Ancient ruins older then the Pyramids found in Canada

This book is a great look at archeology the same area,


It also highlights the very different attitude of the BC First Nations to the study of the ancients.
Tribal members are becoming archeologists and anthropologists and a part of the academic work.

wow very cool. Just makes you think what else is all out there waiting to be discovered.

a reply to: Akragon

Interestingly enough the article is from 2017 so one would think it would be discussed in more scientific circles. That begs the question -

Is the find accurate and dated correctly or is there a concerted effort to downplay and ignore any history that doesn't fit the traditional model.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Akragon

Interestingly enough the article is from 2017 so one would think it would be discussed in more scientific circles. That begs the question -

Is the find accurate and dated correctly or is there a concerted effort to downplay and ignore any history that doesn't fit the traditional model.

If one follows new world archeology/anthropology one would have heard of it.
The site is one of dozens being worked along coastal BC.
And it fits it's part "traditional model" quite well, what it really does is validated the veracity of oral traditions.

interesting but it is not the first time we find huge archaeological research in Canada. I think the real birthplace of life is Quebec in Canada, but it's a hypothesis




Earliest claimed life on Earth Edit
The earliest claimed lifeforms are fossilized microorganisms (or microfossils). They were found in iron and silica-rich rocks which were once hydrothermal vents in the Nuvvuagittuq greenstone belt of Quebec, Canada.

These rocks are as old as 4.28 billion years. The tubular forms they contain are shown in a report.[8] If this is the oldest record of life on Earth, it suggests "an almost instantaneous emergence of life" after oceans formed 4.4 billion years ago.[9][10][11] According to Stephen Blair Hedges, "If life arose relatively quickly on Earth… then it could be common in the universe".[12]

simple.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: darkbake
Nope, there Canadians, its probably exactly what they said. That or gee gooly look at this, or something along those lines.

originally posted by: punkinworks10
And it fits it's part "traditional model" quite well, what it really does is validated the veracity of oral traditions.

Not just the veracity but the effectiveness. If there is any relevance to be drawn from ancient Egypt, it is not that people were forming villages long before the pyramids were built (well doh!), it is that King Thamus has been truly vindicated. Writing does not improve memory, it poisons it.

Great posts in this thread punkinworks10 - hugely informative - thanks.

a reply to: Akragon

Not wanting to question any of this as it seems fascinating, but I've got to ask, if you carbon date the charcoal do you get the age of the tree or the age when the tree was burned?

you get the age of when the tree died and stopped taking in 14C.
That is why some site have eronious ages. Take egypt for example, the AE used a lot of "old" wood, that is to say they might have burned 500 year old used timbers, and when that charcoal is sampled it will give an age 500 years older than the know nage of the site.
This is a very real issue in some research, like in Alaska, where ancient people(10kya) burned old (40kya) and the sites give erronius dates

This is only true to be three times as older if you subscribe to the idea that Khufu built the pyramids.

Would it change things if the pyramids were the same age, if not more, as this site?

I think that within each land mass, continent, area, etc, you'll see things like this happening. Earth was inhabited by other life forms long before humans. Millions of years ago. Civilizations came and went. Just my twisted thoughts. Cool find. a reply to: Akragon

originally posted by: ViXxeN
Multiculturism doesn't always pay off.

..

It always does from the perspective of elite ruling scum.

If they did not know what else was south of them or that it got warmer the further south you go... they might have never known to head south.

a reply to: Akragon

it's definitely interesting... any proof of this though? Carbon dating was proven to be extremely iffy... But if this is true, go us Canadians!!

originally posted by: DoubleDNH
If they did not know what else was south of them or that it got warmer the further south you go... they might have never known to head south. [/quot



Maybe South was a cold direction then.