Huh... then the fact that humans (including myself) have repeatedly watched evolution happen is really surprising.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
where do you sit on ancient astronaut theory?
- Thread starter basscooker
- Start date
Huh... then the fact that humans (including myself) have repeatedly watched evolution happen is really surprising.
Did that study differentiate between people taking prescription drugs that were taking them for what they were intended for, and people taking them for recreational purposes?
Well, this debate is certainly expanding my education on ergot, for which I am thankful. On the rye-vs.-not-rye, which is a pretty quibbling point, the research cited in your page makes clear that ergot is mainly found on rye, although it has been found in association with other grains at least for some bronze-iron age sites in eastern Europe. I don't see any citation indicating that it was commonly and normally found in association with those other grains. It's certainly plausible that ergotism became more common in the post-Roman era when rye became more prominent in the diet, but that hardly means the diet was all ergot, all the time.
I'm not seeing evidence for the claims I understand you to have made, that a) ruling classes regularly and deliberately made use of hallucinogens for religious purposes, or b) that premodern people in general, deliberately or not, lived in a perpetual drug-induced "dream state."
On a), for European cultures, at least, it's clear that the educated classes saw ergotism as a disease and a danger and avoided it however they could. Greeks and Romans avoided and dreaded it. For India, soma remains a mystery - though it suggests Brahmins were using something - and I already granted that ritual narcotic use was known in the Americas.
On b), well, again, the research from the very informative article you cited doesn't support this. It does support that ergot may have been a common problem. But it doesn't quantify just how common of a problem it was. It certainly doesn't contradict my earlier statement that the recognition of Holy Fire as a disease implies that it was not universal and that medieval people could tell who was suffering from ergotism and who wasn't.
Further, a Roman soldier's daily ration of wine was about a liter, which was suggested by their superiors that they water down. In times of occupation where they were merely policing, not on campaigns, I will suggest that they would use it to get drunk and they would, as the occupying forces, help themselves to the locals wine throughout a typical day. Nah, ancient people didn't like to get drunk. Wine was a staple. Being used as such negates it's effects as an intoxicant.The wealthy ruling class is said, I have found in another three seconds, to have consumed about two liters a day (a modern bottle is 750 ml, so that's 2.5 bottles). Sober as judges. No more alcohol than we take in today, those of us that are piss tanks anyway. How much booze does it take to get a chronic alky drunk again? One drink. Maybe you don't know any alkies, I do and see it happen all the time.
I'm actually not sure how alcohol came to be relevant to the discussion. In any case, I didn't mean to say that premodern people didn't get drunk. Unlike narcotics, we have lots and lots of historical evidence about various peoples' predilections for drink. I did make the point that wine was normally watered, so a modern person's perceptions can be a little distorted when we see the size of an ancient or medieval wine cup - they were not drinking as much as it may first appear. But no doubt, people liked drinking and got drunk plenty. No contest there. I don't see what relevance it has to alien astronauts, or whatever the discussion is now about.
Just to keep thinking here... premodern people knew the difference between drunk and sober, and they knew there were things one shouldn't do when drunk. If everybody was drunk all the time, how would they have been able to make this distinction?
Also, it's all very well for a writer to say that a Roman soldier got X amount of wine per day. But any historian who studies ancient armies knows how pervasive soldiers' complaints were that they DIDN'T normally get all the pay and supplies they were nominally entitled to. It would be considered pretty naive positivism for a modern historian to say that's what they really got just because the texts say that's what they were supposed to. And soldiers were not the same as the population at large, who generally got a lot less.
For that matter, even if they did get their full ration, a liter of wine per day, watered at about a 2-1 ratio, consumed over the course of the day rather than in one binge, is not going to result in a soldier tottering around in a stupor. Sure, maybe sometimes they saved it up till night to party. But that doesn't warrant viewing whole societies as consisting of people in a state of perpetual drunkenness.
TBAR Shane said:
Any one who has studied psych, sociology or any other field that looks at studies and experiments knows that a lot of the information presented can easily be biased. The way information can be presented can be very deceiving to prove a point of the experimenters.
Okay, say most of western culture is on a drug, perhaps caffeine is one of those drugs. Billions of people consume it. Cough medicine, pot, coke, anti depression, anxiety, headache medicine, nicotine etc. There are too many "drugs" that are consumed and this study MAY try to imply the use of drugs to allude to mind altering drugs to give the reader a false representation in order to prove a point.
So the inclusion of drugs that are legal and illegal get lumped together. It can be 60% only use legal, 10% use only illegal and 30% use both.
Plus, the use of certain words delivers a persuasive attitude. "Most of western society is drugged up." That sounds really negative. Perhaps if worded, "most of western society has an elevated use of pharmaceuticals as well as other drugs..." But than again, the word drugs alone carries such a strong impact that the word itself is jaded.
It's like saying that child is autistic. "autistic" carries a more negative, and labeled connotation compared to "that child suffers autism."
I dont agree with this. I think anyone who is aware of what autism is would not agree with this statement.
Now back to "Ancient Aliens: The Series" on the History Channel.
Ok, I nearly give up. I provide links and you eschew them and then write walls of text citing research and studies and provide nothing to back it up. Well played.
My point is that even one single hallucination by a religious shaman and or chief of a civilization 3000 years ago could spin off into an entire belief system resulting in architecture and art depicting beings from the cosmos. Simple concept, to some.
Scholars always seem to say these societies were more complex than such a simple concept, but these societies were ruled 100% by tiny groups of individuals that had simple goals; retaining power over their subjects and thus amass wealth. Generally achieved by terrorizing them with violence and death, yet still achieving a cooperative, successful and complex society, but still ruled by a very few individuals with the simplest of objectives. Complete ownership of all the wealth available.
My point is that even one single hallucination by a religious shaman and or chief of a civilization 3000 years ago could spin off into an entire belief system resulting in architecture and art depicting beings from the cosmos. Simple concept, to some.
Scholars always seem to say these societies were more complex than such a simple concept, but these societies were ruled 100% by tiny groups of individuals that had simple goals; retaining power over their subjects and thus amass wealth. Generally achieved by terrorizing them with violence and death, yet still achieving a cooperative, successful and complex society, but still ruled by a very few individuals with the simplest of objectives. Complete ownership of all the wealth available.
Hold up. Are you talking about the past? How is this any different than whats going on today?
onosson said:
It's good to be the King. Seriously,name one ancient builder society that didn't enforce power with murder and usually veiled under the guise of worship. OK, the classical Greeks, but who else? I can't think of any, please help.
I don't know if I should laugh or cry at this statement...
You clearly do not understand the definition of theory in the scientific sense. *edit* I also guess you haven't delved into the mounds of research that proves evolution to be a scientific fact. It's there if you just do a Google search and read through research journals and case studies.
'Astronaut Theory' doesn't even exist. It's a pseudo science.
fdeck said:
Learning about ancient Rome right now in Hogj School...
I made fun of Caesar for disrupting peace by calling him bald (he was) and stupid and lost 3 points because of it. :l
He wasn't even a good military strategist! Just made his troops loyal to him! >.<
And you clearly don't understand that evolution is still a theory, just like gravity. If it was a FACT, then it wouldn't STILL BE CALLED A THEORY.
So stop trying to put people down in a forum, it's embarrassing on your behalf especially when you're wrong.
