Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
janesix

There was no advanced ancient civilization

377 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

janesix
5 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

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

I've never been on that particular bandwagon. I have a couple of very tentative ideas. One is archetypal( we evolve along certain inevitable lines, including cultural habbits), and another is we get information and instructions from a higher being or beings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
3 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

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

LOL, I have archaeology degrees and did excavations and research in a number of continents. You didn't respond to my comment just putting in a rather silly comment here it is again.

"" 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. ""

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
3 minutes 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.

Tunis, Algiers, Naples, Athens.  Very old cities all founded for the convenience of their ports in order to give them access to easy trade.  Many more, as I mentioned above for their proximity to wide rivers for the same reason.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
3 minutes ago, janesix said:

I've never been on that particular bandwagon. I have a couple of very tentative ideas. One is archetypal( we evolve along certain inevitable lines, including cultural habbits), and another is we get information and instructions from a higher being or beings.

So do you think the archetypal patterns are set by this higher being(s)? or some design of being human?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
5 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

LOL, I have archaeology degrees and did excavations and research in a number of continents. You didn't respond to my comment just putting in a rather silly comment here it is again.

"" 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. ""

I meant my comment for the OP, not you.  Did I mistakenly quote you?  P.S.  it makes no sense that civilizations did not develop along coastlines.

Edited by Desertrat56
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin
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.

Let me tell you: many people nowadays would starve to death when, by circumstances, they were forced to live like hunter-gatherers.

Edited by Abramelin
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
2 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

Let me tell you: many people nowadays would starve to death when, by circumstances, they were forced to live like hunter-gatherers.

Is that relevant to the conversation?  It isn't even rare information.  most people nowadays would starve if they had to farm their own food too.  :lol:

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
4 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Tunis, Algiers, Naples, Athens.  Very old cities all founded for the convenience of their ports in order to give them access to easy trade.  Many more, as I mentioned above for their proximity to wide rivers for the same reason.

They aren't ancient civilizations. Sumer, Egypt, and Indus, etc are ancient civilizations one can also consider the Aztecs, Olmecs, May, Inca Tiwanku etc as 'ancient' or firsts, built along rivers or just inland.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
4 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

I meant my comment for the OP, not you.  Did I mistakenly quote you?  P.S.  it makes no sense that civilizations did not develop along coastlines.

Yeah you quoted me instead of the OP. Resolved though.

Coastlines have food but for early agriculture you needed  fresh water which is why the civilizations developed next to them. Even the later civilizations that were built on the coast lines like the Minoans and Phoenicians built inland too. So Hancock's 'cover all' excuse' for no evidence being that they flooded out doesn't stand up. Plus if they were there we could find them - we don't.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
5 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

They aren't ancient civilizations. Sumer, Egypt, and Indus, etc are ancient civilizations one can also consider the Aztecs, Olmecs, May, Inca Tiwanku etc as 'ancient' or firsts, built along rivers or just inland.

By "just inland" you mean with easy access to the coast, right?  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
janesix
13 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

So do you think the archetypal patterns are set by this higher being(s)? or some design of being human?

I think it is either set by these being/being , or it is just a fact of nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
2 minutes ago, janesix said:

I think it is either set by these being/being , or it is just a fact of nature.

So, yes, then.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin
15 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Is that relevant to the conversation?  It isn't even rare information.  most people nowadays would starve if they had to farm their own food too.  :lol:

It IS relevant: what is 'advanced' here?

Many people living in the Amazon jungle know of dozens of herbs that are a cure for some disease.

Edited by Abramelin
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jethrofloyd

There were no ancient coastal civilizations. The first civilizations developed in the valleys of a great rivers(Ancient River Valley Civilizations).

rivervalley.jpg

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
2 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

It IS relevant: what is 'advanced' here?

Many people living in the Amazon jungle know of dozens of herbs that are a cure for some disease.

Still, again, a non-sequitur.  The subject is "ancient civilization" and for once people are on that topic, except you who want to drag it into modern civilization.  I have made comments in threads that were not on topic, but usually in response to some thing someone posted.  I don't see that trail with yours, just random information out of the blue and on another thread as well today.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
1 hour ago, janesix said:

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

Just because we reached cranio-morphological or behavioral modernity circa 100,000 years BP doesn’t mean we had acquired a sufficient population density to reach civilization level. That didn’t happen for several 10s of thousands of years and we as a species didn’t leave Africa until circa 50,000 - 60,000 BP, STILL with low density populations. It wasn’t until after the start of domesticated livestock and agricultural produce that we reached the threshold for initiating civilization. 
 

cormac

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

Well, I had a drink or two, heh.

That was a respons to Desertrat.

Edited by Abramelin
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
janesix
3 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Just because we reached cranio-morphological or behavioral modernity circa 100,000 years BP doesn’t mean we had acquired a sufficient population density to reach civilization level. That didn’t happen for several 10s of thousands of years and we as a species didn’t leave Africa until circa 50,000 - 60,000 BP, STILL with low density populations. It wasn’t until after the start of domesticated livestock and agricultural produce that we reached the threshold for initiating civilization. 
 

cormac

Civilization pretty much emerged fully fledged, with not much leading up to it. I don't buy that population density had anything to do with it.A larger population could have been the result of civilization, not a major cause of it.

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
13 minutes ago, jethrofloyd said:

There were no ancient coastal civilizations. The first civilizations developed in the valleys of a great rivers(Ancient River Valley Civilizations).

rivervalley.jpg

 

Each and every one with a river leading to the sea and with coastal cities.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
1 minute ago, janesix said:

Civilization pretty much emerged fully fledged, with not much leading up to it. I don't buy that population density had anything to do with it.A larger population could have been the result of civilization, not a major cause of it.

No, it actually didn’t and if you studied the cultures that existed in any given area prior to a civilizations start you would know this. No civilization started fully fledged. 
 

cormac

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
janesix
3 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

No, it actually didn’t and if you studied the cultures that existed in any given area prior to a civilizations start you would know this. No civilization started fully fledged. 
 

cormac

I have, and they did. You are mistaken.

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin
13 minutes ago, janesix said:

I have, and they did. You are mistaken.

Then show us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
janesix
1 minute ago, Abramelin said:

Then show us.

Show you how? All you need to do is study history. The first civilizations even SAY everything was given to them/shown to them. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

We are idiots. Show us links to prove your point.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.