Do you believe in the existence of highly advanced ancient Earth civilization before?

[magnemoe]

It's no wonder people think the pyramids were built by aliens if there's the kind of thinking everyone shares.

Secondly there's nothing stating that 10 000 was considered a large city. At this point our knowledge of ancient civilizations is based on stories and ruins.

We know very well how the Egyptians got their manpower, not slaves as they did not do lots of wars of conquest making slaves pretty expensive and mostly used as servants.

They used conscription, majority of the population was peasants working for nobles, as any who has done any work on a farm know the work is very season depended so during the slow part of the work the noble had to have some of his peasants do other stuff. Mostly large integration projects but also stuff like pyramids.

They had an fixed staff of stone cutters for the detail work and used the peasants for the unskilled work. The 100.00 in 20 year is also way off.

As I understand Romans took 60K slaves after crunching the Jewish revolt, that dropped the price a lot. The sale value of the slaves founded Colosseum.

Rome hold one million at its height, an very small number of cities ever reached 1 million before 1700.

[Dodgey]

History became legend. Legend became myth.

[lajoswinkler]

If you really want to get an archeologist to mutter and scowl ask them how the stones at Baalbek were moved or how the stones at Secsayhuaman were cut.

let's just say that some things that were once known have been lost

Those problems are an engineer's task. An archaeologist can be of assistance, but you need a structural engineer for that.

None of these problems exist and they've all been explained to this date. You, too, should avoid stupid History channel, because it's pseudohistory propaganda, and not history.

[phoenix_ca]

That's bull****, times two. Not only they aren't aligned like that, but their precision is not stunning, and it can be replicated today. All they needed was enough people. You'd be surprised what superstition and slavery are capable of. To them, pharaohs were live embodiments of deities. Living gods on Earth.

Now now, indications are that those workers got paid for their efforts. Slavery wasn't actually all that big of a thing in some of the Ancient Egyptian periods.

The superstition bit though, bang on.

You people want to see evidence of precision engineering? Okay, it looks something like this:

Or this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Khalifa

Or this:

Not this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza

Just because we aren't completely sure just how the ancient Egyptians managed to build those things doesn't lead to "aliens" or "they must've been super-high tech or something". It's the god-of-the-gaps argument without the god, but something just as mythical.

[vger]

If you want to start scratching your head at something, it's more worth it to look at Stonehenge.

Yeah, I know that it was found to actually be at the center of a major hub that only turned up recently, but the fact remains those multi-ton stones were apparently carted from VERY far away. Those stones are twice the weight of the pyramid blocks, which were made locally. Such a feat would make the pyramids look easy, even if they were built using tons of slaves bulldozing their way to completion ala The Ten Commandments.

Edited June 2, 2014 by vger

[jwenting]

As I understand Romans took 60K slaves after crunching the Jewish revolt, that dropped the price a lot. The sale value of the slaves founded Colosseum.

Rome hold one million at its height, an very small number of cities ever reached 1 million before 1700.

Pretty much. And mind that the Colosseum was not built by slaves but by professional builders (and their trainees of course), who were paid from the income generated from selling slaves, as well as from tax income and income from the loot of conquered Judea.

Ditto the pyramids were funded by tax income, in part labourers providing a part of their work year as a form of income tax, that part of the year they would have otherwise have no labour because of the unique environmental conditions in Egypt caused by the cycles of the Nile.

[phoenix_ca]

If you want to start scratching your head at something, it's more worth it to look at Stonehenge.

Yeah, I know that it was found to actually be at the center of a major hub that only turned up recently, but the fact remains those multi-ton stones were apparently carted from VERY far away. Those stones are twice the weight of the pyramid blocks, which were made locally. Such a feat would make the pyramids look easy, even if they were built using tons of slaves bulldozing their way to completion ala The Ten Commandments.

Put the blocks on logs, roll on the logs. Done. Sure there's the issue of raising them and lowering them but moving them needn't be super-hard.

[Awaras]

If you want to start scratching your head at something, it's more worth it to look at Stonehenge.

Yeah, I know that it was found to actually be at the center of a major hub that only turned up recently, but the fact remains those multi-ton stones were apparently carted from VERY far away. Those stones are twice the weight of the pyramid blocks, which were made locally. Such a feat would make the pyramids look easy, even if they were built using tons of slaves bulldozing their way to completion ala The Ten Commandments.

Actually, this guy figured out how to do most of the stuff needed to build the stonehenge. And he was able to replicate a (small) part of it BY HIMSELF.

[vger]

Put the blocks on logs, roll on the logs. Done. Sure there's the issue of raising them and lowering them but moving them needn't be super-hard.

Yeah, but 300+ kilometers? Yowza. And the terrain of the English countryside isn't exactly friendly to that sort of thing.

[phoenix_ca]

Yeah, but 300+ kilometers? Yowza. And the terrain of the English countryside isn't exactly friendly to that sort of thing.

Sure, why not? If it's doable, some human is (or many humans are) gonna do it, even if it's pretty hard.

Even if that's too hard, it's a huuuuuuge leap to then say "Yup, some sort of super-advanced way more advanced than us human definitely did this"...not that you specifically said that but the way this thread has gone...I just...what...

[WinkAllKerb'']

yup weird but interesting with lot of foundation related thing to build something new i guess.

something like: million of swimming termit carried them there o i c else one in the team has a great idea but they all died due to a tsunami and the tools they used went away and the idea too

and/or/then someone else elsewhere find thoose tools or get the same idea or alike

EDIT: i lost my spaceship, yup it was just some kind of wave in time

Edited June 2, 2014 by WinkAllKerb''

[ecat]

If you really want to get an archeologist to mutter and scowl ask them how the stones at Baalbek were moved or how the stones at Secsayhuaman were cut.

let's just say that some things that were once known have been lost

The video I posted earlier, http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/81685-Do-you-believe-in-the-existence-of-highly-advanced-ancient-Earth-civilization-before?p=1189068&viewfull=1#post1189068 , covers Baalbek in some detail. I don't recall the name Secsayhuaman but looking at some images of the place I think the video has that one covered too - right near the start so easy to find iirc.

I want to sue you, you don't send a link to an very interesting three hour long movie to people who just came home late at night.

And yes it was interesting, mostly the giant blocks in Lebanon.

More interesting, why has the guy using the saw in the preview picture an much more detailed hair than the guy with the statue.

Perhaps the guy making the painting knew him.

I'm sorry , next time I'll post the link at an earlier time

It is a great video, well worth the time.

[Seret]

the terrain of the English countryside isn't exactly friendly to that sort of thing.

England's actually pretty flat, the Salisbury plain where Stonehenge especially so. Low rolling hills at the worst.

Tbh, I'd be surprised if they didn't move the stones by water as much as they could. From where the bluestones were quarried in Wales they could have brought them up across the Bristol channel and up the Avon. I can certainly see neolithic builders being able to move them by river at least, the sea might be stretching it a bit.

[magnemoe]

T

I'm sorry , next time I'll post the link at an earlier time

It is a great video, well worth the time.

it is, luckily I managed to get to work today

[NASAFanboy]

I think we first need to establish what is a civilization.

Ants have a civilization. They farm, they have an organized leadership structure, they have a means of communication, a army, they construct massive underground cities, they understand concepts of self sacrifice and revenge, and they use rudimentary objects from their enviroment as "tools". But do we consider them an civilization? No.

[Camacha]

Yes, we had ancient civilizations, as we know: Romans, Egyptians et cetera. To say that they got helped by external forces to do the things they did is merely a display of your own lack of imagination. People have proven to be amazing problem solvers and the fact that they did this a long time ago does not change a thing.

Somehow, the further back you go, the harder it is for people to believe the people back then were every bit as capable as the people are today. I guess they feel a bit intimidated that an old guy might be as smart, or smarter - just less knowledgable. And don't forget that we owe that knowlegde to other, older people too.

But do we consider them an civilization? No.

It might be a mistake.

[NASAFanboy]

Any more advanced civilization can be more advanced in the arts and culture, not really just technology. They could he very culturally advanced by technologically that doesn't exactly stand out amongst the times. Not every culture needs a spaceship.

[phoenix_ca]

Somehow, the further back you go, the harder it is for people to believe the people back then were every bit as capable as the people are today. I guess they feel a bit intimidated that an old guy might be as smart, or smarter - just less knowledgable.

Socrates. That guy started with reason and ended with truth all based on logic. Okay, he got a few things quite...wrong, but still, we still use his ideas.

[lajoswinkler]

Put the blocks on logs, roll on the logs. Done. Sure there's the issue of raising them and lowering them but moving them needn't be super-hard.

Also, this.

http://phys.org/news/2014-04-ancient-egyptians-pyramid-stones-sand.html

[Pawelk198604]

As a kid I was interested in unexplained mysteries such as the origin of the pyramids of Giza. When I was a kid I loved "Mysterious Cities of Gold" when I was a little older I switched to "Stargate" which I am a devout fan, I'd love to Stargate, returned to TV. Especially "Stargate: Atlantis" which were never proper end. What's the last TV series "Stargate: Universe" is objectively I have to admit that I did not like it, I'd prefer a few more seasons of "Atlantis"

[Seret]

I think we first need to establish what is a civilization.

Ants have a civilization. They farm, they have an organized leadership structure, they have a means of communication, a army, they construct massive underground cities, they understand concepts of self sacrifice and revenge, and they use rudimentary objects from their enviroment as "tools". But do we consider them an civilization? No.

I'm with you on the general idea. Some of the most common yardsticks of early civilisation are agriculture, communal living, and specialisation of labour; by those standards ants are indeed civilised. However I do disagree with some of your points: ants don't have a leadership structure, there are no ants that are in command of the others. It's also highly dubious they have any concept of sacrifice and revenge (they don't seem to have any awareness of individuality that would make sacrifice relevant). Tool use is also going a bit far IMO.

[NASAFanboy]

I'm with you on the general idea. Some of the most common yardsticks of early civilisation are agriculture, communal living, and specialisation of labour; by those standards ants are indeed civilised. However I do disagree with some of your points: ants don't have a leadership structure, there are no ants that are in command of the others. It's also highly dubious they have any concept of sacrifice and revenge (they don't seem to have any awareness of individuality that would make sacrifice relevant). Tool use is also going a bit far IMO.

They have a queen, who serves at the head of their command structure. Also, in battles between colonies, older and sick ants will sacrifice themselves to protect the younger ants and to wean down the enemy forces. Ants also, when attacked by ants from another colony, will wage war on that colony as a form of revenge. Ants also pick up small objects (particles of dirt and sand) with their jaw to help them get food.

[Kryten]

Ants have no command structure, everything is controlled by quorum sensing.

[Seret]

They have a queen, who serves at the head of their command structure.

Common misconception. The queens aren't in command of anything. Their only job is to produce eggs. Ants don't have a command structure, they're a superorganism. There aren't any individuals that are responsible for processing information and making decisions, no single ant is capable of that kind of thinking.

Also, in battles between colonies, older and sick ants will sacrifice themselves to protect the younger ants and to wean down the enemy forces. Ants also, when attacked by ants from another colony, will wage war on that colony as a form of revenge.

Sure, it's fine to describe their behaviour. But ascribing concepts like sacrifice and revenge to instinctive behaviour is anthropomorphising. The older sicker ants don't sacrifice themselves because they understand the concept of sacrifice, they do it because they're genetically programmed to. This in fact is the whole problem with trying to pin civilisation on ants, as pretty much by definition civilisation is the point where you're no longer behaving strictly on an instinctive subsistence level.

[KerbMav]

I'm with you on the general idea. Some of the most common yardsticks of early civilisation are agriculture, communal living, and specialisation of labour; by those standards ants are indeed civilised. However I do disagree with some of your points: ants don't have a leadership structure, there are no ants that are in command of the others. It's also highly dubious they have any concept of sacrifice and revenge (they don't seem to have any awareness of individuality that would make sacrifice relevant). Tool use is also going a bit far IMO.

Any more advanced civilization can be more advanced in the arts and culture, not really just technology. They could he very culturally advanced by technologically that doesn't exactly stand out amongst the times. Not every culture needs a spaceship.

It took quite some time for this thread to arrive at this question: Define advanced civilization.

I would need a new word to describe (more in a friendly mocking and definitely not in an aggressive way!) most of the posts in here, something along racism, sexism, speciesism ... culturism, civilizatism?

A lot of posters define an advanced civilization by it possessing/using: combustion engines, mobile phones, spacefaring technology, gold reserves, plastic and other artificial materials, electronics, and even the need for a command structure. Does this really constitute an advanced civilization? And would it really take millions of individuals to arrive at a higher stage of development?

What about knowledge (by observation and reasoning, omitting any form of superstition) of biology, agriculture, medicine, physics ... a society dedicated to cooperation and the well-being of everyone ... a culture not based on possession and hierarchy?

If they would have used wood/stone/bone tools like their neighbours, could we distinguish between tools used to work food or trinkets from those used for surgery?

If their intelligence did not express in art but in technology alone, how could we find any paintings or sculptures?

Would it not be possible for a mutated human off-shoot (human Vulcan-Elves), missing the aggressive tendencies of our species, to develop in a secluded area, thrive and grow - until their neighbours come to visit and devastate the whole clan? (No need for a volcano or something similar to lay waste to a small yet otherwise succesful population.)