PDA

View Full Version : The Mysterious Origins of Man



Infinitenight2093
2010-Sep-04, 04:07 PM
recently I was watching a show online called "the mysterious origins of man". This show claims to present archaeological evidence that has been ignored by mainstream archaeology, of a much older civilization (The lost city of Atlantis) that was wiped out after a global disaster caused by a phenomenon called "Earth crust displacement". Is this theory of Earth Crust Displacement possible or likely? Does it have any scientific credit or evidence?
They go on to claim that the survivors of this crustal displacement sailed around the world and taught many primitive cultures how to build their great monuments, meant to last another global disaster. Their supposed evidence are fossil footprints of human-like feet walking side by side with dinosaur footprints, a fossilized human finger, metal balls with a band that circles around them and a hole right above the band, which is supposedly dated back 2.something billions years ago. Are any of these pieces of "evidence" real?

Sticks
2010-Sep-04, 05:29 PM
Moved to Science and Technology

Gillianren
2010-Sep-04, 06:28 PM
recently I was watching a show online called "the mysterious origins of man". This show claims to present archaeological evidence that has been ignored by mainstream archaeology, of a much older civilization (The lost city of Atlantis) that was wiped out after a global disaster caused by a phenomenon called "Earth crust displacement". Is this theory of Earth Crust Displacement possible or likely? Does it have any scientific credit or evidence?

I'm not an expert, but for starters, that wouldn't just be archaeology which would have to be ignoring it. That would have to be geology, because I've never heard of "Earth crust displacement." It seems unlikely. I'm also willing to bet that the show didn't go into much scientific detail about what that even means.


They go on to claim that the survivors of this crustal displacement sailed around the world and taught many primitive cultures how to build their great monuments, meant to last another global disaster. Their supposed evidence are fossil footprints of human-like feet walking side by side with dinosaur footprints, a fossilized human finger, metal balls with a band that circles around them and a hole right above the band, which is supposedly dated back 2.something billions years ago. Are any of these pieces of "evidence" real?

Those "footprints" are also used as evidence for creationism and aren't valid evidence there, either. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

As for the others, I'd need more detail to track them down, but I see no reason to believe it's any more valid.

Trakar
2010-Sep-04, 06:50 PM
recently I was watching a show online called "the mysterious origins of man". This show claims to present archaeological evidence that has been ignored by mainstream archaeology, of a much older civilization (The lost city of Atlantis) that was wiped out after a global disaster caused by a phenomenon called "Earth crust displacement". Is this theory of Earth Crust Displacement possible or likely? Does it have any scientific credit or evidence?
They go on to claim that the survivors of this crustal displacement sailed around the world and taught many primitive cultures how to build their great monuments, meant to last another global disaster. Their supposed evidence are fossil footprints of human-like feet walking side by side with dinosaur footprints, a fossilized human finger, metal balls with a band that circles around them and a hole right above the band, which is supposedly dated back 2.something billions years ago. Are any of these pieces of "evidence" real?

"Real" as in physical, yes.

"Real" as in actually portend what some assert or claim, not to the best of my knowledge.

(moved to S&T but looks on the verge of ATM, or at least a fertile bed for ATM sprouts)

HenrikOlsen
2010-Sep-04, 07:11 PM
Incidentally, it's likely this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mysterious_Origins_of_Man) (Wikipedia entry) television special that started this discussion.

If so, the "forbidden evidence" is such things as the Klerksdorp spheres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klerksdorp_sphere), 3 million year old hematite (that's the "metal") concretions that look somewhat artificial and is therefore claimed as "evidence" of old civilization (they are real, but they aren't made by humans) and the Paluxy tracks Gillian already covered.
They had Richard Milton (a journalist who believes the sun is driven by cold fusion and that "Darwinism" is wrong) talk about Lucy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)), the list of inane drivel just goes on.

Trakar
2010-Sep-04, 07:18 PM
Incidentally, it's likely this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mysterious_Origins_of_Man) (Wikipedia entry) television special that started this discussion.

And Wiki's link to the talk origins page on this film is a fairly good rebuttal of the film's claims, at least as far as I was able to determine from a quick review.

NBC's "The Mysterious Origins of Man" - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom.html

peledre
2010-Sep-04, 07:46 PM
"Earth Crust Displacement" sounds an awful lot like what some of the 2012'ers are running around screaming about.

Canis Lupus
2010-Sep-04, 10:35 PM
I'm open to the idea of a "civilisation" which pre-dates any known because of two factors. Firstly, there may be archaeological evidence yet to be discovered which would indicate as much. Secondly, and more problematical in an archaeological sense, is that it might be possible for a civilisation to exist without all the indicia of what we think is civilised ie. buildings, monuments etc.

Most ancient civilisations, if not all, which we know of are based on a dark side of human nature - the want to dominate and rule others. Through this means cities like Athens and Rome accumulated wealth allowing them to construct the evidence we now see of their civilisations. Same thing happened in China and Egypt.

Is it civilised to want to rule over others, and use force in that desire, killing people who don't submit or are the arts, including architecture combined with engineering, a saving grace, acting as a fašade for some extremely uncivil and brutal human behaviour.

Was there ever a time when humans roamed the Earth without the want or need to subjugate others? If there was, did they ever feel the need to build vainglorious monuments to their own power or make anything that lasted beyond their immediate needs, which may have been few indeed, if they felt content with their existence. If they didn't, then finding evidence of them is difficult if not impossible.

It pays to remember that when looking at such things as the Acropolis, or other great remanent of an ancient civilisation, we are looking at nothing but a fragment, a bare bone, of the civilisation, which really existed in ancient people's minds. The subtlety of what was occurring in their everyday interactions far exceeded anything they ever built or even wrote about.

If the civilisation was highly literate, then we getter a better insight, but it is only a small window, far from encompassing. If the culture was not highly literate, but rather relied upon an oral tradition, then we have no window into their thinking. Consider this idea, writing may not be a sign of advancement but rather a growth of ignorance, and lessening of people's power to remember what is being taught to them orally. For example, who would you credit with greater mental abilities, the two chess players who could play without the need for a board or the ones who need the pieces to remember all the moves?

kleindoofy
2010-Sep-04, 10:41 PM
I'm open to the idea ... because of two factors. Firstly, there may be archaeological evidence yet to be discovered which would indicate as much. Secondly, and more problematical in an archaeological sense, is that it might be possible for a civilisation to exist without all the indicia of what we think is civilised ie. buildings, monuments etc. ...
The same applies to Santa Claus, but it doesn't make him any more probable.

Canis Lupus
2010-Sep-04, 10:53 PM
The same applies to Santa Claus, but it doesn't make him any more probable.

Yes, as indicated in my post, that is the problem - lack of evidence. You can deride the possibility by reference to what is obviously fictional and childish or keep an open mind. Unfortunately, the lack of evidence aspect not only opens the door to ridicule, as you have indulged in, but also theories which quite deservedly attract ridicule. It's a fine line to walk between keeping an open mind to legitimate possibilities and taking too seriously crackpot ideas. As you've shown, it's not easy and probably a rare occurrence, involving, as it does, an ability to imagine an existence beyond what our civilisation conditions us with.

kleindoofy
2010-Sep-04, 11:12 PM
Y... You can deride the possibility by reference to what is obviously fictional and childish or keep an open mind. ... opens the door to ridicule, as you have indulged in, ...
Reductio ad absurdum is neither ridicule nor derision.

Appealing to an open mind in the absence of evidence is a catch all for "the others are all silly but mine really could be possible."

Anybody can play that game with their pet idea.

The evidence for Santa is overwhelming. Pictures, letters, tales, poems, millions of believers, eye witnesses, even records of radar contact. I, however, reserve the right to restrict the openess of my mind in his case.

The same applies for my mind resp. Atlantis.

Canis Lupus
2010-Sep-04, 11:29 PM
Reductio ad absurdum is neither ridicule nor derision.

Sorry, but using a latin term doesn't change the nature of ridicule to something substantial. You have proven nothing to be absurd.


Appealing to an open mind in the absence of evidence is a catch all for "the others are all silly but mine really could be possible."

Anybody can play that game with their pet idea.

That assumes a pet idea, but my posts were dealing with keeping an open mind. It is your step, not mine, to infer "a pet idea", a term btw, denoting more ridicule.

But, I'll take from your previous post this valuable gem: it does highlight the idea of experience as knowledge rather than a reliance on physical evidence which can be deceptive.

Strange
2010-Sep-04, 11:32 PM
I'm open to the idea of a "civilisation" which pre-dates any known because of two factors. Firstly, there may be archaeological evidence yet to be discovered which would indicate as much. Secondly, and more problematical in an archaeological sense, is that it might be possible for a civilisation to exist without all the indicia of what we think is civilised ie. buildings, monuments etc.

Yep, I'm open to the idea of invisible pink unicorns because (a) we might find evidence for them next Tuesday and (b) they may not leave any evidence.

I dunno. There just seems to be something wrong with that logic.

I'm "open" to anything for which there is evidence. Otherwise.... no.


Is it civilised to want to rule over others, and use force in that desire, killing people who don't submit

Civilised? Maybe not (depending on your definition of the word). Human nature? Absolutely.


or are the arts, including architecture combined with engineering, a saving grace, acting as a fašade for some extremely uncivil and brutal human behaviour.

? Lost me there, I'm afraid.


Was there ever a time when humans roamed the Earth without the want or need to subjugate others?

I doubt it. They wouldn't really be human. Unless you are going to invoke some sort of mythical prelapsarian, idealised humanoids.

Canis Lupus
2010-Sep-04, 11:50 PM
Lost me there, I'm afraid.

What I am saying is that it is possible that first comes the conquering, subjugating, dominating and killing (and a whole lot of other unsavoury behaviour) but only after sufficient wealth, resources and control are established via those means, are the arts employed to dignify what has been anything but civilised up to that point of time. In an ideal world, the latter influences might come to outweigh the initial ones, but that conclusion carries with it the danger to the "civilisation" of perishing to the subjugation of an outside dominance. So, we have this on-going contradiction in a civilisation, that it must keep itself sufficiently brutal to withstand potential threats from others. This poses an on-going question, is it really civilised or are the arts merely employed as an adjunct to conceal brutality, which is necessary for survival, and really about power and control?

kleindoofy
2010-Sep-04, 11:54 PM
Sorry, but using a latin term doesn't change the nature of ridicule to something substantial. You have proven nothing to be absurd. ...
Errr, Wikipedia is your friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum.

If it's good enough for Euclid and countless other scientists and philosophers, it's good enough for me.

Please, have an open mind about it.

Gillianren
2010-Sep-04, 11:56 PM
Why wouldn't they need buildings?

kleindoofy
2010-Sep-05, 12:05 AM
.. first comes the conquering ... but only ... are the arts ... This poses an on-going question, is it really civilised or are the arts merely employed as an adjunct to conceal a civilsation's brutality, which is necessary for its survival, and really about power and control?
I'll have to labor another Latin phrase from Logic 101: post hoc non est propter hoc, i.e. just because one thing follows another doesn't mean it is caused by or related to the former.

How on Earth did you conclude that art is spawned soley in the wake of violent submission or that it's a product of it? That's just not true.

Again, any simple example of the opposite will bring your argument down in ruins.

I'm afraid you have a few thousand years of formal deductive logic against you.

Canis Lupus
2010-Sep-05, 12:05 AM
Errr, Wikipedia is your friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum.

If it's good enough for Euclid and countless other scientists and philosophers, it's good enough for me.

Please, have an open mind about it.

Funny, it was the very link I had read before posting my reply to you.


In his Elements, Book III Proposition 5, Euclid demonstrates that if two circles cut one another, they do not have the same centre. He begins by assuming that the opposite is true, that two circles may cut one another and have the same centre. He then shows that, if this happened, the radius of one circle would be both equal to and less than the radius of the other, which is impossible.

So, what proposition have you demonstrated as being false, except your own statements and implications indicating that you can't see past your own social conditioning or present values, commonly thought of as "civilised" in an unexamined way?

Canis Lupus
2010-Sep-05, 12:10 AM
I'll have to labor another Latin phrase from Logic 101: post hoc non est propter hoc, i.e. just because one thing follows another doesn't mean it is caused by or related to the former.

How on Earth did you conclude that art is spawned soley in the wake of violent submission or that it's a product of it? That's just not true.

Again, any simple example of the opposite will bring your argument down in ruins.



Such as I am not the one "reaching conclusions", but you are? The overlooking of that basic fact makes your post redundant.

Canis Lupus
2010-Sep-05, 12:16 AM
Why wouldn't they need buildings?

If the point of a buildings is survival, then a shelter would be sufficient. In some climates, even they aren't necessary. Shelters perish more quickly than marble or stone buildings. If, however, you wish to make a statement about yourself to everyone, including those not born yet, something more substantial and long lasting is necessary. What insecurity or deception might motivate the need to make such a statement? Why would someone "at home in the universe" be bothered with such an artifice?

kleindoofy
2010-Sep-05, 12:17 AM
... you can't see past your own social conditioning or present values, commonly thought of as "civilised" in an unexamined way?
Huh?

Just because in the absence of physical evidence I don't lend creedence to fairy tales like the lost city of Atlantis, I can't see past my own social conditioning or present values, commonly thought of as "civilised"?

Or because I don't think Pucinni's La Boheme or the Golden Gate Bridge are acts of social oppression?

Wow.

Btw, when using reductio ad absurdum, it's not common to spell things out. That would be cynical and patronising.

Canis Lupus
2010-Sep-05, 12:28 AM
Huh?

Just because in the absence of physical evidence I don't lend creedence to fairy tales like the lost city of Atlantis, I can't see past my own social conditioning or present values, commonly thought of as "civilised"?

Or because I don't think Pucinni's La Boheme or the Golden Gate Bridge are acts of social oppression?

Wow.

Btw, when using reductio ad absurdum, it's not common to spell things out. That would be cynical and patronising.

Have you offended your second Latin phrase for this discussion with the above post.


I'll have to labor another Latin phrase from Logic 101: post hoc non est propter hoc, i.e. just because one thing follows another doesn't mean it is caused by or related to the former.

How on Earth did you conclude that art is spawned soley in the wake of violent submission or that it's a product of it? That's just not true.

Again, any simple example of the opposite will bring your argument down in ruins.

I'm afraid you have a few thousand years of formal deductive logic against you.

I'd spell it out for you, but I don't want to appear patronising and cynical to you. Is there a Latin phrase for using unnecessary Latin phrases when using English? :razz:

Gillianren
2010-Sep-05, 12:40 AM
If the point of a buildings is survival, then a shelter would be sufficient. In some climates, even they aren't necessary. Shelters perish more quickly than marble or stone buildings. If, however, you wish to make a statement about yourself to everyone, including those not born yet, something more substantial and long lasting is necessary. What insecurity or deception might motivate the need to make such a statement? Why would someone "at home in the universe" be bothered with such an artifice?

The sturdier the shelter, the less frequently you have to rebuild the thing. It's not as though you might not want to ensure your children won't have to build a new shack every winter. I have no particular need to dominate anyone, but I'd rather live in a sturdier building. Not stone--I'm from earthquake country, and stone makes me paranoid. But I'd rather put up one sturdy and beautiful building once than flimsy ones every time the old one fell apart.

kleindoofy
2010-Sep-05, 12:52 AM
I know where my mistake is. I used an invalid premise. You didn't say *all* art comes from oppression, but you did say that "but only after sufficient wealth, resources and control are established via those means, are the arts employed to dignify what has been anything but civilised up to that point of time," in a post which you edited after I had quoted it.

I still don't know what that has to do with Atlantis, or why you even brought it up in a thread asking about the truth behind supposed two billion year old fossilized human fingers.

Political architecture isn't really anything new. Have you ever heard of Leon Battista Alberti? He wrote an interesting book about it, De Re Aedificatori, about 450 years ago. Propaganda uses many venues. Even internet forums.

So what? Beside a general rant against the darkness of society and civilization, I really don't see your point.

pzkpfw
2010-Sep-05, 12:55 AM
Enough of the side track/hijack. Canis Lupus, make your own thread to present your musings, please.

kleindoofy
2010-Sep-05, 01:03 AM
... Is there a Latin phrase for using unnecessary Latin phrases when using English? :razz:
It may not be normal where you live, but using classical terminology is quite common where I am. I'm not going to excuse myself for haiving a humanistic education.

Oh, btw, e pluribus unum, semper fi, veritas, ad hominem (very common here on BAUT), corpus delicti, habeas corpus, juris dictio, et cetera, status quo, per capita, post mortem, sub poena, vice versa.

Ever used any of those? What's is called when you do?

edit: sorry pzkpfw, crossed post.

Trakar
2010-Sep-05, 01:09 AM
The sturdier the shelter, the less frequently you have to rebuild the thing. It's not as though you might not want to ensure your children won't have to build a new shack every winter. I have no particular need to dominate anyone, but I'd rather live in a sturdier building. Not stone--I'm from earthquake country, and stone makes me paranoid. But I'd rather put up one sturdy and beautiful building once than flimsy ones every time the old one fell apart.

Its not so much that a strongly migratory culture couldn't develop an advanced civilization, it's just that the artifacts from such would be fundementally different, and more easily over-looked by those looking for permanent, monumental cities, but eventually, if these civs grow large enough they leave obvious traces (witness the Mongols).

While its hard for me to accept that essentially modern humans have existed for around a hundred thousand years or so, and yet our recorded history (at best) only extends back some few percent of this time, I see no real support for any major previous civs, lots of isolated little city-states that arose and fell, sure! Maybe even a few with significant sophistication, but still largely paleolithic with limited metallurgy expertise. That is in line with modern mainstream archeological consideration, but to paraphrase Jodi Foster "...what an incredible waste of time!"

Canis Lupus
2010-Sep-05, 01:46 AM
To get back on point then: there might be some basis for Atlantis. I watched a documentary which placed it a little north of Crete, using some of Plato's descriptions to match it to an island there, which was connected culturally and financially to Crete during its heyday, but had suffered a devastating natural disaster. The archological evidence on the island indicated not only a wealthy society but an unusually egalitarian one. Yes, there were matches between what Plato described and the island, and perhaps Plato used that location and occurrence for the basis of the Atlantis allegory/myth, but he was making a philosophical point with the idea of Atlantis, not a historical one, in much the same way Homer used the siege of Troy to express his wisdom - also once thought to be the stuff of pure fiction.

As for the rest of the OP's questions, the answers are fairly self-evident. How much discussing does it warrant?

caveman1917
2010-Sep-05, 01:55 AM
Its not so much that a strongly migratory culture couldn't develop an advanced civilization, it's just that the artifacts from such would be fundementally different, and more easily over-looked by those looking for permanent, monumental cities, but eventually, if these civs grow large enough they leave obvious traces (witness the Mongols).

But why would a migratory culture be the tutor for monument building to the rest? I'd say that would be the subject of their least experience.

Trakar
2010-Sep-05, 02:55 AM
But why would a migratory culture be the tutor for monument building to the rest? I'd say that would be the subject of their least experience.

Not sure how you got this from my words, but that isn't any part of what I was considering or postulating.

Gillianren
2010-Sep-05, 06:00 AM
To get back on point then: there might be some basis for Atlantis.

Might. But the evidence is scanty at best.

Ara Pacis
2010-Sep-05, 07:31 AM
Instead of looking for Atlantis, we should be looking for the Egyptian Hall of Records, where the information on Atlantis was allegedly stored.

I don't think there can be an undetectable previous civilization as some postulate because it would seem to violate the definition of civilization. Civilizations, by definition, require collaboration, even if it's not oppression but simply people deciding to work together in harmony. Collaboration for shared works would be necessary for processes that one cannot do well or at all on their own. thus, civilization will likely leave marks because these collaborative projects would be large enough and permanent enough to leave traces in the strata. It may be possible that one or more small civilizations have been lost due to massive destruction that wiped out such traces or buried them under land or ocean which has not yet been searched through to depth.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Sep-05, 10:11 AM
If the civilisation was highly literate, then we getter a better insight, but it is only a small window, far from encompassing. If the culture was not highly literate, but rather relied upon an oral tradition, then we have no window into their thinking. Consider this idea, writing may not be a sign of advancement but rather a growth of ignorance, and lessening of people's power to remember what is being taught to them orally. For example, who would you credit with greater mental abilities, the two chess players who could play without the need for a board or the ones who need the pieces to remember all the moves?
First it depends on the writing surviving.
We know much about the Babylonians because they wrote down everything, on clay tablets, which they then fired, which will easily last 5000 years.
We now nothing about the Hadlians1 because even though they wrote down even more than the Babylonians, they wrote on dry leaves and lived in a swamp so all their writings lasted 2 years if they were very lucky. They died out when the number if scribes needed to recopy old knowledge outgrew the ability to feed them.

Second, the reason why writing is a major advantage to an civilization is because that civilization's total memory capacity is no longer limited to the sum of what all people can remember, hence a civilization with writing can have much greater extelligence (http://www.google.dk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FExtelli gence&ei=-GuDTJf3GNSbOOWd8bAO&usg=AFQjCNE06H3P7KVcjytqMpcEb7N0kDJV_Q) than one without, even if each indivudual remembers less.

1) made up:)

jlhredshift
2010-Sep-05, 02:20 PM
I have read substantialy of the archaeology of NE Asia during the late Pleistocene. The Human presence is recored by both lithic and bone artifacts. Of those artifacts, the most intriquing to me is the presence of bone needles because it suggest a use technology of sewing thirty to forty thousand years ago (Goebel, et al). There is also evidence of possible post holes. Therefore, a possible conclusion, would be that they could construct animal skin clothing, shelter, and possibly watercraft, none of which is likely to preserve well or in quantity. My point would be that, at least for the last fifty thousand years, there were no advanced civilizations to leave a record for us to find. It would have had to come and gone well before then. I feel that this is unlikely.

peledre
2010-Sep-05, 02:39 PM
To get back on point then: there might be some basis for Atlantis. I watched a documentary which placed it a little north of Crete, using some of Plato's descriptions to match it to an island there, which was connected culturally and financially to Crete during its heyday, but had suffered a devastating natural disaster. The archological evidence on the island indicated not only a wealthy society but an unusually egalitarian one. Yes, there were matches between what Plato described and the island, and perhaps Plato used that location and occurrence for the basis of the Atlantis allegory/myth, but he was making a philosophical point with the idea of Atlantis, not a historical one, in much the same way Homer used the siege of Troy to express his wisdom - also once thought to be the stuff of pure fiction.

As for the rest of the OP's questions, the answers are fairly self-evident. How much discussing does it warrant?

I think the most likely explanation is that the story of Atlantis grew out of Minoan tales of the volcanic destruction of Santorini during the ~1600 BC eruption.

jlhredshift
2010-Sep-05, 02:57 PM
I think the most likely explanation is that the story of Atlantis grew out of Minoan tales of the volcanic destruction of Santorini during the ~1600 BC eruption.

Many TV shows suggest the same, that sounds, at least, plausible.

caveman1917
2010-Sep-05, 03:14 PM
Not sure how you got this from my words, but that isn't any part of what I was considering or postulating.

I probably misunderstood. The OP was claiming an advanced civilization that upon their demise told the rest how to build great monuments. Then the case was made that we'd find evidence for that civilization. Your comment appeared to me as saying why that case might not be true, if they were migratory we need not find evidence (at least in the form we're looking for). I was responding to that in the sense that, even if that were true, it would not account for the properties the OP attached to that civilization - namely the "tutor everyone how to build monuments".

Trakar
2010-Sep-05, 05:39 PM
I probably misunderstood. The OP was claiming an advanced civilization that upon their demise told the rest how to build great monuments. Then the case was made that we'd find evidence for that civilization. Your comment appeared to me as saying why that case might not be true, if they were migratory we need not find evidence (at least in the form we're looking for). I was responding to that in the sense that, even if that were true, it would not account for the properties the OP attached to that civilization - namely the "tutor everyone how to build monuments".

Ah, okay, that makes sense. I thought the OP had pretty much been dealt with, I wasn't responding to the "Tutor" aspect as that only works when the civs/cultures are roughly concurrent and we don't (generally) see that until population densities get high enough for us to have overlapping pockets of development and advancement,...or basically "recorded history."

Trakar
2010-Sep-05, 06:03 PM
Many TV shows suggest the same, that sounds, at least, plausible.

(using your post as a springboard - the following isn't necessarily in direct response to your comments)

Especially as the Greeks were rather big on epic adventures and morality tales with fantastical settings. Its not that there weren't stories based upon factual occerences which were later combined and enhanced to serve as hubris warnings. It's just that we probably shouldn't take such tales themselves as literalist reportings as some modern TV special "investigators" seem wont to do.

Trakar
2010-Sep-05, 06:17 PM
I have read substantialy of the archaeology of NE Asia during the late Pleistocene. The Human presence is recored by both lithic and bone artifacts. Of those artifacts, the most intriquing to me is the presence of bone needles because it suggest a use technology of sewing thirty to forty thousand years ago (Goebel, et al). There is also evidence of possible post holes. Therefore, a possible conclusion, would be that they could construct animal skin clothing, shelter, and possibly watercraft, none of which is likely to preserve well or in quantity. My point would be that, at least for the last fifty thousand years, there were no advanced civilizations to leave a record for us to find. It would have had to come and gone well before then. I feel that this is unlikely.

I actually think that a "stone age" civilization can be quite *advanced*. But I think we're both largely in agreement.

Ara Pacis
2010-Sep-05, 07:46 PM
There's no need for a tutor civ. in antiquity for monuments. Humans are pretty smart and for most of history and prehistory had the ability to innately understand macrostructural concepts upon seeing them one time. They may not have understood the concept of arching, but post and beam is pretty simple and is more advanced than the relatively simply concept of puling rocks atop one another for columns and pyramids.

Canis Lupus
2010-Sep-05, 09:32 PM
I think the most likely explanation is that the story of Atlantis grew out of Minoan tales of the volcanic destruction of Santorini during the ~1600 BC eruption.

Agreed, however, Plato had something quite specific in mind in telling the story of Atlantis. Those in pursuit of a physical Atlantis are engaged in a futile quest, as are those searching for a physical Ark. Plato's descriptions are extremely specific. Obviously, it would be impossible for him to have first hand knowledge of such a physical place, and there are no other references or sources known for his description. Yet, Plato was not one to use his words lightly, nor one to advocate creativity for its own sake, despite his own poetry and creativity present in the dialogues. Given the balance of his dialogues, which are reasonably precise in outlining a systematic, coherent and integrated philosophy, it would suggest his Atlantis story, like his Cave allegory, was used to illustrate or suggest truths in his system that were difficult to convey using his normal dialectic method. Whether or not there was some location in the Greek world which suffered some vaguely similar disaster may be a matter of coincidence or the inevitable consequence of the way myths are created which use events that can be related to in a physical sense to some degree, but which, upon closer examination, are telling a very different story.

kleindoofy
2010-Sep-05, 09:40 PM
... My point would be that, at least for the last fifty thousand years, there were no advanced civilizations to leave a record for us to find. It would have had to come and gone well before then. I feel that this is unlikely.
I agree.

Many people seem to believe that human history prior to WWI or perhaps Abraham Lincoln is something of a black hole of mystery.

It's not. We have a pretty good idea of the gist of human development over the last 50,000 years. Books on it may not be readily available at a local public library, but one would probably be surprised how much information there is in a good library in any university archaeology department worth its salt.

I doubt very much anything major would have successfully escaped the attention of archaeologists, at least in general.


Many TV shows suggest the same, that sounds, at least, plausible.
Ah, TV shows, aka documentaries. The root of all evil.

Like YouTube videos. Just without the comments.

Canis Lupus
2010-Sep-05, 10:05 PM
I agree.

Many people seem to believe that human history prior to WWI or perhaps Abraham Lincoln is something of a black hole of mystery.

It's not. We have a pretty good idea of the gist of human development over the last 50,000 years. Books on it may not be readily available at a local public library, but one would probably be surprised how much information there is in a good library in any university archaeology department worth its salt.

I doubt very much anything major would have successfully escaped the attention of archaeologists, at least in general.

Except 99.99999999999999999999% of human history, with all its subtleties and nuances, without which we have little idea, not "a pretty good idea". Most of what we know about Ancient societies, even Greek civilisation, which left plenty of evidence, is educated guesses. I think you underestimate the difficulty in understanding all these nuances even of the quite recent past ie. WWII, the U.S. Civil War, despite the plethora of evidence which exists. Go back further than 10,000 years, we know virtually nothing, not even something which can be mistaken for a "gist".

Do you think humans sat on their hands for tens of thousands of years doing nothing much which was very complicated or sophisticated? I doubt it very much, however, if you are of the persuasion that as individuals we have somehow been increasing our intelligence until we have reached this lovely pinnacle of modern man, I can see how easy it would be to imagine pre-historic humans as savages sitting around a camp fire doing nothing very much or living a life similar to natives in PNG etc.

I regard this line of thinking as highly eccentric in both its geographical (cultural) and chronological bias.



Ah, TV shows, aka documentaries. The root of all evil.

Like YouTube videos. Just without the comments.

Yet, your viewpoint is highly reflective of them, not youtube, but the ideas often presented in more mainstream documentaries.

kleindoofy
2010-Sep-05, 10:24 PM
Except 99.99999999999999999999% of human history ...
Which is why I didn't use the word history.

But you're asking for insights we rarely even have of our own selves, not to mention of ancient civilizations.

Do we know what Cicero was really thinking when he said "Carthago must be destroyed!"? Was he thinking about supper and how much he detested wheat germ? Who knows?


... Do you think humans sat on their hands for tens of thousands of years doing nothing much which was very complicated or sophisticated? ...
No, absolutely not, and a quick review of many of my postings right here on BAUT will show that I have often defended the opposite view.


... I can see how easy it would be to imagine pre-historic humans as savages sitting around a camp fire doing nothing very much or living a life similar to natives in PNG etc. ...
Without an education in ancient history and archaeology, yes, that might be possible. It is in fact quite common. I however don't hold that view.

But do I pretend to know what tune ancient Greeks whistled while they worked? No.


... Yet, your viewpoint is highly reflective of them, not youtube, but the ideas often presented in more mainstream documentaries.
Nope. I am very often at odds with historical documentaries, often because they oversimplify and declare speculation as fact.

I don't like declaring speculation as fact.

Ara Pacis
2010-Sep-05, 11:26 PM
Except 99.99999999999999999999% of human history, with all its subtleties and nuances, without which we have little idea, not "a pretty good idea". Most of what we know about Ancient societies, even Greek civilisation, which left plenty of evidence, is educated guesses. I think you underestimate the difficulty in understanding all these nuances even of the quite recent past ie. WWII, the U.S. Civil War, despite the plethora of evidence which exists. Go back further than 10,000 years, we know virtually nothing, not even something which can be mistaken for a "gist".

Do you think humans sat on their hands for tens of thousands of years doing nothing much which was very complicated or sophisticated? I doubt it very much, however, if you are of the persuasion that as individuals we have somehow been increasing our intelligence until we have reached this lovely pinnacle of modern man, I can see how easy it would be to imagine pre-historic humans as savages sitting around a camp fire doing nothing very much or living a life similar to natives in PNG etc.

Actually, we can deduce quite a lot from physical evidence. If you know what to look for, disruptions of the regolith tens of feet below ground level can be evidence of human activity, wihch can yield a lot of clues about eating patterns, construction technology and even how people related to one another, be it politics or religiosity. They've found a lot of evidence to suggest what happened on the Dogger Banks when it was above sea level. I'm wondering if we'll have a similar discovery in the western Java Sea where at least one researcher believes a referant for Atlantis might have existed.

caveman1917
2010-Sep-05, 11:59 PM
Do we know what Cicero was really thinking when he said "Carthago must be destroyed!"?

Did you mean Cato the Elder?
It would seem a bit weird having a person advocating the destruction of a city when that city already had been destroyed 40 years before that person was born.
Though admittedly Cicero did mention it in his works, but also putting the source with Cato.
At least that's my understanding.

kleindoofy
2010-Sep-06, 12:07 AM
Did you mean Cato the Elder?
It would seem a bit weird having a person advocating the destruction of a city when that city already had been destroyed 40 years before that person was born.
Though admittedly Cicero did mention it in his works, but also putting the source with Cato.
At least that's my understanding.
You're absolutely right. I wrote Cato first, then changed it to Cicero because I wasn't sure.

Quoting from (a poor) memory can be troublesome at times. Trust your gut feeling, I always say.

At least I didn't write Carthago delenda est and get the other poster, the one with the Latin handle, all upset by using a Latin quote.

Canis Lupus
2010-Sep-06, 12:30 AM
At least I didn't write Carthago delenda est and get the other poster, the one with the Latin handle, all upset by using a Latin quote.

growlos, growlos, grumblus, grumblus, howlest, howlest, blahato, blahto - 'tis Latin for a wolf complaining about something or other. :p

Ara Pacis
2010-Sep-06, 04:12 AM
You're absolutely right. I wrote Cato first, then changed it to Cicero because I wasn't sure.

Quoting from (a poor) memory can be troublesome at times. Trust your gut feeling, I always say.

At least I didn't write Carthago delenda est and get the other poster, the one with the Latin handle, all upset by using a Latin quote.

Why? That's my favorite quote from Latin class.

tnjrp
2010-Sep-06, 10:20 AM
recently I was watching a show online called "the mysterious origins of man"Hmm, sounds like they have alighted on the theories of Paul Heinrich, most notably those expressed in his 1996 book The Mysterious Origins of Man: Atlantis, Mammoths, and Crustal Shift...


This show claims to present archaeological evidence that has been ignored by mainstream archaeology, of a much older civilization (The lost city of Atlantis) that was wiped out after a global disaster caused by a phenomenon called "Earth crust displacement". Is this theory of Earth Crust Displacement possible or likely? Does it have any scientific credit or evidence?If it's Hapgood's theory they were refering to, then it isn't considered very viable as far as geological theories go:
http://www.skrause.org/writing/papers/hapgood_and_ecd.shtml

But it matters fairly little as if they really use the likes of rather debunked Paluxy footprints as evidence, I wouldn't put too much stock in any of the yarns they spin about Atlantis, Mu, Lemuria or whathavethey. Rotten apples do tend to spoil the barrel...

HenrikOlsen
2010-Sep-06, 11:17 AM
This barrel looks like it didn't have a single unspoiled apple to begin with.

tnjrp
2010-Sep-06, 11:23 AM
I suppose. And one assumes some probably didn't even hit the barrel when they tried to throw 'em in it.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Sep-06, 11:42 AM
I suppose. And one assumes some probably didn't even hit the barrel when they tried to throw 'em in it.
Yep, the unspoiled ones:D

tnjrp
2010-Sep-06, 11:49 AM
On subject of apples... erm, artefacts of the out-of-place nature, including but not limited to the Paluxy prints, here's a link to the Bad Archeology site for those:
http://www.badarchaeology.net/data/ooparts.php

(links to further reading are in the lower right of the page)

Ivan Viehoff
2010-Sep-07, 09:19 AM
Is this theory of Earth Crust Displacement possible or likely? Does it have any scientific credit or evidence?
No. Here are some references to further debunking material. Also a collection of debunks of other popular geological nonsense, courtesy of geologist Paul V Heinrich. http://members.cox.net/pyrophyllite/wildside.shtml

galacsi
2010-Sep-07, 11:46 AM
You can make very good building using only wood and also reeds and moss. and very sophisticated ones if necessary . By example see the medieval stave church :Stave_Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/stave_church)

After enough time there will be very few traces of these buildings. If such a building had been erected in the south of England or in the North of France (where ice sheet never went) , say 20,000 years ago , I think there is little change for an Archeologist to find any trace. And if by bad luck he/she did , can say goodbye to carreer !

eburacum45
2010-Sep-07, 12:20 PM
On the contrary, archaeologists are generally iconoclasts and think out-of-the-box as often as possible. Finding a building of such an age would make their career, not break it.

Last year, in fact, I visited a site with a building which may have been 400,000 years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_Amata
There are alternative interpretations of the evidence at Terra Amata, but the idea it may have been a structure is not an against-the-mainstream interpretation, and remains accepted in many quarters.

I've also been to Atlantis twice - or at least, I've been to Thera, which may have been the original model for Atlantis. The murals at Akrotiri are remarkable. But this event dates back to the Bronze Age, not to the last ice age.

If there were any sophisticated societies during or before the last ice age, it seems likely that they were not generallly 'civilised' in the sense of building towns and having a permanently located culture- but there seem to have been at least some local congregation centres, such as DolnÝ Věstonice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doln%C3%AD_V%C4%9Bstonice_(archaeology)), more than 20,000 years ago

Cosmic Roy
2010-Sep-07, 06:07 PM
recently I was watching a show online called "the mysterious origins of man". This show claims to present archaeological evidence that has been ignored by mainstream archaeology, of a much older civilization (The lost city of Atlantis) that was wiped out after a global disaster caused by a phenomenon called "Earth crust displacement". Is this theory of Earth Crust Displacement possible or likely? Does it have any scientific credit or evidence?
They go on to claim that the survivors of this crustal displacement sailed around the world and taught many primitive cultures how to build their great monuments, meant to last another global disaster. Their supposed evidence are fossil footprints of human-like feet walking side by side with dinosaur footprints, a fossilized human finger, metal balls with a band that circles around them and a hole right above the band, which is supposedly dated back 2.something billions years ago. Are any of these pieces of "evidence" real?

Hello, Infinitenight2093.

The crustal displacement theory is, as tnjrp said, likely the one proposed by Charles Hapgood. It's nonsense, despite having the claimed support of that famous geologist, Albert Einstein. In this context, the word 'crust' is probably meant to refer to the lithosphere, the rigid portion of the Earth that includes the compositional crust and the upper mantle. The lithosphere is underlain by a layer called the asthenosphere, which deforms plastically on geological timescales, but is - contrary to popular belief - solid. (Only under areas such as mid-ocean ridges and volcanic arcs is there any molten material, and even there the melting is partial.) The depth of the asthenosphere varies depending on the nature of the lithosphere above it: young oceanic crust is very thin, but thickens as it ages and moves away from the rift zone; mountain ranges and ancient continents can have lithospheric roots going down well over 100 km.

So in order for the crust to detatch and move around the planet like a loose orange skin, continental roots would either have to displace much more than their own volume of solid mantle, or the lithosphere would have to ride up and down over the topography of the asthenosphere. Absurd! And that's neglecting those parts of the oceanic lithosphere which are undergoing subduction to depths even greater than the roots of the continental lithosphere. A sudden movement of the crust, independent of the mantle, would displace the surface expression of subduction zones relative to the slabs which have already been subducted. Needless to say, this is not observed.

If all that wasn't enough, hot spot volcanism also shows that such crustal displacement hasn't occurred. Hot spot volcanoes such as the Hawaiian islands are caused by plumes in the mantle. As the crust moves relative to the effectively static plume, a line of extinct volcanoes is traced, increasing in age away from the currently active vent. The Emperor Seamount Chain, for example, records continuous crustal motion going back dozens of millions of years.

And then there's the fact that iron minerals in erupted magma align with the Earth's magnetic field as the lava cools, recording the orientation of the field and therefore the latitude of the volcano. Do sequences of lava layers show a sudden change in latitude some few thousand years ago? Of course they don't. The theory is a fantasy.

Elukka
2010-Sep-08, 01:04 AM
You can make very good building using only wood and also reeds and moss. and very sophisticated ones if necessary . By example see the medieval stave church :Stave_Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/stave_church)

After enough time there will be very few traces of these buildings. If such a building had been erected in the south of England or in the North of France (where ice sheet never went) , say 20,000 years ago , I think there is little change for an Archeologist to find any trace. And if by bad luck he/she did , can say goodbye to carreer !
Even if there was no trace of the building, there'd probably be traces of the civilization who built it. Tools, weapons, pottery, building foundations and so on.

Ara Pacis
2010-Sep-08, 05:33 AM
Even a post hole for a primitive construction will leave a discontinuity in the strata that may be discerned.

Strange
2010-Sep-08, 11:21 AM
Even a post hole for a primitive construction will leave a discontinuity in the strata that may be discerned.

As at Stonehenge, where there is clear evidence of an earlier structure on the site.

jlhredshift
2010-Sep-08, 11:46 AM
As at Stonehenge, where there is clear evidence of an earlier structure on the site.

Monte Verde is another case in point and older than Stonehenge. (Dillehay)

KABOOM
2010-Sep-08, 01:52 PM
Certainly, spectacular claims demand solid evidence. Many of these claims are summarized in books such as "Forbidden Archealogy" by Cremo and many of said claims have been debunked (but not all).

However, the prevailing one dimensional "Out of Africa" timeline does not reconcile with many findings of late which suggest a much longer timeline, or different migration patterns, parallel evolution within different homo variants, etc. There are findings within the Americas that predate the prevailing model of when the Americas were first populated by Homo Sapiens by 10 to 20 thousand years. There is always a groundswell of support to maintain the prevailing model (i.e., Out of Africa and its textbook timeline) and thus ignore or make very difficult for new evidence to get a fair day in the sun.

So while I don't agree with outlandish claims of crust displacement, and HS being millions of years old, I do believe that the timeline is still not well understood and is very fluid both for HS and various (and increasing) branches of the Homo... family.

Trakar
2010-Sep-08, 02:42 PM
Certainly, spectacular claims demand solid evidence. Many of these claims are summarized in books such as "Forbidden Archealogy" by Cremo and many of said claims have been debunked (but not all).

However, the prevailing one dimensional "Out of Africa" timeline does not reconcile with many findings of late which suggest a much longer timeline, or different migration patterns, parallel evolution within different homo variants, etc. There are findings within the Americas that predate the prevailing model of when the Americas were first populated by Homo Sapiens by 10 to 20 thousand years. There is always a groundswell of support to maintain the prevailing model (i.e., Out of Africa and its textbook timeline) and thus ignore or make very difficult for new evidence to get a fair day in the sun.

So while I don't agree with outlandish claims of crust displacement, and HS being millions of years old, I do believe that the timeline is still not well understood and is very fluid both for HS and various (and increasing) branches of the Homo... family.

What, exactly is the mainstream view (preferrably with reference) and exactly where are you suggesting that it is inadequate to address the evidences?

Strange
2010-Sep-08, 02:46 PM
There is always a groundswell of support to maintain the prevailing model (i.e., Out of Africa and its textbook timeline) and thus ignore or make very difficult for new evidence to get a fair day in the sun.

Really?

KABOOM
2010-Sep-08, 06:08 PM
Conventional Thinking:

Age of Homo Sapiens < 200,000 years. I believe Ethiopian skeletons date ~ 195,000 years. This point of origin has increased with new finds from a level was closer to 50,000 years ago in terms of prevailing view ~ 50 years ago.

Homo Sapiens left Africa (hence "Out of Africa") ~ 65,000 years ago.

Homo Sapiens arrive in America's ~ 15,000 years ago.

Stuff that does not reconcile with the above timeline:

Hobbits in Flores: http://live.psu.edu/story/48238
To the extent that they are "abnormal" homo sapiens.

In the 1960s, Harvard-trained archeologist Cynthia Irwin-Williams and Mexican
prehistorian Juan Armenta Camacho discovered stone tools at Hueyatlaco,
near Puebla, Mexico. The stone tools were of advanced type, similar to
those of the European Late Paleolithic. A team of geologists, from the
United States Geological Survey and universities in the United States,
came to Hueyatlaco to date the site. Among the geologists was Virginia
Steen-McIntyre.

To date the site, the team used several methods-uranium
series dating on butchered animal bones found along with the tools, zircon
fission track dating on volcanic layers above the tools, tephra hydration
dating and mineral weathering studies of volcanic glass fragments and
crystals, analysis of the position of the site in the modern landscape,
and standard stratigraphical analysis. All of these methods converged on
an age of about 250,000 years for the site, well beyond the dating limits
of the radiocarbon method.

There are other finds that do not reconcile with the OOA dates (60,000 years ago) and the Coming to America dates (15,000 years ago).

jlhredshift
2010-Sep-08, 06:44 PM
The Hueyatlaco site has been controversial and is not mainstream accepted.

I have done the Google Scholar search (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=%22Hueyatlaco%22&hl=en&as_sdt=80000)for you, enjoy.

Strange
2010-Sep-08, 06:58 PM
Stuff that does not reconcile with the above timeline:

Right. But you implied before that this sort of evidence would be covered up, or ignored, or explained away. The Hobbits, for example, made worldwide headlines.

KABOOM
2010-Sep-08, 07:27 PM
Right. But you implied before that this sort of evidence would be covered up, or ignored, or explained away. The Hobbits, for example, made worldwide headlines.



There is a higher standard for "discoveries" that don't neatly fit into the OOA (60K) and America's (15K) timeline. I am not talking about "footprints with the dinasaurs" stuff, but I have had casaul conversations with people in the field that concur with this view.

Strange
2010-Sep-08, 07:31 PM
There is a higher standard for "discoveries" that don't neatly fit into the OOA (60K) and America's (15K) timeline. I am not talking about "footprints with the dinasaurs" stuff, but I have had casaul conversations with people in the field that concur with this view.

Well, of course. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and all that. Equally, any evidence that confirms the current theories will be accepted with a shrug. You don't get to change the current paradigm without overwhelmingly convincing evidence. That is not the same as some sort of plot to keep the truth hidden (not implying that is what you were saying, but it could be interpreted that way).

kleindoofy
2010-Sep-08, 08:08 PM
Certainly, spectacular claims demand solid evidence. ...
Perhaps in the popular realm, but within the scientific community *any* claim demands solid evidence, spectacular or not. There's no difference. If a claim is outside of a standing chain of evidence and cannot rely on existing, substantiated findings and interpretation, then yes, it has to provide its own chain and context, making things more difficult.

The days when substantiated findings of scientific research could be dismissed on principal went out in the late 19th century with Louis Pasteur's critics.

They do however still exist on television, on the internet, and in some houses of worship.


... There are findings within the Americas that predate the prevailing model of when the Americas were first populated by Homo Sapiens by 10 to 20 thousand years. ...
And from what I have seen of those claims, they can hardly be called solid, unless a heated banana split can also be called solid. Everything I've seen was circumstantial "I wish it were."

Canis Lupus
2010-Sep-08, 09:46 PM
The days when substantiated findings of scientific research could be dismissed on principal went out in the late 19th century with Louis Pasteur's critics.




I admire your faith. Non torsii subligarium! :razz:

Trakar
2010-Sep-08, 11:09 PM
I admire your faith. Non torsii subligarium! :razz:

Don't distort your underbindings?

Trakar
2010-Sep-08, 11:22 PM
And from what I have seen of those claims, they can hardly be called solid, unless a heated banana split can also be called solid. Everything I've seen was circumstantial "I wish it were."

I think you probably over state this a touch, some of the evidences for the 10-14k year range are substantial if controversial. The more important point however, is that these evidences are being researched and reported within mainstream science, not being arbitrarily dismissed or excluded from the science. Within science there are almost always "leading theories" that garner the most textbook attention, and outlier theories and evidences, as the outliers gain in support and evidence they are incorporated into the leading perspective. Science is very open to change, when such change is led by the weight of evidences. Which I believe was your original point.

Canis Lupus
2010-Sep-08, 11:41 PM
Don't distort your underbindings?

or get your knickers in a knot. :D

tnjrp
2010-Sep-09, 06:10 AM
Even if there was no trace of the building, there'd probably be traces of the civilization who built it. Tools, weapons, pottery, building foundations and so on.In Scandinavia even stone stuctures erected before the latest glaciation period would have been completely obliterated. Similarly surface strata have been overlaid or profoundly disturbed. But civilizations don't exist in complete vacuum and it would be fairly odd if none of the knowledge and artefacts of the hypothetical hyperboreal Ad-Land-Is (to borrow the spelling from The Kingston Wall, a band stronly influenced by loopy... ahem, controversial Finnish thinker Ior Bock) would've ended up elsewhere in Europe. Carried by refugees if nothing else.

Trakar
2010-Sep-09, 06:49 AM
or get your knickers in a knot. :D

The nun would've rapped my knuckles more for the poor translation than for the colorful alliterative.