Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lbs1989 who wrote (80535)	1/7/2002 2:05:06 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116759

No literature springs to mind. Much of what I refer to has to be cobbled and inferred together from the net, periodicals and TV programs. But you could start with the Golden Bough, Herotodus' Histories, and Gibbons' Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Few book writers want to foray into the theoretical predictive areas yet. We can throw Toynbee and most other historians in the trashbin as far as their view of who ancient people really were. We now know that Herodotus was more right than wrong with the recent Samarian digs in Russia. "Herodotus the liar" can be put to rest and Herodotus the historian can stand with Thucydides again. We can now surmise that the Celts were more than just barbaric nomads but probably the most advanced metallurgists of their day, giving birth to steels (Damascus) more advanced than todays, 5000 years before year 0. The Celts probably gave steel to the Babylonians and later to the Spartans. We can say there was an Indo-European group of groups and they did develop in the mid Steppes, Caspian, Black Sea area in part. We can know that the earliest civilzation in the ME was in fact a European or Caucasoid one, the Sumerians. We can say that Some groups such as the Hittites and Scythians we also Caucasoid or at least Caucaso-Oriental and that the Huns were not mongoloid peoples, but probably Kassars or Cossacks. We can know that the earliest settlers of the East Mediterranean, Tyre and Sydon, before the Chaldeans were the Greeks (Phillistines) and that the Legends of Atlantis, were connected to Greek Settlements near Georgia in the Black Sea about 6,000 BC. But all these new probabilities await a new writer and more archaeological confirmation. These theories make more sense than the 18 century baggage we have carried that was based on assumption and very meagre archaeology and legend. There is no reason to believe that all civilization and literature had an origin in the ME with some Arabic tribes. If it had, its carry over into Europe with the limited trade prior to Marco Polo was surpassing complete. It was rather more likely that it had had many origins in many places. We have to remember that much of the historical context of the late 1950's and 60's came from ancient texts, and the limited pre war archaeologies which had only by the mid 1800's become a modern science. Today we have much more to go on and DNA testing to boot. We have this old uncertain vision that all progress came from Greece and Rome, and other tribes in Europe were cave dwellers or nomads. You could call it Gibbons-centric. In fact the Romans never used chariots until they met the Celts and the Celts had superior weapons and armour. The Romans fought with bronze weapons, the Celts had steel. We seem to forget that the Celts mined iron, silver and gold in Austria and Britain, and held sway over all of Europe at one time, possibly even Asia, into the Indus. Welsh, at 7,000 years + is possibly, of the Indo European languages the oldest surviving written language. EC<:-}