The Ice Age information gap.

It seems the conventional theory about the Ice Age is that we don't hear about it because nothing was going on. Just random nomads and traveling hunter gatherers.

There are a few reasons that doesn't satisfy me.

1) - There is strong evidence that the terrain was actually quite lush. To the point where hunter/gatherers didn't need to be nomads.

In the documentary "Secrets of the Sands" they discuss a guy named Faroque Al Baaz (I hope I'm spelling his name right?) A NASA researcher who got a satellite to do a radar scan of the Sahara Desert. He found absolutely astounding river beds, indicating not only a "green period" but a period so heavy with rain that only a few places on Earth today have that. (Unfortunately this kind of scan only works on desert areas. The radar can't penetrate wetter terrain.)

This correlates well with the number of Mastodons known to have been roaming the landscape. A modern elephant must eat 150 pounds of food per day to live, and there is no evidence mastodon could survive on less than that. Indeed some of the bigger ones needed closer to 400 pounds per day.

The amount of sunlight falling on the lands would have been only barely less than it is today. So the sun is bright in the sky, but it's still cold. Plant life would have to be hardy vs. the cold, but otherwise there's no reason it wouldn't have been growing abundantly.


2) - The lack of significant megalithic construction in times that came after.

The use of 5 ton and larger blocks, interlocked at uneven angles to prevent any one stone being moved independent of those near it, suggests a practical, rather than purely aesthetic purpose.

A 5 to 12 ton animal can move a single 5 ton block, if it isn't interlocked. The kinds of walls and fences being built by later humans would have been inadequate to stop megafauna. (But fine for blocking modern, smaller animals, or even human attackers.)

This is reinforced by the Greeks referring to them as "Cyclopean" architecture. And the legend of the cyclops appears to arise from the discovery of Mammoth skulls that looked like they had a single, big, eye socket in the center (which was really for the trunk.) So probably the tellers of those legends had found a lot of mammoth skulls near the walls?

People telling stories thousands of years ago, when the bones were more recent, would have been able to find more bones than we can today due to simply being nearer in history to the event.


3. The sheer degree to which we know NOTHING about it. No legends (except Atlantis, from only one written account). Barely the faintest hint of memory.

My take on this is that the humans who survived the Younger Dryas event were severely traumatized by it.

I think they believed that their predecessors had done something wrong. Offended the gods, or something. So they refused to preserve anything from that period in their oral histories. (EG. the "flood myth" of god wiping out a sinful world.)




That last part would also explain why mainstream anthropologists take so very little interest in it. Whatever happened during the ice age, it left no lasting imprint on the world's cultures.

If you want to understand the world's cultural origins, history really does stop about 10,000 years ago.

As for the big pyramids of Egypt, I think they are all just like Meidum.

en.wikipedia.org...

A more ancient, megalithic structure inside, and more recent construction using smaller casing stones to convert it into a true pyramid.

In the case of Meidum, in order to believe the same people built the inner step structure also built the now collapsed outer pyramid, you have to ignore a staggering contrast.

The inner step pyramid was so well engineered that it somehow managed to survive the collapse of the outer wall. And still stands thousands of years later.

The builders of the outer wall/casing stones didn't even dig down to bedrock.

Seriously. That sloppy.



The builders of the Bent Pyramid had to change angles half way through construction because the blocks were so heavy they were causing cracks in the lower (probably more ancient) structure. But if they knew how to build corbelled passage ways, why would they need to? They could have kept the angle, and simply hollowed out the upper part via corbelling.

However, the lower structure does have corbelled passage ways.



And of course, the Great Pyramid has 80 ton granite blocks in its core, with no written records anywhere to describe how that could be done. But the casing stones are only 5 ton blocks (with ample records about how they were moved and placed.)





My proposed reason for this:


The people were terrified of those old structures. Building over them was easier than tearing them down.

(Also the pharoah might have believed that they would provide him with greater power in the afterlife if they were incorporated into his tomb.)

a reply to: bloodymarvelous
One must understand todays anthropologists and archaeologists are more than happy to push their own agenda on how ancient history was. There is quite a bit of evidence about the World before the ice age, but to the establishment this is fringe history and because they have louder voices any other evidence is ignored or pooh poohed.
The bigger story than Atlantis of these times is the flood account in the bible and in other cultures around the World. The melting of the ice age.
Please go look at all the pre-ice age structures around the World of the coasts of India, Japan and even in the English Chanel. All these flourished while the water was locked in the ice age.
Please look at Graham Hancocks video of massive civilisations in the Amazon basin. This is another era that main stream academics don't want to look at. I wont go into Egypt and the Sahara as this would take up more pages than ATS can handle.

Giant puddles, glaciers and shelf's breaking away, 60+ degree temperatures. I have seen mountains of snow in Anchorage melt away to virtually zero by early September up by O'Malley and the Seward Highway. Where the city took snow removed from town and piled it. And the normal temp was around 67 degrees all summer, all 24 hours a day of it.

Suppose the South Pole decides to melt in earnest over three or four years ? Several things.... thawed out viruses, and revealed civilizations or settlements. And of course sea rise.

I think there is a plethora of information out there, it's just that certain universities or governments have need to project their version while contrary to the available evidence. Self serving. Sort of like academia in the Jules Vern movie adaptions of Journey to the center of the earth.... and the time machine, where the peers mocked and ridiculed the thought of such Theories being put to the test.

You can hide and make areas off limits, but in this day of such powerful ways of mapping and exploring the Earth, much will not easily hide.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: bloodymarvelous
One must understand todays anthropologists and archaeologists are more than happy to push their own agenda on how ancient history was.

As a Paleontologist, I couldn’t disagree more with this overgeneralized and stereotyped line of rhetoric that’s Just your personal opinion presented as if that somehow makes it factual.

There is quite a bit of evidence about the World before the ice age, but to the establishment this is fringe history and because they have louder voices any other evidence is ignored or pooh poohed.

Please go look at all the pre-ice age structures around the World of the coasts of India, Japan and even in the English Chanel. All these flourished while the water was locked in the ice age.

No, the collapsed structures in the Bay of Cambay are not pre-ice age and are much, much more recent. Yonaguni, off the coast of Japan is a natural formation and everyone studying that time period is well aware of Doggerland, the habituated portions of the English Channel and North Sea. It’s well documented and understood so the exact opposite of fringe. We operate on facts. Just because those facts conflict with your hopes and wishes does not make the facts incorrect.

The bigger story than Atlantis of these times is the flood account in the bible and in other cultures around the World. The melting of the ice age.

And you can date these floods to the end of the LGM how exactly?

Please look at Graham Hancocks video of massive civilisations in the Amazon basin. This is another era that main stream academics don't want to look at.

This is another false statement. You’re on a roll!

I wont go into Egypt and the Sahara as this would take up more pages than ATS can handle.

Then why make such a statement? It comes off S though you’re insulting everyone who posts in these forums.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

in the ice age there was the kingdom of Hyperborea, and the pyramids of Giza were built by the Tartaryans, then modified by the ottomans and finally the French in 1798 with primitive geopolymer tech.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous
The term "Ice Age" refers to the fact that there was ice covering northern Europe. Not the whole world. There's no conflict between that concept and the presence of plant and animal life on the other side of the Mediterranean.

a reply to: peter vlar

As a Palaeontologist, you will know more than me regarding pre-Holocene life but, as a general member of the public and a non-academic, the evidence for pushing civilisation and technology back way, way more in time than conventional teachings, is overwhelming. Just because someone likes to read Hancock et. al. does not place them in the category of the great uneducated.

To me, the structure in the sea of Yonaguni in no way resembles a natural formation. That's my belief and nothing will sway me from it. It is not inconceivable that it is a man-made structure, swamped by rising sea levels.

originally posted by: fromtheskydown
a reply to: peter vlar

As a Palaeontologist, you will know more than me regarding pre-Holocene life but, as a general member of the public and a non-academic, the evidence for pushing civilisation and technology back way, way more in time than conventional teachings, is overwhelming. Just because someone likes to read Hancock et. al. does not place them in the category of the great uneducated.

To me, the structure in the sea of Yonaguni in no way resembles a natural formation. That's my belief and nothing will sway me from it. It is not inconceivable that it is a man-made structure, swamped by rising sea levels.

Well that's the problem YOU think its overwhelming (which is fine) while those of us who study this find it vastly underwhelming. I've spent 50+ years looking for evidence of an earlier 'flowering' of human culture not during or after the last ice age but during after the previous ice age. The Eemian:

en.wikipedia.org...

There just isn't anything - trust me I've been lookin'. I've read just under 5,000+ papers during that time.

As to more current times. The period you are referring to was the time where cultures were finally beginning to organize, art was being developed and people were on the move. As noted by others the majority of the world wasn't affected by the Ice Age.

So your personal incredulity aside the evidence just isn't there*. Look at all the existing early cultures and civilizations - they all left massive archaeological footprints. Yet the Graham Hancock type 'invisible civilization' leaves nothing at all.

*Big secret from us who use to be in the 'biz' the people who become famous, get promotions, obtain lucrative book deals, TV and cable specials, tenure, large donations, foundations and grants are........................wait for............................ it....................................those who find new stuff, finding a new civilization would be fabulous - as Catalhuyuck and Gobekli Tepe show and they were just cultures.

originally posted by: fromtheskydown
a reply to: peter vlar

As a Palaeontologist, you will know more than me regarding pre-Holocene life but, as a general member of the public and a non-academic, the evidence for pushing civilisation and technology back way, way more in time than conventional teachings, is overwhelming. Just because someone likes to read Hancock et. al. does not place them in the category of the great uneducated.

That was an autocorrect typo, it should have read Paleoanthropologist. I studied Pleistocene European Hominids which is just a fancy way of saying my bread and butter is Humans living throughout the LGM and on a boring day I’ll be checking out stuff as recent as PPNA cultures (like the ones who built Catalhoyuk and Gobekli Tepe and President Jericho sites in the Levant. And no, reading or owning Hancock doesn’t place one as uneducated. I have a few of his books myself. It’s how I know how wrong he is. I’ve read his work and then I fact check it. He’s wrong about so, SO much I don’t even know where to start.

I keep hearing how all of the evidence is in favor of pushing back the technological time line back further,
Yet I’ve never seen anyone cite one that can stand up to 30 seconds of scrutiny and can’t be explained by utilizing well known facts. Please feel free to post examples with Citations though.

To me, the structure in the sea of Yonaguni in no way resembles a natural formation.

Yet you’re not a geologist and aren’t actually qualified to make such a statement.

That's my belief and nothing will sway me from it.

There’s a term for that. Confirmation Bias

It is not inconceivable that it is a man-made structure, swamped by rising sea levels.

Yet there’s yes evidence of such BoR have you presented anything other than your persona and clearly biased beliefs.

originally posted by: Plotus


Suppose the South Pole decides to melt in earnest over three or four years ? Several things.... thawed out viruses, and revealed civilizations or settlements. And of course sea rise.

.

I think there is a high probability of that.

Because if you look at the theory behind the Milankovitch cycle being the cause of the ice age, part of that theory is that the North pole ended up being on the further away part of the Earth's elliptical orbit around the Sun.

So it was Summer in the North when the Earth was furthest away, and Winter when it was closest. And since the North has more land, that allowed more glaciers to form, which cooled the whole Earth more.

But there's a piece of that story that I hope you didn't miss: It was Winter in the North when the Earth was closest to the Sun?

So.... if it was Winter in the North, then what season was it in the South?

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: bloodymarvelous
One must understand todays anthropologists and archaeologists are more than happy to push their own agenda on how ancient history was.

As a Paleontologist, I couldn’t disagree more with this overgeneralized and stereotyped line of rhetoric that’s Just your personal opinion presented as if that somehow makes it factual.

Paleontologists are different from Anthropologists, though.

The Anthropologists are always looking for cultural context.

Prior the Younger Dryas there isn't much of that, because the cultures that arose afterward villified their ancestors by spreading the flood myth about a wicked world being wiped out by the gods. So the cultures won't connect.

Personally I'm interested in the ice age because I want to understand human genetic evolution. Like why we are instinctively driven to violence, and why hunting and gathering (in the modern world shopping and violent video games) are so entertaining to us.

And you can date these floods to the end of the LGM how exactly?

We'll know soon enough, when they finally zero in on a date for the Hiawatha crater in Greenland. It's likely to turn out to be the impact that sparked the Younger Dryas event. (But not certain to be, just yet.)

originally posted by: Hanslune

Well that's the problem YOU think its overwhelming (which is fine) while those of us who study this find it vastly underwhelming. I've spent 50+ years looking for evidence of an earlier 'flowering' of human culture not during or after the last ice age but during after the previous ice age. The Eemian:

en.wikipedia.org...

There just isn't anything - trust me I've been lookin'. I've read just under 5,000+ papers during that time.

I'm starting to come over to your way of thinking that maybe they weren't so advanced, but I still think they built the megalithic structures.

That's not necessarily proof of advancement. But more evidence of different needs and priorities. A megalithic wall isn't better than a thinner wall built of small bricks if you're defending against other humans.

The main thing you need in order to move a giant stone is strong ropes. The stronger the rope, the more people you can have pulling on it together (before it snaps).

As to more current times. The period you are referring to was the time where cultures were finally beginning to organize, art was being developed and people were on the move. As noted by others the majority of the world wasn't affected by the Ice Age.

So your personal incredulity aside the evidence just isn't there*. Look at all the existing early cultures and civilizations - they all left massive archaeological footprints. Yet the Graham Hancock type 'invisible civilization' leaves nothing at all.

The change from hunting and gathering the extremely bounteous rainy world of the Ice age, over to farming the now much more arid planet that came after, caused a population explosion among the farmers.

Life wasn't better. They had big families because their new way of life was labor intensive, and the only way to have specialists was for each specialist to be supported by a large number of peasant farmers under them.

In the ice age, hunters/gatherers didn't need to do much work at all to meet their nutritional needs. You could have a society where everyone had plenty of free time to be specialists. The main problem was just keeping the populations of megafauna down, so they didn't overrun your settlement.

Populations would stay small, but the arts could still flourish.

*Big secret from us who use to be in the 'biz' the people who become famous, get promotions, obtain lucrative book deals, TV and cable specials, tenure, large donations, foundations and grants are........................wait for............................ it....................................those who find new stuff, finding a new civilization would be fabulous - as Catalhuyuck and Gobekli Tepe show and they were just cultures.

Maybe, but the state usually only wants to fund stuff that reinforces its cultural narrative.

European nations want to know about Rome, because that's where the modern European state grew out of. China wants to know about the Qin dynasty. Egypt wants the Pharoahs starting with Narmer to be the first leaders the North African world ever knew.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous


The change from hunting and gathering the extremely bounteous rainy world of the Ice age, over to farming the now much more arid planet that came after, caused a population explosion among the farmers.

Life wasn't better. They had big families because their new way of life was labor intensive, and the only way to have specialists was for each specialist to be supported by a large number of peasant farmers under them.

In the ice age, hunters/gatherers didn't need to do much work at all to meet their nutritional needs. You could have a society where everyone had plenty of free time to be specialists. The main problem was just keeping the populations of megafauna down, so they didn't overrun your settlement.

Populations would stay small, but the arts could still flourish.

Whilst i hear what you are saying, in actual fact all serious studies have shown the opposite to be true. The hunter / gatherer lifestyle is extremely time consuming and it is only when we started to invent things like needles (to make nets, clothes, baskets, etc) that we then get to "save" time for other pursuits (arts, agriculture, etc).

It may seem counter-intuitive but then i guess that is often the way with us humans!

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Yes you get a large brownie point for noting that ropes were the key to being able to concentrate muscle power to move heavy rocks.

States except for a few that are Theocratic or autocratic don't particular care about their earlier 'cultural' narrative.
Howdy BM

Those states you mention are all doing research about times earlier than that so not sure what your point is.

People have been sloshing over and around the world for quite some time so there aren't any pure 'races' or even homelands. Now within some countries you'll find such groups like in Japan for one example.

Well here's the problem if all these states are out to reinforce there cultural narrative how could us folks that do the finding don't know about it? Now the country's that are concerned about it make it very clear that they are by having large ministries that control this sort of things. We can clearly see that

So if we know they are doing it how come we don't know the others are?

Not sure what nationality you might be but for the country you are from who is the head guy or gal in charge of reinforcing the cultural narrative?

originally posted by: Flavian

In becoming farmers led also to higher birth rates and child survival rates - women pregnant and with small children don't like to travel. Sitting in one place also allowed older people to live longer and to contribute more. Especially older women who studies have shown contribute much of the cultural education to children.

a reply to: peter vlar

I also use to read Graham Hancock books as long as I could find them at garage sales and used book stores. Such sources don't work well now days.

I read the first 5-6 and got both bored and frustrated with them due to the lack of evidence, bad logic and his proposing one 'great idea' then abandoning it for another idea without explaining why the earlier idea was dumped.

I mean he said there was a civilization under the Antarctic ice but for some reason he just dropped it.

He is running out of places to stick lost civilizations since it needs to be somewhere not one can verify it there or not there or there is some hope a disaster wiped it out.....he is getting better at making his pronouncement free of a need to provide evidence.

I kind of touched on some of this is my thread I made on Atlantis over the last summer.

Specifically this post

In it I pointed out that a major ice shelf collaped in the Alps, that wiped out the areas in Italy's Rovigo and Ferrara regions. THere's so much during that time going on that is hardly gets covered by anything other than myths, that people just ignore them. Africian myths cover a lot of interesting stories that seem to have solid bases in verifiable history but doesn't get a second glance. Stories like how the Nile used to run into the Atlantic Ocean, hardly gets mentions these days, even though satellite images prove that this did in fact happen. So many things, and so little looking into it.

I'm not going to blame academics on this failing, but rather the lack of interest of those who fund them. No hits of "fame and fortune" and it's hard to get the funds to poke around for years to find something. The real sad state of academics today.

I think it's no small coincidence that some of the most culturally separated finds came out of Turkey. Turkey's history is the Ottoman Empire, which mostly claims origin from the Muslim empires out of Arabia. It's simply the state that grew out of the conquest of Constantinopol.

So they don't expect anything found from earlier than that to reinforce their cultural narrative.

So when the city of Hatussa, of the Hittites was discovered, they had no reason to be obstructive to its excavation. Just a part of the vanquished culture of the region. If the Hittites were great, and some of their descendants later became part of the Eastern Roman Empire culture, then it just shows that whoever defeated them must have been great too.

Gobekli Tepe - likewise. No concern to the Ottomans.

The lost city of Troy? Sure. Why not?

For Turkey, the only question is : "will we get tourism out of this?"

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

States except for a few that are Theocratic or autocratic don't particular care about their earlier 'cultural' narrative.
Howdy BM

Those states you mention are all doing research about times earlier than that so not sure what your point is.

To be honest, I think it's less about what the state takes interest in, and more about what the public takes interest in, in a given region.

In Egypt the present government has no real relationship with the Pharaoh dynasties. But the people are curious about where their own culture comes from

And I think a lot of people in Egypt want to believe that much of their way of life is handed down from earlier times.

People have been sloshing over and around the world for quite some time so there aren't any pure 'races' or even homelands. Now within some countries you'll find such groups like in Japan for one example.

Genetic heredity and cultural heredity are entirely different questions.

Besides that genetic heredity can be proven nowadays, and I think most of it has already been mapped. I'm pretty sure the results were disappointing to racists of the world.

Well here's the problem if all these states are out to reinforce there cultural narrative how could us folks that do the finding don't know about it? Now the country's that are concerned about it make it very clear that they are by having large ministries that control this sort of things. We can clearly see that

So if we know they are doing it how come we don't know the others are?

Not sure what nationality you might be but for the country you are from who is the head guy or gal in charge of reinforcing the cultural narrative?

The governments that pursue a cultural narrative are going to be doing it in order to get favor with their people. Not to brainwash their people (with the possible exception of China....)

If the people feel like government money is being spent to find evidence for and prove things that make them feel good about themselves and their heritage, they are more likely to let the current regime stay in power.

If you're from, say, in Scandanavia, you probably just love hearing how awesome the vikings were. And if your government funds a dig that brings back a bunch of nice viking relics that are interpreted to mean the vikings did awesome things in their day, it would warm your heart. (And make you feel like voting for the guy who chose to fund that dig!!!)

Not saying you would outright oppose the government funding a dig into a people so far removed that it can be shown they had no contact with the vikings. But it wouldn't make you want to vote for guy that gave it its funding.

originally posted by: fromtheskydown
a reply to: peter vlar

As a Palaeontologist, you will know more than me regarding pre-Holocene life but, as a general member of the public and a non-academic, the evidence for pushing civilisation and technology back way, way more in time than conventional teachings, is overwhelming. Just because someone likes to read Hancock et. al. does not place them in the category of the great uneducated.

To me, the structure in the sea of Yonaguni in no way resembles a natural formation. That's my belief and nothing will sway me from it. It is not inconceivable that it is a man-made structure, swamped by rising sea levels.

I think natural formation, why?? those supposed steps waay too big for any known humans, proberly need a ladder to climb those supposed steps, however relatively advanced Hgs were more than capable of building impressive structures.

originally posted by: Flavian

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous


The change from hunting and gathering the extremely bounteous rainy world of the Ice age, over to farming the now much more arid planet that came after, caused a population explosion among the farmers.

Life wasn't better. They had big families because their new way of life was labor intensive, and the only way to have specialists was for each specialist to be supported by a large number of peasant farmers under them.

In the ice age, hunters/gatherers didn't need to do much work at all to meet their nutritional needs. You could have a society where everyone had plenty of free time to be specialists. The main problem was just keeping the populations of megafauna down, so they didn't overrun your settlement.

Populations would stay small, but the arts could still flourish.

Whilst i hear what you are saying, in actual fact all serious studies have shown the opposite to be true. The hunter / gatherer lifestyle is extremely time consuming and it is only when we started to invent things like needles (to make nets, clothes, baskets, etc) that we then get to "save" time for other pursuits (arts, agriculture, etc).

It may seem counter-intuitive but then i guess that is often the way with us humans!

There is a second layer of counter intuition to consider here, though.

It's true, if you look at a place like New Guinea, for example, where many people still live hunting/gathering lifestyles, that they have to forage pretty much all day just to get enough nutrition.

But the ice age was a different world.

The whole reason farming even emerged was in order to address the scarcities that came about after the Younger Dryas event and subsequent Boreal warming period.

Those who didn't farm had to become migratory hunter gatherers, hunting multiple smaller animals on a daily or weekly basis, and gathering fruits or harvesting plant husks that had to be cooked out of the plant. Stuff like that.

Or the third option: managing a herd, which would migrate between naturally occurring fields.


A late ice age culture called the "Natufian Culture" has been found in the areas around Palestine, which did exactly what modern farmers do, except they didn't have to sow. They only reaped. Furthermore their grinding tools show a level of maintenance of ornateness that indicates they must have had quite a lot of leisure time to be decorating stuff with. (When the same culture is tracked into periods past the Boreal warming, they start sowing, and the same tools start to look worn and beat up. )

en.wikipedia.org...

www.fromthegrapevine.com...

www.academia.edu...


For hunter/gatherers in the ice age, just killing one mammoth could feed your whole tribe for a month or two (especially if you did so during the cold months, so the meat could be kept in "nature's refridgerator".)

And mammoths were quite abundant.


If modern hunter/gatherers had access to that kind of bounty, they'd probably spend more time relaxing (Or building monuments) .

hi there,

great topic,

i can highly reccomend the following very new videos on this subject :
they are really well made an well presented,
(in fact his entire channel is full of well made videos, espcially on the Viking culture)

Doggerland Europes Lost World:
www.youtube.com...

Ancient Europe What Happenend to the Last Hunters
www.youtube.com...

both of these Videos are full of brand new data and info , esp on early seed movement and usage.

many thanks