It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Megalithic Cultures: Were They Influenced by an Advanced and Forgotten Civilization?

page: 9
73
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous


In other words, it is just like Gobekli Tepe. Which also shows no signs of pottery.


GT is missing pottery but has a number of other signs that people were there, organic remains, stone tools, a quarry. I suspect with only 5% of the site excavated they will find more stuff in the foreseeable future. GT appears to have been founded before pottery, before that wide-spread technology became known there, the baked figurines common to the area have also not been discovered.



Gobekli Tepe was not continuously inhabited. It got buried early in its existence. (Relative to the time that has elapsed anyway. It appears it was used for a long time, perhaps even a few millenia.)

I would expect the artifacts in question to have been somewhat preserved because of this, making it easier to find them.





One possibility is that the culture that built it had differing levels of technological knowledge based on status. A technocracy, perhaps? So the rulers would have had technology that might be considered high technology, but the governed had no technology at all? Perhaps they hoarded it.

There is no reason that couldn't be the case. The people who did the physical work would be the have-nots, just doing what they are told, and not even really knowing what they are building.

In that case, you don't typically find the trappings of high technology because only the "1%" had it.



What they hoarded stone tools and habitations sites? 1% would mean you'd still find stuff - you don't think the 'elites' would find, make or operate this technology do you?

Now all those other folks would still have habitation sites, burials and eat stuff - which can be found.




In our own recent history we watched a fairly small island nation spread out its influence world wide, until it was said that "the sun never sets" on its empire.

They did share a lot of their technology, but I don't think it is evident that they needed to in order to maintain their power.


If this happened in ancient antiquity, perhaps the "Great Britain" of that era chooses not to share any of its technology, preferring to trade finished products for low tech production, such as food. That way they can prolong their reign. (So as to avoid anything similar to what happened to Rome, after local barbarians began learning their fighting methods.)

In that event, most of the "1%" would all live in one place. With only traders choosing to venture out into the barbarian wastes, and still tending to be secretive about their weapons and tools.

There would be a "1%" within the "1%" who were truly wealthy, and then a poorer class living in their territory that serves them. But the rest of the world would be the "99%" or whatever.




posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

Gobekli Tepe was not continuously inhabited. It got buried early in its existence. (Relative to the time that has elapsed anyway. It appears it was used for a long time, perhaps even a few millenia.)

I would expect the artifacts in question to have been somewhat preserved because of this, making it easier to find them.


Again95% of the site hasn't been investigated yet


In our own recent history we watched a fairly small island nation spread out its influence world wide, until it was said that "the sun never sets" on its empire.


Yes and they left signs of their being there in the millions and millions. I found once while standing around waiting at Lukla airport a 17th century English Pence coin. That large empire left artifacts all over the world.


They did share a lot of their technology, but I don't think it is evident that they needed to in order to maintain their power.


They did? - how do you know that?

As noted earlier civilizations leave massive footprints - virtually impossible to miss - yet your theoretical world wide empire left nothing you can associate to them.

How does Catalhoyuck fit into your scheme? Jericho? The other very old sites - is there a sign of common trade goods there from a common source? Nope

Yet we can detect trade in obsidian and other minerals going backs tens of thousands of years.




edit on 18/10/17 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 12:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous



In our own recent history we watched a fairly small island nation spread out its influence world wide, until it was said that "the sun never sets" on its empire.


Yes and they left signs of their being there in the millions and millions. I found once while standing around waiting at Lukla airport a 17th century English Pence coin. That large empire left artifacts all over the world.



Would you expect to find that coin 10,000 years later?





They did share a lot of their technology, but I don't think it is evident that they needed to in order to maintain their power.


They did? - how do you know that?

As noted earlier civilizations leave massive footprints - virtually impossible to miss - yet your theoretical world wide empire left nothing you can associate to them.

How does Catalhoyuck fit into your scheme? Jericho? The other very old sites - is there a sign of common trade goods there from a common source? Nope

Yet we can detect trade in obsidian and other minerals going backs tens of thousands of years.





Perhaps I was unclear. I was pointing out that the British made a deliberate effort to share their technology. Victoria actually believed it was her role to educate the people the empire was encountering.

If another society in the distant past suddenly found itself capable of far sea navigation, and possessed military abilities that gave them advantage over the rest of the world, it is entirely possible they would take things the other way: and go out of their way not to share any technology. Preferring to leverage their advantage to its fullest profit.


Suppose, for example, that your society knows how to make iron swords. You can take a boat load of these swords to a group of more primitive people, and they'll trade you gold, food, furs....... whatever you want. Just don't let them know how you made the swords and you can keep on making that trade again and again.

You can do what the first world did for a long time: extract everyone else's natural resources, giving them finished products in exchange. Never letting them rise above their dependency.
edit on 22-10-2017 by bloodymarvelous because: got the quotes wrong.



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 12:51 AM
link   
I almost missed this part.


originally posted by: Hanslune

How does Catalhoyuck fit into your scheme? Jericho? The other very old sites - is there a sign of common trade goods there from a common source? Nope

Yet we can detect trade in obsidian and other minerals going backs tens of thousands of years.





Does it ever strike you as odd that the most abundant finds come from a place with a dry, arid environment for the last 8,000 or so years?

You don't see a selection bias in that? Not a deliberate one, mind you. But a bias nonetheless.

Can you expect places with other climates to be equally as forthcoming with artifacts? And yet it seems that perhaps you do expect that.



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 04:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
If an ancient advanced civilization existed that predates and helped develop all known ones, the key to finding it lies in the oceans of the world. It is becoming exceedingly unlikely that we will find it on land, unless we find it in Antarctica. But we are talking about a time frame during the last Ice Age. There was less land covered by water than thanks to all the glaciers and ice. Couple that with humans' tendency to build cities on shorelines and rivers, and you have a lot of evidence that this early civilization was drowned under the water when the ice melted.


No, just the opposite. The sea level was a lot lower, because of all the glaciers and ice. The North Sea contained Doggerland for example.



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

Does it ever strike you as odd that the most abundant finds come from a place with a dry, arid environment for the last 8,000 or so years? You don't see a selection bias in that? Not a deliberate one, mind you. But a bias nonetheless.


No why? People in dry areas tend to work in stone and dried mud, the former survives well. The other didn't everyone in Jungles and forest went with stone. They went with wood and it all rotted away. Dry areas have a higher survival rate for materials while wet areas have an obviously lesser chance. Having done archaeology in the Yucatan and in Cyprus and I can tell you that excavation and field work is remarkably easier in dry spaces than wet jungle.


Can you expect places with other climates to be equally as forthcoming with artifacts? And yet it seems that perhaps you do expect that.


Not sure what you are asking here?

How does Catalhoyuck fit into your scheme? Jericho? The other very old sites - is there a sign of common trade goods there from a common source? Nope

Yet we can detect trade in obsidian and other minerals going backs tens of thousands of years.



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

Would you expect to find that coin 10,000 years later?



Yes it was silver and in excellent shape. Gold and bronze coins would do well for much longer. Depends on the environment




Perhaps I was unclear. I was pointing out that the British made a deliberate effort to share their technology. Victoria actually believed it was her role to educate the people the empire was encountering.

If another society in the distant past suddenly found itself capable of far sea navigation, and possessed military abilities that gave them advantage over the rest of the world, it is entirely possible they would take things the other way: and go out of their way not to share any technology. Preferring to leverage their advantage to its fullest profit.

Suppose, for example, that your society knows how to make iron swords. You can take a boat load of these swords to a group of more primitive people, and they'll trade you gold, food, furs....... whatever you want. Just don't let them know how you made the swords and you can keep on making that trade again and again.

You can do what the first world did for a long time: extract everyone else's natural resources, giving them finished products in exchange. Never letting them rise above their dependency.


Yes a gold coin will survive for tens of millions of years, so to for bronze copper and to a lesser degree silver. The oldest known surviving coin is shown below - as it is a mix of gold and silver it will last millions of years.

www.fleur-de-coin.com...

Then there should be 'finished products' all over the world and exploited natural resources, mines etc. These don't exist - however locally used flint, obsidian, ocher and other critical stones were mined and some of that passed between the existing societies. The evidence for that is clear. As it is easy to trace where obsidian comes from as each volcano creates unique types of that useful volcanic glass.

You might want to note how many 'advanced' societies had expedition and colonies overwhelmed by 'barbarians' and how 'modern' technology always flows into the 'wrong hands'.


edit on 22/10/17 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

edit on 22/10/17 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Looks like there is a 12,000 year old iron oxide mine in Chile

www.promine.com...

It's a lot more plausible for someone who is capable of using Iron tools to be able to carve hard stones. Hitting them with other hard stones kind of works, but only if the other hard stones are harder, and only if you really have a lot of extra man power to waste hitting a hard rock with another rock that's only barely harder.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Iron oxide was used as a pigment.
Still is today.

Harte



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Also used as a base for point hafting glues, and has been for 200,000 years



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte
Iron oxide was used as a pigment.
Still is today.

Harte


To the tune of 2000 tons? It's .... not impossible. I mean even as late as the 18th century plantations existed that were entirely devoted to growing dye. So humans have shown sufficient interest in coloring/dying/make up art to devote resources to it.

But why would iron oxide be better than any number of other chemicals, or dyes from plants?

Usually if something is a valuable commodity, it is because something made it valuable. Gold was an easy metal to work. Diamonds have interesting properties that make them cool. Rhino horn has to be harvested by killing a Rhino and could be seen as proof of a warrior's skill (because killing one would have been hard in the time before guns.)


If a group of "powerful wizards" (by which people with advanced technology) were to show up on your shores willing to trade cool stuff in exchange for a raw material their culture valued, I could see how that raw material would start to have an elevated cultural significance. It might become a trade good, and a demonstration of wealth and power. You might even decorate mummies with it, as a demonstration of how much that person meant to you.


But on its own..... its kind of hard to imaging Iron Oxide rising to a position of significance based solely on its value as a dye.



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

It's possible that they simply didn't use pottery. Maybe they preferred to make their containers out of skins or wood.


That would make them remarkable, no pottery, no stone tools, no habitations, no burials, no sign of them whatsoever, not even trash dumps or middens.







I'm curious about this.

Is this the issue that mainstream archaeology has with the very old civilization hypothesis? Lack of trash dumps near megalithic sites? (And other stuff like that which is often left behind?)

I've been curious for a while. When you've got geologists examining the Sphinx and pointing out that the erosion patterns suggest heavy rainfall, and that is difficult to account for given Egypt's climate over the last few thousand years, and that doesn't make a dent in the storyline, It does send a mixed message (Or actually I guess just one geologist, but who claims to have shown his work to his peers and had it accepted.)

Or toolwork on artifacts such as statues, and stone boxes where glyphs are poorly drawn with a chisel, but the artifact itself shows impressive handiwork, and pefectly straight tooling.


But it makes sense for archaeology to be skeptical if they've been finding trash dumps near other reliably aged sites, and can't find so much as a misplaced fingernail shaving near the ones that look like they were made with ancient advanced technology.

Discussing issues like this enables a kind of dialogue between the OOparts crowd and genuine academics. Just playing the "I'm an authority and you shouldn't question me" card achieves quite the opposite.



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 11:25 PM
link   
The ochre mine was active for 2000 years,with 2000 tons removed over the course of its use, that works out to 5.5 pounds of dirt a day was removed.
Not quite an astounding amount is it?



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 08:41 PM
link   
I doubt they mined continuously at the same speed every day. Other mines, with more clearly documented histories, showed signs of going through ups and downs. And sometimes wars getting fought over them, which would shut them down completely for periods.

2,000 tons is in the same general ballpark as the mining level you see for other weapons grade materials. Grime's Graves flint mine from 3,000 to 1,900 BC is believed to have produced around 18,000 tons of flint over its lifetime. And it is considered a very successful ancient mine. Other flint mines of the era probably produced a lot less.

en.wikipedia.org...

Either way, 2000 tons is no small amount. An average 18 wheel flatbed semi truck weighs 35 tons.

According to this guy:

socratic.org...

Iron Oxide can be converted to Iron at about a rate of 70%. So 2000 tons of iron oxide would get you 1400 tons of iron. Or basically enough iron to build 40 semi trucks and flatbed trailers out or iron.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Unless these hunter-gatherers were going through some kind of unbelievable period of amazing prosperity, I'm just not seeing how it would be possible for them to devote so much effort to the acquisition of face paint.

But in the case of grimes graves, we're looking at something you can make useful tools out of, and even weapons. (Also a convenient way to spark fires.)

If it's useful, then when you devote resources to it, you end up getting more resources back than what you put into it. I can see a tribe of hunter-gatherers doing something like that.

But putting such and effort into a luxury good means you're expending resources and getting none back. It has happened in history, but typically only happens when you've got a bigger, organized societal structure in place, with rich people at the top. And that usually requires agriculture to achieve the necessary population densities.

If rich people in an agricultural settlement were willing to trade useful stuff for the ochre/iron oxide, then that would make much more sense.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Seems to me the answer is fairly simple... Our origins have came from "alien" DNA via meteors. Each climatic event creates a new range of species. Have we been influenced by "alien" civilizations? Sure. Forget huge ruins.
.. Look at dreams, the placebo effect, consciousness, even yawning... It's all a mystery. Divine intervention? Ok sure, lets go with that... Where did those who were supposindly intervening come from? It all compounds to more question and less answers... But logically, there's a beginning that hold the key and we don't know it yet. Why have we lost knowledge? Why can't we decifier older knowledge? What's that gap about? Who knows.



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
I doubt they mined continuously at the same speed every day. Other mines, with more clearly documented histories, showed signs of going through ups and downs. And sometimes wars getting fought over them, which would shut them down completely for periods.

2,000 tons is in the same general ballpark as the mining level you see for other weapons grade materials. Grime's Graves flint mine from 3,000 to 1,900 BC is believed to have produced around 18,000 tons of flint over its lifetime. And it is considered a very successful ancient mine. Other flint mines of the era probably produced a lot less.

en.wikipedia.org...

Either way, 2000 tons is no small amount. An average 18 wheel flatbed semi truck weighs 35 tons.

According to this guy:

socratic.org...

Iron Oxide can be converted to Iron at about a rate of 70%. So 2000 tons of iron oxide would get you 1400 tons of iron. Or basically enough iron to build 40 semi trucks and flatbed trailers out or iron.


That is if you recover every, single atom of iron from the iron oxide. Not realistic, and you can't get any of that iron from a campfire. Even small-scale iron production leaves behind serious furnaces. You can't simply melt the iron out of the iron oxide, like you can with ores for gold, copper, lead and some other ores.

Harte



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
In our own recent history we watched a fairly small island nation spread out its influence world wide, until it was said that "the sun never sets" on its empire.

They did share a lot of their technology, but I don't think it is evident that they needed to in order to maintain their power.


Not exactly true. They did not put a lot of the technology in the hands of the original inhabitants, BUT there were cities and sections that were set up for the British where British technology was the rule of the day (inside military forts and embassies and so forth.) They did not farm or fight with whatever the locals had.



(So as to avoid anything similar to what happened to Rome, after local barbarians began learning their fighting methods.)

Actually, the "barbarians" really didn't learn Roman methods. They borrowed technology and many of them became Roman citizens. They occasionally used and they adapted some tactics but none ever managed to bring full legions to the field.


In that event, most of the "1%" would all live in one place. With only traders choosing to venture out into the barbarian wastes, and still tending to be secretive about their weapons and tools.

There would be a "1%" within the "1%" who were truly wealthy, and then a poorer class living in their territory that serves them. But the rest of the world would be the "99%" or whatever.


There's a whole structure there that you're not recognizing, including lowly functionaries like sailors as well as administrators, emissaries, ambassadors, trade representatives, etc, etc.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
I doubt they mined continuously at the same speed every day. Other mines, with more clearly documented histories, showed signs of going through ups and downs. And sometimes wars getting fought over them, which would shut them down completely for periods.

2,000 tons is in the same general ballpark as the mining level you see for other weapons grade materials. Grime's Graves flint mine from 3,000 to 1,900 BC is believed to have produced around 18,000 tons of flint over its lifetime. And it is considered a very successful ancient mine. Other flint mines of the era probably produced a lot less.

en.wikipedia.org...

Either way, 2000 tons is no small amount. An average 18 wheel flatbed semi truck weighs 35 tons.

According to this guy:

socratic.org...

Iron Oxide can be converted to Iron at about a rate of 70%. So 2000 tons of iron oxide would get you 1400 tons of iron. Or basically enough iron to build 40 semi trucks and flatbed trailers out or iron.


That is if you recover every, single atom of iron from the iron oxide. Not realistic, and you can't get any of that iron from a campfire. Even small-scale iron production leaves behind serious furnaces. You can't simply melt the iron out of the iron oxide, like you can with ores for gold, copper, lead and some other ores.

Harte


According to this guy:

www.reddit.com...

The main ingredient you need to smelt iron from iron oxide is carbon. Which basically means Charcoal. Not a scarce chemical resource in antiquity.

But I'm not suggesting the hunter gatherers knew how to smelt it. More likely they traded it to someone who did, and received practical stuff that they could use in exchange.

That's how a smart (by which I mean greedy and smart) first world power deals with the third world. They trade finished products in exchange for natural resources. That way the locals are always dependent upon them to get more.


originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
In our own recent history we watched a fairly small island nation spread out its influence world wide, until it was said that "the sun never sets" on its empire.

They did share a lot of their technology, but I don't think it is evident that they needed to in order to maintain their power.


Not exactly true. They did not put a lot of the technology in the hands of the original inhabitants, BUT there were cities and sections that were set up for the British where British technology was the rule of the day (inside military forts and embassies and so forth.) They did not farm or fight with whatever the locals had.


Mostly they taught them how to read. And in an era of the printing press, the rest of the information would flow naturally from there.

In the very ancient era, there may not have been any such invention as the printing press. So it would not be nearly so easy for outsiders to learn their technology.

Ever since the invention of the printing press, hoarding of technology has been too impractical to be a sensible strategy. That probably a part of why we have patents now. But prior to the printing press, all kinds of technologies were hoarded. We still don't know the secrets of Damascus Steel, for example. Or Greek Fire.

en.wikipedia.org...


The formulas didn't get published before they were lost. But any technology that has been published becomes an essentially un-erasable part of the public consciousness for then on, forever after.





(So as to avoid anything similar to what happened to Rome, after local barbarians began learning their fighting methods.)

Actually, the "barbarians" really didn't learn Roman methods. They borrowed technology and many of them became Roman citizens. They occasionally used and they adapted some tactics but none ever managed to bring full legions to the field.


When the visigoths sacked Rome, quite a number of them were actually veterans from Rome's own military.






In that event, most of the "1%" would all live in one place. With only traders choosing to venture out into the barbarian wastes, and still tending to be secretive about their weapons and tools.

There would be a "1%" within the "1%" who were truly wealthy, and then a poorer class living in their territory that serves them. But the rest of the world would be the "99%" or whatever.


There's a whole structure there that you're not recognizing, including lowly functionaries like sailors as well as administrators, emissaries, ambassadors, trade representatives, etc, etc.


Most of whom would have been illiterate.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: jeep3r

I believe there is no question that the truth of the past
has only been told in a way that is ultimately and completely
biased. It is obviously being done with malice and that indicates
a cover up. And from there we can only speculate. But any one
with eyes can see something just ain't right.

This is an ATS post.

SnF
edit on Rpm111217v20201700000039 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
73
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join