Thoughts on prehistory

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 25 2004 @ 05:45 PM
link   
I'd like to stir up a little discussion here on various opinions held by boardmembers about prehistory. Where do YOU think civilization started? When? What do you think has been concealed, if anything? Why would it be concealed? if evolution is right, what were homo sapiens doing for all those years before the rise of civilization? If you believe something other than evolution, share your thoughts, too. I have researched this topic very thoroughly for years, and have begun to feel like I am running out of readily available information. Share your knowledge and thoughts!




posted on May, 26 2004 @ 09:49 AM
link   
I'm going by memory here, but Homo sapiens showed up roughly 30-50,000 years ago right? And then supposedly ran around throwing rocks at small prey until somewhere around 5000 BC? I know I'm not the only one who sees a great big hole in the conventional model.

In my not so humble layman's opinion, humans had empires rivaling Egypt and Rome AT LEAST, if not greater, somewhere before 4000 BC. The Piri Reis map seems to defy any explanation short of hot air balloons and advanced mathmatical knowledge in 4000-8000 BC, at the very least. For those who don't know, the Piri Reis map was made in 1513, copied from much older charts, and it Africa's west coast, South America's east coast, and Antarctica. The coastlines are too accurate to have been done from the sea, an island is shown which has not been above water in known history, but which correlates to a submerged mountain, and Antarctica is shown free of ice, making the latest date for the source maps 4000BC. It took us about 4000 years to produce Rome, so I would guess that Homo sapiens didn't get off their butts and start building any later than 8000 BC, or more likely 12000 BC (I can't produce evidence for ealier right now, but I do suspect that we could have come out swinging, in a manner of speaking, after the Older Dryas, which would make civilization about 22000 years old, give or take a couple thousand.
It seems likely to me that the sea level on Earth rose, and/or the location of the seas and land shifted dramatically at some point in ancient history, destroying and concealing a certain portion of our history.



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Excellent, vagabond! What could have erased things? Well, lets see....we have an ice age, from around 12000 bc to 10000 bc......glaciers can do some serious damage....and then there was with certainty a planetary flood, or a huge change in the land, because in many remote places beach sand can be found. A long, long way away from any sea. So picture in your mind what would happen today if there was first an ice age, to grind most of what there is to pieces, then a huge flood to wash it all away. Wouldnt leave a heck of a lot, would it, and thats with our current technology that uses forged metals and synthetic materials. if we were talking a naturalistic society? (Which, contrary to most beliefs, need not be barbaric. Only a fool would believe that what we know for technology is all there is to know.) Basically, what we have is a plausible reason for only fragentary evidence of prehistory societies, which the large span of empty times give more than ample opportunity.
Then of course, there is the young earth side of things. If there was no evolution, and the earth is only, say, 10000 years old? then we have a window of 3000-4000 years still with very little. And young earth or not, theres still an ice age and flood to deal with. So we still have plausible reasons for lack of evidence, as well as a reasonable window of opportunity.
So what IS there for evidence?
Early Myths and Legends
Jericho, Jarma, catal hyuk (sp?)
What more?

[Edited on 26-5-2004 by saturnine_sweet]



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Einstien supported the suggestion that centrifugal force could shift the earth's crust as a whole over the mantle, distributing mass along the equator. Such an incident could reform the elevation of land masses and throw the seas all over the globe to resettle in new positions. Furthermore, if the earth were perfectly smooth, the world would be 2 miles deep with ocean all around. Now, we know glaciers can depress the earth beneath them, that means so can oceans. The ocean bottom was not always so low- the earth could have had more ocean surface before, meaning not much land needed to disappear to wipe out EVERYTHING.



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Very true. Had forgotten that one. So What do you think is already known but not disclosed, and what do you think might be discovered in the near future? My thoughts are that there are some sites that are intentionally not being explored because of the nature of them, especially those underwater off various coastlines around the world. There are news stories of seemingly man-made structures seen by radar, or discovered by someone diving, and then they just fade away, and you never hear any more. Obviously, while some of these sites might have turned out to be nothing, not all of them would have....so why do they just drop off the radar? I wouldnt think proof of civilization further back would not be too drastic to reveal....unless there is something anomolous about it. my bet is one of two things. Either there is proof of non-human occupants (ie aliens, watchers, giants, what have you,) or there is proof of advanced science way beyond common expectations. I favor the latter, because it bring to mind things like the vimanas and that city in india that appears to have been nuked, I forget the name of it. While the vimanas are a little shaky in terms of fact, and the radioactivity of that city hard to verify, it at least provides a very solid link to something viable. But then, of course, I suppose there are links to non-human types as well. (giant skeletons, star child skull, etc.) What's everyone else's take?

[Edited on 26-5-2004 by saturnine_sweet]



posted on May, 28 2004 @ 01:45 PM
link   
As far as I know, Homo Sapiens have been around since 70,000 bc. I could be wrong on that so don't take my word for it, but that's what I've heard. I would agree with you guys on the theory that there are large gaps in our history. Although there are lot's of weird and anomolous evidence to support that Homo Sapiens have been around alot longer than generally believed I am hasty to put too much faith in any of these...
I believe that one of the reasons for this large gap in history (10000 bc - 5000 bc) could be simply because Humans and undoubtedly every animal on earth were recovering from the Ice Age during this period and so there probably weren't that many Humans around. However I admittadely have little or no experience in anthropology, and thus I really couldn't say how long it might take the Human population to recover from a disaster like that. But I am sure it would take a while...

Despite this, the entire earth wasn't covered in ice during the Ice Age so I would imagine that along the equator and such Humans still could possibly have been thriving during that period.



posted on May, 28 2004 @ 02:54 PM
link   
I'm pretty sure I've read that Homo sapiens are 50-30,000 years old, but considering that evolution long ago ceased to be theory and became religion, I'm not surprised if they changed the story again.
The Carbon 14 hoax has made a huge mess of archaeology. It's bad enough that we're finding Homo sapiens 3 miles beneath the surface of the Earth, but if you're creative enough you'll get past that. But when you know those remains are only 50,000 years old or less, and yet you get a date of over 12 million, there's really no telling where to go. Some say it means humans are really old. Others say it means nothing is really old. And neither side really knows how 3 miles worth of burial ever happened to something that is still intact. Shouldn't it be drilled up as oil after all that time? So anyway, dating Homo sapiens is ugly anyway, and I'm not automatically inclined to believe that anything is millions of years old.

As for the iceage, large parts of the planet were not glaciated at the time. The drop in temp was about 5 degrees centigrade, or 10-15 F. That means that my home town was 95 degrees in the summer and and maybe 50 in the winter. I admit that my home town is near Thermal and Hell, but still, there would have been habitable places and that is the point.


If there was a dark age (and not just a lost one) then something happened that left very very few humans ANYWHERE.



posted on May, 28 2004 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond

If there was a dark age (and not just a lost one) then something happened that left very very few humans ANYWHERE.


I'd agree with you on that one. Are you hinting at scenario like the Flood?



posted on May, 28 2004 @ 03:42 PM
link   
I found this not too long ago, and feel it's related: www.stevequayle.com...

Yes, it's strange and a wee bit lunatic fringe, but quite interesting.



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 12:33 AM
link   
I went away for a day and this got interesting!

Red rocket -
Not only is there a gap from 10000-5000 bc, following the ice age, but if evolutionary theory is right, what of the 30000+ years before that? Just haning out in the jungles, eating bugs? I mean, seriously. So either evolution is wrong, or history is wrong, or both. Yet these facts are rarely questioned by academics! Why? because current theories fit what they WANT to believe.

Vagabond -
I agree with cataclysms of some sort wiping out evidence for large chunks of history. What sort, there are varying theories, but all are interesting and pose some odd questions. The most plausible, strange as it might be, is either comet/meteor or atomic warfare. Perhaps both. There is certainly suggestive evidence for both theories. Hectate 100 supplied a link for one, I'll try to post a link for more about comet/meteor theory tomorrow, if someone doesnt first. If anyone here is already familiar with these theories, what is your opinion on it?



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 02:12 AM
link   
I just came up with a new idea- secondary tektonics.
The background is what I've been saying for a while: After glaciers receded the weight distribution on the surface of the earth changed signifantly and the crust began to recover from the depressions made my glaciers All of this caused a crustal displacement and either simultaneously ruptured large aquifers (perhaps water bearing regions that had been under sea before the displacement?) which had been pressurized by long periods under pressure and heat from the earth with no ability to vent, or alternately, which pushed those water tables closer to the core so that they now began to build pressure and ruptured sometime afterward.

Either way, there is a tendency to think of a crustal displacement as smooth because the crust is moving as a whole at a level beaneath the plates. However there is a buiildup of momentum that is going to stop, and if the plates are overlapping, sliding under and over one another, the stop is going to produce a rapid burst of tektonic progress.

This explains why we find relatively recent historical objects miles under the earth- because the surface in some places was churned violently, raising mountains instantly, and depositing the contents of one plate in the base of the newly formed mountain, under the other plate.

An iceage, a flood that re-distributed areas of dry land, and an upheaval that changed elevations, influenced the location of seas further, and churned the surface of the Earth- Would you really expect to find much after that?
After this, humans were pressed to near extinction- people dwelling in existing mountains, as hinted at by Plato's dialogues, would have had the best odds, because they're above the floods, they wouldn't be targets of any war waged in the desperate days before and after the cataclysm, and being on a piece of ground that can't be swallowed by another plate. So barbarians were the chief survivors, and they end up taking in the survivors of the great societies, who set them straight and cause the greeks, egyptians, phoenecians, etc to begin developing.


There really ought to be a book exploring the idea. What if a war eliminated our major cities. No power, no communication, no universities. Survivors find the un-nuked expanses of the American mid west, and try to impart all human knowledge on to trailer trash to rebuild the world. But nuclear winter makes survival more important than rebuilding. Food comes before mining, etc. They learn some, but not everything, they buld some, but not much. Now the glaciers melt and the crust shifts. the mid-west is on the equator but FAR inland, so the weather and vegitation is sporadic. The hudson bay is innow in the tropics though. Survivors of the several cataclysms wander from their trailer park to a logging down near the bay. Now the mediocre students of a random sample of our original civilization are teaching another group of primitives- a bunch of highschool drop out lumberjacks who lived like savages before and after the war. They learn metallurgy and many useful skills, and they start building. Physics, literature, chemistry, algebra/trig, calculus, astronomy, and other sciences don't really take. So we are starting all over again from the iron age... literature has gone back to campfire stories- physics is back to simple non-understanding acceptance of gravity, although the people know what great things are possible and have vague ideas of how it works. "If you split atoms you get tons of power... so how do we find an atom?". The first thing we might do is try to rebuild familiar wonders. Let's try to copy a nuclear plant- i saw one once. The big concrete domes are memorable, so those get built, and they remember that there were steam towers and all so they try to build that, but the idea of how to split an atom never really comes back, so eventually the "Great Domes" become a mysterious ancient wonder- nobody can figure out what they were for. Sort of like the pyramids, and of course ancients stories remain about what they are supposed to do- how Bubba Trismegius built them to steal energy from special rocks, and nobody remembers that they never worked.



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Hahaha

Colorful sotry Vagabond, but I get what you are saying and you bring up an interesting point. How much do we know about life before the Ice Age? Like you postulated, the galciers surely re-arranged the face of the earth, and the whole crust of the earth could have possibly been re-arranged shortly thereafter. That would definately make tracing any remains of life prior to the catastrophe most difficult. And the only traces of these pre-Ice Age civilizations that we might have could possibly be the post-Ice Age civilizations. But that still leaves the 5000 year gap immediately following the Ice Age.

If Sumerian civilization started around 5000 bc, and they started using pictographs, a major development, aroud 3400 bc, that's still only 1600 years. Surely something must've happened during this 5000 year gap.

I think that before the Catastrophe, there was a civilization or civilizations that either rivalled or surpassed any of the post catastrophe civilizations. I'm not talking about Spaceships or nukes, or aliens, just plain old Homo Sapiens. However, prehaps the Greek myths and legends surrounding Atlantis were there way of remembering what humans were like before the Catastrophe. And Likewise the Indians with the Vedas.



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 03:49 PM
link   
There are remains of people in Indonesia that date back over 500,000 years, on Australia that date back over 100,000 years, so people were sailing to distant lands back then.
We know there was a trading system that covered much of the world by the coc aine and tobacco found in Egypt, and African tree gum found in Costa Rica. these date back over 5000 years, so the system has been established before then. The Bronze age has been continiously pushed back until now it starts at more than 5000 years ago.
Brazil is the site of new findings as well, rock art dating back over 56,000 years. Argentine findings along the bottom of South America find simalar peoples inhabiting their areas. There is evidence to support aboriginal peoples sailed the oceans worldwide for over a hundred thousands years before us. In Brazil, evidence of massive earthworks and canals that ran hundreds of Miles servicing an Empire of Millions, dates to roughly 20,000 years ago.
We have incredible discoveries by ancient peoples just now coming to light; astronomical, medical, physics, hydrodynamics, mechanical, etc. Our ancestors were brilliant people(s), resourcefull and highly intelligent.
It seems that every so often, the earth undergoes some sort of natural disaster; climate, space based, volcanic...whatever. We may have been able to achieve our last technology accomplishments only because we had a 10,000 year window of little to no interruption on earth, allowing people to build upon their discoveries and inventions. lets hope that continues for another 10,000 years.
We will need to rewrite our history books sooner or later.



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by toolmaker

We will need to rewrite our history books sooner or later.


I'll agree with you there.
However, I am hasty to believe that Homo Sapiens have been around for 500,000 years. But I will agree with you that there seems to have been an elabrate trading system in our early history. Artifacts like the Piri Reis map show that our ancestors had been excellent explorers. And I don't doubt that there were trade routes crossing the Atlantic.



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 05:27 PM
link   
People, not neccessarily Homo Sapiens. they cared for their sick and ill, buried their dead, knew about medicine, etc. they may have not been homo sapiens, but they were a People.

Piri Reis is a copy of maps before it, and it does make anthropologists sqirm a bit dont it..? It is probably based on arab maps, or african maps that were handed down for hundreds if not thousands of years. There are navigation markers built on Costa RIca that set the course to the galapogos Islands as well as asia. they are huge round boulders, 6-10 feet diameter. they were thought to be alighned on the ship as you set out, and then independant instruements set on the ship off the stars, or the rising sun.

The polynesians were master navigators, able to tell their course and location by the size of the waves, the currents, the temp of the water, etc. There are stories of polynesian catamarans that could hold 1000 people for trading. I would imagine if you knew the only route from Peru or Mexico to indonesia or asia, it would be worth a lot of money for trading goods and services.

Yes, humanity was sailing the oceans for hundreds of thousands of years. I read about theories of people walking from asia to the americas over the land bridge...gimme a break! they sailed, you can fish along the way, eat seaweed, travel incredible distance without physical excertion....our ancestors were too smart to lug their crap around while they walked from one continent to another, and they made Maps of the things they saw along the way.



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Good points all around I think!

Toolmaker -
Have any links or resources on the brazilian earthworks? I have heard little bits and pieces, but I woul like to research it more.


Seems this topic is shifting a little towards the idea of cyclical history now. Which I think possible, and which poses some really interesting questions. How much that we know of these days has been done before? What can we learn from this history if we could piece it together? Think of what lies lost



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 04:34 AM
link   
At a certain point we begin having to be VERY careful about ascribing dates to things or trying to say what existed at a given time. Many of the datings systems we rely upon are flawed.
Carbon-14 is a calibrated system, which means that if you change certain assumptions you change your results. There was a theory presented at one point that no recorded history is actually holder than perhaps the 7th Century AD or later, and that much of what we recorded prior to that was just made up to fill gaps. The idea seems far fetched, but one major point to come out of my reading was that even if you embraced a theory that the Roman empire's time was actually in 1000 AD, Radio-Carbon dating would not be an obstacle to your case!
If crustal displacements have disturbed the stata of the Earth, then only a geographically diverse reoccuring pattern would be admissable evidence- in other words, a single ancient Homo sapien wouldn't do it. You'd need 3 or maybe more, from places far apart, all in the same stratigraphic level.

Also, at a certain point most evidence would disappear. I've seen what my desert home can do to a car in 5 years, and I've seen what the mountains nearby have done to a stone building in 50 years. I assure you that in 10-20 thousand years, that old stone hotel will be a deposit of rocks and mud over the hotsprings, and the cars will be fine layers of ground-up rust in the sand.

The result is that you can't go too far into cyclic history until it becomes unknowable, unless of course you find a REALLY durable medium (like crystaline computers, or a coded message in the genes of an altered species.)



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 08:51 AM
link   
good points on durability, and I do believe that is much of the reason why it is commonly presumed that ancient people were not that advanced, because so little remains. When something that would not normal survive does, it often is just labeled an anomoly and set aside or ignored. History has been set into a rigid mold for decades now, and it would take something truly amazing and undisputable to change it.



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Yeah good point about durability vagabond. And it makes me wonder just what we've missed due to time. I can't even imagine all the cool artifacts that have been lost due to time. But at the same time, it's amazing just how much has survived thorughout time.



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Einstien supported the suggestion that centrifugal force could shift the earth's crust as a whole over the mantle, distributing mass along the equator.


No, he didn't. That's an urban legend.





top topics
 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join