Prehistoric man – Azores?

page: 2
19
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
I guess what I have a hard time with, in regards to archeologists everywhere is this:
With all the "recorded" history we do have, we have had the instinct to roam, travel, see what's over "there".
Why is it so hard to believe that we would not have done the same right from the start?




posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
My mom was actually born in St. Miguel, Azores. Been there a few times. Extremely rocky, many cave systems.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
As you already know I believe firmly in early man's ability to navigate the ocean. Finding Phonecian artifacts or artifacts of Carthage should come as no suprise. Both these civilizations were great seafarers. How far they traveled I think is probably unknown.

I believe that they both sent expeditions to various places to perhaps find new markets for their goods, or perhaps new sources of raw materials. They were the explorers of their age.

I often wish that they had kept records of where their ships had gone in their explorations. But I can imagine that if the explorers were merchants, they may have wanted to protect the source of anything they brought back which had value.

Since there are currents which go by the Azores, one would think that ancient seafarers would use those currents to speed their travel, or perhaps they followed the currents in their explorations to discover where the current went.

Byrd's comments earlier in the thread do have merit. He may be on to something in saying that the members of the group are young and may not have liked what a more experienced scientist told them. I think that we all know that young people can be somewhat impulsive and therefore jump to conclusions.I would like to see a more experienced team of archeologists do a dig there. Perhaps they could confirm what was discovered.
edit on 9/11/2012 by lonegurkha because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


So then why any shock over the habitation of that rocky stretch of land by humans?

Or is this a semantic issue of "civiliation" versus "culture"?

I think that the concept of civilization being a cornerstone of human achievement should be revisited. As has been pointed out recently by Trueman in a thread on the people of the Azores, civlizations can be nomadic and leave very little evidence of their existance.

Of course, this is the crux of the Neolithic, isn't it? The giving up of hunter gatherer lifestyle and forming communities? Does this shift preclude people who remained nomadic yet formed stronger cultural bonds that extend beyond that of the hunter gatherer?



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
My grandfather came to America from the Azores and I have always found the ancient history of the islands intriguing. He was born on El Hierro then moved to Medeira before leaving for America.
I found an interesting tidbit here




ABORIGINE CULTURE.

The origin of the first dwellers of the Canary Islands was in Northern Africa and presents natural and various contrasts with the later level of economic and social development.

Islands such as Gran Canaria , for example, achieved a certain degree of agricultural development sooner than the rest of the archipelago, while their beliefs were as varied as they were complex.

The use of caves as dwellings – and not only as a storehouse for agricultural tools or as a stable – is still a constant in the Canary Islands, an aboriginal cultural heritage that was well versed in the advantages of digging rooms in the depths of the mountains when the surrounding environment was favourable.

Precisely in Gran Canaria is where the largest integrated settlements can be found almost completely of cave-homes, such as in Artenara, Bermeja Cave (Cueva Bermeja), in Guayadeque, La Atalaya de Santa Brígida, Hoya de Pineda and several others.

This more or less idyllic world experimented quite a rude shock with European culture at the beginning of the XV century. The first dwellers of all the islands had a similar culture, but with time, their isolation brought about their disappearance, although evidences remain of that remote common origin.


I think the Canary islands used to be part of the Azores.
edit on 11-9-2012 by Twilightgem because: canary / azores



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
The title is misleading.

This article is not about prehistoric man, but rather who were settled in the Azores before the Portuguese. The Portuguese were previously thought to have been the first inhabitants. Both of these events take place in very recent history.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
The title is misleading.

This article is not about prehistoric man, but rather who were settled in the Azores before the Portuguese. The Portuguese were previously thought to have been the first inhabitants. Both of these events take place in very recent history.


Right. And who was it that thought this? I know if I were asked, i would say, "Well, Portugese is very near the Mediteranean, and in Europe, so likely saw human habitation from the time that humans first reached the Atlantic coast in Europe. I would bet that we passed through Portugal before Norway.

Of course, I am not educated in this....but am amused at how the ones who are educated in it are amazed at the possibility. I would be amazed if it wasn't possible. Despite the harsh environment.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by chiefsmom
I guess what I have a hard time with, in regards to archeologists everywhere is this:
With all the "recorded" history we do have, we have had the instinct to roam, travel, see what's over "there".
Why is it so hard to believe that we would not have done the same right from the start?

Actually, archaeologists think that, as the number of hominids did grow, they moved.

Lots.

Homo erectus, for example, show up in many parts of the world. And h.sapiens traveled to almost any place that could support a civilization. Some areas are more thinly populated than others and relatively remote places and hostile places weren't civilized frequently. But they did need islands and land with water and food.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Of course, I am not educated in this....but am amused at how the ones who are educated in it are amazed at the possibility. I would be amazed if it wasn't possible. Despite the harsh environment.


I don't think anyone's amazed. Interested, yes. Gobsmacked, no.

...and a tad suspicious when someone with no experience discovers something incredibly ancient in their home town or county (or small nation.)
edit on 11-9-2012 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Granted but the possibility of man living on that Island 40 thousand years ago are are slim for me but as far as pre Portuguese I would say no problem. Think Easter Island. The article does say Bronze age which is 3600-600 b.c which is not that outlandish or did i miss something.
edit on 11-9-2012 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 
There's every certainty that explorers, pirates and traders probably did find the Azores and perhaps even lived and built there, since the Bronze Age supports many kinds of ship building that could have handled a trip like that. Even the Egyptians could have done it in reed ships, as Thor Heyerdahl (sp?) proved. However we now know the ancient Egyptians built perfectly functional ships from wooden planks...(huge ones that could be fitted together and taken apart at will!) So there would be no problem thinking they and the Phoenicians for sure and possibly Greeks and others sailed there.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


oops
edit on 12-9-2012 by zonetripper2065 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Correct me if I am wrong....but why would man not have been in Portugal as early as man was in the rest of Europe? As I understand it, Portugal was a last stronghold of the Neandertals toward the end of their decline. However, if man and Neandertal were friendly enough to interbreed, why would they not have a few of the other living with or near the other?

One of the things that is annoying about science is the amazement and wonder shown at what, to common laypeople like me, seem to have been obvious and wholly predictable.


It says you replied this to me?I think your replying to the wrong person



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
The implications of this evidence lends to many theories.

How did these people get there? How long have the been there? Did they arrive by boat?

The article says it the 4th or 5th century bc. Makes me wonder which continent they came from, Atlantis America or Europe.


Why on earth do you suggest the mythological lost continent of Atlantis, but fail to mention Africa? Carthage, a great seafaring/trading state on the N. coast of Africa (round abouts Tunisia) was around at that time and could have sailed to the Azores. Certainly there were plenty of primitive cultures along Africa's Atlantic coast that must have done some boating/fishing/exploring. Could have been the Romans, Greeks, or, more likely, a less developed that didn't have a written language at the time.

There's more and more evidence that very ancient cultures naviagated across the oceans, so ti seems like any culture bordering the Atlantic or Mediterranean could have been responsible for it.

As for "Atlantis," if the myth is borne out of fact, it likely was in the eastern Mediterranean, part of the Mycenean culture of Greece, which was destroyed, it is thought, by a series of Volcanoes and tsunamis. No evidence, archelogical or geological for a lost continent/city in the Atlantic.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by zonetripper2065

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Correct me if I am wrong....but why would man not have been in Portugal as early as man was in the rest of Europe? As I understand it, Portugal was a last stronghold of the Neandertals toward the end of their decline. However, if man and Neandertal were friendly enough to interbreed, why would they not have a few of the other living with or near the other?

One of the things that is annoying about science is the amazement and wonder shown at what, to common laypeople like me, seem to have been obvious and wholly predictable.


It says you replied this to me?I think your replying to the wrong person


likely i did. I have a habit of clicking the "reply" button on a random post when i reply to a thread. Usually I delete the 'reply to xxxxxx" part....i likely didn't this time.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   
It should seem that most ancient sites over 12,000 years old would be better preserved at 200 to 300 feet deep before and during the great melting of the last ice age where these sites would have slowly been submerged 'and' protected from tsunamis that came later due to a asteroid/meteor impacts of the time. There are much older sites preserved in the deep oceans that were not preserved on land or terra-sphere due to the tsunami devastations that either destroyed them or buried them in deep layers of sand/silt/dirt of which many of these ancient sites are being rediscovered by satellite surveys which can see through the ground/oceans as never before.

It's amazing to think of the Earth with oceans 300 feet shallower than today and how this would affect travel over land and sea. It would also help to explain how much larger species could be supported since there was so much more vegetation and oxygen to support massive amounts of life. It's fascinating to think how many times the earth has been reseeded bringing about new genomes of life more suitable for the new environment and the subsequent genetic mutations and natural selection further adapting lifeforms to a constantly changing environment.
edit on 12-9-2012 by Bluemoonsine because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Oh I was just wondering because we seem to be in agreement on the subject.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


The concept of "proud Portuguese nationals" has a very distinct meaning to the Portuguese, during the dictatorship Portuguese were indoctrinated into a nationalistic mindset (much more than in Spain, closer to the process of the Hitler youth) after the revolution most of the Portuguese nation rebelled against such notions, ended the colonial wars mostly unconditionally, in fact the nation almost went into the soviet sphere of influence, if not by a supposedly interference by the US (note that at the time even France was very pro-communism).

If you look at Portuguese history, the only time Portuguese really got focused in a proud nationalism, in the terms you are putting it, was during the fascist regime. Portuguese are proud of their past achievements, but not much of the recent history, a minority even defends going back to the monarchy, but we are not even close to the US, China or even the UK or France in terms of nationalistic mindset. Portugal in most of its history has been a very open nation, one needs not look beyond our colonies to see a remarkable difference on how they intermingled and enriched Portuguese culture. Take India for instance and compare Portugal to the UK or how Macao is very distinct to Hong Kong in therms cultural relations.

The Portuguese are a nation that has more nationals living outside its boarders than inside.One could argue that the reason the Portuguese always get the short straw in most historical events they have been involved is because they do not have such a nationalistic view (historically the European nation, with the most stable land boarder).

I strongly disagree with this argument, but I share the concern about the rest...

Anyone interested in learning about the inception of Portuguese nationality should start by looking up Viriathus, then look at the Roman influence and infrastructure.


Located along the Douro river estuary in northern Portugal, Porto is one of the oldest European centres, and registered as a World Heritage Site by UNESCO in 1996. Its settlement dates back many centuries, when it was an outpost of the Roman Empire. Its Latin name, Portus Cale, has been referred to as the origin for the name "Portugal", based on transliteration and oral evolution from Latin. In Portuguese the name of the city is spelled with a definite article as "o Porto" (English: the port). Consequently, its English name evolved from a misinterpretation of the oral pronunciation and referred to as "Oporto" in modern literature and by many speakers.


From Porto - Wikipedia


Lisbon is one of the oldest cities in the world, predating other modern European capitals such as London, Paris and Rome by hundreds of years. Julius Caesar made it a municipium called Felicitas Julia, adding to the name Olissipo. Ruled by a series of Germanic tribes from the fifth century,


From Lisbon - Wikipedia


edit on 12-9-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 


Just pointing out that the UK - Portugal alliance is the oldest existing alliance in the world.

Alliance

And sorry for going off topic OP.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
This is the only report I could find put out by that organization and Nuno Ribeiro & friends

PDF on some of the earlier findings of the APIA

I agree with Byrd there is always a bit of skepticism when claims are not verified and are made over a number of years by local enthusiasts. However the claims are not implausable but they do need verification.

Based on the evidence presented in the PDF I can see why they couldn't get funding. Hopefully they can get international funding but with tight budgets that may take awhile.

Oh if you go searching for stuff remember that the Azores are not spelled that way by the Portuguese they use

Açores





new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join