• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Silurian Hypothesis: How To Detect Any Pre-Human Civilisation?

That's a valid point, though it depends upon how widely or narrowly one defines the notion of 'civilization'.

In the context of the Silurian Hypothesis, it should be borne in mind that the authors who coined the phrase were specifically addressing industrial civilizations.

Fair enough. But I would say the discovery of a pre-human civilisation that *only* got to the level of Ancient Greece or Rome, say, would still be the most amazing paleontological discovery ever.

Agriculture, cities and writing are the three classic markers of civilisation. But even a pre-human species that reached Stone Age levels of technology would be pretty mind-blowing.
 
..But even a pre-human species that reached Stone Age levels of technology would be pretty mind-blowing...

Indeed. But it would require an explanation of how it disappeared completely and did so before the proto humans appeared. If this pre human race existed one has to ask why, when it disappeared, the proto humans didn't disappear at the same time; assuming a catastrophic occurrence wiped them out.

INT21
 
Fair enough. But I would say the discovery of a pre-human civilisation that *only* got to the level of Ancient Greece or Rome, say, would still be the most amazing paleontological discovery ever.

Agriculture, cities and writing are the three classic markers of civilisation. But even a pre-human species that reached Stone Age levels of technology would be pretty mind-blowing.

Agreed ... Any demonstrable proof of pre-human human-style technologies or social innovations - at any level of relative sophistication surpassing what we concede among current animals - would be 'huge'.

The specific context of the Silurian Hypothesis arose out of discussions about detecting advanced civilizations 'out there' / 'elsewhere' (in the universe).

Now that this side-discussion of past 'civilizations' here on earth has emerged, one might well claim it needn't be limited to possible specimens capable of being detected light years away.
 
..But even a pre-human species that reached Stone Age levels of technology would be pretty mind-blowing...

Indeed. But it would require an explanation of how it disappeared completely and did so before the proto humans appeared. If this pre human race existed one has to ask why, when it disappeared, the proto humans didn't disappear at the same time; assuming a catastrophic occurrence wiped them out.

INT21

Natural disaster, plague, climate change... who knows. Perhaps the hypothetical civilisation existed only in a very smalll geographical location.
 
If there was an earlier civilisation hundreds of thousands of years ago, all traces would be wiped out completely. During the ice age, a lot of stuff was ground to dust under the glaciers. If any trace remains at all, it's probably buried deep down in the ice in Greenland or Antarctica.
There's been a lot of wild speculation all over Youtube and elsewhere about all the world leaders (incuding the Pope) who have visited Antarctica, saying that something significant has been found...although there is no further information about what it is. It's annoying that nothing real has come out. Just speculation and mad ideas.
 
Mythopoeika,

..If any trace remains at all, it's probably buried deep down in the ice in Greenland or Antarctica..

Isn't it likely that any pre human civilisation would have started out in a similar region (Africa) that the first humans did ? Hence the total wipe out by the ice age would be somewhat mitigated.
Antarctica is a pretty intimidating place for modern man with all his advanced technology. One might suppose that for a pre ice age creature with only limited means it would have been pretty much out of reach even then.

INT21
 
Alcopwn,

...From an archaeological perspective, it would be very hard to detect traces of such a civilization. For example, when we look at the evidence that modern structures leave when left un-maintained, they decay at an alarmingly fast rate...

An advanced civilisation of any kind would be likely, in my opinion, to do a lot of tunneling if they perceived a major climatic crisis looming. Going underground gives a lot of protection from the weather etc.

So maybe the best place to look is inside mountains.

Don't forget that in Australia the opal miners built Coober Pedy to combat the heat.

INT21.
 
Mythopoeika,

..If any trace remains at all, it's probably buried deep down in the ice in Greenland or Antarctica..

Isn't it likely that any pre human civilisation would have started out in a similar region (Africa) that the first humans did ? Hence the total wipe out by the ice age would be somewhat mitigated.
Antarctica is a pretty intimidating place for modern man with all his advanced technology. One might suppose that for a pre ice age creature with only limited means it would have been pretty much out of reach even then.

INT21
Antarctica was a lot further North than it is now. Over time, it drifted South. It may have originally been attached to one of the other continents, such as Australia - and it would have been in a much warmer zone.
 
Thing is, we are talking Eons here. Not just milenia.

I'm trying to envisage this race of beings and where it fits with the dinosaurs etc.

INT21
 
Thing is, we are talking Eons here. Not just milenia.

I'm trying to envisage this race of beings and where it fits with the dinosaurs etc.

INT21

There’s been some speculative thought pieces about some of the more birdlike dinosaurs such as troodons developing higher intelligence... and having the hand-like claws that could allow them to manipulate their environment.

http://strangehorizons.com/non-fiction/articles/was-there-ever-a-dinosaur-civilization/

It’s all pretty unlikely. But it’s fun to speculate.
 
It’s all pretty unlikely. But it’s fun to speculate.

I don't think it sounds that unlikely. A couple of hundred million years to evolve could have led the dinosaurs down some very strange avenues. I agree it's a lot of fun to speculate though.
 
Quake42,

Wouldn't that come under evolution ? Not quite industrialised civilisations .

Jimv1,

Nothing to do with the Bible. Just trying to get an idea of the time line. The suggestion seems to be that a relatively advanced civilisation may have existed before even proto man did. If so where did it fit in with the dinosaurs, ice ages etc.

INT21
 
It's worth noting that the main point of the Silurian Hypothesis wasn't about evidence of civilisation in the sense of finding artefacts and ruins, but whether there would be any impact on the Earth itself - on the atmosphere, and so on.

The purpose of the paper wasn't to look at whether there was a precursor civilisation, but to use that as a thought experiment from which to look at our own lasting impact - i.e., if we continue to burn fossil fuels, dump rubbish in the ocean, and everything else we're doing, how long after we're gone will it be before there's no longer any sign of our activities?

On the link of "science can't explain" stories that @Schrodinger's Zebra posted on the previous page, I have to immediately cast doubt on the veracity of pretty much every claim on there, based on the fact that it starts off with Puma Punku, and making the same tired arguments about that place that have been debunked a hundred times over.

That gets into my pseudoscience bugbear; the story is always more exciting than the truth, and a mystery is more exciting than a mundane explanation that involves an awful lot scouring through history books and science papers, so the stories of "WE DON'T KNOW HOW THEY BUILT THIS!" persist for decades longer than they should, because they resonate with the general public far more than the dry, dull reality.
 
...It's worth noting that the main point of the Silurian Hypothesis wasn't about evidence of civilisation in the sense of finding artefacts and ruins, but whether there would be any impact on the Earth itself - on the atmosphere, and so on...

If you find no evidence for a hypothetical race, why should you believe it ever existed ?

From this it is a fairly safe assumption that the hypothetical race had no impact on the Earth's ecosystem.

Anyway, how are you all defining 'civilisation' in this context.

INT21
 
Antarctica was a lot further North than it is now. Over time, it drifted South. It may have originally been attached to one of the other continents, such as Australia - and it would have been in a much warmer zone.
This, I think, would at least partly explain the lack of artifacts, at least for the more ancient periods. I am referring to plate tectonics. But I am also aware that it is a double-edged argument, because without physical evidence, there is no basis for believing they existed in the first place.

My hunch--and that is all it is, a hunch--is that there very well could have been such a civilization in the remote past, but I also freely admit that I cannot back it up.
 
Proof of a past and much warmer Antarctica "pre Triassic". It also warmed up a bit later in time not but to this degree.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/11/ancient-fossil-forest-found-antarctica-gondwana-spd/
Antarctica was attached to South America, Africa, India and Australia when all the continents were closer together. It drifted away, with it last being attached to South America and Australia. Or so it is thought.
If you look at the shapes of both Antarctica and Australia, they fit together.
 
Antarctica was attached to South America, Africa, India and Australia when all the continents were closer together. It drifted away, with it last being attached to South America and Australia. Or so it is thought.
If you look at the shapes of both Antarctica and Australia, they fit together.

Gondwana was a supercontinent that existed from the Neoproterozoic (about 550 million years ago) until the Carboniferous (about 320 million years ago). Point being the place had a warm and temperate climate regardless of where it was geologically located.
 
Gondwana was a supercontinent that existed from the Neoproterozoic (about 550 million years ago) until the Carboniferous (about 320 million years ago). Point being the place had a warm and temperate climate regardless of where it was geologically located.

Yep ... Given the overwhelming evidence and cross-correlations indicating the viability of the plate tectonics phenomenon and the history of the current continents' formation, movements, etc., IMHO there's little leverage on the pre-human civilizations issue to be obtained from tracking the continents. I believe we should focus on tracking the species.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim
...It's worth noting that the main point of the Silurian Hypothesis wasn't about evidence of civilisation in the sense of finding artefacts and ruins, but whether there would be any impact on the Earth itself - on the atmosphere, and so on...

If you find no evidence for a hypothetical race, why should you believe it ever existed ?

From this it is a fairly safe assumption that the hypothetical race had no impact on the Earth's ecosystem.

Anyway, how are you all defining 'civilisation' in this context.

INT21

Again, the hypothesis isn't that there was a previous civilisation - the paper is asking the question that if there was an industrial civilisation in the Earth's distant past, what effect would it have geologically, or on the atmosphere, and so on. It's not about looking for ruins and artefacts, it's raising the question as to what impact our civilisation will have after a similar stretch of time.
 
I think the authors of the article are correct in focusing on concentrated, deliberate power generation / energy exploitation as the most likely evidence of industrial activity (in human terms).

The most likely starting point for such energy exploitation would be combustion of organic materials, because other energy options (e.g., geothermal, solar) require some measure of technological prowess to exploit on an 'industrial' scale.

Evidence of widespread wildfires is known from the geological record, but such wildfires could be transient natural occurrences.

The most suggestive evidence would be traces of prolonged combustion / burning in a single place over an extended period of time. Such traces may be evidence of the combustion / burning itself, or the residues therefrom (e.g., slag or ash heaps).

The problem lies in the notion that such energy exploitation had to have been concentrated in one or more specific locations. This means the evidence would be localized and hence easily missed if one weren't digging in the specific location where such concentrated activity had been performed.
 
Back
Top