Neolithic house found with hot oven and central heating system.

wow so cool! it just makes you think how advanced these civilizations really were back then....schools and society makes then look like very basic civilizations, so it is refreshing to see this kind of discovery...good find!

a reply to: neomaximus10

Thank you very much, and welcome to ATS!
I love these articles too, my knowledge of the neolithic is very poor really. Finds like these show such beautiful details -mounted stag's horns on the wall of the home - into a family's life thousands of years ago. They make me feel closer to my ancestors - we aren't so different after all.

a reply to: beansidhe

In an article I posted it mentions that Neanderthal used make up and body paint, I wouldn't be surprised at tattoos, Otzi had tattoos which were considered for medical use and eye liner is for practical use as well as possibly ritual and cosmetic.

The ancient Libyans show in Ancient Egyptian art had tattooes, chances are, it went way back.

Did anyone else follow the links. You can see the grape vine game going on. One link talks the remains of a 15 month baby. The original source said a baby which was sacrificed, probably for better crops

originally posted by: Kangaruex4Ewe
S&F for such an awesome find Beansidhe!

We've all heard the term... "There's nothing new under the sun". Sometimes you have to wonder if there's not a lot of truth in that.

Thanks for this exciting share. I wish I could S&F it more than once!

Discovering something that happened in the past, that persists today (ovens, smelting, air conditioning, etc...) is not something new. If anything this proves the adage. The more we learn about our ancient past, the more we realize nothing has changed. The form changes, but the function stays the same.

In fact I'd submit that the more we learn about our past, the more we realize how much we've lost.

I suppose you could argue that it depends on your definition of new. If your definition of new is "I didn't know that", then nearly every day you'll find something "new" under the sun. I tend to gravitate towards the deeper philosophical meaning of the adage.

More on topic: I find this to be a very important find. Great job

originally posted by: Aedaeum

originally posted by: Kangaruex4Ewe
S&F for such an awesome find Beansidhe!

We've all heard the term... "There's nothing new under the sun". Sometimes you have to wonder if there's not a lot of truth in that.

Thanks for this exciting share. I wish I could S&F it more than once!

Discovering something that happened in the past, that persists today (ovens, smelting, air conditioning, etc...) is not something new. If anything this proves the adage. The more we learn about our ancient past, the more we realize nothing has changed. The form changes, but the function stays the same.

In fact I'd submit that the more we learn about our past, the more we realize how much we've lost.

I suppose you could argue that it depends on your definition of new. If your definition of new is "I didn't know that", then nearly every day you'll find something "new" under the sun. I tend to gravitate towards the deeper philosophical meaning of the adage.

More on topic: I find this to be a very important find. Great job

Wth?? What part of "there's nothing new under the sun" changed from when I said it to when you said it. It has the same meaning regardless of who says it.

There's nothing new under that sun means exactly what it says it does. When I say it, it doesn't mean that there is something new but you seem to be suggesting exactly that. But when you say it, it means exactly what it says it does??

Odd how that works....

More on topic: I stand by my statement that there seems to be a lot of truth in "there's nothing new under the sun". No doublespeak for me.

originally posted by: thinline
Did anyone else follow the links. You can see the grape vine game going on. One link talks the remains of a 15 month baby. The original source said a baby which was sacrificed, probably for better crops

Sorry, I'm either being thick or I'm tired, but what is the grape vine game?

6500 years ago...still approximately within the age of the flood. Isn't it remarkable that you can't find anything like this, past 8000-12000 that suggests that there was no flood that destroyed it? And no, stone tools buried deep in sediments do not count, because as stated, there were two species of humans created in the Bible.

If there was no flood, then it would suggest that you would find a lot of stuff like this, 10,000 years ago, 20,000 years ago, etc. In other words, there should be no disruption in our evolution of civilization. Instead, you could only find civilization or structure that "couldn't" survive the flood AFTER the date of the flood. In other words, the implication is that if there were stuff like this pre-flood, they all got wiped out by the flood. Find me something like this pre-flood(note that a single relic lying on the ground does not count. In other words, it has to be some kind of structure that suggests that no flood disrupted it), state all the dating methods, and if it holds and is not a hoax or fraudulent, then I'll be convinced.

Now you may argue, maybe they just figured out how to make ovens 6000 years ago, along with civilization, which would be rather convenient, but not outrageous. However, if you were to study all of the civilizations of the Asian countries, you will notice that it's unanimous that there were evidence of human habitation 50,000 - 800,000 years ago
(including the Ainu in Japan), but what we call civilization(i.e forming tribes and language) all developed only about 5000-6000 years ago. What does this mean? If we were to go with strict evolutionary theory, then it suggests that these civilizations must have all arose, developed their language and evolved the ability to speak at about the same time, which would be quite remarkable. However, if you were to study the migration of language, then it suggests that people migrated, very similarly to the DNA migraton pattern. Basically, it suggests that these people migrated, and moved INTO these areas 5000-6000 years ago, not that they all evolved independently from 50,000 - 800,000 years ago.

How does one resolve this inconsistency? The best one is that there were prehistoric humans before the Flood, then God wiped them out, then the Noah tribes just moved in.

a reply to: beansidhe

Yeah the story is cool but it just shows How STUPID modern humans are, and how STUPID our so called science is.

First off, we do NOT KNOW that ancient man was Ever a lesser being than we know modern man to be today - there is no proof any creature like a cave man or Neanderthal was Ever alive and that they evolved into modern man. There is a whole huge conspiracy right here. Why do the powers that be want us to believe in this garbage so much so that it's taught as fact in schools?

There is No scientific or archeological evidence that even suggests ancient humans were not as intelligent as we are now - NONE, so why is this taught?

This story should not be news, it should be a mundane accepted uninteresting fact that should not surprise anyone.

a reply to: beansidhe
S&F. Great article.

a reply to: JohnPhoenix

This story should not be news, it should be a mundane accepted uninteresting fact that should not surprise anyone.

I know what you mean! We're lucky to have a space like this, to share articles and re-frame our personal constructs. My son came home from school and told me that his project this term is cavemen. 'Oh yeah?', I said and showed him this and Skalla's ancient artwork thread. He's away to school this morning to wow his classmates with some ancient facts!


Thanks Pavil and np6888 for responding too

originally posted by: beansidhe
a reply to: zardust

Hey Zed!

Fantatic news for the Croatians, I agree!

You think !??

If you found Miley Cyrus's underpants...now that might be news worthy in Croatia. I doubt I could find anything on this story in local Croatian sites.

edit:

just googled it...no hits about this story. The site is mentioned on couple of Croatian sites and the guy Buric also...but nothing on this "stove".

Am not surprised...

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

The Croatian Times for you.

B x

a reply to: beansidhe

that's not exactly a croatian site...but thanks anyway

It's more a site for foreigners about Croatia. Interesting news non the less.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

I noticed it was written in English, so I was hoping it was a translation!

Surprisingly little information has been released about this amazing discovery despite its potential to change the current timeline regarding metal-working skills and technology. We hope that photographs and the results of complete testing of the iron will be released in due course.

April Holloway from the Ancient Origins site (source article) commented much like you, that there is very little news elsewhere about this. I don't know if the team are reluctant to give more details or if there is a general lack of interest - I'm really not sure. I couldn't find much more either and so it's difficult to offer you a sensible response, without guessing or casting aspersions on the team involved. I'll keep an eye out and update if any more news comes along.