Legitimate claims of advanced civilization existing before 5,000BC?

originally posted by: DrWily
I don't have much time to reply, but I'll say what I can.

That's exactly what I meant with the mechanism, the complexity. Complexity that approaches (or perhaps even exceeds) 18th century clock making skills.

The complexity in no way exceeds any clockmaking technology.
The Antikythera mechanism is not driven by any force, it doesn't have to operated on a specific, controlled pace. It is user actuated and simply indicates dates (not times) of certain items of interest (eclipses, Olympic Games, etc.)

originally posted by: DrWily
Don't you think you are being a little biased with the languages thing? From a western perspective... Sure, Akkadian is way more important. But from a pre columbian American perspective? Akkadian is meaningless. Vice versa for Mayan language in the west. Both have their rightful place as important. Besides, you might be singing a different tune if the Spanish had not burned whole Mayan libraries, leaving us with just a handful of codices.

Doh! Out of time.

There's a big difference, as Marduk pointed out.
Akkadian allows us to understand MULTIPLE cultures, whereas Mayan, only having been used by the Maya, gives us an inside view of only one single culture.
On top of that, the Maya are so recent that a large amount of information can be deduced about them from what they left behind because there's more of it left.
Also, The Maya are still there, and first contact between the Maya and the Europeans occurred a relatively short time ago.

None of that is the case for Akkadian.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

It is user actuated and simply indicates dates (not times) of certain items of interest (eclipses, Olympic Games, etc.)

And, apparently, not all that well.

This could imply that the primary purpose of the Antikythera Mechanism was for display or education, rather than a practical accurate astronomical prediction - a conclusion that might be reinforced by the presence of the four-year pan-Hellenic games indicator.

Article

originally posted by: Harte
The complexity in no way exceeds any clockmaking technology.

You are making a ton of assumptions here.

The Antikythera mechanism is not driven by any force

There is not enough information to make that judgement call. The mechanism is incomplete. It might have been hand driven, it might have been part of an elaborate water clock. It is simply unknown at this point.

It doesn't have to operated on a specific, controlled pace.

Neither does a clock, technically. It just wouldn't be a very convenient clock.

It is user actuated

Once again, speculation. This goes back to the first statement.

and simply indicates dates (not times) of certain items of interest (eclipses, Olympic Games, etc.)

Add position of sun and moon, planets, moon phase, zodiac, and Egyptian civil calendar to that "etc".

Take a look at this gearing scheme:
upload.wikimedia.org...

Compare and contrast with an 18th century grandfather clock:
images.bidorbuy.co.za...

The difference is striking. Just because it doesn't tell time like a 18th century clock, doesn't mean it's not as complex.

There's a big difference, as Marduk pointed out.
Akkadian allows us to understand MULTIPLE cultures, whereas Mayan, only having been used by the Maya, gives us an inside view of only one single culture.
On top of that, the Maya are so recent that a large amount of information can be deduced about them from what they left behind because there's more of it left.
Also, The Maya are still there, and first contact between the Maya and the Europeans occurred a relatively short time ago.

None of that is the case for Akkadian.

Harte

It's hard to argue some of those points and I freely admit that translating Akkadian would be a bigger overall win for Archaeology as a whole... However, I was illustrating a point. It's all about perspective. Someone who studies Mesoamerica could care less about Akkadian. Someone who studies bronze age Mesopotamia could care less about Mayan. It's just a fact of life. "Importance" is inherently a subjective concept, that's what I meant by biased.

a reply to: DrWily

You should read the article I posted above. More is known about the device than you seem to be aware.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DrWily

You should read the article I posted above. More is known about the device than you seem to be aware.

Beat you to it. I'm already aware that there is a margin of error in many of the planetary calculations. It still doesn't make the device any less complex. Now, this is a bit unfair and I'll explain why. This is the space age. We now know with extreme precision the positioning of the planets, their orbits, etc. Given the information at the time? The accuracy is astounding.

I have no iea if there's any legit claims of even older advanced civilizations prior to Sumeria, but I wouldn't doubt if there were a handful. My pet guess is that they're most likely under the water (and thus, sediment) off any given coastline, though. As for narrowing it down to specifics, I'd put good money on the Persian Gulf having some serious secrets to give up some day.

originally posted by: DrWily
But I did read something about a insanely long (22,000ft deep) ancient mine shaft found by De Beers and promptly covered up.

Sounds like someone stumbled on the shaft to Ae'gura (those who get the reference are so my peeps)

a reply to: DrWily

This is the space age. We now know with extreme precision the positioning of the planets, their orbits, etc. Given the information at the time? The accuracy is astounding.

Do you think the movement of the Moon and planets are random? People have been predicting their motions for ages. They didn't know why they move as they do, but they knew very well how they move. "Sciences" like astrology were based on predicting those motions. Agriculture depended on knowing the sky.

The device is not inaccurate because the motions of the Moon were not known accurately. The builder, whoever it was, surely knew that. The device is inaccurate because it is not a very good "clock."

Yes, it is fairly complex and a beautiful machine. But not complex enough to be much more than a fancy toy. A display piece. I wonder who's gift it was to be.

originally posted by: Phage
Do you think the movement of the Moon and planets are random? People have been predicting their motions for ages. They didn't know why they move as they do, but they knew very well how they move. "Sciences" like astrology were based on predicting those motions. Agriculture depended on knowing the sky.

The device is not inaccurate because the motions of the Moon were not known accurately. The builder, whoever it was, surely knew that. The device is inaccurate because it is not a very good "clock."

Yes, it is fairly complex and a beautiful machine. But not complex enough to be much more than a fancy toy. A display piece. I wonder who's gift it was to be.

I agree with all that. But consider that early clocks had to be wound at least twice a day to ensure accuracy. Failure to do so would result in deviations on the scale described in that article you posted. Now, this is less due to the gearing and more due to the power source... But it illustrates how new technologies can often have fatal flaws. That doesn't make them any less ground breaking. Since there are no known written records for Greek gearing methods and we only have the one example... We have to assume that the creator died before passing this incredible knowledge to an apprentice. However, had that knowledge been passed down, it's safe to assume that the technology would have improved over time.

a reply to: DrWily

Maybe. Maybe not. He may have kept his "secrets" to himself.
Leanardo did, with his mirror writing and stuff.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DrWily

Maybe. Maybe not. He may have kept his "secrets" to himself.
Leanardo did, with his mirror writing and stuff.

Bah... There was never a future in mechanical computing anyway. Just look at Babbage's Analytical Engine, much to complex to be practical. Mechanical watches, while complex, preform one simple function. They tell time. It's easy enough to refine a single task. They actually built working examples of Babbage's Difference Engine in the 1980's, also designed to preform a single task. Whoever made the Antikythera mechanism was attempting to build something that was both complex and performs many functions at once... And they nearly succeeded. It's only flaw, as you pointed out, is the accuracy. Considering all that, I still think it's a ground breaking achievement and whoever built it deserves high praise.

a reply to: DrWily

Absolutely. An elegant machine.
Not, however, evidence of a civilization advanced beyond what is known.

originally posted by: Marduk

Uruk and Ur, were the first city states around 3000BCE.

IMO Çatalhöyük the city witch 'flourished around 7000 BC' - connected also to the Anatolian culture.
Encompassing Nevalı Çori, and Göbekli Tepe. I believe this area to predate Akkad/Sumer

Çatalhöyük

originally posted by: Phage

Absolutely. An elegant machine.
Not, however, evidence of a civilization advanced beyond what is known.

I'm a huge fan of Buckaroo Bonsai, I'm thinking we have at least a few things in common. I don't want to piss you off, so I'll try to be gentle... You are the 3rd person in this thread to assume that I'm crazy, so I'm guessing you guys get so much of this that it's just a knee jerk reaction. I forgive you. But just know that I'm rational and accept empirical evidence when it is presented. I didn't create this thread with wild claims about ancient alien influence, space faring ice age cultures, and certainly not ancient civilizations advanced beyond what was known today. I created it with a simple exploratory premise and no "agenda".

That being said, there are lots of ancient structures that would be very difficult for us to create today. For example, Cyclopean polygonal masonry from the Inca culture. Time and time again, earthquakes have reduced brick and mortar building to piles of rubble while the Inca structures remain intact. The precision stone work and the geometric earthquake resistant shapes baffle modern stone masons to this day. With no beasts of burden, it's difficult to imagine how they transported such heavy stones through mountainous terrain. Does it mean they had lasers and star ships with tractor beams? No. But they had something that we don't have and were able to achieve something that we have not. This is the kind of thing I'm after, lost knowledge. Technologies that appear, disappear, and then reappear. Or even better, technologies that disappeared and never came back.

I don't think this is fanciful thinking or irrational in any way. It's called healthy curiosity. If you don't question and simply accept information at face value... How will you ever know if you are wrong?

a reply to: DrWily

ou are the 3rd person in this thread to assume that I'm crazy, so I'm guessing you guys get so much of this that it's just a knee jerk reaction.

If you think I assume you are crazy, you might be. Perhaps a bit on the paranoid side. Because I don't think that nor did I imply it.

a reply to: Phage

Very well then. What caused you to write this?

Not, however, evidence of a civilization advanced beyond what is known.

Assumptions maybe? After all, I made no such claim.

a reply to: DrWily

I must have misunderstood. My apologies

I'm open. I'm just looking for anything that upsets the established theories of the cradle of civilization. I'm not expecting to find rockets where the tower of babel once stood, but anything where technology was used, lost, then used again is interesting to me.

Stuff like the antikythera mechanism and possibly Bagdad batteries.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Phage

You are quite right though... I'm both crazy and paranoid. But I AM rational!

Thank you for the apology, you are a pretty cool dude.

a reply to: DrWily

it would not suprise me nor would the reason evidence is so scarce . many religions talk about a hellacious war maybe they are referring to a war with advanced weaponry that totally destroyed cities nuclear war or convention modern warefare devastate the countryside . i remember that it was einstein he did not know what weapons we would unleash for third world war but he said the fourth would be fought with sticks and stones.

a reply to: proteus33

i remember that it was einstein he did not know what weapons we would unleash for third world war but he said the fourth would be fought with sticks and stones.

Did he?
When (and if possible, where) did he say that?

originally posted by: 0 x 0

originally posted by: Marduk

Uruk and Ur, were the first city states around 3000BCE.

IMO Çatalhöyük the city witch 'flourished around 7000 BC' - connected also to the Anatolian culture.
Encompassing Nevalı Çori, and Göbekli Tepe. I believe this area to predate Akkad/Sumer

Çatalhöyük

Ummm, do you understand what a city state is?
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...