• 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?

I think there were civilisations before us. Then something wiped them out and they had to start all over again.

...or...

I've often-times pondered whether the ancient cave paintings etc. that purport to show UFOs are not showing aliens arriving, but rather showing the advanced civilisation's arrival on Earth from another planet, e.g. Mars. :nods:
And then they had to build stuff from scratch cos there was nothing here.

I do some deep thinking at times.
 
Jim said:
The science is with the fact that man was at a higher stage of advancement then previously thought at a earlier date.
Examples being: Göbekli Tepe, the sphinx (forget about Zahi Hawass) and the recent report of finding in Siberia.
Click to expand...

Yes, that!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Jim
Something else that would last from a previous civilization, even over geological eras, is pottery, or more generally any ceramic artefacts, even broken they'd last if buried in sand or mud that eventually became sedimentary rock. Glass would last as well, though it would change in appearance over the eons. Translucent coke bottles buried in sandstone might be the only evidence that whatever succeeds us in a few 10 of millions of years finds of our civilization.
Of course the chances of finding them would be minute...
 
Timble2 said:
Something else that would last from a previous civilization, even over geological eras, is pottery, or more generally any ceramic artefacts, even broken they'd last if buried in sand or mud that eventually became sedimentary rock. Glass would last as well, though it would change in appearance over the eons. Translucent coke bottles buried in sandstone might be the only evidence that whatever succeeds us in a few 10 of millions of years finds of our civilization.
Of course the chances of finding them would be minute...
Click to expand...

Yes but building made of rock (indicating Architectural), objects made of metal (indicating metallurgical skills), as mentioned ceramic objects (indicating the need for permanent implements) may last for eon's. My guess would be that if mankind went extinct (say due to: chemicals, germs, pollution, environmental causes, etc. the results of our technology would be around for a very long time.
As for other types of intelligence while even today chimpanzees, dogs and dolphins display an intelligence of sorts. Why even crocodiles exhibit learned behaviors. However this is not to be be confused with mankind's level of intelligence. I dought if any animals on the planet now or likely then will be solving for integrals or derivatives any time soon.
:atom:
 
I think there'll be trace fossils of plastic bags in rocks from marine sediments in the future, so if anything had passed this way in the past we'd have found theirs.

I wanted to make a remark about the litter battling figure from a 70's Keep Britain Tidy advert might be a survivor from the early civiistation, hence the explanation as to why we hadn't. But I realised I was thinking of the Green Croos Code guy, who didn't have time to worry about litter. So that's buggered that up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim
There was a little Keep Britain Tidy figure, as seen from the charity's PIF:

There was also a kangaroo cartoon, but he didn't catch on.
 
The number of fossils which have survived millions of years *and* been discovered by us is a tiny fraction of the life on Earth at that point. I think it is theoretically quite credible that a civilisation of sorts could have existed milions of years ago and left little or no physical evidence that we have yet discovered.

For example, an intelligent dinosaur species that reached Stone Age levels of technological sophistication would be unlikely to have left much evidence of its development.
 
Just a small point, but the discussion so far seems to focus exclusively on vestiges, impacts and by-products--unintentional traces, but would not a community sufficiently advanced to warrant the title of civilisation be concerned, at least to some degree, with deliberately ensuring that traces of its existence survived? And doubly so if it were advancded enough to receive/detect prior signals of its impending extinction?

As so much time has been spent comparing the civilisations we do have knowledge of with this putative one we don't, ask yourself whether we ourselves would wish and be able to leave clear signs of our existence and nature, confident that they would survive into the far-flung future.

I rather fancy that we would.

Edit: my point is why depend upon the geological record alone?
 
Last edited:
Yithian said:
... Edit: my point is why depend upon the geological record alone?
Click to expand...

Yith:

You confused me with this edit. Are you subsuming possible paleontological and archeological evidence within your 'geological record'?
 
EnolaGaia said:
Yith:

You confused me with this edit. Are you subsuming possible paleontological and archeological evidence within your 'geological record'?
Click to expand...

In truth I only used 'geological' as that features in the article's headline. I could have asked "Surely there would be more indication of an ancient civilisation that just fossils and twisted junk and its environmrntal footprint? I wouldn't be surprised to see indisputable evidence of not only existence but also intelligence.
 
Mankind went from zero heavier-than-air flight to launching its first orbiting satellite in just under 54 years:

Wright Flyer.

Sputnik-1.

Why should the Silurians have been less capable?

I'm betting that within the next 50 years we discover a huge carved statue of a Gorn-type creature in Earth orbit:

gorn-captain-star-trek-the-original-series-28.7.jpg


maximus otter
 
Yithian said:
In truth I only used 'geological' as that features in the article's headline. I could have asked "Surely there would be more indication of an ancient civilisation that just fossils and twisted junk and its environmrntal footprint? I wouldn't be surprised to see indisputable evidence of not only existence but also intelligence.
Click to expand...

OK ... Thanks for the clarification ... Here are some cursory comments ...

The most obvious problem has to do with defining 'civilization'. We recognize only one exemplar to date - i.e., ourselves. Based on - and biased by - our own case, civilization is identified with respect to (e.g.):

- collective / collaborative networks of individual organisms;

- some degree of operational reliance (e.g., for basic individual necessities like food and shelter) shifted from individuals to such collectives / networks;

- some degree of abstraction in generating collectively recognized and maintained patterns of networking and behavior; and

- the creation of the means for meeting the collective's requirements above and beyond the innate physical and functional capabilities of its individual constituents (i.e., technologies).

The first two factors are necessary, but not sufficient, to qualify as a 'civilization' on monkey-man's terms. A number of species exhibit the ability to operate collectively to more efficiently and / or effectively meet their basic needs.

The latter two factors are, IMHO, necessary to transcend merely automatic or instinctive collective action and afford the collective both (a) a character or status at least partially un-subordinated to basic biological sustainment; and (b) the bases for proliferating and evolving such supra-biological aspects of the collective as a viable adaptive system.

The abstraction factor may leave some physical clues to its non-physical context and implications, but these constitute merely indirect evidence. Two straightforward examples would be (a) brain structures affording a surplus neural capacity available for heightened complexities in relating stimuli to responses; and (b) artifacts configured to presumably carry a significance above and beyond their physical form (e.g., scratches on a rock that may have symbolic meanings).

The technology factor can reliably produce physical traces that strongly insinuate deliberate employment of the abstraction factor. However, such artificial extensions (e.g., tool use; sheltering structures) do not necessarily prove a sufficiently sophisticated abstraction capability is in effect.

On the other hand, there are two hallmark characteristics of the monkey-man exemplar that I suspect are crucial, if not paradigmatic, in the development of a technologically-reliant 'civilization':

- an individual capability for grasping and manipulating physical objects; and
- a 3D sensory / perceptual capability supporting manipulation of such objects in a reliable and coordinated fashion.

It may be my own monkey-man bias showing through, but I doubt any species lacking both grasping and 3D sensory / orientation capabilities could develop a technologically-reliant 'civilization'.

Then again - maybe technology isn't the determining issue. We have already toyed with the notion of 'intelligent' cultures or civilizations that do not rely upon physical technologies and artifacts like we monkey-men do, in relation to cetaceans. It may well be that the technology factor is more an option than a hard requirement for 'civilization', and the abstraction factor is the crucial criterion.
 
The thing that puzzles me about this whole debate is that, geologically, the Earth is normally hotter than it is now, with intervals when it is colder - that is, in an ice age. Years ago the argument was that we were not in fact fully out of the last ice age and it might have another kick before we revert to normal. What if the current stability at an unusual level is the product of our civilisation - not only fossil fuels but the incredible amount of deforestation we have caused.

By messing with what we do we might in fact trigger that last kick. Which will be a lot less pleasant than just adapting to the world going back to what has been its normal temperature for most of the time that animal life (animal in the sense of animal, vegetable, mineral) has existed?
 
Cochise said:
The thing that puzzles me about this whole debate is that, geologically, the Earth is normally hotter than it is now, with intervals when it is colder - that is, in an ice age. Years ago the argument was that we were not in fact fully out of the last ice age and it might have another kick before we revert to normal. What if the current stability at an unusual level is the product of our civilisation - not only fossil fuels but the incredible amount of deforestation we have caused.

By messing with what we do we might in fact trigger that last kick. Which will be a lot less pleasant than just adapting to the world going back to what has been its normal temperature for most of the time that animal life (animal in the sense of animal, vegetable, mineral) has existed?
Click to expand...
There is actually some evidence now that we are in a long period of low Sun activity and that it would be a lot colder if we weren't (allegedly) warming up the planet with our activities.
 
Cochise said:
The thing that puzzles me about this whole debate is that, geologically, the Earth is normally hotter than it is now, with intervals when it is colder - that is, in an ice age. Years ago the argument was that we were not in fact fully out of the last ice age and it might have another kick before we revert to normal. What if the current stability at an unusual level is the product of our civilisation - not only fossil fuels but the incredible amount of deforestation we have caused. ...
Click to expand...

The relative stability in recent global average temperatures (to the extent we can infer their record) extends back circa 12,000 years. This certainly places the period of relative stability within the span of modern human life, but one must also note it pre-dates the scale of human population, deforestation, agriculture, and thermal / chemical outputs necessary to influence climate.

In other words, it's even more speculative to suggest human activities substantially contributed to the current period of relative stability than to suggest we are currently contributing to a significant uptick in global average temperatures.

It's 'way too simplistic to treat global temperatures as exhibiting a general trend downward, particularly during the eons when life was taking hold and proliferating. Evidence suggests the two most radically cold periods of known earth history (the so-called 'snowball earth' periods when ice reached as far as the equatorial zone) occurred before the Cambrian explosion.

In any case, the most recent period of circa 12,000 years of relative stability isn't unique. There have been other - even longer - periods of analogous stability, but they get lost amidst the peaks and valleys of the coarser-grained trend lines on a graph.
 
GNC said:
There was a little Keep Britain Tidy figure, as seen from the charity's PIF:

There was also a kangaroo cartoon, but he didn't catch on.
Click to expand...

Ahh, I love PIFs. Seriously, I could watch them over and over.

And that music... groovy.... *swaying*
 
I doubt there was any kind of civilisation similar to ours in the distant past.

I base this on the lack of any material remains.

A few stone carvings etc do not a civilisation make; at least not a technical one. One would expect to find remnants of objects made from materials such as stainless steel of nickel that to not degrade naturally very quickly.

If you consider that, at the beginning of the Roman empire we had only limited knowledge of metallurgy. Then think on the advances over the last two thousand years, it seems obvious that an earlier civilisation should have been much more advanced before it disappeared.

Granted, there are many examples of stone age and even bronze age cities etc. but nothing really technical. Yet it seems mankind has had the mental capacity for much longer.

Only a hundred and fifty years or so from the Wright brothers to the ISS.

No, we are the Crown of Creation.

(and we got no place to go) Anyone remember that song ?

INT21
 
And back on topic... :sorry:

I like to think there was a civilisation before ours. I sometimes ponder things like this:

http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/10-insane-ancient-achievements-that-science-cant-explain/

(I don't find all of the ones on that link compelling, but some certainly are).


But also, are we certain that there would definitely be evidence that we should have found by now? What I mean is, without knowing what might have happened to a previous civilisation - or indeed how long ago they existed - is it possible that some really catastrophic event or series of events happened (thinking off the top of my head: nuclear apocalypse, extremely violet earthquakes /volcanic eruptions) that would have pretty much wiped out any previous existence?

Just throwing it out there. After all, we've not fully explored the full depths of the oceans, underneath Antarctic ice, etc. etc. so until we've looked everywhere can we really say that there is definitely no evidence?

:)
 
INT21 said:
... Only a hundred and fifty years or so from the Wright brothers to the ISS. ...
Click to expand...

??? ...

It took only about 97 years to get from the Wright Brothers' first powered flight (December 1903) to the first occupation of the ISS by a crew (November 2000).

It took circa 150 years (circa 148, actually ... ) to get all the way from the very first powered / steerable aircraft (Giffard's dirigible; 1852) to the first crew residency on the ISS.
 
EnolaGaia,

Ok, I'll give you that.

But what you say reinforces my argument.

INT21
 
It reinforces the issue that the Silurian Hypothesis authors have already noted - i.e., that the pace of human industrial civilization development to date has been sufficiently rapid that (if it / we were to abruptly end soon) the stratigraphic extent of the evidence would be vanishingly small.

This doesn't mean there wouldn't be evidence of us capable of preservation and discovery thousands, if not millions, of years hence. It does suggest that any such evidence could go unnoticed unless particular specimens were discovered in the absence of any widespread, if not global, stratigraphic layer within which they occurred.

To date, the only more or less widely scattered stratigraphic evidence of our industrial ways would consist of carbon residues from fossil fuel usage, a decidedly non-natural concentration of radionuclides, and / or detectable traces of chemical compounds that don't naturally occur.

If it were the case that (figurative) bullshit - in and of itself - left physically detectable residues our presence on earth would stick out like a sore thumb ... :evillaugh:
 
INT21 said:
I doubt there was any kind of civilisation similar to ours in the distant past.

I base this on the lack of any material remains.

A few stone carvings etc do not a civilisation make; at least not a technical one. One would expect to find remnants of objects made from materials such as stainless steel of nickel that to not degrade naturally very quickly.

If you consider that, at the beginning of the Roman empire we had only limited knowledge of metallurgy. Then think on the advances over the last two thousand years, it seems obvious that an earlier civilisation should have been much more advanced before it disappeared.

INT21
Click to expand...

Why is it obvious?

Modern man has existed for less than 100,000 years. We have had “civilisation” in the sense of cities, agriculture, writing for perhaps 7,000 of those. An industrial civilisation for 300 years.

Why should an earlier civilisation have been much more advanced? What if it hadn’t got even to the Iron Age before some calamity wiped it out?
 
Quake42 said:
Why is it obvious?

Modern man has existed for less than 100,000 years. We have had “civilisation” in the sense of cities, agriculture, writing for perhaps 7,000 of those. An industrial civilisation for 300 years.

Why should an earlier civilisation have been much more advanced? What if it hadn’t got even to the Iron Age before some calamity wiped it out?
Click to expand...

We wouldn't even know about it.

Sometimes there are tales of out of Out Of Place/Time Artefacts, any of these stories stand up to scrutiny?
 
..Sometimes there are tales of out of Out Of Place/Time Artefacts, any of these stories stand up to scrutiny?..

The best example of ooparts is the AntiKythera artifact. And that is only around 2000 years old. Non of the explanations for it's existence really stand up to examination.

So, that is relatively modern. What is there for something supposedly tens of thousands of years old ?

INT21
 
INT21 said:
..Sometimes there are tales of out of Out Of Place/Time Artefacts, any of these stories stand up to scrutiny?..

The best example of ooparts is the AntiKythera artifact. And that is only around 2000 years old. Non of the explanations for it's existence really stand up to examination.

So, that is relatively modern. What is there for something supposedly tens of thousands of years old ?

INT21
Click to expand...

I was thinking more about the far distant past. Hundreds of thousands, even millions of years.
 
Quake42 said:
... Why should an earlier civilisation have been much more advanced? What if it hadn’t got even to the Iron Age before some calamity wiped it out?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top