A Conversation for Mexico City, Mexico
Taipan - Jack of Hearts Started conversation Oct 29, 1999
I have the workings of a possible theory at http://www.h2g2.com/A196887.
Check if you wish as I'm still looking for contributions of additional data on this.
Dudemeister Posted Oct 31, 1999
I looked at your article - some interesting ideas - I saw a program on TV presented by a historian that I thought was quite a good theory - along the lines of what you are saying (maybe it was you!).
There are pyramids all over the Earth, and date back to antiquity, there are ancient monuments such as the figures on Eater Island, stone circles in teh UK, etc. etc. Nobobdy really knows why they are there.
In common they all seem to allow some form of observation of stars and planets or the moon, for possible calculating time and maintaining a calendar.
The theory is that thousands of years ago a civilisation of navigators existed, they developed a good understanding of time, geography and could have been able to use such things as the positions of the stars to find themselves anywhere. They obviously did not believe the world was flat! This does not meant they where aliens, or superhumans, or even possessed what we call high-tech today - they just worked all thsi stuff out, and the knowledge was lost at some point- just like the Maya for example, disappeared for some reason.
These people may have come from Africa - where the first humans seem to have originated. As they travelled they brought knowledge and certain ideas to spread around the world. The theory supposes that some sailor at the time of this civilisation could pehaps be in the pacific and somehow use the Easter Island thingies to figure out where they are and what to do next.
Coming from Africa also to what is now Mexico may explain the apparently African facial features of the Olmec heads. Perhaps the pyramid idea was passed along to the Maya and Aztec.
Perhaps they lived in an Atlantis, that is no longer above water. This could have also been many thousands of years ago.
Noneof this would be suprising to a scientist, and was quite coherent - no need to attribute anything to mystical beings or space visitors. People have been much as they are today for thousands and thousands of years - just as smart (IF you think we are smart today!)
Taipan - Jack of Hearts Posted Nov 1, 1999
Wow! Someone looked at one of my postings? Head him off at the pass cochise, and make sure you get him stuffed and framed.
Thanks for the input.
Fenchurch M. Mercury Posted Nov 27, 1999
Oh, someone always gets to a posting at the 'Guide... sometimes it just takes a while. Anyhow, I went to check it out:
Hmmm... interesting... I had a discussion about some of the points made in your theory with Baron S a week or two ago (do things like that always seem to coincide, or is it just me?)... I do doubt the whole 'superrace', etc. ideas, I do believe that there were civilisations which were more advanced than many today choose to acknowledge, but not to the point of such glorification (i.e. I've read some historians who believe there was plumbing, etc... exceeding Greco-Roman achievments, which I find a bit difficult to believe as there's no evidence of such technology at all). There are, however, too many similarities in the cultures of ancient northern Africa and Central America for it to be simple coincidence... there have been striking trends concerning language, arcitecture, traits, etc. (Have you heard people speak one of the Aztec/Mixtec languages? It's something else...)
I think it's much more feasable that there was just, a very long time ago, some connection between the two lands (notice it's only in the central areas of the American and Euro-African land bodies...) which later caused similar societal development of the two regions.
Have you heard the Antartic theory - that there was a shift in the Earth's crust which caused Antartica (theoretically formerly Atlantis) to move to where it is today? All the measurments and placements of where land bodies would be coincide with Plato's writings... I find myself believing that one over the others, there's enough rational explanation behind it. That, however, would leave lots of questions surrounding the similarities of Central American/ African cultures, since if such likenesses came about via the Antartic Atlantis, evidence would also be present in the southern tips of the two masses, which would be the joining points...
Then again, Plato could just have had the imagination of a three year old and the will to write it all down, just so his weary little soul could watch us all argue and pine over it. Could be he was just a fun - lovin', jokester kinda guy.
-Fen's wandering mind (the "..."'s mean it's working!)
Fenchurch M. Mercury Posted Nov 27, 1999
And yes, I know there's two 'c's in 'Antarctica'. I just don't know how to push 'preview' before 'send'. (They say computers are supposed to help those people who talk without organising their thoughts. It's just making my unorganised thoughts permanent and easily accessible )
Fourmyle Posted Nov 27, 1999
I often wonder what it is in human nature that needs to believe in ancient super intelligence , cosmic billiards , supernatural causes etc. I suspect the really interesting stuff is lurking in that area. Recognizable humans have been around for at least 250,000 years and doing pretty good cave art 27,000 years back from the pics I've seen from France. I think the surprise would be if there hadn't been contact between the continents during that time. While most people are content to stay settled , there have always been exceptions . Walking works just fine , rafts have gotten shipwreak victims across the pacific ( asian wreak , south american landing ) and who knows when animals were first used for transport. I'll gladly admitt that ideas get lost and re-discovered , the greeks had a pretty good measure of the earths diameter , the romans had cement , Charles Babbage was well on the way to a working computer. But these were all original ideas and discoverys , and the re-invention was through equally original thought , not decrypting past wisdom. Looking for star travellers etc. downplays the originallity and genius of the people who actually did work out new technology. Admittedly the ice age 10,000 years ago was very disruptive as I suspect the rapid draining of the large american inland lake also was. In the space of 20 or so years huge changes would have destroyed most shoreline civilization , odds on setting everyone back. But these were still people , they may have lost homes and lands , but they would have worked to survive and rebuild. I suspect Atlantis was most likely a collection of old stories , fears , hopes and desires pulled together by the equivelent of a used car salesman trying to sell a Lada. Spin a good tale and maybe the prospect will pay more. ( money , power , lunch )
Dudemeister Posted Dec 5, 1999
I think it is human nature that - we must think that we are so smart compared to those before, and those other idiots next door. This is why we will always have wars, and conflict most likely - This is probably why some people think that ancient womders must have come from space, as those ancient folks in Africa couldn't have done it if we can't figure out how they did it - could they?
Compare the dark ages in England to the relative utopia of the late Roman Empire. History goes in cycles - I don't think we are particularly smart today - we have some neat technology, that's about it - is it really that important? Biologically we are hardly different from people that lived 100s of centuries ago - so you can imagine they lived with the same problems, and thought much the same as we do today - just there were less of them, and I don't think they had Pokemon, or high-speed internet access (probably something equivalent?)
Fourmyle Posted Dec 6, 1999
With smaller populations our ancestors probably had to contend with getting together and conversing as opposed to gazing into a CRT. Hmm now how to get back to that? I think a big part of our conflicts come from being troop animals at some level. We seem to naturally form into small groups , appoint leaders or seek leadership and then look for differences ( real or imagined ) from other groups. I'll float a theory now on the cycles..... as a power structure gets entrenched it creates rules and procedures to prevent change , eventually becomming so inflexable that it stops functioning at any level. After this happens collapse follows , then a new struggle and building phase with variations being tried , novel ideas comming forward and eventually a new stable power structure , which then goes back to ossification.
Fourmyle Posted Dec 10, 1999
Well an actively involved population would tend to keep the worst of the fossilization at bay for a longer time. I'm not sure there is any way to keep the power hungry from attaining power and then using it to stiffle any innovation that might threaten thier hold. Just from that , it would seem every civilization has the seeds of it's own eventual collapse built in. Dictatorships and monarchys fall prey to weak successors , democracys grow complacent till a dictatorship takes over , theocracys tend to ignore outside forces and I suspect if we ever get a full blown technocracy it will become sufficiently arrogant that the dictator will be welcomed ( at least at first ).
A motivated population actively interested in thier politics does quite well until thier enthusiasm wanes ( contrast the "come home with your shield, or on it" attitude of the early Romans with the hired mercenary forces during the collapse ).
Dudemeister Posted Dec 10, 1999
You have to be power hungy to want power - it is not everyones' "bag". Just like leaders have to enjoy leading, and get something more from it - perhaps not just power - but satisfaction in contributing, perhaps. All these terms - democracy, etc. often refer to govenrments who like to define themselves as such. For example, is the US government a true democracy - despite all the hype? What would the ancient Greeks think?
Fourmyle Posted Dec 11, 1999
Good point. A true democracy would need all interested parties to be able to make comments and participate in decisions, hard to do in groups much over 12 people. In theory a representative system should be a good compromise as long as the representatives are truely selected by the population at large , that tends to break down around the 150 person mark. ( Ok I'm probably a bit pessamistic ) I watched the Canadian govt. pass rules to severly limit who can run for office , basically you need vast sums of money and to be part of the existing power structure , hardly a voice was raised in opposition. I seem to see sheep everywhere now.
Fourmyle Posted Dec 12, 1999
ok sheepish one. I just got done reading your tequila write up , good job. As to mescal , I've bought bulk $0.25 / liter in Chiapas that beat the kerosene they pass off up here as tequila. Definately a search to find even reasonable grades and it's hard to believe what it sells for ( almost all taxes ). Maybe trying to get back on topic , have you ever tromped around Tulum or Palenque ?
Dudemeister Posted Dec 12, 1999
Unfortunately no. But I have trapsed around the North a lot. I have been to southern Veracruz, near there, in the rain forest - quite the experience.
I had some amazing mezcal from southern Nuevo Leon - My sister in law got it for about the price you mention, if not for less. It was quite a wonderful liquor - I remember it had a bouquet like violets, or something on top of the wiff of alcohol.
That's the best way to get mezcal, if you are lucky to find a god local distilley, and have a bottle on hand.
The rural mezcal I have tasted is very light and palatable. The cheap tequilas you get here too, taste like turpentine.
Fourmyle Posted Dec 13, 1999
Ah well , it may be like Oz wines used to be , they kept the good stuff at home and exported the Chateau Tanunda . To steal a line from Pratchett , it may well have really been cat water.
Dudemeister Posted Dec 13, 1999
That reminds me of that old Monty Python sketch on Oz table wines - a little outdated now, but I supose in the seventies, the sentiment towards a "Perth Pink", a "Nuit Saint Wogawogga" or a "Hobart Muddy" was a little prejudicial.
We have what are becoming very decent Canadian wines from Niagara - but they are a bit expensive.
There are many excellent Mezcals - it is just that Tequila is a name only granted to liquors that meet the norms. I have seen even Chinese "tequila" sold here - which surely can't be - not only is it far away from Jalisco, but I don't think they grow the same plants there (I might be wrong - this could be interesting).
Fourmyle Posted Dec 14, 1999
As I recall Perth Pink was refered to as " only fit for hand to hand combat " . While I never tried it , I did run across the Tanunda and if anything it was worse then advertized. A real shame as I understand the domestic product is quite reasonable. Chinese tequila , Hmmm , well I'm game for anything once ( unless I see too many casualties beforehand )
Dudemeister Posted Dec 14, 1999
Never tried the Tanunda, although it does rhyme with "chunder". Maybe its a bit like a couple of Quebec "clumpy" wines I have sampled in past years - clumpy as they seem to leave clumps in your mouth. Funny but a fine Bordeaux never seems to do this.
Key: Complain about this post
- 1: Taipan - Jack of Hearts (Oct 29, 1999)
- 2: Dudemeister (Oct 31, 1999)
- 3: Taipan - Jack of Hearts (Nov 1, 1999)
- 4: Fenchurch M. Mercury (Nov 27, 1999)
- 5: Fenchurch M. Mercury (Nov 27, 1999)
- 6: Fourmyle (Nov 27, 1999)
- 7: Dudemeister (Dec 5, 1999)
- 8: Fourmyle (Dec 6, 1999)
- 9: Dudemeister (Dec 8, 1999)
- 10: Mustapha (Dec 9, 1999)
- 11: Fourmyle (Dec 10, 1999)
- 12: Dudemeister (Dec 10, 1999)
- 13: Fourmyle (Dec 11, 1999)
- 14: Dudemeister (Dec 11, 1999)
- 15: Fourmyle (Dec 12, 1999)
- 16: Dudemeister (Dec 12, 1999)
- 17: Fourmyle (Dec 13, 1999)
- 18: Dudemeister (Dec 13, 1999)
- 19: Fourmyle (Dec 14, 1999)
- 20: Dudemeister (Dec 14, 1999)