There was no advanced ancient civilization

[janesix 112]

For a very long time I was sure there had to have been an advanced ancient civilization, probably many that had risen and fallen over the milleniums and precessional ages. Really, "modern" humans have been around for at least 200,000 years, with our brain capacities and behaviors. So why would we have only invented civilization in the last 6000 years? I have read much of Graham Hancock and the like, and was convinced there had to have been advanced civilizations before us. 

But over the last year or so, I've come to realize this probably isn't true. 

There is simply no evidence for it.

We find the remains of hunter/gatherers back through time, but zero evidence of an advanced culture. Sadly, the time has come for me to give up on this idea. And figure out WHY we have only just recently been able to advance.

[cormac mac airt 15,270]

It depends on what you’re using as the definition of “modern”. If it’s “anatomically modern” then your talking about the last 200,000 - 300,000 years but if you’re talking about cranio-morphologically or behaviorally modern then the timeframe is reduced to the last circa 100,000 years. Speculations would have to adjust from the latter. 
 

cormac

[papageorge1 6,411]

15 minutes ago, janesix said:

For a very long time I was sure there had to have been an advanced ancient civilization, probably many that had risen and fallen over the milleniums and precessional ages. Really, "modern" humans have been around for at least 200,000 years, with our brain capacities and behaviors. So why would we have only invented civilization in the last 6000 years? I have read much of Graham Hancock and the like, and was convinced there had to have been advanced civilizations before us. 

But over the last year or so, I've come to realize this probably isn't true. 

There is simply no evidence for it.

We find the remains of hunter/gatherers back through time, but zero evidence of an advanced culture. Sadly, the time has come for me to give up on this idea. And figure out WHY we have only just recently been able to advance.

I believe there were advanced ancient civilizations. Nature reclaims the neglected. Earth changes and the end of the last ice age left much area once land under the ocean. Plus there is still archeology not fully understood with many questions without certain answers. I even believe there was likely alien involvement too in the ascent of man. And I give fair consideration to those with alleged psychic input into the past too.   

I'm still listening to the Graham Hancock types too.

Edited October 15, 2020 by papageorge1

[janesix 112]

8 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

It depends on what you’re using as the definition of “modern”. If it’s “anatomically modern” then your talking about the last 200,000 - 300,000 years but if you’re talking about cranio-morphologically or behaviorally modern then the timeframe is reduced to the last circa 100,000 years. Speculations would have to adjust from the latter. 
 

cormac

Still, 100,000 years is a long time. My point would still be the same. 

[janesix 112]

10 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I believe there were advanced ancient civilizations. Nature reclaims the neglected. Earth changes and the end of the last ice age left much area once land under the ocean. Plus there is still archeology not fully understood with many questions without certain answers. I even believe there was likely alien involvement too in the ascent of man. And I give fair consideration to those with alleged psychic input into the past too.   

I'm still listening to the Graham Hancock types too.

I still love the idea and would like to believe it. But why do we find hunter/gatherer remains all throughout our history of man, but not ONE body/mummy of someone wearing , say, synthetic materials, or with electronic devices, etc? Jut cave men. 

[papageorge1 6,411]

Just now, janesix said:

I still love the idea and would like to believe it. But why do we find hunter/gatherer remains all throughout our history of man, but not ONE body/mummy of someone wearing , say, synthetic materials, or with electronic devices, etc? Jut cave men. 

There aren't many mummies to go on. And mysterious ones like some I've head of from South America suggesting advanced non-human humanoid-alien like species get tangled in controversy.

[Hanslune 14,500]

10 minutes ago, janesix said:

Still, 100,000 years is a long time. My point would still be the same. 

Yeah, I've been looking for a flowering of human culture at the ending of previous Ice, not the current one where it did happen but the Eemian. So, far not a shred of evidence at all. Advanced civilizations leave massive archaeological footprints and no manner of hand waving will change that fact. Even old Hancock put in his last book that he wouldn't present evidence to support his idea- smart guys as there is none.

Sad though it would have been very interesting to have had one to dig up and understand.

[Hanslune 14,500]

6 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

..... advanced non-human humanoid-alien like species get tangled in controversy.

I wonder why that might be? LOL

regards PG1

[janesix 112]

12 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

There aren't many mummies to go on. And mysterious ones like some I've head of from South America suggesting advanced non-human humanoid-alien like species get tangled in controversy.

Advanced, in what way?

If you are talking about the elongated skull people, I don't think they were advanced, or alien. Just another hominid.

[OverSword 58,323]

@janesix How are you defining "advanced civilization"?  Would you label ancient Egypt an advanced civilization?  I would label them very advanced.  Also you have to keep in mind that the majority of civilization develops along coast lines and there was a tremendous loss of coastal regions around 12 to 14 thousand years ago, so much evidence of ancient advanced civilizations could be under several hundred feet of water now if they existed.

[janesix 112]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

@janesix How are you defining "advanced civilization"?  Would you label ancient Egypt an advanced civilization?  I would label them very advanced.  Also you have to keep in mind that the majority of civilization develops along coast lines and there was a tremendous loss of coastal regions around 12 to 14 thousand years ago, so much evidence of ancient advanced civilizations could be under several hundred feet of water now if they existed.

Advanced, like us. With machines and electronics, higher technology.

Why would they JUST live on the coats? We don't.

[papageorge1 6,411]

Just now, janesix said:

Advanced, in what way?

If you are talking about the elongated skull people, I don't think they were advanced, or alien. Just another hominid.

I was talking about mummies studied by scientists suggesting alien-human hybrids with DNA evidence which is an old topic on this forum where both sides just had to go separate ways. My only point is this thread is that there is a lot of controversial evidence out there.

[janesix 112]

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

I was talking about mummies studied by scientists suggesting alien-human hybrids with DNA evidence which is an old topic on this forum where both sides just had to go separate ways. My only point is this thread is that there is a lot of controversial evidence out there.

I have never heard of that. 

[papageorge1 6,411]

2 minutes ago, janesix said:

I have never heard of that. 

Here's a starter: Nazca Mummies

Have I got you back on board the mystery train? LOL

[janesix 112]

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

Here's a starter: Nazca Mummies

Have I got you back on board the mystery train? LOL

Thanks. I will put it on my list of current "things to look into".

[jethrofloyd 4,002]

13 minutes ago, janesix said:

Advanced, like us. With machines and electronics, higher technology.

That is simply not possible. But some rare and sudden flashes of the human mind and technological developments have happened in the past.

 

Baghdad Battery

 

 

The Antikythera mechanism

 

[janesix 112]

3 minutes ago, jethrofloyd said:

That is simply not possible. But some rare and sudden flashes of the human mind and technological developments have happened in the past.

 

Baghdad Battery

 

 

The Antikythera mechanism

 

I think those "Sudden flashes" come not from our minds, but from the mind of God or the Universe

[Desertrat56 22,878]

1 hour ago, janesix said:

For a very long time I was sure there had to have been an advanced ancient civilization, probably many that had risen and fallen over the milleniums and precessional ages. Really, "modern" humans have been around for at least 200,000 years, with our brain capacities and behaviors. So why would we have only invented civilization in the last 6000 years? I have read much of Graham Hancock and the like, and was convinced there had to have been advanced civilizations before us. 

But over the last year or so, I've come to realize this probably isn't true. 

There is simply no evidence for it.

We find the remains of hunter/gatherers back through time, but zero evidence of an advanced culture. Sadly, the time has come for me to give up on this idea. And figure out WHY we have only just recently been able to advance.

Have you read anything about Gobekli Tepi?

[Tatetopa 18,496]

14 minutes ago, janesix said:

Advanced, like us. With machines and electronics, higher technology.

Why would they JUST live on the coats? We don't.

Your sense of things seems to be on track, machines, electronics, and high technology leave a big footprint, from cities that get built to all of the mines and quarries that materials come from.   Think about how enduring and distinctive a marble or granite quarry is, or the heaps of long lasting slag a foundry produces.

During our own transition from nomadic to sedentary we seem to favor coasts and rivers  for ease of transportation and the rich ecosystems of overlapping environments.  Most major cities are still located along coasts and major waterways.

[OverSword 58,323]

32 minutes ago, janesix said:

Advanced, like us. With machines and electronics, higher technology.

Why would they JUST live on the coats? We don't.

So you mean technologically advanced.  No there most certainly were no civilizations with technology equal to what we have now.  To answer your question they wouldn't JUST live on the coasts but they would mainly build cities on coast's and on the fat part of rivers and that's where a majority of people would eventually migrate to because for one, it is easier to transport large quantities of goods for trade by floating the merchandise and using water as a roadway that you don't have to build.  all early cities have that in common as do most modern cities.  For two, because near large fresh water sources, especially mouths of rivers the ground is more fertile for growing crops and farming is the basis for civilization. 

Edited October 15, 2020 by OverSword

[Desertrat56 22,878]

3 minutes ago, janesix said:

I think those "Sudden flashes" come not from our minds, but from the mind of God or the Universe

So are you back on the got created humans 6000 years ago bandwagon?

[Hanslune 14,500]

33 minutes ago, OverSword said:

@janesix   Also you have to keep in mind that the majority of civilization develops along coast lines and there was a tremendous loss of coastal regions around 12 to 14 thousand years ago, so much evidence of ancient advanced civilizations could be under several hundred feet of water now if they existed.

Howdy OverSword

No ancient civilizations developed along coast lines - if they did could you list them? The one's that we've found developed along rivers with very limited contact with the sea coasts. That idea is something (I believe it was Hancock) made up to explain why there was no evidence to support his lost civilizations ideas.

[Desertrat56 22,878]

1 minute ago, Hanslune said:

Howdy OverSword

No ancient civilizations developed along coast lines - if they did could you list them? The one's that we've found developed along rivers with very limited contact with the sea coasts. That idea is something (I believe it was Hancock) made up to explain why there was no evidence to support his lost civilizations ideas.

Have you ever considered taking some archeology classes or even a geology class?  Maybe that would help you with your curiosity

[Hanslune 14,500]

20 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Here's a starter: Nazca Mummies

Have I got you back on board the mystery train? LOL

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/how-to-fake-an-alien-mummy/535251/

[janesix 112]

8 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Have you read anything about Gobekli Tepi?

Some. There isn't much out there yet. Just conflicting theories.