The Incredible Stone Age Map ; beyond belief?

Just a rock...

But a pretty damned cool rock, I must say...

I have my doubts, of course, but I gotta say, it's pretty cool.

I guess this is kind of crazy - although it would be hard to accurately date the stone, since it is not organic.

The links on the OP aren't valid.

Is there any other link to source and text? The pictures another poster posted don't say anything from the article.

From the pictures it looks like a rock, albeit a rock that has markings similar to a map but as for naming the lines as rivers, is perhaps taking it a bit far, there are lots of other lines on there and it all seems a bit fanciful.

I watched a programme about Alexander the Great and the path he followed which today is completely altered by either the water drying up or being diverted etc so its very difficult to look with today's eyes on any ancient map especially such as this. (If it is what is thought it is).

Also the sea levels would have been very different but if it is correct then we have to change what history tells us and rethink the abilities of Stone Age man. This wouldn't be difficult for me because I firmly believe that once Homo Sap came along with his brain, he certainly travelled and traded where he wanted and didn't lack the curiosity or courage to take off and head out into the unknown.

Well, if you really stretch your imagination, plus add land masses that aren't there and rivers that aren't there and add continents that aren't there and move land masses to the wrong place, then it looks EXACTLY like a map of the Earth!

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by stormcell

 

I can't believe your entertaining this and trying to actually explain tectonic plate movement which was only introduced when i was a kid in school...please don't go there...because it does not work...continental drift does not cover this...England separated from mainland Europe...it did not move out around and then south....some times I think people will just believe anything....but trying to explain this just by throwing that out without thinking is just nuts....I took that into account my friend...and guess what....using logical thought....IT IS Wrong....and that is why the scientific community has deemed this farcical...but nice try at baffling with ...you know the word....and some foolish person starred you...lmao.

Perhaps not England, but Scotland did, but over billions of years. Though for the past 450 million years, the continents haven't move more than 100 miles.

www.scottishgeology.com...

reply to post by EA006


Mankind new the world was round as far back as days of Greece or even further. The Bible says the world was round, or called "a circle that hangs upon nothing" depending on the translation. Only untrue pagan religions like Hindu etc think the earth sat upon a big elephant or whatever.

I would have to say that it is just mere coincidence. As someone pointed out earlier in this thread that there is no Iceland which was then pointed out by someone else that Iceland was still submerged, fair enough but if this map is supposedly 1 million years old then why is Britain an island? Up to around 10,000 years ago Britain was connected to mainland Europe by a strip of land known as Doggerland.

Doggerland

I’m sorry my friend, but I only see a rock with a bunch of lines on it. I’m sure if I were to look really hard, I would see a pic of honey boo-boo….

Looks like a rock to me.

reply to post by dylan1107


There have been many ice age period's over the last 5 million years at least according to orthodox geology and though we know all about Doggerand and the north sea as well as the Rhine and the Thames coming together in the valley that is now the English channel (or the whale road to the Saxon - which makes you wonder at the bio diversity now lost) there have been several inundation and re-emergence of this area as land and sea at alternative times, there is no reliable map of what the topography of Europe actually appeared like at this time but with a little reverse analysis this stone map may actually be surprisingly accurate, and I stand by that even if it was just a natural formation, others have pointed out that they have seen images in vegetable's or patterns in the sky and well as that may be I like the idea this may actually be a map, Electron Scanning Microscopy would be the best analysis tool too see how the pattern was made or formed though in the face of skeptical opinion it is likely too remain just another curio, I know what I believe and what I think but am not an expert in this field.
I think it is real, But I do not know what to believe as without that data it could be a very wonderful and unique natural artifact that would possibly make it even more precious to some opinion.

With basic logic and reasoning if the rock were that old the lines/map would have already worn down due to earth movement. Example water, and earth like a giant rock polisher.


Very cool rock though.

The guy claims that this stone map has been worked, that it has been carved/sketched.

That would indicate it was made by primitive man.

Sure, the map isn't all that accurate, but for a primitive replication, pretty good.

First-time poster here. Hello to all thinking ATS members.

I am astounded by the number of people who are willing to write this off as "just a rock." So astounded, that I have finally stopped lurking and decided I need to participate.

A few points:

1. To claim that the rock is natural and has not been altered by a human requires an ignorance of geologic processes.

2. Assuming the rock (and carving) is more than a few thousand years old, it is entirely plausible that such a medium would be used to create a map. Small size and durability would have been priorities; rock would have been one of the few choices.

3. Look at any map from before the 16th century (excluding a few interesting anomalies) and you will find large inaccuracies. If this carving was done even 10,000 years ago, it would be a huge accomplishment for its time.

4. I realize that not everyone can readily spot visual patterns. To anyone who says there is only a casual resemblance between the carving and Europe and the Mediterranean region, I say go study a globe. If you still don't see how this carving could be a map then I am inclined to put you in the category of pre-determined denier.

In my opinion, the real question here is whether or not it is a hoax. WIth the information posted it is impossible to say, but there are lab tests and examinations that can be done to determine approximate age and carving method.

reply to post by OpenMindedRealist


WoW.They knew how to draw maps but they hadn't got a clue about how to make fire...

reply to post by Mindlouka


Who said that the creator(s) of this carving did not know how to start a fire? More directly, what does that have to do with this topic?

Originally posted by OpenMindedRealist
First-time poster here. Hello to all thinking ATS members.

I am astounded by the number of people who are willing to write this off as "just a rock." So astounded, that I have finally stopped lurking and decided I need to participate.

A few points:

1. To claim that the rock is natural and has not been altered by a human requires an ignorance of geologic processes.

2. Assuming the rock (and carving) is more than a few thousand years old, it is entirely plausible that such a medium would be used to create a map. Small size and durability would have been priorities; rock would have been one of the few choices.

3. Look at any map from before the 16th century (excluding a few interesting anomalies) and you will find large inaccuracies. If this carving was done even 10,000 years ago, it would be a huge accomplishment for its time.

4. I realize that not everyone can readily spot visual patterns. To anyone who says there is only a casual resemblance between the carving and Europe and the Mediterranean region, I say go study a globe. If you still don't see how this carving could be a map then I am inclined to put you in the category of pre-determined denier.

In my opinion, the real question here is whether or not it is a hoax. WIth the information posted it is impossible to say, but there are lab tests and examinations that can be done to determine approximate age and carving method.

Howdy OpenMindedRealist

Nice comments but its still appears to be just a rock, you might want to think about it a bit more. There are things to consider and study then there are things to think about and say, nope, and move on.

Not a hoax just a natural rock that out of billions has a half-ass appearance of part of the real world - you might want to ask what does the rest of the rock look like? I suspect it looks like a rock and no part of globe which is probably why it isn't shown.

reply to post by OpenMindedRealist


1.000.000 years ago? Fire? According to mainstream archeology...NO.
Yet, they knew geography.

Originally posted by Hanslune
Howdy OpenMindedRealist

Nice comments but its still appears to be just a rock, you might want to think about it a bit more. There are things to consider and study then there are things to think about and say, nope, and move on.

Not a hoax just a natural rock that out of billions has a half-ass appearance of part of the real world - you might want to ask what does the rest of the rock look like? I suspect it looks like a rock and no part of globe which is probably why it isn't shown.

Greetings Hanslune. I think you missed my point. Aside from the fact that weathering and erosion do not act in ways that produce these kinds of shapes in a rock of seemingly uniform composition, the resemblance is evident to anyone with an accurate mental image of our planet.

Any geologist, archeologist, paleontologist, etc. will tell you that it is very easy to spot signs of carving in a rock. Regular geologic processes do not result in raised shapes such as this unless the raised area is of a different chemical composition than the surrounding rock (which would be visibly evident). Rocks may appear to be random in nature, but the science of mineralogy is one of precise, crystalline structures that build upon one another in predictable ways.

Originally posted by Mindlouka
reply to post by OpenMindedRealist

 

1.000.000 years ago? Fire? According to mainstream archeology...NO.
Yet, they knew geography.

The veracity of mainstream archaeology is exactly what this topic brings to question. Every few weeks I hear of another discovery that casts doubt on the many assumptions made by mainstream historians and archaologists.

Regardless, you are claiming that it requires advanced scientific knowledge to make observations about spatial relationships and carve representations into stone. I enthusiasticaly refute that claim.