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.

 

When do you think an advanced ancient civilization existed and why?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by whatwasthat
 


I agree. This level of advancement is not hard to achieve.
In the 800.000 years of hominoid life, it is not a far cry, that it has happened.
After all, even the greek invented the steam engine, but took us another 2000 years or so o invent it.


Building blocks: you need a host of developments to make the next step. The Greeks learned how to boil water in a closed container and developed the aeolipile, but they lacked the a need for heavy industry or the ability to develop a pressurized metal container and within their culture they had sufficient 'horsepower' in man and beasts, there was no need or requirement for a steam engine at that time, The Romans found water power was sufficient along with slaves and animals.




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Your point?
Thats exactly what i said in a previous post.
I said we have no idea how an advanced cilization would use its knowledge.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Parta
reply to post by Hanslune
 


thank you hans.

to be more specific i should have said that noone ever looked under the loess plain [pannonian] between budapest and golubac where the flood occured ~10kbc





can you tell me more about this, possibly providing links?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 

but there is sign that crops were grown in greenland before the little ia.
in fact the return of the ice age is what killed the viking colonies.
so going back further in time, it is highly likely and I believe there is also scientific evidence that greenland was indeed green.
shame its under ice.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 

typical fallacy of thinking.
no one knows how they would have used their advancement.
in fact it is rather ridiculous to suggest they would build skyscrapers and such, when life was abundant and the population nay 50 million or so.
i do not know how they would be advanced, thats why I want to find it.
it is similar to a quest for troy.

and i don't think atlantis is what i am looking for.
i have no doubts it existed, but it was a city, just slightly more developed then the rest of the area.
has anyone examined the possibility of atlantis being the minoan culture?
they do like puzzles, and circles, and such.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


But we know from the sagas roughly when Greenland was settled - that indicates no presence there before the settlers arrived.

The return of the glaciers killed off the Viking settlement on Greenland. Iceland was effectively finished as a colony by the taxes imposed by the Church after the conversion to Christianity of the Viking rulers back in Scandinavia.

What we also have evidence for is that one the main characters at the L'Anse Aux Meadowes is the daughter of Leif Erikson and was fairly complicit in the ill blood between the Greenland and Icelandic settlers.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


exactly.
so this proves that the poles did have weather anomalies in the past.
As said i speculate upon an advanced civilization existing 10.000 and 200.000 years ago.
Dont necessarily think technology, think cities, structure and organization.
I also speculate that we have know fire for a lot longer then is now believed, hence our digestive system.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


But it does get more complicated!


For example, recent scientific discoveries suggest that humans only gained the necessary enzymes in our stomachs for processing dairy milk around 7'000 years ago. This indicates that before this time we definitely were not farming cattle, whatever else we may have been doing with them. So the rise of agriculture does seem to be linked (barring future discoveries) to the North Anatolia Plains region.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


you don't get it do you?
shall i explain my point?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


Possibly you may have to!



I totally understand what you are implying and there may even be some merit in it. If Greenland had a period recently (geologically speaking) when it there was fairly ice free, then why not also in the past?

However, archeologically speaking, as i have said previously, there would be little to no evidence left for us to discover next time the ice retreats so barring a time machine i fear we will never know for sure.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 

I was referring to milk enzymes and fire.
The milk enzymes only tell us we have been drinking milk since about then.
However, the way or digestive system works, hints to the fact that we have been using fire for well over the time now accepted.
You see we eat vegatles and meat.
Now animals, which we are also, have a stomach, or something in their stomach to break up the stuff (I forget the name, but can look it up). We humans are only limitedly capable of doing so.
The only way we can process these foods in the grand scheme of things, is to be able to cook them.
Now are digestive systems are pretty much the same for all humanoids, they haven't really changed that much. We didn't have an extra stomach or such.
Begs the question, if we had been eating this stuff, just raw for 200.000 or even 800.000 years, should not we also have developed another way of processing?
Or if we developed from monkeys, the oldest humanoids, should have a different build in there interior organs (they do not).
off course if we were in control of fire and "cooking" from pretty much the beginning, this needs not develop.
Now thats an anomaly for you.
Its not a major point, but it does ever so slightly alter history and give creedence to undiscovered advanced civilizations existing yet undiscovered.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


I see your thinking there and it does open up possibilities. I actually think the more we understand our own biology, the more we will understand our origins.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 

for the record, I care not for this mumbo jumbo pseudo science about the lost golden age and as such.
but since it is my understating, interpretation based on scientific evidence that we have had a lot more time to develop then is currently accepted, I postulate that there is more then a feasible possibility of a yet undiscovered (advanced) civilization.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

People have been looking for something that could have destroyed 'Atlantis' for a long time, the Mid-Atlantic would fit Platos story best but the lack of destructive evidence has seen 'Atlantis' moving around a bit



noone considered a very low angle impact into a shallow sea though and certainly noone looked in europe.

see them?


googlemap



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Parta
reply to post by Hanslune
 


thank you hans.

to be more specific i should have said that noone ever looked under the loess plain [pannonian] between budapest and golubac where the flood occured ~10kbc





can you tell me more about this, possibly providing links?


sure

in the 6th minute of this
history channel video is the info from the hungarian geological institute

the map


russian


royal society of geographers


national geological institute
of romania

folks




note some interesting features in this map made from date from

here



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Parta
 

thanks!
Will check them out.
so if I am correct the assumption is an astroid impact created the pannonia basin?
any time line on that....?
i would assume that not much remained of any civilization after such an impact...:-/



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
they were stone age people -- no indication that they were smelting iron. The burial of the old woman is interesting, too -- although I think they're a tad hasty in assigning the word, "shaman" here.


they were definitely mining a variety of rocks & minerals including ochre. buring coal is very very hot. it melts almost anything.

the burial shows social support don't you think? she was very handicapped. the males appear to be guardians for the underworld? the sunghir burials show thousands and thousands of hours spent making crafts. hardly a hard life.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by Parta
 

thanks!
Will check them out.
so if I am correct the assumption is an astroid impact created the pannonia basin?
any time line on that....?
i would assume that not much remained of any civilization after such an impact...:-/


no an impact didn't create the basin. there appears to be an impact in the basin.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Comments:

It would appear that at some point in our history a mutation that allowed us to consume milk after the point we are weaned became part of our structure. This departure allowed them to consume the milk of other mammals. Many other human cannot do so - note the lack of cheese or other dairy products in the cuisine of Japan, China and south west asia


Most mammals normally become lactose intolerant after weaning, but some human populations have developed lactase persistence, in which lactase production continues into adulthood. It is estimated that 75% of adults worldwide show some decrease in lactase activity during adulthood. The frequency of decreased lactase activity ranges from 5% in northern Europe through 71% for Sicily to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries.


The name Greenland is attributed to Erik the Red. There are two written sources on the origin of the name,


in The Book of Icelanders (Íslendingabók), a historical work dealing with early Icelandic history from the 12th century, and in the medieval Icelandic saga, The Saga of Eric the Red, which is about the Norse settlement in Greenland and the story of Erik the Red in particular. Both sources write: "He named the land Greenland, saying that people would be eager to go there if it had a good name."


It wasn't particularly green except in summer and within the fjords of the south east and west coasts.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join