Saturday, 3 March 2012

Toys 'R' Us - 5500BCE

By Robert John Langdon

I need to place this piece of archaeological news on my blog that seemed to miss the radar (News/ TV), as it is either a great hoax or one of the most incredible prehistoric finds ever.


Toy car - based on what?


The oldest toy car (right) is as old as 5500 BCE and was found near the North Kurdish town of Qoser (Kızıltepe). The car is worked on stone, has axles of different length and pre-dates Indoeuropeans by a lot. 


Previously the oldest known toy cars were from Turkmenistan (Altyndepe) or Mesopotamia, being dated to the fourth millennium BCE.


Other findings in the same site (also worked on stone) are dolls and whistles, the latter still able to produce sounds. These however could be more recent, from the fourth millennium.






http://www.todayszaman.com/news-266943-worlds-earliest-toy-car-and-title-deed-on-show-at-mardin-museum.html


If this is genuine, then its the first recorded use of the wheel some 2500 earlier than currently believed.  The most interesting aspect of this discovery, is that nearly all toys are based on objects that are used or seen on a day to day basis.  This then adds credibility to my hypothesis that 'The Avenue'  used such devices (carts) to transport the Sarsen stones down the first man-made road (The Avenue) from the ships/boats that brought the stones to Stonehenge.


The Avenue showing the Neolithic Waterway in 4300BCE



Maltese Cart Tracks - similar cart wheel cuttings have been found under the Avenue.

If these toy models are genuine - then the axles are of the greatest engineering interest as a toy would normally have just a small pole bit to attach the wheels rather than a complete axial.  It shows the technology was available 1200 years before the construction of the Sarsen phase of Stonehenge (4300BC), as for the location, my new book shows that the trading route from the Black Sea to Doggerland was being used over 4000 years before this toy was made and therefore the technology would have been known in both Mesopotamia and Doggerland (Atlantis).

RJL

(by Robert John Langdon)






40 comments:

  1. Fascinating ...

    Archaeologists need to prove there were roads leading to Stonehenge and whether the "striations" are indeed cart tracks. It sounds a reasonable theory. I understand they are working on this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Chris the 'reality' is until English heritage allows the extensive excavation work to find the extent of these 'cart tracks' or 'periglacial stripes' - we will never know.

    Strangely, I am not in favour of current archaeological techniques as they destroy as much of the archaeology as they find - this is the reason no 'reed boats' have been found, for in the boggiest waters where wood can survive as in Star Carr - reed will turn into 'organic matter' and unless you can map this organic matter, you will have no idea if its a reed bank or a reed ship - and how many reed banks are identified in archaeological reports?

    We need to encourage the development of a 'ultrasonic ground scanner' like they have in maternity units that can map the sub-surface of the site - only then will we progress in archaeology.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  3. Robert,

    The 'toy cart' in your post is more like a 'toy car'. It has all the design markings of a Formula 500 race car! Wide back axle; narrow front axle; large back wheels; small front wheels; long slim body design; low center of gravity; aerodynamic; stretch seating. Clearly 'engine driven'.

    If a 'toy cart' dating back to 5500 BC was ever to be found don't you think it would be of a 'toy cart' pulled by oxen? With just two wheels, one axle and animal harness poles?

    Oh! I get it! Your cro-magnons invented the internal combustion engine some 7500 years ago! But they could not read or write! Instead, they psychically used the power of your imagination to invent themselves!

    The cro-magnons were very clever indeed! I appreciate their psychic abilities more and more with every LOL reading your posts!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  4. Kostas

    Doesn't look like engine to me!

    There was something similar reported in Greece in about 55AD by Hero of Alexandria - it was a toy that when heated with a candle spin around its axis - its called a steam engine.

    Now the question you should ask yourself is, why did they not take the design a step further and make a steam engine?

    And the answer is obvious - the expense of making so much copper and metalwork into something a slave can do for nothing!

    The windmill was also invented in the past by the Roman, but for the same reasons they never pursued the design.

    In this case, again, the solution is again simple - they clearly understood the principle of wheels, but what good is a wheel without a road, can't go nowhere.

    So what you have here is a toy based probably on a 'pram' I have it on good authority and I can provide empirical EVIDENCE if necessary, that Cro-Magnon's had babies!! Low and behold they cry a lot and need rocking to sleep.

    Moreover, do let me know in your 'extensive' research, if you find a piece of land about a mile long and 25m wide which is straight and flat by a prehistoric site, we could extend the imagination and create a full sized cart with an axle and wheels to move stones or something !!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Relax your intellectual muscle Robert! It's a hoax!

      Delete
    2. Is that your expert opinion or have you got some evidence from another source?


      RJL

      Delete
  5. Robert,

    '...have you got some evidence from another source?'


    Yes! 'Another source'! It's called Sensible Reason.

    You write,

    ' they clearly understood the principle of wheels, but what good is a wheel without a road, can't go nowhere'


    So Robert, we first built roads and THEN invent cars!

    Sensible Reason tells me its the other way around! As for rocking crying cro-magnon babies to sleep, have you tried a rocking cradle or breast feeding? No wheels needed!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kostas

      Roads DID come before the car!

      I'm surprised that you don't consider roads 'natural'? and horses came BEFORE the cart - just in case your getting confused with reality.

      As for breast feeding, I have not personally tried it, but I'm told its very 'natural'.

      RJL ;-)

      Delete
  6. Kostas, "common sense" would seem to indicate these models are fakes, and maybe this is why mainstream media has not picked it up. Still a museum pulling such a stunt would not have much reputation left, so my common sense told me to reserve judgment.

    Wheels are very difficult to make without metal tools, and as Roberts points out the utility of wheels is limited without roads - although this did not discourage the charioteers. Roads did come before cars however.

    My first thought on seeing the picture was "toy pram" and just maybe this is what they were, however unlikely it sounds. The difficulty with wheels was not the initial concept, it was the technology to make axles capable of fitting in a rotating wheel in such a way that they could carry heavy weights and, as Robert says correctly, with roads to move over. Possibly with children and villages roads were not such a problem ....

    Kostas, you need to keep an open mind until you know the evidence. I do, keep an open mind that is.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kostas

    An interesting insight to how your brain functions (or not!).

    'Sensible reason' makes cars before roads, what on earth did the Romans make, or are you suggesting the Greeks invented the car prior to the Roman road?

    You should worry more about 'breast feeding' you baby! Sounds like rational and 'sensible reasoning' to me.

    Dr Stuart Love

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dr Strange Love,

      Your self-satisfying comment speaks for itself!

      Kostas

      Delete
  8. Chris,

    I'll respond to you first because your comment deserves it!

    I do keep an open mind! What's lacking in the debates on Stonehenge is the open mindedness of 'human agency' proponents to consider perhaps Nature had more to do with the making of Stonehenge and other prehistoric sites than currently thought.

    It's not the 'dogma' of the 'heretic' that is the obstacle to Truth! But the Institutional Dogma of the 'experts'. Institutional Dogma, as History teaches us, aims to hold on to Knowledge and Power! It often advocates for a distorted view of 'what is' we should all accept as true.

    We have an irrevocable responsibility to 'think for ourselves', however. Any open and honest debate on Stonehenge must include the 'natural agency' perspective. Otherwise the debate becomes incestuous.

    As for roads and cars. It was Robert's reasoning I was addressing. Not History. Certainly roads were build as far back as people routinely traveled from village to village. Initially they were foot paths. I have no doubts about roads existing before cars. But to argue, as Robert does, the reason why cars were not invented in prehistoric times is because there were no roads? That flies in the face of 'sensible reason'.

    Robert has a very unique and often distorted way of 'excusing' his theories. In this case, why there were no wheels in prehistoric UK. Though he goes on to claim the Avenue striations are cart tracks! But that's another story.

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  9. Were your thesis true I suspect the human race would still be swinging around in trees or whatever we did back then, jabbering argumentatively like a mission of monkeys with no solution in sight.

    Being able to work together makes us different. Dogma is actually an important reason we make quick progress, so is the trust nowadays in verifiable evidence to assure ourselves of the validity of our beliefs. We listen to new ideas - like yours - and make up our collective mind whether it works.

    Dogma played a big part in Stonehenge. Now if we could only figure out what they were being dogmatic about!

    Your natural agency idea does not work, not even in its starting premise. Please accept this and let us move on together.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Chris,

    We do not need Robert's great lost civilization of cro-magnons 'seeding' the globe with their vast knowledge to have man progress as he has progressed! This is no different than 'aliens' coming to 'seed' our human race with knowledge some people believe explains our progress.

    The growth of human civilization is well documented in History. And it explains everything. Except Stonehenge! But that becomes an 'enigma' only if we steadfastly hold on to 'human agency' for these prehistoric sites. So, contrary to your comment,

    'Were your thesis true I suspect the human race would still be swinging around in trees'

    my thesis frees us from the dogma that stands in the way of seeing the truth about Stonehenge. It frees us from ourselves and our need to mystify and engulf ourselves in the superhuman as an explanation of our past and as a reason for our future.

    You write,

    'Your natural agency idea does not work, not even in its starting premise. Please accept this and let us move on together.'


    Make me an argument I cannot refute!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  11. Kostas

    "The growth of human civilization is well documented in History. And it explains everything."

    What unbelievable and arrogant statement to quote Plato - "

    "As for those genealogies of yours which you just now recounted to us, Solon, they are no better than the tales of children"

    It seems even after 2000 years of 'knowledge' you still no nothing, like your fellow Greek Solon. At least he understood his 'folly' after the meeting - sadly, I don't believe you have his humble ability.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  12. Arrogant Robert?

    If anyone is arrogant in this discussion its you! 'Genealogies' means 'family trees'. Your quote from Plato is absurd and totally irrelevant to my argument. You want to argue that Plato admits to little knowledge of the Past. Socrates admits to even less! Yet you, on the other hand profess to know what has never been known of Prehistory! Such 'knowledge' born in swooping moments of self delusion.

    Stick to your 'made up stories' Robert. They are entertaining if not taken too seriously!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kostas

      The sentence tells of a person Solon (you) who thinks they have knowledge of the past are in fact wrong, in fact, childish in their assumptions of the true history of the world.

      If you think that Plato 'made up stories' that's your judgement - but like you 'ice sculpture' theory of Stonehenge, you are clearly a minority (of possibility one!).

      RJL

      Delete
    2. Robert,

      Stop comparing me with Solon! I don't belong in his league. Better yet, stop comparing yourself with Plato!

      Whereas Plato knew more but claimed less, you know less but claim more!

      Argue the arguments, not the personalities! Begin by first not distorting the facts! The 'ice sculptures' in your comment are not in my theory but in your mind! They are what keeps your mind frozen to sensible reason!

      Kostas

      Delete
  13. Robert,

    How do we date 'cart tracks'? Or stone 'toy cars'?

    Why don't you post side by side the photo of 'cart tracks' in your post and photos of The Avenue stripes. That way we can have a good discussion over these. You can find photos of the Avenue stripes in Brian's blog.

    More comments on the 'toy car' in your post.

    If you look closely on the front axle you will see a round toothpick holding the front wheels in place. Are you suggesting toothpick factories existed in prehistoric times that would round tree trunks to thin short straight toothpicks? Wider on one end and tapering to a sharp point on the other end? And that these tooth picks would last unbroken in the rubble for 7500 years to be found in tact?

    Interesting that the Culture and Tourism Minister should be introducing this 'toy car' to the world!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  14. Toothpicks in early history? Very likely I would have thought with all that lovely red meat to eat.

    Not so sure about the factory idea, Kostas. I think they would have used twigs or perhaps one of the long grasses with a woody stem. Perhaps they whiled away some hours whittling toothpicks into the perfect shape; why not indeed!

    Of course you are right that we have no evidence yet - I suspect wooden toothpicks would have decayed without trace when they were not simply chucked into the fire. People excavating peat bogs should keep a closer watch for toothpicks when they are doing their work - naughty boys!

    By the way, I think it is a pram not a car - but let's not be dogmatic about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris,

      My 'toothpick argument' is meant to demonstrate this 7500 year old 'toy car' is a hoax.

      In the absence of metal, can there be any doubt thin round wooden axles are holding the wheels in place? I see the axles made of factory grade wooden toothpicks. Notice how new and shiny they are! You see them as whittled twigs. No matter!

      In either case these thin wooden axles couldn't possibly survive in tact for 7500 years. Besides natural decay, the smallest bump to any of the four wheels (sticking out as sore thumbs as they are) would snap the wooden twig in half. Don't you agree?

      This does show, however, how 'true believers' often suspend critical judgment to find ever faint evidence for their believes in even the most obviously false occurrences. Absolute belief demands sacrifice! Often it is Truth! Just as often it is 'heretics' by denying them the airtime for their ideas to breed.

      Kostas

      Delete
    2. Kostas

      I find your inability to use the internet to investigate ideas 'quite annoying' take a look at:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy#History

      Same cart, same 'toothpicks', some museum replacing rotted parts showing how it looked, but 3000 years later. What makes the 5500 BC a hoax and the 2500 BC not a hoax??

      Your starting to sound like those 'self righteous' bible bashers from your country who believe in 'intelligent design' with your proclaiming of 'truth' based on (like them) ideas rather than empirical evidence.

      RJL

      Delete
    3. Robert,

      It is what you sought to make of this 'toy car' that I was responding to. I felt the discussion needed some realism and some balance. Thus my comments.

      For the record, I am far apart in my views from “those 'self righteous' bible bashers ... who believe in 'intelligent design' “ in your comment! And I am always open to a well reasoned debate based on all the 'facts on the ground'. But not on 'made up stories' based on unknown intentions of prehistoric people who left no records behind.

      Make me an argument I can't refute!

      Kostas

      Delete
    4. Kostas

      "Make me an argument I can't rebuke" - This is your problem, you base history on argument rather than empirical evidence. All arguments can be rebuked, doesn't make them correct. Holocaust deniers and intelligent designers, use your kind of 'logic' to reject dead bodies and dinosaurs in a absurd attempt to justify their irrational 'arguments' - just as your doing here.

      Toys with wheels are a fact, the question is are they based on larger originals, Cro-Magnon's are a fact, the question is on what was their influence on society. The defence of writing being a prerequisite of civilisation, just shows a lack of understanding of history and its social construction.

      When you have the knowledge to understand that structures such as Silbury Hill, Stonehenge and Long Barrows need a structured society with a hierarchy system that allow workers and craftsmen to work in accord to reach their goals - just like the Greeks and Egyptians societies (9000 years later according to Solon - does that not count as written evidence?)- Then (and only then) we can have a mature debate.

      RJL

      Delete
    5. Robert,

      Read my comments more carefully! I said 'refute'! NOT 'rebuke'.

      refute: to prove wrong by argument or evidence
      rebuke: to criticize sharply

      The more I want to discuss Stonehenge with you, the more you drag Solon into your discussion! I am beginning to believe you have nothing substantive to say about Stonehenge.

      Kostas

      Delete
    6. Kostas

      Your quite right I should have said refute instead of rebuke - but the reply remains the same.

      I have wrote a book about Stonehenge - have you read it? which one of the forty proofs would you like to question?

      RJL

      Delete
    7. Robert,
      I am not going to 'pick' your arguments for you! Feel free to use your 'best shot'.

      Kostas

      Delete
  15. Chris,

    I am responding to your comment on 7 March 2012 10:04 in Brian's posts (http://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2012/03/holy-wells-and-sacred-springs.html and http://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2012/03/profs-td-and-gw-again.html ).

    Why do the 'eminent archeologists' (TD, GW, MPP and others) so vehemently reject Brian's 'glacier transport' theory of bluestones? It seems plausible enough and deserving of consideration. Even as an 'open possibility'. Yet the stronger Brian 'makes the case' the stronger the opposition against him.

    It's a puzzlement that has been preoccupying me of late. Here are my thoughts on this.

    The 'human agency' theory on Stonehenge rests exclusively on the assumed existence of a great prehistoric civilization that had the technical skills, social organization and belief system to move and built with megaliths. Cannot claim this for the building of Stonehenge but not for the transport of bluestones.

    If prehistoric people were able to move 40 ton sarsens 20 miles to Stonehenge why couldn't they be able to carry 2 ton bluestones 200 miles? It's a matter of time and effort. But NOT skill or motivation!

    So allowing 'glacier transport' of bluestones brings down the whole house of cards. 'Human agency' must be held 'absolutely' or not at all!

    Brian faces a similar dilemma in his position. By limiting his theory to just the 'glacier transport' of bluestones but allowing 'human agency' of Stonehenge he injects the same 'self contradiction' in his position. Can't have 'building with megaliths' without 'transport of megaliths'.

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  16. I wonder why Brian did not convince me more when I read his book, although I am more convinced now. I think it is often the way the story is told - you have to carry the reader along by staying sufficiently credible while at the same time encouraging him (or her) to suspend their disbelief. Readers can get lost at many points and for many reasons; it is not all about facts.

    I don't know that the learned professor "vehemently" rejects the glaciation theory. I have only one journalistic source who reported this, and have no knowledge of any new arguments used on this latest occasion. I would personally be surprised should the establishment not take the glaciation theory seriously as it does have merit.

    At least one of the professors lives very close to Brian, I believe, and in a real glacial meltwater valley. It is a nice fantasy to think they might meet one day over a beer (I know a nice pub) to discuss their common interest, maybe followed by a walk up Carn Meini to look at the springs together. I would feel privileged to go along with both of them. There are few people who know more about the terrain and the folklore than Brian, and few people who know more about the period than the professor - more interests that could be shared.

    Normally when discussion is getting heated it is good to back off for a moment and look for the common ground. Polarisation does not help - to use an icy metaphor. People tend to dig themselves deeper into their respective silos; a natural reaction when attacked. So it does not help your case, Kostas, when you deny any human agency, when you scorn the civilization, and on occasion resort to personal abuse (don't you know that water freezes, Johnson). It all distracts from the real discussion, which should be about Robert's ideas seeing this is his site and he is gracious enough to extend his hospitality to us. We (you and I) have the obligation to behave as guests should while being royally entertained.

    Coming to the last paras of your post, I don't believe anybody insists on holding absolute positions in this debate. They are fools when they do. Stonehenge remains a wonder irrespective whether the stones were moved by boat, by ice, or by humans. Looking at the moon and not the pointing finger is where we should be spending most of our time.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Robert,

    Happen to know the latest RC dating of the submerged forest in Brian's post?

    http://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2012/03/check-out-mesolithic-forest.html

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No idea - why don't you ask him as its his blog?

      RJL

      Delete
  18. Chris,

    Being often personally attacked myself for my views on Stonehenge I am very empathetic to the ambiance you are advocating for these discussions. I like nothing better!

    You write,
    '...when you deny any human agency, when you scorn the civilization, and on occasion resort to personal abuse '

    I have no other interest in any of this than the simple honest truth. But when provoked I will respond! To argue I have engaged this debate with a lack of civility belies your objectivity. But instead of arguing 'process' why don't we engage in 'substance' ?

    Make me an argument I cannot refute!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  19. Chris,

    Because I believe you are sincere and earnest I need to clarify an impression. It is not my character to engage in personal attacks. I prefer an intellectually honest and mutually respectful debate of our diverse views.

    Contrasting my 'working hypothesis' with Brian's and Robert's.

    Brian believes Salisbury Plain was glaciated.
    Robert believes Salisbury Plain was inundated.

    I believe Salisbury Plain was covered by a 'local ice sheet'. Either Robert's frozen waterways or possibly the last remnants of Brian's glaciers caught in time of the big freeze around 8500BC. Known scientifically to have happened.

    Whereas you allow “rational plausibility” for Robert's and Brian's hypotheses, you deny it for mine.

    Denying “rational plausibility” of my working hypothesis is an unprovoked attack on my intellectual integrity. I had to respond! Thus my comment,

    “think of Robert's frozen waterways as my 'ice cover'! Not plausible enough? You do believe water can freeze, don't you Chris?”

    What Brian and Robert have in common is they both assume an advanced prehistoric civilization that built Stonehenge and all the other prehistoric monuments. What I question is what they assume! Could this be the reason why I am denied?

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  20. "...'heretics' denying them the airtime for their ideas to breed". Curious remark. Who do you have in mind, Kostas?

    You still need to get to first base with your idea, so there is no comparison between yourself and either Brian or Robert who both have points on the board.

    My advice to you is to start at the beginning of your story and explain about "ice sheets". You have conjured a picture in my mind of a frozen pond. My pond freezes in winter and when the ice melts all the stones are in their original positions, so you lost me on page one.

    Your last point is simply incorrect - Robert and Brian have different ideas about the level of civilization involved and their capabilities. Again you are using words that make sense to you but confuse others - "advanced civilization", what on earth is that.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Chris,

    I would readily accept your 'advice' had you shown any previous understanding of my arguments. But if you claim willingness to understand now, than engage me in an honest dialog. What I have sought to have and am always open to have.

    I have responded in great length to all of your questions and objections of my views. But that discussion abruptly ends or is diverted the moment my explanations become more sensibly apparent.

    I have asked directly. On what grounds you deny “rational plausibility” to my working hypothesis? While allowing it for Robert and Brian? If there is to be any 'beginning' to any exploration of my ideas, surely it is this. Instead, you talk about 'frozen pools'.

    I'll make it easy on you!

    Start with Robert's vast waterways (what you find “rationally plausible”) and consider these frozen during the deep freeze we know scientifically happened around 8500BC!

    This is my 'working hypothesis'.

    Now make your case denying “rational plausibility” to this!

    As for 'advanced civilizations' and what I mean by this, I'll come back to this at a later post.

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  22. Chris,

    “Your last point is simply incorrect - Robert and Brian have different ideas about the level of civilization involved and their capabilities. Again you are using words that make sense to you but confuse others - "advanced civilization", what on earth is that.”


    My last point states the obvious! Both Robert and Brian assume a prehistoric civilization capable of building Stonehenge and all other prehistoric monuments. I did not say it is the same level civilization for both.

    Certainly Robert assumes the civilization had far greater knowledge and capabilities than Brian does. But in either case, the civilization had to be 'advanced' for their time! How else would you classify a civilization capable of moving and building with megaliths some 2000 years (for Brian) or some 6000 years (for Robert) earlier than the Great Pyramids?

    The larger point I was making, however, is that in either case if the civilization is skilled enough and organized enough and motivated enough to 'built with megaliths' it was also capable to 'move the megaliths'.

    I find this the 'Achilles heel' in Brian's argument. Robert does not have this problem since he was 'clever' enough to invent a prehistoric civilization far more capable than just carrying bluestones by boat to Stonehenge. His 'advanced civilization' was capable of circumnavigating the globe, after all!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  23. Both glaciers and boats have been observed to move stones thereby establishing some basic level of plausibility. In the case of ice sheets you assume a set of wondrous processes that have never been observed in nature.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Chris

    I would readily accept your 'advice' had you shown any previous understanding of my arguments.

    I would readily accept your conclusions were you able to show any understanding of my arguments.

    I asked a simple direct question. You refused to answer it. If this was a trial, you would be labeled a 'hostile witness' by the defense!

    Let me rephrase it:

    “Based on the Laws of Nature (and not men), is it 'rationally plausible' Robert's vast waterways covering Salisbury Plain were frozen during the big freeze around 8500 BC?”


    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  25. Did you not ask this already? I must be seeing double

    ReplyDelete
  26. Chris,

    It's not the number of times I ask the question! It's the ONE time you directly answer my simple and direct question.

    Thus far you haven't

    ReplyDelete