U
U
unregistered
Guest
Lancecastor
Lit's Most Beloved Poster
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
- Posts
- 54,670
U
unregistered
Guest
1sickbastard
Seriously?
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2010
- Posts
- 26,724
Yes. Current theory postulates the formal agriculture in the Fertile cresent approximately 12,000~14,000 ya (about 12-10,000 BCE)
Written historical records (Sumerian) are dated about 4,000 BCE. There is some speculation that the Vedic scriptures (based on certain linguistic archaeological theories) may be as old as 8-10,000 years (about 8-6,000 BCE)
Not necessarily. There is a body of evidence that supports the notion of punctuated equilibrium (that any natural system is relatively homeostatic, but after a certain threshold is passed, change occurs quickly until the new equilibrium is established) occurred at the end of the last ice age, which means sea level rise happened quickly, meaning sea level could have rose as fast as 5 to 10 feet per year.
It may not sound real fast, but it would fast enough that there would be real difficulty in moving large populations inland and providing sufficient food and shelter to keep those populations alive.
Also, keep in mind that infrastructure doesn't move easily. Especially the kinds of infrastructure that can withstand millennias. Stone structures last longest, but are the most difficult and labor intensive to build. Metals oxidize fairly quick. Plant materials do well to last a couple centuries.
Any significant sites would likely be underwater. Under sea water which is; A)highly corrosive, B) Tends to cover things with silts and sediment, and C) is teaming with organisms that tend to colonize new areas quickly.
This means that any really old structures would be very difficult to find (at best) and could be easily mistaken for natural formations.
So, how would you look for them? Sonar-mapping?
1sickbastard
Seriously?
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2010
- Posts
- 26,724
I'd start with topographical analysis of the the Late Pleistocene shoreline, focusing on areas around (at the time) river estuaries and likely natural harbors first.
But even then, if people built with wood or even baked bricks, 10,000+ years underwater would leave little evidence. Larger stone structure would likely be covered with sediments, so sonar might not work even then. I think some of the RS satellites might have the capability to penetrate said sediments, but it would still come down to teams of divers and ROV's excavating a potential site to know if there is anything there.
And then, because of the age of the potential site and environment, it would be difficult at best to make a convincing argument based on the evidence.
Hell, Hancock had a geologist do an analysis of the erosion in the limestone of the Sphinx, who pointed out that the erosion was primarily from rainfall (the geologist didn't know it was the Sphinx beforehand), which would date the initial structure back to when that part of Africa had a wet climate. Egyptologists deny that analysis because to accept it would throw current theories about when it was initially constructed off by several thousands of years.
I'm not saying that Hancock is right. He has some interesting notions that would need a fuckton of evidence to overturn current theories. And the very nature of the evidence needed would make it very difficult to obtain and interpret, at best
I do observe that scientists and historians are just people, and people become emotionally and personally invested in their ideas (be it scientific theories, religion, politics, economics or whatever). And the more invested they are, the more resistant they are to challenge their basic conceptions, despite evidence to the contrary.
It's never a bad idea to keep a mind open to the possibilities.
1sickbastard
Seriously?
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2010
- Posts
- 26,724
The Stonecutters built the scientologists. The leftover scraps were used to build Tom Cruise.
U
