Far too much religious/ cosmology fuss. The earliest or very early tool was the bag. There are many refs to stone tools because they survive millennia easily. But long before that we made tools from more easily worked materials: wood (digging sticks, staves) and BAGS of large leaves, grasses, skins. Essential as for most of our story we have been mobile gypsies so carrying stuff vital. Food, babies, and lined with clay, water, then fire. Carrying a bag would be a s strandard as wearing something around the loins.
The archeologist’s spade can and never will be replaced. It takes the archeologist’s sight and careful excavation to see what’s important and what’s not. How many discoveries have been made because an archeologist saw something peeking through the dirt that needed further study, or, when really lucky, the glint of gold?
You do a disservice to the field of archeology when you suggest we’re replaceable by modern technology.
The current line of succession not only demonstrates the "enduring fluidity of monarchy in Britain", but also the widespread desire to be ruled from the cradle to the grave as perpetual children, rather than face adulthood and the truth of this world full on..
This seems to me a aprt of a system to move things. IDK if it is stones or dirt. But the grooves are a type of man carved reverse rail system so carts or sleds could move over the rough terrain and not steer off course. Also they might have been used as a way to “Walk” stones along a pathway utilizing wegges that went under the stones and scooted them along. The grooves were necessary so the movers could get under the stones or carts and use the surface of the terrain as a resting surface. Another method of moving stones must have become more popular or easier than this since this method is isolated to a only a few spots. The people here might have been isolated and forced to come up with their own methods until knowledge came from beyond their society.
Perhaps these ruts are cut to act as guides to sledges to move stones for monuments. So the bottom was smoothed and leveled and grease could be used to facilitate sliding. Geological turmoil may produce some irrational curt courses. The width implies that two cattles were used to pull and stones could have been used to cover the old ruts at crossings to facilitate cattle movement.
Mark you are trying to understand the deep past by using a modern frame of reference.
That is just as ludicrous. People from deep antiquities' main concern was survial. There was not an abundant supply of materials for making art available. Any resource that were used, to make pigments and tools for artistic purposes, including time, was less resources available for survival. Most if not all ancient rock art were used to convey information to others who came upon them, so they needed to be understood by others who may not be from the same culture. That is why you see many of the same or similar symbols across the world. It is due to their frame of refetence that these symbols conveyed a common theme or message. If rock art was left somewhere it was for a very important reason because of the limited resources being diverted away from survival. There was no such thing as artist as a social role or job back then. There were people that can draw, just like today, but there function wasn't just to create art.
If you have ever tried to live off the land, you will understand that creating art is the last thing on your mind because there are so many basic needs that need to satisfied first or else you risk your own survivial.
I take issue with the statement that hunter-gatherer days were all the same. Studies of the lifestyle show hunting means a burst of activity, then high protein feeding followed by laziness, prep pf tools and supplies, cycle repeat.
Secondly the article presentation strongly implies hunting was done by males. Note the picture (probably not chosen by author) but the author uses the misleading ‘homo erectus, upright man’which should read ‘upright human’.
Thirdly the bulk of food in the hunter gather life is vegetable, nuts etc gathering. Some small game. Larger kills were/ are not constantly pursued – too exhausting and only 50% success rate anyway. So high protein bulk meals were/ are special occasions interspersed with everyday gathering, proto gardening (monitoring, some aid to good patches of veg/ fruit supplies, hence digging sticks).
Couldn't help noticing that hieroglyphic symbol, (no catouche?) for Queen Neith-Hotep resembles an ancient surveying tool. Two horizontal bars at right angles on a vertical rod! Probs a bit of a stretch, but still...
Charles is an imposing figure in history. Yet, was he that great? Were other Christians he persecuted that heretical? Was he, himself, even that Christian?
We have a one-sided ledger. It is written by the winners, such as Pope Leo III. The vanquished tell us nothing. Any lies about them must remain unchallenged.
We are expected to believe what we're told. However, given who happily stands behind what we're told, such as the Vatican, that would seem to be potential folly.
To put it bluntly, was Charles closer to Satan than to God?
Thank you! I’m a farm person myself, along with being an amateure historian, the more ancient the history the better. The first time I saw something about the “mysterious handbags” I enlarged the image and thoughtt BUCKET. Humans figured out basic animal husbandry first, then horticulture. In the beginning, you move the animals to water . You have to move the water to the plants. Once how to make buckets as an alternative to unsealed baskets or crockery was figured out, not only could water be taken to crops, but hundreds of other things could be transported easily. Modern humans think of buckets as being made of hard, “workable” substances like metals (and now plastics). But buckets have also been made from wood & bark, other plant parts & leather. One of thejokes about paleontology is “if you have no idea what the object was for, it must be of religious significance”. This is a case in point, even tho having important beings ( religious or not), carrying buckets makes perfect sense. During the invention of agriculture, the ability to grow plants where you wanted them was impressive – had to have been the sort of thing that the ‘immaterial’ world was responsible for & protective of. The occurance of the buckets in association with representations of useful plants would be consistent with this.
Uluru wasn't particularly sacred. It has been granted sacred status by a disingenuous media and activist lobbying, such that the historical truth as it used to be is no longer recognised.
The same applies to religious truth. There is a concerted effort to tear down Christianity, from without and within, and to raise up the false to equal status.
Is there a link to be able to find the 40+ plants that naturally contain HF? I'm trying to identify any that might be in my area of North America so I can experiment with them.
"This means we can now understand and seek to treat MS for what it actually is: the result of a genetic adaptation to certain environmental conditions that occurred back in our prehistory."
The link between vaccination and diseases like MS will never be studied. Sure, genetics are important in MS. Uncoincidentally, genetics are the keys to bioweapon development.
Whomsoever thinks bioweapons are outlawed and, therefore, don't exist is perfect fodder for them.
Here you can navigate quickly through all comments made in any article sorted by date/time.
You have a very interesting perspective.
Far too much religious/ cosmology fuss. The earliest or very early tool was the bag. There are many refs to stone tools because they survive millennia easily. But long before that we made tools from more easily worked materials: wood (digging sticks, staves) and BAGS of large leaves, grasses, skins. Essential as for most of our story we have been mobile gypsies so carrying stuff vital. Food, babies, and lined with clay, water, then fire. Carrying a bag would be a s strandard as wearing something around the loins.
The archeologist’s spade can and never will be replaced. It takes the archeologist’s sight and careful excavation to see what’s important and what’s not. How many discoveries have been made because an archeologist saw something peeking through the dirt that needed further study, or, when really lucky, the glint of gold?
You do a disservice to the field of archeology when you suggest we’re replaceable by modern technology.
How were the Pyramids of Giza constructed? I’m always curious about this question.
How were the Pyramids of Giza constructed? I’m always curious about this question.
https://geometrydashsubzero.io
The current line of succession not only demonstrates the "enduring fluidity of monarchy in Britain", but also the widespread desire to be ruled from the cradle to the grave as perpetual children, rather than face adulthood and the truth of this world full on..
There are a few grammar errors in this article that need to be corrected. Overal, it was good information and thank you.
This seems to me a aprt of a system to move things. IDK if it is stones or dirt. But the grooves are a type of man carved reverse rail system so carts or sleds could move over the rough terrain and not steer off course. Also they might have been used as a way to “Walk” stones along a pathway utilizing wegges that went under the stones and scooted them along. The grooves were necessary so the movers could get under the stones or carts and use the surface of the terrain as a resting surface. Another method of moving stones must have become more popular or easier than this since this method is isolated to a only a few spots. The people here might have been isolated and forced to come up with their own methods until knowledge came from beyond their society.
Perhaps these ruts are cut to act as guides to sledges to move stones for monuments. So the bottom was smoothed and leveled and grease could be used to facilitate sliding. Geological turmoil may produce some irrational curt courses. The width implies that two cattles were used to pull and stones could have been used to cover the old ruts at crossings to facilitate cattle movement.
Mark you are trying to understand the deep past by using a modern frame of reference.
That is just as ludicrous. People from deep antiquities' main concern was survial. There was not an abundant supply of materials for making art available. Any resource that were used, to make pigments and tools for artistic purposes, including time, was less resources available for survival. Most if not all ancient rock art were used to convey information to others who came upon them, so they needed to be understood by others who may not be from the same culture. That is why you see many of the same or similar symbols across the world. It is due to their frame of refetence that these symbols conveyed a common theme or message. If rock art was left somewhere it was for a very important reason because of the limited resources being diverted away from survival. There was no such thing as artist as a social role or job back then. There were people that can draw, just like today, but there function wasn't just to create art.
If you have ever tried to live off the land, you will understand that creating art is the last thing on your mind because there are so many basic needs that need to satisfied first or else you risk your own survivial.
I take issue with the statement that hunter-gatherer days were all the same. Studies of the lifestyle show hunting means a burst of activity, then high protein feeding followed by laziness, prep pf tools and supplies, cycle repeat.
Secondly the article presentation strongly implies hunting was done by males. Note the picture (probably not chosen by author) but the author uses the misleading ‘homo erectus, upright man’which should read ‘upright human’.
Thirdly the bulk of food in the hunter gather life is vegetable, nuts etc gathering. Some small game. Larger kills were/ are not constantly pursued – too exhausting and only 50% success rate anyway. So high protein bulk meals were/ are special occasions interspersed with everyday gathering, proto gardening (monitoring, some aid to good patches of veg/ fruit supplies, hence digging sticks).
Couldn't help noticing that hieroglyphic symbol, (no catouche?) for Queen Neith-Hotep resembles an ancient surveying tool. Two horizontal bars at right angles on a vertical rod! Probs a bit of a stretch, but still...
I’m a descendent of Charlemagne. It’s quite amazing to know this.
An article about crucifixion without a single mention of the famous crucifixion of all.
The Devil would be most pleased.
Charles is an imposing figure in history. Yet, was he that great? Were other Christians he persecuted that heretical? Was he, himself, even that Christian?
We have a one-sided ledger. It is written by the winners, such as Pope Leo III. The vanquished tell us nothing. Any lies about them must remain unchallenged.
We are expected to believe what we're told. However, given who happily stands behind what we're told, such as the Vatican, that would seem to be potential folly.
To put it bluntly, was Charles closer to Satan than to God?
Keeping the livestock in and out.
Thank you! I’m a farm person myself, along with being an amateure historian, the more ancient the history the better. The first time I saw something about the “mysterious handbags” I enlarged the image and thoughtt BUCKET. Humans figured out basic animal husbandry first, then horticulture. In the beginning, you move the animals to water . You have to move the water to the plants. Once how to make buckets as an alternative to unsealed baskets or crockery was figured out, not only could water be taken to crops, but hundreds of other things could be transported easily. Modern humans think of buckets as being made of hard, “workable” substances like metals (and now plastics). But buckets have also been made from wood & bark, other plant parts & leather. One of thejokes about paleontology is “if you have no idea what the object was for, it must be of religious significance”. This is a case in point, even tho having important beings ( religious or not), carrying buckets makes perfect sense. During the invention of agriculture, the ability to grow plants where you wanted them was impressive – had to have been the sort of thing that the ‘immaterial’ world was responsible for & protective of. The occurance of the buckets in association with representations of useful plants would be consistent with this.
Uluru wasn't particularly sacred. It has been granted sacred status by a disingenuous media and activist lobbying, such that the historical truth as it used to be is no longer recognised.
The same applies to religious truth. There is a concerted effort to tear down Christianity, from without and within, and to raise up the false to equal status.
Is there a link to be able to find the 40+ plants that naturally contain HF? I'm trying to identify any that might be in my area of North America so I can experiment with them.
"This means we can now understand and seek to treat MS for what it actually is: the result of a genetic adaptation to certain environmental conditions that occurred back in our prehistory."
The link between vaccination and diseases like MS will never be studied. Sure, genetics are important in MS. Uncoincidentally, genetics are the keys to bioweapon development.
Whomsoever thinks bioweapons are outlawed and, therefore, don't exist is perfect fodder for them.
Pages