Ancient Civilizations

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Chris

Chris

Potato del Grande
19,436
-10,732
latheboy said:
pick up a rock and break it, there's a fossil.. . altitude of 281M currently..

No idea how old they are but the water levels have changed a lot over the life of the planet
Click to expand...
This is the quinessential internet archeologist post.

"I saw some fossils on a hill, so anywhere on earth could have been underwater within human existence."

Specialist geologists spend their lives knowing which parts of the earth were underwater when, why is their experience ignored? You can overrule them with evidence, eg Plate Tectonics was one such event, but "I want it to be true" is never evidence.

Fossils are a lot older than the existence of humans lmao...
 
  • 1Worf
Reactions: 1 user
Quaid

Quaid

Trump's Staff
11,794
8,153
Chukzombi said:
it already had a massive lake there. along with many other lakes in the region.
Click to expand...

Uhhhh ok neat. I’m just saying to the dude that elevations don’t just change overnight without leaving very clear geologic evidence. He was talking about mountaintop fossils and really not recognizing the realities of geologic time scales.
 
  • 1Solidarity
Reactions: 1 user
Chukzombi

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
72,995
214,283
Quaid said:
Uhhhh ok neat. I’m just saying to the dude that elevations don’t just change overnight without leaving very clear geologic evidence. He was talking about mountaintop fossils and really not recognizing the realities of geologic time scales.
Click to expand...
well i dunno about the land rising that dramatically, but the conditions could have a very large lake overflow and sweep away a civilization. wouldnt be the first time.
 
Kharzette

Kharzette

Watcher of Overs
5,350
4,087
Some of the incan ruins have seaside plants in the mortar. Very high elevations.

If the slow rise of the andes continued as it is now then you have ruins that are millions of years old. If the ruins are young, then the crust moved alot, possibly in a big bad event.

Or they picked the plants by the sea or traded for them instead of using local plants :D
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users
Burns

Burns

Avatar of War Slayer
7,452
14,682
latheboy said:
There's a town in Tasmania Australia called Maydena, my family and I were there early in the year and found heaps of fossilized sea shells and I mean heaps.. pick up a rock and break it, there's a fossil.. . altitude of 281M currently.. 921.9 ft.
No idea how old they are but the water levels have changed a lot over the life of the planet, up and down from what we know today...
A lot of mountains are still growing too with plate movement pushing them up.

There are old cities under the current sea level around the world.
There are ports well above the current sea level.
The Earth has changed so many times, how is it unreasonable that the Richat structure might have had a different elevation forever ago compared to today?
Australia had an inland sea, fossils to prove it. Whale bones have been found in the Sahara so another inland sea..
Some of you guys seem so fixated on the landscape we see today as being the only way the Earth has ever been..
Click to expand...
The crust of the earth rises and sinks over time too as plates get pushed into and/or under each other (at an extremely slow pace). The first shell producing organisms start showing up in the fossil record around 540 million years ago. This is what the theory of plate tectonics shows Australia would roughly look like at that time:
2024-07-31 09.22.37 dinosaurpictures.org 244f0d384a09.png


430 million years ago (around when plants first started to appear on land, 40 million years after vertebrates appeared in the sea)
2024-07-31 09.26.06 dinosaurpictures.org fb9c80aa00e6.png


400 million years ago (land animals and Insects show up)
2024-07-31 09.31.00 dinosaurpictures.org b1678d7aeeb5.png


220 Million years ago (first Dinosaurs show up)
2024-07-31 09.36.12 dinosaurpictures.org 477d5e066d0a.png
 
Daidraco

Daidraco

Avatar of War Slayer
10,087
10,416
Chris said:
Personally I think it's always worth looking at myths and legends to find the grain of truth behind them, that with the ice age sea level rise and finds on Doggerbank, tells me that there likley are things to find out there.

We are never going to definitively find Plato's Atlantis unless we find Ancient Egypt levels of ruins somewhere though.

Given that nobody else mentioned it, it's likely either a made up allegory or a smaller settlement that's been exaggerated.
Click to expand...
Well shitttt negro. This is all you had to say! The rest of your bullshit is just being the arrogant cunt you are. Arguing over whats factual and not factual, when you yourself admit that its all a mystery that'll likely never be solved.
 
Chris

Chris

Potato del Grande
19,436
-10,732
Kharzette said:
Some of the incan ruins have seaside plants in the mortar. Very high elevations.

If the slow rise of the andes continued as it is now then you have ruins that are millions of years old. If the ruins are young, then the crust moved alot, possibly in a big bad event.

Or they picked the plants by the sea or traded for them instead of using local plants :D
Click to expand...
Either they transported them there themselves from the sea via their roads because they had a specific use, or they were present as fossils in the rock from millions of years before when the mountains were seabed.

Like why is "they had roads" harder to belive than "the earth's crust must have moved", especially when the fucking roads are still there?

We now have to belive insane things about the Inca to make a Richat hilltop seaport make sense.

Chukzombi said:
well i dunno about the land rising that dramatically, but the conditions could have a very large lake overflow and sweep away a civilization. wouldnt be the first time.
Click to expand...
Did you measure how big the Richat lake would have been and look for any evidence of flow from it before making this statement?

Like I don't think the relatively shallow lake would explode 360 degrees in each direction making a giant tidal wave in all directions wiping the area clean, something would have been left behind as evidence.

Maybe they had enough MP to summon Leviathan?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Chukzombi

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
72,995
214,283
Chris said:
Either they transported them there themselves from the sea via their roads because they had a specific use, or they were present as fossils in the rock from millions of years before when the mountains were seabed.

Like why is "they had roads" harder to belive than "the earth's crust must have moved", especially when the fucking roads are still there?

We now have to belive insane things about the Inca to make a Richat hilltop seaport make sense.


Did you measure how big the Richat lake would have been and look for any evidence of flow from it before making this statement?

Like I don't think the relatively shallow lake would explode 360 degrees in each direction making a giant tidal wave in all directions wiping the area clean, something would have been left behind as evidence.

Maybe they had enough MP to summon Leviathan?
Click to expand...
from that map. it looks like the lake was feeding into the Richat to the ocean. it also looks likes the city might have been on the water. so if shit was floating or temporary. then its not gonna be there if a big surge comes down from the lake.
d77b9b0ee7afc7fa68960a47e070561e.png
 
Chris

Chris

Potato del Grande
19,436
-10,732
Chukzombi said:
from that map. it looks like the lake was feeding into the Richat to the ocean. it also looks likes the city might have been on the water. so if shit was floating or temporary. then its not gonna be therf is a big surge comes down from the lake.
d77b9b0ee7afc7fa68960a47e070561e.png
Click to expand...
Can you zoom the map in a bit and draw on where Richat is? Because "it looks like it's on the water" at that scale could be 100s of miles away.

Also "down from the lake", what is the elevation of this lake? Is it above the 400+m for Richat? It appears to be a high point locally.

Screenshot_20240731-222225_Chrome.jpg
 
Rajaah

Rajaah

Honorable Member
<Gold Donor>
12,558
16,598
Chukzombi said:
it already had a massive lake there. along with many other lakes in the region.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Richat is clearly sitting in a great big basin that would have been full of water at any point when that area had heavy and persistent rainfall year-round. Which it did, for a long, long time.

It's obvious looking at it that it was a lake before. Like completely obvious. A lake with a bunch of rings sticking out of it.

I think the question shouldn't be whether people built the rings or whether it's a natural volcanic landform, as nobody'll ever agree on that. The question should be whether or not an ancient civ would look at something like that and go "whoa, this is an incredibly good defensive position to build a city on, with multiple moats, higher than normal elevation, and connection to a waterway that gives us access to the ocean and the east". And the answer is, absolutely. So then the question is whether anyone had the means to construct something on that spot in the distant past, and judging from Egypt and Gobekli and so forth the answer is yes. So then the remaining question (for me anyway) is what washed all of it away and whether we can still find any of it. I'm going to guess that most pieces of the city are either under the Sahara or in the depths of the ocean.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users
Rajaah

Rajaah

Honorable Member
<Gold Donor>
12,558
16,598
Another super-interesting ancient city I just recently found out about is Tanis. A place out in the desert in Egypt with all kinds of incredible statues and stone-work...that looks like it was hit by a huge explosion. When they found it, abandoned in the desert, 200 years ago, the people who found it noted that the city was completely shattered into pieces that were all strewn about the desert, half-buried, whatever. There are even some very old photographs of it. Now it functions as a museum of sorts where archaeologists have lined up all the statues, stood them back up, etc, for people to look at.

Nobody can explain why it was in that condition when it was found, though. There's also extensive fire damage on a lot of the stonework.

1722466665015.png


1722466682898.png

The condition of Tanis when explorers found it in the 1800s.

Almost looks like a whole lot of stuff "collected" here after a storm blasted through the Sahara or something.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Daidraco

Daidraco

Avatar of War Slayer
10,087
10,416
Rajaah said:
Yeah, Richat is clearly sitting in a great big basin that would have been full of water at any point when that area had heavy and persistent rainfall year-round. Which it did, for a long, long time.

It's obvious looking at it that it was a lake before. Like completely obvious. A lake with a bunch of rings sticking out of it.

I think the question shouldn't be whether people built the rings or whether it's a natural volcanic landform, as nobody'll ever agree on that. The question should be whether or not an ancient civ would look at something like that and go "whoa, this is an incredibly good defensive position to build a city on, with multiple moats, higher than normal elevation, and connection to a waterway that gives us access to the ocean and the east". And the answer is, absolutely. So then the question is whether anyone had the means to construct something on that spot in the distant past, and judging from Egypt and Gobekli and so forth the answer is yes. So then the remaining question (for me anyway) is what washed all of it away and whether we can still find any of it. I'm going to guess that most pieces of the city are either under the Sahara or in the depths of the ocean.
Click to expand...
Completely unrelated to Atlantis (or maybe it is, idk) - but Ive seen multiple "scientists" point out all the signs that a Tsunami washed across northern Africa. From the NE part of the continent, all the way down to the western part of the continent. If we're thinking about time frames - then whatever happened in the Constantinople area that led to the flooding of the Black Sea - then its not unbelievable to think that whatever landmass sunk in that area caused an insanely high tsunami. It just doesnt feel like some "Main Stream" scientist want to put their foot down and claim that it happened. When no one truly knows what happened back then, why is one story more likely than any other and vice versa? Ultimately just feels like cherry picking.
 
Sylas

Sylas

<Gold Donor>
3,692
4,226
Quaid said:
We would not require ice core records to detect evidence of an industrial level agricultural society within the last million years, let alone the last hundred thousand.
Click to expand...
This is a non-answer, How would you detect it then?
Chris said:
We are never going to definitively find Plato's Atlantis unless we find Ancient Egypt levels of ruins somewhere though.

Given that nobody else mentioned it, it's likely either a made up allegory or a smaller settlement that's been exaggerated.
Click to expand...
I don't know about Atlantis specifically but where would we expect to find previous ancient civilizations?

All of human history we congregate around rivers, this is where civilizations arise, due to available fresh water. As we advance technologically we start to build in bays, basins, deltas, still on rivers, but near the ocean, for trade.

All the places on earth where any of these ancient civilizations would have existed are all now under 100-400 feet of water. Yet when we look along the coasts underwater we actually do find the remains of what could have been ancient egyptian levels of ruins, the bimini roads, yonaguni, the malta rail lines, etc.

The black sea and parts of the med, the indonesian archipelago before it was islands, Caribbean before it was underwater, even the north sea before it was underwater is where you would, (and ironically, it is where we do, almost universally, any time we bother to look) find evidence.

Shit like Gobekli and Gunung, even Malta were basically built by backward ass hilltribes men living in the mountains like deliverance hillbillies when the last time civilization was wiped out and the few survivors came by and taught them how to have a civilization. It's a shame that all we have to show for it is what they managed to build during that time before the advanced knowledge and engineering was lost and all that remained and was passed down was myths and legends and the basics like agriculture and basic hygiene.
 
Last edited:
Quaid

Quaid

Trump's Staff
11,794
8,153
Sylas said:
This is a non-answer, How would you detect it then?
Click to expand...

There are dozens of ways, but the most obvious are atmospheric gas anomalies determined by sequestration in ocean floor sediment samples, as well as telltale signs of industrial level agricultural practices in soil composition (nitrogen levels). Also, industrialization requires resource extraction on a significant scale, and we’d be finding evidence of mines in, well, the same places those resources are found now. All of this evidence would stick around for hundreds of thousands, and in some cases millions of years.

If someone was burning hydrocarbons before us, we’d absolutely know about it. It wouldn’t matter if their cities were under water.
 
Last edited:
Chukzombi

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
72,995
214,283
You can have a plenty advanced ancient civilization without it being futuristic or equal to a modern civilization. It just needs to show a technology or method that gave a result we in current time aren't sure how it was done.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Quaid

Quaid

Trump's Staff
11,794
8,153
Chukzombi said:
You can have a plenty advanced ancient civilization without it being futuristic or equal to a modern civilization. It just needs to show a technology or method that gave a result we in current time aren't sure how it was done.
Click to expand...

Stop changing the goalposts in a conversation you’re not involved in. Sylas Sylas is using the word industrial, and that’s what I’m addressing.

Frankly, i don’t care about some fanciful tale about a neolithic society using imaginary harmonic doohickeys or fairy farts to cut limestone cubes because reasons.
 
Last edited:
Chukzombi

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
72,995
214,283
Quaid said:
Stop changing the goalposts in a conversation you’re not involved in. Sylas Sylas is using the word industrial, and that’s what I’m addressing.

Frankly, i don’t care about some fanciful tale about a neolithic society using imaginary harmonic doohickeys or fairy farts to cut limestone cubes because reasons.
Click to expand...
Sure. Just saying everything isn't so black and white. Carry on.
 
Chris

Chris

Potato del Grande
19,436
-10,732
Sylas said:
This is a non-answer, How would you detect it then?

I don't know about Atlantis specifically but where would we expect to find previous ancient civilizations?

All of human history we congregate around rivers, this is where civilizations arise, due to available fresh water. As we advance technologically we start to build in bays, basins, deltas, still on rivers, but near the ocean, for trade.

All the places on earth where any of these ancient civilizations would have existed are all now under 100-400 feet of water. Yet when we look along the coasts underwater we actually do find the remains of what could have been ancient egyptian levels of ruins, the bimini roads, yonaguni, the malta rail lines, etc.

The black sea and parts of the med, the indonesian archipelago before it was islands, Caribbean before it was underwater, even the north sea before it was underwater is where you would, (and ironically, it is where we do, almost universally, any time we bother to look) find evidence.

Shit like Gobekli and Gunung, even Malta were basically built by backward ass hilltribes men living in the mountains like deliverance hillbillies when the last time civilization was wiped out and the few survivors came by and taught them how to have a civilization. It's a shame that all we have to show for it is what they managed to build during that time before the advanced knowledge and engineering was lost and all that remained and was passed down was myths and legends and the basics like agriculture and basic hygiene.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's it, ancient rivers but lower than current sea level. Buried in sediment. Some places have been found already.

It's not going to be cool looking but natural rock formations on bare seafloor or desert, that doesn't match anything we've ever found.
 
Chris

Chris

Potato del Grande
19,436
-10,732
Chukzombi said:
Sure. Just saying everything isn't so black and white. Carry on.
Click to expand...
You need to improve the language you are using.

"Advanced" is used by ancient aliens people to describe leyline energy and soundwave levitation. It's used by some people to describe an ancient industrial revolution.

We discussed it not long ago and came to wooden waterwheels/windmills and exotic (for the time) alloys.

But "advanced' is just being used handwave impossible things with some vague suggestions that a technology exists to solve the problem with a theory.
 
Chris

Chris

Potato del Grande
19,436
-10,732
Rajaah said:
Yeah, Richat is clearly sitting in a great big basin that would have been full of water at any point when that area had heavy and persistent rainfall year-round. Which it did, for a long, long time.

It's obvious looking at it that it was a lake before. Like completely obvious. A lake with a bunch of rings sticking out of it.

I think the question shouldn't be whether people built the rings or whether it's a natural volcanic landform, as nobody'll ever agree on that. The question should be whether or not an ancient civ would look at something like that and go "whoa, this is an incredibly good defensive position to build a city on, with multiple moats, higher than normal elevation, and connection to a waterway that gives us access to the ocean and the east". And the answer is, absolutely. So then the question is whether anyone had the means to construct something on that spot in the distant past, and judging from Egypt and Gobekli and so forth the answer is yes. So then the remaining question (for me anyway) is what washed all of it away and whether we can still find any of it. I'm going to guess that most pieces of the city are either under the Sahara or in the depths of the ocean.
Click to expand...
Richat isn't sitting in a basin, it is the basin. It's not connected to a waterway, please point out the waterway on a zoomed in map of the place.

You should agree it's natural because if people made it there would be bricks or tool marks.

Is there any evidence of a hill fort civilisation in the area? We have this stuff in the UK, they are thousands of years old and they find signs of human habitation all around them. We don't just have one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.