How can people knows this(in carv) 6000 year ago without microscopes ? [I Like History]
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
View 4 more replies »
darshak89 · 31-35, M
@SW-User may be it was them clear thought to save thoughts for longer time periods.
darshak89 · 31-35, M
@SW-User lots of literature destroyed by bhatiyar khilji in Nalanda university in 1200 CE.
It has been argued that an international university of worldwide reputation was set up at Nalanda way back in the 5th century and it flourished over the next seven centuries before it was destroyed by a marauding Turkish force led by Bakhtiyar Khalji at the end of the 12th century.
It has been argued that an international university of worldwide reputation was set up at Nalanda way back in the 5th century and it flourished over the next seven centuries before it was destroyed by a marauding Turkish force led by Bakhtiyar Khalji at the end of the 12th century.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
More to the point is the accuracy of the interpretation.
How reliable is it?
It is too easy to read the wrong meanings into very ancient artwork, because we are trying to understand something we don't know, from our own knowledge and time. So we tend to over-think the problem instead of admitting honestly that we don't know.
In the 19C it became common for the fledging science of archaeology to ascribe meanings to anything not immediately meaningful, and this case looks to me like a similar misjudgement. Most archaeologists now are honest enough to admit when they do know the meaning or purpose of an artefact or art-work.
Obviously that ancient society would have known the "Facts of Life" at a simple, everyday level, though not the physiology. So it is conceivable they had hypothesised how fertilisation works at a very basic level without such aids as microscopes; but I would be very surprised if this set of bas-reliefs really was a biology lesson and did not mean something else entirely!
How reliable is it?
It is too easy to read the wrong meanings into very ancient artwork, because we are trying to understand something we don't know, from our own knowledge and time. So we tend to over-think the problem instead of admitting honestly that we don't know.
In the 19C it became common for the fledging science of archaeology to ascribe meanings to anything not immediately meaningful, and this case looks to me like a similar misjudgement. Most archaeologists now are honest enough to admit when they do know the meaning or purpose of an artefact or art-work.
Obviously that ancient society would have known the "Facts of Life" at a simple, everyday level, though not the physiology. So it is conceivable they had hypothesised how fertilisation works at a very basic level without such aids as microscopes; but I would be very surprised if this set of bas-reliefs really was a biology lesson and did not mean something else entirely!
@ArishMell What you say is true, it is possible that they managed to hypothesize how fertilization works quite easily. Anyone who has ever butchered a hen that was still laying eggs would have seen the progression of egg development. There are multiple eggs of varying sizes at various stages of development within the hen. Doesn't take a genius to figure out how it all works for hunter-gatherers or farmers who butcher lots of female animals.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@revenant I think it used to be the case that past societies were regarded in a rather patronising manner as "underdeveloped" and the like, but not so much now.
I never heard of anyone who actually thinks about it, calling even Palaeolithic people "stupid", though. They were as intelligent as we are but did not have the ever-increasing range of accumulated knowledge we now enjoy - it is an important difference.
I never heard of anyone who actually thinks about it, calling even Palaeolithic people "stupid", though. They were as intelligent as we are but did not have the ever-increasing range of accumulated knowledge we now enjoy - it is an important difference.
darshak89 · 31-35, M
@SW-User Thank you
NickiHijab · F
SW-User
@NickiHijab thanks. I got the gist of it I think.
The first is regarding God's and a lunar eclipse.
The development of feotus may have been known if bodies were dissected after death maybe.
The sperm and ovum though is more difficult to explain how they knew that. Maybe their spiritual enlightenment had been lost to us modern people
The first is regarding God's and a lunar eclipse.
The development of feotus may have been known if bodies were dissected after death maybe.
The sperm and ovum though is more difficult to explain how they knew that. Maybe their spiritual enlightenment had been lost to us modern people
Om2014 · 31-35, M
I will relate one of my own experience, back in 2017 i was doing this particular type of meditation technique i developed for myself, i wud go into state where i was able to separate my subtle body and one day during such state, i happen to "go thru" the backside wall, and surprisingly i could "see inside" like xray, i cud clearly see grey concrete like structure inside, with outside painted in pink. I was trying to collect some evidence that what im seeing is not hallucination. Sadly this is the only info i cud get other than details of my own room. I was never able to leave my room. But i think some one with that kindof mastery can explore world beyond imagination.
Technically human ovum is large enough to be seen with the naked eye by someone with good eyesight. And according to evolutionary biologists, human eyesight used to be much better than it is now including being able to see additional parts of the spectrum of light that we no longer see now.
AngelKrish · 26-30, M
SW-User
They were telecommunicating with Atlantis and sometimes aliens. Lolz
Is that legit though?
Is that legit though?