It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


200,000 Year Old South African Civlization! color me amazed

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 04:45 PM
reply to post by NoHierarchy

The severe ecological pressure still doe snot explain the lack of human behavior before that pressure for 150,000 years.

Also, the tech boom 10,000 years ago works with our exponential nature.

Check it.

50,000 yrs ago. 25,000 yrs, 10,000 yrs, 5,000 yrs, 2,000 yrs, 1,000 yrs, 500 yrs.

This marks major technological and sociological events. But if we extend it back to 100,000 yrs ago, and then 200,000 yrs ago, we see no change. The exponential growth starts 50,000 years ago. That is what defines humanity.

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 04:47 PM

Originally posted by jazz10
There will be more "BIG" news soon regarding South Africa. Some may be bed some may be good, but the news im talking about? i dont quite have a word for yet.

You don't quite have a word for bad yet according to the above.
Why don't you give your stupid predictions a rest for a reasonable time, say 25 years or so ?

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 04:48 PM
reply to post by NoHierarchy

I admit that I need to do more research into what Gorman is saying before I can definitively agree or disagree with him, but my original understanding is similar to yours...

...H. sapiens from 200,000 years ago and H. sapiens of today are physiologically the same species, thus had the same brains and the same capacity for thought and learning.

Again, I'm not saying that makes me believe the researchers' findings in the OP -- because I don't. I'm just arguing the point that ancient humans weren't "dumb"; they just possessed less knowledge.

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 04:58 PM
The Annunaki made us 500 thousand years ago actually,just ask Credo Mutwa

[edit on 25-7-2010 by SL55T0T0]

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 04:58 PM
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

Remember. Inside appearances are not the same as outside appearances. Not to mention the infinite complexities of the brain itself. Brain size has no correlation to intelligence. In fact our brains could easily have evolved into more intelligence over the last 50,000 years and none of us would be the wiser and our brains would look the same. There's over 6 billion combinations of chemicals that affect everything in the brain. I have a friend who did a test if the combinations of said chemicals could statistically allow every human brain to be truly unique. I'll talk to him about it when he's online tonight.

Indeed the structure may have been virtually the same 200,000 years ago, but the nature of that brain was not. Psychologically it was not. The crow and dolphin have brains fully capable of human-like levels of intelligence. But they do not have the necessary biochemical nature to allow it.

The human brain simply was not able to function like it does not back then. Structurally it was similar, but a very little bit of change goes a long way.

reply to post by SL55T0T0

That's nice. Supply proof.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Gorman91]

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:01 PM
I keep saying that soon we wil find out that Ancient Egypt was actually middle civilization, not ancient.

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:06 PM
reply to post by nixie_nox

Well considering this supposed civilization is barely that much more civilized than Egypt, and that we are today only 200 or so years ahead of Rome, it could easily be said we are only in the middle civilization now.

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:08 PM
reply to post by MrsBlonde

Color me amazed as well. I mean, I knew there were civilizations dating back a long ways, but with the short cycles of Earth's death/rebirth and the destruction of man's presence, most of these things are now gone. This is major. This also highly questions the religious types that swear Earth is only 6,000 years old. Thanks for posting, great find!

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:10 PM
reply to post by autowrench

Don't be fooled.

The website is obviously biased.

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:12 PM
reply to post by Gorman91

Here are some articles I've read about it.

Where studies suggest that up to 4 % of Neanderthal genetics ended up in modern man. Not all only those of Northern European ancestry it seems.

Dated 6 May 2010.

The finding has surprised many experts, as previous genetic evidence suggested the Neanderthals made little or no contribution to our inheritance.

The result comes from analysis of the Neanderthal genome - the "instruction manual" describing how these ancient humans were put together.

Between 1% and 4% of the Eurasian human genome seems to come from Neanderthals.

"They are not totally extinct. In some of us they live on, a little bit," said Professor Svante Paabo, from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

The sequencing of the Neanderthal genome is a landmark scientific achievement, the product of a four-year-long effort led from Germany's Max Planck Institute but involving many other universities around the world.

Neanderthal genes 'survive in us'

The diminutive creature's unearthing was a sensation because it indicated a separate human species was living alongside us just 18,000 years ago.

A dig site there, known as Mata Menge, had already revealed tools dated to 880,000 years ago. Now, just 500m away but much deeper in the sediments, an international team has identified even older artefacts.

'Hobbit' island's deeper history

You will see they are very recent and that I got a memory full of holes, but these were where I got my information.

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:13 PM
I love threads like this!

South Africa is known as the largest gold producing country of the world. The largest gold producing area of the world is Witwatersrand, the same region where the ancient metropolis is found. In fact nearby Johannesburg, one of the best known cities of South Africa, is also named "Egoli" which means the city of gold.

I thought this part was interesting. I have always found it amazing how Africa itself exports so many valuable goods yet the people are mostly poor. Sad when you think about it...

I also found the astrological information interesting. I love how older civilizations made temples to the skies and now we don't do anything. I really wish I lived back then or could go back so I could ask why they did it and find out why it stopped.

Great thread~ Don't you love it when looking for something to read and you find a nice little treasure.

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:13 PM

Originally posted by MrsBlonde
reply to post by Gorman91

will all you guys relax
I know all that

I'm just asking do these ruins exist ?

The cattle corrals do indeed exist. They're not a civilization... those aren't houses and you don't find pots and the like in there. You do, however, find cattle dung.

And the "adam's calendar" has been debunked many times. The fact is that if you look at ANY stone feature, you can probably find some place to stand where you can use it to mark the rising of a star, etc. There was also some accusation by people who'd been there before it was famous that the rocks were moved.

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:16 PM
reply to post by Titen-Sxull

So why is a scientists who have a counter theory called a quack? Let me answer my own question. Because they are in the minority that isn't published or trying to get published.

I once read where mainstream scientists of all kinds support each other just for the sole purpose of being published. The lamestream guys are called quacks and drummed out.

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:18 PM

Originally posted by Gorman91
Indeed there was a third humanoid in Europe. They were a hybrid of Neanderthals and man and could breed. Like a wholphin, if you will. This was actually a species created by our breeding with Neanderthals. We raped and pillaged them. Such an outcome was destined. We killed them off with the Neanderthals. Thus 20,000 years ago ended the First human world war against anything not part of its own species.

Certainly you can cite your sources on this 'theory'.
I'd hate to think that they were anally-sourced.

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:19 PM
The theory Slayer69 came up with did in my eyes make a lot of sense.

He suggest that the spread of modern man from Africa to Asia, Australia and Europe was simply all done by foot most of the time.

I really recommend reading it.

Origins of Atlantis/Lemuria Myths Part-1

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:19 PM

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by MrsBlonde

Humanity did not exist 200,000 years ago.

We evolved 50,000 years ago.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Gorman91]

While we evolved anatomically 200,000 years ago, we did not mentally evolve until 50,000 years ago.

Please research before trusting an obviously biased site.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Gorman91]

Sorry but Wikipedia isn't exactly a reliable source for such a claim. You are saying the site linked in the OP is bias? Yet you link to a site that ANYONE can edit? I think you should research more before just using wiki for all the answers.

Besides wiki got any other absolute proof what you say is true? What we are told and what is really the truth are two totally different things. I will read more on this but if this is true it changes a lot of things.

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:19 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

Well I'm not disputing the parts about the islanders. I kind of knew that already. But that's very cool with the Neanderthal genes.

My only question is if these genes tests are on modern man or members from back then, because they mentioned bacteria on the deceased. And if these were just traits in both of us to begin with or re adaptations to them. what sort of genes, if you will. What do they do? Most likely skin and eye genes if anything at all. I would need to know more than just this article to understand it all.

None the less. Star and thanks.

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:22 PM
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

I think this is it. I will search more later. This is from 30,000 years ago. I remember reading 20,000 years ago in the article I read.

reply to post by mblahnikluver

Check the sources linked with wikipedia. wiki is a source... source I guess.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Gorman91]

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:24 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong. Aren't theories observable? At the very least reproduceable? In other words, testable?

No one can test a big bang. They can try underground using colliders but it's not the same thing.

So I argue the big bang is just a counter argument to God. It's not even a real theory to begin with. To me the big bang is just like the bible. So instead of big bang it should be called big bible.

Scientist got it all the way down to the singularity but couldn't explain what happened a split second before that. So in comes alternate universes and string theories. Okay, so where did that come from? At some point you can chase the big bang all the way down this rabbit hole and conclude 1 or 2 things. Something always existed. Or something came from nothing.

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:25 PM
Apparently, the advent of cultural behaviour in Humans can be put back 30,000 years from the date you quoted, Gorman. The 50,000 year mark was in light of available evidence, as it should be, but more evidence comes to light all the time. I heard about this a few years ago:

According to a Science News article that came to N'Kele's attention, ancient bone tools dating back 80,000 years have been found that may have come from a stone-age fishing camp where early humans speared spawning giant catfish on the banks of a lake between Congo and Uganda.

Alison Brooks, archaeologist at George Washington University said the implements show tool making skills that, until now, have been credited only to Europeans who lived thousands of years later.

Steve Kuhn, a specialist in Ancient tools at the University of Arizona said the African implements came from "much earlier than any of us expected. It makes us rethink some ideas" about how early technology developed...


Another article that mentions the discovery is here:

About 60,000 BP the earliest immigrants to Australia carved and
painted designs on rocks. Painting and decoration flourished, along
with stone and ivory sculpture, from 35,000 BP in Europe, where more
than 200 caves show remarkable examples of naturalistic wall
painting. A variety of musical instruments, including bone flutes with
precisely bored holes, have been found in sites dated to 40,000-
80,000 BP.


Here is a very interesting article that paints a more accurate picture of the doubt surrounding our "knowledge" of early Human behaviour than Gorman has represented:

After 200,000 BCE regional specialization of tools appears for the first time, again in Africa. Regional specialization describes the move from the production of generic, all-purpose tools, to tose designed for more specific tasks, such as trapping animals specific to a particular environment. These innovations were the work of Homo sapiens and/or Homo sapiens sapiens. Both groups were skilled and versatile enough to begin to move into environmentally more difficult territories, from temperate Europe and Asia to tropical rain forest Africa. To do this they adapted their existing tool kits--employing new materials and devising distinctive styles, some of which we even recognize as artistic qualities as well as functional ones. The status of Homo sapiens, the species known as 'Rhodesiensis' in Africa and 'Neanderthal' in Europe, whose members had physical characteristics very close to those of modern humans, is currently under debate. It is not known how populations of Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens sapiens related to each other, or why Homo sapiens disappeared. What is known is that all living humans belong to one species, Homo sapiens sapiens.

(emphasis added)

So, its far from certain when we developed recognisable cultural practices, and it is very hard to defend the position that prior to 50k years ago we were significantly less mentally developed than we are now. There may have been jumps and leaps in our mental capacity, but it is not as if a switch were flicked. It would have been a more gradual progression than has been stated in this thread.

Having said that, the basis for believing these ruins to be 200,000 years old is frankly laughable. For what reason was it decided that Orion was the constellation these standing stones were set up to observe? Because there are three stones standing together? What utter tosh. There is reaching, and then there is reeeeeeeeeeeeeeaching.

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in