Ancient aliens

[Mickiana]

I like Carl Sagan's idea that the cosmos is most likely brimming over with life, including intelligent life other than our own. In his book, 'Cosmos', which was my bible for many years, he even offers an equation for working out the possible number of planets that may give rise to intelligent life in the known universe. One of his things was to wonder about making contact with an alien intelligence. What would they be like? What would their science, politics, religion and societies be like? he wondered.

But he didn't believe that Earth has had visitations yet. He believed in the awesome power of science in dealing with many of Mans' problems and he thought it very necessary to maintain a vigilance, through radio astronomy, on any incoming messages from the sky. In 'Contact' he muses on the possible ramifications of one day receiving a message from an alien intelligence. It makes for a great read (the movie is not nearly as good). The book, as much as it looks to the possibilities of other intelligent cosmos dwellers, also helps us look at ourselves and offers insights into some of the foibles of mankind.

Carl was as interested in everything on Earth as he was with looking at the stars. If you haven't read "Cosmos', do yourself a favour and grab a copy. It's a great education and I will always pick it up and leaf through it to more closely read a passage or a page or a chapter. His references to the great thinkers of ancient Greece are very inspiring. Eratosthenes was one of his heros and it is easy to see why. Eratosthenes was a rational man of science who was also "an astronomer, historian, geographer, philosopher, poet, theatre critic and mathematician." On page 174 he has a map of the Eastern Mediterranean in classical times, showing the cities associated with the great ancient scientists. Incredible! How did this area give rise to so many great minds? Mans' inquiring mind flourished here. Great notions such as Democracy were born in this area and time.

Ancient aliens, yes, let's ponder them a bit. Maybe, though, we should have a thread called 'Ancient Great Minds'?

 

[Montana Smith]

Good angle, Mickiana.

On page 174 he has a map of the Eastern Mediterranean in classical times, showing the cities associated with the great ancient scientists. Incredible! How did this area give rise to so many great minds? Mans' inquiring mind flourished here. Great notions such as Democracy were born in this area and time.

My initial feeling was that this part of the world was a crossroads of culture: Europe, North Africa, the Levant, and the East. Where differing cultures interact there is a great opportunity for ideas to ferment and grow. The further west you go, to the fringes of Europe, the impact becomes less and less - as with the peoples of Britain and Ireland, who were more isolated, yet not without contact with the east.

 

[Mickiana]

You are very right, Montana. The great library of Alexandria was the repository of knowledge collected from far and wide. Sagan thinks it possible that the library contained up to half a million volumes. The library "contained ten large research halls, each devoted to a different subject; it had fountains and colonnades; botanical gardens; a zoo; dissecting rooms; an observatory; and a great dining hall where, at leisure, was conducted the critical discussion of ideas." It's destruction helped to usher in the Dark Ages.

 

[Montana Smith]

You are very right, Montana. The great library of Alexandria was the repository of knowledge collected from far and wide. Sagan thinks it possible that the library contained up to half a million volumes. The library "contained ten large research halls, each devoted to a different subject; it had fountains and colonnades; botanical gardens; a zoo; dissecting rooms; an observatory; and a great dining hall where, at leisure, was conducted the critical discussion of ideas." It's destruction helped to usher in the Dark Ages.

The library at Alexandria always sounded like a wonderful place. So familiar to our modern mind. I have read that there was supposed to have been a polar bear in the zoo, which if true means there were expeditions or communication with the extreme north.

The Egyptians had been fond of zoos from early times, going down into Africa and bringing back all manner of animals as attractions at their palaces.

While there may be a tendency to place modern morality onto ancient peoples, I do think that there is little difference between us as humans. I especially think of Homer, and then the Greek thinkers and historians. We can follow their thought processes, their sense of humour, and we can see ourselves. Therefore, it's not too extraordinary to believe that people back then could conceive and construct the wonders of the ancient world, without outside assistance.

 

[Mickiana]

Well said, Montana. Not to derail this thread, but I did start an Ancient Great Minds thread after all. And I agree with you concerning the lack of differences between ancient and modern man. Not to say it was total, but we can see ourselves in them.

 

[Montana Smith]

Well said, Montana. Not to derail this thread, but I did start an Ancient Great Minds thread after all. And I agree with you concerning the lack of differences between ancient and modern man. Not to say it was total, but we can see ourselves in them.

Recalling the rest of this thread, I'm tempted to say that there's very little that could derail it any more considering the route it took!

Seriously, though, I think your Ancient Great Minds thread idea belongs here, as the antithesis to "Ancient Aliens". It is after, all an alternative that turns a monologue into a dialogue.

 

[Finn]

On page 174 he has a map of the Eastern Mediterranean in classical times, showing the cities associated with the great ancient scientists. Incredible! How did this area give rise to so many great minds? Mans' inquiring mind flourished here. Great notions such as Democracy were born in this area and time.

One simple explanation: demographics. During those times roughly 20 percent of all of Earth's population lived on the lands surrounding the Mediterranean. The most populous areas naturally create most diverse talent.

Though many achievements of the classical times are highly glorified in the modern world. For example the Greek Democracy mentioned has in actuality very little to do with modern social system, which was developed during the 17th and 18th century Enlightment. Yes, it is generally recognized that Voltaire, Franklin and co drew inspiration from the classical times, but to be honest, theirs didn't come from the actual systems of the Antique city states, but the aforementioned glorification which was mostly done by Romans.

In fact, the "dark" Middle Ages saw more social, political, scientific and technical development that still affect our lives than the centuries surrounding the beginning of the Common Era.

 

[Montana Smith]

Though many achievements of the classical times are highly glorified in the modern world. For example the Greek Democracy mentioned has in actuality very little to do with modern social system, which was developed during the 17th and 18th century Enlightment....In fact, the "dark" Middle Ages saw more social, political, scientific and technical development that still affect our lives than the centuries surrounding the beginning of the Common Era

Athenian democracy didn't encompass every Athenian, just as democracy in Britain didn't have female emancipation until the early twentieth century.

Advancements in science, politics, philosophy, astronomy and so on that were made in early times may have fallen into neglect after the fall of the Roman Empire, and were relearnt or rediscovered in Medieval times. But that does not detract from the minds of those who conceived the ideas in earlier times. Not everything was lost, though. The renaissance was a period of reflection, with writers drawing on the works of the Greek philosophers, for example.

In the context of this thread, the argument is that man was sufficiently adaptable and intelligent in ancient times to have constructed the wonders of the world without alien technology.

 

[Finn]

Athenian democracy didn't encompass every Athenian, just as democracy in Britain didn't have female emancipation until the early twentieth century.

"Pure" democracy is an utopian ideal, there will always be people who are excluded from it. That wasn't actually even the thing I was referring to.

Our democratic system are based on an ideal that every man is equal. The Ancient Greek "Democracy" had deep roots in pragmatism. For most part, the public councils where free men could vote were cursory institutions only. Athens, for example, was still firmly ruled by few powerful archons. It only became useful to listen to them if the de facto ruler didn't have strong enough military to back him up and there was a heightened risk that the ordinary people could rebel. Look up Pericles if you want a realistic image of how Athenian democracy actually worked.

The idea of a "social contract" that people should be listened no matter the circumstances still came for most part from Montesquieu.

Advancements in science, politics, philosophy, astronomy and so on that were made in early times may have fallen into neglect after the fall of the Roman Empire, and were relearnt or rediscovered in Medieval times. But that does not detract from the minds of those who conceived the ideas in earlier times. Not everything was lost, though. The renaissance was a period of reflection, with writers drawing on the works of the Greek philosophers, for example.

I never meant to imply that there weren't Great Minds during those days. There were about as many as there were in eras before, and as there has been in the eras after. I simply wished to notion that the Classical Times have been raised on a pedestal in modern Western culture, while actually there was "nothing special" about them, at least any more than any other period man has muddled through.

What I'm saying is that the "inspiration drawn from them" is in fact based on ideal image conceived by men who came after those times, not what it was in reality.

In the context of this thread, the argument is that man was sufficiently adaptable and intelligent in ancient times to have constructed the wonders of the world without alien technology.

Indeed he was.

The fact is that a man's greatest creations stand better the test of time than the methods used to bring them to reality; those tend to die with us. In similar manner we might wonder what conception would be drawn if our race was to suddenly vanish from the face of the Earth and some time after this planet was to be discovered by a spacefaring species. What they'd find are remains of great cities filled with skyscrapers and such, but all our technology we used to build them would have decayed away a long time ago. Did we really do it all by ourselves, or did we have "outside help"?

 

[Montana Smith]

"Pure" democracy is an utopian ideal, there will always be people who are excluded from it. That wasn't actually even the thing I was referring to.

Our democratic system are based on an ideal that every man is equal. The Ancient Greek "Democracy" had deep roots in pragmatism. For most part, the public councils where free men could vote were cursory institutions only. Athens, for example, was still firmly ruled by few powerful archons. It only became useful to listen to them if the de facto ruler didn't have strong enough military to back him up and there was a heightened risk that the ordinary people could rebel. Look up Pericles if you want a realistic image of how Athenian democracy actually worked.

The idea of a "social contract" that people should be listened no matter the circumstances still came for most part from Montesquieu.

Yes, and their form of democracy isn't that far different from that functioning today. Democracy is often dictatorship by consent, under the illusion of free will. Spin, misinformation, elected representatives following their own agendas. The same can be said for the ideals of communism, which have never been realized on a large scale.

It's just another reflection of ancient aspirations, that we, in a modern and 'enlightened' world can see in our ancestors.

I never meant to imply that there weren't Great Minds during those days. There were about as many as there were in eras before, and as there has been in the eras after. I simply wished to notion that the Classical Times have been raised on a pedestal in modern Western culture, while actually there was "nothing special" about them, at least any more than any other period man has muddled through.

It was an age from which we have many surviving writings, and as such is the earliest period of European civilization that was recorded in such great detail. It was perhaps only natural that this be looked upon as a 'golden age', when so much of it is still now existing in both stone construction and the written word.

What I'm saying is that the "inspiration drawn from them" is in fact based on ideal image conceived by men who came after those times, not what it was in reality.

That's an almost certainty. Those living at the bottom of society in ancient Greece, Rome or Egypt, would probably not have any sense of living in great times, which is generally the preserve of those with power and influence.

I was thinking of the evidence of the inspiration in the minds of the ancients, rather than the ideas they inspired in their successors.

The fact is that a man's greatest creations stand better the test of time than the methods used to bring them to reality; those tend to die with us. In similar manner we might wonder what conception would be drawn if our race was to suddenly vanish from the face of the Earth and some time after this planet was to be discovered by a spacefaring species. What they'd find are remains of great cities filled with skyscrapers and such, but all our technology we used to build them would have decayed away a long time ago. Did we really do it all by ourselves, or did we have "outside help"?

I'm with you, and this would be even more so, if we were to consign all our written records to computer files, which might one day be erased by electro-magnetic pulses. In the past such records may have been destroyed by other catastrophes, either natural or man-made. So, the lack of a text book on how to build a pyramid doesn't equate with man's inability to have built a pyramid. In any case, the plans of pyramids were not meant to become public property.

To say that aliens created pyramids and other wonders is a short-cut to (mis)understanding the past, that relies more on imagination than on physical evidence.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Does anyone else feel that including this topic in the Archeology board is an affront to archeology? Archeology connotes scientific inquiry and objective study. This topic spits in the face of everything archeology teaches. It's an affront to reason and objectivity.

 

[Attila the Professor]

Does anyone else feel that including this topic in the Archeology board is an affront to archeology? Archeology connotes scientific inquiry and objective study. This topic spits in the face of everything archeology teaches. It's an affront to reason and objectivity.

Well, the table description notes that it's also for the discussion of legends and myths.

Of course...I'd argue that the thing about myths is that they usually express some truth. I'm not sure what constructive meaning there is to gleam from the notion that humanity required extraterrestrial helpers for many of their greatest achievements.

 

[Rocket Surgeon]

Well, the table description notes that it's also for the discussion of legends and myths.

Of course...I'd argue that the thing about myths is that they usually express some truth. I'm not sure what constructive meaning there is to gleam from the notion that humanity required extraterrestrial helpers for many of their greatest achievements.

So you would classify "ancient aliens" as a modern myth?

It seems to be a modern label, pop culture if you will. A reimagining of history.

 

[Gabeed]

Does anyone else feel that including this topic in the Archeology board is an affront to archeology? Archeology connotes scientific inquiry and objective study. This topic spits in the face of everything archeology teaches. It's an affront to reason and objectivity.

Emphatically yes.

 

[Lance Quazar]

Does anyone else feel that including this topic in the Archeology board is an affront to archeology? Archeology connotes scientific inquiry and objective study. This topic spits in the face of everything archeology teaches. It's an affront to reason and objectivity.

As a friend of mine said after seeing KOTCS -

"It's an Indiana Jones movie that hates archaeology."

 

[Attila the Professor]

So you would classify "ancient aliens" as a modern myth?

It seems to be a modern label, pop culture if you will. A reimagining of history.

Folk legend maybe. Pop culture, or pop religion. It's fiction, but not of a constructive kind. Not, decidedly, the sort of myth-making that Lucas, for example, sees as his project, I'd argue, or that the most interesting art tends to be.

I just don't see how it gives us anything interestingly human (of course, you say) for us to walk away with. Indeed, it's anti-human.

 

[Gear]

Re: Thoughts? -- My Two Pennies

(This thread is over 500 posts long, and I haven't made a point of keeping up with it, so site me if I restate something, I suppose)


Firstly, I see it as ignorance to assert that there is no extraterrestrial life in this universe we inhabit, given its scope and how little we actually know about it. What? Life is unique to Earth? But, I didn't see any posts arguing life elsewhere in space. I'm just stating my stance.

Anyway, I do believe that alien life is entering our land, but hopefully the new fence will hinder that.

I also believe some extraterrestrials are aware of Earth and have had contact here.



As for ancient aliens--or rather, aliens visiting pre-1945 (that being, of course, the year beginning 'the atomic age' -- crude, and used for aggressive purposes, as well as the era of our more advanced efforts for space);

Why would extraterrestrial beings care to involve themselves with puny Earthling civilizations (before era sited above)? Observing is one thing, but why would they take the time with us? I mean, even if they had advancements to share, why give them to us?

Perhaps we were/are unique in their eyes(?)

Perhaps their interest is more or less a concern; look what we do to fellow Earthlings... And we're poking around in space.



For the OP question at hand; did they help or lend hand with the construction of amazing Earthly monuments?

Idunno. Look at how a colony of ants can work together and built, compared to their scale, immense, sturdy structures. Really, you can mess up the undercarriage of a pickup trying to drive through ant hills!

However, ants are a different species than us, so their brains aren't wired to labor away at making sphinxes. Even if they were, I think I'd have better things to do than help 'em with that project.

 

[Gabeed]

Firstly, I see it as ignorance to assert that there is no extraterrestrial life in this universe we inhabit, given its scope and how little we actually know about it.

As far as I know, no one has said that; on the contrary, a couple people (including me) have said outright that we aren't saying that aliens don't exist, despite our arguments against ancient aliens. This thread is more accurately about the flimsiness of ancient alien "evidence," the lack of observation of the larger context of ancient cultures by those proposing ancient alien theories, and the paranoia and irrational distrust towards the multi-ethnic, international academic community which despite being called dogmatic continues to make new finds and put forth new theories every day.

 

[Gear]

As far as I know, no one has said that; on the contrary, a couple people (including me) have said outright that we aren't saying that aliens don't exist...

But, I didn't see any posts arguing life elsewhere in space. I'm just stating my stance.

It's all good.

 

[Montana Smith]

As far as I know, no one has said that; on the contrary, a couple people (including me) have said outright that we aren't saying that aliens don't exist, despite our arguments against ancient aliens.

I'm sure to be among them. Considering the size of the universe, the number of planets and stars that we're aware of, it would be very short-sighted to assert that there was no possibility of other life out there.

Science fiction has often imagined that life to be superior to us, otherwise SF writers might as well be writing about discovering wild animals or primitive lost tribes on earth.

From early times man has looked to the stars, which is evident from art and the placement of structures. When you look up into a star-filled sky it's hard not to be amazed, or to imagine what's out there. Ancient man must surely have had those same feelings.

When man created gods, as I believe he did, he seemed to place them in the sky, in the vastness of space above.

As our own technology has improved, and we're reaching out into space, so the ideas of aliens visiting us has taken off in a massive way. Like creating gods, it appears to be a self-generating myth that builds upon itself. It has very little foundation in the evidence, but for a few oddities which we haven't yet fully explained.

Alien theories attract hoaxers like moths to a lightbulb, because its a lurid and exciting revision of accepted history. While there may be some truth in those wild theories, the probability is weakened by deliberate mis-representation, willful lies and the intent by some of its proponents to perpetuate myth-as-reality in order to find fortune and glory.

The growth of the internet has spread so many unsubstantiated 'facts', that in former times would not see the light of day without going through the process of publication and print. As we sit at our computers, with the world at our fingertips, we are at the mercy of as many views of history as there are writers of history.

So, I have to go with the versions for which most evidence exists. For some that might be dull and mainstream, but for me the study of 'dull' human history reveals an incredible journey. But it doesn't forbid dreaming the possibilities of what might have been.

This thread is more accurately about the flimsiness of ancient alien "evidence," the lack of observation of the larger context of ancient cultures by those proposing ancient alien theories, and the paranoia and irrational distrust towards the multi-ethnic, international academic community which despite being called dogmatic continues to make new finds and put forth new theories every day.