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

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.

New Humans Had Huge Teeth

Along with the finger bone, archaeologists from the Russian Academy of Sciences, who excavated the site, discovered a single tooth that belonged to a Denisovan adult.

The tooth, a molar, is bigger than any modern human tooth and is even bigger than the biggest Neanderthal tooth. This could suggest Denisovans were "comparable in size to Neanderthals, maybe a little bit bigger," said George Washington University's Richmond.

Richmond cautioned, however, that tooth size isn't always a good indicator of body size. A hominin "can have big teeth and not be a giant," he said.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101222-new-human-species-dna-nature-science-evolution-fossil-finger/

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Posted (edited)

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

Sometimes magic happens

Magic is lack of knowledge and understanding;)

There are several of islands, half the size of spain or larger, that have entirely or partly sunk in the atlantic, and the rest of the world past 12000 years and around that time.

Doggerland was about half the size of spain, it sank finally during the storegga tsunami around 8200 years ago. during a period of fast rising seawater and the sinking of its part of the tectonic plate which contributed.

http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:Doggerbank.jpg

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

Iceland was orginally a larger island than spain (still is) that partly sank in the sea, because of rising sea after icesheetmelting from 20 000/15 000to 8 000 years ago. Iceland was a bit larger than spain 12 000 years ago. Some of it sank in the sea because it was liftet up because of the weight of all the ice on the tectonic plates. And when the weight disappered it sank to the bottom.

These gelogical phenomen can make islands disappear like magic

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6226537/England-is-sinking-while-Scotland-rises-above-sea-levels-according-to-new-study.html

Svalbard island, north norway was 5 times larger than spain 12 000 years ago and most/much of it sank in the sea from 15 to 8 thousand years ago. Because of rising sea and sinking of the tectonic plate because. Same as above..

Islands can also sink during earthshakes and after a large volcano blowout. After the japanese earthshakes some seabed rised 50 meter up from the old sealevel. The same forces can also make areas and islands sink. Especially were tectonic plates meetes.

http://abcnewsradioonline.com/world-news/japanese-earthquake-lifted-seabed-16-stories-study-says.html

An island rised 5 meters during the thailand earthquakes and tsunamies..

http://basementgeographer.blogspot.no/2011/06/dont-go-to-north-sentinel-island.html

I dont get what these core samples are supposed to prove or how it disproves the sinking of large islands. Coresamples havent been taken everywhere, and not in the most interesting areas, as they were looking for oil and gas, not sunken islands.

Edited by whitegandalf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

Around 7500 years ago some of the islands off coast of norway we know their practised domestication of animals as a suplementary food source, as their main food source was seafood and seabirds and eggs. As there were no wild dangerous animals on these islands they needed no one ta guard the animals. The cows and sheep just went around on the islands and grassed the grass all year round. As it still today very seldon get any lower than 0 degrees fahrenheit at the coldest nights in the winter, because of the warm golf stream that hits this area. 12-8000 years ago these islands was 95 percent larger than today. The climate was under that time quite a bit warmer than today, perhaps 5-6 degrees average. At winter there was not as much grass as during the summer, so they gave the animals seaweed from the sea.

Japan and northern norway has that in common that they are isolated places that changed slow during history. Impulses from the mediterian did not reach these outskirts of the world.

Edited by whitegandalf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes magic happens

Magic is lack of knowledge and understanding;)

There are several of islands, half the size of spain or larger, that have entirely or partly sunk in the atlantic, and the rest of the world past 12000 years and around that time.

Doggerland was about half the size of spain, it sank finally during the storegga tsunami around 8200 years ago. during a period of fast rising seawater and the sinking of its part of the tectonic plate which contributed.

http://no.wikipedia....:Doggerbank.jpg

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Doggerland

Iceland was orginally a larger island than spain (still is) that partly sank in the sea, because of rising sea after icesheetmelting from 20 000/15 000to 8 000 years ago. Iceland was a bit larger than spain 12 000 years ago. Some of it sank in the sea because it was liftet up because of the weight of all the ice on the tectonic plates. And when the weight disappered it sank to the bottom.

These gelogical phenomen can make islands disappear like magic

http://www.telegraph...-new-study.html

Svalbard island, north norway was 5 times larger than spain 12 000 years ago and most/much of it sank in the sea from 15 to 8 thousand years ago. Because of rising sea and sinking of the tectonic plate because. Same as above..

Islands can also sink during earthshakes and after a large volcano blowout. After the japanese earthshakes some seabed rised 50 meter up from the old sealevel. The same forces can also make areas and islands sink. Especially were tectonic plates meetes.

http://abcnewsradioo...study-says.html

An island rised 5 meters during the thailand earthquakes and tsunamies..

http://basementgeogr...nel-island.html

I dont get what these core samples are supposed to prove or how it disproves the sinking of large islands. Coresamples havent been taken everywhere, and not in the most interesting areas, as they were looking for oil and gas, not sunken islands.

Magic is what you see them doing in movies like Harry Potter, not in the real world. :rolleyes: So now you're redefining 'magic'. Somehow it doesn't surprise me.

They can determine through core samples whether something was permanently submerged in water by the rising of the sea level as opposed to having suddenly collapsed into the ocean, which is what Atlantis was claimed to have done. As well as being able to tell when this happened. And yet nothing has been found to support the original claim as written by Plato. Core samples have been taken from the areas where Atlantis was claimed to have been, which are the only areas relevant to the discussion. Again, nothing supports Plato's claim. That you don't like it is irrelevant to the discussion.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

.

You are partly correct. It is not the leading theory today, but the research on the subject still is going on and the truth yet to be proved.

The theory is a bit over 100 years old. The first one to suggest that a tribe was inclosed by the ice during last iceage was a teacher who got very little support in the beginning. He dident give up and educated himself to an archelogist and wrote a book on the subject and later got much support. In periods up to the 1970, it was the one of the leading theories as the origin of the people komsa. Today most lean towards the doggerland theory or others, but the lack of evidence and knowledge aout the doggerlenders makes it still a open case. Later discoveries like geological and biological evidence ( last two years) for a warm region inside the ice during whole last iceage makes the theory more interesting.

"The team concludes that the trees probably survived in small "ice-free refugia," known to have existed in western Scandinavia"

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/03/trees-survived-ice-age-chill-in-.html

In the extremely poor find base of the older stoneage period (9000 or older) in norway there exists more hypothesis and theories than evidence from the period. It is a very little understood period

There are written several books on the subject, people inside the ice, iceage survivers. I havent made it all up my self. Although i wish.

http://translate.google.no/translate?hl=no&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ama-foerlag.com%2Ffolket.htm

The stoneage cultures of south norway and north norway was distinctivly different until komsa culture suddenly disappeared. Acording to the leading theory they did not cope with the sudden climate change , it got warmer and the rapid rising sealevel. The new people of the north after komsa disappeared stayed partly isolated and did not change their lifestyle much either despite large improvements in toolmaking in the south. They say stoneage lasted in north norway until year 0, they sort of skipped bronseage, while in south the stoneage period ended 2000 years before, acording to the norwegian archelogical lexicon. They changed very slow, like other isolated areas of the world. And still used primitive tools similar to the neanderthals, long after the people in the south, when they disappeared.

Edited by whitegandalf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...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....

It is not a theory but a proven fact that north scandinavia hade warm icefree pockets with forests and wild animals during the whole last iceage and during its coldest period. The official iceage maps are wrong.

"One of them, Andøya Island, in north-western Norway, is the source of material dated between 17,700 and 22,000 years-old. During the last ice age, the island was an ice-free pocket, "

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120301143737.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the atlantis and giants, as far as i know, there are no direct descripton in platons atlantis itself.

Then there are no mentions of giant in Atlantis, as nobody else in Ancient Greece spoke about Atlantis before Plato. That was simply resolved.

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.

Nooo, Titans are Titans, Giants are Giants. Both children of the Earth, but they're different generations. And Rhea and Kronos were Titans.

You seem to be under the apprehension that there's some standard line of Greek myth. There's no. Atlas is sometime a Titan, sometimes not. But even with the plurality, I've never heard of him being related to Poseidon. He's usually seen as the soon of the Titan Iapetus.

And Zeus and Hades were also the sons of Kronos and Rhea -- does that make them giant sea gods, too? Because that might be hard to argue given their provenance for ruling other realms.

Then i asume that poseidons people which he ruled over also was titans, or partly titan.

You may well assume that. But it's just that, and not backed up by much. Certainly not your facility with classical myth. Not that that has a lot to do with actual history. (Most sources have the titans rather famously losing to the Olympian gods, and thrown into Tartarus for their trouble. Not skipping around with the Olympians after the titanomachy. Seems like they might be tempted to revolt...)

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

http://en.wikipedia....itan_(mythology)

Oh, so now it's anything big and strong that get pulled into your nexus. Does that make /me/ a Titanogiantatlantean? Awesome.

--Jaylemurph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are partly correct. It is not the leading theory today, but the research on the subject still is going on and the truth yet to be proved.

The theory is a bit over 100 years old. The first one to suggest that a tribe was inclosed by the ice during last iceage was a teacher who got very little support in the beginning. He dident give up and educated himself to an archelogist and wrote a book on the subject and later got much support. In periods up to the 1970, it was the one of the leading theories as the origin of the people komsa. Today most lean towards the doggerland theory or others, but the lack of evidence and knowledge aout the doggerlenders makes it still a open case. Later discoveries like geological and biological evidence ( last two years) for a warm region inside the ice during whole last iceage makes the theory more interesting.

"The team concludes that the trees probably survived in small "ice-free refugia," known to have existed in western Scandinavia"

http://news.sciencem...-chill-in-.html

In the extremely poor find base of the older stoneage period (9000 or older) in norway there exists more hypothesis and theories than evidence from the period. It is a very little understood period

There are written several books on the subject, people inside the ice, iceage survivers. I havent made it all up my self. Although i wish.

http://translate.goo....com/folket.htm

The stoneage cultures of south norway and north norway was distinctivly different until komsa culture suddenly disappeared. Acording to the leading theory they did not cope with the sudden climate change , it got warmer and the rapid rising sealevel. The new people of the north after komsa disappeared stayed partly isolated and did not change their lifestyle much either despite large improvements in toolmaking in the south. They say stoneage lasted in north norway until year 0, they sort of skipped bronseage, while in south the stoneage period ended 2000 years before, acording to the norwegian archelogical lexicon. They changed very slow, like other isolated areas of the world. And still used primitive tools similar to the neanderthals, long after the people in the south, when they disappeared.

Given that you are basing your position on a notably dated hypothesis, and also given that you may be misinterpreting floral refugia data, you may wish to consult the following research papers:

The Komsa Culture: Past and Present

Ericka Helskog: Arctic Anthropology, Vol. 11, Supplement: Festschrift Issue in Honor of Chester S.Chard (1974), pp. 261-265 University of Wisconsin Press.

Earliest Mesolithic Site in Northern Norway? A Reassessment of Sarnes B4

H. P. Blankholm: Arctic Anthropology, Vol. 41, No. 1 (2004), pp. 41-57. University of Wisconsin Press

The Mesolithic of Northern Europe

T. Douglas: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 20 (1991), pp. 211-233.

In respect to internet sources:

https://www.duo.uio.....pdf?sequence=2

http://books.google....culture&f=false

Your understandings of the mid-Wisconsin(Wurm)/LGM/early Holocene would also appear to be wanting.

Will be away on professional travel. Can elaborate/detail at a later date.

To briefly summarize: Dated "fantasies" do not equate to current and detailed research.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Then there are no mentions of giant in Atlantis, as nobody else in Ancient Greece spoke about Atlantis before Plato. That was simply resolved.

Nooo, Titans are Titans, Giants are Giants. Both children of the Earth, but they're different generations. And Rhea and Kronos were Titans.

You seem to be under the apprehension that there's some standard line of Greek myth. There's no. Atlas is sometime a Titan, sometimes not. But even with the plurality, I've never heard of him being related to Poseidon. He's usually seen as the soon of the Titan Iapetus.

And Zeus and Hades were also the sons of Kronos and Rhea -- does that make them giant sea gods, too? Because that might be hard to argue given their provenance for ruling other realms.

You may well assume that. But it's just that, and not backed up by much. Certainly not your facility with classical myth. Not that that has a lot to do with actual history. (Most sources have the titans rather famously losing to the Olympian gods, and thrown into Tartarus for their trouble. Not skipping around with the Olympians after the titanomachy. Seems like they might be tempted to revolt...)

Oh, so now it's anything big and strong that get pulled into your nexus. Does that make /me/ a Titanogiantatlantean? Awesome.

--Jaylemurph

Titans could very well be giants/gods or at lest half..

"immortal huge beings of incredible strength and stamina"

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

We know that atlantis also possesed superior technology, and ruled the world for a period.

One can never know for sure, but At least we cant rule it out.

He mentions both poseidon and atlas. Poseidon was born of two titans, therefor he, unless a miracel happened, was a titan too. Atlas was in the atlantis story one of poseidons sons, making him aslo a titan, or half titan.

Further platons says atlas supported poseidon and the titans in the war against the greek olympians, their human alliance. This also supports the idea that the people he ruled over, the atlantians and himself, was a titans or a half titans.

That atlas also is in a few others stories doesnt mean you can dismiss Information in the atlantis story. It weakens it a bit, but doesent rule it out. Why couldent it be the other stories of him that have some inaccurasies?

Yes, if you are an immortal huge being with incredible strength, you might very well be a titan/giant?

Congratulations;)

Edited by whitegandalf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Titans could very well be giants/gods or at lest half..

"immortal huge beings of incredible strength and stamina"

http://en.wikipedia....itan_(mythology)

So like I said, you get to co-opt anything even vaguely similar into your theory. Why stop? Why not say Hercules was a titanogiantatlantean? Why not Terry "Hulk" Hogan? I mean, we've already established I'm a titangiantatlantean, and I'm happy to hang with those two, too!

We know that atlantis also possesed superior technology, and ruled the world for a period.

Whoa, there! You *might* know that. /I/ certainly don't, so don't go deciding what we know. I might just decide we don't know what we're talking about.

One can never know for sure, but At least we cant rule it out.

I can't be sure my dog doesn't flap his ears and fly around when I'm at work, so I guess we can't rule that out, either, but I'd be foolish to go buy basset-size flypaper based on that assumption.

He mentions both poseidon and atlas. Poseidon was born of two titans, therefor he, unless a miracel happened, was a titan too. Atlas was in the atlantis story one of poseidons sons, making him aslo a titan, or half titan.

But only in some versions. By your own logic, if he isn't s Titan in other versions, you'd have to change you theory. (Or maybe... just maybe.. this isn't an accurate portrayal of fact and is not subject to normal laws of reality. I know. Staggering thought, that.)

Further platons says atlas supported poseidon and the titans in the war against the greek olympians, their human alliance. This also supports the idea that the people he ruled over, the atlantians and himself, was a titans or a half titans.

So wait. What exactly is the logic you're using here? Are all myths are literally true, which I guess means all versions of all myths are equally true, so Atlas becomes like Schrondinger's Cat: both not a Titan and a Titan depending on when you look. Or whenever it's convenient for you. And if the only reason you believe it is because it's convenient. then it isn't independantly true, which defeats the whole purpose of your argument.

Glad that's settled, then.

That atlas also is in a few others stories doesnt mean you can dismiss Information in the atlantis story. It weakens it a bit, but doesent rule it out. Why couldent it be the other stories of him that have some inaccurasies?

Ohhhhh, so you *do* pick what's most covenient for you. I thought you might be able to put up a better defense than that. I was wrong. :(

Yes, if you are an immortal huge being with incredible strength, you might very well be a titan/giant?

Congratulations;)

Awesome. Ima go step on some Central European villagers and then throw Pelion on Ossa.

--Jaylemurph

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Given that you are basing your position on a notably dated hypothesis, and also given that you may be misinterpreting floral refugia data, you may wish to consult the following research papers:

The Komsa Culture: Past and Present

Ericka Helskog: Arctic Anthropology, Vol. 11, Supplement: Festschrift Issue in Honor of Chester S.Chard (1974), pp. 261-265 University of Wisconsin Press.

Earliest Mesolithic Site in Northern Norway? A Reassessment of Sarnes B4

H. P. Blankholm: Arctic Anthropology, Vol. 41, No. 1 (2004), pp. 41-57. University of Wisconsin Press

The Mesolithic of Northern Europe

T. Douglas: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 20 (1991), pp. 211-233.

In respect to internet sources:

https://www.duo.uio.....pdf?sequence=2

http://books.google....culture&f=false

Your understandings of the mid-Wisconsin(Wurm)/LGM/early Holocene would also appear to be wanting.

Will be away on professional travel. Can elaborate/detail at a later date.

To briefly summarize: Dated "fantasies" do not equate to current and detailed research.

.

Again these are just theories, the ofiical one is just that too. I do not claim to have any hard undisputable evidence for it, only lot of soft evidence.

I will read your provided information when i get the time, quite a lot..

As we havent found a single fragment of a bone from, the seaculture komsa in north norway, from 15 000 (or before) to 8-9 000 years ago before they disappeared, nobody can know for sure if they were humans, neanderthals or denisovans. We can only theorise..

Not a single one of their permanent houses (that everyone know and agree on existed) villages or mayby cities at the sealevel has been discovered yet. No one knows for sure how advanced they was in some areas like.. shipbuilding, navigation, astronomy, fishing, warfare, medicine, alchemy, music, art, hangliding.. And they might not be as advanced in areas like early farming ( wasnt needed as plenty of high quality easy acessable and storable foods already existed) land warfare, toolmaking and other areas. We can only theorise..

It is all under water, and as no one are willing to pay for expensive underwater mapping and archeology in these areas we will never find out either.

Only some small portable tentcamps on the highlands has been found, which they only used small periods of time away from their permant coastal houses and villages. That is not enough to fully understand the komsa culture.

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.

I hear ya whitegandalf. The whole thing is totally absorbing to me also and I could hardly answer your poll, which was kinda strange. My 2 cents...

The Phaeton impact imo is based in the Kaali impact craters in Estonia and maybe around 2200BC but that date is disputed. I think the people took that story with them when they migrated out after the event, possibly to Greece and Italy and even being responsible for the Celtic rise in Austria.

The changes in the North Sea, may be Atlantis, if the people moved south, even into North Africa and the original memory was transferred over time into a different place where the same line of people now were.

I also think it was possible prior to c.7000BC to cross the North Pole and that this is a prime area for a major earthquake, have you seen the massive trench there? Google Earth it. The North Pole is habitable now, when the area was warmer they would easily have travelled to Asia across the Pole area imo. Personally I think shamanism developed in the areas of Lake Baikal and travelled out of there, embedding into many other cultures the concept of many Gods against European cultures who had one creator God.

I do think there is truth, as well as change, in Plato's story.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know that atlantis also possesed superior technology, and ruled the world for a period.

How do "we know"?

I hope your source is not Edgar Cayce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do "we know"?

I hope your source is not Edgar Cayce.

I managed to find a copy at a market the other weekend of a book Edgar Cayce on Atlantis from 1968, the seller had a whole heap but I chose that one simply out of curiosity from all the hype I've ever read on it. I've never been one to listen much to what Cayce said but it actually makes for quite interesting reading.

I don't buy that Atlantis had any superior technology though, Plato never mentions any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

How do "we know"?

I hope your source is not Edgar Cayce.

Maybe my choosing of words was a biit inaccurate. We do not know, for sure, but it is highly likely that they possesed advanced (for its time) technology on some areas like shipbuilding, fishing, naval warfare, navigation++ maybe not all areas but some.

How can a sivilisation be so sucessfull to invade other areas of the world and build great cities be lesser advanced than its neighbours at its time?

Edited by whitegandalf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Maybe my choosing of words was a it wrong. We do not know, for sure, but itis highly likely that they possesed advanced (for its time) technology on some areas like shipbuilding, fishing, naval warfare, navigation++

How can sivilisation be so sucessfull to invade other areas of the world and build great cities be lesser advanced than its neighbours? It is only logic that they were more advanced in some areas for its time.

About shipbuilding: I think people sailed the seas far earlier then generally assumed. For instance, in Korea (or Taiwan?) they have found 8000 year old petroglyphs of people hunting whales from boats. You don't do that from a mere dugout canoe.

++

EDIT:

Stone Age people may have started hunting whales as early as 6,000 BC, new evidence from South Korea suggests.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3638853.stm

.

Edited by Abramelin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

About shipbuilding: I think people sailed the seas far earlier then generally assumed. For instance, in Korea (or Taiwan?) they have found 8000 year old petroglyphs of people hunting whales from boats. You don't do that from a mere dugout canoe.

++

EDIT:

Stone Age people may have started hunting whales as early as 6,000 BC, new evidence from South Korea suggests.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3638853.stm

.

In the komsa area there has been found alot of stoneage paintings of animals and boats. The dating of theese are somewaht uncertain, but some expert suggest the oldest is around 7000-9000 years old. These paintings are the largest collections of stoneage paintings from the stoneageperiod in northern europe. Some of the motives are a 70 meter large Moose, other is abstract art and geometrical figures.

The last two groups is identical to stoneage carvings located all over the world. The experts explains this with that these paintings were made under the influence of drugs, and that people all over the world saw the same things and painted it down. Another explaination is that they all had connecting trade routes and was inspired by one eachother art.

As not a single water wessel has been found from the komsa culture, who knows what what kind of boats they used? The archeological material is not enough to make any certain statements.

The oldest plank built boat found in norway is from around 500 bc, not very old. Much older much exist. The oldest canoe is around 8000 bc. Again the amount of boats found in norway is very small and does not give a complete understanding of reality. The first settlers in norway arrived around 13-10000 bc, they did not swim from doggerland, so we know these times are not correct.

Edited by whitegandalf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the links, Swede, especially the first one.

But some time ago I found this:

(...) Hesjedal thus estimates that the Sørøya images were carved between 6,000 and 9,000 years ago. That makes them the oldest known boat images in Europe and among the oldest in the world. (The boat drawers of Sørøya were certainly not the first boat builders, however; Australia was settled as early as 37,000 years ago by people who must have arrived in boats.)

Who were the early inhabitants of Sørøya? The answer is not clear. Ten thousand years ago, as the ice sheet covering Scandinavia began to shrink, northern Norway is thought to have been colonized from two directions: from the east, by hunters from the Russian steppes who were pursuing migrating game such as reindeer, and whose rock carvings of reindeer have been found not far from Sørøya on the Norwegian mainland; and from the south, by people who made their way up Norway's ice-free west coast. At the moment there is no way of telling which direction the Sørøyans came from--or whether it was both south and east.

Certainly they were accomplished sailors, because their settlements have been found on islands even farther from the coast than Sørøya. And surely, says Hesjedal, they could not have survived on the occasional reindeer; they must have eaten fish and sea mammals, both of which are plentiful in the rich, Gulf Stream-warmed waters off northern Norway. Curiously, though, apart from two murky drawings that may represent whales, no sea creatures are depicted in the rock carvings from Sørøya. (...)

http://discovermagaz...hernexpositi343

And this is an image of a textpage (about the finds in Slettnes: "The boats of Slettnes: sources of Stone Age shipbuilding in Northern Scandinavia"):

http://www3.wileyint...4/firstpage.png

EDIT:

I uploaded the textpage to a picture host to be able to display it here:

Slettness.png

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=176033&st=195#entry3310637

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About shipbuilding: I think people sailed the seas far earlier then generally assumed. For instance, in Korea (or Taiwan?) they have found 8000 year old petroglyphs of people hunting whales from boats. You don't do that from a mere dugout canoe.

++

EDIT:

Stone Age people may have started hunting whales as early as 6,000 BC, new evidence from South Korea suggests.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/3638853.stm

.

All very interesting..about the boat people and all.. ... the Inuit hunt whales in kayaks! Bowhead whales get about 40-60 ft. long . (orca 23ft.)

http://marinelife.about.com/od/cetaceans/p/bowheadwhale.htm

I've read about inuit whale hunting before.. but i just read this thing (that won't let me copy&paste it) how the whales aren't afraid of the kayaks , so the hunters get right next to them and stick them in the kidney! .. according to this Inuit telling the story, the whale won't even react to that! .. then they just follow it till it dies.

Anyway... they really do hunt them in kayaks.. and have done so for how long??

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe my choosing of words was a biit inaccurate. We do not know, for sure, but it is highly likely that they possesed advanced (for its time) technology on some areas like shipbuilding, fishing, naval warfare, navigation++ maybe not all areas but some.

How can a sivilisation be so sucessfull to invade other areas of the world and build great cities be lesser advanced than its neighbours at its time?

Maybe by weight of numbers? If you have ten to one odds with people and similar technology, who do you think will win?

This is how the Persians sought to beat the Greeks in the days of Xerxes, throw in ten to a hundred times as many men and bury the enemy in your bodies.

There is no need for Advanced Technology when numbers or training are on your side.

Didn't you suggest the "Atlanteans" actually came overland using the rivers, like the Vikings did? If so, then they would not need advanced ships, small boats would do.

For instance, in Korea (or Taiwan?) they have found 8000 year old petroglyphs of people hunting whales from boats. You don't do that from a mere dugout canoe.

As lightly already pointed out, the Inuit still hunt in almost this exact method.... from small boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All very interesting..about the boat people and all.. ... the Inuit hunt whales in kayaks! Bowhead whales get about 40-60 ft. long . (orca 23ft.)

http://marinelife.about.com/od/cetaceans/p/bowheadwhale.htm

I've read about inuit whale hunting before.. but i just read this thing (that won't let me copy&paste it) how the whales aren't afraid of the kayaks , so the hunters get right next to them and stick them in the kidney! .. according to this Inuit telling the story, the whale won't even react to that! .. then they just follow it till it dies.

Anyway... they really do hunt them in kayaks.. and have done so for how long??

Good point, i agree with your reflections.

When hunting for whales large boats are not nescesary. This was not a factor, if some older cultures did develop larger boats. There are however another factor that could motivate people of the northern part of north sea to build larger boats.

The cod, 3 months every year from january to march, thousands of thousands of men travelled from far away to a small region called lofoten, some large islands out in the sea. They left wife and children and worked as hard as they could to catch as much cod as possible in 90 days. In 1920 the cod fishing, that has been going on at least 8000 years (probably longer) , had around 30 000 men harvesting this resource.

The boats used in 1920 was about 20 feet, or 6 meters. It had 3 pair of oars and a small sail. This design could have met the needs for an atlantis like sivilisation to create a world wide trading web. Anyway this major happening every year could have motivated an upgrade from the traditional cajaks and canoes.

As they had to travel around 20-30 km from land to the best fishing grounds, i would have been a great advantage to have more room for the fish, so they could stay longer fishing, and not travelling back and forwards to land to deliver the fish for drying. The new boats would have drastically increased their fishing output in tons and increased their safety as it was a very dangerous proffesion. Some years have been catastrophic as large storms suddenly can catch the fishers off guard. In 1848 over 500 fishermen was claimed by the sea under the lofoten fishing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The cod provided this culture with an incredible large storable foodsource of around 100 000 tons (140 000 tons top year) In the 1700 new technology was developed that made the fishing more effecient, a invention stoneage fishers probably didnt have. Around 30 000 fishermen + other workers on land was needed to exploit this resource until 1930, when new technology further made fishermen aboundent. This means that in stoneage you would probably need much more fishermen to catch the same amount of fish, possible 2-3 times more. That makes an fisher army of 60-90 000 men with 20-30 000 ships + a sizeable landforce that cleaned and dried the fish. If they used canoes the numbers would be even more impressive. If they not were perticulary stupid, they would have managed quite quickly fully exploit this resource.

It woud have been an area that the word paradise would only fit. So much food, not just fish, but all other sorts. A archeological site from the area in the stoneage shows over 50 different species that they ate and other vegetables and fruit. Not many can say they have a that varied diet today. The fish is also high on omega3 which makes people healthier and live longer, also vitamin d which is very important for people in northern europe, especially above the arctic. They dident just enjoy good foods and long lifes, they also had alot of spare time. Besides the 3 month lofotfishing it was quite little to do. Only a hour or two every day would be enough. This time was probably filled with play and laughter and social interaction, art, sience, exploration, trade, astronomy, music, Who knows.

In comparison to the new farmer based cultured of egypt, sumer and indus, it was totally different. People here lived short lifes filled with dicease and hard work from early morning to late in the evening and bad low quality food and hungers under bad dry years. Well, Maybe not so bad for the rich ruling class.

Edited by whitegandalf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All very interesting..about the boat people and all.. ... the Inuit hunt whales in kayaks! Bowhead whales get about 40-60 ft. long . (orca 23ft.)

http://marinelife.ab...owheadwhale.htm

I've read about inuit whale hunting before.. but i just read this thing (that won't let me copy&paste it) how the whales aren't afraid of the kayaks , so the hunters get right next to them and stick them in the kidney! .. according to this Inuit telling the story, the whale won't even react to that! .. then they just follow it till it dies.

Anyway... they really do hunt them in kayaks.. and have done so for how long??

About how the Inuit hunted whales in kayaks:

"The native hunter used, as his sole weapon of destruction, a spear-handle of wood about six feet in length; to the head of this he lashed a neatly-polished socket of walrus ivory, in which he inserted a tip of serrated slate that resembled a gigantic arrow-point, twelve or fourteen inches long and four or five broad at the barbs, and upon the point of which he carved his own mark.

In the months of June and July the whales begin to make their first inshore visits to the Aleutian bays, where they follow up schools of herring and shoals of Amphipoda, or sea-fleas, upon which they love to feed. The bays of Akootan and Akoon were and are always resorted to more freely by those cetaceans than are any others in Alaska, and here the hunt is continued as late as August. When a calm, clear day occurs the natives ascend the bluffs and locate a school of whales; then the best men launch their skin-canoes, or bidarkas, and start for the fields. "Two-holed" bidarkas only are used. The hunter himself sits forward with nothing but whale-spear in his grasp; his companion, in the after hatch, swiftly urges the light boat over the water in obedience to his order.

Carefully looking the whales over, the hunter finally recognizes that yearling, or the calf, which he wishes to strike; for it is not his desire to attack an old bull or angry cow-whale. He calculates to a nice range where the whale will rise again from its last point of disappearance, and directs the course of the bidarka accordingly. If he is fortunate he will be within ten or twenty feet of the calf or yearling, and as it rounds its glistening back slowly and lazily out from its cover of the wavelets the Aleut throws his spear with all his physical power, so as to bury the head of it just under the stubby dorsal fin of that marine monster; the wooden shaft is at once detached, but the contortions of the stricken whale only assist to drive and urge the barbed slate-point deeper and deeper into its vitals. Meanwhile the canoe is paddled away as alertly as possible, before the plunging flukes of the tortured animal can destroy it or drown its human occupants."

"As soon as the whale is thus wounded it makes for the open sea, where "it goes to sleep" for three days, as the natives believe; then death intervenes, and the gases of decomposition cause its carcass to float, and, if the waves and currents are favorable, it will be so drifted as to lodge on a beach at some locality not so very remote from the place where it was struck by the hunter. The business of watching for these expected carcasses then became the great object of everyone's life in that hunters' village; dusky sentinels and pickets were ranged over long intervals of coast-line, stationed on the brows of the most prominent headlands, where they commanded an extensive range of watery vision. But the caprices of wind and tides are such in these highways and byways of the Aleutian Islands, that on an average not more than one whale in twenty, struck in this manner by native hunters, was ever secured; nevertheless, that one alone (when cast ashore) amply repaid the labor and the exposure incurred chiefly by watching day after day, in storm and fog, from the bluffs of Akoon and Akootan. The lucky hunter who successfully claimed, by his spear-head mark, the credit of slaying such a stranded calf or yearling, was then an object of the highest respect among his fellow-men, and it was remembered well of him even long after death. Also, the greatest expression of respect for the size and ability of a native village and its people was the statement that it was so populous as to be able to eat all the meat and blubber of a large whale?s carcass in a single day!"

http://benmuse.typepad.com/ben_muse/american_indians/

It appears they also built and used larger boats for whaling, one that could take several men on board:

Inuit_whaling.jpg

http://option.canada.pagesperso-orange.fr/Inuit.htm

3.1I6.jpg

The Thule, who are the ancestors of modern-day Inuit, originated in the Arctic regions of Alaska. Modern-day Inuit culture is focused on hunting whales and other large sea mammals. The men of each village work together under the direction of the whaling chief who owns the boat and has great influence in all village affairs.

Collection of Glenbow Archives, NC-1-318

http://www.glenbow.org/thule/?lang=en&p=outside&t=enhanced&s=3-1&q=5&mi=1&si=3#qa

2286881211_383361f1d8.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yup, and that type of boat is also very very old.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umiak

The umiak, umialak, umiaq, umiac, oomiac or oomiak is a type of boat used by Eskimo people, both Yupik and Inuit, and was originally found in all coastal areas from Siberia to Greenland.[1] First arising in Thule times, it has traditionally been used in summer to move people and possessions to seasonal hunting grounds and for hunting whales and walrus.[1][2] Although the umiak was usually propelled by oars (women) or paddles (men), sails, sometimes made from sealintestines, were also used

Like the kayak, the traditional umiak was made from a driftwood or whalebone frame pegged and lashed together, sometimes with antlers or ivory, over which walrus or Bearded seal skins are stretched. Oil, usually from seals would be used to coat and waterproof the seams.[1][5] A large umiak, 30 ft (9.1 m), would require about seven skins which would be sewn together, stretched over the frame and allowed to dry.[6] Modern versions are essentially identical with the exception of using metal bolts and screws.

The open umiak is significantly larger than the enclosed kayak which was built to carry one or two men while hunting. Normally 9 or 10 m (30 or 33 ft) the umiak would be anywhere from 6 to 10 m (20 to 33 ft) and 1.5–2 m (4 ft 10 in–6 ft 7 in) wide.[1][6] Hans Egede, a Norwegian-Danish Lutheran missionary to Greenland in 1721, stated that he had seen umiaks 60 ft (18 m) long.[3]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

maybe whalehunting could motive better and slightly larger boats too. but i belive the cod fishing

would be a stronger motivation force. this also created a great surplus of fishoil, which was used

in lamps and possible warfare. hitler used to make ammunition for his army..

this was a fantastic region where the gods would have lived long healthy lifes, with much

spare time and good food. in the sky they could enjoy the spectacular northern lights, the islands

was large with high steep mountains, large forest, large grasslands, some deserts and large perfect

white fine powder beaches and emeraldgreen water. never colder than +5 degrees in winter, and not

too warm summers. and was icefree and with forests even during whole last iceage.

which other culture had a larger storable foodsource at that time, 11600 years ago?

and a large canoe/boat fleet of thousands available for free 9 months a year?

will leave you for now and answer no more questions. thank you all for constructive critics and new

interesting information. i have some other battles to fight in midgaard, two hobbits need my help.

ps, i dont hate actors, just that their credibility in stories and myth. its their job too lie. anyway, bad

joke.

your dearest

gandalf

Edited by whitegandalf
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.