BBC NEWS: Ghana dig reveals ancient society

[SealLion]

I found this article to be quite interesting from an educational perspective.

Archaeologists have unearthed dozens of clay figures in Ghana, shedding light on a sophisticated society which existed before the arrival of Islam.

The makers of these figurines, according to the article, are no longer ascendant to the people who live there now.

ONe of the reasons that is theorized is that they were integrated into Islam or were made into slaves.

...... experts still did not know why the civilisations came to an end - whether the people converted en masse to Islam, or were captured by Arab slave traders.

I think it's fair to say that people from far away times were as intelligent, if not in some cases, more intelligent on things such as astronomy or even other things. I am sure that you've come across such news or documentaries explaining how intelligent ancient peoples were in comparison to us with all our technology and wisdom.
I think we owe credence to our ancestors for some things, yes??

Nevertheless, an extremely interesting article, I thought.
History lives, yes??

Here's the link:

BBC News - Ghana dig reveals ancient society

[slikrapid]

experts still did not know why the civilisations came to an end - whether the people converted en masse to Islam, or were captured by Arab slave traders.

Mr Insoll told the BBC very little was known about civilisations in the area between 600 and 1200 AD because no written history was kept and the societies ceased to exist when Islam arrived.

thats kinda weird, since there were arabic historians writing about those cultures as they were encountered or conquered:

Strictly speaking, ghana was the title of the king, but the Arabs, who left records of the kingdom, applied the term to the king, the capital, and the state. The ninth-century Arab writer Al Yaqubi described ancient Ghana as one of the three most organized states in the region (the others being Gao and Kanem in the central Sudan). Its rulers were renowned for their wealth in gold, the opulence of their courts, and their warrior-hunting skills. They were also masters of the trade in gold, which drew North African merchants to the western Sudan. The military achievements of these and later western Sudanic rulers and their control over the region's gold mines constituted the nexus of their historical relations with merchants and rulers of North Africa and the Mediterranean.[4]

Ghana succumbed to attacks by its neighbors in the eleventh century,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ghana

luckily for the experts, they didn't encounter evidence of very early civilizations, otherwise they would be likely ridiculed or even worse, banned from universities and forced towards societies margins, for having different opinion than the officially accepted scientific theories (aka dogmas) of the time (look for 'forbidden archeology' video to see what i mean)

it's fair to say that people from far away times were as intelligent, if not in some cases, more intelligent on things such as astronomy or even other things. I am sure that you've come across such news or documentaries explaining how intelligent ancient peoples were in comparison to us with all our technology and wisdom.

it can be also said that this particular period of human history (ancient civilizations and before them) is quite controversial, considering many achievements from those days are unimaginable even today (take for example the egyptian pyramids or mayan calendar), meaning that our so called 'modern/advanced' society/technology/... aren't really that developed at all, that much knowledge was already established, yet for some reason suppressed/hidden and then later reinvented just so that some industry can profit from it (an example would be herbal/natural medicine vs. artificial pharma drugs) and those who stumble upon some evidence were shoved aside & gagged...another example is mentioned above considering archeology and, as usual, there is much more of it, than meets the mainstream media eye

[SealLion]

I think maybe what happened with the Arabic conqueres is that perhaps, I dont know for sure, is that maybe some of the records were lost??

Maybe not, as I am thinking that if such people were knowledgable and intelligent, they'd also be organized in record - keeping. More explained below...

As for archeologists and other scientists not being allowed to teach b/c they believed in other theories rather than the accepted teachings, that is very true.

There are many instances when I watched a TV documentary of some kind in which the archeologist ( using this profession as an example only) were frowned upon b/c their teachings were different than the accepted teachings.

And as for the people in ancient times being in some ways more advanced than we are in non-technological areas, that is true. Take for example medicine and the practice of it.

ancient Chinese as well as Egyptians were very intelligent on things such as irrigation techniques and medications.
the Chinese probably know a lot more of what healings are necessary than what conventional medicine can know about the human body.

I think that the Chinese of ancient times had more in common with nature and the environment and that when an effect is imposed upon the environment, it may very well affect people. Which is obviously true. You just need to think about polution and it's after effects on the human repiratory system.

The Chinese and other people of ancient times, like the Egyptians had a culture of not just paganism and so forth, but they're culture was also about learning, advancement in knowledge, and application of knowledge.

They and others like them, like these ancient Ghanese people had a lot more in common with one another than we could probably imagine. The transmission of knowledge to other cultures was not uncommon. Even when going far distances.

Take for instance the similiarities in pyramidal structures btw the Egyptians and the ancient South Americans. The structure is very much the same. The same can be said for people from East Asia who also built pyramid-type structures.

How did such ancient people get to have similiar pyramid type structures??

They travelled across the ocean, no doubt.

And having traveled across the ocean, which is a vast distance to travel, requires certain technological-construction knowledge of sailing boats.
Application of earth-origin materials to the outside of the structure to ensure it does not leak or take in water.
That includes having sails that can withstand the strong winds of the Atlantic Ocean.
YOu see, they were probably smarter than we make them out to be.
Limitations of technology ( if interpreted in today's definition of technology..e.g. computer's, cars, space-ships, etc...), doesn't necessarily make the people of ancient times less capable.
Nor less knowlegable.

I am sure that the Ancient Ghanians made mention of in this article were as intelligent as the other people of ancient times.

With intelligence and knowlege comes organization. Just like the quote from your post makes mention of. It would make sense, yes??

.....They were also masters of the trade in gold.....

That's b/c they had knowledge and were able to apply their knowledge in ways that we, today, probably don't know how or are limited in our experience with respect to being able to understand how intelligent such people from old times were.
That is, we inadvertently, don't respect the capacity for ancient people's knowledge.

[slikrapid]

Maybe not, as I am thinking that if such people were knowledgable and intelligent, they'd also be organized in record - keeping.

and maybe they were, but at a different level (mental vs written) or with different aims of record keeping (important vs 'spam' ), it is quite possible that their heritage has been re-used & altered, destroyed (time, other inhabitants), displaced or still buried underneath existing structures and so on

As for archeologists and other scientists not being allowed to teach b/c they believed in other theories rather than the accepted teachings, that is very true.

it has happened before (say, try opposing 'the earth is flat' theory when it was official), yet some still exercise a kind of 'monopoly on the truth' (or worse) - individually different opinions should be welcomed (as diversity), but if certain ones are imposed by the system (or worse, hidden/counterfeit and still imposed), it becomes an obstacle for personal freedoms

The Chinese and other people of ancient times, like the Egyptians had a culture of not just paganism and so forth, but they're culture was also about learning, advancement in knowledge, and application of knowledge.

furthermore, people often do not realize how much of it has been passed over to future generations (some as the original, some modified, other forgotten, hidden or replaced by new ones), some just recently adopted or allowed in addition to the current official ones (yet maybe known for thousands of years)

also built pyramid-type structures.
How did such ancient people get to have similiar pyramid type structures??
They travelled across the ocean, no doubt.

they were much in contact and/or had similar origins, we could list numerous uncanny similarities in their architecture, images, symbols, writing,...

for example, similarities in religions (not only the messages, but also events, characters,...astrotheology), some claim they all actually tell the same general story, just using personal observations considering the descriptions, just as if you asked different persons to describe the same event, they would all use different terms but the underlying meaning/story would be roughly the same

YOu see, they were probably smarter than we make them out to be.
Limitations of technology ( if interpreted in today's definition of technology..e.g. computer's, cars, space-ships, etc...), doesn't necessarily make the people of ancient times less capable.Nor less knowlegable.

on the other hand imagine our survival without the technology (even partially) or without the system stability (another problem of centralization )


finally, it all depends on the observer's viewpoint, on the characteristics that are supposed to be superior/better/more important/advanced/... as considered/deemed in the observer's culture

more is more? or more is less?