some people may get this, others may not!

Sometime ago Archeologists found digging up the Middle East a great way to raise money. The reason for this was Christian countries would sponsor Middle Eastern Archeology because of the Bible connection.

Hence, Archeologists found many things in the Middle East.

Hence, Archeologists found the remains of Egyptian civilisation and Sumerian civilisation.

Archeologists called these 'the cradle of civilisation'.

People today continue to believe that the earliest civilisations on this planet and the 'cradle of civilisation' is in the very spot where Archeologists found it - in Egypt and in Iraq.

can anyone tell why this is so odd?

They werent the earliest, but they were the most advancd at the time. There were humans all over the world including in North America South America, Europe and Asia, but they lived mostly hunter-gatherer existences. the 1st kingdoms started in the Fertile Cresent and North Africa because there was many more people there than just a few tribes here and there like the rest of the world. Also it was very harsh and those people were crammed into much smaller areas like living on the nile for example or living in oasis areas. Thus the need for order and control arose. Thus kingdoms and civilizations were born. The more people you have the greater chance you have for advancement because you have more random events and people comming up with new ideas. Farming for example. These people were the 1st to practice agriculture, which freed people up to take up differnt pursuits other than hunting. For example military, or learning to brew beer.

"Finds point to far earlier European civilisation

NICHOLAS CHRISTIAN

EVIDENCE has emerged of Europe's oldest known civilisation, whose buildings pre-date Stonehenge by 2,000 years, and whose monuments are even older than the Mesopotamian cities traditionally thought to have been the cradle of civilisation.

Archaeologists have uncovered a network of 150 huge temples and buildings beneath the fields and cities of modern-day Germany, Austria and Slovakia.

"

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com...m?id=644702005

it's amazing what you can find when you start digging in other places, isn't it?

how do you know that? have you dug up every square in of earth and confirmed this?

who knows, their may be a lost civilisation beneath the sea, which dates back 40,000 years.

again, how do you know this is a fact? have you checked?

]

again, how do you know?



Imagine living 20,000 years ago in a country called the 'Black Land', and all of a sudden the ice barrier which kept back the water from the med, just suddenly melted and gave way. And imagine the water rushed in from the med, destroying immediately the 'civilisation' and forced the people to abandon the 'Black Land' and head for Europe. Then imagine the 'Black Land' continued to fill up with water over many hundreds of years, thus creating what we now called the 'Black Sea'.

Now i'm not saying this is FACT, but imagine if this was true, then it's very possible that a civilisation buried underneath the 'Black Sea' (if their is one) could be very well an earlier civilisation than the ones in Egypt or Sumer, couldn't they?

Umm, the Nazi dream to dig up the secret and unknown all powerful Aryan civilization died with them dude. I would WAIT to see the actual dating, not the estimation of those ruins. And WHAT kind of buildings were they? monumental wonders like the pyramids? Or Stone shanties? Stone Henge by the way doesnt impress me. Small stone buildings rarely do. Pyramids on the other hand take planning that was so intense that we wouldnt be able copy thier work today or thier precision if we tried to using thier tools.

The most complex of the sites excavated so far, located inside the German city of Dresden, consisted of an apparently sacred internal space surrounded by two palisades, three earthen banks and four ditches.

The temples were built of earth and wood, and had ramparts and palisades that stretched for up to half a mile.



So we are talking about a little shit shanty made from wood and mud surrounded by hills of dirt. To be clear. Yeah the REAL pinnicle of culture and civilization, that must be who the Egyptians copied when they were building Stone monuments that would last 1000's of yeara ABOVE ground. I mean these "European" masters werent even sculpting stone yet for chrissake.

Ya know the Native Americans were building these things too. I dont see you claiming that they invented civilization.

<<how do you know that? have you dug up every square in of earth and confirmed this?>>

We know this because of foresnsic data and evidence.

<<who knows, their may be a lost civilisation beneath the sea, which dates back 40,000 years.>>

No, not likely. They would have left ruins. Or Fossils. If youre thinking about the aryan version of Atlantis I wouldnt bother, its a myth and was said to be based on a small settlement in Southern Spain. And 40,000 - 60,000 years ago, humans were just comming out of Africa and spreading into the Middle East, and Europe was controlled by Neaderthal. We simply hadnt spread far enough out yet. How do we know? Because of foresic evdence. Again the oldest human remains all come from the middle east and Africa. Which means we came from Africa nott some secret splinter group of humans in the ocean. And there is no evidence of an island or whatever sinking into the ocean in the last 50,000 years.

<<again, how do you know this is a fact? have you checked?>>

Have I checked personally? Well no... ive been busy. But I assure you I have top men on it and they all said it was as such.

<<again, how do you know?>>

I have a crystal ball, and I personally collected all the forensic evidence for it.

<<Imagine living 20,000 years ago in a country called the 'Black Land', and all of a sudden the ice barrier which kept back the water from the med, just suddenly melted and gave way. And imagine the water rushed in from the med, destroying immediately the 'civilisation' and forced the people to abandon the 'Black Land' and head for Europe. Then imagine the 'Black Land' continued to fill up with water over many hundreds of years, thus creating what we now called the 'Black Sea'.>>

I cant imagine it, mostly because ice doesnt "suddenly" melt. It melts over time, especially glaciers and ice caps and entire countries under the ice. Barring all that, you have a huge hole. If this was such an advanced society why didnt they resume thier culture elsewhere? Before the Greeks colonised the Area around the black sea its shores were said to be the home of very barbaric and uncivilized tribes.

Besides the Ryan-Pitman Deluge Theory (great flood) says that even if that WAAS the case it happend only 7000 years ago. Which would mean that there was already tribes and civilizations all over the world, including the Americas and Europe to explain your mudhuts and dirt mounds. This theory has largely been debunked anyway.

The black land? ummm the Black sea was named in the 13th century. Why would we call it the black land?

<<Now i'm not saying this is FACT, but imagine if this was true, then it's very possible that a civilisation buried underneath the 'Black Sea' (if their is one) could be very well an earlier civilisation than the ones in Egypt or Sumer, couldn't they?>>

I doubt it, again the Ryan-Pitman Deluge Theory has been pretty much debunked. It is more likely that the black sea grew slowly OVER TIME because of the numerous rivers running into it (including the danube) as well as the slow melting ice of the glaciers from Frozen Europe during the last ice age. It has always been a lake, which was just given a boost by weather, rivers and an ice age.

See heres where I think you should take your argument.

Its clear that you dont like the idea of Life beggining in Africa or the Middle east (jew land). And that is why you want to desperatly believe in "black land". But why dont you want people comming form Africa? because youre white obviously. But white isnt a race unto itself. White people/Europeans are technically the same race as Jews, Arabs and Egyptians. Caucasoids. You should take your argument to that level and I feel you will look less crazy and even score a few wins in the process.

Take Greenland!

now we know it's currently covered in Ice.

However, if the ice should ever melt, and / or were able to dig below the surface of the ice in Greenland, then we LOW AND BEHOLD we may find something!

it's perfectly obvious that you may find stuff in the exact spot WHERE YOU DIG!

NO-ONE HAS EVER FOUND AN ARTIFACT IN A PLACE WHERE THEY'VE NEVER DUG!

Take Siberia for instance!

for most of the year, that part is covered in permafrost!

if we ever started digging in Siberia, we may find the remains of a very early civilisation.

the reason why nobody has ever found the remains of an early civilisation in Siberia, is not because it dosn't exist, it's because we havn't dug in Siberia.

that's all their is to it!

"EDITED"

Uhm... the nature of permafrost means that the ground is ALWAYS frozen... hence "perma".

Just so you know.

The Middle East is a dry region of the world!

Northern Europe is mostly wet and cold.

If you built a temple in the middle east of either stone or wood, it would take thousands of years to degrade, hence that's why it's so easy to see artifacts today.

If you built a temple in Northern Europe of either stone or wood, it would take only a matter of hundreds of years to either rot, or to be covered in tons of vegetation.

that's one reason why it's so difficult to discover things in Northern Europe!

another MAIN REASON, is because few people DIG in Northern Europe!

many people have DUG in the middle east!

I wonder if FOF cannot accept the possibility that we may in fact be decended from Africans? . . . Like I need to wonder . . .

[
<<who <<Imagine living 20,000 years ago in a country called the 'Black Land', and all of a sudden the ice barrier which kept back the water from the med, just suddenly melted and gave way. And imagine the water rushed in from the med, destroying immediately the 'civilisation' and forced the people to abandon the 'Black Land' and head for Europe. Then imagine the 'Black Land' continued to fill up with water over many hundreds of years, thus creating what we now called the 'Black Sea'.>>

I cant





Me niether! bunk i say ! a catatrophic climate change of this magnitude would be instantly recognisable in the Oxygen Isotope Stages of pre history, and at the dates mentioned out side normal glaciation there is no such occurance. also there was no glacial ice barrier in the medditerrainian @ 20k or even 40k.

It's well known that Celtic civilization stretches back to at least 1,000 B.C.+, but that was uncovered by archaelogy more than Egyptian or Babylonian civilization, evidence of which has been handed down to us by the Romans and Greeks. We knew about this shit before we began digging up there. That was the whole reason to dig there.


In all honesty, it's my personal opinion that there were civilizations across the world much more advanced than what we may have seen from the ancient Celts, Sumerians, and Egyptians prior to the Ice Age.

Ok so i read that "article" for lack of a better word and I will not refute the evidence, I will question methods and dates! is the date of 7000 k in terms of Years Before Present or are they radio carbon years? if so we are looking at a whole new set of dates and in the case of RC dates we could be waaaaay off! ( this disscussion has tweaked my curiosity, and we archaeologists are curious by nature!, I will check for some publications and journals regarding this excavation. Also a collection of buildings does not a civ make! to be regarded as a Primary Civilisation, there have to be some factors present in the archaeological record. A city is always a good start! but within the structures, we have to look at what the artifacts are telling us about:

Fulltime Craft Specialization: is there evidence of people doing one job and an increase in the complexity of those artifacts produced????

Concentration of Surpluses: basic archaeology tells us that a civilisation is a result of complex agriculture producing a surplus leading to increaced population density, so a system of aqauisiton and dispersal needs to be in place basicaly who gets how much of what

Class Structure: tied in with the above, is there evidence of a stratification of the people within the civilization?

State Organsiation: A political system, and means of controlling the populace and surpluses?

Im not saying these are not present in this find, we need more information!!!!!

LOTS of work going on in Siberia actually, mainly stone age sites going back at least 25K b.p, ( note I use the erm b.p or Before Present, most archaeologist shun the term BC as it is very inaccurate!) much of the Lithic industries we find in Siberia are contemorary or precede the "paleo Indian" industries found here in Canada and the United States

I guess what Im trying to say mr FoF is I and some of the other DF'ers are having a hard time figuring out were you are comming from regarding this issue. It is painfully clear that your argument lacks any discernable form of scientific cohereance and a lack of understanding on your part of the archaeological process. However, take heart!!! because i for one have enjoyed this disscussion! so there is your first lesson in archaeology: WE LOVE A GOOD DEBATE!!!! publish a paper and you will have at least two or three responses in contrary to your findings!

Altough this seems to be a somewhat fanciful rendition of it, I believe Robert Ballard (as in "found" the Titanic) recently discovered some evidence, including artificial structures, that MAY indicate that there was at least some human activity in areas that are currently well away from the present day shoreline of the Black Sea, and under several hundred feet of water. There is apparently strong evidence that at some time within human "memory", the Black Sea, and possibly a good portion of the floor of the present day Mediteranian Sea were in fact above water, and their sudden flooding as the result of prehistoric catostrophic geologic event, may be in part, the basis for Biblical, as well as other ancient "myths" of a "Great Flood"

I saw part of a documentary on the National Geographic channel last week that alleges this.

Whaddaya think?