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.

 

7,000 yesr old city found in Egypt

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 05:34 AM
link   
A seven thousand year old city has been found in Egypt, link to source -

news.yahoo.com...;_ylt=AoU86gOSqAQQ4lOceNDB_WlFeQoB

Could they be getting closer to the 10,500BC date the sphinx is claimed to be?

www.disclose.tv...




posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 07:09 AM
link   
I dont quite understand what the age of Egyptian cities has to do with the sphinx. Even if you speculate that it was built 10000 BC, it could have been constructed by anyone. And even if a city could have something to do with it (ie built it), that city would obviously be near Giza. So just finding a random Egyptian city from 10000 BC wouldnt show anything.

I'm so negative :p

[edit on 30-1-2008 by merka]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 07:20 AM
link   
This really shouldn't be much of a surprise... that would only be some 2,000 years older than the 1st dynasty and while that is alot of years, the predynastic Egypt stretches way back into the neolithic.... after all societies as complex as Egypt's and Sumer's did not appear overnight. They had a long development... As for the sphinix only a handful of ancient god fanatics have made the claim that it goes back that far, and perhaps it does, but the proof is not there one way or the other and as for the claim that etchings in the stone were caused by water erosion, so that it has to be older than "officially" claimed, north Africa was far moister and greener even a thousand years ago than it is now, much less 5,000 years ago.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by II HAL II
 



Its no great surprise really, Catalhoyuk is 9000 years old and had a population of approximately 10000. There are also comparable aged city's in the Indus valley i think.
Like the others I dont see the link between the age of a city in Egypt and the sphinx to be honest.
Even if a city were found in Egypt that is 10000 years old does not mean they actually built the sphinx.
I was under the impression that the sphinx was built off planet and dropped in by the egyptian Cat people. It would have obviously been a lot easier to build in zero gravity.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   


I was pointing out that the Egyptians had built a city older than first thought, in turn were more advanced, in turn could be a possibility the sphinx goes back further than claimed. Not worried there are older cities in different part of the world, just pointing out its a possibility after seeing theories on this idea before.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by II HAL II

I was pointing out that the Egyptians had built a city older than first thought, in turn were more advanced,


Well there's nothing to suggest this city build by neolithic farmers were any more advanced than neolithic farmers. And we already knew there were neolithic farmers living in the region at the time


Of course,there's also no reason why neolithic farmers couldn't have built the Sphinx. But this discovery doesn't affect orthodox Egyptian chronology in any way.

(I do think the term 'city' may be a bit misleading though)



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   


Well there's nothing to suggest this city build by neolithic farmers were any more advanced than neolithic farmers. And we already knew there were neolithic farmers living in the region at the time


Of course,there's also no reason why neolithic farmers couldn't have built the Sphinx. But this discovery doesn't affect orthodox Egyptian chronology in any way.

(I do think the term 'city' may be a bit misleading though)

For Neolithic farmers being compared to the Greco-Roman period isn't bad, they were around in 150BC these guys are 5,000BC and having houses in dressed limestone isn't bad either.

I'm just saying it's a 'possible' link to a theory that's out there, I'm not saying its true, just posting a piece in a puzzle (orthodox or not).

And the term 'city' is what they used, I was just quoting the source, it could of course be wrong.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Yes, I appreciate it's the news story (and quite likely the original press release) that uses the term 'city' - my criticism wasn't intended at you. I do think it;s misleading though and conjurers up impressions of a much more grandiose settlement than it likely was in reality.

Of course, folk in the Middle East were living in 2 story houses with nice white plaster interior walls 10,000 years ago!



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Always so many theories, looked at in different ways to fit in with each persons understanding as the world was at a particular time, the only real part of the sphinx i would trust if it was possible to date the rock with any accuracy would be the head, a lot of evidence is trickling out that the body was always there just manipulated into the body of whatever it really does turn out to be,

IE Lion, Leopard, and some other vague posibilities, its time there was developed a way and means of doing these tests where everyone agree's the results will be accepted by all.

[edit on 30/1/2008 by azzllin]



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 06:21 PM
link   
The Egyptian and Sumerian civilization did appear suddenly.
There is no evidence for any series of advances from stone age to the fulll blown civilization with all it structures.

As to determining the age of the Sphinx from the age of the rock..

you are kidding aren't you? A little thinking should tell you that the rock is likely to be as old as the Earth.

If anyone wants to discuss these ancient civiliztions/cultures they should do some serious study first. News articles are not the best sources.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   
I don't know if this is the right place to ask this question, but you guys are talking about the sphinx. I heard a while back the idea that there was some sort of chamber under the right paw of the sphinx, but no one was allowed to excavate it. Could someone shed some light on that for me just to cure my curiosity?



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
The Egyptian and Sumerian civilization did appear suddenly.


The Sumerians are thought to have arrived from the Caspian sea or the Caucasus region and supplanted the Ubaidian culture werent they?
They didnt appear suddenly but rather integrated and took over an already existing agricultural society of city builders.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by mojo4sale
 



i am wondering if the significance of these ancient cities is not relative to the sphinx, but more relative to the types of infrastructure required to pursue such endeavors.

Consider this from the perspective of Mazlow...would it not be a safe assumption that before we endeavored for such feats that we first had to develop meaningful agriculture, waste disposal, economy, and travel considerations such as roads?

So, how do we go from being "savages" to building cities of 10k so quickly?

Further, if you consider the timing of the last ice ages end, would it not be a safe thing to wonder if perhaps we exited the ice age with these skills in place, ready to expand once again?



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by mojo4sale
 



i am wondering if the significance of these ancient cities is not relative to the sphinx, but more relative to the types of infrastructure required to pursue such endeavors.

Consider this from the perspective of Mazlow...would it not be a safe assumption that before we endeavored for such feats that we first had to develop meaningful agriculture, waste disposal, economy, and travel considerations such as roads?


Agreed. None of the monumental ancient projects around the world could have happened without some kind of urban infrastructure near by.



Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

So, how do we go from being "savages" to building cities of 10k so quickly?


I dont think we did. catalhoyuk is about 9500 years old and was a city of approximately 10000 people. The buildings are stacked on top of each other progressively which shows that it built to its present size over time and didnt just appear suddenly.
Did other cultures that were basically nomadic hunter gatherer society's interact and trade with the Catalhoyuk and Ubaidian cultures and change there lifestyles?
Either way i see the nomadic cultures realising that an agricultural existence meant a better chance of survival through contact with some of the older cultures.
I would think this city in egypt had some form of interaction with one or both of those cultures or their descendants?


mojo



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by mojo4sale
 



Excellent points.

You know, the Egyptians are notoriously proud of how ancient their culture is. At the time of the Greeks heyday, the Egyptians commented on how juvenile this "great" civilization was.

Now, as most of us know, people can have intense pride over their national origin. So it is not surprising to see such things written. However, one has to wonder what basis in fact these feelings may have had.

Thanks for inciting thought. I appreciate that!

BTW...i love the avatar....so demented.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Now, as most of us know, people can have intense pride over their national origin. So it is not surprising to see such things written.


Some things never change......sigh..unfortunately


originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Thanks for inciting thought. I appreciate that!


Likewise.



originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan


BTW...i love the avatar....so demented.


Cheers, mechanic32 made it for me, damn i miss that guy.


mojo




top topics



 
1

log in

join