They did develop technology. Stone tool technology, composite tools, atlatls and similar devices, building techniques, cooking techniques and fire, hearths and simple ovens, containers for holding things, brewing technology. As well as the use of various natural resources and plants for a variety of functions. If you're really interested in this stuff I really would recommend avoiding the pseudo-science and look at genuine archaeological research because its genuinely fascinating and much more amazing than people might initially think.
I do look at archeological research. That's how I know about Gobleki Tepe, Puma Punka, Pyramids of Giza, Easter Island, Baalbek, the Ellora Caves and various other sites around the world that involve massive stoneworks. That's how I know there are similarities in quarrying and building techniques in Egypt and South America. It's also how I know about the similarities between the writing of Easter Island and the writings of Mohenjo Dharo. Being interested in the past has also led me to discover that cultures all over the world share common tales with common elements. When I look at all of these pieces of evidence I have no bother in thinking that the reason for this is that humans cultures had global contact with one another during the last period of environmental stability which lasted for about 100,000 years, so the period roughly 110,000BC to 10,000BC. I really fail to see how this idea is 'beyond the realms of reality' tbh.
You only have to look around you to see some of the 'entitled' attitudes displayed by some of the workshy and the 'Charvers' that increasingly are taking up more of the world's oxygen supply to know that has to be a fallacy
Of course people had contact. There's no doubt that people moved around the globe. But there is also a range of excellent research looking at the reasons why similar cultures or similar technologies appeared independently of each other in different parts of the world. You were saying that you thought that people must have developed beyond stone axes and twatting mammoths and then began talking about things like Atlantis and linking sites to the story of Noah. That sets the bullshit alarms ringing for archaeologists. There's no physical evidence for Atlantis, indeed we may have already found the civilisation that Plato was referring to. Atlantis is considered an allegory by most people and, at best, to have arrived with Plato, via Critias, through a series of Chinese whispers. Atlantis isn't considered a serious academic concept because, if it existed at all, it could refer to pretty much anywhere (although probably somewhere in Med). People did develop beyond stone axes and twatting mammoths. It's all there in the literature. We can do amazing things now like recreate whole landscapes or, to reference one of your examples, use DNA evidence to demonstrate possible links between the Rongorongo writing of Easter Island and the script used at Mohenjo Daro. This stuff is amazing but please avoid the pseudo-science stuff like Atlantis because it just dilutes the real work.
I've read this thread. Gone away and reflected on its contents and realised that I'm basically thick as fook. Mind you there are some right clever buggers on here...who would of thought
I linked Gobleki Tepi to the story of Noah as there is a geographical connection. Noah survived in the Ararat mountains and Gobleki Tepi is in the foothills of those mountains. I see no problem in connecting the two. I understand the orthodox view mainly doesn't accept that any sort of truth can be found in myth but I disagree, especially when Plato gives a date for a great cataclysm that matched what we find in the geological record. I have noticed you haven't addressed this mind and do what the orthodox does and ignores it. No explanation as to why Gobleki Tepi was built and buried on purpose either. At least make some effort to meet me on the points I'm raising as if you don't, I'm probably going to reach the conclusion that you have no explanation. It is arrogant of you to say I'm 'beyond the realms of reality' as well, especially when you provide no explanation as to why. So any chance you could explain just what it is that makes me such a fool there mate.
Not true. This thread may well contain information that you have never encounterd before but don't make the mistake of equating a lack of information for a lack of intelligence. Not the same things at all.
I didn't say you were beyond the realms of reality, I said that expecting to find technologies comparable to our own was beyond the realms of reality. You said that's not what you were expecting, so we can put that one to bed. The orthodox doesn't state that no reality can be found in myth. Many people think that the bible is myth but it contains references to historical fact. In order to use myths and stories like this, you first have to accept that the understanding of the events and concepts discussed aren't represented in the way that we would represent them and details are often changed to make a political point or to provide support for something else (a good example is the story of Mary and Jesus going to Bethlehem- there was a strange star at around this time, there was a census, and various other elements of the story did happen, just not at the same time. They were deliberately put together to add mystique to the story of Christ. Another good example is Adam and Eve, as I mentioned previously). None of the things in the bible should be taken literally, either for religious purposes or historical purposes, critical analysis has to be applied. The same applies to the writing of Plato, he was using 'Atlantis' as an allegory for a society that had become corrupted by material wealth. The story may well have its roots in historical fact, but it's most likely that it relates to another group occupying the Mediterranean and which we already know of but under a different name. There are various cataclysmic events that can be recognised in the geological record. There is, however, no evidence that these wiped out an advanced civilisation. We have plenty of evidence for human activity prior to this and we can recreate landscapes and ecosystems, and understand the flora and fauna from these periods but there is nothing to suggest an advanced civilisation. Maybe there was one, but without evidence it cannot be proven. As for Göbekli Tepe, it doesn't demonstrate anything other than what it's been interpreted as. Large-scale communal building projects in the early Prehistoric are often recognised as meeting places for religious events, to demonstrate the control or ownership of a landscape by a migratory society (this is one of the functions of Bronze Age burial mounds) or to demonstrate command of manpower by a local elite. Deliberate burial of buildings or structures, similarly to deliberate destruction of buildings or objects, is usually some kind of closure event, to mark the end of its use and to prevent it becoming available for other groups to use. I'm not saying you're a fool at all, I'm just saying that you're getting away from genuine research and going down the rabbit hole of pseudo-science, which often isn't evidentially based and contains a lot of speculation. You have to make the theory fit the evidence, not evidence fit the theory.
I'm not going down the rabbit hole of psuedo science so lay off with the insults please. It's looking at evidence and finding that the explanation the orthodox view offers lacks detail, doesn't rebut individual points raised against it and overall isn't compelling enough for me to believe in some of it's interpretations. Like it does with the Plato date matching the younger dryass time frame. The orthodox view either ignores this, as you have consistently done, or dismisses it as coincidence whereas I think it warrants further investigation. Let's compare two sources of information from the ancient world who were alive at roughly the same time of 400ish BC, Herodotus and Plato. Both are primary sources for written accounts of two events in the past, the building of the Pyramid of Giza and the sinking of Atlantis. Both were writing well after the dates of the events, Plato by 10,000 years and Herodotus by 2000 years so neither are providing eye witness accounts, they are recording what they have been told. There are no other texts from the ancient world about who built the pyramid, not one, but Herodotus is accepted as gospel. Think on that. Our primary source of information regarding the building of one of the most amazing structures on earth comes from one text written 2000 years after the event with no other texts anywhere to support it. Now Plato's turn. An island called Atlantis sinks beneath the waves 10,000 years before he was writing. This matches the younger dryass impact event time frame, so a written and geological record of a cataclysm that support each other. What are the odds of that happening? Now, for the location of Atlantis I'm going for the Atlantic. Couple of reasons. Atlas, who I think was an actual and not made up ancient king or ruler was mentioned by Hesiod as being located beyond the pillars of Hercules at the edge of the western world. The etymology of Atlantis is the island of Atlas and strangely enough the etymology of Atlantic is also from Atlas, so basically the sea of Atlas. Hesiod also records that later he becomes associated with a mountain range in North Africa that still bears his name today, which is obviously the Atlas mountains. Strange that, going from dwelling on an island then moving to a mountain. Wonder what made that happen? please log in to view this image As you can see, the Azores are located where three continental plates meet and in 10,500ish BC, that North American plate got hammered. A meteor left an 18 mile crater in Greenland, while at least one other exploded in the atmosphere leaving traces across North and South America, Africa and Europe. Huge amounts of the ice sheet that was up to a mile and a half thick that covered a vast swathe of North America vapourised and melted, causing floods that were so large there were richter 10 earthquakes happening. You can also add a whole load of down ward pressure caused by the ice being instantly released when that ice gave way. That entire plate would be bouncing, and not in a party good way. I just think the tremors of it spread out along the plate and basically ripped the land mass apart, leaving what we now know of as the Azores. This probably the only place I've found that could destroy a land mass the way Plato says, ie it sinks because it gets undermined by the shelf pulling itself away from the European and African plates. https://download.gebco.net/ If you check out the bathymetric map it gives a really good idea of what size land mass used to be there imo as you can see how much of it isn't too far below the surface, especially south of the islands. And this is the only place on that entire fault line where you even get a feature like the Azores. Lots of this information is fairly new for us, I mean tectonic plate theory doesn't show up till the 50's. Information about the severe climate change in the younger dryass has only been found in recent times. The meteor crater in Greenland wasn't found until last year. This isn't making evidence fit the theory, this is finding evidence that supports the date Plato gives for a great cataclysm.
It's not an insult. I apologise if you took it as one. That's what things like the search for Atlantis are called though. There are several key things to consider with regard to Plato and Herodotus. Herodotus is considered to be the first person to treat historical events with a systematic process of investigation- he was a historian. Plato was a philosopher, his writing is intended to a convey a message not historical fact. We have the Great Pyramid, we can go and look at it, so we can go and test the accuracy of what Herodotus wrote about it. We don't, as far as we know, have Atlantis so we can't go and examine the accuracy of what he wrote about it. Having said all that, Herodotus is considered to have made a lot of stuff up, so he isn't always considered to be an accurate source. Atlas was a Titan in Greek mythology. This is where the terms Atlantic, Atlantis come from. Plato said that the king of Atlantis was a different Atlas, a son of Poseidon. The Atlas mountains are named after another Atlas, King of Mauretania, roughly equating to the modern Maghreb, who is understood to have ruled in the 6th century BC. I haven't consistently ignored anything. I agree that there was a big impact, but there is no evidence for societies as complex as Plato describes anywhere else during that time period, so the probability of one occurring on a small island chain like the Azores is slim. As I've said, the most likely explanation is that it refers to an island in the Med (Santorini is the most likely) and '10,000 years ago' is Plato's shorthand for a long time ago.
This topic is well above my head as i've never done any research on the topic but it's interesting all the same. One thought that came into my mind was that a number of things may have happened. Lets say that a giant meteor did hit the earth and wiped out the human race as we know it, or thought we knew it. The theory of evolution basically says that we descended from the apes and as we know, humans developed but a lot of other primates didn't (chimpanzees etc). Is it possible that Humans as we know them now weren't the most developed species of ape, similar but not the same. The more developed one was wiped out and disappeared however the 2nd class (us) already had a head start as we had learned from those before us.
Thread Question ---- Part 2 How long will it take my brain to evolve to understand all of the above ?
There are some theories that Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis, the Neanderthals, were equally as intelligent as Homo Sapiens Sapiens, or us. It's fairly commonly accepted that they used complex sounds to communicate. It's not possible to prove if they had language as they didn't use writing, but neither did 'anatomically modern humans' at the same time. They did have bigger brain cases than us though and the bigger the brain in relation to body size, the more intelligent the primate, I believe. So, to some extent, yes, it does appear that there were more advanced, or at least equally as advanced, hominids. There are also the Denisovans and perhaps one or two more species to consider, although I believe that their remains are only known from very small example, perhaps a finger bone here and there. The DNA of some of these can still be found in modern people because interbreeding occurred. It's a while since I've looked at any of this stuff, but I think one theory suggests that we were nastier than all the others, which gave us the edge.
