So what actually did happen?

Since this is talk.origins and not talk.creationism.versus.evolution,
maybe a relevant question might be: Can we discern something of what
actually happened in prehistory that resulted in what history records?

Probably the most important thing to consider is the state of the
environment. Latest Ice Age got prematurely terminated not all that long
before the beginning of historical records. Evidence demonstrates that
h.sap most probably evolved during that Age, so it's of interest to
note that glacial advances and retreats occured throughout.

One might guess that a major parameter of the development of the human
being was those advances and retreats, and thus a fundamental attribute
of said being was adaptability to widely varying climate and territory.
It would appear that part of that territorial adaptability involved
successfully inhabiting both coastal and inland territory when the
differences between these areas was markedly greater than today.

The evidence of differences of physical characteristics, formerly noted
as racial differences, indicates that this development was not globally
homogenous. Strong geographical boundaries such as ice sheets, etc,
might be regarded as contributors to these differences. But we also
know that some significant amount of interaction between disparate
peoples did occur. However tenuous, travel and trade did take place.

It is therefore not unreasonable to expect that a general level of
technical sophistication arose as a result. In fact, the isolation of
knowledge due to geographical segregation is not at all probable,
however possible: Power depends on knowledge, and the traveler who
brought new knowledge possessed power, then as today.

The dissemination of knowledge had, then as now, an immediate reward, it
is not reasonable to assume that it did not take place such that some
amount of redundancy of dissemination occured. Thus, to the extent that
any knowledge was known to possess important power, it was conserved by
those who could wield it, hence the wise elders in whatever guise.

We have reason to believe that current humanity descended from rather
small surviving groups, probably tribes. We would also expect that some
amount of valuable knowledge would accompany each of these groups, each
with the understanding that they did not possess the sum of what
existed. As times of environmental stress came and went, we would
expect that such knowledge as was generally regarded as valuable would
be given exceptional care and curation.

Let us take this scenario and apply it to the evidence we have of the
origins of civilized humanity.

Classically, we begin with the Sumerians about 6000 years ago. It is
one of those "unsolved mysteries" that the culture appeared almost fully
developed, though from whence and how is controversial. From this, we
can conclude that an unknown previous culture, presumably civilized,
existed, though no generally recognized evidence of same is extant.

And so we can turn to the written evidence that is without provenance,
classically regarded as myth. Relevant religious scripture is regarded
as a special case of mythology. We do so because it's there, and we
can; indeed, to be fair, we should and for the following reasons:

It is fatuous to regard what one cannot comprehend as fantasy. That
sort of thinking derives from the priests of Scientism, who still
persist in claiming that what cannot be demonstrated does not exist.
Most scientists are not such priests, and not only know better, but are
at pains to do so. Academics who fancy themselves as "scientific" set
these sorts of standards for the rest, and "standard models" jealously
guarded by their founder/developers reign supreme even in the face of
evidence said models don't satisfy.

There are other equally strong forces that drive this sort of thinking,
not the least by far of which is institutional religion. But be that as
it may, the disregarded evidence exists, abused, misused and ignored.
>From my last post, it is relevant to ask, what of those whom the
Canaanites called the Elohim, the Sumerian/Akkadian called the Annunaki,
and other cultures called by other names?

All agree that they were human beings. All agree that they had powerful
technology. All agree that their home/source was problematic and
controversial. All agree that they were somehow related, familially,
tribally, or of a clan.

Am I the only one who suspects that these people were one of those
surviving tribe/clans, replete with a powerful knowledge base and on the
lookout to re-establish themselves in new territory?

If indeed they were, what can we suspect in consequence? What myth
becomes potential history? What history becomes myth? What can we come
to understand about ourselves as human beings that was not available to
us before; how do we profit from this insight?

When did they die out? Or did they? What happened to them? They
certainly caused a furor historically!

We are still reeling from the consequences even today: Wars have been
fought down through the centuries, instigated by institutions of
religion that profess to represent what is obviously a caricaturization
of those folk. What are the real issues behind those wars, and how do
they manifest today; I presume they do as they've never been resolved.

In short, if we get rid of the vast amount of interpretive crap that
defines our general "knowledge" of these matters, what can we discover?
What can we suspect strongly enough to investigate? What is the real
truth of humanity and how does it vary from what we have been lead to
believe?

And finally, what are our real prospects, and what is our real heritage?

Assertions of fact here are distinctly separate from speculations and
questions. Claims that I've mixed these are baseless. Otherwise,
comments?

Longfellow

.

Loading