common ancestry, graham hancock theory

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Sep, 23 2004 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I searched for a thread on this, and was surprised to find very little. Maybe I'm not searching correctly

anyway

The dating of Tiahuanaco is debatable, but the central theme of about 10,500 years ago there was a huge flood, perhaps related to melting of polar ice, and a central ancient advanced civilization was all but wiped out, but before they all died out, a few ancient mariners managed to sail the earth and influenced egypt, mayan and other cultures. This is pretty fascinating to me.

www.grahamhancock.com...

it may answer the question of why so many cultures use pyramids as a symbol and have similarities.

thoughts ?




posted on Sep, 23 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by radagast
it may answer the question of why so many cultures use pyramids as a symbol and have similarities.

Since there aren't any 10500 year old pyramids from that region, I'm going to say that it doesn't answer that question at all. And why would people sail from central america to africa just because of flooding? The entire landmass didn't get covered, they'd've just moved further inland.



posted on Sep, 23 2004 @ 02:37 PM
link   
my apoligies for a poor explanation, I believe the 10,500 year date refers to how the stars were aligned at that time, I believe his theory is based on the pyramids in various locations being aligned to the same sky at the same time ....anyway, his theory, not mine.....

I wish I could explain it better, I saw a documentary on his idea, and it blew me away....



posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 01:39 AM
link   
If you would like to find more information on the ideas and theories of Graham Hancock that you are discussing, the books Fingerprints of the Gods and Underworld deal with those exact topics to which you referred, especially Fingerprints of the Gods. I am currently reading Underworld, a book in which Hancock deals with the ice sheet induced flooding; this is an fascinating idea which I could discuss in further detail if requested.



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 12:38 PM
link   
10,500 years ago?Nah that seems a little to far back to belive anyone could be that advanced in sailing and architecture.



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 03:29 PM
link   
The Sicilian Bull should be denied...isn't that the motto...deny ignorance.

What, besides ignorance, do you have to argue your position? This is a thread attempting to come to conclusions through evidence. Do a little research, form an opinion based on that research and then come back to the thread and post something intelligent. I'm not a moderator and I don't like acting like one, but junk posts annoy me.



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 04:05 PM
link   
A more logical reason of people building pyramids was just that without modern building techniques it was the only way to build a stable large building.



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by radagast
The dating of Tiahuanaco is debatable, but the central theme of about 10,500 years ago there was a huge flood, perhaps related to melting of polar ice, and a central ancient advanced civilization was all but wiped out, but before they all died out, a few ancient mariners managed to sail the earth and influenced egypt, mayan and other cultures. This is pretty fascinating to me.

www.grahamhancock.com...

I happen to be taking Texas Archaeology at my university this semester and the truth is, Hancock's stuff is pretty bogus.

11,000 years ago marked the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age, which began nearly 1.8 million years before that www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

And this was the time that the First Nations came into the Western Hemisphere and began spreading. Shortly after the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age, the climate changes caused weather pattern shifts as the sea level rose. It rose slowly, less than a foot per year. This did not swamp or "flood" things out, though it did submerge some ancient settlements. The people didn't stay there for hundreds of years until they all drowned; they abandoned their towns and moved inland.

The world in general became a little dryer, and in places like the Great Plains of America, lakes were deposited by melting glaciers. These weren't permanent fixtures, but gradually dried up over thousands of years. The drying climate forced people to move into river valleys where there was good access to water (and this is the characteristic of the site we're studying this smester) and cultural change occurred.

The above information is consistant with patterns of cultural artifacts (spear points, stone tools, ceramics, carvings, etc, etc.) Hancock's "explaination" is inconsistant with all the cultural artifacts and with the linguistic evidence.


it may answer the question of why so many cultures use pyramids as a symbol and have similarities.


No, because that would imply that humans are stupid and incapable of reproducing things from nature. Pyramids are symbolic mountains/hills, and we see pyramids throughout the world. Here in the Western Hemisphere (and elsewhere), chiefs and kings lived on top of pyramid structures, allowing them to look down on/look over the people they ruled. It was a mark of their elevated status.

And as for the shape, there really aren't that many stable shapes that you can use in making buildings. Building shape is also materials dependant.



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Byrd, please note that although the last ice age was ending 11,000 years ago, don't forget that it wasn't global. For example, the ice sheets covered only about half of North America. There was lots of planet Earth left for human activities. Also, the melting ice made for a number of catastrophic floods that would have washed away a lot of evidence of earlier civilizations. Also, some caution about repeating what you are learning at university... they tend to teach orthodoxy... I'm keeping an open mind... although in doing so I acknowledge that we have to tread carefully so as not to leave openings for the cultists, Atlanticists, New Agers and others to promote their various "theories" over what genuinely makes sense in light of whatever evidence pops up.



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlexofSkye
Byrd, please note that although the last ice age was ending 11,000 years ago, don't forget that it wasn't global.


The term, "ice age" doesn't mean "one place that got covered by glaciers." It means, instead, a period (sometimes lasting millions of years) of cooler temperatures, characterized by cooler summers and the advance of glaciers. Yes, this really WAS global.

Were there warm areas? Of course! In fact, there were even hot deserts and tropical climates. But the average temperature during those periods was 7 degrees cooler than during the Hypsithermal periods (a fancy archaeological and geological term meaning "the warm period between ice ages")

But no, "ice age" doesn't mean the whole planet was covered over by ice.



For example, the ice sheets covered only about half of North America. There was lots of planet Earth left for human activities.


And, in fact, we find plenty of this evidence at places such as Monte Verde and other pre-Clovis sites in the new world and many many sites in the old world.


Also, the melting ice made for a number of catastrophic floods that would have washed away a lot of evidence of earlier civilizations.


Okay, let's look at modern-day deglaciation: Glaciers have retreated significantly in the past 100 years. How many of our coastal cities have drowned? How many floods have you seen caused by the deglaciation?

We know, in fat, that the sea level has risen an average of about an inch per year as the glaciers rapidly retreated for the past 20,000 years. Within your grandparents' lifetime, the ocean levels rose about 90 inches (nearly 7 feet.)

How many great floods have you observed?

www.all-science-fair-projects.com...

Now -- there WERE some localized Great Floods on the continents as ice plugs on large lakes in the mountains melted (this is how Lake Tahoe was formed and accounts for the topology and sedimentation of Eastern Washington state.
www.whitman.edu...



Also, some caution about repeating what you are learning at university... they tend to teach orthodoxy...


Is there something wrong with teaching material based on good evidence?

Is there something wrong with teaching theories based on evidence that's repeatable or testable?

Is there something wrong with refusing to teach material that's based on someone's dreams -- dreams that have been disproved by research?

Do you think that my prof should be teaching me material based on someone's "teachings from an angel of the Akashic Records" rather than from the fieldwork that he and thousands of other geologists, climatologists, paleobotonists, anthropologists, and archaeologists have discovered?

You might enjoy reading up on glaciation and geology during the period that you're interested in (and learn how to distinguish one kind of stone from another and one kind of sediment from another)? Looking at the earth in light of the things you learn while reading up on geology really gives you a different picture of things.

And taking geology "road trips" to places to look at what the land is actually saying is pretty neat, too.

[edit on 3-10-2004 by Byrd]





top topics
 
0

log in

join