posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:23 PM
It is important to remember that nothing is constant on the surface of this planet. Everything is a tentative negotiation with whatever happens to
occupy the same area at the same time. If, let's say part of the hills are naturally occurring, that doesn't totally remove building. For example,
consider the cave dwellings of Arizona made by the Anazasi culture. The natural rock walls with indentations and caves surved as a base for their
construction projects. So, is it a stretch to say that naturally occuring pyramid shapes couldn't be perfected or built upon by a civilization?
Humans may have had several ups and downs with civilizations even prior to the Egyptians, Mayans, Inca and so forth. Perhaps the naturally occurring
formations were so intwined with an ancient civilization that by the time the glacial maxim overtook their territory, they were forced to move on to
warmer pastures, such as the area of present day Egypt.
My rough estimate is that if 27,000 years ago things began to get bad, they wouldn't have waited until 13,000 years ago for the end of the ice age to
move. They would have done it relatively soon in the glaciation process.
The Sahara desert was a lusher place before the end of the last ice age. The grassland most likely had trees, because even the Great Plains and the
Serengheti have groupings of trees. Would it be a stretch to see a culture move from one area to another for greener pastures?
And remember, the Slavic, Turkic and Hungarian peoples that occupy that area now were not there just 2000 to 3000 years ago (depending on how you
define "there"). The cold winter and ice sheets shearing across much of the terrain would certainly have removed all or most trees and plantlife, as
well as the animals they sustained (humans included, naturally).
If such a civilization did exist, it would be logical to assume that the size of their capital or central complex would have required a serious amount
of resources - resources that inevitably come from trading and suzerains. Consider, for example, the central valley of Mexico and Tenochtitlan. The
Aztecs taxed the local groups inhabiting the periphery of their lake city. (This is part of the reason the other tribes, to their chagrin, sided with
the Spanish when they arrived.)
So, if the semitic peoples were originally from Eastern Europe, they probably would have dealt with the Africans inhabiting the north side of the
continent below them. Maybe sea faring existed them, but since boats were generally made of wood, it would probably be hard to find evidence from so
The entrance and exit from a peninsular Africa is the Suez. That is a genetic bottleneck. That limits passage. People inhabiting Somalia could not
have simply gone to Yemen back then by going due east. It would be likely - due to the reasons why darker and lighter shades of skin exist, that
people would not have evolved lighter skin while still in the African continent.
My point? The lighter shades of skin we see in North Africans as compared to Subsaharan Africans is certainly due to mixing, but probably not in
recent years (even going back before the Roman conquests).
So, we have light skinned semitic people in the Balkans defining their empire from their central city, trading with people around the Mediterranean
basin and beyond, most likely, possibly controlling the immediate area surrounding their city, including Egypt, potentially. One day, the weather
starts to seem different and within a generation or two, the environment has drastically shifted for them. Next thing you do is move your
Consider for comparison what happens when your cultural environment is drastically altered: When Rome was sacked by the Vandals, Swabs, Visigoths and
so forth, the Roman empire's authority shifted to Constantinople. When Portugal was invaded by Napoleon's armies, the crown of Portugal existed only
in Brazil. You can still maintain your society in a non-original location. Rome was not from the Balkans or Black Sea, but they shifted there. The
Portuguese were not from Brazil, but they temporarily existed only there. In both cases, however, residue of the colonial culture remained in weak
form in the home territory, and in strong form in the new place, each one having its own impact in both locations by mixing or allowing for influence
of the other.
Thus, you have German words in modern Italian and Portuguese with native American influences is the language of Brazil.
In the case of this proto-semitic culture, perhaps the proto-semitic peoples were able to remain at all because of the glaciation, but eventually
mixed with the local cultures of North Africa, darkening their skin and naturally affecting their language and culture to some extent.
Looking at the languages alone (Arabic, Hebrew, Ancient Egyptian and Amharic), we see that Arabic speakers were the lighter skinned peoples on the
Arabian peninsula. Amharic was spoken by those who mixed most with the original African peoples, or perhaps these were the orginal inhabitants who,
for the most part would have taken to that language because of cultural control or mixing based on power. I wouldn't be surprised if the Amharic
peoples and their related groups weren't descendants of the slaves who built the pyramids.
In between the two groups you would find a slight mixing at the bottleneck that is the Nile River valley.
Additionally, the original pyramids, having fallen into disrepair and abandonment, would have been neglected as the weather gradually became more
temperate and people would have slowly trickled back in. But the small plants, insects and birds come first, then the bigger plants, trees, small
animals and eventually bigger animals wander back into the matrix created for them again on the once barren area.
This is backed up by the sky islands in Arizona, where the desert gradually became itself and the remnants of the forested areas were pushed up into
the small spaces on the high peaks, where the weather sustained their existance. Those plants, trees and creatures are not found off their
As the humans eventually moved back, the pyramids would have been overcome with growth. We've seen how this happens in just a few centuries in the
Yucatan. There's also evidence of earlier agricultural periods in southern Africa and the Amazon. Additionally, the people who move back probably
have no link to the orginal culture to know of any significance to that place and even attempt to clear them, assuming they even had the wherewithal
to do so.
as 12,000 years pass since the last ice age, trees die and rot, animals die and rot, plants grow on top of them and subsequently die and rot, and
eventually you witness the building up of topsoil. The locals now are so far removed and existing in a different time than the original culture, that
one would not even expect the same societal outcome even with a different group of people inhabiting the same area. There is no link at all and as
such no one hence bothered to question the ligitimacy of the hills.
The early Indo-Europeans finally moved in from Asia, displacing or absorbing any previous dwellers (as we can clearly tell from the total language
transformation in Europe that only managed to leave the Basques to their own devices). The Turks and Mongols tried to take over the area and failed,
only leaving some traces of their language and culture. In the end, the area is so different and people who knew it for what it was are long gone,
that no one can really claim to know the true story beyond observable evidence.
Pop Quiz: Think back to your grandparents' grandparents. How many of them can you name and how much biographical information can you give me about
them? How much has been passed down orally to you by your parents and grandparents? How many written documents and photographs, or heirlooms do you
have from them
Now, while you think of exactly how much you can remember, is it enough to really know them? I'm sure there are a few reading this who do have a good
knowledge of certain family members, but not all. Do you really know what they did throughout their lives, where they lived and so forth? Now, can you
go back a few thousand years? Do you think a distant cousin of yours has the same information, or even knows who you are? How would that work if you
had a cousin living today, related through a mutual ancestor who lived 1000 years ago? How much would either of you know about your mutual ancester?
Would you ever find out you were related?
That is of course, unless you are a royal family member or the member of some House or ruling clan.
You see my point, right? It's an answer to those of you who think the information is hidden. I say it is possibe its hidden for the above possible
scenario about the pyramids and the question I pose to you about your family.