Archeological Finds: Ancient Civilizations / Artifacts / Discoveries: recent, random, new and update

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by SavedOne

 

As far as building material goes, our ancestors seemed to have been a little more intelligent based on the material availoable. Choosing a material that does not break down all that quickly is what is allowing us to find these older cities. 20 years later and Chernobyl is degrading, while we have structure made of stone lastine 10k years...

The main reason ancient structures will outlast anything we make today is because of the material used. For example the steel used in sky scrappers will rust away, concrete will begin cracking and break away from the main structure causing collapse. The Pyramids and most other ancient structures around the world have one thing in common, no mortar.

Great thread! I love Archeology and ancient history! I hadn't read a few of those discoveries yet so thank you for posting! I have always thought there was more to our ancient past then people thought. Some recent discoveries are supporting that thinking. There is so much more to learn about our planet and history. I can hardly wait for the next great discovery!

Originally posted by Hanslune

If a group of humans had the luck to have an Einstein, Edison or other genius or leader who drove the civilization up and they created a village then city and were wiped out by barbarians, disease, nature or religion, would we find it? Maybe but not yet!

How can you say "not yet"? Have you not seen the various unexplainable evidence uncovered at various sites around the world? Some of the findings clearly the work of geniuses.

How about Tiahuanacu? Estimated to be some 17,000 years old with stone work done so precisely, many of today's top stone workers admit fully that it would be difficult for them to do using even the most technological advanced techniques.

Or even the Pyramids at Giza, the mathematics alone required to build these objects as precise as they are boggle the mind.

For you to say that no such civilization existed is asinine(no offense).

Originally posted by Yfactor1980

Originally posted by Hanslune

If a group of humans had the luck to have an Einstein, Edison or other genius or leader who drove the civilization up and they created a village then city and were wiped out by barbarians, disease, nature or religion, would we find it? Maybe but not yet!

How can you say "not yet"? Have you not seen the various unexplainable evidence uncovered at various sites around the world? Some of the findings clearly the work of geniuses.

How about Tiahuanacu? Estimated to be some 17,000 years old with stone work done so precisely, many of today's top stone workers admit fully that it would be difficult for them to do using even the most technological advanced techniques.

Or even the Pyramids at Giza, the mathematics alone required to build these objects as precise as they are boggle the mind.

For you to say that no such civilization existed is asinine(no offense).

Not yet; to discover an unknown civilization as of today, we've always known about the AE, they were never lost although for a long time their brilliance was lost but then rediscovered starting in the 19th century. You will find that the 17k estimate is way, way off, the guy who made it was guessing, and he has been proven wrong since then. The mathematics in the pyramid are equal to what the AE knew and they demonstrated it around a hundred times.

Far more difficult were the qanats, aquaducts and later the cathedrals

I really have to give an applaus to the archeologists who put their lives in danger and sleep in tents that the snakes move into at night. I watched the National Geographic special on the archeologists and their perils.

Originally posted by SavedOne

Hey Dude,

Thanks for the reply, Ill explain a bit more about what I meant and as your in construction you can tell me if its valid

The ancients were advanced in techniques, but very primitive in material development. And if our civilization were to vanish right now, in 150 years our buildings would indeed still stand proud. There would be some broken glass and other damage as a result of neglect, but the structures would be quite intact. I wouldn't be surprised if they were still identifiable as built structures in tens of thousands of years in fact. Most people have no idea how resistant to seismic and storm activity modern construction is. Even if all the countries of the world started nuking each other into oblivion there would still be plenty of evidence left behind that any future society would know full well a very advanced culture had preceded them.

True, seismic activity and weather would do very little to our structures. But what about plant life?
Have you seen pictures of buildings that have been left abandoned within the area around chernobyl? after that relatively short time nature has already come out to dominate and within another 100 years to see anything man made you will need to dig it out from underneath a ton of plantlife. Look at what puny grass can do to sidewalk pavement within 2 years

I'm in the construction industry, and every time I hear someone on ATS say this it makes me wonder where they get their information. First of all, you're talking about "concrete", not "cement". Cement is the powdery ingredient that is mixed with water and aggregate to make concrete. Second, the Romans did not use reinforcing in their concrete which renders it very weak in tensile strength. There is absolutely no comparison to modern reinforced concrete, modern concrete is far stronger and more durable than that which the Romans placed. They did great things with concrete to be sure, and it's especially impressive considering their lack of technology. But again, it can't compare to modern concrete. If some of their unreinforced construction has lasted this long one can only imagine how long ours would last.

You work in the industry so you probably know better but I had heard that due to the fact the romans concrete/cement had such a low water content it was superior in durability to our own. Im not saying we couldnt produce or dont produce something better just that we choose not to for whatever reason (economics I assume).
The concrete on reinforced structures would not last that long if plant life invaded and was able to break it up (which as we know happens quite easily) and once its protective cover is gone the reinforcing would last even less time.

Once again Im an armchair expert and am merely regurgitating things I have heard or seen

Originally posted by frugal
I really have to give an applaus to the archeologists who put their lives in danger and sleep in tents that the snakes move into at night. I watched the National Geographic special on the archeologists and their perils.

Completely agree with this... Part of me would like to see an international fund established in order to research our history in a more sustained manner. Understanding where we came from could go a long way in helping us understand where we are headed. Plus, in my opinion, it would serve as a reminder that every single person on this planet shares a common history, and that we are more alike than what we think.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Thank you for such an interesting and thoughtful thread. I was particularly interested in the Himalayan discoveries, I always get the impression that the Chinese have more than a passing/territorial interest in Tibet and Himalayan history.

Much enjoyed.

Excellent thread and posts, there is a wealth of knowledge to tickle the fancy of people who cherish this kind of knowledge! That being said, we may have to change timelines a bit soon because as it turns out, carbon dating is possibly wholly unreliable all of a sudden.

Does carbon dating even work? - CLICK ME

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Hey dude,

Cool, so your an actual Archeaologist!!!!
What are your personal beliefs on human history? do you think our history started 5000BC or do you think its much older?

Speaking as an anthropologist who has done some archaeology (and a bit of paleontology), we believe that human culture and human history is MUCH older than the average person thinks. For instance, Australopithecus had "factories" where they made and shaped stone tools -- 3.4 MILLION years ago. (quick link to source)

Depending on their resources and the number of people in the area, we see cultural and trading and settlement links up to 35,000 years ago (the invention of pottery is a good example. (overview of paleohistory) (the link is "okay" but a bit dated on some of the material.)

If there was a global catastrophe and we were put back into the stone age and it took 1000's of years to get back to somewhere like where we are today there would be bugger all left, just a few tantalising teasers that hinted at our level of advancement.

Noooo... don't think so.

You see, people didn't just fall out of the trees one day and say "hey, I'm tired of this tree thing. I'm going to make a luxury yacht and invent foam mattresses and they'll be done by tomorrow!" In order to build complex things you have to learn to build simpler things... our computer chips today required us first learning how to make pottery and then ceramics and metal and superconductors. That required mining and factories and transport (all of which leaves a lot of waste) and schools (organized knowledge) which requires towns and cities and farms to feed the people... and all of those were built on simpler smaller villages with farming technology (learning how to work iron means first learning to work metals such as copper and bronze... and before you do that, you need a furnace that's hot enough to melt metal... and all of THAT leaves waste and metal and big pits where you dug up resources and so forth.

Blueprints and so forth mean learning to read. Communicating by showing someone how to do something or telling them doesn't work if the teacher dies. And if you're constantly losing your skilled technicians, your civilization can't advance.

Seriously... play the Civilization game for awhile. It's a simulation, but based on some good knowledge -- your villages can't grow until you develop storage technology and that means either pit digging, basket weaving, or other permanent technology. You'll pretty quickly see what I mean when I say "you don't just fall out of the trees and invent an X-wing fighter the next day."

All that long haul up to an "advanced civilization" (whatever you mean by that) leaves a LOT of traces.

Originally posted by Helious
That being said, we may have to change timelines a bit soon because as it turns out, carbon dating is possibly wholly unreliable all of a sudden.

Does carbon dating even work? - CLICK ME

The article's a bit misleading -- the actual effects are VERY small and cyclical, as you can see in the original paper (shown here).

reply to post by Byrd


I love the Civ games!!!!

My GF wont let me get Civ 5 coz I played the sh!t out of Civ 4 and she says I practically ignored her for a month or so.
I also notice you like Robert Asprin, read his Myth Adventures books they were awesome.

and all of THAT leaves waste and metal and big pits where you dug up resources and so forth.

Im sure with science and digging around alot more would make sense but what about the average dude walking around doing his own thing. If New York was abandoned today how long do you think it would be before looking at it from the surface you couldnt tell there was once a thriving city there?

reply to post by Byrd


Wow, that paper was a good read if not slightly above my head a little, thanks for the link! I swear, I think that one subject has peeked my interest the most out of anything in the last ten years. The idea something as timeless and powerful as the Sun still has secrets to discover is amazing.

if I remember correctly in Zacharia Sitchin's 12th Planet book, the tablet the guy is holding (8th picture down from top) is at the back of his book. I always thought with great intrigue about that tablet. Zachari states that it was the way of Enlil from the outer solar system to earth. Now I am not sure about the planet x being in earth's orbit. But that tablet is very mysterious to me. And has been since I spotted it on the back of that book.

I understand there is great debate about Zacharia Sitchen, but I have to wonder if he really was on to something really important especially with that images that is posted here in this thread.

Originally posted by thetiler


I understand there is great debate about Zacharia Sitchen, but I have to wonder if he really was on to something really important especially with that images that is posted here in this thread.

edit on 12-5-2011 by thetiler because: (no reason given)

We seem to be disregarding the wisdom of Sherlock Holmes -

"If you eliminate the impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable must be the truth"

As I said before, mankind is suffering from amnesia..

Ive always found it intresting that we can trace animals back hundreds of millions to a few billion years old. We can see how they evolved from then up until their extinction or current form. We are always searching for the missing link for humans....

I wonder if humans are, in fact, the missing link.

or better yet, maybe we are a living out of place artifact...... Everything we seem to study fits into the puzzle that is this world, except for us.

There's also a theory that civilization isn't easy, it isn't a natural progression, nor is it inevitable. In fact, in all of history it's only happened once, maybe twice.

Civilization began along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and through contact with other peoples, spread to the Indus River Valley, to the Nile and a short time later, to the Yellow River Valley. Mesoamerican civilization is thought to have independently developed, but I have this niggling little thought about the progression of pyramid building and new theories about early trans-oceanic travel.

Of course we're defining Civilization in a particular way, with writing and so on. But certain things had to happen in order to set events in motion, and these things all had a rhyme and reason, which could preclude other unknown Civilizations arising. Things like climate, the advantages of latitude over longitude, the need to go down to the river, the innovations necessary to deal with the river, particular a river with violent flood cycles - and so on and so on.

Neolithic villages appear to have arisen away from the rivers at first but as reliable water was needed as we shifted to agriculture and away from hunting gathering and a nomadic existence. It took a while to figure out irrigation and how to deal with the river floods.

The Indus, Chinese and south east asian cultures may have arose by themselves. As for a 'pyramid' linked theory don't forget to look at the different dates of their construction and also at the structures put up by the earlier Peruvian cultures.

I believe Cormac Mac Art, an infrequent poster here has a comprehensive list of early settlement

reply to post by Xcathdra




I was looking for something for a friend today and came upon these. I recently saw a very interesting Discovery Channel program saying all the caves have not been found and there might be unheard of treasures.
I guess 2 caves have produced incredibly valuable finds.

reply to post by newcovenant


Nice find and thanks for posting...

It gives me something to watch later on tonight. I would say as days go by we are slowly realizing that our history is not as accurate as science likes to think.

Originally posted by Hanslune
A few quick comments:

Most of these new discoveries were found by archaeologists and other 'mainstream'.

The city in Cambay turned out to be a false report

The Japanese underwater ridge line isn't a city

The info on the new civilization in Cuba was badly written and has a number of flaws in it. The story was written by a journalist with little archaeological knowledge

But other than that a nice coverage of a few of the last decades new discoveries and additions to our view of the world by professional scientists. Probably the most important changes in the history of mankind in the last decade have been the finding of the Hobbit and Denisova plus genetic information of our having taken in Neanderthal genes.IMHO

You forgot to say that "Mu" is a name for a lost continent that was coined by LePlongeon in the 19th Century and thus there actually is no "fable of Mu" in any legitimate Pacific mythology.

In fact, it was originally envisioned by LePlongeon to be in the Atlantic.

Mu is the name of a hypothetical continent that allegedly existed in one of Earth's oceans, but disappeared at the dawn of human history.

The concept and the name were proposed by 19th century traveler and writer Augustus Le Plongeon, who claimed that several ancient civilizations, such as those of Egypt and Mesoamerica, were created by refugees from Mu—which he located in the Atlantic Ocean.[1] This concept was popularized and expanded by James Churchward, who asserted that Mu was once located in the Pacific.

source

Harte