Civilization before the Last Ice Age

[Leonardo]

Were any of the glaciation events total?

Because, if not, this would indicate the cultural and technological development of humans wasn't 'set-back' by these events but possibly just interrupted or slowed down.

Researching both interglacials it seems the Ipswichian was a little warmer than the current (although the Flandrian is still in progress of course) and so the climate would probably have been wetter. This may have led to a very different landscape with different flora and fauna - perhaps not conducive to the development of agriculture. The cooler, drier conditions of the Flandrian could have set the stage for the dying out of the megafauna, the drying out of a lot of plains-land and encouraged the development of agriculture thus.

[questionmark]

Were any of the glaciation events total?

Because, if not, this would indicate the cultural and technological development of humans wasn't 'set-back' by these events but possibly just interrupted or slowed down.

Evidence suggest that in certain fields, like fire making techniques, accelerated.

[Godsnmbr1]

Okay the problem here is that you're drawing conclusions based on faulty evidence. You say that since civilization seems to have started everywhere at once so it must mean that it's simply part of our "fated" path. But what about the cultures that were on the move for an extra 2000 years living as nomadic hunters? Think about how long it would take human beings to creep all their lives around the Bering Strait and all the way down into Central America. For that entire period, cities have been flourishing in China and yet somehow they end up evening out. That sounds right to you? Someone said there's absolutely no evidence for a pre-ice age civilization but that's not true. There's the map, Piri Re'is, that somehow has an accurate image of the coastline of Antarctica. Not the ice mind you, but the actual continent underneath. We didn't even know if it was accurate until the 1900's, when we finally had the technology to see it for ourselves.

Also, if you want to get really into the conspiracy side, wouldn't it be completely likely that all evidence of a previously unknown, semi-advanced civilization would have been actively suppressed and destroyed for most of the past 2 millennia? Think about what a nightmare the Catholic Church would have had if it suddenly became common knowledge that the Bible is actually lacking a huge chunk of history. For over 1,000 years the Church was the most powerful institution in the world. The Library at Alexandria--accident or arson? Who knows.

[jaylemurph]

Okay the problem here is that you're drawing conclusions based on faulty evidence. You say that since civilization seems to have started everywhere at once so it must mean that it's simply part of our "fated" path. But what about the cultures that were on the move for an extra 2000 years living as nomadic hunters? Think about how long it would take human beings to creep all their lives around the Bering Strait and all the way down into Central America. For that entire period, cities have been flourishing in China and yet somehow they end up evening out. That sounds right to you? Someone said there's absolutely no evidence for a pre-ice age civilization but that's not true. There's the map, Piri Re'is, that somehow has an accurate image of the coastline of Antarctica. Not the ice mind you, but the actual continent underneath. We didn't even know if it was accurate until the 1900's, when we finally had the technology to see it for ourselves.

I'd /look/ at the Piri Reis map again before you go on about it. It has South America and Antarctica connected as one mass, and most of North America just isn't there. You'd think if some super-advanced culture was making, they'd get whacking great things like that right.

Also, if you want to get really into the conspiracy side, wouldn't it be completely likely that all evidence of a previously unknown, semi-advanced civilization would have been actively suppressed and destroyed for most of the past 2 millennia? Think about what a nightmare the Catholic Church would have had if it suddenly became common knowledge that the Bible is actually lacking a huge chunk of history. For over 1,000 years the Church was the most powerful institution in the world. The Library at Alexandria--accident or arson? Who knows.

I'll say again, if you seriously think academia is some sort of fungible mass that could try to cover /anything/ up if they tried, you simply don't know what you're talking about. Too many people, too many opinions, too much time covered.

--Jaylemurph

[cormac mac airt]

I'd /look/ at the Piri Reis map again before you go on about it. It has South America and Antarctica connected as one mass, and most of North America just isn't there. You'd think if some super-advanced culture was making, they'd get whacking great things like that right.

I'll say again, if you seriously think academia is some sort of fungible mass that could try to cover /anything/ up if they tried, you simply don't know what you're talking about. Too many people, too many opinions, too much time covered.

--Jaylemurph

Actually jaylemurph, there's no real indication that Antarctica is on the map at all. Taking into account that everything below Brazil had to be swung eastward to fit on the hide it was drawn on.

This site should give you an idea of what I'm talking about: Piri Reis map

cormac

[Godsnmbr1]

I'd /look/ at the Piri Reis map again before you go on about it. It has South America and Antarctica connected as one mass, and most of North America just isn't there. You'd think if some super-advanced culture was making, they'd get whacking great things like that right.

I'll say again, if you seriously think academia is some sort of fungible mass that could try to cover /anything/ up if they tried, you simply don't know what you're talking about. Too many people, too many opinions, too much time covered.

--Jaylemurph

The map was made in the 1500s by combining features of several much older maps. The man who put it together was just another Persian, not a member of a super-advanced culture. And it wouldn't even take a super advanced culture to make the original source in the first place since the continent wasn't covered in ice 15,000 years ago. Doesn't it seem more likely that human civilization began in a single place and advanced to a certain stage before being scattered when compared to the possibility of it randomly appearing all over the entire globe after an arbitrary length of evolution?

"you simply don't know what you're talking about" Give it a rest. Just because you choose not to question the establishment doesn't make it any more right.

[cormac mac airt]

.....since the continent wasn't covered in ice 15,000 years ago.

Don't know where the 15,000 year ago date comes from, but it's not even close.

Antarctica Geological Timeline - A history of the land of Antarctica

cormac

[The_Spartan]

God knows from where these folks get these ideas like "Antartica wasnt covered in ICe 15,000 years ago!!"

[cormac mac airt]

God knows from where these folks get these ideas like "Antartica wasnt covered in ICe 15,000 years ago!!"

The Hapgood, Hancock, Von Daniken and Sitchin School of BS.

cormac

[Emma_Acid]

Doesn't it seem more likely that human civilization began in a single place and advanced to a certain stage before being scattered when compared to the possibility of it randomly appearing all over the entire globe after an arbitrary length of evolution?

No, it really doesn't. While good at abstract thought, society-based habitation and in possesion of opposable thumbs, humans are not scientists by their fundamental nature. This is why in 10,000 years since the last ice age, we have only been what we term as "scientfically advanced" for the last 50. That's 0.5% of our species' modern history.

What we have always been good at however, is breeding. Not only does it make no sense to stay "a single place and advanced to a certain stage", its logically improbable. How would that happen? How would a species of animal make a consious and uniform decision not to spread itself as far and wide as possible? If you leave food in a row of empty houses, one of which has rats in them, you will soon find rats in every house. They will not "decide" to stay in one house.

It simply doesn't make sense.

[Siara]

No, it really doesn't. While good at abstract thought, society-based habitation and in possesion of opposable thumbs, humans are not scientists by their fundamental nature. This is why in 10,000 years since the last ice age, we have only been what we term as "scientfically advanced" for the last 50. That's 0.5% of our species' modern history.

I don't think we're scientists by our fundamental nature but I do think we instinctually look for patterns, remember them, and try to organize the patterns into bigger patterns. That's sort of like being a scientist. Being consciously aware of patterns and actively searching for them, as opposed to simply absorbing them like Pavlov's dogs salivating on queue.

Doesn't it seem more likely that human civilization began in a single place and advanced to a certain stage before being scattered when compared to the possibility of it randomly appearing all over the entire globe after an arbitrary length of evolution?

It seems more logical to me, but the archeological data says otherwise.

Edited August 4, 2008 by Siara

[Emma_Acid]

I don't think we're scientists by our fundamental nature but I do think we instinctually look for patterns, remember them, and try to organize the patterns into bigger patterns. That's sort of like being a scientist.

Well of course, as a species we would never have gotten anywhere without learning from our surroundings. Thst doesn't explain though why its logical that we stayed in one place geographically while becoming advanced and then decided to spread out.

Its completely illogical.

[jaylemurph]

Give it a rest. Just because you choose not to question the establishment doesn't make it any more right.

I haven't got any problems with people who question the Establishment (quelle 1960s, you!).

I do have a problem with people parroting back, at third or fourth generations, cheap pseudo-history that they don't actually understand.

--Jaylemurph

[cormac mac airt]

Deleted post.

Edited August 4, 2008 by cormac mac airt

[pebs]

The Author of this blog and i had the exact same thoughts on this issue,so what i write bellow was on my blog at thehive.mobee. There was some good replys there aspecialy about a Movie made called "forbidden archeaology". Which i found on the net very intersting about how carbon dating can be wrong and evidence about very old civilations before the last iceage i hope i havent just repeated from your replys, because i havent read or of them as yet.

Who had the first Civilization was it the Egyptians or the Mediterranean’s or was it India/China or even Atlantis :-) or was there a culture before the last ice age that was scrubbed off the Earth by glacier’s.

Did we go from Civilization to Hunting after the last ice age and then rediscovered Agriculture again? Is there a cycle over the past 200.000 years hunting then Agriculture, Then ice age, then the whole process starts all over again? We have had 3 ice ages within Homo sapiens time scale

Glacial events (Ice ages) over the past 200,000 years

Last glacial period

Femian stage

Wolstonian stage

Has there been 3 Civilizations that have come and gone? How long does it take for the Homo sapiens mind to discover Agriculture with large fertile water source’s leading too Civilization. Do all civilizations start down south where it’s warmer? And the glacial waters melt to make large rivers? Fiction or Plausible :-)

Factors:

1. Continents like Australia and Africa had lush vegetation during the last ice age not sure about the previous 2 but Civilization starts out of necessity or culture practice, so a land that was like the Garden of Eden you wouldn’t need to have agriculture, which leads to invention and civilization and so on.

2. Glaciers wipe out all signs off civilization even Stone structures.

3. Sand dunes can cover buildings, or strip buildings as well as water.

4. Excuse the Grammar sorry folks

[trancelikestate]

Could human artifacts survive an Ice Age?

.

The cold temperatures of an ice age would actually preserve artifacts better

[Hanslune]

Howdy

Factors:

1. Continents like Australia and Africa had lush vegetation during the last ice age not sure about the previous 2 but Civilization starts out of necessity or culture practice, so a land that was like the Garden of Eden you wouldn’t need to have agriculture, which leads to invention and civilization and so on.

2. Glaciers wipe out all signs off civilization even Stone structures.

3. Sand dunes can cover buildings, or strip buildings as well as water.

4. Excuse the Grammar sorry folks

Not all places on the earth started agriculture - up to the early 20th century there were nomads and others who didn't do that due to cultural reasons or terrain/weather.

Glaciers wipe out some things but not everything. If what you said was true we would be unable to recover any archaeological materials from before the glacial period in much of northern Europe yet material is found there. Once items get into the ground they are fairly immune to glacial action and remember glaciers are only around mountains. In much of Europe the ice age was just an accumulation of snow and ice not moving glacial ice

Sand preserves and hides. Check out the cities and habitations in the deserts of central Asia

Grammar excused!

Summary: Ice ages don't wipe everything clean archaeologically - example - and one of favorite finds, were 400,000 year old wooden javelin recovered in Germany and the recent discovery of a fossilized rhinoceros shoulder blade with a projectile wound at Boxgrove, England, dated to 500,000 years ago.

Both of these finds survived multiple ice ages

[pebs]

HI Hanslune,

This is an interesting old civilization supposedly 17,000 years old.

Excerpt from web site:

“Tiahuanacu (also called Tiwanaku) is a mystery because of its age (estimated to be 17,000 years) and the peculiar stone technology. Today there is little doubt that Tiahuanaco was a major sacred ceremonial centre and focal point of a culture that spread across much of the region. The ancient people built a stone pyramid known as the Akapana”

http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_6.htm

And trancelikestate,

Hmm about the ice age yes some things have been preserved but a lot may have been pushed back into the earth like a very large excavator as the glassier moved forward they have an extremely high hydraulic force that will push stone and more into the ground to never be seen again. Biological matter has been preserved but only to my knowledge within the last ice age. Because some of those glaciers still exist. But I would expect much to be ripped apart.

[TheSearcher]

HI Hanslune,

This is an interesting old civilization supposedly 17,000 years old.

Excerpt from web site:

“Tiahuanacu (also called Tiwanaku) is a mystery because of its age (estimated to be 17,000 years) and the peculiar stone technology. Today there is little doubt that Tiahuanaco was a major sacred ceremonial centre and focal point of a culture that spread across much of the region. The ancient people built a stone pyramid known as the Akapana”

http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_6.htm

And trancelikestate,

Hmm about the ice age yes some things have been preserved but a lot may have been pushed back into the earth like a very large excavator as the glassier moved forward they have an extremely high hydraulic force that will push stone and more into the ground to never be seen again. Biological matter has been preserved but only to my knowledge within the last ice age. Because some of those glaciers still exist. But I would expect much to be ripped apart.

Little rectification here, Tiahuanaco is most certainly not 17000 years old. That's a claim that has been addressed in this here forum god knows how often. There is no radiocarbon or stratigrafical evidence that Tiahuanaco, is 17.000 years old. The oldest city in America is Caral with 5000 years aproximativly, if I'm not mistaken. Carbon-14 Dating puts the first period of Tiahuanaco back to 1,700 BC.

[pebs]

Little rectification here, Tiahuanaco is most certainly not 17000 years old. That's a claim that has been addressed in this here forum god knows how often. There is no radiocarbon or stratigrafical evidence that Tiahuanaco, is 17.000 years old. The oldest city in America is Caral with 5000 years aproximativly, if I'm not mistaken. Carbon-14 Dating puts the first period of Tiahuanaco back to 1,700 BC.

HI Poltergeist,

Sorry if this has been brought up before, I have to read all the previous posts 

But :

1. Carbon dating may not be a pure science because of the Amount of carbon compared in the atmosphere and the release rate? They don’t match.

2. Tiahuanaco was not dated by carbon dating but astronomical calculations from earth spatial vectors.

“Posnansky determined that it pointed precisely to solstice alignments in 15,000 B.C.E. Taking into account the very gradual shifting of Earth's axis”

3. The Carbon dating evidence was on biological matter which may not be accurate anyway point one! Also just because they find a human bone that does not mean it was a bone from the original inhabitants! It’s all Theory just the same as Posnansky who was a Scientist.

4. You cant argue that it’s not science because Arthur Posnansky, who came to Bolivia at the end of the 19th century, was the first scientist - enthusiast of studying the Tiwanaku ruins. The name of this scientist is respected in Bolivia.

Don’t believe all you read in Science Articles because they are based on 3 things.

1. Money for the logistics of the project based on previous assumptions and theories. So scientist that make finds against the grain will not bring forward any finds against the current theory’s. They will loose there funding and reputations.

2. Many of the theories are rigidly based around Evolution which is still a Theory and we are finding more proof against it then supporting it.

3. Education facilities teach Evolution like a religion so all other theory’s that go against it will be squashed in a scientific inquisition.

So science is our friend and is very important but good science takes time and guts to go against the grain like Faraday and Tesla.

[Power Lust]

Last night I attended a seminar on Ice Ages (a "science for the masses" social event in my community). It discussed the various astronomical cycles which generate Ice Ages, the effects of the weight of the ice on various land masses, etc. For this thread the pertinent facts are that the last Ice Age ended about 10,000-8,000 years ago and we are currently in a warmer period which will last thousands of more years. There have been similar warm inter-glacial periods like this before.

Reading archeology articles over the past couple years I've learned that "civilization" in South America started independently from "civilization" in Mesopotamia and at about the same time. By civilization I mean that the concepts of agriculture and farming, permanent settlements with buildings and that sort of thing.

<b>

My thoughts:</b>

How remarkable that civilization should start simultaneously in two separate places! To me it suggests that there's something within the human psyche that generates a structured society if you have decent weather for 100 generations. If, for example, we had an Ice Age tomorrow and civilization somehow broke down and disappeared, it would inevitably come back after 100 non-ice generations because that's what our species does. It's natural in the same way that a bird's building a nest is natural. Since humans can learn from the previous generation we can have generational nesting instincts that extend over time.

Another example of what I'm trying to say would be, if you took a few feral children (basically hunter-gatherers) and put them together on an earth-like planet, there would inevitably be a civilization on that planet 100 generations later.

This theory (that creating civilizations is natural for us) seems logical in light of the data. I mean... agriculture starting in <i>two totally unrelated places at once</i>? How can that be coincidence? But one huge problem with the theory is that there have been other extended inter-glacial periods between previous ice ages since the evolution of homo sapiens and from what I know there is no evidence that civilization evolved during those 100 generation warm phases?

<b>

So getting down to my questions:</b>

Is there any archeological evidence that civilizations evolved between previous ice ages and was later obliterated by ice?

Could human artifacts survive an Ice Age?

If civilization didn't evolve before, why did it evolve simultaneously in two different places this time around?

You're missing something which might impact this hugely.

The only people alive today who are 100% homosapien are those of pure Negroid decent. Caucasians, Asians, Mongoids, Semitics and Native Americans are all thought to be up to 4% Neanderthal. This is from recent DNA studies of us and Neaderthals - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8660940.stm

From my calculations the earliest this interbreding could have happened is in the Middle East when homosapiens first left Africa. It may have occured later but if this was the point that was in the last Ice Age meaning this warm period is the first period of time that the new hybrids have found themselves in.

[Harte]

Don’t believe all you read in Science Articles

Yet Posnanski's work, which has since been discredited, was published in "science articles."

Why do you believe him?

Harte

[Druidus-Logos]

You're missing something which might impact this hugely.

The only people alive today who are 100% homosapien are those of pure Negroid decent. Caucasians, Asians, Mongoids, Semitics and Native Americans are all thought to be up to 4% Neanderthal. This is from recent DNA studies of us and Neaderthals - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8660940.stm

From my calculations the earliest this interbreding could have happened is in the Middle East when homosapiens first left Africa. It may have occured later but if this was the point that was in the last Ice Age meaning this warm period is the first period of time that the new hybrids have found themselves in.

As far a I know, there were two distinct periods of high interbreeding levels.

It is an interesting point you make.

[Hanslune]

1. Carbon dating may not be a pure science because of the Amount of carbon compared in the atmosphere and the release rate? They don’t match.

2. Tiahuanaco was not dated by carbon dating but astronomical calculations from earth spatial vectors.

“Posnansky determined that it pointed precisely to solstice alignments in 15,000 B.C.E. Taking into account the very gradual shifting of Earth's axis”

3. The Carbon dating evidence was on biological matter which may not be accurate anyway point one! Also just because they find a human bone that does not mean it was a bone from the original inhabitants! It’s all Theory just the same as Posnansky who was a Scientist.

4. You cant argue that it’s not science because Arthur Posnansky, who came to Bolivia at the end of the 19th century, was the first scientist - enthusiast of studying the Tiwanaku ruins. The name of this scientist is respected in Bolivia.

Don’t believe all you read in Science Articles because they are based on 3 things.

1. Money for the logistics of the project based on previous assumptions and theories. So scientist that make finds against the grain will not bring forward any finds against the current theory’s. They will loose there funding and reputations.

2. Many of the theories are rigidly based around Evolution which is still a Theory and we are finding more proof against it then supporting it.

3. Education facilities teach Evolution like a religion so all other theory’s that go against it will be squashed in a scientific inquisition.

So science is our friend and is very important but good science takes time and guts to go against the grain like Faraday and Tesla.

There is nothing 'wrong' with carbon dating if you calibrate it with other readings. Much of the nonsense written against C-14 and other dating systems comes from the creation camp which is the center of non-science and plain silly stuff.

Posnansky was wrong, Mr. Harte can explain that to you - its been debated to death here and elsewhere and the summary is: Posnansky was wrong, not just wrong but way out wrong. Wrong like a house cat jumping on the back of a Bengal tiger.

The old money argument; Nope sorry wrong again. I've been involved in getting grants and foreign government support for archaeological research. Guess who gets the gets money? Those who find nothing or those who find stuff....that's right those who find stuff, especially new exciting stuff.

Oh and we come to thre crux of the problem in your critical thinking. Evolution is proven until evidence is provide that shows it is not while creation remains a faith based idea contra-indicated by all evidence.

However we don't want to get into another remash of that failed creation idea do we?

I should point out that if you are creation oriented then you must be OEC instead of YEC as the Posnansky date would be before the creation of the world according to the Yec'ers. So where does that leave us?

Old disproved science with a underpinning of creationism = crumbling foundation and ultimately no way to build up even the resemblance of a frame work to support your idea (or more correct the ideas of others you have non-critically decided to believe)

Regards

Hans

[pebs]

There is nothing 'wrong' with carbon dating if you calibrate it with other readings. Much of the nonsense written against C-14 and other dating systems comes from the creation camp which is the center of non-science and plain silly stuff.

Posnansky was wrong, Mr. Harte can explain that to you - its been debated to death here and elsewhere and the summary is: Posnansky was wrong, not just wrong but way out wrong. Wrong like a house cat jumping on the back of a Bengal tiger.

The old money argument; Nope sorry wrong again. I've been involved in getting grants and foreign government support for archaeological research. Guess who gets the gets money? Those who find nothing or those who find stuff....that's right those who find stuff, especially new exciting stuff.

Oh and we come to thre crux of the problem in your critical thinking. Evolution is proven until evidence is provide that shows it is not while creation remains a faith based idea contra-indicated by all evidence.

However we don't want to get into another remash of that failed creation idea do we?

I should point out that if you are creation oriented then you must be OEC instead of YEC as the Posnansky date would be before the creation of the world according to the Yec'ers. So where does that leave us?

Old disproved science with a underpinning of creationism = crumbling foundation and ultimately no way to build up even the resemblance of a frame work to support your idea (or more correct the ideas of others you have non-critically decided to believe)

Regards

Hans

I’m not a Creationist or a Darwinian, some where in the Middle, I believe we evolve from our Genetic material but only as far as DNA will allow EG the An Asian could change into a Caucasian or vice versa they just need time and maybe environmental factors. But that’s the extent of our diversity no more. Darwin looked at the animal kingdom for his answers like the birds of the Galapagos Islands He stated that they were all the same bird originally but Evolved into a different species. From the look of them they look very different. But they have now done full genetic tests on these birds and they all have the same genetic code so they are the same species 

He was wrong and this makes all his theories fail. In the far future there will be a small foot note about him, because many will be embarrassed they followed his flawed theory.

I have to research this but there is a term called maybe something like “genetic barrier” which means that you can only change the human Genome so much before we become infertile or die! So we are made to specs that cannot be changed very much and why would we want to. I believe this is by design, Hmmm well maybe there is an Intelligent Designer but don’t tell the Creationist I stated that .