Legitimate claims of advanced civilization existing before 5,000BC?

originally posted by: Marduk
Its at this point you should go google seaworthy ships and why they weren't invented during the Neolithic. The ancients couldn't pull it off, that's the whole point. At what stage of development are you claiming "then they built a shipyard". They just didn't have the knowledge. They had boats, rafts and coracles, but without ships, no ones going to sea. Half the civilisations actually demonised it, consider Tiamat or Yam, both representing the sea, while also representing primordial chaos
en.wikipedia.org...

BTW, Dwarka is not anywhere near the Gulf of Khambhat, you posted the wrong link

... Bah hahaha, your right, my bad. I was 250 miles off with that mis-posted link.

But seriously, what about the Dufuna and Pesse canoes? Don't they date back to the neolithic? Because that's apparently all the Polynesian islanders needed.

a reply to: DrWily

Well....the Neandertals seem to have been able to brave the waters of the Mediteranean, leaving Mousterian artifacts on islands.

although who knows how low sea levels were.

originally posted by: DrWily

But seriously, that about the Dufuna and Pesse canoes? Don't they date back to the neolithic? Because that's apparently all the Polynesian islanders needed.

No, the expansion didn't start until the bronze age
The current winning model of that expansion is summarised thus

Express Train model: A recent (c. 3000–1000 BC) expansion out of Taiwan, via the Philippines and eastern Indonesia and from the northwest ("Bird's Head") of New Guinea, on to Island Melanesia by roughly 1400 BC, reaching western Polynesian islands around 900 BC. This theory is supported by the majority of current genetic linguistic, and archaeological data.

And again, we are not talking about as recently as the Neolithic, the Holocene began 11.700 years ago

The Holocene also encompasses the growth and impacts of the human species worldwide, including all its written history, development of major civilizations, and overall significant transition toward urban living in the present.

And we got here because BigFatFurryTexan was asking about coastal communities which might have been flooded
Which has already been disproven, so not much point talking about the technology they might have had when it didn't happen

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
although who knows how low sea levels were.

Raises hand

originally posted by: DrWily
But seriously, what about the Dufuna and Pesse canoes? Don't they date back to the neolithic? Because that's apparently all the Polynesian islanders needed.

originally posted by: Marduk
No, the expansion didn't start until the bronze age
The current winning model of that expansion is summarised thus

Argh, you misunderstand. I wasn't implying that the Polynesian islanders expanded in neolithic times, only that they were apparently able to do so using neolithic technology.

Marduk, funny how you mention granite working ancients. Ollyantambo,
Cuzco, Puma Punku, Egypt, these were the real masters at stonework.
Many other too in South America. Gobekli Tepe looks like a childs
tinker toys compared to the quintessential granite-work that can be
seen and made by those pre-Incan people.

Easter Island statues, huge Guatamalen granite balls, Stonehenge,
all child-like work compared to the unknown masters who fashioned
Acapana and Puma Punku and the Egyptian Pyramids. Go visit some
of those places mentioned and you will be amazed at the 100 ton
granite block structures made so you cannot put a playing card
between the seams.

Oh, and the Inca created Puma Punku and carved and polished the
granite using unknown techniques. I doubt it. What is needed is the
mystery of Tiwanaku to be revealed in all of it's glory, and the
massive, smooth-granite lentils and beams are their testament.
As well as the hall of faces - showing many different races/species.
As soon as you explain the techniques and equipment that was used
to create (then destroy) Puma Punku, then we might be able to agree
on something.

If you say copper and diorite were used I request proving that can
accomplish the same level of artistry as in Puma Punku. I doubt it.

originally posted by: DrWily

Argh, you misunderstand. I wasn't implying that the Polynesian islanders expanded in neolithic times, only that they were apparently able to do so using neolithic technology.

And that has what to do with possible sunken civilisations before 5000BCE
Come on, it was your title

originally posted by: ThatHappened
Marduk, funny how you mention granite working ancients. Ollyantambo,
Cuzco, Puma Punku, Egypt, these were the real masters at stonework.
Many other too in South America.

Maybe you can come back when you have sorted out the lies from the truth in Graham Hancocks "Fingerpaints of the Gods"

because, brother, you ain't even close

originally posted by: ThatHappened
Oh, and the Inca created Puma Punku and carved and polished the
granite using unknown techniques.

Dude, Tiwanaku was not built by the Inca, they didn't exist as a cultural group for at least another thousand years.
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: ThatHappened
As well as the hall of faces - showing many different races/species.

So can you tell me what races/species are depicted here from left to right ?

originally posted by: ThatHappened
smooth-granite lentils

I've never tried rock soup, is it a local delicacy ?

Maybe you can answer this question for me
Do you believe that the sacred book of the Maya contains stories that are evidence that whoever was responsible for the Bible was involved in the creation of both, because I'm pretty sure that's one of Hancocks claims,
lost race of advanced teachers taught the Hebrews and the S American Indians?
its a yes no question..

originally posted by: ThatHappened
Marduk, funny how you mention granite working ancients.

You seem to be making the mistake that they all happen at the same time and that no cultures were around beforehand that knew how to work stone. Let me take your list and show you what Hancock doesn't tell you about the dates:


Ollyantambo - 1400 AD (and they'd been working stone in the area for 2,000 years)
Cuzco - Site inhabited by stoneworking culture 300 years before Inca took it over. Inca site dates to 1200 AD
Puma Punku - 500 AD (lots of the stone is soft sandstone)
Gobekli Tepe - 8000 BC with similar sites nearby.
Easter Island statues - after 1250 AD
Guatamalen granite balls - about 800 AD
Stonehenge - 3000 BC
Acapana - after 200 BC (people had been working stone for hundreds of years)
Egyptian Pyramids - 2400 BC (Egyptians had been working with stone for 1,000 years and building pyramids for 200 years)

Go visit some of those places mentioned and you will be amazed at the 100 ton granite block structures made so you cannot put a playing card between the seams.

Actually, I *have* been to the pyramids and have seen the stone balls. The "playing card" claim doesn't hold up. And it's pretty easy to make the stones match up as you cut them out of the rock. The rock below the one you just cut is going to match to the one you've cut.

And yes, people using stones and copper and bronze.

originally posted by: Marduk

And that has what to do with possible sunken civilisations before 5000BCE
Come on, it was your title

I was just making a point about the possibility of really cool stuff in the Ocean, that's all. If shorelines can recede and rivers change course, leaving a former waterfront civilization like the Indus Valley stranded on dry land... Then why can't the opposite be possible? Despite having sonar technology and high resolution mapping, we have explored less than 5% of the ocean floor to date. I think it's unfair to discount it as a possibility until we do our due diligence and explore more of the ocean first.

originally posted by: DrWily
I think it's unfair to discount it as a possibility until we do our due diligence and explore more of the ocean first.

Well I'm not doing it, I have Galeophobia
Let me know how you get on.

a reply to: Marduk

LOL @ Galeophobia

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
although who knows how low sea levels were.

Raises hand

I have to say i do wonder about some of the stuff under the oceans, particularly around Britain. Definite scattered evidence of settlements under the North Sea, with Yorkshire alone losing over 300 settlements since Roman times.

I also wonder a bit about what was under the Scilly Isles. We know as geological fact that the central plains were flooded between 400-500AD. We also suspect the Isles were the Cassiterides that the Phoenicians referred to. I am not claiming there is anything super advanced lost to history, more that there could be all sorts of cool stuff......now lost to history (1600 years of Atlantic swells won't be that forgiving!).

As to sea level change, i do have to disagree slightly in that Woods Hole have identified sea level change was by no means uniform. Some areas had rapid change, most areas had extremely gradual change. So in some areas, land could have been lost in weeks / months rather than hundreds of years (which is applicable for most areas). That is certainly enough time to evacuate but probably not enough time to take your cultural goodies away with you (temples, artworks, etc).

a reply to: Marduk

Ah ha! Maybe not civilization, but here is a submerged neolithic village!

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: DrWily

originally posted by: Marduk

And that has what to do with possible sunken civilisations before 5000BCE
Come on, it was your title

I was just making a point about the possibility of really cool stuff in the Ocean, that's all. If shorelines can recede and rivers change course, leaving a former waterfront civilization like the Indus Valley stranded on dry land... Then why can't the opposite be possible? Despite having sonar technology and high resolution mapping, we have explored less than 5% of the ocean floor to date. I think it's unfair to discount it as a possibility until we do our due diligence and explore more of the ocean first.

Because they would have to be on the continental shelf and would have to be connected to the interior in order to have large and sustainable populations. And we do have underwater archaeology that is working on old Native American sites and other sites. Here's a website about them - note that these aren't civilizations (which have a larger "footprint") but actually cultural sites. A civilization would be fairly easy to spot and we'd have mainland examples of it.

Also, you're citing as "unexplored" the whole ocean. Ancient civilizations weren't down in the Marianas Trench - nor deep underwater.

a reply to: Byrd
Thank you for the thoughtful post but aren't those timelines
theory, based on the material found around the dig-site?
About the playing card, I was really referring to the black,
Aswan granite 5 to 10 ton blocks that lines the inside of
King's Chamber in the Great Pyramid.

And, the recently discovered Temple behind Abydos, and
the Serapeum, display adept usage of 60 ton granite blocks
to build the Temple. And granite-working ability we don't
know how it was done and we can't recreate a Serapeum.
Some think a liquid was used to smooth and molds too.

originally posted by: ThatHappened
a reply to: Byrd
Thank you for the thoughtful post but aren't those timelines
theory, based on the material found around the dig-site?

In part, yes. But there's other evidence as well, including textual dates, other material above and below them and material from other sites. If you read some of the detailed texts about them, you can get a better sense of how they were dated.

About the playing card, I was really referring to the black,
Aswan granite 5 to 10 ton blocks that lines the inside of
King's Chamber in the Great Pyramid.

Yep. That's what they say. I actually climbed down the long shaft and walked around inside there. It's not a brilliantly smooth surface and is not completely even. The blocks are nicely fitted but frankly you see better fit in modern stonework.

Now... don't get me wrong. It's beautiful. It's elegant. BUT the interior that I saw with my eyes (and light) looked very different than the pretty pictures that are carefully posed and shown.

And, the recently discovered Temple behind Abydos, and
the Serapeum, display adept usage of 60 ton granite blocks
to build the Temple.

They were built after 800 BC (almost 2,000 years later) - and the Egyptians had a lot of experience with lifting huge and heavy stones up to a height. They did it using mud brick ramps, some of which are still in place in many locations (they didn't just build a temple and leave it alone. They rebuilt and added to them constantly. Once you learn what the characteristics are of each dynasty's art and texts, it's pretty easy to see where Ptolemy built over (for example) Seti or where Thotmose built over Hatshepsut or Ramesses... built over everyone. They would also tear other buildings down and use that stone in new temples.

And granite-working ability we don't know how it was done

Why would you say that? Take a look at classical Greek art and temples and Roman art and realize they were done during the same time that you're talking about. The granite work in the pyramids is inferior to the granite work on Hatshepsut's obelisks (done 1,400 years after the pyramids.)

and we can't recreate a Serapeum.

Sure we can. It'd be expensive, but it's not that hard. Modern machines would make pretty short work of it.

Some think a liquid was used to smooth and molds too.

If that was true, why would they make a liquid... and then make a form for the stone... and then destroy the form where they poured the liquid... and wait for it to harden (for concrete, that would take a month or so)... and then destroy the form... and make a new form that was a different size (because no two are the exact same size)?

Why spend one month making a one ton block when you could chip it out of the quarry in a fraction of that time?

The granite inside the chamber is rough, but new it
wasn't so pockmarked. I have seen a laser shine on
the wall revealing it's texture.

The mystery of the Serapeum is how the boxes were
moved and positioned by ancient people. As well,
the perfect surfaces and dimensions of the boxes.
The 30 ton top and 40 ton bottom of the boxes,
which number over a hundred probably. A bull
mummy has never been found there.

a reply to: Byrd