The Newly Found Book Of Judas

[Jun]

(Amanda - Although I wonder about this too, in that... in God's name they pray... Amen. Amen was clearly a mystery god of Egypt.)

 

The root of the word comes from Hebrew אמן (Ahmein), which means to nourish and make strong, and refers to truth. In English it would be said "truthfully" or "verily."

 

When Jesus said "Verily, verily I say......" It would be translated back as "Amen, amen........."

 

When amen is stated at the end of something it is just to reafirm its truthfulness. "Blah blah bla.....truly!"

 

The mystery god of Egypt you refer to was AHMAN-RAH which is often written Amen Ra.

Jun... thanks for sharing that insight! I love to see how words evolved! It's interesting to me to see how a word migrates into different languages too. However, there is also a god named Amen in Egyptian Mythology, and was later associated with the sun god, hence Amen-Ra. But notice the similarities to the one I was talking about that is found here:

Amen

(A.K.A Amon, Amun, Ammon,& Amoun)

 

 

Amen's name means "The Hidden One." He was the patron deity of the city of Thebes from earliest times, and was viewed as a primordial creation-deity by the priests of Hermopolis. His sacred animals were the goose and the ram.

Up to the Middle Kingdom Amen was merely a local god in Thebes; but when the Thebans had established their sovereignty in Egypt, Amen became a prominent deity, and by Dynasty XVIII was termed the King of the Gods. His famous temple, Karnak, is the largest religious structure ever built by man. According to Budge, Amen by Dynasty XIX-XX was thought of as "an invisible creative power which was the source of all life in heaven, and on the earth, and in the great deep, and in the Underworld, and which made itself manifest under the form of Ra." Additionally, Amen appears to have been the protector of any pious devotee in need.

Amen was self-created, according to later traditions; according to the older Theban traditions, Amen was created by Thoth as one of the eight primordial deities of creation (Amen, Amenet, Heq, Heqet, Nun, Naunet, Kau, Kauket).

During the New Kingdom, Amen's consort was Mut, "Mother," who seems to have been the Egyptian equivalent of the "Great Mother" archetype. The two thus formed a pair reminiscent of the God and Goddess of other traditions such as Wicca. Their child was the moon god Khons.

 

So, it would be interesting to know which came first, the Hebrew word or this Egyptian god? Also, the initial Semite movement did believe in many gods, although from their Akkadian ancestors being so close to the Sumerians, I wonder if the Egyptian gods had any influence amongst that group? Maybe the Hebrew word and this Egyptian god just stemmed from the same root but the two were never related to each other more than that?

 

Very interesting, thank you. We may never know. For the Jews, Amen is also an acronym for El Melech Ne'eman, which means "Mighty, Faithful King".

[Jun]

(Amanda - Although I wonder about this too, in that... in God's name they pray... Amen. Amen was clearly a mystery god of Egypt.)

 

The root of the word comes from Hebrew אמן (Ahmein), which means to nourish and make strong, and refers to truth. In English it would be said "truthfully" or "verily."

 

When Jesus said "Verily, verily I say......" It would be translated back as "Amen, amen........."

 

When amen is stated at the end of something it is just to reafirm its truthfulness. "Blah blah bla.....truly!"

 

The mystery god of Egypt you refer to was AHMAN-RAH which is often written Amen Ra.

 

Holy crap, how many languages do you know Jun? Seriously you make me feel terribly lazy

 

I'm only fluent in english...and sometimes I'm not sure I'm even very fluent in it.

 

Other than English, I speak and read only Japanese fluently. I can read Sanskrit, but my pronunciation is not colloquial. My family speaks Gàidhlig, but I cannot. I like to study languages. I know a bit about the words used in Christianity as a friend is an Assyrian and he speaks Hebrew and classical Aramaic.

[Kuroikaze]

Other than English, I speak and read only Japanese fluently. I can read Sanskrit, but my pronunciation is not colloquial. My family speaks Gàidhlig, but I cannot. I like to study languages. I know a bit about the words used in Christianity as a friend is an Assyrian and he speaks Hebrew and classical Aramaic.

 

How long did it take you to become fluent in japanese, and how many Kanji do you know, or have you lost count?

[Jun]

Other than English, I speak and read only Japanese fluently. I can read Sanskrit, but my pronunciation is not colloquial. My family speaks Gàidhlig, but I cannot. I like to study languages. I know a bit about the words used in Christianity as a friend is an Assyrian and he speaks Hebrew and classical Aramaic.

 

How long did it take you to become fluent in japanese, and how many Kanji do you know, or have you lost count?

 

The first half of your question is one which many people ask. I can't answer it however! I lived in Japan concurrently for 5 years during which time I just picked it up. I've never had any formal lessons in modern Japanese (I did study Edo period Japanese at a local college). I have been living in Japan on and off for 14 years, that is to say I spend some of the year in Japan and some in Oz.

 

As for how many kanji I know, I like to answer that one with, "How many words do you know? Can you give me the exact number of words in your total vocabulary?"

 

There are 2,000 basic kanji (Joyo Kanji) that are essential for everyday living. Then there are a further 2,000 or so specialist kanji for scientific, religious, technical, and medical terms. I know probably all of them. Plus a few hundred more that are no longer in use (outdated and revised, ancient forms).

[mwc]

So, it would be interesting to know which came first, the Hebrew word or this Egyptian god? Also, the initial Semite movement did believe in many gods, although from their Akkadian ancestors being so close to the Sumerians, I wonder if the Egyptian gods had any influence amongst that group? Maybe the Hebrew word and this Egyptian god just stemmed from the same root but the two were never related to each other more than that?

 

Very interesting, thank you. We may never know. For the Jews, Amen is also an acronym for El Melech Ne'eman, which means "Mighty, Faithful King".

While I respect all this I tend to go with the "whoever gets there first" type of philosophy in these situations and so we know that the Egyptians simply got there first.

 

Amanda's quote described the god well enough but was missing one important piece of information. So as not to bore anyone I'll just borrow this bit from good old Wikipedia:

Amun's name is first recorded in Egyptian records as imn, meaning "The hidden (one)". Since vowels were not written in Egyptian hieroglyphics, Egyptologists have reconstructed the name to have been pronounced *Yamānu (yah-maa-nuh) originally.

Notice anything suspicious about the part I put in bold in old Amun's original name? Tell me this is some sort of coincidence...one of thousands and thousands apparently? We know the Egyptians pretty much "ruled" (I'm using that term loosely since I don't want to debate over vassal kingdoms and such) the levant and pretty much everywhere one might find a Hebrew/Jew/Semite/Israelite/Hyksos/<Take your pick from Canaan down to Ethiopia> for the 1500 years needed for these cultures to be fully affected by their presence. It's no wonder these "loan" words exist in their vocabularies with altered meanings to reflect their own beliefs. To put it another way...Moses didn't have to go to any mountain...the mountain effectively went to Moses since the Egyptians already lived throughout the land of Canaan.

 

Anyhow, this all happened long before the Hebrew language came to be (~1000BCE with "biblical" Hebrew showing up ~400 years later with the return from Babylon which is one reason why people doubt the stories about the authorship) so it's a pretty good bet that the direction of travel is from Egyptian to Hebrew and not the other way around.

 

Oh, and as a side note, I could just be reading in, but is the last part (in italics) of this guy's name "manna" as in the food no one can identify that fed those people that followed Yah all those years out this in the desert? So the whole of his identity based on that is basically something like "The invisible perfect all-powerful god that nourishes his followers." It's about the same thing that is said in what Amanda posted. Odd that Yah fed manna to his people now isn't it?

 

mwc

[Jun]

So, it would be interesting to know which came first, the Hebrew word or this Egyptian god? Also, the initial Semite movement did believe in many gods, although from their Akkadian ancestors being so close to the Sumerians, I wonder if the Egyptian gods had any influence amongst that group? Maybe the Hebrew word and this Egyptian god just stemmed from the same root but the two were never related to each other more than that?

 

Very interesting, thank you. We may never know. For the Jews, Amen is also an acronym for El Melech Ne'eman, which means "Mighty, Faithful King".

While I respect all this I tend to go with the "whoever gets there first" type of philosophy in these situations and so we know that the Egyptians simply got there first.

 

Amanda's quote described the god well enough but was missing one important piece of information. So as not to bore anyone I'll just borrow this bit from good old Wikipedia:

Amun's name is first recorded in Egyptian records as imn, meaning "The hidden (one)". Since vowels were not written in Egyptian hieroglyphics, Egyptologists have reconstructed the name to have been pronounced *Yamānu (yah-maa-nuh) originally.

Notice anything suspicious about the part I put in bold in old Amun's original name? Tell me this is some sort of coincidence...one of thousands and thousands apparently? We know the Egyptians pretty much "ruled" (I'm using that term loosely since I don't want to debate over vassal kingdoms and such) the levant and pretty much everywhere one might find a Hebrew/Jew/Semite/Israelite/Hyksos/<Take your pick from Canaan down to Ethiopia> for the 1500 years needed for these cultures to be fully affected by their presence. It's no wonder these "loan" words exist in their vocabularies with altered meanings to reflect their own beliefs. To put it another way...Moses didn't have to go to any mountain...the mountain effectively went to Moses since the Egyptians already lived throughout the land of Canaan.

 

Anyhow, this all happened long before the Hebrew language came to be (~1000BCE with "biblical" Hebrew showing up ~400 years later with the return from Babylon which is one reason why people doubt the stories about the authorship) so it's a pretty good bet that the direction of travel is from Egyptian to Hebrew and not the other way around.

 

Oh, and as a side note, I could just be reading in, but is the last part (in italics) of this guy's name "manna" as in the food no one can identify that fed those people that followed Yah all those years out this in the desert? So the whole of his identity based on that is basically something like "The invisible perfect all-powerful god that nourishes his followers." It's about the same thing that is said in what Amanda posted. Odd that Yah fed manna to his people now isn't it?

 

mwc

 

 

 

WOW! Once again MWC you have shown remarkable scholarly prowess. Thank you ever so much. I thought that just maybe my friend was perhaps a bit biased.

[Grandpa Harley]

So, it would be interesting to know which came first, the Hebrew word or this Egyptian god? Also, the initial Semite movement did believe in many gods, although from their Akkadian ancestors being so close to the Sumerians, I wonder if the Egyptian gods had any influence amongst that group? Maybe the Hebrew word and this Egyptian god just stemmed from the same root but the two were never related to each other more than that?

 

Very interesting, thank you. We may never know. For the Jews, Amen is also an acronym for El Melech Ne'eman, which means "Mighty, Faithful King".

While I respect all this I tend to go with the "whoever gets there first" type of philosophy in these situations and so we know that the Egyptians simply got there first.

 

Amanda's quote described the god well enough but was missing one important piece of information. So as not to bore anyone I'll just borrow this bit from good old Wikipedia:

Amun's name is first recorded in Egyptian records as imn, meaning "The hidden (one)". Since vowels were not written in Egyptian hieroglyphics, Egyptologists have reconstructed the name to have been pronounced *Yamānu (yah-maa-nuh) originally.

Notice anything suspicious about the part I put in bold in old Amun's original name? Tell me this is some sort of coincidence...one of thousands and thousands apparently? We know the Egyptians pretty much "ruled" (I'm using that term loosely since I don't want to debate over vassal kingdoms and such) the levant and pretty much everywhere one might find a Hebrew/Jew/Semite/Israelite/Hyksos/<Take your pick from Canaan down to Ethiopia> for the 1500 years needed for these cultures to be fully affected by their presence. It's no wonder these "loan" words exist in their vocabularies with altered meanings to reflect their own beliefs. To put it another way...Moses didn't have to go to any mountain...the mountain effectively went to Moses since the Egyptians already lived throughout the land of Canaan.

 

Anyhow, this all happened long before the Hebrew language came to be (~1000BCE with "biblical" Hebrew showing up ~400 years later with the return from Babylon which is one reason why people doubt the stories about the authorship) so it's a pretty good bet that the direction of travel is from Egyptian to Hebrew and not the other way around.

 

Oh, and as a side note, I could just be reading in, but is the last part (in italics) of this guy's name "manna" as in the food no one can identify that fed those people that followed Yah all those years out this in the desert? So the whole of his identity based on that is basically something like "The invisible perfect all-powerful god that nourishes his followers." It's about the same thing that is said in what Amanda posted. Odd that Yah fed manna to his people now isn't it?

 

mwc

Nice one!

[Amanda]

MWC, I think Jun was adding confirmation, to the suspicion that Amen was taken from the Egyptians, when he posted:

 

Very interesting, thank you. We may never know. For the Jews, Amen is also an acronym for El Melech Ne'eman, which means "Mighty, Faithful King".

Since Amen was king of kings and protector of his pious devotees. Then, of course, your post seems to definitely give significant substance to endorsing this idea even further.

 

However, since you seem to be a wealth of information MWC , I'd like to challenge you a bit further... into areas I'm totally in the dark... and would be interested if you could shed some light...

 

As you said...

While I respect all this I tend to go with the "whoever gets there first" type of philosophy in these situations and so we know that the Egyptians simply got there first.

 

Do you know, from where did the Egyptians come?

 

I'm well aware of the story of Noah that had three sons of which started the semites through Shem, the gentiles through Japheth (sp?), and the phonetians through Ham. I also have heard that this story is loosely based on a real Sumerian that escaped, perhaps during a severe flooding of the area, common for those days in that region. Yet I think the Egyptian people may be more anceint than 3000 to 4000 BCE. What's the popular concensus of the day, regarding the rise of these mighty influential Egyptians?

[Grandpa Harley]

"Do you know, from where did the Egyptians come?"

That's the $64000 question... there are numerous theories, but no-one is certain. Maybe MWC has a better idea. That isn't my period.

[mwc]

Do you know, from where did the Egyptians come?

They're one of the cultures that emerge from pre-history so it's really anyone's guess. As you pointed out the bible crowd likes to show them coming from the flood, but since the flood (according to the Masoratic text), occurred while the pyramids at Giza were being built, I'd say that's a pretty unlikely possibility. Allowing even for the LXX time line we have Egypt already existing as a culture so the bible is simply not acceptable as a reliable source for the Egyptians (not just their origins but in almost every single mention of Egypt proper, other than maybe some city names, the bible is wrong).

 

Anyhow, the oldest thing that I know about (really) ancient Egypt, was popularized by the (not so great movie) Scorpion King (or King Scorpion actually). He was sort of like a King David was to Israel in that he was a powerful leader that tried to or did unite the territories of Upper and Lower Egypt around 3000-4000BCE (or maybe he just united Upper Egypt and the next king finished the job or both Upper and Lower? Something like that). There's some (one?) carving of him on some stones so it's hard to know if he was more than myth but for something that old it's the best we can ask for I guess. Where these people came from prior to all this I don't know (I tend to know a bit more about the New Kingdom since that's when the Exodus supposedly occurred).

 

mwc

[Amanda]

He was sort of like a King David was to Israel in that he was a powerful leader that tried to or did unite the territories of Upper and Lower Egypt around 3000-4000BCE (or maybe he just united Upper Egypt and the next king finished the job or both Upper and Lower? Something like that). There's some (one?) carving of him on some stones so it's hard to know if he was more than myth but for something that old it's the best we can ask for I guess.

MWC, that would seem to possibly fit into the Noah story timeline. Not that the story is real, but loosely based on a real story of a Sumerian, as was suggested on the history channel. So, does the Sumerian civilization predate the Egyptians? If the Egyptians were organized, as you state above, by a great Sumerian, it would be more understandable as to how they came to such impressive heights so quickly, IMO.

[Grandpa Harley]

Sumerians were Semitic. The Egyptians almost Caucasian. They didn't seem to belong in the region.

[Amanda]

Sumerians were Semitic. The Egyptians almost Caucasian. They didn't seem to belong in the region.

Sumerians were not Semitic. The Akkadians seem to be the precursors of Semitism. They did infiltrate and absorb the Sumerians as they invaded their cities. However, the timeline MWC suggests as the significant era in the rise of Egypt seems to predate that occurrence. Hence, if the Noah story is loosely based on an actual event, as stated on the history channel, of a Sumerian... then perhaps it was one of his sons, Ham, that gave rise to these Phonecians in some way. I suppose, if the story has any veracity, that Shem must have alligned with the Akkadians, and Japheth (sp?) went with the gentiles, which I suppose were the Greeks and Romans. If a great Sumerian leader was displaced along with his family because of a great flood, common to that location in those days... maybe this is the only insight we have to what happened. Of course, I'm guessing... but would like to understand if it fits in with the rest of history as we know it to be now. Further, this may explain the implications of similar myths integrated with those of the different regions.

[mwc]

MWC, that would seem to possibly fit into the Noah story timeline. Not that the story is real, but loosely based on a real story of a Sumerian, as was suggested on the history channel. So, does the Sumerian civilization predate the Egyptians? If the Egyptians were organized, as you state above, by a great Sumerian, it would be more understandable as to how they came to such impressive heights so quickly, IMO.

Noah's flood would have happened roughly 2300BCE to as early as 2800BCE (it depends on which sources you use to calculate things but those dates are fair with the 2300 date being what you'll find in your KJV). Too late to have established any of the civilizations we're discussing. The Epic of Gilgamesh and it's flood epic dates a bit earlier (although our copies of it come from a later date) which mean the people that wrote it were already established enough to have a civilization with all that entails (writing, cities, mythology, etc., etc.). What I know of the archaeology shows that the civilizations in those regions developed pretty much at the same time. How much they influenced one another I really don't know but it's no secret they weren't isolated. The Sumerians did seem to become a "world power" first though but there could be many reasons for that (their ability to write as well as being near a number of trade partners no doubt played a major role in this).

 

I just don't think that there's really any way to say which truly came first. There comes a point when most of the evidence just sort of disappears back into dust unless you get really lucky. Maybe that day will come but for now the Indus Valley over in India seems to be the "oldest" organized group in the region (although I heard maybe a group nearby might have edged them out).

 

But as to your point. Lets say that a Sumerian did wander over to Egypt. For your assumption to work he would have to basically take a group of people a "form" them pretty much in isolation from all other groups. Okay. Now that this is done he would have had to had forgotten all of his "Sumerian-ness" in order to create the unique culture that was the Egyptians. The problem is when we examine, for example, early buildings by the Egyptians, we can see where they experimented with columns and supports. So we can see how they went from basic on up to advanced. Not just with buildings but with other things. We should see a carry over from Sumerian to Egyptian. We don't. We see a "proto-Egyptian" (for lack of a better word) civilization turning into the civilization we're familiar with today. Pretty much an unbroken chain of growth (and where there are changes there are usually records of what caused this deviation). This is one reason Noah's flood couldn't have occurred in recent history because we don't see any major interruptions in any world cultures. If a flood happened simply no one noticed. The odds of one man having this type of influence over Egypt early on is extremely unlikely. If I had to guess I'd say the influence came more from the Ethiopian direction early on since they seemed to have the resources and knew how to use the river.

 

mwc

[mwc]

If a great Sumerian leader was displaced along with his family because of a great flood, common to that location in those days... maybe this is the only insight we have to what happened. Of course, I'm guessing... but would like to understand if it fits in with the rest of history as we know it to be now. Further, this may explain the implications of similar myths integrated with those of the different regions.

The story of Noah was likely written around 600BCE. I wouldn't put too much faith in it. The History Channel, while entertaining, has a definite bias in all things bible related. It tends to see them as, well, true. But the hexateuch has little truth and lots of myth. If I were you I'd go ahead and look at the older flood myths even though I doubt you'll learn much more. There is the story of king who did end up, because of a flood, sailing down into the gulf for something like two weeks. He ended up in Africa as I recall and then sailed home. His name might have had something in common with Noah.

 

But creating a civilization is usually a lot harder than a couple of people being displaced. You do that. You grow. Then you fight. A lot. And if you're lucky you kill of those around you and/or join up with them and continue to grow until you're the only one left. Then you've won. Then you rewrite history to make yourself look better and make things happened as you envisioned them and not as they really happened. This, of course, explains why the myths are similar.

 

mwc

[Amanda]

MWC, consider this information... maybe you can make sense of it. It seems significant to me, yet I would like your insights.

 

Here it says this:

Sumer (or Šumer) was the earliest known civilization of the ancient Near East, located in the southern part of Mesopotamia (southeastern Iraq) from the time of the earliest records in the mid 4th millennium BC until the rise of Babylonia in the late 3rd millennium BC. The term "Sumerian" applies to all speakers of the Sumerian language. Sumer together with Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley Civilization is considered the first settled society in the world to have manifested all the features needed to qualify fully as a "civilization".

 

The ancient flood of Gilgamesh was around 2700 BC, and this is when the Old Kingdom started in ancient Egypt, and clearly a defining time in their pyramids and many other aspects. However, Imhotep seems to be the one that is accredited the most for Egypts impressive rise during this era, and he didn't show up till 2630 BCE, and was from a commoner's background. His name means 'the one who comes in peace', and his legacy is suspected to be blended with the myths of 'Jesus'. It does look like some significant happenings in Persia during this period too... along Semetic lines. You don't think some displaced Sumerians from that time could have greatly influenced people of different regions? The Sumerians seemed so incredibly smart for that time, and the time of the flood seems to be a time when other regions started flourishing.

[Grandpa Harley]

Indus Valley is something I know a bit about... It appears to be contemporaneous with Sumer, but there are cities under the sea that indicates that it may be a lot older...

[Amanda]

Indus Valley is something I know a bit about... It appears to be contemporaneous with Sumer, but there are cities under the sea that indicates that it may be a lot older...

What cities under the sea?

[mwc]

MWC, consider this information... maybe you can make sense of it. It seems significant to me, yet I would like your insights.

 

Here it says this:

Sumer (or Šumer) was the earliest known civilization of the ancient Near East, located in the southern part of Mesopotamia (southeastern Iraq) from the time of the earliest records in the mid 4th millennium BC until the rise of Babylonia in the late 3rd millennium BC. The term "Sumerian" applies to all speakers of the Sumerian language. Sumer together with Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley Civilization is considered the first settled society in the world to have manifested all the features needed to qualify fully as a "civilization".

 

The ancient flood of Gilgamesh was around 2700 BC, and this is when the Old Kingdom started in ancient Egypt, and clearly a defining time in their pyramids and many other aspects. However, Imhotep seems to be the one that is accredited the most for Egypts impressive rise during this era, and he didn't show up till 2630 BCE, and was from a commoner's background. His name means 'the one who comes in peace', and his legacy is suspected to be blended with the myths of 'Jesus'. It does look like some significant happenings in Persia during this period too... along Semetic lines. You don't think some displaced Sumerians from that time could have greatly influenced people of different regions? The Sumerians seemed so incredibly smart for that time, and the time of the flood seems to be a time when other regions started flourishing.

If I'm reading the Wiki quote properly it just seems that they're lumping the three areas of Sumer, Egypt and the Indus civilizations into one region to say these areas qualify as a "civilization." Which is pretty much what we've been saying here. They all kind of emerged at the same time and no one really knows which came first. Most people I've read seem to think the Indus Valley did, but they didn't have any writing (to my knowledge). The Sumerians seemed to edge out everyone else just slightly but that could be just a result of our luck in field research to date. Someone could turn over a rock tomorrow causing a rewrite that shows Egyptians managed to come up with writing first or even an unknown third party did.

 

From the bit of reading I've done about the floods in the plains near the Tigris and Euphrates it's unlikely that any would cause such a major displacement and I doubt that anyone would trade one flood region for another (the Nile). They dug quite a few canals in those rivers to bring the flood waters further out into the desert because the floods brought fertile soil. Too big of a flood was obviously a bad thing but they wanted/needed the yearly flood to survive. Remember what I said though. The myth was set around that time, and may have even been written way back then, but our oldest copies are from a more recent period (~2100BCE?) so there's a chance the story was written then to reflect that time period and just set in an older time. It's hard to say and there are variations in the story (although I don't recall what or how significant they are).

 

The idea that some as brilliant as Imhotep came from Sumer and didn't bring the wheel with him seems unlikely to me. While there does seem to be some influence from one culture to the next it seems to be more in the imagery and the like as opposed to the architecture. This tells me that it's probably not a direct influence. I imagine traders and other travelers exchanged stories and that's what the influence was. But all I can do is speculate really.

 

mwc

[Grandpa Harley]

Indus Valley is something I know a bit about... It appears to be contemporaneous with Sumer, but there are cities under the sea that indicates that it may be a lot older...

What cities under the sea?

Have a poke around here -> http://www.archaeologyonline.net/

 

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/9500_city.htm

 

http://www.adias-uae.com/underwaterarchaeo...tml#indianocean

 

 

http://tinyurl.com/25u5jf (Google search including above)

[Amanda]

Indus Valley is something I know a bit about... It appears to be contemporaneous with Sumer, but there are cities under the sea that indicates that it may be a lot older...

What cities under the sea?

Have a poke around here -> http://www.archaeologyonline.net/

 

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/9500_city.htm

 

http://www.adias-uae.com/underwaterarchaeo...tml#indianocean

 

 

http://tinyurl.com/25u5jf (Google search including above)

 

Grandpa Harley... that's amazing!

 

Especially this site you listed here:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/9500_city.htm

 

If that is a picture of what they have found, it seems there are far more implications to our anthropological evolution. Supposedly, language started about 40,000 years ago, very rudimentary stuff, like uh-oh and such. I think structured language, grammar, only started about 10,000 years ago. Having a city so well designed is impressive for 9,500 years ago, and seems it would take a complicated communication system to do it.

 

I was wondering how they could even find a city from then, because that time period... it was thought we were still nomadic... hunterer and gatherers. However, it is in the timeframe that indicates a wheat mutated, allowing sowing and harvesting, which ultimately led to the ability of a stable community.

 

The end of the last ice age swallowed that city up, a slow process, giving people time to relocate. Yet the article doesn't give any indication to where they migrated.

 

So what else do you know about that city?

[Grandpa Harley]

Indus Valley is something I know a bit about... It appears to be contemporaneous with Sumer, but there are cities under the sea that indicates that it may be a lot older...

What cities under the sea?

Have a poke around here -> http://www.archaeologyonline.net/

 

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/9500_city.htm

 

http://www.adias-uae.com/underwaterarchaeo...tml#indianocean

 

 

http://tinyurl.com/25u5jf (Google search including above)

 

Grandpa Harley... that's amazing!

 

Especially this site you listed here:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/9500_city.htm

 

If that is a picture of what they have found, it seems there are far more implications to our anthropological evolution. Supposedly, language started about 40,000 years ago, very rudimentary stuff, like uh-oh and such. I think structured language, grammar, only started about 10,000 years ago. Having a city so well designed is impressive for 9,500 years ago, and seems it would take a complicated communication system to do it.

 

I was wondering how they could even find a city from then, because that time period... it was thought we were still nomadic... hunterer and gatherers. However, it is in the timeframe that indicates a wheat mutated, allowing sowing and harvesting, which ultimately led to the ability of a stable community.

 

The end of the last ice age swallowed that city up, a slow process, giving people time to relocate. Yet the article doesn't give any indication to where they migrated.

 

So what else do you know about that city?

Since there's virtually nothing published in English, and my Hindi is zero, not much. Also, even in the native languages there isn't a lot since most of the underwater stuff is also very expensive to excavate. However, the only time those sites were above sea level was during the last ice age (Newcastle University)

 

The ever dubious Graham Hancock did write 'Underworld' that covers the Bay of Cambray. I admit the book is patchy, but it is the first in English to provide a popularist over view of the Indian efforts to excavate an massive underwater site, that is almost certainly glacial in time frame. The stuff on the Japanese 'structure' I think is interesting inthe field of underwater archaeology, but is almost certainly a geological phenomenon.

 

Something that has been ignored for many years (at least since the 1930s) is the great megalithic cities of what was French Polynesia. Ponape and environs seems to be a largely ignored site (at least by the journals I have had of late) The most comprehensive book I have ever seen on the subject is one of my antiquarian finds, The Riddle of the Pacific, that covers all of the major megalithic sites of the Pacific islands, and ,in my ed, was published around 1920...

[Jun]

The stuff on the Japanese 'structure' I think is interesting inthe field of underwater archaeology, but is almost certainly a geological phenomenon.

 

I couldn't find a link to that. If it is what I think it is, off the coast of Okinawa, then it's a geological formation. Like the Giants Causeway.

[Grandpa Harley]

The stuff on the Japanese 'structure' I think is interesting inthe field of underwater archaeology, but is almost certainly a geological phenomenon.

 

I couldn't find a link to that. If it is what I think it is, off the coast of Okinawa, then it's a geological formation. Like the Giants Causeway.

That's the one... it's horizontal, not vertical, but it's a similar process of large crystallisation of basaltic rock. Robert Schoch, the geologist who was at the centre of the row about water erosion on the body of the Sphinx, said 'there may have been human modification' of the site, but essentially it's natural.

[Amanda]

The stuff on the Japanese 'structure' I think is interesting inthe field of underwater archaeology, but is almost certainly a geological phenomenon.

 

I couldn't find a link to that. If it is what I think it is, off the coast of Okinawa, then it's a geological formation. Like the Giants Causeway.

Hey Jun... I am more familiar with the western culture, although recently I've become very interested in far eastern thought. First I started with Buddhism... and love what I was able to comprehend. I don't know if it is the cultural context in which it is delivered, or if it is just way over my head... lets say, I struggle with it. Then I went to Zen, and figured out the aspect of existing fully in the moment. Frankly, IMO, my problem is I exist too much in the moment.

 

Back to my point. I know all our history probably starts in Ethiopia, then traveled to India. My information has them backtracking towards the west, however, I highly suspect others went farther east, and I know little about the settling in your neck of the woods. Yet, I'm sure your Japanese history is ancient, and very intellectually oriented. Can you summarize how your culture there rose from early antiquity? I sense the Sumerians were the dominating force to our culture, inventing the wheel, written language, and more, then Imhotep with the Egyptians gave further progress. Later, people like Socratese and Plato contributed more. Are these people important players in your culture, or what are the cornerstones creating Japanese life today?