It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Lost Cradle of Civilization

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 03:45 AM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Hey, what's up ?

Ecc.1: Ch 1; 9

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there anything of which one can say,
“Look! This is something new”?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.
11 No one remembers the former generations,
and even those yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow them

And that's why it's called research.

Excellent thread. Thank you Slayer.

posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 03:56 AM

In contradistinction, the powerful seduction of the perverse teachers of false secrets is grounded in the curiositas of undeveloped minds, still unable to differentiate between good and evil, and a fortiori between truth and falsehood. These people want in their hubris to hear what they cannot yet understand and hence are willing to believe seducers with false pretences of science

Hidden Wisdom: Esoteric Traditions And The Roots Of Christian Mysticism

Mod Note: Posting work written by others.– Please Review This Link.
edit on 8/19/2013 by Blaine91555 because: EX tags and link to source missing.

posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 04:01 AM
reply to post by Madrusa

I like it.

Care to elaborate ?

posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 04:08 AM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Very nice well thought out post. It does make sense to me. Good hypothesis, well reasoned backup.

posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 04:28 AM
reply to post by SLAYER69

A distinction drawn on the basis of contrast, in which for example the more information provided on a presumed 'lost civilization' then the more lost and unknown it becomes, unless of course at some point it becomes a 'found' civilization in which case it was merely misplaced and not lost.

posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 04:35 AM
Thanks for such a great thread.

For me it comes down to one of two simple choices about our cradle's beginning:

Either we slowly evolved without outside help and in that case we know of sites between 400,000 and 200,000 years around the world where humans species were living in communities. We know this by the number of tools and artifacts found and their dating etc. We also know genetically they interbred - whether that is unpalatable for some sensitive souls or not.

We also have ancient writings that tell us that we were to some extent 'made'. Strangely a man first - who could not reproduce by himself and then a woman who completed the opportunity of reproduction according to the Bible. We also have ancient texts that tell us about this written in what was once a fertile area.

The whole 'out of Africa' idea bothers me because we know we have been nearly wiped out in the past and the African theory is based on not only incomplete skeletons but mostly on small pieces of bone and there is no positive trail that we can confirm this theory with, except to say that like today, Africans leave their home continent to try to find a better or different life - but then all peoples have migration which has happened throughout time. Also have we had dedicated, longterm scientists looking elsewhere as the Leekey's did.

The supposed legends that proclaim both the existence of a land called Lemuria and Atlantis seem to feel right to many people. The problem is a lack of diligence to find the truth about these ancient civilisations not only by the people who fund archaelogy but also by the religious lobby who don't want change to their 'story'. The derision by not only colleagues of any scientist who sticks their head up on this matter is a disgrace but its also a silencer.

It has taken men like Graham Hancock to hunt for the existence of Dwarka off India to show that unknown sophisticated civilisations existed and that they had vast stores of astronomical knowledge. I find no difficulty accepting a large landmass called Lemuria simply because of the geography and the animal life that is so diverse in Madagasta and the cities that existed in the past, next to long gone river systems in India which would have allowed nautical trade. We know the Persian empire was of Indian extract and not from the local Arab peoples. So people in ancient times migrated far and in great numbers.

Although we have archaelogists who are determined to put Atlantis on Thera in the Mediterranen we know we have islands in the Atlantic (The Azores) which are sitting on a T junction of plates that are moving as well as a number of undersea vulcanoes - so its no great stretch of the imagination to consider they may well have been a larger populated landmass there. It would also assist with the evidence slowly coming out of trade between Asia and the Americas.

I doubt we have only had one ancient civilisation but several. I suspect that the Rig Veda and other Indian texts which I understand have been kept in their original forms, tell of indescribable ancient warfare. (The Bible refers to a war in heaven which simply could have meant war in the sky and planes - which are described in the Indian texts, were far more sophisticated than we currently give these ancient people's technical ability. There may well be evidence to show nuclear weapons - whatever weapons were used could simply have destroyed all evidence of our ancient civilisations as these would have been the targets where the wars would have been carried out from and taken to.

There is also our own unconscious and conscious memories. Someone told me the other day she just knows our ancestory stretches way further back in time than we realise and we need be careful and keep vigilant watch on the skies because our earth violenty reacts to what is coming in periodically. Take that how you will, but she's not a fruitcake. Today we do watch the skies for not only UFO activity but heavenly destruction by meteor etc. This kind of destruction no cradle of civilisation could have withstood but I do wonder if its like a lot of things that have been jointly discovered in different parts of the world at the same time, perhaps we started in different parts of the world at a similar time. (It would be hedging our bets for survival rather than simply one source and it would answer why we have several different kinds of peoples eg Black, White, Chinese etc etc could we all have come from the same mother?)

posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 04:46 AM
If you take very early humans as more ape like with different lines that have died out as a common ancestor, this map is a possibility:

Some branches could have migrated by continental drift and evolved separately.

Still later migrations perhaps try this map:

Competition, legend, safety, plague could have led people across the ice with plenty of furs to keep them warm, where they met up with the lost branches intermingled either through peace or spoils of war, ice melts and more evolution leaving us with the distinct racial differences we see now but all falling back on common ancestors that intermingled at one time on a singular mass continent. Pushing our migration history back further than 125000 years leads us to where myth and legends came from, when you are working for your daily survival there isn't much time to sit around and dream up dragons and gods, but legends of experiences of dinosaurs or people across the way that harness strange wondrous things like fire. Can become dragons and gods.

I don't doubt that Sumer could be called the cradle of "civilization" is is smack dab in the middle of continents making it a route one would have to take when migrating, making it an ideal spot to sit and set up trade or visit and hear news and stories of far off lands. People coming together for a beneficial purpose is civilization or acting civilized. The cradle of early hominids however in my personal opinion was Pangaea.

Notice how much longer Aborigines of Australia would have spent evolving after the Pangaea split since the ice didn't connect them to a major body of land during the ice age.

edit on 19-8-2013 by BigBrotherDarkness because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 05:26 AM
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness

Are you suggesting that man walked the earth with Dinos? for that's what you would be doing by referencing Pangea

Your second link is more in line with what we discovered about ancient migrations, another poster suggest a return to the multi-genesis theory,while we are still finding new things about about our ancestors we have other tools to back up skull and bones findings such as genetics and dating techniques one is ill advised to throw out mainstream science along with the bath water.

posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 05:47 AM
reply to post by Spider879

Yes I think early branches of hominids were around a lot longer than the ice age, and on Pangaea. Of course one would have to dig very deep or get lucky to find a hominid skeleton millions of years old, or just repress the information of finding them, so it doesn't turn the human belief structure completely upside down.

posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 05:56 AM

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
reply to post by Spider879

Yes I think early branches of hominids were around a lot longer than the ice age, and on Pangaea. Of course one would have to dig very deep or get lucky to find a hominid skeleton millions of years old, or just repress the information of finding them, so it doesn't turn the human belief structure completely upside down.

Hominids??.. not just some furry ratlike mammal that could be a very very distant relative to all mammals??..I do agree that hominids could go back much further in time but I donno man all the way back to the age of the dinosaurs that's a hard sell.
edit on 19-8-2013 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 06:38 AM
Just in relation to the last few comments:

Has "Man" been around as long as Dinosaurs.
Yes, "Man" has co-existed with modern day counterpart "dinosaurs" such as Crocodiles and Birds.

Both words "Man" and "Dinosaur" are so relative to the observer that it seems silly to argue.
No one seems able to define man as in fact we seem to be the remmnants of a giant sex trade/sexathon type scenario amongst our homnid ancestors.

Also what is a modern man anyway...A pygmy is a modern man by every definition but so is an NBA player whom on archaeological inspection would appear to be from a race of giants in comparison.

Another thing that sprang to mind:

Sea Fairing Civilizations.
Even today a number of humans survive predominantly on floating crafts around the world; reproducing, hunting and socialising; all on board boats.

On further analysis it seems that Ancient Egypt fought (and lost) a number of wars with what they generically called the "sea people".
Atlantean and Aquatic Ape theories to one side; I can well imagine a planet with increasing sea levels where a number of previously advanced near shore civilisations took to the sea to survive rather than die out.

Whenever they hit land they had to put on a magic show (much as I would do with my Iphone if I was shipwrecked on Papa New Guinnea in 2013) which led to stories of Atlantis/Gods and provided us with the advanced stone masonry that appears to be chronologically out of place when we look at it now.

edit on 19-8-2013 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-8-2013 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 06:42 AM
reply to post by rickymouse

I also include the ancestors that may have been a little neanderthal or possibly cromagnum, it appears that there is different humanlike beings blended into our DNA. I don't know about you guys, but I am not going to deny any of my ancestors are not my ancestors. I am proud that they got me here to experience this life, no matter who they were. To me, If I have part neanderthal in me, one of my great great....on and on...grandparents was full neanderthal. I'd be proud to meet them.

Right on Ricky.

But something puzzles has been proven by DNA analysis that the huge majority of Humans today carry a % of Neanderthal DNA...anywhere from 0.5% up to 5% depending on location...Asian peoples i seem to remember carry the highest percentage of Neanderthal DNA at around 5%.

This was fairly recent big news, that got the public attention and reporting of a very small bit of news, but nonetheless, it has been accepted that most of us are indeed related to Neanderthals, and that in reality, Neanderthals never really died out or went extinct...they are still with us as part of our modern genetic makeup.'s the bit that puzzles me;

I've never seen ANY information on this, or any questions raised about it, so i'll raise it now...How much or what percentage of HUMAN DNA has been found in Neanderthal remains?

See what i'm getting at? Ever heard that question before or seen any information on it at all, anywhere? I haven't.

If it transpires that Human DNA is present in Neanderthal remains at higher percentages than we're finding Neanderthal DNA in our modern Human genes, that means that Neanderthals, Cro-magnon and likely other branches of the Homo family...were indeed derived from a common ancestor, possibly modern Human ancestors.

WE could be the missing link we've been looking for all along...crazy sounding i know...but modern Human remains are being discovered that are 100's of 1000's of years older than thought only a decade or so ago...what if Humans, anatomically modern and very similar to ourselves today...were the originators of Neanderthals and other Homo species, who then split and migrated out into the world?

50,000 years later, the 'offspring' of an early Human civilisation, the Neanderthals and others would be gradually diverging from their ancestors, and taking on characteristics that differentiate them from us, with a little of the original DNA (ours) left in their makeup.

This is possible. It's possible that Neanderthals are not only a branch of 'modern humans', but a branch that came AFTER our development and not before it, changing slightly over the millennia, (as we ourselves have done) to become the unique species with genetic traits we recognise today as Neanderthal?

IOW..neanderthals may be 'our' descendants, not our ancestors.

Too much of a stretch?

posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:30 AM
reply to post by MysterX

I think it started out well, then got kinda over reaching at the end... it basically says we are the Neanderthals and we are looking for ourselves. I think it would be interesting to see how much of our DNA is in Neanderthal remains.

On another note to show links of millions and not thousands of years:

In 1992-3 a new group of fossils began to be unearthed, less than 50 miles from where Lucy was discovered. By 1994 they included the complete skeleton of a female now nicknamed Ardi, short for the name given to the new species, Ardipithecus Ramidus. The fossils have been dated, by their position between two layers of volcanic strata, to about 4.4 million years ago, more than a million years before Lucy. So Ardi is at present the earliest skeleton of a creature with sufficient human characteristics to be very possibly our direct ancestor.


posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:35 AM
reply to post by MysterX

No, that isn't too much of a stretch. Modern Humans could have been around for a very long time, there is no evidence that what I said is not true. Lack of evidence of humans being on this world is just that, lack of evidence.

Maybe modern humans did not like to live in caves where the bones would have survived deterioration. They could have been more sensitive to molds and mildews so made structures of their own of different materials. This would have made the existence of their remains harder to find. By mixing with other species maybe they were able to start living in caves. This is only one idea of something that could be a reason, their are hundreds of possibilities.

Modern man, the other humanoids, and the monkeys and apes could have sprung off a single species of unknown looks hundreds of thousands to millions of years ago. We are related to monkeys and neanderthals but how is the issue. We are related to all the animals in this world one way or another.

Every so often the date goes back farther for the earliest modern human. History did not change, evidence appeared to validate that we were here earlier. That in no way means that humans were not on this planet for a long time, all it means is that evidence is lacking. People make money and prestige from acquiring evidence, it seems that it is economic to a certain extent. Although it is important to research some of this stuff, it is not something that is super important. Preserving ancient sites is important though, this way we can have some interesting stuff to look at.

Science is often used as a tool of suppression so it's members can have personal gain. I do not think that is necessarily bad but I hate seeing misapplied concepts and evidence being touted as real. Just because there is no proof of something does not make it not possible, it just restricts the probability of it somewhat.

So your thoughts may be correct or they could also be flawed. My thoughts of the subject can be correct or flawed. The scientists ideas could be correct or flawed. Limiting the possibilities by lack of evidence does not make something unreal, if it did, putting back the date because evidence is found would not be possible, we would still be thinking that mankind appeared six thousand years ago. My thoughts are...does it really matter anyway? We need to be looking at the future of this world, using the past as evidence of things that went wrong. We are destroying the ability of the world to take care of us using chemistry use that has never been used in the history of the world. Sure, rocks are a sort of plastic as is the wood of trees, but that type of plastic is something the earth species have evolved with. Changes in chemistry worldwide, either by creating unnatural chemicals or concentrating natural chemicals in the environment will destroy the earths ability to take care of us. We may go the way of the dinosaurs, causing the earth to become a ball of sand like mars or turn into a violent environment like Venus. If this happens, Neanderthals would have got out of this at a better time.

Nobody really knows what happened long ago for sure, if they say they positively do...They are lying.
edit on 19-8-2013 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 08:06 AM
It is important to remember, the only great flood that destroyed all the people except a few was in the bible, It is a record of perception of the time by a group of people. The other floods had survivors, Noah's crew was not the only survivor of this event. The Hopi talk of long necked people bringing them into caves in the hills. I don't think that the bible was completely accurate worldwide, but possibly it was so so in that region. Water was coming out of the ground, Slayers thread addresses a possible cause for that and includes that humans may have all been living in a certain area long ago, showing possible oral passed on history could have formed the basis for many cultures if the cultures spread out all over the world after that. This all could have originated in a section of land where common ancestors of many cultures lived.

posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 08:24 AM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Love it!

I've always said that we have lost so much history under the ocean.
And in that part of the world under the sand as well.
some enterprising person needs to side scan that area with some sonar.
I'd bet they'd find something good there.

posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 09:57 AM
Nice thread. Will re-visit.

posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 10:32 AM
reply to post by SLAYER69

S&F as always Slayer.

Thank you for the highly revealing read, a lot of the information presented here really piqued my interest, and has me wondering how many more dots can be connected to the points shown here...

If the Arabian culture is older than previously thought; what other cultures and civilizations might have evidence similarly waiting to be discovered?

Gonna stay tuned, and thank you again Slayer~!@

posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 10:51 AM

Originally posted by Madrusa
reply to post by SLAYER69

A distinction drawn on the basis of contrast, in which for example the more information provided on a presumed 'lost civilization' then the more lost and unknown it becomes, unless of course at some point it becomes a 'found' civilization in which case it was merely misplaced and not lost.

This and Randusv's post above made me remember something important for everyone to be aware in this endeavor.
Yes, the Spirit World does share information on the past but only what they feel is appropriate at that time and place...our focusing too much on the past is a concern for them.
We need to be living in the present...

posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 11:47 AM
I'd like to ask a question of readers here.

Does anyone think all of the "extra-historical" civilization and "alternative" Genesis accounts (meaning - not of the King James Bible, but incorporating alien hybridization or seeding - as in: the Earth is an intentionally-planted "garden" started by entities from elsewhere) is nonsense, and that the standard history we are taught in our government schools is essentially correct, and that anomolous artifacts like those impossibly-huge carved stone blocks in Greece (I think it's in Greece) are sismply manmade objects crafted using ropes and pulleys and lots and lots of slaves?

I guess I am interested in hearing from traditionalists (who, I totally understand, might not be lurkers on ATS) as to why they like the current official models as opposed to entertaining that there might be more to our history than "standard science and history" are able/willing to say.

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in