Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
whitegandalf

Iceage survivers

Atlantis   31 members have voted

  1. 1. Who where the atlantians?

    • No one
      18
    • Aliens
      0
    • A human sivilisation
      11
    • A diffrent human species
      2

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

50 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Could this warm area, north of the ice, isolated from the rest of the world have survivers? We know that before the iceage there lived at least 4 or more different humanoids on this planet. After lived only one. 50 000 year old stonepaintings have been found in lofoten, north norway. At that time no modern humans was in north europe, only neanderthals and maybe others. The islands west and north of norway had a warmer climate than today during whole last icage as the area supported trees, which they do not support today. The warm gulf stream was stronger than ever and driven by the enormus amount of could water from the icesheets, and hits this area hard and warms it up.

When the ice melted (wall) the to different worlds and possibly different human species met for the first time in tens of thousands of years. Could this be the giants (gods) of the bible, greek and other myth? Was they smarter than us, had they better technology, and was stronger than us. Maybe, the neanderthals was.. Did they took control and ruled us for a period?

Storegga is a area beneth the north sea that have caused the largest zunamies known too man. It is documented that it has caused at least 5 huge zunamies/floods during the last 30.000 years. Could one of these zunamies have killed most of the gods and their cities? And the reason we cant find traces of them is tjat the sea has rised about 50 meters in this area.

Was we lucky, was there others that deserved to rule this earth, but just got unlucky by a zunami and bad timing and afterwards deception.. A possible a inner revolt, were several of the gods saw an oppotunity to increase their own power and wealth and went against their own ( like the bible and greeks tell us). Two of poseidons own sons revoltet against him (greek) with the help of us human slaves. We hunted them down and killed every last one of them. They were not practical as slaves and a threat to all humanity.

Was the gods good or evil?

Difficult to say.. They were probably much like us. Both. Most were probably good people, some were bad. Some treated us bad. We know stories that they hunted for us (the free ones), they ate us over the camp fire, they stole and raped our women and took them as sexslaves (neanderthals finds..) and generally used us as slaves.

We know that along the trading and settling routes of the north sea people during history is two places that stand out. One is caucasus and the area north, which is the single most important area in the world strategelicy if you want to rule the world. This area controlled two of the three north sea searoutes to the mediterian. The last one went around and in from the west. And the the first island from the west in the mediterian are strategicaly important as bases. Caucasus also controlled the tradingroutes to kina, indus valley, sumer and egypt from north sea point of view. The north sea also had the only known ancient trading route to the americas. A north sea based coast culture could easily take over the world location wise.

In stoneage, north sea also ruled over the largest easy acessable storable protein food source in the world. Before farming and domesticated animals this was the only place in the world where foods for millions could just be gathered in small geographical areas. The most important by far is the now sunken island røst, lofoten off norway, where the cod every year comes to lay eggs. A large storable foodsource is a must if a large civilsation like culture were to evolve with large cities.

http://media.murdoch.edu.au/sturdy-scandinavian-conifers-survived-the-ice-age

Edited by whitegandalf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that particular link says only about Scandinavians.

they were of course affected by the ice age, but they were not the only humans on planet earth.

2226_ban.jpg

Majority of Africa, Middle east and Asia was not affected by the ice ages.

What about cradles of civilizations like Africa, Mesopotamia ??

They went about as life goes on.

They would say "Ice Age? Huh? No big deal!"

Who were the Atlanteans?

No one.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know.. I can't answer poll because I dont know, and I've not been proven either or it seems. That's the only honest answer. The sea level rising is an appealing argument, and because of trawlers have done much damage on the bottom of the seas I dont think we can say for sure. What might've been former a human-influenced land with proof literally written on stone, might've been chipped away by modern fishing trawlers. This when you consider the lands that were above sea level during the ice age peaks.

I'm curious what's the main counter-argument for the atlanteans' theories. That there were human civilizations on the other corners of the world too? If you consider Japan's history for example, it was a very isolated country until foreign lands quite literally forced it to open up itself slowly, at gunpoint. Even then Japan didn't hurry things up in that front. And Japan is an island-state, like atlantis might've been if it existed. Doesn't have to mean that the possible atlanteans would had been isolationists, but a possibility?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to have left out the sane answer: metaphors created for a philosophical discussion of politics.

--Jaylemurph

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

In norway when the ice melted and the isolated warm regions was united with the rest of the world, two differrent cultures appears right away. One of them is called fosna and lived from the center of norway to the south. They had tools similar to cultures of longer south. They also develop new tools and teqnices, as they did to the south.

The other culture is a mysterious one. They suddenly appears out of nothing at the most northern place in norway, no moving traces has been found, not from east, south or west. And they have looked pretty hard and ruled this out. The only possible theory is that they survived the iceage inside the ice, isolated, or they came from now sunken island doggerland, a little known And understood culture. Their tools was quite primitive and the same type as the neandertals used 40-60 000 years ago. Not a single bone has been found from this culture, so we do not know what they looked like or what type of humanoid they was. Several of thousands of years later the fosna and komsa culture lived side by side but did not share any technology or trade with each other. This is more than strange. The komsa still used their primitive tools, no development and had semingly no peacefull connection with the fosna culture. Then around 8000 bc the komsa culture suddenly disappears from the human history. Only the fosna lived on. Not a single village or city has been found by this seaculture as they all lie underwater today. Only a few temperary hunting shelters on the highlands has been found, but they know their main villages lied near the coast as they was almost exclusively sea-oriented.

The main god of the stoneage norway was hel. A woman fertility godess. Thousands of places have the word hell in norway. The most common is helvete. Up in north during stoneage it was the woman who ruled. Men had little value and did not gather as much food as the women did. They hunted and was away much of the time, while the women gathered eggs, birds, berries, different seafoods, raised the children and took the important decisions in the village.

When the first skeletons and cities of the komsa culture comes to light in the future we might expect great surprises.

Edited by whitegandalf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost every culture on earth have stories and myths that strongly resembles platons story. Even if platon made it all up, there still alot to be explained. The stories of an advanced civilisation, giants, gods and a great flood. The greek also mention hyperborea which is very similar to the atlantis story. Egyptians mention the seapeople, which could be the descendents of the atlantians. They also tell of a flood and survivers that came to egypt and helped them building the pyramids. The bible has plenty of stories. And the nordic myth world also tells of giants, floods and advanced civilisations. The maya, sumer, japanese myths.. The list goes on and on.

Are all this just inventions for a philosophical debate? Is there no truth to these stories? And who can with certanly say that all is made up.

The lack of hard evidence for atlantis is not evidence that i dident exist.

The time for major discoveries is not over, it has just began.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost every culture on earth have stories and myths that strongly resembles platons story. Even if platon made it all up, there still alot to be explained. The stories of an advanced civilisation, giants, gods and a great flood. The greek also mention hyperborea which is very similar to the atlantis story. Egyptians mention the seapeople, which could be the descendents of the atlantians. They also tell of a flood and survivers that came to egypt and helped them building the pyramids. The bible has plenty of stories. And the nordic myth world also tells of giants, floods and advanced civilisations. The maya, sumer, japanese myths.. The list goes on and on.

Are all this just inventions for a philosophical debate? Is there no truth to these stories? And who can with certanly say that all is made up.

The lack of hard evidence for atlantis is not evidence that i dident exist.

The time for major discoveries is not over, it has just began.

The lack of any verifiable evidence in support of Atlantis where and when it's claimed to have existed is evidence it didn't exist.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think it is possible that there was another human species living there, but without evidence we can't really say. Maybe it was an abandoned Eden?

Edited by DieChecker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thera:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The lack of any verifiable evidence in support of Atlantis where and when it's claimed to have existed is evidence it didn't exist.

cormac

The lack of definitive evidence is just that. There was no evidence that earth was round thousand years ago. The lack of evidence is not evidence in itself. It proves nothing. But i respect that you belive it doesent exist. But do not acept your claim that it 100 percent for sure did not exist, based only on the lack of evidence. If you had some real arguments you might convince me..

I do not accept that the timing rules atlantis out, during that time the lack of evidence is huge. Like a black spot in our history, beacause all the evidence of seacultures lies deep underwater

Edited by whitegandalf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds to me like you need to look into the available information provided by the Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP), Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) and Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) for yourself instead of pretending that all opinions are equal, they're not. The geological record, as regards any claim to Atlantis' existance, can't just magically disappear.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sounds to me like you need to look into the available information provided by the Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP), Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) and Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) for yourself instead of pretending that all opinions are equal, they're not. The geological record, as regards any claim to Atlantis' existance, can't just magically disappear.

cormac

I will check out the deep sea drilling project have, and look for detailed and complete maps of the ocean floor, but i am doubtfullit. Thanks for the tip though.

The geological evidence is there, it has been proven that several large islands sank in the sea 10 000 years ago as plato states. There is also alot of evidence for large tsunamies and floods around the world during the same period. I dont know what you are talking about.. Evidence for the possibility that atlantis existed is plenty.

Edited by whitegandalf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will check out the deep sea drilling project have, and look for detailed and complete maps of the ocean floor, but i am doubtfullit. Thanks for the tip though.

The geological evidence is there, it has been proven that several large islands sank in the sea 10 000 years ago as plato states.

There is also alot of evidence for large tsunamies and floods around the world during the same period. I dont know what you are talking about.. Evidence for the possibility that atlantis existed is plenty.

And which one of these islands is where Plato claimed Atlantis was? And which one of these islands is the size of Plato's Atlantis? It should also be mentioned that Spartel Island was never, even remotely, of sufficient size for any kind of a large culture. Nor did it exist for all that long a time. Again, you're left with nothing.

There is evidence for tsunami's and floods from various periods of time around the globe. This doesn't exactly help your argument.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And which one of these islands is where Plato claimed Atlantis was? And which one of these islands is the size of Plato's Atlantis? It should also be mentioned that Spartel Island was never, even remotely, of sufficient size for any kind of a large culture. Nor did it exist for all that long a time. Again, you're left with nothing.

There is evidence for tsunami's and floods from various periods of time around the globe. This doesn't exactly help your argument.

cormac

There are several of islands like the size of crete that have sunken off coast norway. There are also some2-3 times larger.. And doggerland is huge. There might be more larger island, but i havent checked them all out. However i dont know how large atlantis acording to platon was.. Can you enlighten me?

Also you dont need a large island to create a large civilisation. You only need large storable easy accessable foodsource. The island røst was like the size of crete, about 40 km long and 30 km wide. But the island ruled overa food source that in theory could feed over 10 million people ( possibly 20) Now only the mountains about 5 percent is still over water. The whole area has easy accessable storable foodsource that in theory could support about 50 million people. They also had other food sources like millions of birds and eggs, seal, walrus, whale, fox, bear, raindeer++

But i belive that the age and size could be correct information that could have survived. Difficult to misunderstand that information.

Edited by whitegandalf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The lack of any verifiable evidence in support of Atlantis where and when it's claimed to have existed is evidence it didn't exist.

Deep sea trawlers, teeth of time and underwater earthquakes and whatnot can destroy the evidence. Evidence of such things is not ever-lasting for many other reasons too.

The geological record, as regards any claim to Atlantis' existance, can't just magically disappear.

By this, you probably mean that there should be some geological or other record of Atlantis disappearing like Port Royale did a few centuries back, 7.June.1692. It's a long time for the evidence to happen anything. I think it's safer to assume at least, that there wasn't a modern age like we're now experiencing where people could empty the life out of oceans by overfishing and overhunting like we do now. If that assumption holds water (assumption that there wasn't such advanced civilization there in that time, you'd see some more evidence of widespread tech I believe), then the ocean's fish and other animal populations should've been thriving. Maybe they even got their carbon hydrates out of sea too, like japanese do with seaweed, or at least have done. I dont see why they'd need land-food at all, or very little.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In norway when the ice melted and the isolated warm regions was united with the rest of the world, two differrent cultures appears right away. One of them is called fosna and lived from the center of norway to the south. They had tools similar to cultures of longer south. They also develop new tools and teqnices, as they did to the south.

The other culture is a mysterious one. They suddenly appears out of nothing at the most northern place in norway, no moving traces has been found, not from east, south or west. And they have looked pretty hard and ruled this out. The only possible theory is that they survived the iceage inside the ice, isolated, or they came from now sunken island doggerland, a little known And understood culture. Their tools was quite primitive and the same type as the neandertals used 40-60 000 years ago. Not a single bone has been found from this culture, so we do not know what they looked like or what type of humanoid they was. Several of thousands of years later the fosna and komsa culture lived side by side but did not share any technology or trade with each other. This is more than strange. The komsa still used their primitive tools, no development and had semingly no peacefull connection with the fosna culture. Then around 8000 bc the komsa culture suddenly disappears from the human history. Only the fosna lived on. Not a single village or city has been found by this seaculture as they all lie underwater today. Only a few temperary hunting shelters on the highlands has been found, but they know their main villages lied near the coast as they was almost exclusively sea-oriented.

The main god of the stoneage norway was hel. A woman fertility godess. Thousands of places have the word hell in norway. The most common is helvete. Up in north during stoneage it was the woman who ruled. Men had little value and did not gather as much food as the women did. They hunted and was away much of the time, while the women gathered eggs, birds, berries, different seafoods, raised the children and took the important decisions in the village.

When the first skeletons and cities of the komsa culture comes to light in the future we might expect great surprises.

Your sources for the bolded above? This conceptualization would appear to be in conflict with current understandings.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deep sea trawlers, teeth of time and underwater earthquakes and whatnot can destroy the evidence. Evidence of such things is not ever-lasting for many other reasons too.

By this, you probably mean that there should be some geological or other record of Atlantis disappearing like Port Royale did a few centuries back, 7.June.1692. It's a long time for the evidence to happen anything. I think it's safer to assume at least, that there wasn't a modern age like we're now experiencing where people could empty the life out of oceans by overfishing and overhunting like we do now. If that assumption holds water (assumption that there wasn't such advanced civilization there in that time, you'd see some more evidence of widespread tech I believe), then the ocean's fish and other animal populations should've been thriving. Maybe they even got their carbon hydrates out of sea too, like japanese do with seaweed, or at least have done. I dont see why they'd need land-food at all, or very little.

Deep sea trawlers only scratch the surface while core samples are taken at lengths of hundreds to thousands of feet. It's much like if you were to say that one sheet of paper is equal to an entire ream of paper. Obviously it's not.

Port Royale was a single city. Atlantis, as written by Plato, was of a size approximately 290 MILES by 290 MILES (84,100 square miles). So are you going to tell me that something that large, a little less than half the size of Spain, can completely disappear from the geological record in less than 12,000 years. Again, it must be magic.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The surface scratch of trawlers however destroys the visible forms of man-made sculping, making them more and more like natural rocks and whatnot. What makes you even think Atlantis disappeared completely? Why not just have a part of it sink just like what happened with Port Royale? I dont buy anything written as a face value (as in "someone else trust this, must be true), especially if I didn't live in that era. The size of the island could be different, it could also be that only part of the island was sunk. I think that more interesting than arguing whether or not such a thing is not possible, especially if you dont have anything concrete to back up your case either way, is to hypothesise where those possible civilizations could've been at that time. Norway does sound interesting but I'm a bit sceptical about that location if it was during the ice age era for obvious reasons, the global ice sheet should've been over there too. But if they were in that region and the remains there are dated few tens of thousands years back, then wouldn't it be likely they existed before the last ice age and that those islands sunk afterwards?

Perhaps poorly planned sevage or underground irrigation systems or venice-like building were to blame, although the last one doesn't seem too plausible because then there'd be more possible remains of cities. However, if you consider the condition in which some 10000+ years old underwater city remains in Chile and India coasts were found, the condition of those city remains, who knows. Rigid mind sees no possibilities, crafty mind explores them even if they're a dead end.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The surface scratch of trawlers however destroys the visible forms of man-made sculping, making them more and more like natural rocks and whatnot. What makes you even think Atlantis disappeared completely? Why not just have a part of it sink just like what happened with Port Royale? I dont buy anything written as a face value (as in "someone else trust this, must be true), especially if I didn't live in that era. The size of the island could be different, it could also be that only part of the island was sunk. I think that more interesting than arguing whether or not such a thing is not possible, especially if you dont have anything concrete to back up your case either way, is to hypothesise where those possible civilizations could've been at that time. Norway does sound interesting but I'm a bit sceptical about that location if it was during the ice age era for obvious reasons, the global ice sheet should've been over there too. But if they were in that region and the remains there are dated few tens of thousands years back, then wouldn't it be likely they existed before the last ice age and that those islands sunk afterwards?

Perhaps poorly planned sevage or underground irrigation systems or venice-like building were to blame, although the last one doesn't seem too plausible because then there'd be more possible remains of cities. However, if you consider the condition in which some 10000+ years old underwater city remains in Chile and India coasts were found, the condition of those city remains, who knows. Rigid mind sees no possibilities, crafty mind explores them even if they're a dead end.

The problem with the above is that if one has to selectively deconstruct and reinterpret the story as being something other than what is claimed then it's no longer the story of Atlantis, but what one wishes it to be. In the meantime many, MANY other actual prehistoric places don't get the recognition they rightfully deserve because there are those who are trying to pin any and everything to Plato's tale. That goes beyond being sad.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So true that, not that I know much of those other places, but the ones we've found already... quite a bit of those that haven't made it to the history books, right? I think much stigma around these subjects comes from documentaries where they jump into conclusions and try to create artificial excitement. I find the real history and more sincere speculation be far more exciting, too bad it doesn't seem to be translated to a documentary form as often. I even heard a rumor about some ancient ruins of civilization had been found on the bottom of my country's south sea gulf, the sea right west of St. Petersburg, Russia. It's so dirty water down there you barely see more than a meter ahead of you with a power-light when diving, thanks to our three major cities pumping waste there. History should be treated with more respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So true that, not that I know much of those other places, but the ones we've found already... quite a bit of those that haven't made it to the history books, right? I think much stigma around these subjects comes from documentaries where they jump into conclusions and try to create artificial excitement. I find the real history and more sincere speculation be far more exciting, too bad it doesn't seem to be translated to a documentary form as often. I even heard a rumor about some ancient ruins of civilization had been found on the bottom of my country's south sea gulf, the sea right west of St. Petersburg, Russia. It's so dirty water down there you barely see more than a meter ahead of you with a power-light when diving, thanks to our three major cities pumping waste there. History should be treated with more respect.

Many are so new they were never in the history books most of us grew up learning from to begin with.

So do I, unfortunately sensationalized and fabricated claims get more notice than the real thing. Reality is just more than some can handle.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if platon made it all up, there still alot to be explained.

On this we disagree; I take it, by this statement, you assume every piece of fiction (philosophical metaphor or not), *must* be true. To this I say: I have some train tickets to Hogwarts available to sell for only $50.

The stories of an advanced civilisation, giants, gods and a great flood.

I'm not aware of Plato discussing giants in Atlantis.

The greek also mention hyperborea which is very similar to the atlantis story.

They also mention Hades, Tartarus and Ever-dusky Cimmeria. Field trip?

Egyptians mention the seapeople, which could be the descendents of the atlantians.

By that logic, so could the Daleks. Plato never explicitly mentions stairs in the Republic...

They also tell of a flood and survivers that came to egypt and helped them building the pyramids.

They do? I appeal to Kmt to see if we can get some confirmation of that.

The bible has plenty of stories.

Indeed, there are some who say it's nothing but stories. (Really, your sense of logic appears to be if one thing in a source is true, the entire source is literally true. This seems an inadviable way to approach literature -- since you don't seem to be making a distinction amongst several significantly different genres. It's a maverick take on Comp. Lit., at any rate.)

And the nordic myth world also tells of giants, floods and advanced civilisations.

So is it /any/ different civilization in a myth gets chalked up to "a superior civilization"? Because the Romans would have seemed like that to a lot of Germanic tribes, but they hardly possessed anything we'd call 'superior'. (Except maybe work ethic.)

The maya, sumer, japanese myths.. The list goes on and on.

I concede. You can cherry pick enough random mytholgical elements to make any comparison you want. You cannot, however, keep those facts in a coherent, informed context and make the same claims. Well, I suppose a general second-person 'you'-figure /could/, but they haven't. You certainly haven't.

Are all this just inventions for a philosophical debate? Is there no truth to these stories? And who can with certanly say that all is made up.

No, but you've hardly proved these things are actually related (or, indeed, even vaguely akin). You don't even provide citation to prove what you're talking about, so who knows if anything you say is even true...

The lack of hard evidence for atlantis is not evidence that i dident exist.

Well, no, but you haven't produced an iota of hard evidence *for* anything, either. So far you're not a whit better off than my "The Daleks are real" theory.

The time for major discoveries is not over, it has just began.

Heavens, whoever suggested the time for discovery is over? I mean, just because you can't prove anything certainly doesn't mean anyone else never will!

--Jaylemurph

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At that time no modern humans was in north europe, only neanderthals and maybe others.

Why are you so quick to state "no modern humans", but willing to state "maybe others". Do you have proof of either?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have some computer problems and been a bit busy lately and still are. so i will only answer some of the questions. I will answer the rest later..

About the atlantis and giants, as far as i know, there are no direct descripton in platons atlantis itself. But it does mention the names poseidon and his son atlas, which are well known persons in the greek myth world. Poseidon was son of the titans kronos and rhea, which was giants. Then i asume that poseidons people which he ruled over also was titans, or partly titan.

"They were immortal huge beings of incredible strength and stamina.."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(mythology)

About the referance to different humanoid in north europe before modern humans arrived besides the neanderthals.

First humans arrived south europe around 37 000 years ago in bulgaria and hungary. The denisovans lived in just outside northern eastern europe around 41 000 years ago. Only a small finger and a tooth has been found at this site, no other sites has been found besides one in south east asia too. It is alloved to presume that they could also have lived in other places and regions near the find sites. Very little are known about them their habitat areas, the way they look, exept that they were huge, according to the tooth. They are a variant of the neanderthals, but still very different acording to dna research.

"Analysis of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of the finger bone showed it to be genetically distinct from the mtDNAs of Neanderthals and modern humans"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisova_hominin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First humans arrived south europe around 37 000 years ago in bulgaria and hungary.

Actually it was a bit earlier:

Pestera cu Oase Remains (HSS) c.40,500 BP

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/4/1165

Grotta del Cavallo c.43,000-45,000 cal BP

http://medienportal.univie.ac.at/presse/aktuelle-pressemeldungen/detailansicht/artikel/homo-sapiens-arrived-earlier-in-europe-than-previously-known/

Earliest modern human in Northwest. Europe: c.42,200 - 39,500 BC

http://www.stonepages.com/news/archives/004593.html

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.