Hi Alex, the idea of a NWO: total enslavement of all people is NOT the same as ONENESS in spirit and soul! We all share the same history and live on the same planet, so we should focus on what we have in common and not what separates us. No matter where a person lives, what he needs is peace, harmony, friends, a place to live that is his own, a creative work, good quality food, pure drinking water... we do NOT need MONEY to be happy.. And if someone calls water "wasser" or "eau" or "jal" doesn´t matter.. it´s the same water.. THAT`s what people need to understand and stop promoting nationalism and division. Because that exactly supports the evil-minded people in their vision to enslave the whole planet by their old philosophy of "divide and conquer". So yes, traditions are beautiful and should be continued but not to separate one people from another butto show the beauty and diversity of human creativity and art... TOGETHER we can win back this planet and everything we need to be happy - divined we will lose.. It´s as simple as that..
Lovely article - one of the best things I've recently read, and by far the most useful. Cool to read such a well-considered article! So here is my saving grace: PDFfiller helped me to fill out the a form and and esign them. Just try it http://pdf.ac/2DdaOs, you'll love it.
” In Classical Greek mythology, the Titans (and Titaness) were members of the second order of divine beings, descending from the primordial deities and preceding the Olympian deities. Based on Mount Othrys, the Titans most famously included the first twelve children of the primordial Gaia (Mother Earth) and Uranus (Father Sky). They were giant deities of incredible strength, who ruled during the legendary Golden Age, and also composed the first pantheon of Greek deities”.
“In Greek mythology, Gaia was the personification of the Earth and one of the Greek primordial deities. Gaia was the great mother of all: the primal Greek Mother Goddess; creator and giver of birth to the Earth and all the Universe; the heavenly gods, the Titans, and the Giants were born to her. The gods reigning over their classical pantheon were born from her union with Uranus (the sky), while the sea-gods were born from her union with Pontus (the sea)”.
Comment: Here the wiki-author of the text is inconsistent and contradictive. Gaia “as the great mother of all” and the “creator and giver of birth to the Earth”, cannot logically be interpreted as the Earth. The Earth doesn’t give birth to itself. Goddess Gaia represents quite another celestial realm and object.
Giants or Titans are the secondary deities of creation and their gigantic qualities and attributes must derive from “something large” which is observable in the Sky.
The largest celestial structure observable in the Sky are the white/light contours of the Milky Way, which can be observed all around the Earth. This is symbolized in cultural myths of creation as both large animals and large humanlike beings in the Sky.
If dividing the Earth hemispheres, we get two white significant mythical Milky Way contours. The southern Milky Way figure represents the Great Mother Goddess (Gaia, Hathor, Aprodite, Venus etc.) because of the Milky Way center in the star constellation of Sagittarius where the center of creation in the Milky Way is located. Link - http://www.native-science.net/MilkyWay.MotherGoddess.htm
These two gigantic white celestial figures appears in all cultural Myths of Creation and shall of course not be confused as “giants once lived on the Earth”. Unfortunately even native people have somewhat forgotten the real mythical and cosmological meaning of these gigantic white figures in the Sky.
Okay, I'll concede that the Jowett translation says what you say it does. But it still doesn't mean that it could be Atlantis. I'm assuming that you lost the argument that "stadia" could have been referring to a unit of area instead of a unit of length, as you did not mention this in your reply. If that is the case, Atlantis cannot possibly fit into the Aegean Sea; hence your theory cannot be correct. I am not saying that your theory is entirely without value - there might have been an ancient civilization on the Cyclades plateau - perhaps the Ancient Greeks who supposedly lived at the same time as the Atlanteans.
I like very much your comment as long it is the best ways to make people understand their history, which btw today it not anymore relevant in the vision of Corporatism globalisation, for just one urpose ; enslave all the people
Bernal Diaz, whose diaries chronicled Cortes' march to Tenochtitlan, writes at a stop along the way that natives produced a "human" thigh bone as long as a Spaniard was tall. The locals said that giants lived in the area years ago but were killed off because of their disagreeable natures.
Is there a difference between what we refer to as aggression and violence?
Could it be that aggression is that which is ‘encoded in our DNA’, a ‘basic animal response’ for our survival as a species? An ‘unconscious’ response that happens when one feels threatened, a response based in/from fear of?
Could it be that violence is an escalation of aggression taking the; chest beating, trying to appear bigger then one’s foe, making loud noises, jumping up and down- taking these animal responses and some how for some reason to a more violent physical response?
There is this ongoing continueing debat, at times being very heated as to what is this term/word we have come to refer to as ‘consciousness’. What is it? How did it start? Why did it start? Even – where is it located?
Could it be that the aggressive natural animal response to a threat, based in/from fear be more of an unconscious response?
Could it be, where as the more violent/physical action, that which can cause physical injury and or death be more of a ‘conscious’ decision when one feels threatened, in fear of?
Could it also be, that many of the teachings and wisdom that have come down to us throughout the ages from various faiths and traditions, are the/an attempt to recognize aggression and violence, that there is a difference between the two? That aggression begets aggression. That violence begets violence.
That there are methods, ways of attaining this understanding this enlightenment of a way of ‘being’? That many ‘modern’ methods, beliefs, thoughts, are attempts to bring about this same understanding ?
To seek. To search, to attain, to live in more of a conscious state of being and awareness, rather then a response unconscious state.
To be consciously aware of how any and all of our beliefs/thoughts which can be manifested through our action/behaviour , does have and will have an affect/effect on others.
Could it be that although aggression may be a ‘natural’/unconscious response, that violence could be a conscious decision, that either or, can be recognized and that once we admit to this that there are ways to deal with this and bring about change within both the individual and cultural/society?
Change to beliefs, change to thoughts, change to behaviour.
The decision is both yours to make, ours to share.
I agree , it seems that the out of place artifacts found so far point to man destroy-ing himself over and over again. Humanity today may be in the path of destruction again, look at the insanity and fighting going on. It could end badly. Ten thousand years from now they may be digging up our ancient remains and scratching their heads. What were these people thinking??
With all respect to the great Bogumils, the great Bulgarian Masters like Deunov and Aivanhov and their tradition, I must remind you that the ancestors of the Bulgarians were not Bulgarians. You are mixing up facts and pride has never helped anyone to gain real understandin and wisdom. All slavic people have the same ancestors - the Sumerians. So what you think is Bulgarian, is in fact Sumerian. Did you know for example that the Hungarian language has about 605 in common with ancient Sumerian? Even the Germanic languages show the great influence of the Sumerian and Akkadian culture - in language and tradition. Akkadian was a later form of Sumerian, as well Babylonian. But same roots. That explains the meaning of Bulgarian words! Persian is as well a later form of Sumerian. You see? Sumerians were the ones who brought culture to this planet, not Bulgarians or any other nation. Even the Indus Culture (India) is a colony of the Sumerian Empire, founded by the Akkadian Princess Tautana who had to flee Akkad with her people. Do research and stop promoting nationalism. We are one family, live on one Earth and share the same history ... Namaste
Nathan, with all due respect, you just expressed the utter nonsense there: if Islam and it's book didn't respect other cultures in the slightest, it wouldn't spread the way it did, it wouldn't be loved the way it was. All Abrahamic religions in their early pure years were loved most, were spread, and when they were altered afterwards, they became a disease exactly like those who made them so by altering them. Take Judaism: its 5+ millenia old religion. It hasn't disappeared in those 5 millenia. Ask yourself WHY? And yet, it doesn't have as many followers as the other two Abrahamic religions. Again, ask yourself WHY? Today's Judaism is dwindling. WHY? Take Christianity: ask the same very questions - How did it survive first 5-10 centuries? And how it became what we know of it from Medieval Age: how could all those atrocities committed by Church could happen? Then go to Islam: again read about it (not only it, but also about it), it's history and it's contributions to world culture and science, and ask yourself: How could it spread if it was such an atrocity? It claims it hasn't been altered (there are historical reasons for that, read those), so it is what it was when it was revealed. But look at the world today? Where is Islam which many claim contributing to the world in thousand folds, today? What happened to it?
So: NO. The nonsense you just spat out doesn't belong to someone who seeks answers, they are accustomed to trolls and idiots. Go back to Facebook for that. Otherwise talk intelligently! No idea which advocates garbage can live for centuries and be loved by BILLIONS.
More amazing is, how people could accept such a nonsense (acceptance of a war as something amazing) as amazing and seek something mysterious where it doesn't exist. We humans are extremely good in deluding ourselves and falling in love with illusions. Guess that's natural: after all, we are equipped with five senses which actually are nothing but an illusion tool: our eyes conceive a reality (with so called "light" and colors) which actually "doesn't" exist (as in, everything we sense is the reality our brains conjure), we taste, smell things because certain signals make us feel in certain ways etc etc. One just can't help but think, "why are our lives full of lies?!" and then you realize there must be some other higher purpose for all of this charade.
Using your reasoning, if the Quran 'is simply an attempt to hijack judeo-christian traditions', then it stands to reason that the Bible is nothing more then an attempt to hijack judeo beliefs.
Well that is the view that is generally accepted today. My opinion, and those of many others here is that civilization wasn't born 10,000 years ago but rather reborn after some almost unimaginably violent catastrophe that affected the whole world.
Kaaba is the place where every year thousands of Muslims come to pray. This is the only house of Allah on earth this is the most blessed place on the earth
Ulfberht was made with Damascus steel. Vikings traded with Muslim merchants through eastern Europe to buy Damascus steel ingots. Europe being mostly christian shunned all things Islamic and thus most advances in technology. The ingots were made in the middle-east including Damascus(Syria). The technology comes from Southern India where its called wootz steel. Crusaders brought Damascus steel back after their failed crusades. The Church considered Damascus steel evil, "forged in hell" because their crusaders were not able to defeat the Muslims. Its no secret technology...has been known for a few decades now.
Very interesting idea! I would like to hear more if and when any advancements are made along these lines. As for having your posts deleted and the attempt to discredit you, that indicates that you are making someone uncomfortable, so much so that they are making quite the attempt to bring you down to their own level. I have to be honest and just state that I am not familiar enough with your idea to accept it or disagree with it, however, what you have said here seems in no way so off the wall or impossible. It has been said that one cancan ascertain their status in the world or in any type of work or field, whether physical, emotional, mental or spiritual, by the degree of challenge they have to face. In that context the actions of these folks at the other sites seems to indicate that potentially you might be on to something, even if at the very least being able to think and consider outside of the usual boxes that so many enjoy the comfort of.
No trailblazer in any field has ever been able to avoid doing much the same thing, whether they intended to or not. I think it says more about society’s norms than it does about you personally.
I am from India . Spiritual archaeology is still unknown word for Indians even though ours if the ancient country.I am visiting Egypt by end of May. Would like to know the studies going around the world
"...appeared as a result of civilization" is really not one of the reasonable possibilities.
Paleolithic and Neolithic peoples were, by and large, hunters and gatherers, moving at least to some extent with the seasons and the attendant animal herds and wild plant growth cycles. As nomads, they would have had few personal possessions, and what they did own would have been compact, necessary, and portable. Industry was principally in the mining of materials like flint to use as animal killing and flaying instruments, as well as tools for crafting shelter and clothing.
It was only when farming began to arise—preceded by herding, probably—that permanence or semi-permanence of locational residence became widespread and, with it, an expansion of possessions that needed robust defense because they couldn't be efficiently picked up and moved to another, safer place. Not unrelated were the new technologies of smelting and mixing metals that led to a demonstrable, empirically obvious build-up of weaponry, particularly as the Bronze Age drew to the Iron Age: new kinds of axes, fearsomely lethal spears, heavy breastplates, and other items of warfare show up in the archaeological record. (While the article tries to cast the move to agriculturalism quite early, it is highly doubtful that this type of lifestyle was prevalent at 10,000 BP: it's just that the archaeological record preserves the evidence of this kind of lifestyle, once it arises, far better than it does the lifestyle of the likely still far more typical nomadic hunter-gatherer groups.)
Moreover, even in ancient writings we can find evidence that scribes and prophets saw the new war metals of the Bronze and Iron Ages as heralding an undesirable and awful time, as can be read from the Hebrew story of David and Goliath, the latter a very modern killer veritably drawn in fancy war regalia, against the former, a meager man-boy of the land equipped with little more than Paleolithic fighting instruments.
This change, described both in the archaeological record and in the epic stories of the age, was not the dawn of "civilization," as such: it was an underlying change in lifestyle that might, at best, correlate with or lead to civilization: instead of going to get food by hunts and the gathering of wild plants, people were, in increasing and dominant numbers, growing the food (beast, grain, fruit, and vegetable) beside them. This is convenient, but the attendant permanence of location becomes, at the same time, a curse: permanence is vulnerability; possessions are a magnet for attacks and raids; and greed for more replaces need for sufficiency.
Some might conflate this with the very essence of civilization: property, monumentalism, "us" versus "them"; violence against one's own kind as the will of gods; and want propelling expansion of territorial control instead of need fostering expedition. If that is, indeed, what counts these days as "civilization," then the current mindset of historians is no more open and capable than it has been since Herodotus; and if that is, indeed, the measure of "civilization, " then civilization is not at all the savior of our kind, but instead the herald of our continuing demise through the ages.
Here you can navigate quickly through all comments made in any article sorted by date/time.
Hi Alex, the idea of a NWO: total enslavement of all people is NOT the same as ONENESS in spirit and soul! We all share the same history and live on the same planet, so we should focus on what we have in common and not what separates us. No matter where a person lives, what he needs is peace, harmony, friends, a place to live that is his own, a creative work, good quality food, pure drinking water... we do NOT need MONEY to be happy.. And if someone calls water "wasser" or "eau" or "jal" doesn´t matter.. it´s the same water.. THAT`s what people need to understand and stop promoting nationalism and division. Because that exactly supports the evil-minded people in their vision to enslave the whole planet by their old philosophy of "divide and conquer". So yes, traditions are beautiful and should be continued but not to separate one people from another butto show the beauty and diversity of human creativity and art... TOGETHER we can win back this planet and everything we need to be happy - divined we will lose.. It´s as simple as that..
Lovely article - one of the best things I've recently read, and by far the most useful. Cool to read such a well-considered article! So here is my saving grace: PDFfiller helped me to fill out the a form and and esign them. Just try it http://pdf.ac/2DdaOs, you'll love it.
Giants and Titans of Creation. What do they represent?
Quote from Titans - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_%28mythology%29
” In Classical Greek mythology, the Titans (and Titaness) were members of the second order of divine beings, descending from the primordial deities and preceding the Olympian deities. Based on Mount Othrys, the Titans most famously included the first twelve children of the primordial Gaia (Mother Earth) and Uranus (Father Sky). They were giant deities of incredible strength, who ruled during the legendary Golden Age, and also composed the first pantheon of Greek deities”.
Confusion of Gaia as “Mother Earth” - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_%28mythology%29
“In Greek mythology, Gaia was the personification of the Earth and one of the Greek primordial deities. Gaia was the great mother of all: the primal Greek Mother Goddess; creator and giver of birth to the Earth and all the Universe; the heavenly gods, the Titans, and the Giants were born to her. The gods reigning over their classical pantheon were born from her union with Uranus (the sky), while the sea-gods were born from her union with Pontus (the sea)”.
Comment: Here the wiki-author of the text is inconsistent and contradictive. Gaia “as the great mother of all” and the “creator and giver of birth to the Earth”, cannot logically be interpreted as the Earth. The Earth doesn’t give birth to itself. Goddess Gaia represents quite another celestial realm and object.
Giants or Titans are the secondary deities of creation and their gigantic qualities and attributes must derive from “something large” which is observable in the Sky.
The largest celestial structure observable in the Sky are the white/light contours of the Milky Way, which can be observed all around the Earth. This is symbolized in cultural myths of creation as both large animals and large humanlike beings in the Sky.
If dividing the Earth hemispheres, we get two white significant mythical Milky Way contours. The southern Milky Way figure represents the Great Mother Goddess (Gaia, Hathor, Aprodite, Venus etc.) because of the Milky Way center in the star constellation of Sagittarius where the center of creation in the Milky Way is located. Link - http://www.native-science.net/MilkyWay.MotherGoddess.htm
On the northern hemisphere, we have the white Great God of creation, seemingly revolving around the Earth celestial pole. Link - http://www.native-science.net/MilkyWay.GreatestGod.htm
These two gigantic white celestial figures appears in all cultural Myths of Creation and shall of course not be confused as “giants once lived on the Earth”. Unfortunately even native people have somewhat forgotten the real mythical and cosmological meaning of these gigantic white figures in the Sky.
Mythological Keys of Creation - http://www.native-science.net/MilkyWay.Mythology.Keys.htm
Regards
Ivar Nielsen
Natural Philosopher
Okay, I'll concede that the Jowett translation says what you say it does. But it still doesn't mean that it could be Atlantis. I'm assuming that you lost the argument that "stadia" could have been referring to a unit of area instead of a unit of length, as you did not mention this in your reply. If that is the case, Atlantis cannot possibly fit into the Aegean Sea; hence your theory cannot be correct. I am not saying that your theory is entirely without value - there might have been an ancient civilization on the Cyclades plateau - perhaps the Ancient Greeks who supposedly lived at the same time as the Atlanteans.
I like very much your comment as long it is the best ways to make people understand their history, which btw today it not anymore relevant in the vision of Corporatism globalisation, for just one urpose ; enslave all the people
Thank you for your posting :)
Bernal Diaz, whose diaries chronicled Cortes' march to Tenochtitlan, writes at a stop along the way that natives produced a "human" thigh bone as long as a Spaniard was tall. The locals said that giants lived in the area years ago but were killed off because of their disagreeable natures.
Is there a difference between what we refer to as aggression and violence?
Could it be that aggression is that which is ‘encoded in our DNA’, a ‘basic animal response’ for our survival as a species? An ‘unconscious’ response that happens when one feels threatened, a response based in/from fear of?
Could it be that violence is an escalation of aggression taking the; chest beating, trying to appear bigger then one’s foe, making loud noises, jumping up and down- taking these animal responses and some how for some reason to a more violent physical response?
There is this ongoing continueing debat, at times being very heated as to what is this term/word we have come to refer to as ‘consciousness’. What is it? How did it start? Why did it start? Even – where is it located?
Could it be that the aggressive natural animal response to a threat, based in/from fear be more of an unconscious response?
Could it be, where as the more violent/physical action, that which can cause physical injury and or death be more of a ‘conscious’ decision when one feels threatened, in fear of?
Could it also be, that many of the teachings and wisdom that have come down to us throughout the ages from various faiths and traditions, are the/an attempt to recognize aggression and violence, that there is a difference between the two? That aggression begets aggression. That violence begets violence.
That there are methods, ways of attaining this understanding this enlightenment of a way of ‘being’? That many ‘modern’ methods, beliefs, thoughts, are attempts to bring about this same understanding ?
To seek. To search, to attain, to live in more of a conscious state of being and awareness, rather then a response unconscious state.
To be consciously aware of how any and all of our beliefs/thoughts which can be manifested through our action/behaviour , does have and will have an affect/effect on others.
Could it be that although aggression may be a ‘natural’/unconscious response, that violence could be a conscious decision, that either or, can be recognized and that once we admit to this that there are ways to deal with this and bring about change within both the individual and cultural/society?
Change to beliefs, change to thoughts, change to behaviour.
The decision is both yours to make, ours to share.
I agree , it seems that the out of place artifacts found so far point to man destroy-ing himself over and over again. Humanity today may be in the path of destruction again, look at the insanity and fighting going on. It could end badly. Ten thousand years from now they may be digging up our ancient remains and scratching their heads. What were these people thinking??
It´s not 605, it´s 60% of the Hungarian language.......
With all respect to the great Bogumils, the great Bulgarian Masters like Deunov and Aivanhov and their tradition, I must remind you that the ancestors of the Bulgarians were not Bulgarians. You are mixing up facts and pride has never helped anyone to gain real understandin and wisdom. All slavic people have the same ancestors - the Sumerians. So what you think is Bulgarian, is in fact Sumerian. Did you know for example that the Hungarian language has about 605 in common with ancient Sumerian? Even the Germanic languages show the great influence of the Sumerian and Akkadian culture - in language and tradition. Akkadian was a later form of Sumerian, as well Babylonian. But same roots. That explains the meaning of Bulgarian words! Persian is as well a later form of Sumerian. You see? Sumerians were the ones who brought culture to this planet, not Bulgarians or any other nation. Even the Indus Culture (India) is a colony of the Sumerian Empire, founded by the Akkadian Princess Tautana who had to flee Akkad with her people. Do research and stop promoting nationalism. We are one family, live on one Earth and share the same history ... Namaste
Nathan, with all due respect, you just expressed the utter nonsense there: if Islam and it's book didn't respect other cultures in the slightest, it wouldn't spread the way it did, it wouldn't be loved the way it was. All Abrahamic religions in their early pure years were loved most, were spread, and when they were altered afterwards, they became a disease exactly like those who made them so by altering them. Take Judaism: its 5+ millenia old religion. It hasn't disappeared in those 5 millenia. Ask yourself WHY? And yet, it doesn't have as many followers as the other two Abrahamic religions. Again, ask yourself WHY? Today's Judaism is dwindling. WHY? Take Christianity: ask the same very questions - How did it survive first 5-10 centuries? And how it became what we know of it from Medieval Age: how could all those atrocities committed by Church could happen? Then go to Islam: again read about it (not only it, but also about it), it's history and it's contributions to world culture and science, and ask yourself: How could it spread if it was such an atrocity? It claims it hasn't been altered (there are historical reasons for that, read those), so it is what it was when it was revealed. But look at the world today? Where is Islam which many claim contributing to the world in thousand folds, today? What happened to it?
So: NO. The nonsense you just spat out doesn't belong to someone who seeks answers, they are accustomed to trolls and idiots. Go back to Facebook for that. Otherwise talk intelligently! No idea which advocates garbage can live for centuries and be loved by BILLIONS.
More amazing is, how people could accept such a nonsense (acceptance of a war as something amazing) as amazing and seek something mysterious where it doesn't exist. We humans are extremely good in deluding ourselves and falling in love with illusions. Guess that's natural: after all, we are equipped with five senses which actually are nothing but an illusion tool: our eyes conceive a reality (with so called "light" and colors) which actually "doesn't" exist (as in, everything we sense is the reality our brains conjure), we taste, smell things because certain signals make us feel in certain ways etc etc. One just can't help but think, "why are our lives full of lies?!" and then you realize there must be some other higher purpose for all of this charade.
Using your reasoning, if the Quran 'is simply an attempt to hijack judeo-christian traditions', then it stands to reason that the Bible is nothing more then an attempt to hijack judeo beliefs.
Well that is the view that is generally accepted today. My opinion, and those of many others here is that civilization wasn't born 10,000 years ago but rather reborn after some almost unimaginably violent catastrophe that affected the whole world.
Kaaba is the place where every year thousands of Muslims come to pray. This is the only house of Allah on earth this is the most blessed place on the earth
Ulfberht was made with Damascus steel. Vikings traded with Muslim merchants through eastern Europe to buy Damascus steel ingots. Europe being mostly christian shunned all things Islamic and thus most advances in technology. The ingots were made in the middle-east including Damascus(Syria). The technology comes from Southern India where its called wootz steel. Crusaders brought Damascus steel back after their failed crusades. The Church considered Damascus steel evil, "forged in hell" because their crusaders were not able to defeat the Muslims. Its no secret technology...has been known for a few decades now.
Very interesting idea! I would like to hear more if and when any advancements are made along these lines. As for having your posts deleted and the attempt to discredit you, that indicates that you are making someone uncomfortable, so much so that they are making quite the attempt to bring you down to their own level. I have to be honest and just state that I am not familiar enough with your idea to accept it or disagree with it, however, what you have said here seems in no way so off the wall or impossible. It has been said that one cancan ascertain their status in the world or in any type of work or field, whether physical, emotional, mental or spiritual, by the degree of challenge they have to face. In that context the actions of these folks at the other sites seems to indicate that potentially you might be on to something, even if at the very least being able to think and consider outside of the usual boxes that so many enjoy the comfort of.
No trailblazer in any field has ever been able to avoid doing much the same thing, whether they intended to or not. I think it says more about society’s norms than it does about you personally.
I am from India . Spiritual archaeology is still unknown word for Indians even though ours if the ancient country.I am visiting Egypt by end of May. Would like to know the studies going around the world
"...appeared as a result of civilization" is really not one of the reasonable possibilities.
Paleolithic and Neolithic peoples were, by and large, hunters and gatherers, moving at least to some extent with the seasons and the attendant animal herds and wild plant growth cycles. As nomads, they would have had few personal possessions, and what they did own would have been compact, necessary, and portable. Industry was principally in the mining of materials like flint to use as animal killing and flaying instruments, as well as tools for crafting shelter and clothing.
It was only when farming began to arise—preceded by herding, probably—that permanence or semi-permanence of locational residence became widespread and, with it, an expansion of possessions that needed robust defense because they couldn't be efficiently picked up and moved to another, safer place. Not unrelated were the new technologies of smelting and mixing metals that led to a demonstrable, empirically obvious build-up of weaponry, particularly as the Bronze Age drew to the Iron Age: new kinds of axes, fearsomely lethal spears, heavy breastplates, and other items of warfare show up in the archaeological record. (While the article tries to cast the move to agriculturalism quite early, it is highly doubtful that this type of lifestyle was prevalent at 10,000 BP: it's just that the archaeological record preserves the evidence of this kind of lifestyle, once it arises, far better than it does the lifestyle of the likely still far more typical nomadic hunter-gatherer groups.)
Moreover, even in ancient writings we can find evidence that scribes and prophets saw the new war metals of the Bronze and Iron Ages as heralding an undesirable and awful time, as can be read from the Hebrew story of David and Goliath, the latter a very modern killer veritably drawn in fancy war regalia, against the former, a meager man-boy of the land equipped with little more than Paleolithic fighting instruments.
This change, described both in the archaeological record and in the epic stories of the age, was not the dawn of "civilization," as such: it was an underlying change in lifestyle that might, at best, correlate with or lead to civilization: instead of going to get food by hunts and the gathering of wild plants, people were, in increasing and dominant numbers, growing the food (beast, grain, fruit, and vegetable) beside them. This is convenient, but the attendant permanence of location becomes, at the same time, a curse: permanence is vulnerability; possessions are a magnet for attacks and raids; and greed for more replaces need for sufficiency.
Some might conflate this with the very essence of civilization: property, monumentalism, "us" versus "them"; violence against one's own kind as the will of gods; and want propelling expansion of territorial control instead of need fostering expedition. If that is, indeed, what counts these days as "civilization," then the current mindset of historians is no more open and capable than it has been since Herodotus; and if that is, indeed, the measure of "civilization, " then civilization is not at all the savior of our kind, but instead the herald of our continuing demise through the ages.
Pages