Was the Azores home to an ancient civilisation?

History books tell us that Portuguese navigators found the Azores islands uninhabited in the middle of the Atlantic during the early 1400s. But some intriguing constructions suggest that people occupied this area long before. So, who was this civilisation, and why did they leave?

I like this guy.

He connects the dots the way I strive to do between ancient sites. He sees the similarities between these ancient ruts with the Maltese ancient ruts which run right into and below sea level of the Mediterranean. Also, his description of how they were buried under feet of ancient volcanic dust does raise some rather interesting questions about the accepted or hypothesized timeline of the Azores.

Back at the Azores, I would love for someone to do a extensive LIDAR pass of the surface of the all the islands.

We just never know what might be revealed.

originally posted by: SLAYER69

History books tell us that Portuguese navigators found the Azores islands uninhabited in the middle of the Atlantic during the early 1400s. But some intriguing constructions suggest that people occupied this area long before. So, who was this civilisation, and why did they leave?

I like this guy.

He connects the dots the way I strive to do between ancient sites. He sees the similarities between these ancient ruts with the Maltese ancient ruts which run right into and below sea level of the Mediterranean. Also, his description of how they were buried under feet of ancient volcanic dust does raise some rather interesting questions about the accepted or hypothesized timeline of the Azores.

Back at the Azores, I would love for someone to do a extensive LIDAR pass of the surface of the all the islands.

We just never know what might be revealed.

Hey slayer, long time no read!

Nice video. Here is the paper by the same man in the video:
www.scirp.org...

The problems are that he has not found anything dateable nor habitation levels, pottery or stone tools.If there were prehistoric folks there there should be stone tools, if later arrival there should be pottery.

Stone anchors - Portuguese warships and larger merchants used expensive metal anchors - fishermen did not I'm looking for a definite source for how long Iberian fishermen used the classical stone anchor.

One thing. The narrator 'said official story'. In history and archaeology there are no official stories unless you live in authoritarian country - which Portugal isn't. The other sites are interesting but look like stones moved about by earthquakes then utilized later for various purposes - whether they are ancient or Portuguese I cannot tell.

About stone tools - obsidian is found on those volcanic islands - it doesn't appear to have been utilized/mined and no stone tools have been found. www.mindat.org...

originally posted by: Hanslune

About stone tools - obsidian is found on those volcanic islands - it doesn't appear to have been utilized/mined and no stone tools have been found. www.mindat.org...

Good link, thanks for the headsup. Checking it out now.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Thanks, that is awesome, I finished watching Graham Hancock's Ancient Apocalypse on Netflix yesterday and this fits nicely with that. If you haven't seen it I highly recommend it. By the end of the series his explanation seems very logical and doesn't include aliens, giants or anything else mainstream scoffs at, so it is really hard to argue with, although mainstream archeologist do, because, you know, they wouldn't want to loose that grant.

I agree with Hancock, I think many of these sites were built before the waters rose 400 feet from the melting ice caps, so the Azores might have been a continent when the water was lower. I would be interested in what they have found off the coast underwater.

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive
a reply to: SLAYER69

Thanks, that is awesome, I finished watching Graham Hancock's Ancient Apocalypse on Netflix yesterday and this fits nicely with that. If you haven't seen it I highly recommend it. By the end of the series his explanation seems very logical and doesn't include aliens, giants or anything else mainstream scoffs at, so it is really hard to argue with, although mainstream archeologist do, because, you know, they wouldn't want to loose that grant.

I agree with Hancock, I think many of these sites were built before the waters rose 400 feet from the melting ice caps, so the Azores might have been a continent when the water was lower. I would be interested in what they have found off the coast underwater.

Grants, tenure, book deals, endorsements, etc go to scientist who find new things. You kinda have the process messed up.

ahotcupofjoe.net...

It was painful but I did survive GH first episode. It might seem great to you but to anyone aware of how science and particularly geology and archaeology actually work it is painfully inept.Or, more precisely, the exploration and discovery of that which he’s already concluded to be true - without evidence, which is: an “advanced human civilization much older than our own” existed in prehistoric times, he also never seems to explain how it was more advanced. A strong claim requiring evidence - but none is provided.

GH is good writer but he really sucks at being a rational scientist. If he spent more time collecting evidence he would be more successful - CANE claim are not evidence. He is multi-millionaire but spends no money on research.

IF it truly was a location that had some ancient civilizations my guess, is they are looking at the wrong elevation.

Considering the fairly sudden sea level rise post ice age most ocean-going peoples would be near the water line not the top of a volcano.

Very tired so could just not be finishing the thought.

a reply to: Hanslune

Megalithic structures dating back to 10,800 B.C. that we cannot build today without machinery. Sound advanced to me, but what do I know?

I would say watch the rest, but I wouldn't want to painfully bore you.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Yes , The Mountain Peaks of Atlantis .

originally posted by: Irishhaf
IF it truly was a location that had some ancient civilizations my guess, is they are looking at the wrong elevation.

Considering the fairly sudden sea level rise post ice age most ocean-going peoples would be near the water line not the top of a volcano.

Very tired so could just not be finishing the thought.

People wouldn't lose their civilization while migrating inland a few feet per year, which would keep them WELL ahead of any sea level rise due to ice melt.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

*shrugs* assuming thats the way it was, I dont remember reading to many scientific texts from 10 thousand years ago.

I seem to remember something about a comet strike on the north american ice sheet that mucked everything up, evidence is fairly new and still not conclusive that could have changed that few feet a year to something more urgent, then the possible water flow changes and debris cloud could have mucked up the weather further disrupting people's ability (as they focused on survival) to hang on to a civilization.

just a random thought not a definitive statement.

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive
a reply to: Hanslune

Megalithic structures dating back to 10,800 B.C. that we cannot build today without machinery. Sound advanced to me, but what do I know?

I would say watch the rest, but I wouldn't want to painfully bore you.

I will at some point. Of course we'd used machinery, hard to get a couple hundred people together to do hard labor for no particular point. Megalithics don't mean 'advanced'. In his last book he said they had 19th century technology and mental powers. Lots of folks were doing that.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Harte

*shrugs* assuming thats the way it was, I dont remember reading to many scientific texts from 10 thousand years ago.

I seem to remember something about a comet strike on the north american ice sheet that mucked everything up, evidence is fairly new and still not conclusive that could have changed that few feet a year to something more urgent, then the possible water flow changes and debris cloud could have mucked up the weather further disrupting people's ability (as they focused on survival) to hang on to a civilization.

just a random thought not a definitive statement.

A comet/asteroid hit Greenland but that over 50 million years ago. A strike on ice would have a minor effect to ocean levels - think scale. The main problem with there being a GH civilization is simply a complete lack of evidence for it. He tries to get around that by being vague and cherry picking some things and ignoring others.

One thing we do know about every ancient civilization - they left massive amounts of archaeological evidence - they are very easy to 'find'. This lost civilization is remarkable in having no habitations, no resource use, no burials and no degradation of environment (as would show up in ice cores and sediments.

a reply to: Hanslune

Megalithic does mean advance when you have a hunter gatherer group of humans capable of building sites such as Gobekli Tepi. So I guess we are to believe hunter gatherers had a lot of time on their hands, because hunting and gathering doesn't take up much time, so you need to fill in your life of surviving by building structures we cannot duplicate today using their tooling.

a reply to: Hanslune

I didnt say anything about Greenland, you regurgitate the school bullet points from when I was a kid very well, I am talking about newer finds and newer hypothesis based on limited evidence that challenges what you oh so succinctly stated.

There are cities below the worlds current water line since it rose roughly 400 feet since the last ice age, there are several question marks in ice core samples that they dont have a good answer for so to definitively state anything like you did is a failure at critical thinking.

Prior to gobekli tepi being dated it was thought to have been impossible, the world is big the ocean is deep add in continental drift, the rising sea levels, catastrophic natural disasters I would wager there is at least 1 civilization in the past that we know nothing about because we havnt looked in the right places to find the evidence. Since people dont want to fund long shots very often and going outside the known paradigm is a longshot to the money people.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Even today we have societies on this earth that are advanced and those that are not.
It would be like us today being wiped out by a cataclysm, having to move to the rainforest and living among the Amazonians tribes. While they are hunting, you would start farming and then show them how to build structures versus how they do. My point is you would be able to bring new ways to them that would seem like a large jump in their understanding.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Hanslune

I didnt say anything about Greenland, you regurgitate the school bullet points from when I was a kid very well, I am talking about newer finds and newer hypothesis based on limited evidence that challenges what you oh so succinctly stated.

There are cities below the worlds current water line since it rose roughly 400 feet since the last ice age, there are several question marks in ice core samples that they dont have a good answer for so to definitively state anything like you did is a failure at critical thinking.

Prior to gobekli tepi being dated it was thought to have been impossible, the world is big the ocean is deep add in continental drift, the rising sea levels, catastrophic natural disasters I would wager there is at least 1 civilization in the past that we know nothing about because we havnt looked in the right places to find the evidence. Since people dont want to fund long shots very often and going outside the known paradigm is a longshot to the money people.

You are one very intelligent feline. Lol

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Hanslune

I didnt say anything about Greenland, you regurgitate the school bullet points from when I was a kid very well, I am talking about newer finds and newer hypothesis based on limited evidence that challenges what you oh so succinctly stated.

Which are where? Again you don't explain what you are talking about so I have guess what is going in your head. Try communicating.

There are cities below the worlds current water line since it rose roughly 400 feet since the last ice age, there are several question marks in ice core samples that they dont have a good answer for so to definitively state anything like you did is a failure at critical thinking.

Oh, and where are these cities that you seem to know exist? Were there cities in existence at the end of the last ice age? Again you are making vague statements - no evidence. Again an asteroid hitting the ice cap wouldn't have melted but a tiny percentage of it. Do the math if you don't believe me.

Prior to gobekli tepi being dated it was thought to have been impossible

Until something is found by archaeologists it remains Possible not Impossible.

the world is big the ocean is deep add in continental drift, the rising sea levels, catastrophic natural disasters I would wager there is at least 1 civilization in the past that we know nothing about because we havnt looked in the right places to find the evidence.

It remains possible but no evidence has ever been found to point to one. So, since you seem to want there to be an LC should we make one up? Or could/should we wait until we have evidence of one before announcing it exists?

Since people dont want to fund long shots very often and going outside the known paradigm is a longshot to the money people.

You know absolutely nothing about how grants are written do you? LOL

Why not get all the multi-milionnaires who made money selling pseudo-crap to believers to provide money - they have in the past - to fund all this great long shot stuff?

Great Video and i Love the Avatar.
I for one will miss TWD.
a reply to: SLAYER69

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Irishhaf
IF it truly was a location that had some ancient civilizations my guess, is they are looking at the wrong elevation.

Considering the fairly sudden sea level rise post ice age most ocean-going peoples would be near the water line not the top of a volcano.

Very tired so could just not be finishing the thought.

People wouldn't lose their civilization while migrating inland a few feet per year, which would keep them WELL ahead of any sea level rise due to ice melt.

Harte

Since we "don't know" the exact rates at which the sea levels did rise. We average out the totality of the rise over the period of time from then, till now. Which is a few meters per century. That does not mean that there could of been instances of quicker rises within that date range. IE. When Lake Agassiz in North America drained rapidly into the pacific. It raised sea levels by almost 10ft over the course of days, not years.

originally posted by: Triton1128

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Irishhaf
IF it truly was a location that had some ancient civilizations my guess, is they are looking at the wrong elevation.

Considering the fairly sudden sea level rise post ice age most ocean-going peoples would be near the water line not the top of a volcano.

Very tired so could just not be finishing the thought.

People wouldn't lose their civilization while migrating inland a few feet per year, which would keep them WELL ahead of any sea level rise due to ice melt.

Harte

Since we "don't know" the exact rates at which the sea levels did rise. We average out the totality of the rise over the period of time from then, till now. Which is a few meters per century. That does not mean that there could of been instances of quicker rises within that date range. IE. When Lake Agassiz in North America drained rapidly into the pacific. It raised sea levels by almost 10ft over the course of days, not years.

The rise you're talking about took a century, not days.

Harte