Afrocentric history...anything to this?

[ddt]

That was part of it. But people often misunderstand the building of Cathedrals too. They were constantly added to as time went on - it wasn't something you built and left alone. So if we take Canterbury Cathedral, for example, it was started in 1070 and "finished" in 1834, but it was consecrated in 1070 and the Diocese was created in 1072. The "finished" date is actually the date that the most recent major alteration was completed.

This is a bit disingenuous. You could add the cathedral of Cologne and the Ulmer Münster, the spires of both of which were added in the 1880s. Say, for the Ulmer Münster the first stone was laid in 1377 and the works came to rest in 1534 (with an unfinished tower of only 100 meters). But it did take over 150 years to get at something which could be called a finished church. Typically, they did start out with an idea how the finished church should look like, but the first construction stint would only give the choir, and then construction would be halted. A second stint would give the nave, and often not the complete nave. A typical Gothic cathedral would take 100 years to have a front.

Also, I think people often forget how large these Cathedrals are, and how small Roman buildings actually were.

Canterbury Cathedral is a very early medieval Cathedral, built in the 11th Century, and it's not particularly big. However it still absolutely dwarfs the Temple of Bacchus at Baalbek - one of the largest known Roman Temples built at the height of Roman power.

Why only religious buildings? What about the Baths of Caracalla?

Consider even the Colosseum; a huge structure but essentially just a giant wall rather than a building, and by far the tallest structure in Ancient Rome. Even so, the ceiling height of the nave in the 13th Century Beavais Cathedral is the same height as the top of the outer wall of the Colosseum.

Aren't you a bit condescending by calling it "just a giant wall". Wembley is too? And did you count the underground structures in it too? And its facilities to fill it with water in a few hours to have sea battles?

 

[Juniversal]

Out of Africa. We were all "black" at one point. However, much longer ago...

Hasn't recent archaeological evidence put that in doubt?

I'm curious as to what archaeological evidence would put the out of Africa view into doubt. From what I know there are certain oddities like archaic skulls or skull fragments found where they weren't expected but from my knowledge the preponderance of evidence points to Out-of-Africa and any contrary evidence is very minute.

 

[Delvo]

I'm curious as to what archaeological evidence would put the out of Africa view into doubt. From what I know there are certain oddities like archaic skulls or skull fragments found where they weren't expected but from my knowledge the preponderance of evidence points to Out-of-Africa and any contrary evidence is very minute.

African╪black

The idea that everybody all over the world is descended from "black" people isn't something any scientist has ever taken seriously. It just wouldn't make any sense at all to think of the ancient Africans from whom all modern non-Africans descend as "black".

 

[Juniversal]

African╪black

The idea that everybody all over the world is descended from "black" people isn't something any scientist has ever taken seriously. It just wouldn't make any sense at all to think of the ancient Africans from whom all modern non-Africans descend as "black".

Well my curiosity is about Novice Skeptics comment about the out-of-Africa theory being in dispute. I have a passing curiosity about what, if any, archeological evidence would put it into dispute and not necessarily the substance of Tiktaalik's comment.

 

[novice skeptic]

Well my curiosity is about Novice Skeptics comment about the out-of-Africa theory being in dispute. I have a passing curiosity about what, if any, archeological evidence would put it into dispute and not necessarily the substance of Tiktaalik's comment.

By no means is it conclusive, but I never claimed it was.

http://news.discovery.com/archaeology/oldest-human-israel-101228.html

I didn't mean to imply that the "Out of Africa" theory has been discredited, only that there is now some conflicting evidence which must be further investigated.

 

[Juniversal]

By no means is it conclusive, but I never claimed it was.

http://news.discovery.com/archaeology/oldest-human-israel-101228.html

I didn't mean to imply that the "Out of Africa" theory has been discredited, only that there is now some conflicting evidence which must be further investigated.

I knew where you were coming from. Was just curious if the evidence was more substantial than the few pieces of evidence i'm aware of and it seems it's not.

 

[Ysidro]

I find it interesting from a sociological viewpoint that an OP about afrocentrism has turned into a discussion about white people. Not complaining, just amused.

And with that said, the following website has a few articles at the top which are critical of afrocentrism: http://thehallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Topics

 

[Narcopuppy]

I find it interesting from a sociological viewpoint that an OP about afrocentrism has turned into a discussion about white people. Not complaining, just amused.

It is interesting. In this OP's defense though, the specific articles linked were only half history, the other half being an attack on white identity. So it's actually relevant in this instance.