This post was inspired by a YouTube video I watched about a Mesoamerican site earlier today.
The author was examining the massive granite blocks at the site, some of which weighed 120 tons. In addition, these stones had been quarried 2.5 miles from a mountain, moved across a river, and then moved uphill to their final resting place. This feat of engineering would be a challenging endeavour today, given modern engineering tools and technology. Yet, a pre-metal culture managed this problem on multiple occasions. Graham Hancock etal would argue that this was not the work of Mesoamerican Indians but a lost civilisation (c12,000 years ago) applying advanced technology. This is a serious argument that needs addressing.
Some support the proposal that there were technologically advanced civilisations before our present system. These civilisations existed thousands of years ago (?12,000) but were destroyed by a cataclysmic event, erasing all trace except for the monolithic stones that stand today. They often point to various authors of ancient pedigree who discuss and narrate oral traditions that existed in their day. The most famous of these authors is Plato and his presentation of the lost Atlantis.
Let us look at the claims objectively. Anatomically modern humans have existed for about 300 thousand years. These folk were as intelligent as anyone gracing Tipton High Street today (may the gods help us!).. The first civilisation, which we know, occurred around the 4th millennium BC in Mesopotamia. We might ask what humans were doing before this time, and, given the time involved, why didn't a civilisation arise before this period and flourish? And when I mean civilisation, I mean a highly technologically advanced civilisation, perhaps even more advanced than today. Is this unreasonable given the time scale involved? Remember, much of our technical advances have been achieved over a relatively short period of 200 years. All traces of a civilisation from 12000 years ago would now be lost. Metals would corrode and deteriorate, and even persistent plastic would degrade. The only structures left are the colossal stone works that we observe today, scattered throughout the globe. It is a compelling argument, but it suffers from two fundamental problems.
Any technologically advanced civilisation requires a substantial energy source. That energy resource must come from fossil fuel exploitation—coal, oil, and oil-refined derivatives such as petrol. Natural sources of energy simply won't do the job. They are too dispersed and geographically isolated. Before the introduction of nuclear fission, oil/petrol was by far the best energy resource we had. This is because these products, especially petrol and diesel, are highly energy-dense. For instance, the energy available in a litre of petrol is 33 megajoules and is only exceeded as an energy source by diesel (39MJ/L). It is hard to comprehend how an advanced civilisation would not have exploited the large reserves of fossil fuel at least during its initial stage of development. Now here is the rub: there is no evidence whatsoever that fossil fuels were extensively extracted until the industrial revolution of the 19th and 20th centuries. No doubt, coal was mined by the ancient Chinese and the Romans, but not to the extent that would be required to fuel the vast energy requirements of the 19th century and beyond. The same applies to oil utilisation. In certain regions, natural oil deposits bubble to the surface, and the ancients capitalised on these easily obtained resources. The point is that there is no geological evidence for extensive mining of coal or oil extraction by an unknown, very ancient, advanced civilisation. If there had been heavy exploitation from a lost age, c10000 BC, it would have certainly left a 'geological imprint' readily observable today.
My second point also relies on geology to a large extent. It is hard to consider an advanced civilisation without metallurgy. There is only so much that can be achieved with stone and wood. Metal and metal ore mining is a game changer in the evolution to become an advanced technological civilisation. Imagine a combustion engine made of wood and stone.. Metalworking is essential, particularly the science of blending metals to form alloys—alloys with particular and peculiar properties designed to overcome a specific engineering problem. Again, as with the energy issue, there should be evidence of large-scale ore exploitation going back to before known civilisation, and this is simply not the case. Gold and copper appear in their pure form on the surface or in river beds and thus were utilised by humans (c7000 BC). The first mining shafts to extract copper ore were found at Rudna Glava in the Balkans (c4000 BC), and by 3800 BC, copper mines had been excavated on the Sinai Peninsula. By 2800 BC, tin was also mined, bringing forth the amalgamation of copper and tin to herald in the Bronze Age. Iron was first mined and utilised by the Hittites (1500 BC), and further processing of iron to steel came forth in the 11th century BC. Aluminium extraction and widespread usage did not occur until the end of the 19th century. While bauxite, the ore containing aluminium, was mined for various uses in the ancient world, its extensive mining did not come about until modern times. Thus, there is no evidence in the geological record for extensive metal ore mining before known ancient cultures and certainly not the exploitation required to maintain a highly developed technological society. The evidence is in the stone.
My final point concerns perceptions relating to our ancient ancestors. For Hancock and similar folk, an insulting stain spreads throughout their thesis. There is an underlying insinuation that known ancients were somehow inferior in intelligence to ourselves, and of course, to a lost civilisation from 12000 years ago. And this is not the case. The ancient Egyptians, the Mayans and other ancients were smart, and though they might not have had our advanced tech, they were not devoid of advanced ingenuity. Nuff said. What do my readers think?
I understand that evidence of roman lead smelting can be found in Greenland ice cores. Doubtless a pretty filthy process when Tacitus was a lad and the resultant pollutants made their way to the pristine frozen wilderness there to be stored for our subsequent delectation.
ReplyDeleteAny earlier civilization, one that got to at least 19th century levels of technology would have polluted like a good’ un and that would be glaringly obvious in ice, cores, marine sediments and probably other places too.
We can extract trace gases from ice cores hundreds of thousands (not sure if it might not be millions) of years old.
Also, given what we have done to wildlife, breeding – eugenics, let’s be honest - various stocks of for food etc, if on a large scale, might this be detectable as some sort of otherwise unexplained step in natural selection? After all, many of the species we have produced are global (but might the breeds not revert over enough generations. I don’t know enough to say)
The idea of an earlier more advanced civilization is remarkably seductive and if you have any sort of curiosity it can sometimes be difficult not fall under its spell.
Yes, it is a seductive idea and given the time Homo sapiens have been around it seems plausible and deserves to be examined seriously. I outlined two areas of investigation that provide negative evidence but as you suggest there are other indicators that can be looked at. Now Mark, what do you think about the Silurian hypothesis?
DeleteFor an indigenous earth civilization in the geological past, quite sceptical I’m afraid.
DeleteAll the “easy” indicators potentially available as evidence for an industrialised society within the last few hundred thousand years would not be available for such a society tens or maybe even hundreds of millions of years ago, but there might still be a few.
There are mineral rich regions – The Canadian shield, Australia, parts of Africa I understand – that have not been near subduction zones, much covered by ocean or where the crust has not been warped much for correspondingly long periods where mining occurs today. These areas have been extensively surveyed and catalogued by government agencies, mining companies and are being exploited. If a past civilization with similar capabilities had mined in the geological past, might not the “interruptions” in the various formations be detectable? (or at least recorded as anomalies)
And for such an indigenous past civilization are there any lineages in the fossil record (yes I know, there are – and must be – very large gaps) where it could perhaps be surmised “you know, that one has quite an impressive brain to body mass ratio and some mean appendages”. Dolphins and whales have been around a while but there is an obvious literal damper on their potential
Aliens establishing a civilization, although why they’d want to descend into a deep gravitational well teeming with – what to them – would be lethal organic irritants, I really don’t know. They would study and catalogue of course, but doubtless their machines could do that. And any aliens would come with ready made technology, centuries at least more advanced than anything we have now.
There could artifacts in the moon from a past earth civilization, but if anything is found how could we tell the difference from something genuinely alien?
What I find most intriguing about the Silurian hypothesis is what might say about the good old fermi paradox (whichever version you choose!) The idea, the hint, the remotest possibility even that a suitable planet could birth not one technological civilization but two, or maybe more over its lifetime.
Not this planet perhaps, but maybe there is one out there somewhere that has.