Why Historically Known cultures hid information about the Ice Age

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Bears in the ice age had tails. Bears after the ice age did not. So why does Ursa have a tail if the zodiac was devised later than the ice age?

Ursa (Major or Minor) are not part of the zodiac.
The zodiac is a series of constellations (12 of them) which lie on (or very near) the ecliptic.

I thought about that.

I guess there is no reason Ursa couldn't predate the zodiac by thousands of years, then.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

In older manuscripts show snakes on a lot of the creatures, but the bears have tails? I'm wondering if:

A. where those even bears in the first place? They could have been Ipis Bulls.

B. the earliest indication of humans cataloging the constellations was only 1000-2000 BCE.

So we really have no bronze age writings or pictographs of a constellation mapping of the sky.

a reply to: Guyfriday

Some cultures give the bears long tails. Others don't. Still others don't see a bear at all. For example, we see a big 'ol dipper.

To save Callisto and her son from further damage from Juno, Jupiter changed Arcas into a bear also, grabbed them both by their tails, and swung them both into the heavens so they could live peacefully among the stars. The strength of the throw caused the short stubby tails of the bears to become elongated.

www.aavso.org...

Or perhaps the constellation has been recognized as a long tailed bear for a very long time. It's still not part of the zodiac.

a reply to: Phage

Interesting enough from your link:

Interestingly, although the pattern represents a variety of objects to many cultures - a plow, wagon, coffin, skunk, camel, shark, canoe, bushel, sickle, even a hog's jaw - stories about this constellation may date back to the Ice Age when ancient people could cross over the Bering Strait to North America. At that time, cultures in both Siberia and Alaska shared a common heritage. It is even thought possible that the constellation actually got its name 50, 000 years ago when a Paleolithic bear cult existed.

So the idea that it was a tailed bear could be possible, but then again so could a lot of things.

a reply to: Guyfriday

It cannot be disproven. But the fact is that the same asterism "takes on" many different forms.

There are many pictures to be drawn in the sky. Which one is the correct one?

a reply to: peter vlar

Care to cite some examples? Or are we just making blanket statements as though they are fact today?

No if you are intrested go and have a read. As I said the for ages of man is something found in old cultures worldwide. If you are interested go and have a read. As I said our culture is in part an exception to this although a case can be argued for its existance in the bible. (for example the the flood coming before the creation myth) or nebehkenzers dream in which the statue representives the four ages of man. Also found in Greek mythology Four Ages . Hindu tradition holds true to the four ages. It is found commonly in indigenous tribes the world over for example the The Hopis call this the “The Fourth Age of Man”. I could go on but there is plenty there if you are interested.

The general idea that we have fallen from a golden age or enlightened age into a descent only to rise again. (the garden of eden / zep tepi etc)

You can bring a horse to water.
But I am not here to make you drink.

originally posted by: Harte

This claim is not new to me Hans.

Harte

Too bad its deliciously wooish, how come you didn't tell me? Were you keeping it to yourself? LOL

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Harte

This claim is not new to me Hans.

Harte

Too bad its deliciously wooish, how come you didn't tell me? Were you keeping it to yourself? LOL

Let sleeping dogs lie, I say.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
There's no evidence for ANY zodiac prior to the Akkadians.
Harte

Did they make it up out of whole cloth?

Either way, there isn't a whole lot of evidence for any kind of anything prior to or immediately after the Younger Dryas. Gobekli Tepe is interesting, and there have been suggestions that some of the symbols carved on the monoliths representing constellations. But I'm not all that convinced about that myself. Some hunter gatherer draws a figure in the dirt to tell about the Before Times, and no, it's not going to be found today.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Harte
There's no evidence for ANY zodiac prior to the Akkadians.
Harte

Did they make it up out of whole cloth?

Either way, there isn't a whole lot of evidence for any kind of anything prior to or immediately after the Younger Dryas. Gobekli Tepe is interesting, and there have been suggestions that some of the symbols carved on the monoliths representing constellations. But I'm not all that convinced about that myself. Some hunter gatherer draws a figure in the dirt to tell about the Before Times, and no, it's not going to be found today.

Um, yeah, they did kind of look up at the sky and made up stories about the pictures they thought they saw. That's how tales get made up.

Most of humanity was still nomadic for while after the warming cycle started, so there shouldn't be too many if any signs of settlements. GT is an interesting abnormality in this though, so there might be more if we were to spend the time to hunt them down.

a reply to: Guyfriday

It was probably all a mind trick to remember the places that stars rose and set, if you were a hunter gatherer following herds, it would be as handy on land as well as on sea, to be able to navigate by the rising and setting of stars.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

So going by them, in general, the world before the last Ice Age was temperate and warm. It was ruled by powerful kingdoms in various regions. The people often appeared to interact with various kinds of humanoid super beings. These super beings would war with each other, and while it meant human casualties, it was fearful and glorious to behold.

To be fair, 125,000 years ago, the world was warmer than today.

There are no myths or other stories relating to life 125,000 years ago - the oldest we have go back only a few thousand years. And the stories about humanoid super beings warring with one another date back to the 1960s at the earliest.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Brandburg? The guy who thinks a naturally occurring, stable, isotope, often found in meteorites, and used to date them, is proof of a nuclear explosion on Mars?

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Harte
There's no evidence for ANY zodiac prior to the Akkadians.
Harte

Did they make it up out of whole cloth?

Either way, there isn't a whole lot of evidence for any kind of anything prior to or immediately after the Younger Dryas. Gobekli Tepe is interesting, and there have been suggestions that some of the symbols carved on the monoliths representing constellations. But I'm not all that convinced about that myself. Some hunter gatherer draws a figure in the dirt to tell about the Before Times, and no, it's not going to be found today.

Much more likely to be clan totems or the like.
We know people gathered there from diverse places.

According to this zodiac assertion, their hypothesis hinges on the "baskets" carved on the stones representing days.
Also, new evidence has arisen that throws the YD Impact Theory into serious question (once again.) Their claim includes that impact.

I don't buy it at all. It was done by a couple of German Engineers. They just invented correlations there's no evidence for.

Regarding the zodiac, that is a specific idea. It's not the same as just having some constellations. You have to recognize that the zodiacal constellations rise due east in turn.
A recognizable concept of zodiac didn't arise until after Sumer. In other words, during recorded history. Obviously, there could be more recorded history out there that we don't have yet, but as it stands, no, there was no zodiac in prehistory.

Harte

originally posted by: Guyfriday

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Harte
There's no evidence for ANY zodiac prior to the Akkadians.
Harte

Did they make it up out of whole cloth?

Either way, there isn't a whole lot of evidence for any kind of anything prior to or immediately after the Younger Dryas. Gobekli Tepe is interesting, and there have been suggestions that some of the symbols carved on the monoliths representing constellations. But I'm not all that convinced about that myself. Some hunter gatherer draws a figure in the dirt to tell about the Before Times, and no, it's not going to be found today.

Um, yeah, they did kind of look up at the sky and made up stories about the pictures they thought they saw. That's how tales get made up.

Most of humanity was still nomadic for while after the warming cycle started, so there shouldn't be too many if any signs of settlements. GT is an interesting abnormality in this though, so there might be more if we were to spend the time to hunt them down.

There are actually a bunch more similar sites, some of them almost as old. Hanslune has provided lists and maps of their locations in Turkey somewhere here at ATS. It was quite some time back though.

Harte

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Guyfriday

It was probably all a mind trick to remember the places that stars rose and set, if you were a hunter gatherer following herds, it would be as handy on land as well as on sea, to be able to navigate by the rising and setting of stars.

You can't do that without a clock.

All you need is the north star to move your herd. Landmarks would guide you.

Harte

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
And the stories about humanoid super beings warring with one another date back to the 1960s at the earliest.

There's some of that in Hindu mythology. And the Greek.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
And the stories about humanoid super beings warring with one another date back to the 1960s at the earliest.

There's some of that in Hindu mythology. And the Greek.

Harte

Okay, but the modern idea that these describe real people and real events dates to Sitchin and VD

a reply to: Harte

You can't do that without a clock.

For longitude, this is true. For latitude, a zenith star (along with Polaris) will get you there. Sail north until Arcturus is overhead, then hang a right. Next stop, Hawaii.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
a reply to: LABTECH767

Brandburg? The guy who thinks a naturally occurring, stable, isotope, often found in meteorites, and used to date them, is proof of a nuclear explosion on Mars?

Seriously what are you talking about, he analysed atmospheric isotope ratios in Mars Atmosphere and found isotopes that do NOT form in the quantity's they are present in the atmosphere of mars naturally and are only the product of fission reactions not fusion reactions, if those isotopes were also found in Mars originated space rock's AKA impact ejected that has been propelled into the solar system by large impact event's on mars surface such as asteroid impacts then that also proves his point.

Let's explain it a bit for you so that you get the idea, Fission happens when you SPLIT unstable nuclei and this creates specific radio isotopes while Fusion which powers our star occurs when you FUSE (FORCE TOGETHER) nuclei, Fission creates atom's LOWER on the periodic table while Fusion created atom's HIGHER on the period table both process produce isotopes.

IF the OKLA nuclear reaction (and there was a claim that a second possible so called natural nuclear reactor site had been found in the Alp's but that has seemingly vanished into thin air, I wonder why?) could be PROVEN to be natural and NO it has not been PROVEN it has been ASSUMED to be natural and an explanation had to then be engineered around that assumption, a very good explanation that is quite plausible in fact but still an engineered explanation a hypothesis that is then grabbed on by people like yourself as if it is a PROVEN fact when it remains a hypothesis and not a proven fact, the only proof of the engineered explanation is the presence of the depleted Uranium from fission reaction's at the Okla deposit site.

The problem with Okla is that it is too far back in time for Brandburg's more recent isotopes AND it is on EARTH which is of course the big excluder there but if such an event a natural nuclear reaction (On a frozen planet with no or very little liquid water unless it was warmer before this event?) created by water depositing trace amounts of Uranium into a fissure in the rock until enough material existed to undergo Auto Fission - and then conveniently also cooled the reaction preventing a meltdown and regulating the reaction as is the claim for the Okla Deposit) could have occurred on mars even that would not explain the specific isotopes that Brandburg found in the Martian Atmosphere, only a much higher grade a heavier element than Uranium would suffice such as plutonium which does not occur naturally in nature (Except perhaps by some recent supernova's it's half life is likely to mean it would not survive the journey to another star system before decaying down into a lower element) and has to be produced artificially.

When you are as intelligent as Brandburg then feel free to speak against him if you disagree, until then, well?.

Once again this was not some whack job with a theory, this was a scientist faced with much the same problem the scientists whom had to explain the Oklo Reaction away had, he had to come up with a Plausible explanation, the only problem for the data he was seeing is that the only plausible explanation was not palatable to people like you but he went with his conscience anyway even knowing it may put his career in jeopardy.

And for that he is laudable.