Discussion: Possibly of an advanced CULTURE or proto-Civilization at the end of the PREVIOUS ice age

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Flavian


That would be a massive undertaking, several generations in fact to do that type of search. However, we do know that there are many mounds and sites not excavated and probably many more not even guessed at.

I would start around Lake Issyk Kul. Apart from all the petroglyphs in the area (and mounds / kurgans in the vast surrounding area) we know that the lake level has fluctuated massively over the millenia and there are submerged ruins within the lake.

But to be honest, i think the entire steppe area would have been a fantastic mega_javascript:hyperlink() fauna hunting ground around 130'000 years ago.

The third group of ancient Europeans, recently identified, may play a big role in terms on new and future discoveries in the steppe region. DNA study reveals third group of ancestors of modern Europeans.

That entire region could be full of a very important part of human history. For example, the recent discovery of a 6'000 year old temple in the Ukraine. Clearly, this is on a much shorter time frame than the thread title but it again demonstrates advanced civilization in an area where such things aren't "supposed" to be.

6'000 year old temple with possible sacrificial altars discovered

originally posted by: SLAYER69

originally posted by: nukedog
a reply to: SLAYER69

Gold?

Heh, Heh

There was a thread a few months back discussing such a scenario and how possibly the Spanish during the conquest of the New world and their Gold fever may have inadvertently melted down possible ancient relics [Which were made of Gold] not knowing what they were destroying were valuable ancient artifacts. Since Gold stands the test of time etc etc etc. An advanced Ancient race would know this too...


We will never know

We know Atahualpa offered to fill a room with gold to cover his ransom and that Pizarro accepted. We also know that, for example, Santiago de Compostela was built on South American wealth (amazing place, well worth a visit if in Spain) and that England had a lively trade "relocating" said gold from the Spanish en route to Spain.

If you are shipping loads of gold, what is the most simple method? You melt it down onto easily stored containers. As they did this with other metals at the time, i would be amazed if this didn't also happen with the golden artifacts they plundered.

a reply to: Flavian

Absolutely; and there is working being done in that area. A lot of what is going on isn't published in English.

originally posted by: 131415
Ice Core records:

There was a WWII bomber that crashed in Antartica. When they found it - 50 years later the ice build up using their dating methodology suggested it had been there for at least 10,000 years!

No, not true at all. For one thing, the planes you are referring to crashed in Greenland not Antarctica. No WW2 planes crashed in Antarctica. The planes were indeed found under 260 ft of ice but it in no way whatsoever skews or throws into doubt the use of ice core samples as a dating method. There is a known rated of ice accumulation of a little over a meter per year. On top of that, the planes crashed into a glacier, glaciers move and when they do so they have a tendency to push down whatever resides within. The depth the remains of these planes were located in, in no way whatsoever, negates the validity of ice core data whether it be the attributed dating or the environmental data. The planes were located by correlating the glacial outflow data and ice accumulation data with the time span between the crash and search and were subsequently located in the area predicted by climatologists based on the WW2 records of where the crash took place.

www.airspacemag.com...

Just thought I'd let you know that I asked my son who's in 6th grade this year about this, and what he thinks.

As I'm home schooling him, I know exactly what has been covered in his global history book. It started the year with Sumer and how it was discovered. Moved on to Ancient Egypt, and now he's just finished the Indus and Ancient Chinese .

I asked him would they be Hunter Gatherers or Civilization. His answer:

Well the book says that to be a civilization, they have to have a surplus of food and a division of labor.

I asked if they have to have a written language, and he pointed out how the books showed the early Sumarins didn't at first, but they were still gathered together, creating a surplus of food and had started division of labor.

So I told him: pretend they found something, like a clay tablet with markings on it.

He thought about that and pointed out that we still don't know the Indus language. So more than likely we wouldn't know what it said right away.

Color me impressed. I had forgotten that part about the Indus.

So I asked him one last question: Where would you look for this civilization.

He thought about it for a long time, and told me this:

"I'd look along rivers. That was what each one I'm learning about now did. They set up next to rivers all the time. But the rivers then might be dried out now, so they need to look at dry rivers too."

I thought that was a good answer too. No only existing rivers, but rivers that no longer flow like they used to, and to keep in mind rivers change courses too.

But he had one last surprise for me:

He pointed out that his history book said that finding Sumer was a long time thing and if it were not for stories that people kept hearing about, then no one would have started poking around the mounds that turned out to be ziggurats.

I told him that sometimes we find something first, and then find out there are stories to connect with it.

Still I was impressed.......until he said "But the dinosaurs most likely wiped them all out anyways."

Face palm. Have to go back over that lesson.

So there you have it. My youngest son said you all need to be looking at where rivers are or where at least, try to find stories that connect with those areas.....and in his words: "Find some mounds to poke around in."

But I'm pretty sure those of you well versed in this area knew all that. Still, it was fun sharing this thread with him.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Yes he was very close, rivers and mounds and the odd shell midden or flint/obsidian mine.

Of course two of the oldest cultures we do know about that built something interesting; Gobekli Tepe and Catalhuyuck are not on rivers.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: 131415
Ice Core records:

There was a WWII bomber that crashed in Antartica. When they found it - 50 years later the ice build up using their dating methodology suggested it had been there for at least 10,000 years!

No, not true at all. For one thing, the planes you are referring to crashed in Greenland not Antarctica. No WW2 planes crashed in Antarctica. The planes were indeed found under 260 ft of ice but it in no way whatsoever skews or throws into doubt the use of ice core samples as a dating method. There is a known rated of ice accumulation of a little over a meter per year. On top of that, the planes crashed into a glacier, glaciers move and when they do so they have a tendency to push down whatever resides within. The depth the remains of these planes were located in, in no way whatsoever, negates the validity of ice core data whether it be the attributed dating or the environmental data. The planes were located by correlating the glacial outflow data and ice accumulation data with the time span between the crash and search and were subsequently located in the area predicted by climatologists based on the WW2 records of where the crash took place.

www.airspacemag.com...

My bad Greenland! It had been a long time since I read about it!

Ultimately 30 Glaciologists spent a lot of time and money expecting, based on their models to find the plane at 80 feet. They found it at 270. They didn't even get the distance it was expected to move right in just two years lol.

"In 1983 When the money ran out and weather closed in, the group erected a
25-foot metal tower over the site of the relocated B-17 and abandoned
the operation."

Based on ice modeling of Greenland's continental glacier when the
party returned two years later to attempt a recovery, they had
expected that the tower, which marked the squadron's position, to have
moved only slightly. However, its position did not conform with the
ice flow model because when they checked the "latitude and longitude
measurements it said it couldn't be. The site was 410 feet from
where the tower was sunk. Mountain glaciers might possibly drift that
much, but not continental ones."

David Hayes', The Lost
Squadron

I'm not sure how this doesn't "throw doubt" - and thats ok. Everything should be questioned. No need to ignore evidence that contradicts a model … When you use measurements of how ice/snow build up today and retrocalculate it onto the past, your probably not going to fare too well.

originally posted by: 131415

My bad Greenland! It had been a long time since I read about it!

Ultimately 30 Glaciologists spent a lot of time and money expecting, based on their models to find the plane at 80 feet. They found it at 270. They didn't even get the distance it was expected to move right in just two years lol.

"In 1983 When the money ran out and weather closed in, the group erected a
25-foot metal tower over the site of the relocated B-17 and abandoned
the operation."

Based on ice modeling of Greenland's continental glacier when the
party returned two years later to attempt a recovery, they had
expected that the tower, which marked the squadron's position, to have
moved only slightly. However, its position did not conform with the
ice flow model because when they checked the "latitude and longitude
measurements it said it couldn't be. The site was 410 feet from
where the tower was sunk. Mountain glaciers might possibly drift that
much, but not continental ones."

David Hayes', The Lost
Squadron

Do you have any citation that I can check without ordering a book? Anything at all that supports the claim? Everything I've read says that the planes actual location was not discerned until 1988 which makes me question the claim that it had moved over 400 ft between '81 & '83.

I'm not sure how this doesn't "throw doubt" - and thats ok. Everything should be questioned. No need to ignore evidence that contradicts a model … When you use measurements of how ice/snow build up today and retrocalculate it onto the past, your probably not going to fare too well.

Im not ignoring any evidence tha contradicts the accepted models. No dating technique is 100% accurate and there is always going to be a margin of error. At 160,000 years the margin is +/- 15,000. Either way the data in no way reflects your claim that glacier girl was found at a depth that indicates it should have been there for 10,000 years which was really what I was trying to get at. Glacial/ice flow is certainly the least reliable predictor when dealing with ice but as with any dating, there are multiple tests done by multiple methodologies for cross referencing.

Here is a good starting point, www.talkorigins.org...

one thing I will agree with you on is that everything should be questioned. Especially when referencing 30 year old climate models. I think its fair to say that today we have more knowledge and better understanding of things than we did in 1981.

originally posted by: smitastrophe
a reply to: nukedog

I agree with this completely. Haven't there been discussions on ATS regarding ancient written records, like the Crystal tablets of Thoth or I had also heard about golden tablets hidden somewhere in South America? They supposedly contain written accounts of this very topic.

"Thoth's" tablet was reportedly a single tablet engraved with ten lines of script. The tablet itself has never been seen by anyone living in the age of photography, and, if it ever existed, was lost already in the first references we have to it.
However, the text itself (supposedly) was copied and a couple of translations (it was in Greek so it ain't all that old) can be found online.
Not much to it, really.

The "golden tablets" you mention were a fraud perpetrated by Erik VonDaniken ("Gold of the Gods"), who later admitted he'd never even been to the cave where he claimed to have seen them.

originally posted by: Tusks
Some of the gigantic monolithic stones at the lower levels at Baalbek and in Peru--those things would outlast steel and concrete. What would be left of NYC after 100,000 years of absent human civilization?

Millions of cubic yards of solid, but crumbly, concrete foundations, some extending hundreds of feet into the Earth, along with the oxidized remains of reinforcing rods - some still there - encased in the concrete.

Harte

a reply to: Harte
Don't forget the hundreds of miles of tunnels subway, water , utilities etc.

originally posted by: punkinworks10
a reply to: Harte
Don't forget the hundreds of miles of tunnels subway, water , utilities etc.

Yeah, in the Alp the Gotthard Road Tunnel 16 kilometers long (thru granite I believe)- that should make some later archaeologist/geologist* take some notes.

*Presuming our present civ gets wiped out and the later folks develop an interest

originally posted by: Hanslune



Of course two of the oldest cultures we do know about that built something interesting; Gobekli Tepe and Catalhuyuck are not on rivers.

Çatalhöyük was on a channel of the Çarşamba river. It flowed between the mounds.

originally posted by: nicokissos

originally posted by: Hanslune



Of course two of the oldest cultures we do know about that built something interesting; Gobekli Tepe and Catalhuyuck are not on rivers.

Çatalhöyük was on a channel of the Çarşamba river. It flowed between the mounds.

I'm unsure now as I cannot find a source that describes the size of that 'channel', my impress was that it was not a major waterway. Do you have any information on its size?

I couldn't find a good map showing the area around the site just one artist's impression, which shows the channel nearby.



Perhaps I should recast my statement as 'major' rivers.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: nicokissos

originally posted by: Hanslune



Of course two of the oldest cultures we do know about that built something interesting; Gobekli Tepe and Catalhuyuck are not on rivers.

Çatalhöyük was on a channel of the Çarşamba river. It flowed between the mounds.

I'm unsure now as I cannot find a source that describes the size of that 'channel', my impress was that it was not a major waterway. Do you have any information on its size?

I couldn't find a good map showing the area around the site just one artist's impression, which shows the channel nearby.

Perhaps I should recast my statement as 'major' rivers.

this is the pic that made me remember the river. [www.gardenvisit.com...]. the truth is probably somewhere between ditch and river.

from "the man who would be king", the fewer people going to the bathroom in the river upstream... the stronger the city...

a reply to: nicokissos

Looks like we need some hard data. Monday I'll do some searching in the literature to see if I can find out what is written about the water/channel.

Oh, I don't recall that quote from Kipling's books. Do you have it quite right?

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: nicokissos

Looks like we need some hard data. Monday I'll do some searching in the literature to see if I can find out what is written about the water/channel.

Oh, I don't recall that quote from Kipling's books. Do you have it quite right?

would the quote survive the censors?

basically:
Caine and Connery progress up a valley rousing each village to conquer the next until they reach a mythical city of power and wealth. The main pretext for each village to attack the next village is the doing of their business in the river and how they were powerless to do anything about it until the 2 brits showed up.

a reply to: Hanslune



Here's a pretty good article that discusses nearby water sources as well as the type of soil and possible areas suitable for agriculture- www.naturalhistorymag.com...://www.naturalhistorymag.com/htmlsite/0606/0606_feature.html

a reply to: peter vlar

Thanks;

Well then I stand corrected and we jst have to add Catalhuyuck to those pesky cultures that started up next to rivers!