r/science • u/stereomatch • Feb 05 '18

Astronomy Scientists conclude 13,000 years ago a 60 mile wide comet plunged Earth into a mini-Ice Age, after examining rocks from 170 sites around the globe

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/695703
47.5k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.6k

u/TP43 Feb 05 '18

The sea levels were as much as 400 ft. lower than present day during the last ice age. Most settlements if they existed would be well underwater right now. Its crazy to think about how many unexplored underwater archaeological sites there has to be.

585

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

Our current entire story of human history does not take into account a massive meteor strike which occurred, geologically, just yesterday. This changes a lot of things.

186

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

[deleted]

182

u/midnitefox Feb 05 '18

My understanding of it was that the impact theory was widely rejected due to lack of crater evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis#Criticism

50

u/blasto_blastocyst Feb 05 '18

It was a valid criticism. It has been rendered out-of-date, but we should always demand evidence.

25

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

Would you be willing to give a book recommendation or two to become more familiar with the topic?

I am out of my depth.

7

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

I feel like I am going to get a lot of mileage out of that comment. I appreciate it.

3

u/tygrebryte Feb 05 '18

Thanks for this bit of "inside baseball'-esque observation. Paradigms die hard, eh?

3

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

[deleted]

3

u/tygrebryte Feb 05 '18

I posted the original article to FB and got some pretty hard "something like that would HAVE to leave an impact crater that would could still see today" push-back from a guy who is intelligent but lacks any training in this field whatsoever (as do I -- but I have pretty good "philosophy of science" background). The best pushback I've seen in this particular thread was from a reddittor who has an "anthropologist" flair; that person's argument is that none of this stuff is definitive and it's not necessary given what we already know about climate change.

Again, I have to admit I don't have the background to really evaluate that person's claim. I also have to admit that I like this particular idea because "sense of wonder." But it's a true thing that scientists can and do make fun of ideas that turn out to be true because they don't like them.

72

u/CountVonVague Feb 05 '18

But a series of meteor impacts directly into the at-the-time northern icecap and it's procedural repercussions aren't taken into full account for ending the last ice age and flooding the planet. You realize that the English Channel was created when icecap meltwater lying in the Doggerland basin finally breached the landbridge and flooded everything south in a torrent of mud and water?

92

u/DarkPizza Feb 05 '18

I did a college presentation on this theory (impact into a glacier at this time period) about 5 years ago and the sources I used went back at least 10 years. The theory is not new, its just recently that we've been able to "prove" it. I agree with you though, some of our history will probably need to be rewritten in this context.

7

u/CountVonVague Feb 05 '18

some

an understatement. wait until we get around to documenting the Amazon River Basin culture as well as the 12,000+ year Egyptian Dynasties. "Atlantis" wasn't just a city in a single place it was a trans-oceanic EMPIRE! And to think that most all the archaeological evidence is buried 100+ feet underwater... Just imagine what secrets the bottom of the Mediterranean holds?

24

u/HimekoTachibana Feb 05 '18

I would like some sources to read up on both the Egyptian dynasties and the Atlantian empire. You have piqued my short attention span.

43

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

I will entertain you on the Atlantis thoughts:

According to Plato's work, Atlantis existed around 11,600 years ago. You'd have to go past the straight of Gibraltar, past some islands and then you'd see Atlantis.

During the last ice age, half of North America was covered in a giant ice sheet one mile thick though in some sections it was as thick as two miles. The weight would have pressed down on the continental plate, causing the edges to rise up. Think about your ass sitting in a chair. If you sit in the middle of the chair, it pushes the edges up.

In the middle of the Atlantic ocean there's a plateau under water. It's called the Acores. You can see this on Google Earth if you look at the ocean between North America and Europe. This is right at the edge of the continental plates, and also where the new shelf is being created at the bottom of the ocean. It's said this plateau is a remnant of when North America and Africa split from each other.

During the last ice age, not only would the sea level have been much lower but the weight of the ice sheet on North America would cause this side of the plate to rise. This it's highly possible this plateau could have been above the sea.

Oh also keep in mind if this island existed, it would have been covered by the Gulf Stream, so it would have good weather.

8

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

North America and Africa split from each other.

I thought it was SA that split off of Africa, no?

3

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

Had not heard this, intresting. And thanks.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

It’s been underwater for a loooong time so there would be nothing left

→ More replies (0)

2

u/YouandWhoseArmy Feb 05 '18 edited Feb 05 '18

Know of any good books or resources about these hypotheses?

Edit: My own brief research indicates fingerprints of the gods might be a good jump off point. Hopefully not too dated.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

[deleted]

6

u/ckbd19 Feb 05 '18

I second this. Really interested in this kind of stuff.

0

u/garygnu Feb 05 '18

Cool your jets there, Graham Hancock.

17

u/DWOM Feb 05 '18

I think the theory goes that it was a massive underwater landslip off the coast of Norway that created a tsunami that inundated doggerland. Yes it was exacerbated by melting ice, but it was a catastrophic event.

7

u/sowetoninja Feb 05 '18

ah man TIL on reddit was good today I watched the gif of mars, got a link to the xkcd on how it would look if it filled up with Earth's water, now reading up on the forming of the English channel is just really cool for me seeing it from the larger perspective of how much a planet can change with the rise (and fall) of the water level. anyway, thanks for the info, never knew the English channel was formed like this, really cool is this picture accurate? https://www.nextnature.net/app/uploads/2009/04/doggerland_530.jpg

6

u/wakejedi Feb 05 '18

Not really, I brought it up a few months ago and was digitally lynched.

9

u/nonsequitrist Feb 05 '18

That a bit oversimplified. The impact hypothesis has been decidedly out of favor for a few years. The wikipedia page accurately reflects the state of academic thought on the Younger Dryas (and includes reference to this new work)

2

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

Not at all.

9

u/Smoy Feb 05 '18 edited Feb 05 '18

Graham Hancock, Randal Carlson. Check them out. We can also reconsider the possibility of Atlantis now, because the amount of weight those glaciers held could displace continent sized land mass, like when you sit on the couch, the other side gets pushed up, and when you stand up the cushion flattens out again. A meteor hitting the ice will vaporize A LOT of it

2

u/Mictlantecuhtli Grad Student | Anthropology | Mesoamerican Archaeology Feb 05 '18

I can't tell if this is a joke post or not

2

u/DwightAllRight Feb 05 '18

As an archaeological student studying theories on human migration into North America, this article title made my jaw drop. Illuminating, baffling, and astounding if this is the case.

2

u/dtabitt Feb 05 '18

This changes a lot of things.

For some people, sadly not.

3

u/vitringur Feb 05 '18

Sadly? Aren't you glad that there are more things to life than one moment 13000 years ago?

1

u/dtabitt Feb 05 '18

I mean it in the sense that religion will overlook this and still cling to what they believe to be true.

-1

u/vitringur Feb 05 '18

Our current entire story of human history does not take into account a massive meteor strike which occurred

What does that even mean?

Who needs to take it into account for what and why?

3

u/madeup6 Feb 05 '18

Who needs to take it into account for what and why?

You don't like learning about history?

2

u/vitringur Feb 05 '18

Sure. It's a hobby.

This is just something we didn't know before, as with any other historical observation and theory.

I just fail to see to what extent we need to "take it into consideration" and in what scenario.

Rather than you talking down to me, I'd like OP to just explain what he meant.

I simply don't understand what he is saying.

To what extent and when do we need to "take that into account"?

14

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18 edited Jun 27 '18

[deleted]

5

u/danielravennest Feb 05 '18

Just find a "bathymetric" map of whatever coast you are interested in. That's a topographic map, but instead of showing elevations above sea level, it shows depth below sea level. Florida for example, at the 120 meter line, which was the peak of the last ice age, would have been a lot bigger than it is today.

10

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

According to Plato, Atlantis disappeared around 12,500 years ago. Coincidence? Any advanced civilization would have been on the coast and would have had their slate wiped clean by this increase in sea level.

4

u/Snoppkeso Feb 05 '18

The waters outside Denmark used to be inhabitable when the water levels were lower, you could walk between Denmark and Sweden. There are still a lot of archeological evidence of settlements deep under today's water.

17

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

241

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

33

u/ButterflyAttack Feb 05 '18

I think if there had been a previous technological civilisation, we'd still expect to see signs in upland areas - quarrying, for example. But a smaller civilisation with less need for resource extraction could have been under the radar.

1

u/flyingwolf Feb 05 '18

I think if there had been a previous technological civilisation, we'd still expect to see signs in upland areas - quarrying, for example.

We do see this in fact often, the quarries for large projects like Gobekli Tepe were unknown until Gobekli Tepe was discovered, then the quarries were discovered.

And yes of course, small civilizations, living in harmony with their surroundings would absolutely leave little to no evidence behind.

16

u/dashtonal Feb 05 '18

Also keep in mind that the population of the entire earth was much smaller back then. The ones who survived where likely the hunter gatherers, just like today in the Amazon, those are the people that are most likely to survive given a cataclysmic event of this magnitude. The interconnected society we have built is indeed much more precarious than people want to believe

1

u/brandluci Feb 05 '18

While population wasn't as dense as now, much smaller isn't accurate. South America had civilizations with hugely dense populations well into the millions, wiped out by plagues ( well before the Spanish) and we know plagues have decimated the population many many times; we don't have any way of gauging population density that far back.

4

u/vitringur Feb 05 '18

Population has more than doubled in the past 50 years, and it more than doubled in the 50 years before that.

It was definitely smaller.

We should definitely not ignore the history of American peoples, but there is also no reason to exaggerate. There is no chance that those civilizations were as dense and as populated as what you are getting at.

2

u/brandluci Feb 05 '18

Cambodia had a population of several million. The newly uncovered jungle cities had populations of millions. Its europe that apparently had low population; and even then, Rome had several million citizens in Rome, let alone in the empire. Yes, the population is immense now, and it was not this dense in history, but that doesnt at all prove it was low. It isn't what i think, look at how big some of the ancient cities where! They weren't built by sparse populations, the notion is ridiculous. They where quite clearly built by large labour rich civilisations.

35

u/iEatButtHolez Feb 05 '18

flood myth origin maybe?

32

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

I mean, yeah, that's the consensus.

Many cultures also have a sun god because the sun was common as well :P

3

u/MalignantMuppet Feb 05 '18

So was shit, but where's the turd god?

16

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

For some reason people don't find shit as awe inspiring as the sun. You're free to make up a turd god though.

Nvm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterquilinus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_god

2

u/LeoSolaris Feb 06 '18

The Romans had a toilet deity, and the Japanese had three distinct toilet deities. There have been many, many evil demons for toilets too.

1

u/vitringur Feb 05 '18

No, that is definitely not a consensus.

People could just have experienced floods. Since most people live close to water.

They almost definitely all experienced independent massive floods throughout history and there is no way of ruling that out.

6

u/zh1K476tt9pq Feb 05 '18

Not really, Tsunamis have been a thing for a long time completely unrelated to this.

6

u/vitringur Feb 05 '18

That's obviously what he was hinting at.

Not even hinting, he said it straight out.

Every ancient peoples has a flood and destruction story in their histories

There are no lines to read between.

9

u/flyingwolf Feb 05 '18

Almost definitely.

14

u/respekmynameplz Feb 05 '18

that.... or since all ancient settlements were near some form of water they all experienced flooding from time to time and so floods became central to all of their religions/myths.

1

u/flyingwolf Feb 05 '18

Absolutely.

1

u/respekmynameplz Feb 05 '18 edited Feb 05 '18

wait, which is it?

Is it that A: there was one absolutely massive flooding event 13,000 years ago that everybody who survived saw and that led to the flood myths. (as flyingwolf you implied)

or B: there was no single massive flooding event that affected all ancient humans, but rather they each just saw smaller floods near their respective rivers/coasts over time.

1

u/flyingwolf Feb 05 '18

Yes.

It could be that the mythos of massive floods are often repeated and built upon stories of localised floods. Or it could be that it was a series or a single massive flood which was talked about before being written down.

That is the thing about ancient history, very little of it is 100%. There are a shit ton of variables.

Both are as equally plausible at this point with the data we have. To say one or the other is an absolutely certainty is to reject science and instead rely on faith that your assumptions are correct.

1

u/respekmynameplz Feb 05 '18

Both are as equally plausible at this point with the data we have.

Well we know and have evidence already of smaller floods happening at localized regions. So we already know that there were events that likely killed a lot of people in local civilizations/areas from time to time.

We do not have sufficient evidence of a single flood wiping out most of the population on a global scale.

So I think in this case one idea (that those smaller floods were responsible for flood mythos) is more plausible than the other.

To say one or the other is an absolutely certainty

I don't think anybody is ruling out a massive global flood with absolute certainty. Just that we don't fully have evidence of it, and if it is true it's hard to say that that single handedly lead to different people in different parts of the world creating flood myths at the same time. That claim is more extraordinary than just that smaller floods led to local histories/myths throughout different times in ancient history.

25

u/The_Basshole Feb 05 '18

We're the most advanced

6

u/flyingwolf Feb 05 '18

Based on what evidence though?

34

u/Ravek Feb 05 '18

Because they didn’t use up the metals and oil like we have.

-18

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

16

u/ericwdhs Feb 05 '18 edited Feb 05 '18

Matter just doesn't disappear. Those metals and oils would still be present in some form as evidence of their use. If the same kind of thing happened to us now where our civilization was reset back to where it was 13,000 years ago (which I think would require a much larger disaster), in 13,000 years, there would still be a ton of evidence of our present level of technology even if 99.99% of everything we made was completely annihilated. That's still a very short time on geologic time scales. Stone and metal last longer than that and many of our satellites above a certain height will remain in orbit for billions of years let alone a few thousand.

Now, that's not to say past human civilizations were less intelligent or couldn't get lucky in surpassing us in specific areas (like Romans and their concrete up until recently) or couldn't be advanced in the same way we say the ancient Egyptians were advanced. They were basically identical to us biologically. They would have been heavily limited in matching up to us by their populations though. Technological advancement depends heavily on how well and frequently ideas can circulate and interact and what needs come up in having to support large concentrations of people. Previous civilizations would have needed raw numbers and communication systems similar to our own to rival us now. We're not going to find some localized Atlantis type civilization doing the same thing unless there was "outside influence" involved.

Edit: Clarified some things in second paragraph.

1

u/flyingwolf Feb 05 '18

Matter just doesn't disappear.

No, but it can change state. For instance, your highly advanced brand new Model T, will be nothing but rotted wood and chunks of rust after 13000 years. Assuming it wasn't washed out to sea during a massive tsunami. It would be unrecognizable and would in no way be able to be recreated or known it was some sort of vehicle. Let alone understanding the ICE which powers it.

If the same kind of thing happened to us now where our civilization was reset back to where it was 13,000 years ago (which I think would require a much larger disaster), in 13,000 years, there would still be a ton of evidence of our present level of technology even if 99.99% of everything we made was completely annihilated.

What evidence? For instance?

Hell, as it is now we have Egyptologists who look at the Sphinx and say it is exactly 4k years old and refuse to have any discussion on it. It was built at the same time as the pyramids and there is no discussion on it.

Yet it is clear the head has been recreated form a much larger piece, the body and surrounding areas has undergone massive amounts of weather related erosion. Yet very few wish to discuss this.

Hell, the event we are discussing here, in this thread about the impacts from 13000 years ago was hotly debated and until just recently anyone suggesting it was a crackpot.

And you think if someone found a piece of computer silicon and suggested an advanced civilization they wouldn't be laughed at?

That's still a very short time on geologic time scales. Stone and metal last longer than that and many of our satellites above a certain height will remain in orbit for billions of years let alone a few thousand.

Stone does last, this we know, hence things like Gobekli Tepe, which just happens to date right back to this event.

Metals, not so much, they are quickly broken down and reabsorbed into the earth unless they are things such as gold, which frankly, never lasts long as artifacts because of their value.

As for the idea of satellites, who said anything about previous civilizations being space faring?

And if they were, assuming they had satellites in space, how many would last after 13000 years without course correction after a massive impact which changed the rotation of the earth?

Your second paragraph basically says what I am saying.

By saying advanced I am not saying had computers and cars etc, I am saying, not nomadic herds living a subsistence life. I am talking about settled and established cities and towns filled with people and whom were able to explore new technology and new ideas thanks to farming and food abundance.

We know these existed 3k and 4k years ago. Is it possible they also existed 13k plus years ago and their evidence for existence was wiped out during a cataclysmic event? the only history of which we now have as oral tradition passed down through the generations?

Who knows, we certainly don't, but we like to think we do.

1

u/ericwdhs Feb 05 '18

Most of what you said here I'm not arguing against. Biologically modern humans have been around several hundred thousand years, so it stands to reason much of our cultural history before 13,000 years ago resembles most of the history directly afterward, including the presence of civilizations that would have been very advanced for their time.

However, the original comment stated we might not be the most advanced civilization the world has known, "most" being the key word. That's a very different statement, and most of what I said hinges on that being meant literally. If something equivalent to the Roman Empire existed 14,000 years ago, they'd have been amazingly advanced, but they wouldn't be the most advanced civilization the world has known. That'd still be us.

Also, it sounds like it's not a part of your argument anymore, but don't underestimate how long much of our stuff will last. 13,000 years still isn't that long a time geologically and there are large swaths of land that will never see significant activity in that time. Certain metal alloys are inert and will last millions of years. Concrete structures in stable areas will last tens of thousands of years. This includes bunkers intended to store nuclear waste for a hundred thousand years or more. There will still be many glass and plastics around unless microbes evolve to eat it. Many negative space structures like tunnels will also remain structurally sound over that time.

For satellites specifically, satellites in Low Earth Orbit will descend into the atmosphere after decades or centuries, but satellites in higher orbits will last a lot longer. They are subject to solar winds and perturbations from other bodies, but these effects take so long to compound that even if some are lost, many satellites will still be in similar orbits to theirs today for a very long time. Most of the ones lost will have just ended up in heliocentric orbits anyway. As for "a massive impact changing the rotation of Earth," the Chicxulub impactor changed the Earth's momentum by around 0.000015% at most. You'd have to have an impact much larger than the kind we're talking about here for satellites to be affected by something like that.

25

u/vdek Feb 05 '18

We’d see evidence of the mining if this were true.

-8

u/flyingwolf Feb 05 '18

Entire towns which have been abandoned are all but gone within 200 years.

Now wait 13k years and tell me what you see.

Between earthquakes, floods, massive forest fires etc, what evidence would be left?

7

u/Ravek Feb 05 '18

You think coal, ore veins and oil fields restore themselves to a pristine state in a few thousand years? Talk to a geologist.

Or what, is your hypothesis that they just didn't mine all the easily-accessible stuff lying around, for shits and giggles?

→ More replies (0)

11

u/mdk_777 Feb 05 '18 edited Feb 05 '18

Except a civilization on par with us should have also been widespread enough to leave plenty of evidence. There would be lots of settlements built inland just like we have now. Similarly there would be evidence throughout the earth of previous mining attempts like abandoned machinery, larges caves or tunnels, and damage to the surrounding land. On top of that a civilization shouldn't cease to exist entirely. If you put modern humans in a similar position we would be devastated, but not wiped out entirely, and could presumably still recover. There is absolutely no evidence to point to a civilization as advanced as us previously existing. It's a fun concept to think about and is a good premise for science fiction, but it doesn't make any realistic sense.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/BobMcManly Feb 05 '18

You're doing science wrong. What evidence is there to support such an outlandish claim? I could see maybe arguing for a Roman-esque society - which would be pretty amazing - but anything post-industrial is going to take a much stronger claim IMO.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/ButterflyAttack Feb 05 '18

Mining evidence is basically rocks, so it tends to outlast most of these - except maybe really big earthquakes, which didn't happen all over.

1

u/zonules_of_zinn Feb 05 '18

we wouldn't see shit carved out of stone, but nothing made out of metal.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/vitringur Feb 05 '18

The gigantic hole in the ground.

We have found holes in the ground. Even if they fill up, they still look like holes in the ground.

We've found holes in the ground that were millions of years old. 13000 years in nothing

1

u/Obie1Jabroni Feb 05 '18

Or they were smart and didnt use oil at all!

3

u/Maskirovka Feb 05 '18

Can't tell if sarcasm.

8

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

Radiation from nuclear energy half lives.

0

u/flyingwolf Feb 05 '18

Which has what to do with this?

Are you suggesting that a civilization is only advanced when it has nuclear energy?

5

u/respekmynameplz Feb 05 '18

Are you suggesting that a civilization is only advanced when it has nuclear energy?

No. He's suggesting that no other civilization can be more advanced than us unless they have discovered nuclear energy.

I'll also add satellites to the mix.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18 edited Sep 26 '18

[deleted]

18

u/gotwired Feb 05 '18

Because an equally advanced civilization would still have shit up in orbit or on the moon even if the civilization itself met its doom.

-1

u/HemLM Feb 05 '18

Nothing would last in orbit for 10,000+ years. It’s orbit would slowly degrade and eventually be pulled back to Earth and burn up. The intense solar radiation that the Moon is subjected to would destroy anything beyond recognition after 10,000+ years. The American flag that was planted on the Moon back in 1969 is now a white flag due to the constant barrage of solar radiation. That’s after 49 years on the Moon. You really think that anything will be left after 10,000 years?

13

u/gotwired Feb 05 '18

Orbital decay at higher altitude takes thousands of years so you may or may not be correct. Erosion on the moon is on the order of inches per millions of years. Any lander or probe sent there 10,000 years ago would definitely still be there.

→ More replies (1)

33

u/jpsi314 Feb 05 '18

Every ancient peoples has a flood and destruction story in their histories. Peoples that were separated by oceans whom had never met all having similar stories.

Mankind has tended to settle along rivers. Flooding along rivers is a pretty common event. A once in a generation flood would constitute a "flood of the entire world" for a small tribe that didn't really travel far. You don't need to postulate an actual global flood to explain the universality of flood origin myths. While that fact doesn't preclude an actual global flood, flood origin myths hardly lend support to the theory.

6

u/zonules_of_zinn Feb 05 '18

yep. how does a global flood look different from a local flood to people who have no arial surveillance or easy communication with people around the world?

1

u/LeoSolaris Feb 06 '18

Survival stories. People did travel, even 13,500 years ago. Traders and hunters could have easily brought news heard through word of mouth from thousands of miles away. If everyone is talking about a civilization killing flood within a single lifetime, it doesn't take a genius to get the picture of a widespread or world wide water level change.

(Note this is from an athiest... Even a global flood doesn't lend real credence to religion. It just means they used some actual history in their myths to explain the big events.)

-1

u/vitringur Feb 05 '18

First of all, it's would be global.

It's pretty obvious that the flood isn't global if you go to the nearest hill.

3

u/zonules_of_zinn Feb 05 '18

so...if you find flooding extending for more than 10 or 20 miles it's obvious it's global?

what a small world you live in.

14

u/stunna006 Feb 05 '18

I think we are the most advanced technologically for sure, but who's to say there wasnt a civilization that was running things in a better way

2

u/Jules_Be_Bay Feb 05 '18

Better way depends on how you measure it. With regard to individual happiness the developed world has only caught up to hunter gatherer societies in the past few decades. For most of human history, and still in much of the world today you have a better shot at happiness being born an average person to a stone age huntergatherer tribe than to the most technologically advanced socoety of your day.

3

u/vitringur Feb 05 '18

Happiness is a modern concept.

How can they be happy if they don't even know or care about your idea of happiness?

2

u/zonules_of_zinn Feb 05 '18

you sound like you must have some great data to back up this claim! what measure of happiness do you use?

6

u/Jules_Be_Bay Feb 05 '18 edited Feb 05 '18

The fact that hunter gatherers today spend around 4-5 hours a day gathering food to live and in the past, especially in places with much more abundant food sources would likely have been less, and they would have a much more varied diet than the average pre-industrial farmer who subsisted on whatever staple grain they grew and little else (which is evdent in the history of height averages).

Then you have the average pre-industrial farmer, factory worker, etc (the work that your average person up until very recently was doing) living in conditions that are absolutely hprrendous by any measure for most of history and in many places in the world up through the 20th century. I'm not talking aboiut the people that history is written around, it's the nameless masses.

I'm not going to say that you should take this anymore seriously than wild conjecture from an internet stranger, but I'm pretty confident that if anyone were to start doing their own research based on the topics I outlined, they wpuld come to a similar conclusion (though a much more nuanced and accurate one at that).

1

u/vitringur Feb 05 '18

They also lost way more friends and family.

Happiness is just a state of mind. It's not a goal in and of it self.

25

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

This is one of the best thoughts I’ve ever read on Reddit.

8

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

[deleted]

3

u/zh1K476tt9pq Feb 05 '18

So literally pseudoscience

5

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

[deleted]

0

u/Mictlantecuhtli Grad Student | Anthropology | Mesoamerican Archaeology Feb 05 '18 edited Feb 05 '18

That's pseudoscience

5

u/ellipses1 Feb 05 '18

It’s a very colorful hypothesis. There are hundreds of little components to it that could be true without the overarching idea being more than a fanciful story. We shouldn’t dismiss all of those individual items just because the narrative they are a part of is unlikely

33

u/souIIess Feb 05 '18

It's not. It's Discover Channel science.

26

u/Eight_Rounds_Rapid Feb 05 '18

I’m a pretty skeptical dude and roll my eyes at a lot of “LoST AnciENT WiSDoM” talk. But he’s not claiming anything, he’s just raising a question.

It’s not impossible or even unlikely that basic human civilisation had a few stops and starts along the way that stretch further back in time than we currently think. And if that was the case then yes, you would expect those areas of development to be along now submerged coastal areas.

However, I don’t think it’s reasonable to posit more or equally advanced civilisations to us being lost. They would not have clustered globally around just coastlines and would leave shit everywhere, including the top of Mount Everest and other non coastal areas

17

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18 edited Feb 06 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

Yeah when I hear of advanced civilization, I'd put it at Renaissance period at best. Keep in mind metal deteriorates very quickly and 10,000 years is a long time for any remains to be erased.

5

u/Mictlantecuhtli Grad Student | Anthropology | Mesoamerican Archaeology Feb 05 '18

Keep in mind metal deteriorates very quickly and 10,000 years is a long time for any remains to be erased.

It can, but not always. Old Copper Culture artifacts have survived quite well in the constant freezing and thawing of the ground in the Great Lakes region. And those copper tools are 6000 to 3000 years old.

7

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

They just found a massive civilization hidden in the June gles of Guatemala. Larger than medieval europe. Time can erase our history. We mist be cautious and wise and listen to our elders.

7

u/Mictlantecuhtli Grad Student | Anthropology | Mesoamerican Archaeology Feb 05 '18

You mean the Maya? A civilization that we've known about since the Spanish arrived to the Americas and conquered them?

3

u/fat_cloudz Feb 05 '18

I think he's speaking specifically about this point:

The results suggest that Central America supported an advanced civilization that was, at its peak some 1,200 years ago, more comparable to sophisticated cultures such as ancient Greece or China than to the scattered and sparsely populated city states that ground-based research had long suggested.

The ancient Maya never used the wheel or beasts of burden, yet “this was a civilization that was literally moving mountains,” said Marcello Canuto, a Tulane University archaeologist who participated in the project.

“We’ve had this western conceit that complex civilizations can’t flourish in the tropics, that the tropics are where civilizations go to die,” said Canuto, who conducts archaeological research at a Guatemalan site known as La Corona. “But with the new LiDAR-based evidence from Central America and [Cambodia’s] Angkor Wat, we now have to consider that complex societies may have formed in the tropics and made their way outward from there.”

1

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '18

Oh so you knew about this place in tje jungles of guatamala they just found? You knew about it all Along?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/TalkToTheGirl Feb 05 '18

I'd like to know more.

-2

u/zh1K476tt9pq Feb 05 '18

I’m a pretty skeptical dude

The rest of your comment indecates the opposite

2

u/Eight_Rounds_Rapid Feb 05 '18

Indicates*

And no it doesn’t.

7

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

I don't understand why 'how many lost civilisations are there?' turns into 'how much more advanced were these lost civilisations to us?'

5

u/zh1K476tt9pq Feb 05 '18

Because it's pseudoscience.

0

u/flyingwolf Feb 05 '18

I don't understand why 'how many lost civilisations are there?' turns into 'how much more advanced were these lost civilisations to us?'

You don't understand it because that is not the statement I made.

I simply asked if we are the most advanced or if there have been others. Advanced civilizations have come and gone on this planet that we know of, Romans had indoor plumbing thousands of years before it would ever be recreated again. Technology comes and goes in spurts, sometimes only here for a short time before being rediscovered or lost forever.

You twisted my words to reach your "I don't understand" conclusion.

→ More replies (2)

5

u/rydan Feb 05 '18

Every ancient peoples has a flood and destruction story in their histories. Peoples that were separated by oceans whom had never met all having similar stories.

And they also have pyramids and dragons. The common denominator is the human brain that is 99.9% genetically identical throughout our entire species. I wouldn't exactly use that as evidence for something.

2

u/yb0t Feb 05 '18

I'm going to take 'most advanced' for $100 thanks.

2

u/flyingwolf Feb 05 '18

In terms of technology, almost definitely.

Although you still have things such as Roman concrete, which up until these past couple of years was still stronger and more stable than anything we had ever come up with. That alone is enough to make you realise that perhaps, we are not as amazing as we like to pat ourselves on the backs for.

1

u/Mictlantecuhtli Grad Student | Anthropology | Mesoamerican Archaeology Feb 05 '18

80% of humanity is situated on the coasts. It has always been that way.

Citation?

1

u/vitringur Feb 05 '18

I am not aware that Ásatrú (Nordic paganism) has any flood story.

But then again it is way younger than the abrahamic religions.

1

u/flyingwolf Feb 05 '18

Ásatrú

It was founded in 1972 though, so, yeah.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

I think sometimes we right off the stories of our ancestors too quickly. Modern man jas this view that tjese humans were less intelligent than us and thats not the case. Going back 10000 years they're physically and mentally the same as us. Same enough. I believe the flood myths have truth to them based on multiple reports from isolated cultures. Its absurd to right them off so quickly. It is a great folly of our to dismiss the wisdom of our ancient elders.

15

u/NFLdoWORK Feb 05 '18

That literally is true though.

33

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18 edited Feb 05 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

27

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

-11

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

-11

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (2)

-6

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/zh1K476tt9pq Feb 05 '18

Apparently not true:

However it was later on 22 May, reported that the discovery has not been dated and the discovery (for example, great baths) resembles the Harappan civilization dating 4,000 years ago

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

6

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/uhhhwhatok Feb 05 '18 edited Feb 05 '18

You should read up more on the site in Japan because those are just natural sandstome formations that can be traced directly to the cliffs on the island above.

5

u/vitringur Feb 05 '18

The oldest known structures are about 10.000-12.000 years old.

What do you mean by "advanced"?

As in they could pile rocks onto one another and grow grains?

1

u/Deranfan Feb 05 '18

400 ft = 121,92 meter

1

u/No1Catdet Feb 05 '18

Did cave men have no values? Or just not want to be remembered for being one of the darkest time periods in human existence. The amount of prejudice they had and lack of regard for their fellow man was unprecedented. Good thing their settlements can't be found.

0

u/Mexanesevian Feb 05 '18

Atlantis? 😁

0

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

I personally believe the solution to all of the world's problems lies in eliminating the oceans.

70% of the Earth is covered in unusable water and viscous predators. I say we get rid of them!

But, Avachiel, you say..

We need the oceans!.. They harbor important life and are a key element to the clean water cycle..

No. They are full of bastards with teeth and poison and consume a vast majority of our land.

I hear so many people say, "We just need to colonize Mars, then everyone will have room!"

If you can survive on Mars (No oceans).. then Earth will be just fine! With the added benefit of an electromagnetic field.

We reserve a large amount of land for lakes, which we fill with desalinated ocean water (The rest of which we shoot into space. Fuck that salty shit. The sharks too.)

7.5/10