Oldest Petroglyphs in North America!

arauca said:
You modern women don't know how to be a women , you have all the comfort and are not satisfied and bitch bitch. I was born while my mother was bringing water from the river and she got labor pain while careen g buckets of water up hill and by herself, and this is not a special story there are hundreds like that . Now you get all kind of assistance and still bitch . You don't have to go to the river to wash clouts , you have a wash machine , You hardly cook , you bu precooked and micro oven it. You don't wash dishes you have a dish washer , You don't have to make your clouts , ( you don't know how ) you buy them , and still bitch and bitch, Husband want to make love , and you don't feel it you get a head ache . Yes you come alone babe , but you are becoming useless if you join the women lib philosophy .
Click to expand...

sexism thread is that way ---------------->>>>
;)
 
Oldest petroglyphs found so far in north America. Interesting! Seriously interesting.
Does make me think there are always things out there still to be "discovered". The climate was cooler and life had to be different. Deserts may have been jungles :shrug: the "searchers" need to look at areas differently. Maybe more "things" will be found, I sure hope so.
And a side comment is the bases of scientific dating. How can there be an exact time frame of when a piece of "rock is made to a tool, or art. We test what's above sometimes below the interesting "rock". And get a "time frame" its not exact. A fossil is exact.
The more I hear when humans "migrated" out of Africa. And the arrow heads estimated dates I start thinking maybe there may have been a place called Atlantis but it may have not been so advanced as claimed to be.
I also think life had to be extremely difficult for those early beginning native americans. They changed vegetation, sometimes animals, and temperature, location, it would be a different world. The learning curve would be harsh at first, and deadly. Any clues to how come remains of the beginning native Americans are not discovered?
 
R1D2 said:
Oldest petroglyphs found so far in north America. Interesting! Seriously interesting.
Click to expand...

It is! :)

Does make me think there are always things out there still to be "discovered". The climate was cooler and life had to be different. Deserts may have been jungles :shrug: the "searchers" need to look at areas differently. Maybe more "things" will be found, I sure hope so.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think this way, too. Deserts may have been jungles, I'm going to look at that up, and see if anything pops up on it. ;)

And a side comment is the bases of scientific dating. How can there be an exact time frame of when a piece of "rock is made to a tool, or art. We test what's above sometimes below the interesting "rock". And get a "time frame" its not exact. A fossil is exact.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. Check this out:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100412100017.htm

Crazy fascinating!

The more I hear when humans "migrated" out of Africa. And the arrow heads estimated dates I start thinking maybe there may have been a place called Atlantis but it may have not been so advanced as claimed to be.
Click to expand...

I have misgivings about 'Atlantis.'
I also think life had to be extremely difficult for those early beginning native americans. They changed vegetation, sometimes animals, and temperature, location, it would be a different world. The learning curve would be harsh at first, and deadly. Any clues to how come remains of the beginning native Americans are not discovered?
Click to expand...

It absolutely had to be a terribly 'hard' life. But, they didn't know anything beyond that, you know? We take for granted that someone has already ''hunted and gathered'' ...they had to do everything to survive. During their migrations, I just can't help but wonder how the younger population of Clovis fared. How did pregnant women or families make the trek? Did they do so together? I imagine the mortality rate was high.

I'm humbly grateful to them for paving the way for us. :)
 
gmilam said:
You probably don't have to look that far back. There were no beasts of burden in the "new world" until the Spanish brought horses with them in the 16th century.
Click to expand...

Hey :)
I'm not sure what you're indicating here, could you clarify? (in response to my post)
 
wegs said:
Hey :)
I'm not sure what you're indicating here, could you clarify? (in response to my post)
Click to expand...
I had never heard of the Clovis people until this thread. But I've been to Mesa Verde and Hovenweep and seen where those people lived. Just thinking that the American Indians where still in the stone age until the 16th century. Their technology wasn't much more advanced than the Clovis people. No wheel, no horses, no domesticated animals. Their lives probably weren't all that different.
 
gmilam said:
I had never heard of the Clovis people until this thread. But I've been to Mesa Verde and Hovenweep and seen where those people lived. Just thinking that the American Indians where still in the stone age until the 16th century. Their technology wasn't much more advanced than the Clovis people. No wheel, no horses, no domesticated animals. Their lives probably weren't all that different.
Click to expand...

It is a good point , yet The Maye , Toltec s in Central America or the south America Chimu , Wari culture . the mentioned cultures were much more advanced then the North American inhabitants , So you wonder if the migrant trough the Bering straight were the first into the American continent
 
as/re Atlantis
From the biases we've all suffered through, Atlantis seems a parable formed in the mind of a moralist.
but then
Along comes Klaus Schmidt, whose dig at gobekli tepe has turned much of archaeology and anthropology on it's head.
11000 year old monumental archetecture------------------------wowie zowie
Gone is the Childe's model of the neolithic/agricultural revolution which was assumed to preceed monumental archetecture by over 3000 years.
unless
it's only the assumed dates that is/was/are/were wrong?
Poor Klaus, forced to take a dig that many had ddeclined assuming the "hill" to be a Byzantine graveyard. Klaus fell into a sewer and came out smelling like a rose, with what may be one of the most significant archaeological digs of the last century.
And, the most exciting of his findings is that the oldest of the monumental structures was the best crafted------wow---- the best from 11kybp, then deteriorating.
Really Crazy stuff---that ain't how it is supposed to happen.
First one starts to develope a skillset, then as the ffollowing generations continue, the skill keeps getting better. But that ain't what Klaus has found!?!
So, we need a new paradigm.
We know that modern man clusters along the seacoasts, and in river estuaries----can we assume the same for our ancestors of 11-20-30-? kybp?
We know that even hunter gatherers gathered together in large numbers(eg, the 10k that custer found in 1876).
We know that the monumental stonework archetecture at gobekli tepe was more developed at 11kybp.
We know that sea levels rose rapidly from 18kybp to 11 or 12 kybp, then fell a bit as the glaciers regained strength during the younger dryas, then rose again. Sea level now is estimated to be 100-130 meters above that during the max glaciation of about 20-30kybp.

Is it such a great leap to assume that we had more developed civilizations, with monumental archetecture where the rivers met the seas well before the building at gobekli tepe?
If such gatherings and civilization and monumental archetecture indeed had evolved and developed along the now inundated coasts, and were lost to the rising seas, leaving scattered survivors to build gobekli tepe and others to tell stories about the great flood, and stories about lost cities(Atlantis) should we not expect to find more?

Atlantis:
Dismiss the story as parable?
Or look farther with the perspective and determination of a Heinrich Schliemann
 
arauca said:
Yes it is dumb as you cal yourself , because it does not say anything. Are you a non English speaker like me .Or you have no capability to communicate ?
Click to expand...

Perception. "One picture is worth a thousand words". Non-Queens English. Communication goes both ways.
 
Last edited:
@ sculptor;

Some great info there. TY for sharing it.
Until they can nail down stronger evidence to support it, I will "dismiss" Atlantis as a parable. :eek:

I'm all for "exploring" down a well to see what lurks down inside, but in this case, I don't believe a well even exists. Lol
 
wegs said:
@ sculptor;

Some great info there. TY for sharing it.
Until they can nail down stronger evidence to support it, I will "dismiss" Atlantis as a parable. :eek:

I'm all for "exploring" down a well to see what lurks down inside, but in this case, I don't believe a well even exists. Lol
Click to expand...

Perhaps?
Perhaps not.

Unfortunately, if my hypothesis holds true, and we did indeed develope civilizations along the glacier era sea coasts over 10-15-20kybp, then the future of archaeology must needs be underwater.
Sadly, 100 meters is about the max that scuba divers can acheive, and then one spends much more time in decompressing than on bottom.

If we wish to push that envelope farther into the past, we need a better underwater technology to support 20kybp sea shore archaeology.
The future seems there, but the expense is great.
 
arauca said:
It is a good point , yet The Maye , Toltec s in Central America or the south America Chimu , Wari culture . the mentioned cultures were much more advanced then the North American inhabitants , So you wonder if the migrant trough the Bering straight were the first into the American continent
Click to expand...
It could be that the Incas (or Wari or whichever culture was around at the time) figured out how to smelt ore, and the info never made it's way back up to the (future) US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgy_in_pre-Columbian_America
 
sculptor said:
Perhaps?
Perhaps not.

Unfortunately, if my hypothesis holds true, and we did indeed develope civilizations along the glacier era sea coasts over 10-15-20kybp, then the future of archaeology must needs be underwater.
Sadly, 100 meters is about the max that scuba divers can acheive, and then one spends much more time in decompressing than on bottom.

If we wish to push that envelope farther into the past, we need a better underwater technology to support 20kybp sea shore archaeology.
The future seems there, but the expense is great.
Click to expand...



I picked this excerpt up from an online pub, 'Mail Online.'
Okay -- this is kind of 'wowzors.' :D

Greek philosopher Plato wrote about Atlantis some 2,600 years ago, describing it as 'an island situated in front of the straits called the Pillars of Hercules.'

These pillars were known as the Straits of Gibraltar in bygone times.Using Plato's detailed account of Atlantis as a map, searches have focused on the Mediterranean and Atlantic as the best possible sites for the city.

Freund says tsunamis in the region have been documented for centuries with one of the largest reported in November 1755 hitting Lisbon with a 10-story tidal wave.

Debate about whether Atlantis truly existed has lasted for thousands of years. Plato's 'dialogues' from around 360 B.C. are the only known historical sources of information about the iconic city.


Plato said the island he called Atlantis 'in a single day and night... disappeared into the depths of the sea.'

Experts plan further excavations at the site where they believe Atlantis is and at the mysterious 'cities' in central Spain 150 miles away to more closely study geological formations and to date artefacts.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ly--buried-mud-flats-Spain.html#ixzz2coJY7ZtU
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top