think Kemp has contributed any new research, he mostly just collected previous research and some primary sources with a focus on race.

It should probably be said, that Kemp is just an amateur, who dared to go against marxists and tell the story.

All that Kemp passes on is from legit pre-ww2 antrophologits and historians, who all believed in the "nordicist" theory.

The claim that the Vedic civilization was "nordic" was first made by an indian. DNA proved him right later on. Likewise with Egyptians.

Sumer I don't know much about. I don't think anyone believes the Chinese were white, the Han chinese are from the Yellow River bassin, but the people who lived there before, were white or white-mixed most likely. The ancestors of Ghengis Kahn were also likely a white/asian mixed race.

 

[speculator]

The original Russians are from Gobi desert, current day Mongolia. The Great Wall was built to protect China from their invasions. I remember reading in Chinese literature about evil blonde men with blue eyes from the North. Not surprisingly the region neighboring Gobi desert is full of blonde blue-eyed Chinese.

 

[nomadbrah]

^ It's interesting that mix of white and asian over many generations turn into a common look with epicanthal fold, blue eyes, white (not just pale) skin, flatter (more mongoloid) face.

The Saami look much like that too.

 

[sterling_archer]

The original Russians are from Gobi desert, current day Mongolia. The Great Wall was built to protect China from their invasions. I remember reading in Chinese literature about evil blonde men with blue eyes from the North. Not surprisingly the region neighboring Gobi desert is full of blonde blue-eyed Chinese.

Holy shit, that is one of the most interesting things I saw in recent times. Do you have source for that Great Wall defense claim instead of mainstream one?

 

[Hypno]

Some relevant, interesting items here:

http://thechive.com/2018/06/22/myst...-keep-you-on-dry-land-indefinitely-21-photos/

 

[speculator]

The original Russians are from Gobi desert, current day Mongolia. The Great Wall was built to protect China from their invasions. I remember reading in Chinese literature about evil blonde men with blue eyes from the North. Not surprisingly the region neighboring Gobi desert is full of blonde blue-eyed Chinese.

Holy shit, that is one of the most interesting things I saw in recent times. Do you have source for that Great Wall defense claim instead of mainstream one?

It is hard to find official sources because it is against the mainstream narrative. However, here are some articles that indirectly point to the fact that Southern Siberia was populated by Aryans.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...city-discovered-in-Russia/article15768741.ece

https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-asia/older-stonehenge-arkaim-russia-00251

http://nikolay-levashov.ru/English/Articles/History-1-eng.html

 

[nomadbrah]

When the modern native americans (probably not the first in America), 10.000 years ago, they were already a heavily mixed white-asian group. As much as 1/3 to 1/2 European and not just any European, specifically Western Hunter Gatherer (Cro-Magnon) from France.

 

[Bastard Sword]

The claim that the Vedic civilization was "nordic" was first made by an indian. DNA proved him right later on. Likewise with Egyptians.

Sumer I don't know much about. I don't think anyone believes the Chinese were white, the Han chinese are from the Yellow River bassin, but the people who lived there before, were white or white-mixed most likely. The ancestors of Ghengis Kahn were also likely a white/asian mixed race.

The idea that either of those civilizations were "white" in the conventional sense is nonsense. Nordicist theories by and large are bull shit. Weird how those Nordic Aryan Egyptians loved depicting themselves like this:

Or like this:

Which shows a brown-skinned pharaoh fighting black Africans from Nubia. This painting accurately depicts Nubians as having extremely dark skin -- so one would imagine that the pharaoh (Ramesses the Great) would be depicted accurately as well. Unless, of course, those Nordic Aryan Egyptians just decided to depict themselves completely inaccurately.

In both paintings, members of the noble classes are depicted as well -- shutting down theories that ancient Egypt was some kind of ancient Apartheid state with enlightened white rulers using brown and black slave labor.

That Vedic civilization argument that you referenced is tinfoil hat nonsense written in the 1890's (when theories like this were in vogue). The writer claimed that the Aryans originated in the Arctic Circle (lol) and have a ten thousand year old civilization. This isn't an argument he developed from referencing actual archaeology or historical works. It's little more than his creative interpretation of the Vedas, which themselves are little more than philosophical texts. It's like sketching out the history of Mesopotamia from a random person's interpretation of the Old Testament.

The Aryan Invasion theory in itself is highly suspect -- even if it's true, the earliest Indo-Aryans only came on the heels of the Indus Valley civilization, which was definitively not "white" in the modern sense.

The features of these sculptures honestly look very similar to modern Indians (or even the Australoid/Negroid aboriginals of India).

Nordicist theories were just part of a wholesale effort to justify colonialism, nothing more, nothing less. They're masturbatory fanfiction for the most part and have rightfully been discredited across the board.

 

[nomadbrah]

I think we're gonna have a hard time, if you discount the "aryan invasion theory", which is the consensus theory now with very little resistance outside hindu nationalists. Are you a hindu nationalist? Not that there's anything wrong with that, but there is really a lot of evidence now.

Even in India, this is settled now:

http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/sc...he-aryan-migration-debate/article19090301.ece

did Indo-European language speakers, who called themselves Aryans, stream into India sometime around 2,000 BC – 1,500 BC when the Indus Valley civilisation came to an end, bringing with them Sanskrit and a distinctive set of cultural practices? Genetic research based on an avalanche of new DNA evidence is making scientists around the world converge on an unambiguous answer: yes, they did.

You didn't need genetics of course. Any unbiased scholar would put two and two together when Sanskrit is an indo-european language:

Those first 3, depending on the transliteration into english script, is pretty much exactly old norse pronunciation.

Even today, Icelandic has these:

Either European people migrated into India and brought their language with them or Indians migrated into Europe. There was never any evidence at all of an indian migration anywhere, so it was rather obvious.

 

[nomadbrah]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_history_of_Egypt#Ancient_DNA

In 2013, Khairat et al. conducted the first genetic study utilizing next-generation sequencing to ascertain the ancestral lineage of an Ancient Egyptian individual. The researchers extracted DNA from the heads of five Egyptian mummies that were housed at the institution. All the specimens were dated to between 806 BCE and 124 CE, a timeframe corresponding with the Late Dynastic and Ptolemaic periods. The researchers observed that one of the mummified individuals likely belonged to the mtDNA haplogroup I2, a maternal clade that is believed to have originated in Western Asia.[7]

Both types of genomic material showed that ancient Egyptians shared little DNA with modern sub-Saharan Africans. Instead, their closest relatives were people living during the Neolithic and Bronze ages in an area known as the Levant. Strikingly, the mummies were more closely related to ancient Europeans and Anatolians than to modern Egyptians.

https://www.nature.com/news/mummy-dna-unravels-ancient-egyptians-ancestry-1.22069

I think that is rather clear what is being said here even if the language is trying to obfuscate the truth as much as possible.

"Ancient Europeans" and "Anatolians" leave little doubt at all, combined with "bronze age levantines".

Bronze age anatolians and levantines mean Hittites, Minoans and Phoenicians, all clearly "white european".

 

[Bastard Sword]

^ I don't discount the Aryan invasion theory, I just dispute how it's used by a lot of white nationalists. People like this will claim that Indian civilization is just the result of white people, and that it fell into corruption after they mixed with the local Dravidians. The roots of ancient India (or ancient Egypt, or Sumer, or Mesoamerica, or any number of ancient civilizations) have nothing to do with "white" people, let alone ancient Europeans.

It's very possible that Indo-Aryans/Indo-Europeans steadily migrated into India or even invaded parts of it over a certain period. What is less certain is what this migration actually looked like -- the earliest Hindu text (Rigveda) for example was clearly written after this migration had taken place (it references animals like elephants that wouldn't have existed outside of India or Africa) -- and exactly what effect this had on ancient Indian society. Overall, it's an incredibly murky period in history from which almost no one can draw any serious conclusions. This also means that it's not even clear if the Indo-Aryans were "white" in the conventional sense, or whether modern Europeans can really draw much of a connection to them.

All in all, associating these ancient civilizations with white people or with Nordics is immature. Yes, there are linguistic ties with the ancient Germans and Scandinavians -- but that doesn't prove that the roots of Indian civilization are Nordic. Also, the Aryans are supposed to come from Central Asia, after which they invaded India, Iran, and Europe. I'm unaware of Central Asians (Kazakhs, Uzbeks, etc) being "white". On top of that racial compositions have changed over time -- Latinos for example did not exist before 1600 C.E. It's possible that the Aryans had a phenotype that would be unrecognizable today.