There has been some discussion about this subject on other threads, but nothing strictly about this, so I felt that it was time to united the ideas of Antartica as being the center of civilization.
There have been three areas in the world which dominate the ancient civilization discussions: South America, Africa, and India. All three have a rich history of cultural development, strong and proud people, and numerous unexplained temples, cities, and settlements simply classified as "no explaination".
Within South America, we have the Incas and the Mayans, but further south, moving along towards its "tip", we have cities that even the most ancient of Mayan tribes knew nothing about, save that they were built by the gods. It is surprizing, when looking at the ages of settlements, the oldest is within the tip of South America... when scholars will, at the same time, state that people moved from the North into the South. So why journey all the way down, just to move back up?
In Africa, they have discovered ancient gold mines, also within its southern-most borders. These mines predate any known explaination as to there having been mines. Seemingly, people of the time period that these mines are reported to have been developed were too ignorant.
And then, also along its southern-most tip, India has an ancient city (I think I recall it was found on the island just south of the mainland), with an as-of-yet undecyphered language. This city, too, was created from "nothing". There are no records of the inhabitants, in any of the surrounding (and surviving) peoples.
These three areas eventually branched outward. South America moved up and north, through Latin America into Northern America. Africa moved more inland, eventually "developing" NE, into the Nile and Arabic locations. India followed the coast, moving NE, into and along the Chinese/Pacific border, into Thialand... more than likely, it too moved into the Arabic states.
Ancient records tell of Atlantis, that fabled and often times joked-about island of super-beings. Each culture had its own name for it, wether Aztla, Atlla, Az, Atla, etcetera. The Incas/Mayans located east of them, in the Atlantic. The Egyptians located west of them, also in the Atlantic.
Now, I am only making a presumption. I realize cultures can spring independantly from each other, just as two people can come up with the same idea half a world away. But noting three distinct ancient sites, all located within a same geographical pointer (incidentally, all pointing to Antartica), leads me to one conclusion.
That Antartica was the home of civilization.
Even now, with the discoveries being made there, or within its waters, shows that there was once a colony located within its land.
We know there was life there at one point. We've discovered traces of vegetation, showing Antartica was once located nearer the equator. Is there any proof to show that mankind never touched its soil?
All along the southern rim, each main grouping of islands have indigionus people. To presume that they traveled from the mainland continents to these unknown and unseen islands is a far greater stretch of the imagination than assuming that they were settlements from a greater connected landmass.
The only thing stopping my idea from being more... exceptable is Australia. I really don't know too much about the Land Down Under to make any arguments to uphold my idea (so if any Aussie's read this, and can add to it, please do!)
I would say, in conclusion, that I may be reaching for something not there. I may be drawing straws, hoping for some great divination. But to me, there just seems too much "proof" that civilization started and spread out from Antartica. From carbon dating of sites to the unexplained nature of other sites, it seems that the oldest known records of man all came from an area closest to our frozen wasteland.
bron
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread29636/pg1
Zie ook
http://www.grahamhancock.com/
|