Archaeologists uncovered thousands of Stone Age underground tunnels, stretching across Europe from Scotland to Turkey, perplexing researchers as to their original purpose.
German archaeologist Dr Heinrich Kusch, in his book ‘Secrets of the Underground Door to an Ancient World’ (Original title in German: "Tore zur Unterwelt: Das Geheimnis der unterirdischen Gänge aus uralter Zeit ...") revealed that tunnels were dug under literally hundreds of Neolithic settlements all over Europe and the fact that so many tunnels have survived 12,000 years indicates that the original networks must have been huge.
'In Bavaria in Germany alone we have found 700 metres of these underground tunnel networks. In Styria in Austria we have found 350 metres,' he said. 'Across Europe there were thousands of them - from the north in Scotland down to the Mediterranean.
The tunnels are quite small, measuring only 70cm in width, which is just enough for a person to crawl through. In some places there are small rooms, storage chambers and seating areas.
While many believe Stone Age humans were primitive, incredible discoveries such as the 12,000 year-old temple called Gobekli Tepe in Turkey and Stonehenge in England - which demonstrate advanced astronomical knowledge - indicate that they were not as primitive as many believe.
The discovery of a vast network of tunnels suggests that Stone Age humans were not just spending their days hunting and gathering. However, the real purpose of the tunnels is still a matter of speculation. Some experts believe they were a way of protecting man from predators while others believe they were a way for people to travel safely, sheltered from harsh weather conditions or even wars and violence. However, at this stage scientists are only able to guess, as the tunnels have not yet revealed all their secrets of the past.
You may also like to read Part 1 of my research on Underground Cities and Networks worldwide, as well as Part 2 on incredible discoveries all around the World.
Neolithic Pyramids?
Permalink
Underground network implies that they're all physically connected, they're not. A much simpler explanation is that it was an obvious solution to common problems like security, shelter, privacy for rituals, food storage, etc.
The Pyramids of Egypt are not, in spite of the assertion in the above text, from the stone age.
They were created during the bronze age and were only made possible by bronze stone saws, chisels and adzes, many of which can be seen in inscriptions and wall art or are described in mundane inventory records.
The egyptians also had iron but their only source was meteoritic (fallen to earth in meteorites, same source for the rare impact glass used in some ornaments and jewelry) and so iron was relegated usually to jewelry, religious artifacts and implements symbolizing pharaonic power. Unalloyed iron is also brittle and not terribly well suited to long or hard wearing tools.
It's origins from space imbued the material with special significance for the Egyptians as their culture was focused heavily on astronomy primarily stemming from their calendrical need to know when the Nile would floodbut branched out into their mythology and burial rites.
Neutron and gamma ray analysis of the iron indicated that the metal originated in meteorites due to the high concentration of nickel, cobalt, phosphorous and germanium that are characteristic of meteorites.
It seems to me that although
Permalink
In reply to Neolithic Pyramids? by Andrew (not verified)
It seems to me that although your comments are valid and highly BOOK SMART, they have absolutely nothing to do with the article. I read the article about the tunnels and must say that . . . . . if you don't have anything to say about the article don't comment. I would love to see more on this topic. I hope that they figure out why these tunnels were constructed, if there can not be found an explanation then humans will continue to amaze all. Let the scientists working on this do their job.
To start, the title of this
Permalink
In reply to It seems to me that although by Sandra2224 (not verified)
To start, the title of this article is misleading, implying that all these tunnels are interconnected. If the title is misleading, intentionally I think, how accurate is the remainder of the article.
Who made you the comment
Permalink
In reply to It seems to me that although by Sandra2224 (not verified)
Who made you the comment Queen? If someone has something "book smart" to add to an article then no harm and no foul. It appears to me you are intimidated by those book smart types...which would then render a reader of your comment to come to a conclusion that you are not, and are simply another internet troll who wants to be important but sadly has no sense of self worth. A comment also doesn't hinder a "scientist" to not work and "do their jobs". I'm sad for you, honestly.
In fact Andrew's comment has
Permalink
In reply to It seems to me that although by Sandra2224 (not verified)
In fact Andrew's comment has quite a neutral tone, for a scientific comment. You should see how a critical comment looks like!
As others have mentioned, they are a variety of things which are unreasonable in the article, the most disappointing of which is the misleading title. In scientific pursuit we try to express things in a manner which is as precise and accurate as possible, and comment on a rigorous manner, as not to waste each other's time. We rarely give each other pats on the back (though probably from the humanistic, motivational perspective this might seem sad or unfriendly). Nor are the scientists doing the work which is being commented upon meant to feel destroyed or stop working. Is just a simple process through which we confront each other's errors, rectify them, and make better research. Andrew's comment is very valuable, though it might not sound like the normal comments people make to popular science articles (e.g. "wow, that's awesome, dude!").