[removed]

What is it about the two theories you mention that doesn’t do it for you? What questions don’t they answer? If there were another theory that offered a sufficiently plausible answer it would be up there with these two.

Are you asking this question because of that Netflix series?

There are psychological theories like Jung's collective unconscious.

Funny enough, I watched a french documentary on TV not so long ago featuring Graham Hancock. I was midly interested until they started to go "Woooo all those archeological sites across the world are located on the same line and the distance between these two sites is the same than the distance between these two other sites and if we multiply that distance by two and divide it by 3 we get Pi ! Coincidence ? I think not!". They deadass put their phone on a specific rock in Eastern Island, opened an app that showed how the magnetic field didn't make sense at this precise location and presented it as a scientific experiment.

It was like watching those silly conspiracy theories videos from early 2010's YouTube but on TV on a major channel. Absolutely astonished that this is allowed.

Either the ideas have a common source or independent sources. There’s not a third way around it.

[removed]

After a quick research, the man I was talking about is named Graham Hancock and he's not even a professor, just a journalist and writer.

In the documentary, I do admit that he had some interesting observations and raised pertinent questions about Göbekli Tepe in Turkey. However, he lost all credibility when he seriously talked about an ancient continent named "Kumari Kandam", which would be located in present day Indian Ocean, spanning from Madagascar to Sri Lanka and Indonesia. Without dropping the name, he was definitely refering to Atlantis. That was, and still is, pure fantasy and Indian nationalist propaganda to me.

Someone has been watching ancient apocalypse

[removed]

[deleted]

Trade.

Different cultures were most Iikely in contact

[deleted]

What do you mean by motifs or edifices? Because that could encompass some practical or even necessary construction techniques.

Otherwise, people like drawing people and also what they can see.

I don't think they explain intricate details. One comment I posted before is something like this;

One example I can think of are the statues found in Turkey, Indonesia and Easter Island. Their hands are depicted as being positioned around the navel/genitals.

I am asking this question because I recently read a book from Oscar Montelius and I am genuinely curious.

Don't worry I won't bring "pseudoarchaeology" into this, whatever that means.

Hmm yes. I was thinking about Dawkins's meme idea as well but didn't think about Jung. Thank you.

Yes I did watch it and I am familiar with Hancock's work for far longer. I don't see the connection to the question.

Yes, this falls into diffusionism.

I will copy paste a comment which I wrote before;

One example I can think of are the statues found in Turkey, Indonesia and Easter Island. Their hands are depicted as being positioned around the navel/genitals.

How many places are there to put a statue's hands? If the arms are not separated from the torso, the hands have to go on the torso as well.

Hang your arms against your torso. Where do your hands end up? Right at the level of your genitals. Is this remarkable?

Artwork is intentional representation. When you look at a painting, sculpture, motif etc. every drawn line, etched detail has to have a purpose. Just like in architecture, if you look at a floor plan, even the smallest dot has a purpose.

You cite three certain cultures separated by long distances that place the hands of their statutes on their bellybuttons or over their genitals.

Why on Earth could such a coincidence occur? Um, because genitals and the belly button all have to to with new life? Or the physical constraints of the stylized nature of the artworks meant there was no other real place for the hands to go. I don't know.

What I do know is that if you really want to engage with your question, go into the archeological scholarship, not reddit. Asking the question here is just a bad faith way to push your pseudoscientific hogwash.

>way to push your pseudoscientific hogwash

Holy crap, what is with this prejudice?

I gave you ONE example. This can be multiplied.

"Or the physical constraints of the stylized nature of the artworks meant there was no other real place for the hands to go."

And what you describe here also falls into the category of evolutionism.

I just want to know if there are other accepted frameworks other than diffusionism and evolution.

[removed]

I mean, have you seen what guys are like? Probably a case of at imitating life.

Yes, imitation indicates they were in contact somehow, which falls into diffusionism.

Sorry, I had a typo, I meant to say ART imitating life. People are fascinated with their junk around the world, so I don't think it's a stretch to say that separate cultures separately developed similar themes in their artwork.

Okay, this falls into the category of evolutionism.

That's genrally considered pseudoscience.

I suppose geometry and physics are the same everywhere at any given time. That could explain most "coincidences".

Are you suggesting something like the collective unconscious of Jung or meme of Dawkins?

Dawkins's meme is considered pseudoscience?

I don't know about architectural archeology. To me the most important technology transfer (to use the modern vernacular) was 'movable type' which was invented by the Chinese a long time before Guttenberg. The technology of putting characters together on a press and inking them onto paper, only got to Europe due to Genghis Khan and the Mongolians--who have--similar to latin languages, a fixed number of characters in their writing(i.e. A-Z). The Chinese have close to 30,000 characters in their written language--making movable type not practical for Chinese, but as the Mongolians swept across the Asian Steppe to Europe, creating the largest continuous 'country' in the world's history (from China to the Mediterranean Sea, knowledge in Europe about the Mogols spread to the West. It is not surprising that paper making techniques perfected in China, quickly replaced hand painted/printed text on vellum (thinned out leather) as wood pulp was much more available (and sustainable) than to kill 1 animal for just a few pages of text.

There are archeological sites in Mali (West Africa) that had Persian and even Chinese artifacts were found dating a long ways back showing that trade routes though not as extensive as later silk road and later times, but still existed as humans traveled further back than was thought.

It's too bad Alexandria's library was destroyed in the Roman days as it was THE largest library ever made and had tens of thousands of papyrus scrolls going back hundreds of years and in my opinion, along with the Holocaust is one of the most impactful tragedies in human history.

I'm saying that there are a limited number of regular geometric figures available in the universe, so that will cause repetitions in their use. Also, that physics is the same everywhere, so that also limits options. I think the two main frameworks you cited are enough to answer the question. Unless you want to start thinking about divine revelation, which is also widely claimed by ancient peoples.

>I just want to know if there are other accepted frameworks other than diffusionism and evolution.

There is, but not in history. You might be thinking of divine revelation, in which case you should try some theology subs.

I don't think it is considered pseudoscience, but to the extent it's not pseudoscience, it is simply a mechanism of diffusion.

[removed]

The collective unconscious is pseudoscience? Why is the Briggs/Myers’s test used so often? 😂

[removed]

I am not thinking of anything, I just want to know if there is any other explanation.

I think divine revelation is not a good way of explaining similar cultural motifs.

MBTI has been called astrology for people who do not believe in astrology. Why is astrology popular?

Would you expect their hands to be down at their toes? It's a simple matter human anatomy.

There are other combinations to depict arms/hands.

They dont need to do streching exercises though.

And how many statues did NOT have their hands in the same position? How many parts of the statues were NOT at all similar?

Don't latch onto a trivial detail and give it more meaning than it deserves. Just because you have two examples of things that look similar does not mean those similarities are representative or relevant.

You could pick any feature of the artwork and eventually find SOMETHING on Earth that it resembles, without indicating any relevant connection.

Well in that case, if two things are not exactly identical, we shouldn't mention resemblances/similarities, Or even inspirations.