The Atlantis Thread

James_H

And I like to roam the land
Joined
May 18, 2002
Messages
7,428
Likes
5,550
Points
309
#91
I don't know that it is, but then again there's no evidence that it isn't. So it seems a bit pointless to go on about.
 

Jack_Ramirez

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
89
Likes
1
Points
37
#92
there is not one shred of evidence that atlantis ever existed - as some posters have said above

maybe in 9000 years time people will be looking for evidence of narnia and it's talking animals, and ruritainia and it's political intrigues :roll:
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2003
Messages
15
Likes
0
Points
32
#93
Not sure if this is the right thread, but my brains been fried just trying to log on!

Tsunami clue to 'Atlantis' found
A submerged island that could be the source of the Atlantis myth was hit by a large earthquake and tsunami 12,000 years ago, a geologist has discovered.
Spartel Island now lies 60m under the sea in the Straits of Gibraltar, but some think it once lay above water.

The finding adds weight to a hypothesis that the island could have inspired the legend recounted by the philosopher Plato more than 2,000 years ago.

Evidence comes from a seafloor survey published in the journal Geology.

Marc-André Gutscher of the University of Western Brittany in Plouzané, France, found a coarse-grained sedimentary deposit that is 50-120cm thick and could have been left behind after a tsunami.

Shaken sediments

Dr Gutscher said that the destruction described by Plato is consistent with a great earthquake and tsunami similar to the one that devastated the city of Lisbon in Portugal in 1755, generating waves with heights of up to 10m.


The thick "turbidite" deposit results from sediments that have been shaken up by underwater geological upheavals.
It was found to date to around 12,000 years ago - roughly the age indicated by Plato for the destruction of Atlantis, Dr Gutscher reports in Geology.

Spartel Island, in the Gulf of Cadiz, was proposed as a candidate for the origin of the Atlantis legend in 2001 by French geologist Jacques Collina-Girard.

It is "in front of the Pillars of Hercules", or the Straits of Gibraltar, as Plato described. The philosopher said the fabled island civilisation had been destroyed in a single day and night, disappearing below the sea.

Sedimentary records reveal that events like the 1755 Lisbon earthquake occur every 1,500 to 2,000 years in the Gulf of Cadiz.

But the mapping of the island carried out by Dr Gutscher failed to turn up any manmade structures and also showed that the island was much smaller than previously believed.

This could make it less likely that the island was inhabited by a civilisation.






Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/s ... 153008.stm

Published: 2005/08/15 13:47:56 GMT

Sourcehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4153008.stm
 

Peripart

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,567
Likes
2,971
Points
244
#94
I just read "Atlantis" by David Gibbins. Yes, it's a work of fiction, and makes no claims otherwise, but makes some interesting speculations as to what/where Atlantis may have been, and why there aren't more stories about it. The author is an archaeologist and so presumably knows his stuff. In a way, I'd rather read a fairly entertaining thriller with a plausible semi-scientific basis than read another supposedly factual piece of claptrap writtan by someone who claims to have found incontrovertible proof that the Ark of the Covenant has been found up a tree in Wales guarded by the direct descendants of Noah, who have used the Freemasons to hide the whereabouts of etc etc.

Anyhow : "Atlantis", by David Gibbins, in all good bookshops now.
 

Heckler

The unspeakable mass
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
5,291
Likes
2,165
Points
219
#95
Peripart said:
than read another supposedly factual piece of claptrap writtan by someone who claims to have found incontrovertible proof that the Ark of the Covenant has been found up a tree in Wales guarded by the direct descendants of Noah, who have used the Freemasons to hide the whereabouts of etc etc..
*Heckler glances nervously at synopsis of proposed new book and curses beneath his breath*

How did you know?
 

tattooted

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 10, 2002
Messages
167
Likes
6
Points
49
#96
I don't see what the fuss about Atlantis is at all: it's clearly an allegory, of the sort Plato uses all the time...So it seems a bit pointless to go on about.
Atlantis may well be an allegory, or a metaphor, but the meaning has changed since Platio's time. For those of us who don't have the financial wherewithal to organize a physical search, the quest to locate Atlantis is more about the investigation of "lost" cultures/places. Every distinct population group in the world has a at least one myth telling their specific version of this loss.

When you compare these myths, there are a lot of similar details, which leads the fortean in anyone to ask, could there have been a real-world event that these stories refer to? And if even one of these myths could be proven to refer to a specific real-world event (say Dogger Bank for example), then isn't it entirely possible that other lost cultures/places myths were based on real-life events/places as well?

Throw in the enticing idea that some of these lost cultures might have achieved a level of technology that wasn't supposed to have been possible at the time of their existence, then add the even more remote possiblity that some of these lost cultures/places existed at a time when no organized cultures were thought to exist. Who could resist the fortean allure?

In defense of the reality of Atlantis, I seem to remember reading that when describing its physical location and details, Plato was only quoting from another book, a travel guide maybe?, written by an Egyptian before Plato's lifetime.

My absolute favorite Atlantis theory is the one posited in the book When the Sky Fell: In Search of Atlantis. amazon link
The book links the disappearance of the fabled Atlantis with the theory of earth's crust displacement, and uses the latter, plus ancient sea maps, to show how Antartica is really lost Atlantis.

My mind boggled for days.
 

OldTimeRadio

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,525
Likes
136
Points
114
#97
there is not one shred of evidence that atlantis ever existed - as some posters have said above
If you mean that there was no one discrete island or "continent" which has come down to us under the name "Atlantis" you are almost without doubt absolutely correct.

But since the year 2000 evidence has been accumlulating on an almost monthly basis that there may very well have been a sort of "Atlanean Age" (for want of a better word), "kingdoms between the ice ages," of which we moderns have lost almost all record, and which went under the sea at the end of the most recent ice age.

Now I am certainly NOT talking about some Flash Gordon-style civilization with glassite towers and space ships. What we are talking about, rather, seems to have been what we might very well call a sort of "hyper-neolithic" world perhaps comparable to the early (pre-Dynastic) Egyptians or even the very early Greeks.

Not yet proved, of course - but both the evidence and the investigation is getting more and more intereewting.
 

WondrWmn

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
21
Likes
0
Points
17
#98
Hello Everyone,

My take on Atlantis is that it's somewhere in the Atlantic.
But not to swtich topics...I think that Stonehenge is a representation of Atlantis and the reason I say this is because their are underwater ruins in Japan resembling the concentric outline of Stonehenge, which is also the supposed architecture of atlantis.

Take a look:



So, I feel that the theme of these concentric massive stones is based on perhaps an ancient design and that those who erected the stones are saying, "This is in memory of our ancestral home..." etc. But perhaps it was not called Atlantis at all.
But there are a lot of sunken islands. Check out the story of the island off the coast of India. It was massive. All that is left of it is SRI LANKA. I beleive it was called Kumari Kandam.

I am just saying there has got to be something to the Atlantis myth because it has survived for so long and there are more questions than answers.

WW
 

many_angled_one

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
413
Likes
8
Points
49
#99
I do think there probably was an "Atlantian" age where relatively advanced kingdoms and communities were starting to form due to agriculture, herding etc before the rising seas and floods sweapt it all away forcing them to rebuild elsewhere and abandon their civilizations. Numerous abandoned structures underwater could be testament to this fact.

Unless Atlantis was a floating Island I dont think there is no way it could be in the middle of the Atlantic, there is simply no way that I know of that an island could have formed there. The continental structure just dosnt support it. All there is is the mid atlantic ridge, a chain of underwater volano's but that would not have been able to support a stable island structure that would have supported life.

Still "beyond the pillars of hercules" does not mean that it was straight out into the Atlantic. Maybe they were talking about that direction as in the route to it by sea on a ship. Maybe it was something like you sail out past Gibralter on a boat and then turn north or south, where Atlantis was really located. That would still be "beyond the pillars of hercules" and a much more likely location than the mid-atlantic.
In Wales/England there was the legend of Lyonesse, another kingdom which succumed to the sea and sank beneath the waves. For all we know these legends may have had the same basic source. Perhaps "Atlantis" was located somewhere nearer to Ireland or the UK, which would make more sense from a continental landmass view.
What do people think of that idea?
 

OldTimeRadio

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,525
Likes
136
Points
114
many_angled_one said:
"I do think there probably was an "Atlantian" age where relatively advanced kingdoms and communities were starting to form due to agriculture, herding etc before the rising seas and floods sweapt it all away forcing them to rebuild elsewhere and abandon their civilizations. Numerous abandoned structures underwater could be testament to this fact."

Exactly. But may I point out that there is no really good reason to automatically assume that civilizations were merely "starting to form" at this point?

In fact, why do we assume that the Cro-Magnon cavern artists of 35,000 years ago were truly the high point of civilization at that period? Isn't it possible that the Cro-Magnons were simply a bunch of disgrunted "hippies" or communalists hiding out in caves because they rejected the values of the majority civilization?

I make the above statement with tongue firmly in cheek, but it's a point at least worth discussing.
 

many_angled_one

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
413
Likes
8
Points
49
Well, the archaeological evidence simply does not support the existance of any sort of widespread relatively advanced civilization 35,000 years ago. Some sort of evidence would have survived. No pottery, religeous idols, wheels, ornate metal weapons, well made stone architetcure and roads etc have come to light.

Of course thats if it was widespread, it if it was isolated in a very few places or something it could have easily slipped detected thus far, after so long there might not be any signs it was once there unless you dig deep.

I found this on a US university website about the last Ice age:
"Studying sea level changes in corals and organic materials from Vietnam and Barbados, scientists concluded that an influx of freshwater from the Antarctic 14,000 years ago increased sea levels by an average of 66 feet (20 meters) over 200 years"
Basically they think a huge ice sheet collapsed and meleted causing the currents to shift globally and temperatures to rise and the ice age to end about 10,000 years ago.

As far as I know Sumeria is the oldest properly advanced civilization from about 3100BC. Surely if the ice age ending and the huge flooding happened thousands of years before that there would have been some evidence of something before Sumeria if there had been civilizations destroyed by the flooding?

Still, there may be all that evidence and we just havent discovered it yet.
 

OldTimeRadio

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,525
Likes
136
Points
114
many_angled_one said:
"Well, the archaeological evidence simply does not support the existance of any sort of widespread relatively advanced civilization 35,000 years ago. Some sort of evidence would have survived."

WOULD IT? One of the longest-lasting artifacts of our own civilization is supposed to be the GLASS Coca-Cola bottle, which is estimated to have a life expectency (under optimum conditions) of about 8,000 years. But that's less than ONE-QUARTER of our 35,000 year period!

On the other hand, museum basements and private collections are full of "out of place artifacts" which seem to be both ancient and of unknown antiquity. Shouldn't they all be carefully re-examined now that we have reason to believe that there was at least SOME some sort of civiliization prior to 10,000 BC?

And:

"As far as I know Sumeria is the oldest properly advanced civilization from about 3100BC. Surely if the ice age ending and the huge flooding happened thousands of years before that there would have been some evidence of something before Sumeria if there had been civilizations destroyed by the flooding?"

It's really interesting that you use the example of Sumeria. The ancient Sumerian king-lists give a history dating back WELL beyond 35,000 years! Archaeologists and linguists specializing in the Mesopotamian-area have spent generations passing 'em around for laughs. So maybe it's time to actually STUDY the written evidence the Sumerians passed down to us....WITHOUT the smirks?
 

many_angled_one

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
413
Likes
8
Points
49
There are always artifacts that would easily survive 35,000 years in recognisable shape. Stonework, metalwork, pottery, cut gemstones etc. They could at least have found evidence of writing, mathematics etc on stonework, in cave paintings etc. But there is none of that antiquity. At least, that have been discovered as yet. Which of course does not rule out the *possibility* as lack of evidence for something does not necessarily rule out its existance. The mere fact that there are legends of a great flood all over the world lend credence to the fact there was probably some sort of civilizations then, and the stories of that time were passed down through the years.

Thats the thing, there ARE artifacts that come to light in odd places where there shouldnt be any, in rock/earth strata too old etc. This "Forbidden Archaeology" is fascinating. In general they just get laughed off or pigeonholed as anomalies and nothing else. They should be examined more thorougly and some kind of register kept of them so that we coudl see if there are any kidn fo trends or correlations. As it is they seem to be swept under the rug and fogotten.

As for the Sumerian King list it does tend itself towards being classified as a mix of some historical with some fantasy/mythology with kings reigning for sometimes thousands of years at a time. Of course that could just be exageration of previous kings turend into mythology, including some that claim to be before the flood. Which could have been exagerated from some kind of pre-flood oral history, we just dont know. The later list of kings gives a more "natural" length of their rule rather than hundreds or thousands of years.

see: http://www.jameswbell.com/a002kinglist.html
and: http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/sumking.html
 

OldTimeRadio

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,525
Likes
136
Points
114
many_angled_one said:
"There are always artifacts that would easily survive 35,000 years in recognisable shape."

You seem so absolutely certain of this. There are early mediaeval European inscriptions which are already difficult to read, not alone because of weathering, but also from the natural flow-rate of the stone; that is, the inscribed letters are closing of their own accord. How much do you think will be left to read in 35,000 years?

Some of the greatest cities of, say, 2000 BC are nothing more than featureless mud-flats today (and indeed for many centuries past) to other than the most trained, expert eyes. But how much could even those experts detect after a period eight and one half times that long?

No Coca-Cola bottles, that's for certain, and nothing else of that ilk.
 

many_angled_one

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
413
Likes
8
Points
49
mmm most of this is off topic but anyways...
I think its certainly possible there were pre-flood civilisations like Atlantis in existance - some things to think about:

I am sure that something of such a civilization would survive, because there are already artifacts of this kind of age in existance. Of course what shape they are in after so long would depend on location, climate, soil they are buried in etc. And as you point out, unless you happend to stumble across the site, during building works or something it would be unlikely you would recognise it as the site of an ancient city.

*goes net scavaging*

"Starting about 40,000 years ago with Homo sapiens sapiens, the archeological record evidences what can be termed a semiotic 'explosion,' a proliferation in human sign-making activities" (Givens 1978:161).
" . . . realistically carved animal and human forms appear in Germany's Vogelherd Cave (dating to 30,000 B.P.); as does the French figurine, the Venus of Laussel (dated to 22,000 B.P.). Such signs convey not only 'made by man' and 'man was here,' but rather more complicated messages: 'horse,' 'lion,' 'leopard,' 'bear,' 'bison,' 'mammoth,' 'human adult female,' and perhaps even such qualities as 'standing,' 'awake,' 'bowed head,' 'stretched neck,' and so on" (Givens 1982:161-62).

And I noticed this:
http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifa ... ambay.html
Indian neolithic settlements that have been dated from about 7,500BC.
-So history is gradually winding back towards Atlantis-era civilizations and increasing the apparent odds of it. It is certainly possible no doubt about it though humans were still relatively low in numbers to form a largish proper civilization/city I think.

Since Homo Sapiens is supposidly in existance from 300,000BC or so, and the primary migration to Eurasia of modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens then took place about 30,000BC (of course Neandertals were there long before) then if there was a civilization from 35,000 it would have been in Africa (assuming it was a homo sapiens sapiens and not a different now extinct/absorbed offshoot).

also:
Hibbeln (1998) pointed out that Palaeolithic nutrition was probably low in saturated fats and high in polyunsaturated fats (the reverse is true today). Therefore, our ancestors consumed more omega-3 fatty acids (arachidonic acid, docosahexaenoic acid) and these are the major determinants of synaptic membrane fluidity. Hibbeln proposed that the move from being vegetarian and scavenging for meat to eating fish (rich in these fatty acids) promoted the sudden burst in intellectual/technological/cultural achievement about 45,000-35,000 years ago. Prior to that our ancestors (who had larger brains) had achieved relatively little.

They speculate that humans achieved advanced intelligence about 45k-35k years ago due to either activing a critical mass of population causing competition and innovation, change in diet, or a gene becoming present for the first time in the human brain 35,000 years ago/brain structure change. All theory why of course.
 

Quake42

Warrior Princess
Joined
Feb 25, 2004
Messages
9,310
Likes
3,780
Points
219
I read a good book a few years ago called Lost Civilisations of the Stone Age by Richard Rudgely. The arguments were not strictly conventional but were not Graham Hancockesque either!

Rudgely's argument was not that there was a lost "golden age" as such but rather that history and prehistory is not linear and that not all "civilisation" originated in the Near East. He showed evidence that relatively advanced civilisations existed 1000s of years ago in places like Japan, the Americas and Northen and Eastern Europe, but that they had decayed over time due to wars, natural disasters, climate change etc. I found it all pretty convincing and much easier to swallow than the Atlantean vision.
 

Twin_Star

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 23, 2003
Messages
811
Likes
13
Points
49
From my understanding, migration out of the African continent began sometime as far back as 100,000BC.

Between 60-40,000BC, and in very broad terms, one group of peoples headed North into the Arabian peninsula, the other followed the Indian coastline as far as China, Japan and Australia.

The genetic evidence of this has been verified by the Hyderabad Centre for Cellular & Molecular Biology, who tested samples taken from the Andaman tribes, and discovered that their genetic make-up separated from the Indo-European geneline sometime between 100-50,000BC.

Studies of a cave system in peninsula India, specifically the Kurnool system, carbon dates awls, barbed arrowheads, spears and scrapers to the Late Pleistocene (about 50,000BC). This certainly demonstrates culture, if not high technology.

I think the "out of Africa" hypothesis still fits all of the evidence as and when it arrives. Also I like Geopaleontologistic terms such as "between 80 and 40,000 years ago". Like people sat around eating shellfish for 40,000 years. Wonderfully vague, and obviously possible to have quite a reasonable, solid cultural edifice within that sort of timeframe that is now utterly obliterated.

The Late Glacial Maxima (LGM) perios was marked by such severe alterations to the surface of the Earth (sea levels etc), that barring a miraculous "Rosetta stone" type civilisation emerging all we're really doing is making informed guesses.
 

WondrWmn

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
21
Likes
0
Points
17
It is highly improbable that evidence of an advanced civilization could survive for us to find it if we didn't dig deep enough because acataclysms have been commonplace on earth. The sea levels rise...the archaeological record is full of evidence of such catastrophies and recently a digsite of a workshop estimated to over 100,000 thousand years old was excavated. I believe that humankind was at the height of it's game over and over, over the course of millions, maybe billions of years, and everytime something big happened and we had to start from scratch. We have not explored the oceans thoroughly and everyday something new crops up to turn old theories upside down.
To say there were no advanced civilizations is to say that we are not capable of anything beyond sitting on the commuter rail listening to our ipods. No offense to anyone but it really annoys me when people try to dumb down humankind, saying we were/are incapable of this or that. I think we are more than capable and we were more than capable then and if we rid ourselves of the idiocy behind the theory that we are nothing more than hairless, upright apes then it'll be easier to see that we came from a vast, great empire of humans, with vast knowledge and potential and just like the tower of babel, everytime we got too smart, we got knocked down to size.
There is not only ONE sunken island out there...there are thousands. Atlantis is not the end all be all...Atlantis was just one of many because across the world, I guarantee you people were thriving, and trading and making their way and they were no different that we are today.
All we need is open-minded individuals exploring the seas, and making sure to it that whatever is found is giving a thorough investigation because not even the bimini road has gotten the proper investigation. And that's a shame.

WW-rambling as usual...but with passion.
 

OldTimeRadio

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,525
Likes
136
Points
114
_TMS_ said:
"....barring a miraculous 'Rosetta stone' type civilisation emerging all we're really doing is making informed guesses".
That's certainly true at present, but remember that the submarine archaeological discoveries in question - off Cuba, in the Mediterranean, off India, in the North Sea, in the Northern Pacific, among still others, have all been located within just the past five years.

So this is the barest beginnings of the search rather than the end.
 

OldTimeRadio

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,525
Likes
136
Points
114
WondrWmn said:
"Atlantis was just one of many...."

Exactly. That's why I normally speak of an "Atlantean Age" instead. But even that's something of a misnomer when we're speaking of putative prehistoric ruins off Okinawa or India.

P. S. Are you the same Wonder Woman who was previously active on the now-defunct Para-Normal.Com?
 

many_angled_one

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
413
Likes
8
Points
49
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4505516.stm

"Scientists have identified a major climate crisis that struck Africa about 70,000 years ago and which may have changed the course of human history.
"
Possibly the poke that made ancient humans utilise their larger brains more often in the struggle to survive and also the push that drove them to spread across the world.
 

Twin_Star

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 23, 2003
Messages
811
Likes
13
Points
49
Bear with me on this article. I read it a couple of weeks ago, and at the time thought there was something of interest to receommend it:

Why do men find big lips and little noses so sexy? I'll paint you a picture
SCIENCE NOTEBOOK BY TERENCE KEALEY

“SINCE THE DAYS of cave painting, art has only degenerated,” Miró said. Miró believed that by the Stone Age art had already evolved as a fully formed human instinct, since when it has not progressed. Different styles have emerged over the millennia, of course, and new tricks such as perspective learnt, but human beings paint instinctively because the deep structure of art is innate (as innate, indeed, as the deep structure of language that Noam Chomsky described). Darwin linked art to nakedness. On his travels in the tropics Darwin met many Stone Age tribes, and he noted that they all painted, tattooed, pierced, clothed and decorated themselves. Closer to home, the Picts of Scotland were so named because their bodies were pictures. Because of the ubiquity of body art, Darwin proposed that we lost our hair to paint our bodies, and that only later had we transferred that skill to decorating cave walls.

Alfred Wallace, the co-discoverer of natural selection, did not concur. He agreed with Darwin that human nakedness has no survival value — a bare skin is vulnerable to cold and sun — but precisely because our nakedness is absurd, he argued that it proved the existence of God. Darwin was disappointed, writing in a catty footnote in Descent of Man that: “Mr Wallace believes ‘that some intelligent power has guided or determined the development of man’ and he considers the hairless condition of the skin as coming under this head.”

The scientific evidence supports Darwin. Most mammals possess only one species of louse, but we have three (scalp, pubic and body lice). Biologists have long reasoned that they evolved from a common ancestor when we lost our body hair and evolved three unique patches of hair. And the recent DNA dating work of Mark Stoneking and his colleagues at the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig shows that our three lice separated from each other about 70,000 years ago, which dates our body nakedness to then.
And the earliest known art, the stone ochre carvings and sea-shell necklaces from the Blombos Cave in South Africa, recently discovered by Christopher Henshilwood of the State University of New York, are also dated to 70,000 years ago, thus supporting Darwin’s hypothesis that art and nakedness co-evolved.

Art is not unique to human beings. From the peacock’s tail to the flowers in the fields, flora and fauna have for aeons used art to attract animals, generally for sex. The male bower birds of Australia even decorate their bowers with bunches of flowers to attract females, and Congo, a chimpanzee who lived in London Zoo in the 1950s, painted more than 200 works; Miró collected his paintings, one of which sold for £14,400 earlier this year. But about 70,000 years ago the artistic instinct seems suddenly to have exploded in humans, and we lost our bodily hair to paint and decorate ourselves in uniquely creative ways. Why? For sex of course; but for a specially human type of sex — intelligent sex.

We find intelligence sexy because it translates into wealth and power. Repeated surveys have shown that the more intelligent a person is, the better is that person’s health, wealth and social standing. And because intelligence is linked to wit and creativity, the person who decorates their body in the most creative, charming or amusing way is signalling their intelligence and thus their attractiveness.

This month Miriam Law Smith, of St Andrews University, showed that girls awash with oestrogen are sexy. The higher the levels of a girl’s oestrogen, the larger are her eyes, the fuller her lips and the smaller her nose. Men like that sort of thing, and because oestrogen also promotes fertility it is called an “honest” biological signal: it attracts men to women who are genuinely fertile. But Miriam Law Smith also found that women with low oestrogen who used make-up shrewdly could fool men into finding them as attractive as their more fertile sisters. Art and IQ, in short, are mightier than the hormone.

Art, artifice, artisan . . . it was the Romantic Movement that rescued art from the mundane, because for millennia we humans treated artists as commonplace or even deceiving. But the Romantics were right; we all possess to differing degrees an artistic instinct, but it is also a killer instinct — a lady-killer instinct.

Original article

70,000 year old body art? Separate development of human louse? That cave system in SA that showed signs of cultural relics -about 70,000 years old? Certainly some sort of Fortean hypothesis could start to be inferred. My money's still on the Toba eruption kick-starting this whole developmental imperative...

Lastly, the Pict people's name were coined by a Roman - from Picti - meaning to paint or decorate so only a B+ for the latin...
 

Mr_Eamcat2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
74
Likes
1
Points
22
Hmm......Atlantis, Antartica, Piri Reis, Crustal Displacement.

That's Mr Eamcat's view of Atlantean history.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hmmm...some dodgy assumptions in that article, about art at least. The writer doesn't seem to know the difference between 'art' and plumage, or even art and decoration. Particularly ignorant is the assertion that '...it was the Romantic Movement that rescued art from the mundane, because for millennia we humans treated artists as commonplace or even deceiving.' Er...right, presumably he's never heard of the Renaissance, Vasari or Michelangelo? And is it me, or is it not the case that Miro's chimp painted pictures because a human being stuck a brush in his hand and a canvas in front of it?

Nitpicking, perhaps, but it's hard to tell what the writer is actually talking about here, which makes me doubt whether he knows what he's talking about. In any case, hadn't Homo Ergaster/Erectus developed a hairless body as a result of the need to keep cool (or am I placing way too much faith in Walking with Caveman and that guy with the moustache)?

Oh - and re the Picts - typically for this area of history there is considerable controversy over the Latinate 'Picti' derivation for the unruly northerners. Some scholars point to this being a very secondhand account and a species of early Roman 'orientalism', used to play up the savage and outlandish aspects of the barbarians. - Caesar after all, had called the painted BRITONS (not Picts) Britanni, specifically linking this name to the practice of early body art. The Scottish annals are not much help (they called the Picts 'Cruithne' - see above :D ) . The theory now is that the name was derived from a native source, a claim strengthened by the existence of a continental Celtic tribe who called themselves The Pictones (especially significant in that there was no reported traiditon of body tatooing in continental Europe...)

Well, anyway, that's the academic fashion THIS season... It's not as if academic hypotheses are tatooed on or anything...
 

OldTimeRadio

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,525
Likes
136
Points
114
"In the 1940s the Chinese nationalist leader Chiang Kai-Shek, facing a twin threat from the invading Japanese and Mao Zedong's Communist rebels, sent thousands of tonnes of gold to the US for safekeeping, the court was told. Halksworth and Slamaj said they had been told the Chinese gold was used to 'create' Fort Knox, boosting the Depression-hit US economy."

The Depression was history by the 1940s and the US was in a period of War prosperity.
 

TinFinger

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
269
Likes
0
Points
32
heres my thoughts on atlantis(for what they are worth)

imho atlantis was a planet,its now an asteriod belt iirc between mars and juptier(thers enough material for a planet)
for me the atlaneans found there planet was doomed
(war beteen mars and atlantis?colisoin with so called 13th planet)
and decided to try to colonise earth,possibly it was them that wipes out the dinosours in advance?
it would seem in very ancient storys the moon wasnt in our skys so its possible that the moon was originally in orbit around atlantis but they used it as a transport device,this is why its now in its unusual orbit arount us.

also if i was being a bit paranoid the moon would make a perfect weapons platform as it always points outward,srtange aint it.

altough this is just my daydreaming while bored at work it would possibly make a cracking film and fits the facts as well as ive read

please find holes......
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,239
Likes
9,009
Points
284
TinFinger said:
imho atlantis was a planet,its now an asteriod belt iirc between mars and juptier(thers enough material for a planet)
Not so. Total mass of the asteroids is well below that of a planet.

it would seem in very ancient storys the moon wasnt in our skys so its possible that the moon was originally in orbit around atlantis but they used it as a transport device,this is why its now in its unusual orbit arount us.

also if i was being a bit paranoid the moon would make a perfect weapons platform as it always points outward,srtange aint it.
Many ancient stories may not mention the sun either - doesn't mean it wasn't there.

And the Moon always faces towards (or away from) Earth for well understood reasons to do with gravitational Tidal Capture.

altough this is just my daydreaming while bored at work it would possibly make a cracking film and fits the facts as well as ive read

please find holes......
Have done so! :D
 

TinFinger

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
269
Likes
0
Points
32
Not so. Total mass of the asteroids is well below that of a planet.

ok so alot of the mass was ejected during the catastrophic event probably ending up in jupiter/saturn/mars,would have thought an event that breaks up a planet would be pritty energetic
not withstanding its only a small leap of faith to beleve its possible due to the fact that there exsists a spot in orbit around our sun thats not occupied buy a planet but asteroids

And the Moon always faces towards (or away from) Earth for well understood reasons to do with gravitational Tidal Capture.

yes but its odd its the only moon in our solar system that dose this and also the only moon thats size aperars to be exactly the same size as the sun as seen from the planet.

Many ancient stories may not mention the sun either - doesn't mean it wasn't there.

yes but iirc there are stories that state they are from a time that is even before there was a moon in the sky
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,239
Likes
9,009
Points
284
TinFinger said:
And the Moon always faces towards (or away from) Earth for well understood reasons to do with gravitational Tidal Capture.

yes but its odd its the only moon in our solar system that dose this..
Wrong again. Almost all moons in the solar system face their primaries. (In fact, I'd have to do some research to find some that don't!)

..and also the only moon thats size aperars to be exactly the same size as the sun as seen from the planet.
This is actually a coincidence in time rather than anything else.
Because of the afore-mentioned tidal interactions (sorry to keep harping on about that!) the moon is slowly receding from the Earth. Once, it appeared bigger than the sun, and in the future it will appear smaller.
(These changes happen over thousands of years, so don't expect total eclipses to disappear in this generation!)
 

TinFinger

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
269
Likes
0
Points
32
ok so most moons face their primaries(learn something every day)
but its still the same size as the sun and has been for a very long time
 
Top