Lost city could "rewrite history"
Of the coast of India an ancient city thought to be over 9000 years old has been found.
Wow this could be a very interesting development
Lost city could "rewrite history"
Of the coast of India an ancient city thought to be over 9000 years old has been found.
Wow this could be a very interesting development
Originally posted by chithappens
History leaves out lots of stuff like that this is known but not discussed.That's why a lot of people don't know Africa developed the first democracy.
Story of the winner.
its hard to be critical of people for not discussing the intracices of the origins of civilization when the information is hard to access and in many cases nonexistant
what african society had democracy? thats an interesting idea.
Originally posted by inimalist
its hard to be critical of people for not discussing the intracices of the origins of civilization when the information is hard to access and in many cases nonexistantwhat african society had democracy? thats an interesting idea.
I will type up a source later this evening. It is really interesting to read through. It is odd that the only place ever mentioned among the masses in Africa is Egypt like that was the only place in Africa that did anything at all.
It is not a coincidence.
Originally posted by chithappens
I will type up a source later this evening. It is really interesting to read through. It is odd that the only place ever mentioned among the masses in Africa is Egypt like that was the only place in Africa that did anything at all.It is not a coincidence.
what isnt a coincidence?
that people don't know the most esoteric information from ancient archeology?
Everyone knows there was stuff going on in Africa. However, much of it has been destroyed or was not made in a way that would be preserved for thousands of years, whereas Egypt has the great pyramids.
I think if you want to be honest, most people know nothing of cromagnom who dwelled in Eurpoe or of the Macedoenian or Median civilizations that were precursors of Greek civilization or of the Origins of the Roman or Byzantine Empire.
Again, it is really hard to be critical of people for not understanding the nuances of a very difficult and patchwork subject
I don't really agree with you there. It is not that "everything was lost" kinda thing.
The particular book I will quote has a black man who sat in the back of a classroom in Oxford University, an African history class. Here's an excerpt:
*He is talking about how a African history class is divided up.
"First period is from the fall of the Roman Empire to 700 (A.D), the Arab invasions; the second period of African history is the period of the "Islamic" civilization, 700(A.D.) to the coming of the Europeans in 1500.... There is no period of black civilization in Black Africa. Such is the Caucasian viewpoint that is almost a religion. Their very first period eliminates 4,000 years of Black Civilization and the very greatest periods of African achievements; their second period is devoted to the Arabs and Berbers in Africa; and in their thrid period the focus is on European civilization. And it is all done under the heading of African history."
"The Destruction of Black Civilization" by Chancellor Williams; published 1987
Funny enough, at my school (I'm a junior in college) my African history class syllabus was divided the same way. I just dropped the class. It looked like bullshit.
Before I comment on the importance of such a finding, I'll wait for it to be verified. There are to many "mights","maybe's" and "possibly's" to verify before this becomes an actual archeological find. The mention of Graham Hancock and his involvement also tends to leave me a bit leary.
It does interest me though that there are people who instantly accept this as fact. What also interests me are the people who point out what they believe to be significant inaccuracies of historical records but offer no research or information to back it up.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Before I comment on the importance of such a finding, I'll wait for it to be verified. There are to many "mights","maybe's" and "possibly's" to verify before this becomes an actual archeological find. The mention of Graham Hancock and his involvement also tends to leave me a bit leary.It does interest me though that there are people who instantly accept this as fact. What also interests me are the people who point out what they believe to be significant inaccuracies of historical records but offer no research or information to back it up.
Anyway, I read an interesting article on the city here.