| 20.7 |
Traditional assumptions associated with the origin and development of settlements |
|
| |
From the previous discussion about the
basic nature of survival for communities, it makes sense that the first
permanent settlements of humans were alongside rivers with large regions of
arable land. |
|
| |
Following on, it is the traditional
assumption of historians and archeologists that the origin of models of
permanent human settlement originated from Asia Minor (Iraq/Middle East)
compared to Africa and other parts of the world. One hundred years ago, the
general date for the first examples of sophisticated organized human settlement
were around 4,000 BCE. Thanks to more recent work in this field, the generally
accepted date for the first examples of sophisticated organized human community
settlement is thought to have been around 10,000 BCE. |
|
| |
The assumptions associated with these
dates that continue to shift further back into history is that settlements
around the Tigris, Euphrates and Nile developed as humans adapted to
domesticating animals as well as growing agricultural crops. It is assumed that
this knowledge was somehow gained through either trial and error, or by sheer
accident. |
|
| |
As these early settlers improved their
survival chances, semi nomadic and nomadic tribes posed a threat to the
settlement, so walls were erected to protect the inhabitants. In addition, it
is a traditional assumption that as time required for food preparation changed
and more time was available, these early settlers were able to devote
themselves to more cerebral tasks such as searching for knowledge on the
universe, mathematics and science. |
|
| 20.7.1
|
The dominant view of this theory |
|
| |
Today, the various theories that
fundamentally assume the progression from "uncivilized" to civilized
via some evolutionary path far outweighs any alternative theories. In fact,
almost no society, nor education facility would seriously entertain any other
alternative. This is in spite of glaring deficiencies in the popular theory of
the natural evolution of human settlements. |
|
| 20.7.2 |
Anomaly #1- Evolution seems to have been
selective on who understood building and who didn't |
|
| |
This first Anomaly (an still to this day
one of the most controversial) is that for some reason only some races seemed
to engage in settlement building compared to others. Caucasian, Sth American
and Asian races seem to excel in the development of sophisticated settlements
compared to North American indigenous cultures, Sth East Asia, and African
races. In other words- "white" people seemed to possess some special
gift for building societies compared to people of "dark" coloured
skin. |
|
| |
Obviously there is no substantial genetic difference
between people of Africa and people of Europe. They share common DNA. Nor is
there any difference in the make up of their brains and capacity to comprehend.
That is why any sensible person living today should abhor any theory that
suggests a superiority between individual humans on the basis of their skin.
Yet this Anomaly regarding city building exists. |
|
| |
In spite of all the explanations given, there still
remains no credible explanation for this Anomaly No argument can be credibly
given on the basis of climate, lack of building materials, time to evolve or any
other kind of excuse. If anything, the indigenous cultures of these regions
should have had much greater time to develop their city building skills than
their near relatives. |
|
| 20.7.3 |
Anomaly #2- The evidence supporting ground
zero- the first sophisticated settlements |
|
| |
We have discussed this Anomaly
previously- the concept that all knowledge acquired through experience should
be reflected in earlier prototypes. It is perhaps one of the most controversial
understandings that when deliberate fabrications and false and misleading
evidence is put to one side, there is categorically no evidence of experience
in the lead up to the Olmec culture in Sth America, the Egyptian culture and
the Sumerian cultures 8,000+ years ago. |
|
| |
If the theory of natural evolution of human
settlements were sound, then evidence should exist of earlier prototypes for at
least ten to twenty thousand years prior to the appearance of these
sophisticated settlements. |
|
| |
In fact the opposite exists. For some reason these
settlements disappeared almost overnight and their knowledge was lost for
thousands of years. To put it bluntly- humans went from living in building with
running water, lighting and better ergonomic design than what we live in today-
to living in straw huts, hiding in the hills- a complete reversal- as if
humanity in those regions suffered collective amnesia. |
|
| |
In the case of Egypt, for example, feeble
attempts have been made by historians to reposition proven "newer"
structures than the Great Pyramid by simply ignoring architectural and
scientific testing data. Yet, even these attempts fail to provide sufficient
depth to the necessary evidence of "prototypes" required to prove
"build by experience". |
|
| |
Take the 20th century for example, in the
creation of the personal computer, we see several trails of historical thought
and technical development leading to the defining moment when personal
computers appeared. Yet to look at ancient civilizations such as Sumer, Egypt
and Sth America without adequate proof of "build by experience" is to
accept that somehow these civilizations one day came up with the equivalent of
the personal computer out of thin air. |
|
| 20.7.4 |
Anomaly #3- Global examples of
sophisticated settlements- rather than one point of origin |
|
| |
If the oldest example of human existence
were just in Asia Minor in terms of human settlement, then the argument of the
"evidence" of the evolution of human settlements simply being lost
could be explained away. But the fact is that sophisticated settlements dating
back as far as 15,000 as in the case of Lake Tititaca in Sth America have now
been proven. |
|
| |
Because there this is impossible if you adhere to the
theory of natural social evolution of human community life, these facts remain
largely ignored by most academics earning a living in this arena of debate. |
|
| 20.7.5 |
Natural evolution of human settlement is
was not the first credible theory on the origin of human settlements and
technology |
|
| |
It may not surprise you to hear that the
theory of natural evolution of humans settlements is only a fairly recent
theory- popularized over the past 100 years. Prior to this period, the most
popular theories centered around quasi-religious and religious teachings that
civilization was a gift from God. |
|
| |
In fact the civilizations of the Sumerians, Olmecs and
Egyptians themselves were quite explicit in explaining their existence. Simply,
they stated their existence was not the result of natural human experience, but
a gift from gods- coming from another star system. |
|
| |
In arguably one of the most bizarre of circumstances-
we have never had more evidence as to the ability to genetically engineer life,
travel in space and alter brain patterns, yet we refuse to even consider the
possibility that our original structures of society are not our own. |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Copyright © 2009 UCADIA. All rights reserved. |