My fellow /x/men, what I bring into discussion here today isn't exactly paranormal; yet it's weird, intriguing and possibly creepy.
So. I'm sure you know most European (and also a good deal of Asian) civilizations come from a single culture, right? The Proto-Indo-Europeans were a people who lived (probably) on the steppes north of Caucasus (hence why we're called "caucasians") and, about five thousand years ago, spread into Anatolia and Eastern Europe; the Greeks and Romans, the Celtic, Germanic and Slavic tribes, all of those were just different migration waves, later developing into their own, unique cultures. Even the Proto-Indo-European language has been reconstructed, to a level of refinement that more recent, concrete evidence has come to corroborate the hypotheses (such as the laryngeal theory, proved true by Hittite studies).
How does any of that relate to /x/, you ask? Well, evidently, there were people living in Europe before those guys came in. Perhaps the most prominent of those is the Minoan civilization of Crete, which predated (and actually highly infuenced) the oldest Greek settlements. Later, non-Indo-European cultures of the Aegean, such as the Etruscans, seem to be related to Minoans; but material evidence is so scarce (mainly due to Greek/Roman expansionism) that it's very hard to state anything conclusive.
However, the "lost civilization" I think you'll find more interesting is the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture of modern-day Moldova. Those guys were a very complex society, with their very distinct forms of art, architecture and pottery; they even had a system of symbols (refer to pic), used throughout millenia, though most researchers classify them as "proto-writing".
The two most intriguing points, though, are: one, they were building absurdly large settlements for their time (while the estimated population of Uruk in Sumeria was five thousand people around 4000 BC, the CP settlement of Dobrovody was twice that size); and two, (cont).
(cont), they had a most peculiar habit of deliberately setting those same settlements on fire every few decades. Although theories abound, no one quite knows WHY they did that.
Needless to say, they were eventually washed away by some Indo-European tribe, and all immaterial aspects of their culture are most likely lost to History.
So, what are /x/'s thoughts on that? Also, lost civilizations/History thread.
I think that if u believe mainstream history, you are a fool. There are a shiton of "lost advanced societies " around but we areally supposed to believe that culture developed in 5 thousand years at a similar rate I'm places across the planet from caveman to Inca empire with no outside help.
Nah I gave it a read you just spew out dates and civilizations which entire existence is an opinion of a 19th century British archeologist and some ceramic pots and its dumb.Also nothing paranormal here maybe except the hardcover disinformation.
>they had a most peculiar habit of deliberately setting those same settlements on fire every few decades. Although theories abound, no one quite knows WHY they did that.
Isn't it obvious that they were battling amongst themselves and/or that they were being intermittently raided by war-like neighbors? Setting a village on fire is exactly what someone would do if they were at war with them.
Serbian archeologist Mirjana Stevanovic writes: "…it is unlikely that the houses were burned as a result of a series of accidents or for any structural and technological reasons but rather that they were destroyed by deliberate burning and most likely for reasons of a symbolic nature.
Some of the modern house-burning experiments include those done by Arthur Bankoff and Frederick Winter in 1977, Gary Shaffer in 1993, and Stevanovic in 1997. In their experiment, Bankoff and Winter constructed a model of a partially dilapidated Neolithic house, and then set it on fire in a way that would replicate how an accidental fire would have perhaps started from an untended cooking-hearth fire. They then allowed the fire to burn unchecked for over thirty hours. Although the fire rapidly spread to the thatched roof, destroying it in the process, in the end less than one percent of the clay in the walls was fired (turned into ceramic material), which is counter to the large amount of fired-clay wall rubble that is found in the Cucuteni-Trypillian settlement ruins. Additionally, the experimental burning left the walls almost entirely intact. It would have been relatively easy for the roof to have been repaired quickly, the ash cleared away, and the house reoccupied. These results are typical for all of the modern experiments that have been done to try to recreate these ancient house burnings. Stevanovic, an expert archeological ceramicist, describes how in order to produce the large amount of fired clay rubble found in the ruins, that enormous quantities of extra fuel would have had to be placed next to the walls to create enough heat to vitrify the clay.
tl;dr: the fires occurred in regular intervals, and the conditions needed for such a thorough destruction imply the burning was intentional.
I left many links; you could have read them.
Aggression: This theory holds that the settlements were burned as a result of attacks from enemies. However, as with the accident theory, this theory is also unable to satisfy all of the archaeological evidence that has been found at Cucuteni-Trypillian sites. For instance, there have not been any human remains discovered within the burned ruins of the buildings. Neither have there been found any human remains with projectile points such as arrow or spear heads lodged within the skeleton. This would indicate that, although acts of aggression were possible, they actually were not very common. Certainly, it indicates that warfare did not play a large role in the life of these people. Thus, due to the lack of supporting evidence for aggression, it is difficult to support this theory as the reason for the cyclical and repetitive burning of these settlements.
Pretty simple the people were in conflict with a powerful empire which destroyed their settlements regularly whenever they came around. The lack of corpses can be explained, for instance the people were raided multiple times and had nowhere to go so they had to develop a way to protect themselves strict border patrols and outpost to spot enemies. Check out Derinkuyu city and others these people had an insane system of underground chambers and tunnels with doors which can only be opened from the inside. Maybe they had a "hidden city" or a couple and when word came of approaching enemy they hide in the city where they have stored supplies. If you look at how crafty these ancient loincloth wearing proto-turks were you can see how its a viable scenario.
also Incas or whatever you call their predecessors had some crazy tunnel systems where they could hide out and live for years according to the natives. The tunnels are largely unexplored as many people got lost inside and never came out the government shut down any exploration attempts.The tunnels im referring to are under Machu Picchu and Cusco some people claim they are connected. The Incas were famous for just popping out on enemy armies and moving swiftly through the Andes Mountains. Ancient people were far more advanced than most people give them credit for.
There was a flood 12,000 years ago that wiped out large parts of the globe.
North America was under 2miles of ice. An asteroid hit, causing sea levels to rise 100ft. Google it, there's no mystery.
Here's Graham Hancock, watch it. The evidence is there.
On a serious note if we assume human civilization is pre ice-age like a mountain of evidence suggests, the melting ice and the rising sea levels must have destroyed all seaside construction , which history shows humans always stick close to the sea. Close to 70% of Oceania landmasses, 30% of Indian Penninsula, most of the Carrabean shallow seabed which was part of the Central American continent and not to mention the Black Sea, Baltic and sea of Japan didn't exist and were fertile land. was swallowed up in the millenia. If we assume human civilization behaved the same and followed simial trends as in the last 6,000 of "recorded" history, majority of the settlement would concentrate in those areas and a quite literal flood would wipe out whole civilizations
Honestly one of the best theories I have heard, and not really that hard to accept. In fact I had a long discussion one time with an anon as to how technologically advanced such cultures could have been. Basically the conclusion was that they could have made it as far as what we would consider early industrial, likely pre petroleum use. Anything more advanced than that and they wouldn't have reverted all the way back to bronze age societies. Enough science and technology would have remained that survivors would have been able to rebuild.
Yeah, and those "hidden cities" haven't been found because... ? Dude, they weren't like a single town that was burned once in a while; there were many settlements (which were some of the largest in the world at the time) spanning a huge area.
What you're suggesting is that there were very regular invasions (75~80 years, to be precise) that raided an entire country, carefully burning to the ground large towns (if you had read the articles, you'd have known how hard it was for modern researchers to try and replicate the conditions of the fire) and leaving precisely NO TRACE of war; also, that populations upwards of ten thousand would have fled to some hitherto unknown "hidden cities", only to later come back a rebuild their houses EXACTLY where they stood before.
I'm not saying it's 100% impossible, but I'm going with the material evidence. Occam's razor, my man.
yeah your "proof" is some archaeologists saying "huh this shit is crazy , they must have burned their own shit down and rebuild it because they were retarded primitive sand-niggers." Well as for me mainstream archaeology which you love to bring up as truth is filled with speculation, a ridiculous amount of coincidences and "unexplained phenomenon" and based on 200 year old "research" which was purely a treasure hunt for who can have a more spectacular "finding" or treaure rather than trying to learn about our history. TL.DR your arguments are based on socially accepted bullshit
If you wanna open your mind a little and see what kind of destruction was occurring 3000BC look up Mohenjo-daro. The entire area od western Indus Valley had a dust layer dated back to the same time period as Mohenjo-daro containing high amounts of radioactive material comparable to what we find at nuclear explosion test sites. But hey man its a coincidence
>200 year old "research"
Dude, those sites are still being excavated today.
>based on socially accepted bullshit
No, my argument is based on material findings and logic. As I said, the invasion theory isn't 100% impossible (it's been put out before, as well as many others; those were all listed in the articles you didn't read), it's just not as likely as the mainstream view (which, by the way, wasn't mainstream just a few years ago). Also, I don't think anyone has ever said the burnings happened because that people were "retarded primitive sand-niggers"; if anything, the point of those studies is to show how complex and symbolic their society was.
I swear, this board used to be more intelligent. I can understand debating conspiracies and alternate views on things, as well as keeping a skeptic mind; but to come up with an entire, logic-defying theory just to go against "socially accepted bullshit" is downright retarded. The "fuck evidence, I know I'm right" comments are the bane of this board.
You... You're an idiot, aren't you?
I agree. You've got some interesting info that I'd never seen before. I wish we could decipher that 'proto-writing' so bad. I'm a linguistics nerd and so that would be boners for days. That and man oh man itd be so good to know what the hell they were thinking just as writing began.
Yeah, you know, if their symbols were discovered to convey actual language, that'd make them the first writing system EVER. Too bad it's nearly impossible; the people who eventually superseded them (either Proto-Celts or Proto-Germanics; some Indo-European people, anyway) didn't have a writing system themselves at the time, so a bilingual inscription is very unlikely to be found.
The only hope would be to keep researching pre-Indo-European civilizations, try and decipher Linear A (the Minoan syllabary) already, and then hope to find some connection between the two.
So you accept carbon-dating and the theory that the Cucuteni-Trypillian people created this extensive civilization out of nowhere and established and economy and trade between each other right after they finished hunting out the last mommoths. As your 'scholarly" articles claim the only sign of ant culture was cave paintings and ritual burial akin to neandrathal. So i'm very sorry I don't subscribe to another coincidental explosion of culture,art and society and as you show us possibly some of the first writing only to disappear for a thousand years. There is a ton of pieces missing to this puzzle which archaeologist will claim they have solved with their bulletproof guessing science. You say you base your evidence on logic , the problem is your logic is based on a very shaky pile of guesses which you call history. I never said that I'm right either but I'm gonna keep an open mind and not base my theories on beliefs of long dead men. History books still have the same story as they did 100 years ago and mainstream historians refuse to accept any other views because they would be out of jobs.So you can fuck off with your superior "logic" and stop shielding yourself with articles written by close minded fucks like you
Says the one who won't accept any evidence against his beliefs.
I'm done talking to you, man. It doesn't matter what I argue (such as, for instance, that there is load of pottery, art work, as well as obviously structural remains from that civilization which you can see with your own eyes if you ever happen to go there; also that obviously their culture didn't "appear out of nowhere", it developed gradually like any other on Earth; where have I even mentioned burial?), you're gonna keep hitting that same chord: "british dudes who died 100 years ago". I literally JUST wrote how the site is still being excavated, and most (if not all) of the scholars mentioned in the articles are living people, native to the country whose History they're researching.
I haven't made a single assumption based on "old" History books; I've mainly presented MATERIAL evidence, and tried to logically extrapolate whatever I could from that. It includes no "archeologists' claim", just what they've found and what I think it means. My logic isn't at all "superior", it's just... Well, logic. Again, it's like you don't even read what I said.
But yeah, believe whatever you want, I'm out.
Ohh thank you protector of the realm for posting such wonderful words of enlightenment upon my poor blind soul. Next time I'll post I'll be sure to remember your great lesson. Fuck off at least I tried to have input.
Indo-European culture is a linguistic construct that can't be verified in archaeology. Proponents say that genetic research has proven the existence, but that's just their interpretation.
Surely you must be mistaken OP provided scholarly articles written by REAL archeologists who base their theories off older theories. I MEAN THE ARTICLE SAID SO THEREFORE IT'S FACTS AND LOGIC
Archeofag here. Hey OP, I was reading a book called Archeology and language-the puzzle of indo european origns by Colin renfrew, and he is basically disussing various ideas for the indo-europeans.
There is some talk of elite displacement, where a new elite conquers an area and their language is spread to the "common" people. By this model it is somewhat likely that elements of culture survived in the different areas.
This could also happen in a wave dispersion model where you get isolated language and culture pockets i guess. That could also explain eventual similarities through the interactions between these pockets.
Interesting find OP. However the settlement destruction isn't a new thing; many civilisations put great physical effort into constructing a thing, and then destroying that thing. The issue is whether it is ritual related (i.e. Hellenic peoples ritually destroying weapons/Celts throwing words into rivers), warfare related (i.e. Scythian steppe warfare endemic to the Ukraine, Roman legions burning their massive forts) or accidental (fires are a lot more common historically than we give credit for).
However, the idea that the Moldovan proto-civilisation built massive cities is very very interesting indeed. Surely though there would be more evidence? I know that the main advantage Iraq has over Europe is the soil aridity (preservation of artefacts) but even still surely such an advanced civilisation would leave more behind?
Just my thoughts.
The problem with the lack of evidence is the fact that archaeology lacks funds, manpower and permission to actively search and find anything of worth. There were so many different people at different time periods over the areas of Europe in question that we would need to dig up most of Europe to get the full picture. If people actually cared about origins of our species we would have excavations covering huge areas. Archaeology is a hit and miss and the science isn't supported by the current social paradigm. In Europe majority of people will tell you God created people and archaeology is a useless and stupid endeavor. Personally I don't think we will ever hear our story without a shroud of bullshit unless we get personal time-machines.
I'd suggest you read a bit into the Kurgan hypothesis, my man. There's much more than just linguistic evidence to it.
That's an interesting input; I'm sure many aspects of the so called "Old European" cultures intermingled with Indo-European (the main theory explaining the peculiarities of the Germanic languages, for example, refers to a strong substratum from a previous, unknown language).
That said, I'd like to point out one of the links I listed cites a genetic "gap" which coincides with the timeline of Indo-European migrations; the older populations, whoever they were, basically "disappeared".
Evidence points towards ritual habits; I've listed in this thread a few reasons why accidents/warfare hypotheses aren't as likely.
As for the amount of material remains, there's as much as you get with such ancient structures; keep in mind more recent settlements may have been built atop older ones in historical times.
Uhm, no, most europeams probably dont think that. but it is true that it would be hard find all of the information. With archeology the problem is that there is a metric assload of information that can´t be found because it is just gone. I know for example that there were writing tablets used by the vikings, but they were made out of wood so they are now gone.
Also, if you hunt for the "original" group of people, that can piss people off, because you imply that some land belongs to someone, o something like that.
True a lot is lost and a lot has been systematically destroyed over the past thousand years. Everything we know about the Slavic culture has perished for same reason as the viking tablets but there were monoliths, temples not to mention spoken knowledge that was erased by the Catholic church during Renaissance. I live in Europe and face the same medieval ignorance on a daily basis at my uni. An average person I know doesn't give a fuck about origin of culture because "lol God did it why do you question the bible" How many normies do you know that can or will hold a discussion on Proto-Indo-European culture and writing? It makes me sad that I will never know if my genetic ancestors had any poetry, music, writing and religion because of the mindset that anything before Ancient Greece were pagan tribal barbarians who just came out of their caves.
Scolarly yes, but scientific? No. There is a certain niche of researchers who support this ideology back since Gimbutas, but they always rely on very far fetched theories.
It's an ideology more than a hypothesis.
I see where you're coming from based on your mention of Gimbutas; however, you have to keep in mind Archeology isn't an exact science.
Will we ever know for certain if the Kurgan hypothesis is the correct one? Probably not; yet it's the closest we get with the evidence we have. At the very least we know a group of people sharing common traits imposed their language over others throughout large expanses of Eurasia.
I don't know, I studied archaeology and european ethnology (never finished that though, I'm a dentist now) in Germany - and my experience was rather that many people gloryfied certain parts of history without knowing what they were talking about.
But I wonder where you found such hardcore Christians in Germany. I could only think of Eichstätt, but then it would be your own fault.
Guys, i study archeology in sweden, it is basically a bunch of hostory geeks that like to look for stuff. I think most people dont want to take really long historical perspectives into consideration because it would make them uncomfortable.
I studied in Frankfurt and many people are Catholics and creationism is widely accepted and i met people who have their own historical theories based off creationism and believe that humanity is 6k years old.although i did stay at the social studies/humanities campus so I guess it is my fault
The problem is, that the language studies in the Kurgan theory are more or less a guessing game. The whole construct is rather made to fit the evidence.
Saying that, I just noticed that there is no difference in English between the Kurgan hypothesis and what is called Steppe-hypothesis in German. So we are probably talking about different things. The modern one isn't such a mess, but I still think it's highly speculative.
this people hate having their views challenged, especially elderly professors who preach the same old story about monolith being build with copper tools and Sumerians inventing writing system to keep track of lentils.
Thanks for the reply; as an archaeologist myself I know the pain.
I must have forgotten the part on ritual habit. Ta for the clarification. And I am well aware of the modern trend of building above pre-existing settlement (excavating ftw)
Hah, exactly my experience in Germany. It was a great time, but in the end I thought it was completely useless to try making money with it.
No, especially in Frankfurt that is very strange and highly unlikely. Creationism is something most Germans use as an argument to feel superior to Americans.
In humanities, it's usually more common to find many neo-pagans, wannabe buhddists and people who belive in esoteric angels.
No, it's people being lazy and just wanting to have fun. Many people in history studiesn in general have very little ambition. Challenging someones views is probably the best way to get people to work.
It is speculative, inasmuch as it deals with mainly immaterial heritage (the only undeniable link among the Indo-European peoples being indeed the language). Technically speaking, "Kurgan" refers to an entire cultural horizon encompassing many different (archeologically defined) cultures; obviously we can't "know" they were once a single people, only that their languages come from a single source.
The strongest evidence pointing towards Indo-Europeans as a singular culture, I believe, comes from Archeogenetics. Have you read on the haplogroup R1a? Its incidence matches the theorized Kurgan migrations very, very closely; it was found on pretty much all cultures belonging to the Indo-European horizon, from the Pontic Steppe (Proto-Italo-Celts, most likely) all the way to Xinjiang (Proto-Tocharians). It's very compelling.
The haplogroup thing is really the only thing that challenges my view on the wohle theory. I'm still waiting for someone to find a different solution. Why? Because I despise the thought of Gimbutas being right anywhere. I hate her with her complete disregard of the imporbability of continuos oral tradition in the Baltic region for millenia.
since when was it /x/men? It's /x/philes.
Um... Isn't that a little biased? She could be wrong about a thousand things and still be right about that. I mean, I don't buy her view of pre-Kurgan Europe as a matristic, elvish-like paradise where no violence existed, either; I also don't jump on her bandwagon to hastily claim the Old European symbols were an actual writing system until more evidence is unearthed. However, none of that influences my opinion on the Kurgan hypothesis; it doesn't "belong" to her, and it's the most probable of all theories put forth so far.
I went into archeology to understand humanity and how we moulded ourselves and the world around us, and to see how we lived in the past.
Also, it is quite likely that writing was invented to keep track of stuff. Once you have enough to consider it import to own it. Human greed for the win.
Although I do think it is possible that there was some older, unknown civilisation, theres just no good evidence for it. It is still more likely than aliens or god.
She said lots of crap, but the part relevant to this thread is that she was the main proponent of the Kurgan hypothesis: that is, a Linguistics based approach to Archeology that theorized many Bronze Age cultures of Europe were actually waves of migration of a single people (the Proto-Indo-Europeans). The evidence we have today is mainly linguistic (it's pretty clear that most of modern, as well as classic, languages of Europe are/were related), but progress has been made on Genetics (as with the discovery of haplogroup R1a, who incidence parallels the evolution of cultures within the Kurgan horizon). It's the most accepted theory on the origin of Indo-European peoples today.
Ah, now I remember, thx mate. Yeah, I remeber that stuff. It is not that bad, considering that there are similarities between different language groups. It really is fascinating that there maybe, at some point in the past was one group of people where all these languages originate rom.
also, consider this. steppe nomads can fight among themselves or quite some time, so maybe through some kind o conflict the proto-indo-europeans began migrating. Maybe they didnt completely conquer everything, but maybe the steppes prevented other groups from migrating into europe, and they could only go west. Maybe they had civilisations, myabe not.
And one last thing, what about the basques, their language is completely unreletad to any european one.
They descend from Aquitanians, who may or may not have been related to ancient Iberians; either way, they are the last modern remnants of pre-Kurgan Europe (i.e., the topic this thread was supposed to be about).
Sorry for derailing the thread. Maybe if we studied them a little bit we could learn more. But what do people here think, at what level do you think people in Europe were before indo-europeans arived.
'Tis fine, my man. At least we get the debate going.
And well, Gimbutas herself claimed that Old Europe was a matristic society where non-violence and sexual freedom prevailed. None of which is substantiated by evidence, of course; even if most cultures in Neolithic Europe seem to have been markedly less belligerent than Bronze Age ones, there are still remains of forts, weapons and so forth.
What we know for sure is: they were sedentary, practiced agriculture and domesticated animals; also they produced pottery and had their own artistic tradition. Whether or not their system of symbols represent actual language is a matter of heated debate (although it seems to tend towards "not"); and lastly, as stated in the beginning of the thread, they had this habit of ritualistically destroy their own settlements, which suggests some sort of pervasive religious/mystic sentiment.
At this level
Well, maybe it was convenient to destroy the buildings by fire. I think there is a tendency to whenever you dont understand something to just chuck it one the religion/mystycism/ooga-booga pile. Maybe they burnt them because of some toher reason. Doesnt ash act as a fertilizer?
I really need to read Gimbutas, sounds like some interesting, and different stuff there. Even if I wont agree with it. Mybe the beligerence partially had to do with the complexity and size of settlements, since wars tend to have economic incentive, take slaves, capture women, take food etc.
Well, the entire settlements were destroyed, in very thorough fashion; and new ones were immediately built on the very same place.
Gonna leave you a link with many different theories on that:
Can't really classify them as barbarians if they're constructing such amazing cities. Simply constructing these cities and having this civilization would have caught the eyes of the Greeks.
There were no Ancient Greeks back in Neolithic times, my friend. The first Greek settlers, the Mycenaeans (referred to in classical Historiography as "Acheans"), wouldn't exist as a civilization until much later. Even as Bronze Age was kickstarted, and Old European cultures were wiped away from the face of the Earth, there was only the a Proto-Greek branch of Indo-Europeans, who hadn't even migrated into the Balkans yet.
Piri Reis map, it depicts parts of Africa, Brazil coast a little bit of Europe and most importantly what we now know is the northern coast of Antarctica with its polar ice cap removed. The map is reasonably accurate with its scale. It was drawn in 1500's in possession of a Turkish cartographer who gathered knowledge from multiple sources. The spoopy part is that last time the Antarctica coastline was exposed was 6000 years ago so there is no way for anybody in those times to know how it might look, unless they had an even older map to copy from or sonar tests like we do today.
Let me try to dig it up, but I've seen an old Egyptian map that shows Atlantis outside the Pillars of Hercules back then, aka right in front of Africa and Europe.
As for how the Turk got this knowledge, I've heard that the Chinese actually explored the whole world during ancient times. Other than somehow getting a old map from a trade route, not sure how he as able to accurately depict the world.
Well, we could alsways speculate abut the the indo-europeans being the mysterious "aryans" and them invading europe was an ancient war agsainst some kind of ancient civiliation and muh ayyy lmaos.
Here it is, the map is actually upside down. You can actually find that land mass under water where the map shows it on Google Earth.
That doesn't look like an Egytpian map at all. There's also no tectonic plate there that corresponds to Atlantis.
That landmass that you mentioned is part of the African plate, which is in direct contact with the North American plate.
>spew out dates
literally one. There was one date in the entire fucking post, and it just vaguely refered to the year 4000 BC. You did not read it. You know nothing.
part of OP that you did not bother to read. If you read those articles they are so vague and dates are all over the place
yeah I don't understand they come to /x/ to discuss speculative history and when someone suggest something actually paranormal/consolatory they cry about derailing. I guess /his/ already shut his ass down so he tried his theories over here.
There is no such concept as "mainstream' history. There's simply where you place the weight of data in your priorities and conclusions. Ultimately, like so many things, it boils down to whether or not your opinions are 'informed'. Yours, as it happens, are not.