Twin Ancient Cultures On Opposite Sides Of The Pacific

page: 13
87
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by AGWskeptic
 


read the paper ,
The dating is by several methods and stratigraphy is a big part of the dating.
Again read the paper.




posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by AGWskeptic
 


I forget the exact range, but it's accurate for a few thousands of years. Past that you have to start using other elements like phosphorous, etc etc.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks10
 


From that link alone, only the most-certain human biomass were found to be within the 12,000 year range of human activities most sites globally conform to.

It's only the non-biological things that go back 50,000 years ago.

Sorry, but that's suspicion enough that the entire site is only a few thousand years old, and that those artifacts were transferred somehow to older looking regions.


When looking at a combination of human biomass and artifacts, go with the biomass for dating.
edit on 16-8-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


About dating,

The 2004 version of the calibration curve extends back quite accurately to 26,000 years BP. Any errors in the calibration curve do not contribute more than ±16yearstothe measurementerror during the historic and late prehistoric periods (0–6,000yrs BP) andnomore than ±163yearsover the entire 26,000 years of the curve, although its shape can reduce the accuracy as mentioned

above. [22]

In late 2009, the journal Radiocarbon announcedagreementonthe INTCAL09standard,which

extends a more accurate calibration curve to 50,000 years. [23][24]


en.m.wikipedia.org...
The source



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks10
 


Read the reply right above yours.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Adding this from the UC Rivervine link I posted earlier.




It is believed that the Fuente Magna was probably crafted by Sumerian people who settled in Bolivia sometime after 2500 BC. The Sumerians used seaworthy ships that were known to sail to the distant Indian Subcontinent. Some Sumerian ships most likely made their way around South Africa and entered one of the currents in the area that lead from Africa across the Atlantic to South America and thence to the Pacific Ocean. They would have then searched for areas on the high plateau of Bolivia where food was being produced by the local inhabitants. They held the bowl in high esteem and were fastidious about its transport around the area (see Transportaciόn)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
Adding this from the UC Rivervine link I posted earlier.




It is believed that the Fuente Magna was probably crafted by Sumerian people who settled in Bolivia sometime after 2500 BC. The Sumerians used seaworthy ships that were known to sail to the distant Indian Subcontinent. Some Sumerian ships most likely made their way around South Africa and entered one of the currents in the area that lead from Africa across the Atlantic to South America and thence to the Pacific Ocean. They would have then searched for areas on the high plateau of Bolivia where food was being produced by the local inhabitants. They held the bowl in high esteem and were fastidious about its transport around the area (see Transportaciόn)




It does matter what direction you are going when rounding the tip of Africa. Sailors would have found the currents pushing one way colliding with another set. They should have made their boats very seaworthy. It takes several months to cross the Pacific, even with wind-powered ships.

Here is Heroditus and Navigation, He says how the Phoenicians traveled around Africa and it took three years because they were planting wheat.

The Phoenicians sailed from the Arabian gulf into the southern ocean, and every autumn put in at some convenient spot on the Libyan coast, sowed a patch of ground, and waited for next year's harvest. Then, having got in their grain, they put to sea again, and after two full years rounded the Pillars of Heracles in the course of the third, and returned to Egypt. These men made a statement which I do not myself believe, though others may, to the effect that as they sailed on a westerly course round the southern end of Libya, they had the sun on their right - to northward of them. This is how Libya was first discovered by sea.


I think they sailed easterly to India, then Indonesia and then the Polynesian Islands, eventually reaching the west of South America then moving inland to Bolivia.Everything balanced on exotic trade goods, so the more exotic, the more expensive. What would be more expensive than bringing maize from South America?



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by Gorman91
They organize hunts for common need. They don't have the mental capacity to organize.


I'm just wondering how you can reconcile these neighbouring sentences?


You're not alone in trying to comprehend such an unbelievable historically ignorant statement such as what he just said.


Apparently, all early ancient cultures were mindless animals to certain warped, know it all, condescending minds. It's a wonder how Human beings even managed to evolve whatsoever isn't it?

They organize, "hunts for the common need" yet without the mental capacity to organize?

Ummmm, Ok. LMAO!!! ~$heopleNation



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by SheopleNation

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by Gorman91
They organize hunts for common need. They don't have the mental capacity to organize.


I'm just wondering how you can reconcile these neighbouring sentences?


You're not alone in trying to comprehend such an unbelievable historically ignorant statement such as what he just said.


Apparently, all early ancient cultures were mindless animals to certain warped, know it all, condescending minds. It's a wonder how Human beings even managed to evolve whatsoever isn't it?

They organize, "hunts for the common need" yet without the mental capacity to organize?

Ummmm, Ok. LMAO!!! ~$heopleNation



@ Sheople, Now that made me laugh.
We know ancient man had to find many methods to hunt to survive, otherwise we would not be here.

OK, here is the basic supposition from that poster "They had to organize for the common good", We have no evidence of "common good"...but we know they lived in communities, but no evidence of organization for "common good", there simply is no proof. We like to think they did, but who knows if there was not some great competitions between neighboring communities and the community that did better got the meat. We don't know, we have to assume.

The second assumption is that they didn't have the mental ability to organize. Well, if you see that you are in competition (just a supposition) then you would have to organize in some manner to beat out the other side. That is like saying "The New England Patriots organized to play football, but didn't have the mental capacity to organize to even play football".

Sheople, you and I are on the same side of the fence on this one...LOL, Organized without the mental capacity to organize. What a silly thing for someone to say.
edit on 8/17/2012 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

There is Sumerian writing on a canal in Central Peru also.


I don't think so.

And definitely not, if based on nothing but a post at an internet forum.

Harte


www.faculty.ucr.edu...

Not the canal, still looking for that link.

www.atlantisbolivia.org...

More links.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

I believe this the canal the writing was found on, still looking for the exact quote.

Interesting how they compare them to Sumerian canals in construction style and function, before the writing was brought to light.

I'm fully aware of the "Fuente Magna " bowl and it's complete absence of provenance. IMO (and in the opinions of others), it's not even cuneiform.

Regarding the canal, the NatGeo article doesn't compare them to Sumerian canals, they compare the dates to the earliest canals we've ever found, which happened to be in Sumer.


Originally posted by AGWskeptic
Of course it's possible it's another shiester making wild claims, but I remember it being a source I trusted.


To put it in your terms, I believe your source would be as reliable as James Hansen! LOL


Harte



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by punkinworks10
 


But you see a distinction in those example.

No art...

While the chances of a neanderthal or some early hominid making there exist, the chances of an actual culture, much a species of man, is not.

Bare in mind that when you get wild ranges like 16,000-50,000 for Carbon dating that it's somewhat difficult to call that reliable. Carbon dating is pretty accurate in those ranges and if the rang is so great, it's probably been contaminated.


Since when is carbon dating accurate past 10k?

My prof said it was iffy after a thousand years.


What was he, an English Prof?

C14 dating is used for ages up to between 50,000 and 60,000 ybp.

It's always "iffy," which is why a range of dates is always given with the results.

And yes, a range as large as the one mentioned should indicated contamination, which is often the case with caves. Most caves are made of limestone which is Calcium Carbonate. The Calcium Carbonate comes from tiny creatures that lived in the ocean when the limestone was formed from silt at the ocean floor.

As you might imagine, the carbon in limestone is quite a bit older than the carbon in a person sitting in the cave.

If an object was subjected to water from the cave for an extended period, or an animal made a habit out of drinking water from a cave, the C14 count in that object or animal would be much, much lower than it should be, owing to the consumption of very old carbon. That would cause any C14 dating of that object or animal to return results showing it to be MUCH older than it actually is.

Harte



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


So you are actually saying that if conditions exist carbon dating can be way off. Especially if water is drank from spring water which originates many times from water flowing over limestone layers of the earth. Seems to me that water is the best tasting water, many communities were built around springs throughout history.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Harte
 


So you are actually saying that if conditions exist carbon dating can be way off. Especially if water is drank from spring water which originates many times from water flowing over limestone layers of the earth. Seems to me that water is the best tasting water, many communities were built around springs throughout history.

It is the best, isn't it.

Spring water usually isn't full of calcium carbonate, but sometimes it is.

Most of the time, spring water is fresh water that has soaked into the ground only a few days earlier. But, like I said, sometimes not.

In a case where organic matter has been "contaminated" with old carbon, the C14 date for a sample of that organic matter will return a date that is far too old.

A person/animal would have to drink such water for extended periods for such contamination to occur. But if an artifact, say a wooden spear, were to lie in cave water (water that stays in the cave) for, say, 10,000 years, then the C14 date for such an artifact would absolutely be unreliable, yes.

Similarly, animals that make their shells from calcium and carbon - like snails - that live in such water can't be dated that way either, not their bodies or their shells.

This (among other reasons) is why literally no artifact is ever dated by C14 alone.

Harte



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
This (among other reasons) is why literally no artifact is ever dated by C14 alone. Harte
I think it's easiest explained with the old maxim :"One date is no date."



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Up here, sometimes springs come out of the tops of the hills. That's water from either permafrost melting or aquifers that have pressure on them from the land sinking. The ancient people built communities around these. Now these areas are close to the local towns. Some springs here are from the rains, others are from underground ancient trapped water..



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


because there is nothing special about it. It is aesthetic architecture. It would be very easy to different cultures to come up with the same style in architecture. Is it really that hard for 2 cultures to come up with the idea of 3, or using tryptichs?

Also, Ive never heard the term triptych being used to describe stone architecture, but rather as a form of art that is broken into 3 panels.

such as this
obrechtmass.com...
uploads5.wikipaintings.org...
edit on 8/17/2012 by VonDoomen because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


You didn't reply to the link from UCR claiming Sumerians settled in Bolivia ~2700 BC.

I don't think it's coincidence that technologies seemed to evolve independently around the globe, at roughly the same time.

Ancient civilizations had to be more mobile than they are given credit for.
edit on 17-8-2012 by AGWskeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by Harte
 


You didn't reply to the link from UCR claiming Sumerians settled in Bolivia ~2700 BC.

Primarily because that's a load of crap.

On the other hand, I did say:


I'm fully aware of the "Fuente Magna " bowl and it's complete absence of provenance. IMO (and in the opinions of others), it's not even cuneiform.


That's all the reply the idea deserves.


Originally posted by AGWskepticI don't think it's coincidence that technologies seemed to evolve independently around the globe, at roughly the same time.

Examples?


Originally posted by AGWskepticAncient civilizations had to be more mobile than they are given credit for.


I've not seen anyone not giving them this credit.

We only know about what we find. So far, we haven't found any evidence of Mesopotamians moving to South America. The idea is ridiculous on the face of it, though. After all, why South America? I mean, you realize that Africa's in the way, right?

Why not simply move to Africa?

Besides, these must've been some damn celibate Sumerians, and that certainly doesn't match the way they described themselves, buncha randy bastids.

Harte



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Well, here's something for you to think about Harte. If the ancient cultures of Europe, Asia. and ancient cultures around the pyramids and old cities were to trade with the North American Indians and South American tribes a thousand or more years ago, what would the ancient American people want for payment. Money was worthless to them, they were melting gold and copper. They didn't need hides, meat, or any seeds. Wouldn't they have desired a bunch of old mediocre carved rocks and other ancient worthless artifacts that littered the area around the pyramids and other ancient cities of the other continent. The Phenecians or other civilizations with ships would have gladly traded that old junk that littered the area to the Indians for their pelts and gold and copper. They also needed weight in their ships to go to America, Coming back they had copper, gold, and other light goods. The oldest Pyramid and ancient city artifacts of the European, Asian, and Mediteranian areas could have been sent here to the Americas before Christ was born. There are a lot of artifacts that are here in America that were discounted or denied recognition because they didn't fit the conscensus at the time. The Archeologists thought they were brought here by settlers but that doesn't have to be the case. They could have been here a couple of thousand years before.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Harte
 


Well, here's something for you to think about Harte. If the ancient cultures of Europe, Asia. and ancient cultures around the pyramids and old cities were to trade with the North American Indians and South American tribes a thousand or more years ago, what would the ancient American people want for payment. Money was worthless to them, they were melting gold and copper. They didn't need hides, meat, or any seeds. Wouldn't they have desired a bunch of old mediocre carved rocks and other ancient worthless artifacts that littered the area around the pyramids and other ancient cities of the other continent. The Phenecians or other civilizations with ships would have gladly traded that old junk that littered the area to the Indians for their pelts and gold and copper. They also needed weight in their ships to go to America, Coming back they had copper, gold, and other light goods. The oldest Pyramid and ancient city artifacts of the European, Asian, and Mediteranian areas could have been sent here to the Americas before Christ was born. There are a lot of artifacts that are here in America that were discounted or denied recognition because they didn't fit the conscensus at the time. The Archeologists thought they were brought here by settlers but that doesn't have to be the case. They could have been here a couple of thousand years before.

And what would be the Phoenecian's motivation for sailing all the way across the Atlantic, and then going well inland, for copper or gold that was and still is in abundance in the area of the Mediterreanean and Europe?

I note that you claim there have been "artifacts that are here in America that were discounted or denied recognition because they didn't fit the conscensus at the time." Just as I asked AGWSkeptic in my earlier post, can you supply us with examples of what you claim? Examples of artifacts found in situ and with context that can't be easily explained through more mundane hypotheses?

It's true that they "could have." After all, it's not like such a thing is an absolute impossibility. But the question is "did they," not "could they."

Harte





new topics
top topics
 
87
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum