January 26, 2008
The REAL 10000 BC
You might have heard of a movie called “10,000 BC” coming out in March of 2008. If you saw the trailers you might have noticed some things that were inaccurate, or at least grossly exaggerated, if you have some basic knowledge of prehistory. Were saber-tooth tigers (smilodons) really that big? Did they really have sailboats, domesticated mammoths and cities back in 10,000 BC?
It’s been a while since a real movie has been made based on prehistoric times, but it appears that this movie shamelessly embellishes to be more entertaining to the average Joe. I guess why should I expect anything else from Hollywood by now? Don’t see this movie expecting it to be a scientific documentary. Think of it more as a fantasy film, merely similar to earth-like events, more like The 300, or even The Mummy or Lord of the Rings. Maybe it’s the science nerd in me, but I just can’t stand any movie that implies it is based on historical (or in the case, prehistorical) life or events, but then ignores the likely realities of the time. Maybe that’s why I like documentaries.
Let’s look at some of the items from the trailers:
- Saber-Tooth Tiger Size: Smilodon populator, the largest of the saber tooth cats, which went extinct around 10,000 B.C., was no little kitty, but was the size of a large lion. It is known to have been 120 cm, or about 4 feet at the shouder. The scene I am looking at on the 10,000 B.C. movie website shows a smilodon that is more like 7 feet or so at the shoulder, assuming the man is only 4 feet, 6 inches tall!
- Saber-Tooth Geography: Another problem. Smilodon species existed in North and South America, whereas the man in the movie who encounters one does not look Native American. Ancestors of Native Americans were just now migrating into the North American continent at about 10,000 BC.
- Sailboats: The trailer shows boats with red sails on a river, as well as big, wooden boats. Possible, but not likely… there is no evidence of sail or big boat technology for the time. Mesopotamians had sailboats on their rivers by 4,000 BC, however.
- The Wheel: The wheel is not known to be used, until invented by the Mesopotamians by 3200 BC, and may have been invented independently elsewhere.
- Domesticated mammoth: One trailer version shows humans leading mammoths with some sort of harness. Again, possible, but not likely. Animals, other than dogs and goats, are not known to be domesticated by this time. And used as a beast of burden to help build the pyramids? C’mon! See next.
- Cities or large man-made structures: No structures or cities this large and advanced are known by science to have been constructed by 10,000 BC. The structures and cities shown in the trailer look more like middle-eastern cities, closer to 5000-3000 BC. No pyramids, like shown in the trailer, are known to have been built by 10,000 BC. Wikipedia: List of oldest continuously inhabited cities
- Helmeted horseback rider: A man with a stereotypcial-viking-style helmet (were helmets even “invented” yet? … and see knife/metallurgy discussion below) is seen riding on horseback. There is no reason to believe that humans rode horses at this stage in prehistory or had even domesticated them yet. Horses were hunted and eaten at this time however!
- Bows/Spear Points: A bow is shown in the trailer. Bows were almost invented by 10,000 BC, but likely they were another mellennium or two away yet. And what’s up with that fancy spear point in the aforementioned scene with the over-sized saber-tooth? That’s an unlikley style - if anything, something made for ceremony - but probably useless for hunting. Some real Stone Age points can be seen here.
- Knives/Swords: At least one of the trailers shows what appears to be something like a steel knife and you can hear what sounds like clashing swords. Well, assuming it’s not steel, but bronze, it’s still thousands of years too early. Although there is a possible early (7500 BC) site for copper metal working, it is generally accepted that bronze (alloy of copper and tin) was not discovered until 3500 BC. As far as iron goes, the earliest known iron-based weapons were Egyptian and made from meteoric iron. Iron extraction from ore was not done until 1200 BC. Wikipedia: Metallurgy
- Shaving: Maybe. Plucking seems to have pre-dated shaving in human history, but it’s hard to know for sure from the archaeological record. I’m guessing that most men that could (as with today, depends on one’s genetics) grow full beards did grow full beards at this time, though they could have also been decorated, braided, cut short, etc.. There surely would have been much variation in customs and technology from tribe to tribe.
- Hunting Tactics: A scene shows a hunter squirming along the ground between unaware grazing mammoths. Now, you don’t have to be a seasoned hunter or zoologist to correctly guess it would take about a half second for the mammoth to stomp the $%&@ out of him.
Where do you learn about the real life of 10,000 BC? From an authoritative scientific source or something that get it’s information from a scientific source. Here are some sources to get you started:
10th Millennium BC, on Wikipedia
The History Channel: Journey to 10,000 BC: Describes the lives and people of the 10,000 BC era, including theories about the origin and fate of the Clovis people and ice age animals.
The National Geographic Channel: Birth of Civilization: Does a good job of covering the evolution of culture in the middle east from about 12,000 BC through 3,000 BC.
Around 10,000 BC, there were less than 5 million people on earth, scattered among all continents except Antarctica. The earth was going through a period of global warming. Receding glaciers allowed the ancestors of Native Americans to migrate from Asia. Humans were hunter-gatherers and many nomadic. Agriculture has not really taken off yet, although goats were domesticated in Persia, and figs domesticated in the Jordan River valley at about this time. In Mesopotamia, people began making beer (hey, gotta have your priorities!) from the grain they were gathering. Evolutionarily, humans were essentially the same as now, though there are likely some slight changes since then.
Despite the inaccuracies, I will still see the movie when it comes out, but I will, of course, consider it a fantasy film. I guess we’ll imagine it as a world that could have been - maybe on another planet!
10,000 B.C. on Rotten Tomatoes
Yahoo! Movies Presents: The 10 Most Historically Inaccurate Movies
On one of the trailers it looked like they were riding camels or some other sort of animal that was alive at that time (not horses). But yeah the saber tooth looked too big and even the mammoths were too big.
So this is more like “3000 BC”, right?
Right. 3000 BC to 2000 BC is a “best fit” to what is depicted in this movie, minus the prehistoric animals, of course.
An interesting exception in the story of mammoth is the hold out on Wrangel Island. A population of dwarfed mammoths there didn’t go extinct until around 1700 BC!
http://packrat.aml.arizona.edu/Journal/v37n1/vartanyan.html
Of course the dwarf mammoths on Wrangel Island were too small to be anything like those depicted in that movie trailer (if I remember the details of the trailer correctly; I’ve only seen it once.) But it’s still fascinating to think that mammoths were still around in the Bronze Age (if in a remote location)…
Of course, there is some evidence that at least one sub-species of dwarf mammoth existed even into modern times
You’re right. I just saw this film, earlier this evening. And, it’s just as much a science fantasy as the now-classic “Quest For Fire.” It’s also just as entertaining, if one can suspend one’s disbelief somewhat.
For instance, I didn’t find the size of that CGI sabertooth so implausible. With vitamin deficiencies and such, Mesolithic people probably _were_ less than five feet tall. Which means, from their point of view, a SEVEN-foot tall smilodon would most definitely be a giant monster!
Furthermore, with all the different legends about an ancient Great Flood around the world, I firmly believe there _must_ have been an Atlantis-like continent at one time. With a native population that might have been slightly more advanced than their neighbors.
The one complaint I do have, with this film? Modern-day elephants do not _gallop_ when they stampede! Rather they move at a very powerful fast-walk. And, I’m sure the same was true of woolly mammoths.
According to that History Channel special, “Journey To 10,000 BC,” there is a paleontologist who has recently–and somewhat controversially–postulated that the Clovis Point Culture of eastern North America might have been fishing folk from prehistoric France! And, that they transatlantically voyaged to the New World to escape the Ice Age interval called the Younger Dryas Period.
This would have been about three thousand years prior to the formation of the Bering Landbridge. Again; according to the special.
Thanks Carycomic, I saw that show too. There is some interesting supporting evidence. If the Clovis people were from prehistoric France, then I suspect they would have been wiped out by severe climate change or an astronomical event (massive comet impact?)… possibilities mentioned in the program. I think if the Clovis were from France and they survived and later interbred with the asian immigrants (Bering land bridge) there would be some sort of DNA evidence in modern Native Americans. Then there are alot of assumptions in comparing DNA and alot of incomplete information. I think this is one of those things that will take a couple decades to sort out, though I want to know now!
You all bring up interesting points.
One thing I’d like to say in regards to the Atlantis theory, is that in one of my anthropology classes a few years ago, we discussed the possibility of Atlantis, and if it did in fact exist, where did we think it was? Well, many theories abounded, but, the most plausable theory that someone in my class had, was that it might have existed to the east, and a little north, of Crete. And yes, like the Minoans, and Mycaneaens, they would have been an advanced culture.
Back to 10,000 B.C.E. The problem I have (one of many) with this story/movie, is the tame Wooly Mammoth. It’s not that I don’t think it’s possible (unlikely, yes), but the idea of a tuskless, TAME Wooly Mammoth bothers me, mostly because of a documentary I recently saw on Animal Planet in regards to elephants. It was dealing with the poaching of elephant tusks, and I kept thinking/wondering, “OK, if they’re only going after elephants for the ivory, and elephants can live without their tusks, why not (forgive the pun) kill two birds with one stone, and anethestize the elephants, remove the tusks (preferably only one, but both, if it’s deemed absolutely necessary), and let the elephant live?” Ideal right? Well, not really. My question got answered later in the show… Apparently, elephants that have had their tusks removed, and are now basically defenseless, tend to become extremely violent and dangerous. Based upon this, I can only imagine what a tuskless Wooly Mammoth would be like, and I cannot imagine that it would be tame/domesticated. Since elephants are descended from Wooly Mammoths (or am I completely wrong here? I took classes in anthropology, not paleontology, so I may be ignorant here), I can only imagine that a tuskless Wooly Mammoth would be ten times more dangerous than a tuskless elephant.
So, besides all the other historical inaccuracies that this movie has, the tuskless, domesticated Wooly Mammoth just added to that.
As for the Clovis Point People, well, theories have abounded as to their place of origin too, and while I have not before heard of the French origin theory, which to me seems implausable, I have heard theories that they were a sea faring people, but came from areas closer to where their sites in South America were originally found. It’s more plausable that they sailed from nearby islands and landed in South America, and slowly migrated north. At least, this is what was discussed in my antropology classes.
I saw the movie about an hour ago. I don’t know much about the period but did notice how white everyone’s teeth were. Was this possible 10000 B.C.? How did they travel those great distances in just days/weeks?
I just ran across another interesting bit about mammoths on LiveScience.com. In their article, “Real or Fake? The Frightening Creatures in 10,000 BC“, they write:
“Intriguingly, in 1994, a scientist in Israel revealed the ancient Egyptians may have known of woolly mammoths, with a wall painting of what might be a waist-sized mammoth found in a pharaoh’s tomb.”
Could this be the dwarf mammoth of Wrangel Island (survived to 1700 BC), the dwarf elephants of the Greek Island Tilos (survived to 2000 BC), or something else? My guess is either a regular Asian or African elephant or a dwarf elephant. The Wrangel island mammoths might have still been around, but they’d be awfully far away from Egypt!
More:
Pygmy mammoths!
Did endemic dwarf elephants survive on Mediterranean islands up to protohistorical times? (PDF!)
Egyptian Wall Painting
Could that wall-painting have depicted the same type of North African elephant species that the Carthaginian army used (as heavy cavalry mounts) in the Punic Wars with Rome?
see. this is the problem these days. you just dont relax and enjoy a movie. its FICTION!!!!!!!!!
here since you like facts:
fiction
Noun
1. literary works invented by the imagination, such as novels
just stop trying to be a know it all and enjoy life. jeez.
My son and I watched the movie last night. I spent so much of the movie dragging out yet another encylopedia looking up the glaring inaccuracies. One thing, besides, those inaccuracies that REALLY bugged us was that no one in the original tribe looked like another–you had obvious polynesians, inuits, blacks, arab, an Ethan Hawke looking white guy in the lead character, and more! The casting agents, as well as director, production designer, etc. soooo dropped the ball on this (as well as on historical accuracy)A tribe would have been more homogenous in their appearance! Now, the raiders DID look more alike, but they definately had a Roman/Greek/Persian/Fertile Crescent sort of look–would they REALLY have interacted with those from a more northern(possibly steppes?) area? The movie was just hokey, not very entertaining, and really hard for a history geek to take
And telescopes were invented in 1608/1609!
the only thing that was accurate about this movie was the fact they were all inhaling some kind of hallucinogen (protocannabis soama) in the tent with the Shawoman… this then explains the trip the heroes all went on! Specially the bit where bronze weapon wielding horse riders from 2000BC were rounding up tribesmen from 8000 years prior and slapping some kind of metallic handcuffs on them. that was where their trip really went baaaad…despite this, the collective pot smoking in the tent is all perfectly feasible - in fact the rest of it is all so obviously a drug addled flight of fantasy I cant believe its being debated here! I hope none of you guys think that Total Recall reflected real events rather than the ‘holiday trip’ with the blue sky ending Arnie paid for in the beginning
Do none of you realize this movie was largely inspired by the heroic fantasy works of Robet E. Howard? His stories take place in the Hyborian Age, which is a time and place in the world that could be called an alternate history. In the Hyborian Age, all of the continents are one, thus explaining the smilodons and terror birds in places they shouldn’t be. It also explains the mammoths and smilodons being larger than they should be, because in the Hyborian Age there are enormous wild cats and mammoths. Tying together my theory that this movie is supposed to represent the Hyborian Age of Robert E. Howard’s writings is the presence of an Atlantean. According the the Hyborian Age stories, Atlanteans traveled to the mainland of Hyboria after their own land dissolved into war and chaos. They brought the first vestiges of civilization to the Great Continent, thus the large waterships and pyramids and taming of animals like mammoths.
Did anyone see the map the pharaoh had? It showed part of South America.
Everything we know about history from 12,000 bc to 2000 bc is mostly theorectical. Yet people without thinking take these theories as fact. Case in point, an iron sheet was found inside the structure of the great pyriamid (constructed 2500bc) - it was dismissed by so called experts as fake, as according to their facts iron oring & manipulation did not occur for 1500 years later- depsite engineers stating it had to have been installed at the consturction date, by the nature of where it was placed. People theorise and then take their theories as fact, anything that flies in the face of these so called facts are dismissed as incorrect, when these so called facts are only theories with no proof.
It seems likely that during the end of the last ice age with the great floods that wiped out many civilisations and also their knowledge, we lost much information regarding life pre 10,000BC. But to speculate or theorise on this draws derision from idiots such as the members of this page. Open your minds fools. Why could there not have been civilisations with ships? Why could there not have been great cities and structures? Underwater sites have been found all around the world showing large stone structres in sites that were above sea level pre 10,000BC, but again these fly in the face of contemporary theory. Dont beleive everything you are told. You ask for proof, yet your experts do not provide proof of their theories. Everything you know is wrong
The latest Scientific American describes some of recent human evolution. It is now thought that lactose tolerance and increased repetition of genes aiding the digestion of starch evolved independently in several different regions, reflecting the changing diets of the local population. This would have happened in the period between 10000 B.C. and today. It is now thought that the extent of modern human adaptation is greater than previously thought.
Actually the age of Pyramids MAY HAVE BEEN have been built around 10000 B.C. Through studies it has been shown that The MOST erosion on Egyptian Pyramids have been due to MASSIVE rainfall. Egypts deserts having massive rainfall? Correct. Studies have shown that the last time Egypt\’s desert have had massive rainfall were about 10000 B.C. Debunking the previous theory of Egypts pyramids being built post 3000 B.C. Whoever made this movie did more accruate analysis than you think.
……to add to the last comment, Don’t forget the other pyramid-like structures that are currently under water in Japans yonaguni. Those structures have been said to have been built around 10000 B.C. as well since that was the last time that area “yonaguni” has been above water. Same to those under water pyramid-like structures in the Caribbean’s. The Egyptian Pyramid’s may have been built starting from 10000 B.C.
A shout out from the academic world….cheers to the last three people that posted comments on this site. History is based on what we as a modern civilization (by our own definition) can derive from the physical evidence and surviving written works that we either dig up or get handed down to us over hundreds or thousands (if we’re lucky) of years. Unfortunately, once a theory is formed and has been around long enough, many people, including historians, make the mistake of accepting it as fact. And prior to the emergence of mass communication, many influential historians, and we use the word loosely, were unable to compare their findings with either rival/conflicting or supplemental studies before forming many of the “facts” that are commonly accepted as truth today. We are no longer restricted to what the nearest history buff declares as gospel, and investigating even the history taught in elementary schools today is absolutely necessary when criticizing what anyone else put forth as a historical possibility. Incidentally, the History Channel is NOT well regarded among modern historians as a legitimate source of historical fact. Like any media outlet, this channel is restricted in its programming by the need to attract viewers and advertisers, and is not above manipulating “facts” to make their productions more dramatic and appealing.
WHEN WERE THE PYRAMIDS REALLY BUILT?
The official Egyptian stance on the subject of when the Pyramids were actually constructed has come under some serious criticism in the last century as evidence builds that the Pyramids are far older than previously thought. Obviously, the Egyptians have many reasons to “keep it in the family” by perpetuating the classic theory of the pyramids being constructed in about 4,300 B.C. by ancient Egyptian kings, and they do have some evidence for this theory, though at this point it seems highly questionable.
The first piece of evidence is from a man named Herodotus who visited Egypt in 443 B.C. and related a story about the Pharaoh Khufu (Cheops) building the great pyramid. Unfortunately, Herodotus was considered an unreliable liar even by his peers of the day, and thus his story has to be taken with a grain of salt.
The other main piece of evidence for this timeline is an inscription that was supposedly found by Col. Richard Howard-Vyse after blasting his way into the airspace chambers above the King’s Chamber in 1837. We know that Richard’s research money was running low at the time and that he desperately needed a major find in the Pyramid for continued funding. It is highly suspected that the inscriptions he supposedly “found” in the airspace chamber were actually written by him. This forgery may conceivably have worked, as basically the same red paint that the ancients used is still used today in Egypt, but the content of the inscriptions is incongruent with the timeline to say the least, including sayings that didn’t surface until a couple thousand years later, and blatant misspellings. From the record, Pharaoh Khufu himself says that he only did repair work on an already existing Pyramid complex and built three small pyramids in the area for himself and his family. Indeed, on the east side of the Pyramid there are ruins of three small pyramids, one of which has produced evidence of being the tomb of his wife…..
Many legends passed down from ancient civilizations mention the Pyramid as a repository of sorts to protect the knowledge of a highly advanced civilization from “a flood.” This is significant, and there are records that indicate that before the limestone surface of the Pyramids was stripped away, there was a water line that reached to about halfway up the Great Pyramid - about 240 feet - strongly suggesting that the Pyramids were built before the great flood - which occurred around 10,000 B.C. Inside, when the Great Pyramid was first opened, there were thick salt deposits along the walls to about halfway up. Though some of this salt is attributable to natural weeping by the rocks, some is also consistent chemically with sea salt - another strong piece of evidence for the Pyramids being in existence before the Great Flood. Indeed, modern studies indicate that 10,000 B.C. was a time of massive geomagnetic, climactic and geologic changes, and it is also the time frame that Plato uses to describe the destruction of the great civilization of Atlantis - assumedly from the same catastrophic events.
There is some evidence astronomically that coincides with the 10,000 - 12,000 B.C. timeline for the construction of the Pyramids. It has long been strongly suspected that the Pyramids have an integral connection to the night sky, and to the constellation Orion in particular. The three Pyramids are not in perfect, straight alignment as one might expect, but are slightly askew. This configuration is strongly suggestive of three stars in Orion’s belt, though their orientation is different. However, if you turn the clock back by about 10,500 years, suddenly the orientation and alignment becomes perfect (see comparison below). This is strong evidence in support of the Pyramids being built during this time in ancient history rather than the classical timeframe given to us by mainstream Egyptologists.
Lastly, and this one is certainly debatable but does warrant mention - Edgar Cayce, one of the most noted psychics of our time, correlated the Pyramids to the time of Atlantis and dated them to - you guessed it - 10,500 B.C………….
Though none of this is concrete proof of the timeline of the advent of the Pyramids, the evidence does seem to point to a much more remote civilization than has been presented in the official literature, and raises many more questions such as how an assumedly primitive society could erect such massive and precise structures and why…………topics that can be researched using the links at top left…….
you guys are all nerds
But isn’t that the whole point of Hollywood? To exaggerate the truth and make the line between reality and illusion imperceptible?