 Gold, sought after and killed for since the beginning of time. It is held a unique place within the human psyche for countless millennia. Never rusting or tarnishing, precious ancient golden artifacts, often left with the dead, are discovered many centuries, sometimes millennia later, still glistening like the day they were left. Perhaps one of the more peculiar, visually impressive, yet suspiciously little-known ancient golden artifact has to be the Berlin Golden Hat. And although, predictably, a rather mundane modern history has been attached to it, we believe there is substantial evidence to suggest it is in fact an upart, an out-of-place artifact. Supposedly, according to the academics, it is a late Bronze Age artifact, somehow made during this era, from incredibly thin gold leaf. It now resides within the Noyes Museum on Museum Island, Berlin, in a room all by itself within an elaborate maximum-security display case. One has to wonder, with such excessive security, could this hat perhaps be more historically valuable than we are being led to believe? The Bronze Age was so named because of the technological ability to work with particular metals, bronze being that metal, hence the name of the age. The question is, how did a developing bronze age people create such a delicately constructed elaborately decorated item, so accurately, out of gold leaf? The Berlin hat is the best-preserved specimen among four others, also predictably dated to the Bronze Age of Central Europe. Two were found in southern Germany, and one in the west of France, all located within the 19th and 20th centuries. It is academically assumed that the hat served as the insignia of deities or priests within the context of a sun cult, a studied area of historical cultural society widespread throughout Central Europe at the time. It is at best a presumption based on many other presumptions. Interestingly, the hats also display complex astronomical and calendrical functions. More compelling evidence to suggest these hats are in fact items left by an advanced civilization, possibly reused by a later culture. The Berlin gold hat was put on sale in the international arts trade in 1995. In 1996, the Berlin Museum, Fervor and Frugestichter bought it as an important bronze age artifact. The seller claimed that the object came from an anonymous Swiss private collection, which had been assembled in the 1950s and 1960s. It assumed that the hat was found in southern Germany or Switzerland. The good preservation of the cones suggests that, like the Schifferstadt example, it must have been carefully filled with soil or ashes and then buried upright in relatively fine soil, an incredible possible upart. Here at Mystery History, we cover the unexplained areas of antiquity, either ignored, avoided, dismissed, or simply given an incomplete or often illogical historical lifeline of existence by mainstream academia, particularly those which we have covered of significant size, quarried from many miles away, now often immovable and once transported and either erected or placed atop one another seemingly effortlessly. We were, in a past series of investigations, looking into an interesting quarry within the Basda cave system on the edge of Turkey, a place with particularly good granite and a proven source of stone for numerous megalithic sites many miles around. Later, proven by us via the preserved linkages in tool marks to have been used by more than one group as if they had coalesced at this particular site. Yet, as mentioned, we have long argued that not just one advanced civilization capable of moving and cutting these incredibly monumental megalithic stones or indeed precisely cut them have been and gone, and we feel we have and continue to provide sufficient proof of these claims. The Colossae of Memnon, said to have once sang at sunrise, are both made of stones thousands of tons in weight, yet are eroding to dust along with countless others, yet clearly once precisely cut, just like all the other stone ruins we cover worldwide. Yet sites like Petra and the polygonal casing stones found in some most curious of places such as the Pyramids of Egypt, preserving stones in a similar condition to the Colossae. Certain stone monuments of gigantic size found and stored in near-perfect condition are found in these same areas, as if somehow spare catastrophe. Does this prove a sudden great flood? They regardless, we claim, prove several cycles of activity at stone-cutting creation. Were some monuments submerged and therefore preserved under the sediments, like those secretly removed from the Pyramids and Sphinx during initial investigations? Did the ruins claimed as similarly dated not? Or were they attacked by a geological event? The perfect preservation of some of these statues must eliminate sandware as a possibility. The pursuit to the answers to these questions become closer, and we feel highly compelling. We have in the past covered the fascinating fossilized footprints of apparent ancient giants that may have once roamed our earth. These prints, undoubtedly of a tremendous age, a timeline and existence which flies in the face of current teachings. Along with these giant prints, we have also touched upon the baffling, seemingly melted hand prints found upon stones within Wyoming, yet one area of fossilized prints which have seemingly slipped through our radar until they were recently brought to our attention is the vast array of extremely ancient human-sized prints found throughout the world. In this segment, we will specifically focus upon those found within St. Louis, firstly due to their remarkable nature, but also due to a curious letter received by a fellow of similar interests, recorded by William R. Corliss in his source book, Volume Strange Artifacts, sent in 1837 by an English geologist. It read as follows, quote, List I should again neglect to call your attention to a subject to which I have long since intended to claim your particular regard. I will in this brief space allude to it. In the fifth volume of your journal, 1822, there are remarks on the prints of human feet observed in the secondary limestone of the Valley of the Mississippi by Mr. Schoolcraft and Mr. Benton, with a plate representing the impressions of two feet. Ever since my researches on ripple sandstones published in Jameson's Edinburgh Journal, I felt persuaded the prints alluded to were the genuine impressions of human feet made in the limestone when wet. I cannot go on with the arguments that may be urged in proof of my opinion, but rely upon it. Those prints are certain evidence that man existed at the epoch of the deposition of that limestone, as the birds that lived when the new red sandstone was formed. Get all the evidence on this head you can, rely upon its most important results will be its consequence. He continued, his fellow friend Sir Woodbine Parrish, who was seemingly an English knight of the realm, was familiar with other prints, quotes, tells me of similar impressions which have been seen in South America, and there was a dispute among the top Catholic sects as to whether they were the prints of the apostles themselves, end quote. These mountains of accounts and actual physical proofs that man may be very much older than currently argued, we not only found seemingly overwhelming, but certain individuals' denial of such, highly compelling. The severe undulating erosion upon the walls of the Sphinx enclosure undoubtedly showed that the Sphinx had been heavily weathered long before the Sahara became a desert. Therefore one must suspect that it could indeed be over 9,000 years old. Not knowing exactly how much rainfall there has been in the distant past, the Sphinx could indeed be far older than this. The most notable scholarly advocates, Robert Scotch argues that the Sphinx may be far older than 12,000 years. Robert Baval and Graham Hancock proposed that the Sphinx may have been built around 10,500 BC during the last age of Leo. Anthony West believes everything on the Giza Plateau testifies to an advanced, secure and long settled civilisation, therefore he suggests that the Sphinx may have been built not during the age of Leo, but the whole processional cycle earlier. In around 36,000 BC, a date he feels is more in keeping with the history of Egypt as chronicled by certain Egypt kings. Regardless of an exact date, all of these talented Egyptologists propose a date set much further back within history than currently accepted, and they have provided considerable evidence to back up such conclusions. At the time of disclosure, the argument sent shockwaves through the Egyptologist establishment. Not because of the datings, Egyptologists and mainstream historians have grown quite inept at ignoring data, but more because it was realised that there is indeed no other explanation for their arguments. There is little doubt that the Sphinx enclosure was subject to severe erosion within its lifetime, and although it could have been explained away as a naturally formed enclosure, we fortunately know from analysis that the limestone blocks dug out from there were then used within the building of nearby Sphinx temple. Interestingly, no other site in Egypt shows the same type or degree of erosion. Was the evidence hidden away? Concealed from the public in what could only be called a conspiracy? Sediments surrounding the base of the monuments under once existing watermark upon the stones halfway up the Great Pyramid's sides indicate just that. Two-inch-thick salt incrustations once found within inner chambers, silt sediments rising to 14 feet around the bases of the pyramids, found to contain seashells and fossils that have been radiocarbon dated at nearly 12,000 years old have indeed slowly vanished over the years. These sediments could only have been deposited in such great quantities by major sea flooding. A watermark was also once clearly visible on the limestone casing stones of the Great Pyramid. These stones were unfortunately unknowingly removed by invading Arabs. These watermarks were halfway up the sides of the pyramid or about 400 feet above the present level of the Nile River, 200 feet above the base. It seems the last remaining shred of evidence, the enclosure, survived due to the talented individuals that were required to spot it. Individuals who are thankfully on our side.