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

originally posted by: ThatHappened
Marduk, one fact remains: The skill they had to work granite
is only approached by the ancient Egyptians, and far beyond
any pre-Columbian tribe.

a reply to: ThatHappened

The Egyptians were cutting and using granite around 3000BCE
That's 3000 years before S America
Yet you can't imagine pre Columbian tribes doing the same thing 3000 years later
When in fact, they used Granite all the time, all of their sites use it, they demonstrated how they quarried it to the Spanish
So really, this is your problem, you are culturally racist against the Inca and other similar tribes because you can't imagine how they did it when the evidence that they did is verified both by Science and eyewitnesses

FYI the oldest civilisation in the entire country, The Norte Chico culture were building walls from granite in 3000BCE, they even plastered them
Like I said earlier, if you aren't even prepared to do the smallest amount of research, then don't expect anyone to think what you are saying is even slightly credible

originally posted by: punkinworks10
a reply to: khangdd

Mods can we something about this?

I can translate it for you if you like,
Good God
Good thoughts
Destructive humanity

Its kind of saying, even with God and good thoughts, we are still destructive

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan and whats underwater is beyond our current ability (for the price).

?

I wouldn't worry too much about it, all the earliest civilisations were based on rivers, not oceans. Though I think that pseudo historians claim its oceans, handy that, having a reason why they have no evidence

originally posted by: ThatHappened
The lack of real data makes any claims just theory,
and until a legitimate study of the site is done,
we have to rely on old Nazis to measure it for us.

So now you're going to pretend that no legitimate study of Tiahuanaco has ever been done?

I suppose the gargantuan irrigation system found there was stumbled upon by a native and his llama?
These people are just weekend hobbyists?

This must be one of them fringe authors: link

Harte

a reply to: Marduk

Well...if i lived on the coasts and lost my home to flooding, i may move into river valleys instead.

Or maybe inland survives, while the ocean dwelling do not.

Yeah, its convenient.....but we do have evidence of submerged settlements, etc.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Marduk

Well...if i lived on the coasts and lost my home to flooding, i may move into river valleys instead.

Or maybe inland survives, while the ocean dwelling do not.

Yeah, its convenient.....but we do have evidence of submerged settlements, etc.

Egypt - Nile valley
Sumer - Tigris and Euphrates flood plain
China - Yellow River
S America - Supe river valley

The problem with claiming oceans, is that they are only advantageous if you have ocean going boats
Ocean going boats are way down the list of requirements for a settlement

We do have as you say evidence of submerged settlements, but they are not fledgling civilisations, in Egypt, famously Thonis-Heracleion and Canopus which were both sunk well into the Greek period, and the numerous Greek sunken cities, again, none fledgling and did you miss the data I posted yesterday?, the videos based on shoreline data which show the seas rising less than a cm per year over thousands of years. So for you to lose your home to flooding, you'd have to be a very slow person, thousands of years old. Want me to post them again ?

Even the flood of Noah can be traced back to a Sumerian story about a flooded city, and after the storm subsided, they rebuilt it.
You are talking about catastrophism, a concept abandoned by science, when they came up with uniformitarianism, the modern understanding of geological processes has created Neocatastrophism, but even with that, geological processes aren't included. You can have catastrophes caused by stellar events, meteorites and comets and the such like, but the evidence required are mass extinctions. There is no known process, by which a coastal community can vanish with all its inhabitants without leaving their relatives inland. Even when Eridu was destroyed, you still had Bad Tabira, Larsa, Sippar, Shuruppak and a few other cities to pick up the pieces.
You do occasionally get stretches of land sinking, but unless its caused by a volcanic activity, then everyone had plenty of time to walk away

originally posted by: Marduk
I wouldn't worry too much about it, all the earliest civilisations were based on rivers, not oceans. Though I think that pseudo historians claim its oceans, handy that, having a reason why they have no evidence.

lol... But there is still really cool stuff to be found in the oceans. Like Heracleion and possibly Dvārakā pending more substantial finds. And look at basically the entire Pacific Ocean. I bet there is crazy stuff all along the coasts east/southeast Asia, India, Pakistan, Africa, etc.

Then you've got places like Hawaii, Easter Island, and Tahiti. Isolated islands populated by fairly primitive people, but they knew how to build craft sea worthy enough to get them there. Admittedly these people weren't ancient, but it shows that ancients could probably pull it off too. Then you have Australia...

But I do agree that most of the good stuff is based along historical rivers, coastlines, etc. Stuff like Bimini road and Yonaguni Monument are probably explainable with natural processes and there is no real evidence to the contrary.

originally posted by: DrWily

originally posted by: Marduk
I wouldn't worry too much about it, all the earliest civilisations were based on rivers, not oceans. Though I think that pseudo historians claim its oceans, handy that, having a reason why they have no evidence.

lol... But there is still really cool stuff to be found in the oceans. Like Heracleion and possibly Dvārakā pending more substantial finds. And look at basically the entire Pacific Ocean. I bet there is crazy stuff all along the coasts east/southeast Asia, India, Pakistan, Africa, etc.

Then you've got places like Hawaii, Easter Island, and Tahiti. Isolated islands populated by fairly primitive people, but they knew how to build craft sea worthy enough to get them there. Admittedly these people weren't ancient, but it shows that ancients could probably pull it off too. Then you have Australia...

But I do agree that most of the good stuff is based along historical rivers, coastlines, etc. Stuff like Bimini road and Yonaguni Monument are probably explainable with natural processes and there is no real evidence to the contrary.

Its at this point you should go google seaworthy ships and why they weren't invented during the Neolithic. The ancients couldn't pull it off, that's the whole point. At what stage of development are you claiming "then they built a shipyard". They just didn't have the knowledge. They had boats, rafts and coracles, but without ships, no ones going to sea. Half the civilisations actually demonised it, consider Tiamat or Yam, both representing the sea, while also representing primordial chaos
en.wikipedia.org...

BTW, Dwarka is not anywhere near the Gulf of Khambhat, you posted the wrong link

originally posted by: [post=22059356]MardukAs so often happens, the amount of creduloids that come in here expecting their claim that their beliefs are valid to be instantly confirmed, because they read it in a work of fiction, have made me ultra cynical of anyone who even seems to emulate them. maybe I'm just having a bad day
But I do urge you as I did earlier, ignore the pseudo historians. You will just be wasting your time

You know it is not just a problem in this area. The amount of I referenced rubbish I have seen on so called skeptic websites has blown my mind.
There really is a need to be able to put up links and references.

originally posted by: ThatHappened
Marduk, one fact remains: The skill they had to work granite
is only approached by the ancient Egyptians, and far beyond
any pre-Columbian tribe.

a reply to: ThatHappened

Actually, no. The Egyptians were better at it because they had a thousand years of stoneworking and access to bronze and then iron tools (the Americas don't ever get into the Bronze Age.)

Their skills aren't entirely "beyond any pre-Columbian tribe. The Mayans were in their Classic phase by then after 2,000 years in the pre-Classic phase. The Zapotec's "palace of columns" is from the same time period and is far more elegant than anything at Tiwanaku: en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Byrd
the Americas don't ever get into the Bronze Age.

Except they did...

It is a common misconception that pre-Columbian Americas lacked bronze and thus were not able to deploy hardened copper alloys. However, copper alloys are reported as guanín by Columbus, a loan word borrowed from the Taino.[1] This misconception may well arise because tin, the common component of Eurasian bronze (although common in Bolivia), is rare in the Caribbean basin.

Even the Maya had bronze

Alloys became more prevalent during the second phase, as metal workers experimented with color, strength and fluidity. Formerly utilitarian assemblages transformed, with new focus placed upon metallic status objects. Further, the appearance of a copper-tin bronze alloy suggests contact between West Mexico and Peru during this period.

a reply to: Marduk

Marduk as for ship's they have been around a hell of a lot longer than you are giving credit.

Let's look at some interesting fact's eh.

There are petroglyphs of what look to be long boat's in Scandinavia dating back to thousand's of years before Christ (I hate that BCE bull it was invented by a group of Atheists and politically correct numb-skull's), even primitive raft's could cross vast distances, being part Moari as well as Part Jewish but mainly and very proudly BRITISH of both Celt and Anglo Saxon ancestry (no doubt with a fair spoon full or more of Scandinavian ancestry thrown in there) I would point out the recent but relatively primitive canoe of the Polynesians and there vast trek's across the pacific ocean probably (Definitely) reaching as far as south america, New Zealand and Australia (Were the Aboriginal folk had colonized it even earlier at between 40.000 BC to 60.000 BC and did they swim there?.

As you know and I will point this out to you ship's gained in size as a result of the need to trade and carry cargo over longer distances so ship building was driven by economic's.

AND As you know by your own admission the vast track's of land that were drowned WELL within the human age of maritime navigation are area's were ancient human's DID wander, settle and perhaps even had culture's, human's eat fish to estuary's and coast line's, now submerged island's would all have been populated by any hunter gatherers that decided to eat from the more predicable larder of the sea rather than chase bison SO i put it to you that it is highly conceivable that these ancient people's may indeed have had trade along the coast, between those island's, evolved there maritime skill's and indeed built larger vessel's in a lost epoch of human expression.

Indeed just to hit you with another bible site inspired page you probably dismiss as a lava rock I would point out the ship near little Ararat in Turkey which has been identified as Noah's ark by devout Christians, I do not know if it is or not but I am convinced it is most definitely NOT a lava rock but is a Ship, a very ancient ship.
I will point out that there is a concerted effort to deny this is a ship or to just ignore it, because BIBLE and also Because it poses a whole host of problems for the standard model of human history, a ship that only man could build of sea going size, indeed far larger than anything until about the 1700's or 1800's but so far inland that it either got there through a flood or by rising of the land (Volcano - tectonic action) pushing up an area that was formerly below sea level and this presumably once sunken vessel to a rather lofty altitude along with the sea or lake bed it was one sunken upon, both of which pose significant problems for the standard model, either the bible is true or humanity is extremely ancient and Lucy and pal's go out of the window along with the sheisters whom like to pander that crap to us.
www.ronwyatt.com...

www.iro.umontreal.ca...

Let's also remember the History of Sailing large vessels in China (there invention of the transverse bulkheads which all junks had based on the structure of a cane) and the now lost history of possible large vessels in south America before the European's got there.

We are not talking burned out log canoes here.

This is the standard view of maritime history.
www.q-files.com...
But you know history does not follow a straight line, I would love to see proper dating analysis of some of those ancient ship's on the bottom of the black sea.


Most OPINION is based on rock art, the few relic's that have survived on the post glacial world from times long after humans' repopulated the formerly inhospitable ice age hinterland of Europe and indeed most opinion is FROM Europe.

These are large river craft in this rock art but with a deeper draught they could be sea worth.
artsales.com...

Another part of the world, they look similar but are far earlier on the scale of thousand's of years older than these egyptian petroglyph's.
donsmaps.com...

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Marduk

Well...if i lived on the coasts and lost my home to flooding, i may move into river valleys instead.

Or maybe inland survives, while the ocean dwelling do not.

Yeah, its convenient.....but we do have evidence of submerged settlements, etc.

Truly ancient submerged settlements are from cultures known inland as well.

Like the Jomon. IIRC, there's a submerged Jomon village off the coast of Japan, or China, dating back to before the ice melted and sea levels rose that archaeologists are looking at.

But the Jomon were widespread, and certainly not a civilization.

Harte

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Byrd
the Americas don't ever get into the Bronze Age.

Except they did...

It is a common misconception that pre-Columbian Americas lacked bronze and thus were not able to deploy hardened copper alloys. However, copper alloys are reported as guanín by Columbus, a loan word borrowed from the Taino.[1] This misconception may well arise because tin, the common component of Eurasian bronze (although common in Bolivia), is rare in the Caribbean basin.

Even the Maya had bronze

Alloys became more prevalent during the second phase, as metal workers experimented with color, strength and fluidity. Formerly utilitarian assemblages transformed, with new focus placed upon metallic status objects. Further, the appearance of a copper-tin bronze alloy suggests contact between West Mexico and Peru during this period.

Well, I stand corrected!

However, I don't recall them having bronze/copper stoneworking tools like the Egyptians.

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: LABTECH767
We are not talking burned out log canoes here.

Al your credible examples feature boats, not ships
maybe you should learn the difference and stop wasting everyones time with your babble
Like you actually linked to Ron Wyatts website, proving you are insane, because he certainly was. A man without faith

originally posted by: LABTECH767because BIBLE

lol you actually said "because BIBLE", because, clueless...

I don't think I have ever actually seen a post by you which either made sense or had any evidence of independent thought

What they hell are you on about, what a pile of unmentionable GARBAGE.
Boat's are ship's it is all just a case of Scale.

How many chieftain's even in your blinkered opinion would have wanted a LARGE ceremonial craft.