There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

The mainstream view has never been accurate, true, nor good, nor right, in 6000 years,
except possibly for a few years right after the flood.

stevevw said:

The short video speaks for itself. Is this possible. If so what are the implications for the mainstream view of human evolution and history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi4gFfjzKck&ab_channel=MichaelButton

Click to expand...

All our modern history has been re-written with half truths, we can only know the whole truth of ancient history through the word of God.

stevevw said:

The short video speaks for itself. Is this possible. If so what are the implications for the mainstream view of human evolution and history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi4gFfjzKck&ab_channel=MichaelButton

Click to expand...

A lot of what the guy in the video was intimating was covered in a book 'The Dawn Of Everything: A New History of Humanity' back in 2021. It's a big book. Nearly 700 pages, so I don't see anyone buying it for a look-see. But there's a wiki page on it if anyone is interested.


I wasn't really convinced by it.

33K views · 1.2K reactions | Agnes Sammut on Reels
historical horror digital slavry

There are many flaws in human history, and it was an interesting video. One of the reasons is that every generation thinks they are the enlightened ones, and those before them were more primitive. I am always amazed at videos made by young people about the 1960s and 1970s and how uninformed and “primitive” we were. One topic that is informative on this is the Middle Ages. For example, after the Black Death, the changes in society were much more radical than the changes we see today. This is probably true for many generations that have come before us. One theory is that humans have deteriorated physically and mentally since Adam. Technology has become more complex, but more and more people are needed to make each advancement. If this is true, the decline is probably not linear, with changes in diet and medical science changing the curve.

Seems like he's attacking ideas that are of his own invention and/or deliberately misconstruing areas of active research. Or concepts that are a couple of decades out of date.

There's no consensus on the 'cognitive revolution'. Yes, some like to point to Central and Northern Europe about 40-50,000 years ago as some sort of societal inflection point and the emergence of behavioural modernity. Mostly because we found a bunch of cool rock art and statues at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, and a lot of good books were written about that.

However, there's been PLENTY of evidence that the process occurred earlier (some around 100,000 to 175,000 years ago, and yet others that push this back as far as 300,000 years) and not in Europe (mostly West or Southern Africa, some argue Northern Africa). We've known this since the end of the 1970s. Blombos cave was discovered in the early 2000s for pity's sake.

We've also been pushing back behavioural modernity in Europe by tens of thousands of years. The La Pasiega cave paintings were dated to 60-65,000 years old about a decade ago.


It also very much depends on what exact combination of markers you use to define behavioural modernity. The video author gives one or two (ochre painting and shell inscription, for instance) but ignores all markers that may or may not be present.


There's the whole 'Nubian Complex' of West African technological spread as well. That's a huge and ongoing field of study, which dates back about 100,000 years and change. I think the first discovering were made in early 1990s.

Also, the notion that human sedentism dates back only to the start of the neolithic/Anthropocene (roughly 12,000 years ago) hasn't been current since the early 1980s. Good evidence of sedentism stretches back 25,000 years, and possibly even a little further back (some suggestions of 33,000 years in PNG, for instance).

Things like permanent hearth stones, small stone walls/fence lines, irrigation dams, partitioned planting areas. There are literally thousands of papers out there on this.

He also seems to be only giving the upper date ranges for a lot of estimates. So, the finds in Blombos cave become '100,000 years' old, when a lot of the finds are from later excavations that have dates in the 60-70,000 year range. That's enough time for major genetic changes to take place (circa an extra 1200-1500 generations).

stevevw said:

I think the point was that mainstream have humans becoming organised communities and not nomads is said to be around 5 to 6,000 years ago. But the evidence is pushing back that at. In fact the idea of what was considered civilised is being pushed back. The idea that humans were dumb brutes before this is also being proven wrong.

The point being that mainstream created this narrative to support the idea of gradualism in evolution. That humans evolved from dumb brute cavemen to more sophisticated living and thinking. That influenced how the evidence was seen.

So large megaliths and other works that were deemed to advanced for neolithic nomads was said to have somehow been created with primitive tools and knowhow. There could not have been sophisticated thinking and belief before this.

Now it seems that there was more advanced humans who once ruled the earth and were destroyed and the megaliths and works were discovered and not created by later cultures who came along and found them.

But current m,ainstream thing still wants to force fit these works into peoples who never created them Even they say they discovered them. Still the mainstream view wants us to believe that this was all created in a very short time by primitive tools of those who found thses abandoned works.

Click to expand...

It may not be the case, but from what you have written you appear to have little idea about what the mainstream is saying. (Unless, you mean the mainstream popular press.)

stevevw said:

I think the point was that mainstream have humans becoming organised communities and not nomads is said to be around 5 to 6,000 years ago. But the evidence is pushing that back. In fact the idea of what was considered civilised is being pushed back.

Click to expand...

5-6000 years ago is a creationist narrative. The "mainstream" of ancient historical scholarship would have put "civilization" (towns and agriculture) at 10-12 kya in the Fertile Crescent since the mid-20th century (at least) and radiocarbon dating.

stevevw said:

The idea that humans were dumb brutes before this is also being proven wrong.

Click to expand...

What do you mean "were"? Have you met humans?

stevevw said:

Mainstream created this narrative to support the idea of gradualism in evolution. That humans evolved from dumb brute cavemen to more sophisticated living and thinking. That influenced how the evidence was seen.

Click to expand...

What?

stevevw said:

So large megaliths and other works that were deemed too advanced for neolithic primitive nomads and was said to have somehow been created with primitive tools and knowhow. There could not have been sophisticated thinking and belief before at this stage in evolution.

Click to expand...

What utter nonsense! The most famous of these "advanced monuments" (the Great Pyramids of Egypt) were not only built by people who knew stone masonry and societal organization, but who could *WRITE* for crying out loud. Other monuments (like Carhenge ) are quite frequently tied to known civilizations, with known methods of construction, even if the purpose isn't always known.

stevevw said:

Now it seems that there was more advanced humans who once ruled the earth and were destroyed and the megaliths and works they left were discovered and not created by later cultures who came along and found them.

Click to expand...

I only watched a few random snippets of your video, but nothing in what I saw suggested the creator was implying lost megalith civilizations. Quite the opposite, he seemed to be suggesting humans had lots of "civilization" but its physical remains were more fragile and hard to preserve.

stevevw said:

But current mainstream narratives still wants to force fit these works into peoples who never created them.

Click to expand...

Tell the tale of old Atlantis...

stevevw said:

Even the cultures own stories tell us they discovered them. Still the mainstream view wants us to believe that this was all created in a very short time by primitive tools and knowhow of those who found thees abandoned works.

Click to expand...

Hardly. For some the ancient builders wrote their names on it. (Or right next to it.)


When I saw this thread, I knew we were going to lost civilizations and Atlantean nonsense and this post did no disappoint.

It has been clear for a while that humans were anatomically and cognatively modern in the sense required to support civilizations for more than 50,000 years just from the migration out of Africa.

stevevw said:

The short video speaks for itself. Is this possible. If so what are the implications for the mainstream view of human evolution and history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi4gFfjzKck&ab_channel=MichaelButton

Click to expand...

The video isn't proposing anything that equates to a more literal, "biblical" view, so I'm not sure what difference it makes. All it essentially is implying is that the earliest manifestations of more complex thought may go back to Homo Hedalbergensis (at 8:33). To which I say, "ok.........so?"

What this shows, though, is that a lot of biblical literalist aren't watching your video, or even skimming through it for context.

Bradskii said:

A lot of what the guy in the video was intimating was covered in a book 'The Dawn Of Everything: A New History of Humanity' back in 2021. It's a big book. Nearly 700 pages, so I don't see anyone buying it for a look-see. But there's a wiki page on it if anyone is interested.

The Dawn of Everything - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I wasn't really convinced by it.

Click to expand...

My only knowledge of it is from the Wikipedia article. The first thing that came to mind was that European ideas of societies during the colonial period in the Americas was "eat up" with the idea of the "noble savage." William Bartram displays this in some of his accounts. Louis LeClerc Milfort had a field day with it in his My Sojourn in the Creek Nation. Note: I remembered his work, but not his name, and his account of his time in Savannah is humorous. The whole "noble savage" thing was that modern society was a descent from a perfect ideal, rather than the other way around. Milfort pointed out that neither was a noble as someone might think.

Then thought about the Book of Judges, and then a serious question: Unless there are writings, what can we know about a culture from the trash they leave behind? Have seen some that look at artifacts, nothing not a great deal of difference, and surmising that this means a culture without stratification. But it could also mean a culture without the do-dads we associate with the rich. If the wealth was in debts of honor, then that's not going to show up in the archeological records. Bones may be the better indicator, if some show hard labor while others do not. But if a leader had to work as hard as the rest, that probably wouldn't show up.

It's interesting that some in the Hernando de Soto expedition describe what's essentially a hierarchy in a city-state structure. I think maybe Ocute held dominion over the town of Achese, and the leader there took one look at de Soto's army and wanted to cut a deal against the leader of Ocute. Granted that the Spaniards had come up on a "Mad Max" sort of situation after a societal collapse, but it's interesting that the earliest description is of a hierarchical society, before the Europeans started colonizing.

The whole "colonizing" angle as contributing to this and that just doesn't ring true, given what we know of European culture. Not a slam against Europe; it just is.

stevevw said:

So large megaliths and other works that were deemed too advanced for neolithic primitive nomads and was said to have somehow been created with primitive tools and knowhow. There could not have been sophisticated thinking and belief before at this stage in evolution.

Click to expand...

I saw this and thought "History Channel and 'aliens.'" One reason I no longer watch it.

Considering that lithic cultures knew a lot about how to shape stone, megaliths aren't all that surprising. Nor that some of the earliest monuments consisted of piling up stuff into mounds.

As for communities, communities can and do exist on the move. You don't have to have a stable farming base to support a community. It just can support a larger one.

Now, the Creeks have a strong migration story, and I think it was Bartram or Hawkins who asked them about the Indian Mounds at present day Macon, GA, and they essentially said, "They were here when we got here," but they were known to have traveled there from elsewhere.

stevevw said:

I think the point was that mainstream have humans becoming organised communities and not nomads is said to be around 5 to 6,000 years ago. But the evidence is pushing that back. In fact the idea of what was considered civilised is being pushed back. The idea that humans were dumb brutes before this is also being proven wrong.

Click to expand...

Only dumb brutes have ever thought that. For you, it's just a straw man.

stevevw said:

Mainstream created this narrative to support the idea of gradualism in evolution. That humans evolved from dumb brute cavemen to more sophisticated living and thinking. That influenced how the evidence was seen.

So large megaliths and other works that were deemed too advanced for neolithic primitive nomads and was said to have somehow been created with primitive tools and knowhow. There could not have been sophisticated thinking and belief before at this stage in evolution.

Now it seems that there was more advanced humans who once ruled the earth and were destroyed and the megaliths and works they left were discovered and not created by later cultures who came along and found them.

But current mainstream narratives still wants to force fit these works into peoples who never created them. Even the cultures own stories tell us they discovered them. Still the mainstream view wants us to believe that this was all created in a very short time by primitive tools and knowhow of those who found thees abandoned works.

Click to expand...

In fact, your whole post is a straw man. Your idea of "mainstream" seems to be Erich von Daniken.

BCP1928 said:

In fact, your whole post is a straw man. Your idea of "mainstream" seems to be Erich von Daniken.

Click to expand...

It would be so easy - and cruel - to pile on here. Suffice that if we could talk to our ancient ancestors, they may well consider us all dolts for not knowing how to do what they did on a daily basis.

This is the fourth or fifth time that I know of he has taken to the CF forums with exactly the same line of argument. And we do know how to do what they did, but you can't tell that to Steve. I'm a machinist and interested in the history of the trade. I sometimes teach a course in metalworking with simple hand tools. As a class project, the students make a padlock with a key--but I'm just making that up, right? No, Steve deserves at least some piling on.

Hans Blaster said:

When I saw this thread, I knew we were going to lost civilizations and Atlantean nonsense and this post did no disappoint.

Click to expand...

Way down below the ocean
Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
Where I wanna be, she may be
Way down below the ocean
Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
(Where I wanna be, she may be)

"Atlantis" Donavan

Finally watched the video. It's not a earth shattering as it claims. All of my life I've been taught that Neanderthals weren't the brutes initially assumed. I've yet to try it, but would like to make a throwing stick (not a spear) similar to what H. heidelbergenis might have used. Like all throwing sticks, they were airfoils made to travel far and level. The video seems like arguing against a theory that has been on the ropes for about 60 years.

I think it misses it in insisting on permanent settlements. If there was enough food, a settlement could be permanent. The whole point of a nomadic life was that different food is available in different places at different times, and they move to go with it. That holds if the food is a herd of some sort. Food goes yonder; you follow it. Structures are just as easily tents as buildings, and some sort of organization makes camp life more efficient and pleasant. And being nomadic doesn't necessarily mean being on constant move. Go here when the salmon are running; go there when there's bison about. Should be about time for the berries to be ripe over yonder. That sort of thing. And if you've preserved food in some way, have enough to settle down for winger. Iif you come back to the same campsite year after year, then it makes sense to have something waiting when you return.