No.36674[Last 50 Posts]
Ancient History and Lost Civilisation Enjoyer Thread #3
>Previous threads:https://archive.is/niXSfhttps://web.archive.org/web/20230326214826/https://leftypol.org/siberia/res/384126.html
<Confirming the age of ancient footprints
>For their follow-up study, the researchers focused on radiocarbon dating of conifer pollen, because it comes from a terrestrial plant and avoids the issues that can arise when dating aquatic plants such as Ruppia, according to the news release.
>The scientists were able to isolate some 75,000 grains of pollen, collected from the exact same layers as the original seeds, for each sample. Thousands of grains are required to achieve the mass necessary for a single radiocarbon measurement. The pollen age matched that found for the seeds.
>The team also used a dating technique known as optically stimulated luminescence, which determines the last time quartz grains in the fossil sediment were exposed to sunlight. This method suggested that the quartz had a minimum age of 21,500 years.
>“The immediate reaction in some circles of the archaeological community was that the accuracy of our dating was insufficient to make the extraordinary claim that humans were present in North America during the Last Glacial Maximum,” said Jeff Pigati, USGS geologist and co-lead author of the study. “But our targeted methodology in this current research really paid off.” Source:
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/05/americas/ancient-footprints-first-americans-scn/index.html
<Summary:Humans were in S. America 21.000-23.000 years ago, during the Glacial Maximum of the last ice age. Now, either Humans arrived there before the last ice age (where is the evidence for that?), they scaled the massive glaciers in N. America (unlikely), or they traveled by ship (my favourite theory). But this would beg the question: how come they had ocean-going ships? Were they perhaps taught how to build them by a
lost civilisation?
No.36675
The boat theory is rather popular among mainstream archeologists and once again the anti communist Hancuck tries to steal credit.
No.36676
>>36675>The boat theory is rather popular among mainstream archeologists That's a lie. Even the article says the scientists who did the carbon dating received pushback from their peers. The boat theory is not popular, what is popular is a theory that Humans rushed along the West coast of N. America (leaving no trace), until they reached S. America before the end of the ice age.
Mainstream archeologists still maintain there were no ocean-going ships at the time.
I mean, you know you are lying, so why are you even posting? Who are you trying to convince? Or more importantly, why do you want people to remain ignorant? You add nothing to the discussion and everyone is literally dumber for having read your bullshit.
No.36677
Atlantis was communist
No.36678
Hyperborea is real folx
No.36679
>>36676>Mainstream archeologists still maintain there were no ocean-going ships at the time.Paleolithic humans also made it to Australia. This is comenly accepted and no amount of whining and accusing me of lying will change that.
No.36680
>>161731
admittedly my source is a brief skim of a relevant wiki page but the coastal migration makes the most sense to me. Assuming I read everything right, the other options are going through the icesheet pre 30k years ago or transoceanic travel when we know the genetic overlap between polynesians and south american isnt anywhere near that old. That theres no evidence of coastal migration makes sense when you consider how high the sea levels have risen since
No.36681
I'd take the ancient civ hypothesis much more serious if its most vocal proponents wouldn't conjure up a massive conspiracy against them. They are to archeology what Bohmians are to quantum physics
No.36682
>>36681Who are the Bohmian conspiracy theorists, besides that one anon who treats qm like a culture war topic?
No.36683
>>36679>Paleolithic humans also made it to Australia. The seas were ~280m lower before the last ice age, so they probably walked most of the way to Australia and only had to cross small channels by boat.
>>36680>That theres no evidence of coastal migration makes sense when you consider how high the sea levels have risen sinceBut that is the rationale for why there isn't evidence of a lost civilisation. Most people (even today) live by the coast, so that lost civ would also have most, if not all, of its cities by the coast that is underwater now.
>>36681>I'd take the ancient civ hypothesis much more serious if its most vocal proponents wouldn't conjure up a massive conspiracy against them. <I'd take communists much more serious if its most vocal proponents wouldn't conjure up a massive conspiracy against them.>They are to archeology what Bohmians are to quantum physicsBohmian interpretation is materialistic, doesn't rely on "uncertainty" and magic. Now I know you're an idealist lib and frankly you don't belong here. Go back to reddit.
No.36684
>>36683>The seas were ~280m lowerAnd? The depth of water doesn't influence a boats ability to stay above water.
No.36685
>>36684It means more land was above the water, thus removing the need for ocean-going ships.
>pics relatedThose are tiny channels that can be crossed on rafts and rudimentary boats.
No.36686
>>36685So paleolithic humans could cross the ocean? Thousands of years before the arrived on the American continents? Huh, looks like I was right and you were wrong.
No.36687
>>36686>So paleolithic humans could cross the ocean? A channel between islands is not an ocean. There was no ocean there, only islands. Ten years ago I'd say you are trolling, but having met Americans, nothing surprises me.
>Thousands of years before the arrived on the American continents? Where is America and where is Australia? I know geography is not the burgers strong suit.
>HuhBack to reddit.
No.36688
>>36687>a technology couldn't have spread around Eurasia and improved within several thousand yearsHuh?
No.36689
>>36688You're not making sense. What even is your point? That Australian aborigines invented boats? Hancock really breaks lib brains lmao
No.36691
>>36690>a drawing of something is just as good as physical evidenceThe discussion isn't about boats, but ocean-going boats. Crossing from Asia to S. America is much more difficult than crossing a small channel between close islands, on account of there being an ocean between them.
I know you're trying to derail the discussion, but I will keep answering your dumb questions, like I would answer a child. Thanks for the bump, your support is appreciated. No.36693
>>36682Since the most vocal and annoying proponents are mostly terminally online I couldn't care less who they are. Actual and serious research on bohmian mechanics is done by my fellow stemlords, who I assume to work in good faith and not simply because their pet qm theory is supposedly more materialist
>>36683Is it more materialist because it's deterministic or since it retains the corpuscular notion of a particle? I'll remind you that quantum mechanics is also deterministic in the sense that the wave functions and by extension the probability distributions are determined by the initial conditions. Bohmian mechanics as it is currently understood also doesn't have a strong claim to conventional determinism anymore, for a recent review see
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-022-00591-9This doesn't mean that Copers are correct by the way. Something better will come along eventually.
No.36694
>>36692Already adressed. Those little canoes cannot hold enough provisions necessary for a trip across the ocean.
>>36685>Those are tiny channels that can be crossed on rafts and rudimentary boats.>>36693>Is it more materialist because it's deterministic or since it retains the corpuscular notion of a particle?The latter. The determinism comes from the predictable behaviour of the particles, or that's hwo the theory goes.
>Bohmian mechanics as it is currently understood also doesn't have a strong claim to conventional determinism anymore, for a recent review see https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-022-00591-9That's very interesting. I haven't read that paper and I will be looking into it further.
I also found this paper on the topic.
>Whereas it has been argued before that Bohm’s commitment to determinism was connected to his interest in Marxism, I argue for the opposite: Bohm found resources in Marxist philosophy for developing a nondeterministic notion of causality, which is based on the idea of infinite complexity and an infinite number of levels of nature. From ca. 1954 onwards, Bohm’s conception of causality further weakened, as he developed the idea of a dialectical relation between causality and chance. https://philpapers.org/rec/VANWBW No.36695
>>36674>it's another episode of "this new thing got discovered therefore I'm going to jump to conclusions about my favorite meme archaeologist and deflect from criticism by screeching about bourgeois science"Please shut the fuck up, there's enough schizos shitting up this board
No.36697
what has to do with productive forces, though?
No.36698
>>36696>mentioning Hancock's name makes libs lose their mindThis will never stop being funny. Seethe, lib.
>>36695>my favorite meme archaeologist Hancock is not an archeologist, he is a journalist.
>deflect from criticism by screeching about bourgeois scienceWhat criticism? Every "criticism" in these threads gets an answer, no matter how retarded it is. It seems that you have been reduced to coming up with strawmen and quoting things that were never said.
No.36699
>>36698Hancuck is an anti communist
Stay mad lib
No.36700
>>36699>Hancuck is an anti communistEvidence?
>Stay mad lib>no uA couple of posts and you're already spent.
To keep the thread on topic, here's a good youtube channel that dunks on pop archeologists and all the deboonkers on youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCodgvia5IT5wiV0II9swBLw No.36703
>>36698>Hancock is not an archeologist, he is a journalist.how tf is he qualified to have an opinion on this shit then
No.36704
>>36700I'm sure he just happened to network with a bunch of rightoids right after his documentary was released.
btw do you know about his mars theories?
No.36705
put some fucking deodorant on you smell like fucking shit
>>36674 No.36706
there was no younger dryas collision
No.36708
>>36676Isn't the theory not that they were ocean going vessels but rather shallow water vessels which took short trips hops along the coast rather than long journeys over ocean?
No.36709
>>36691Why would the paleolithic humans have to cross the ocean when they could hop the coast?
No.36711
>>36708To Australia, where they hopped little islands, yes. But we're talking about migration from Asia to S. America (no genetic markers or other evidence of a population passing through exists for N. America). How did Humans get from Asia to S. America, during the last ice age, when there was a massive glacier (several kilometers tall) covering N. America? As I said, some have proposed the Humans walked along the west coast of N. America, while to me it makes more sense they crossed what is today the Pacific ocean in boats. Why cross glaciers, ice, snow, etc. when you don't know if there is land after, what you'll find, and so on. It's an unnecessary gamble that could see your group wiped out. Archeologists don't like the boat theory because they maintain that humans did not possess the knowledge or shipbuilding skills to cross oceans (that "honour" is given to the Vikings from around 1100 AD).
This was talked about at some length in previous threads (linked in the OP), btw.
No.36712
>>36709What coast? N. American coast was covered in glaciers.
No.36714
hancock hyperborea type schizo thread should be autoban
No.36715
>>36714it's getting old anyway
No.36788
>>36719>very important discussionIrrelevant. Among 300+ threads of bait, actual schizo shit and shitposts, there should be place for this discussion. The anti-Hancock spammer even ridiculed Bohmian QM, which is literally inspired by Marxism and dialectics. The Anti-Hancock spammer revealed himself to be a redditoid lib who will ridicule anything not accepted by the mainstream (liberal) scientists, like the Bohmian interpretation of quantum mechanics.
No.36789
>>36787Natural feature explained just-so with mythology.
Did Maui pull up the various pacific islands with a magic fish hook?
Are the Pleiades actually seven sisters fleeing Orion the hunter?
No.36791
>>36790Yeah that's what so interesting. Most of human civilization is built on the ocean and the ocean levels have changed so much so most ancient civilizations are probably underwater.
No.36792
>>36790This is true, but Rama's bridge specifically lacks evidence to indicate it was artificially constructed.
No.36793
>>36791>so most ancient civilizations are probably underwater.If we can find them at all. 10.000 years underwater is a long time; tides, earthquakes, erosion, sediment… anything not made out of stone would have eroded and disappeared a long time ago under sand/dirt. We have only mapped about 1% of the ocean floor. Anons get excited over bullshit like aliens, yet they don't realise we have an unexplored alien world right besides/below us. They keep finding structures, settlements and whole cities underwater, and not that deep or far from shore.
No.36795
>>36707>How are you?I don't, I just believe the accepted consensus among all actual historians
No.36796
>>36793There was plenty of erosion on the surface too. Probably has something to do with how much early human evidence we find in caves, away from the elements. People could have been living outside too, but the stuff they left behind wouldn't be as preserved. And prior to megalithic architecture there's not a lot people would have made that would leave evidence. The millions of longhouses etc made from wood and animal skins over the millennia don't leave much if any trace.
Initial flooding as sea levels were rising probably did most of the damage to anything left on the (previous) coasts. Whether sea levels rose quickly or slowly doesn't really change that. If it was rapid, that means the force of rushing waters would knock things over and wash them away. If it was gradual, the tides would have worn things down day by day as the sea level rose. Either situation is quite destructive. Not much would be left after that besides very stable buildings.
>>36794Gobekli Tepe? Not that they are some ancient master race superman civilziation, but they're clearly a society that was more advanced than mainstream history credits for the time. Hancock can get real loopy with his shit (he got into it through drugs), but it's just outright wrong to declare that just because we haven't found a prehistoric culture means it doesn't exist. We continue to find new evidence of ancient and prehistoric peoples having more sophisticated knowledge and culture than we had previously found. That's just how the epistemology works. At no point are we going to end up finding evidence of
fewer cultures or
less advanced technology - that doesn't make any logical sense. Our evidence about the past starts from zero and accumulates. Even when direct evidence is destroyed we still have the documentation of it. From the time we started doing archaeology it was only possible to keep finding new and better evidence until we reach some hypothetical limit (which would realistically be thousands of years from now).
It's entirely reasonable to suppose that there are any number of societies we have yet to discover, especially the farther back we look. Humans have been anatomically and behaviorally modern for longer than recorded history. We aren't any "more evolved" than people 50,000 years ago. We just have more accumulated knowledge and certain technical advancements that allowed for major changes to how we can live. There's not that much special about places like Sumer that would make it implausible let alone impossible for other people to develop similar sorts of societies farther back. In fact, the main reason we know of Sumer is not so much their technical development but the fact that they built their society on mud bricks and recorded their knowledge on clay tablets that have lasted for millennia. There's little reason to say that other peoples, contemporary or earlier, who lived in similarly favorable conditions didn't develop a similar society built on wooden logs with its knowledge recorded on sheets of plant fiber. Such a society would leave comparatively little trace.
No.36807
>>36794>Name ONE artefact or structure created by Hancocks lost civilisation. The Sphinx is a candidate. The Sphinx shows evidence of water (rain) erosion, which means it would have had to have been built when it still rained in Egypt.
Many Aztec and Mayan temples in S. America were built over earlier, existing temples. We don't know when those earlier ones are supposed to have been built.
You talk as if we've explored every part of this planet. We are still finding Mayan cities in the Amazon. And like I have said before, we have only mapped 1% of the sea floor. There's still plenty to discover.
And what's up with Easter Island? Who built those stone statues?
>>36795>I just believe the accepted consensus among all actual historians>all actual historians<no real scotsman fallacy>allYou have evidence of this consesus, right? You wouldn't just be spewing nonsense because you've been backed into a corner? That's another problem with you libs. You watch and read pop science on places like reddit and IFuckingLoveScience, it makes you feel smart (like they're designed to do). But when you're pushed to explain why you think the way you do, you can't and your smugness disappears. You resort to name-calling and insults, like the smooth-brain neanderthal you really are.
>>36796>If it was rapid, that means the force of rushing waters would knock things over and wash them awayThat seems to be the most plausible theory. It would also explain why a lot of animal species went extinct, like the woolly mammoth. Cause the theory that humans hunted them all to extinction doesn't make much sense, hunter gatherers couldn't hunt enough of them out. Humans started making species disappear after the industrial revolution and start of globalisation, when we could hunt animals in large numbers, like the Dodo.
>Hancock can get real loopy with his shit (he got into it through drugs)These threads are hardly about Hancock. I just noticed that mentioning his name makes libs seethe. I mean look at this thread:
>>36675 >>36677 >>36678 >>36681 >>36686 >>36690 >>36692 >>36697 >>36699 >>36705 >>36706 >>36714Those are all made by the same person.
>Humans have been anatomically and behaviorally modern for longer than recorded history. We aren't any "more evolved" than people 50,000 years ago. This. Archeologists have even pushed that timeline back when they found evidence of Homo Sapiens existing over 300.000 years. That is the strongest argument for a lost civ: 300.000 years of Human history and we've only decided to build a civilisation in the last 10.000? Unlikely. Mainstream archeologists say we started doing agriculture when it became warmer, yet they ignore that even during the ice age, there were warm places on Earth, like the tropical belt.
>Such a society would leave comparatively little trace.We just have to keep looking. They found Gobleki Tepe a few years ago. With the help of ground penetrating radar, and other modern technology, they're finding structures and whole settlements. There's much more to discover, and I don't understand this anti-science outlook of "Well, we haven't found any evidence of a lost civ so far, it means it doesn't exist and we should stop looking, and ridicule anyone who does."
The lib in the thread laughs at the idea of "conspiracy", yet every time someone makes a discovery that goes against the mainstream view, nobody bothers to peer review or reproduce the results. They simply rush to denounce the person and use "consensus" against them. That isn't how science is supposed to work. You're supposed to attempt to do the experiment, do the peer review, not just dismiss it on the grounds that it doesn't fit the accepted view.
Example is Gunung Padang. Some archeologists and geologists have said there are cultural layers that are over 12.000 years old:
https://essopenarchive.org/doi/full/10.1002/essoar.10500119.1The response is pic related.
>they questioned their motivesFunny how no one questions or disputes when carbon dating confirms preconceived notions or supports the mainstream view.
On this website, of all places, where every "official" narrative is questioned, every institution distrusted, most people seem content to accept the mainstream view and defer to (liberal) authority and (liberal) institutions of science.
No.36808
>>36676Actually, the boat theory is included in school books these days.
No.36809
>>36808>the boat theory is included in school books these days.Are you planning on ever proving your claims? Or do you expect me now to go through every school textbook in existence to prove a negative?
Why do you liberals think that you don't have to source or prove your claims? Why do you think hand-waving and alluding to "common sense" or a nonexistent consensus among "all" historians is enough? Simply because the liberal view dominates the narrative? That doesn't (or shouldn't) fly here.
No.36810
>>36807<If it was rapid, that means the force of rushing waters would knock things over and wash them away>That seems to be the most plausible theory.For all the talk about relying on real and proven scientific methods, you seem to dismiss climatology and geology very easily. An event this extreme would have left signs everywhere. Are you tying this in with the deluge myth as well? Lol.
>>36809Why do you have to get this pissy about evidence all the time? It doesnt require evidence, it's a school book I paged through, no reason to lie about it. Here is the book I read it from:
https://theeducationshop.com.au/books/year-8-history-the-ancient-to-the-modern-world/the-polynesian-expansion-across-the-pacific-c-700-1756/ . Anyways, I didn't realize to take a picture of some schoolbook for you. So here's a source from the curriculum it was in:
https://www.nla.gov.au/digital-classroom/year-8/asia-pacific-world/polynesian-expansion-across-pacific-c700-1756/themes-0 . It says "Further exploration: After reaching the limits of the Polynesian triangle, navigators might have ceased their expansion as they realised there could only be a small amount of land left to find, or that long voyages were difficult due to the inevitable loss of life involved in oceanic exploration. Yet, surprisingly, evidence suggests that Polynesian sailing extended to both sides of the Pacific Ocean." This is echoed even on evil globoscience US goverment pages:
https://www.nps.gov/bela/learn/historyculture/other-migration-theories.htm . Go back to r/grahamhancock, specifically to the thread "New analysis of ancient footprints from White Sands confirms the presence of humans in North America during the Last Glacial Maximum 21,500 years ago."
No.36811
>>36796You could have just answered with no. I study archaeology and Gobekli Tepe came up at in the first lesson on Westasian prehistory. It was discovered and dated by mainstream archaeologists, so I don't get why you bring it up.
Your epistemological argument isn't even wrong, but Hancock makes extraordinary claims that would require extraordinary evidence.
>There's not that much special about places like SumerNeolithic societies existed long before the first state societies like Sumer. Sumer was located in the Fertile Crescent which had the ideal conditions for primitive farming. We also discussed the topic of paleolithic attempts at agriculture in a prior thread of yours, there were attempts but they never lasted. Also the notion that a neolithic lifestyle is inherently superior to the hunter gatherer lifestyle is an outdated idea. Primitive farming comes with a lot of drawbacks and there are many examples of hunter-gatherers existing parallel to farmers without adopting their lifestyle. I know that you will find this answer unsatisfying, but neolthisation is currently a poorly understood process. The post ice age climate gave better conditions for it to arise, but the why is still a major debate among archeologists. It is sort of our quantum mechanics.
>>36807>when it still rained in Egyptthat wasn't that long ago
>Many Aztec and Mayan temples in S. America were built over earlier, existing templesYes pre Aztec societies did exist. This isn't controversial and has nothing to do with Hancocks theories.
>And what's up with Easter Island? Who built those stone statues?The natives maybe?
No.36812
Not to be a killjoy but what says they must have traversed the open ocean? Wouldn't it be more likely to follow Asia's eastern coastline north (if seafaring) or begin trekking east from Siberia (likely following big game), then continue east along the Bering Land Bridge, then sail south again along the west coast of the America? Assuming the ice sheet didn't completely cover the coast in all areas and there were trees and other materials to build the boats.
No.36813
>>36810>you seem to dismiss climatology and geology very easilyIt is mostly geologists who subscribe to the Younger Dryas Impact theory.
>An event this extreme would have left signs everywhere. You mean like pic related? Have you ever been to a beach? Have you seen the ripples the sea in the shallows leaves in the sand? Now imagine the height of the water to leave ripples of that size.
>Are you tying this in with the deluge myth as well?>delugeNice word trick liberal. That's all you have, wordplay. It was a flood, not a deluge. Flood whose water came from the glaciers in N. America and Greenland. Once the glaciers were impacted by meteor(s) the force of the impact released so much energy and it melted the glaciers.
>Here is the book I read it from: https://theeducationshop.com.au/books/year-8-history-the-ancient-to-the-modern-world/the-polynesian-expansion-across-the-pacific-c-700-1756/ . Do you know what "c.700-1756" means? It means it happened in the years 700 to 1756 of the Common Era. We are talking about Humans crossing the ocean before the end of the last ice age, ~20.000 years ago. Holy shit you're dumb.
>Go back to r/grahamhancockDidn't even know that existed. Thanks!
>specifically to the thread "…You mean the same article I posted in the OP? You know the study was done by scientists, not Graham Hancock, right?
>>36811>The natives maybe?"The natives"
And who, pray tell, are "the natives"? lol
No.36814
>>36812>Assuming the ice sheet didn't completely cover the coast in all areas and there were trees and other materials to build the boats.Your assumption is wrong. The ice sheet extended below today's Canada. Also, what would have been the purpose of them scaling glaciers and trekking with tonnes of supplies if they didn't know that a warmer place awaits them? For all they knew, there was no land after the glaciers. That's why sailing to S. America from Asia, avoiding the glaciers altogether makes more sense.
No.36816
>>36815And yet they're not sure who, how or when they were carved. Easter Island was abandoned several times and its population collapsed several times. How do we know they were all carved at the same time by the same people? Could some have been there from earlier and then were subsequently copied? Did they just come up with the idea to carve them or wete they instructed? How come we don't see similar statues on other islands or along the coast (places where the Rapa Nui and Polynesians came from)?
I want you to think critically, not just accept something as fact because it's written on wikipedia.
No.36817
>>36816vague posting is always a sign of zero arguments
No.36818
>>36817>he says, after he's been vague posting the whole timeFuck you, you liberal hypocrite. Another one out of the liberal playbook: accuse others of doing what you yourself do.
Show me evidence of who carved the Moai and when?
remember, you cannot carbon date rock No.36819
>>36811>I study archaeologyThere it is. You doing this for extra credit? Your professor is gonna pat you on the head for being a good boy once you show him this thread.
No.36821
>>36820>how are we ever going to know that it was truly built by the Romans?Because of historical records where the Romans write about planning and building the Colosseum.
No.36822
>>36821How do you know they weren't lying. You can't carbon date rock.
No.36823
>>36814The Bering Land Bridge wasn't completely blanketed in snow in ice during the LGM though. Much of the interior was steppe land populated by megafauna which would naturally attract Ice Age humans from Siberia. Additionally oceans have a moderating effect on climates, so as a layman, I wonder if this moderating effect was such that there were forested coastal areas during the glacial maximum. Taiga, basically. I'm not sure what current research has to say about this since these low-lying areas are nowadays deep underwater and covered in sediment, making archeological/paleobiological research challenging to impossible. If these habitable coasts existed:
>Ice Age humans could sail along these hypothetical coasts where the waters are gentler and simpler to navigate than the open ocean>they could camp or settle on dry land whenever they wished>freshwater would be plentiful via lakes, rivers, and snow rather than taking a gamble on rain-catching>timber would be abundant for cooking with fire>edible plants would be available seasonally>they could replenish supplies from the mainland (animal hides, stone/bone tools, etc)>hunting in a forest is harder than on the steppe, but seafood would be immediately accessible and far less demanding than offshore fishing (and it'd be easier to hunt and dress seals too, especially those lying haplessly on a beach)>because the waters are gentler and resources more abundant, they could likely support larger groups of travelers, sailing the open ocean in primitive boats, who could then populate settlements on the new continent(s), and the boats wouldn't have to prioritize carrying many supplies to support a small amount of people as would be necessary on a long voyage (3,510 km/2,180 mi) from say Easter Island to Chile, and Easter Island does not have a high carrying capacity as is>after traveling far enough south of the Cordilleran ice sheet, it seems reasonable to me that some bands of humans would gradually disperse inland, perhaps in search of uninhabited lands, and this is where your New Mexico footprints come from, after many generations of sailing and settling and seeking new territoryAll of this would be a very slow, incremental process. It's not a slam dunk nor does it refute your theory wholesale. However it seems to me more likely that there would be many more small bands of humans across a large geographic area and a long period of time, following large game across Siberia/Beringia, who would stumble upon this North Pacific route—which I admit, I don't know if these coastal forests existed but as I'm saying now, I think the presence of archeological remains contemporary with the LGM to be a good indicator—and that the route would have been fairly compatible with their survival, ergo many people would've traveled it. It was not prohibitively dangerous, leading to either too many deaths or too few people willing to attempt it.
I don't see as much reason for Ice Age humans to travel to Polynesia in nearly as many groups, and especially not for those groups (many, over a long period of time) to then sail into the open ocean (or sail straight into it from mainland Asia) where nothing is guaranteed, and especially not during a time when human groups were too small to support these expeditions/voyages from an island base. The internet says Polynesia wasn't populated until, at most, 8,000 years ago based on genetic and linguistic research (i.e. not on archaeological evidence which may be incomplete due to higher sea level), 8,000 years after the LGM and, likewise, long after the footprints in your original post. However I expect you to dispute this claim as well.
Point is, the North Pacific route is more logical than a South Pacific one even if there's no direct evidence of coastal forests (and there may be, I'm just a layman), and academic research says humans weren't even in the area where a Southern migration would most likely be launched from until many thousands of years after the first humans arrived in the Americas.
No.36824
>>36822Show me historical records where the Rapa Nui write about carving (and transporting) the Moai. Then we can continue.
No.36825
>>36824>muh historical recordLMAO
Do you also believe that Rome was founded by a guy who was raised by a wolf?
No.36826
>>36825Are you braindead or just really good at pretending to be?
No.36827
>>36826Only 1% of the ocean floor has been maped. This means you can't rule out, that the Colosseum was built by Atlanteans.
No.36828
>>36827Well played you devilish trickster.
No.36829
>>36813>We are talking about Humans crossing the ocean before the end of the last ice age, ~20.000 years ago. Holy shit you're dumb.Did boaties get more floaties with time? No, these mothefuckers were sailing across a larger ocean with worse or equal technology to this hypothetical civilization.
>You mean like pic related? Aw hell naw I mean shit like ice core samples and petrified wood growth ring analysis. Those would have clear signs of a fast and destructive flood that caused an entire extinction.
>Nice word trick liberal.No, it's because I know hancock people like connecting ancients myths to real things that totally happened, this time the deluge myth.
And specifically to that thread because this should stay there and not come post here. Please.
No.36830
>>36823>All of this would be a very slow, incremental process. And that's where the problem lies. According to genetic research, the migration happened quickly.
>pic relatedIt was so quick in fact, that they didn't have time to spawn separate populations.
>By looking for genetic similarities between far-flung samples, both papers add detail—some of it puzzling—to this pattern. The 12,700-year-old Anzick child from Montana, who is associated with the mammoth-hunting Clovis culture, known for their distinctive spear points, provided a key reference point. Willerslev detected Anzick-related ancestry in both the Spirit Cave individual—who is associated with western stemmed tools, a tradition likely older than Clovis—and 10,000-year-old remains from Lagoa Santa in Brazil. Reich's team found an even closer relationship between Anzick and 9300- to 10,900-year-old samples from Chile, Brazil, and Belize.
>Those close genetic affinities at similar times but across vast distances suggest people must have moved rapidly across the Americas, with little time to evolve into distinct genetic groups. Reich's team argues that Clovis technology might have spurred this rapid expansion. But anthropological geneticist Deborah Bolnick of the University of Connecticut in Storrs notes the Anzick-related ancestry group may have been broader than the Clovis people, and doubts that the culture was a driver.https://www.science.org/content/article/ancient-dna-confirms-native-americans-deep-roots-north-and-south-americaLooking at the picture again, we see that these populations and samples are all along the coast. Yet archeologists say they traveled over land. Why? Because mainstream archeology says Humans did not possess ships that could cross oceans. But look at the gaps in circled in green, why are there no populations there? Those are big gaps that humans supposedly ran over and left no trace.
>Two independent studies, published in Cell and online in Science, find that ancient populations expanded rapidly across the Americas about 13,000 years ago."Rapid" being the keyword. Look at the timeline, 13000 years ago is about the end of the last ice age. So it was after the glaciers melted, and the sea level rose, that this rapid expansion of Humans across the continent happened.
My issue is with the running across Americas. Unless they knew where they were going (and they couldn't), it doesn't make sense. Southern part of n. America is warm enough, so is C. America, there is no need to travel further south. Mainstream archeology, by giving a strict timeline on the development of boats, says there were no ocean-going ships at the time. They tie their hands on the issue and thus the migeation had to have happened across land. Most probably did, but why does that preclude a scouting party (or ancient civilisation) that could go by ship and map the coasts and find those suitable areas?
No.36831
>>36818Actually, there are many more ways than the holy carbon dating method
No.36832
>>36829>Did boaties get more floaties with time?I knew you were going there.
<People flew across the atlantic a hundred years ago, that means they could have flown across 20.000 years ago.Technology evolves. Why couldn't Romans sail their triremes south of the equator? (look it up)
>I mean shit like ice core samples Oh, you mean such as…>One explanation of the abrupt cooling episode known as the Younger Dryas (YD) is a cosmic impact or airburst at the YD boundary (YDB) that triggered cooling and resulted in other calamities, including the disappearance of the Clovis culture and the extinction of many large mammal species. We tested the YDB impact hypothesis by analyzing ice samples from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) ice core across the Bølling-Allerød/YD boundary for major and trace elements. We found a large Pt anomaly at the YDB, not accompanied by a prominent Ir anomaly, with the Pt/Ir ratios at the Pt peak exceeding those in known terrestrial and extraterrestrial materials. Whereas the highly fractionated Pt/Ir ratio rules out mantle or chondritic sources of the Pt anomaly, it does not allow positive identification of the source. Circumstantial evidence such as very high, superchondritic Pt/Al ratios associated with the Pt anomaly and its timing, different from other major events recorded on the GISP2 ice core such as well-understood sulfate spikes caused by volcanic activity and the ammonium and nitrate spike due to the biomass destruction, hints for an extraterrestrial source of Pt. Such a source could have been a highly differentiated object like an Ir-poor iron meteorite that is unlikely to result in an airburst or trigger wide wildfires proposed by the YDB impact hypothesis.https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1303924110And you'd expect to find evidence of these elements around the planet, since the meltwaters would carry them, right?>Previously, a large platinum (Pt) anomaly was reported in the Greenland ice sheet at the Younger Dryas boundary (YDB) (12,800 Cal B.P.). In order to evaluate its geographic extent, fire-assay and inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (FA and ICP-MS) elemental analyses were performed on 11 widely separated archaeological bulk sedimentary sequences. We document discovery of a distinct Pt anomaly spread widely across North America and dating to the Younger Dryas (YD) onset. The apparent synchroneity of this widespread YDB Pt anomaly is consistent with Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) data that indicated atmospheric input of platinum-rich dust. We expect the Pt anomaly to serve as a widely-distributed time marker horizon (datum) for identification and correlation of the onset of the YD climatic episode at 12,800 Cal B.P. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep44031And you'd expect to find a crater, right?>Massive crater under Greenland's ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans>The 31-kilometer-wide Hiawatha crater may have formed as recently as 12,800 years ago when a 1.5-kilometer asteroid struck Earthhttps://www.science.org/content/article/massive-crater-under-greenland-s-ice-points-climate-altering-impact-time-humansYou ignoring contemporary findings and new evidence won't make it go away or make it stop existing, you disgusting idealist.
No.36833
>>36831This. Carbon dating is only valid when it supports the mainstream narrative.
No.36834
>>36829>hancock people like connecting ancients myths to real things that totally happened, this time the deluge myth.The flood actually did happen… which is why all these disparate cultures around the world have a "flood myth". Seeing meteor(s) fall from the sky, followed by rapid sea rise and whole forests and hills being washed away would leave an impression and it would enter oral tradition.
<Island tales: culturally-filtered narratives about island creation through land submergence incorporate millennia-old memories of postglacial sea-level rise>In many long-enduring coastal cultures, there are stories – sometimes mythologized – about times when pieces of land became separated from mainlands by submergence, a process that created islands where none existed before. Using examples from northwest Europe and Australia, this paper argues that many such stories recall times, often millennia ago, when sea level in the aftermath of the Last Glaciation (last ice age) was rising and transforming coastal landscapes and their human uses in exactly the ways these stories describe. The possibility that these may have arisen from eyewitness accounts of these transformative processes, hitherto thought to be understandable only by scientific (palaeoenvironmental) reconstructions, should encourage more systematic investigations of such stories by scientists. It also suggests that science has traditionally underestimated the capacity of oral (pre-literate) cultures to acquire, encode and sustain their observations of memorable events with a high degree of replication fidelity.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00438243.2022.2077821
>Tiddalik's Travels: The Making and Remaking of an Aboriginal Flood Mythhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0065250406390083https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-sea-rise-tale-told-accurately-for-10-000-years/Let me guess: dumb aborigines are lying? Europeans invented history and no way could natives transfer historical facts through stories and oral tradition?
You're so ignorant of the world, history, and science, it's actually impressive that you are still confident in your lack of knowledge and limited/narrow view.
No.36835
So are there any artefacts from this ancient civilisation?
No.36836
>>36835Probably. There are many candidates: Gobleki Tepe, the Sphinx, various monoliths and megaliths we keep finding underwater. Our understanding of ancient history keeps changing. Thinking we have figured it all out in this point in time is a sign of an immature mind. Human knowledge keeps expanding every day, and there is much more for us to learn and discover.
No.36837
>>36836Gobekli Tepe was discovered by mainstream Archaeologists. It has nothing to do with Hancocks made up civilisation. There also are no iconographic similarities between it and the Sphinx, so why are you convinced that they were built by the same group of people?
No.36838
>>36837>Gobekli Tepe was discovered by mainstream Archaeologists<Gobleki Tepe was found by mainstream archeologists therefore it confirms exactly what mainstream archeologists believeSo was everything else. Who finds an artefact has no bearing on what it means. You make it sound as if archeologists predicted Gobleki Tepe, when in fact they predicted the opposite, that no such structure from that era would be found.
>There also are no iconographic similarities between it and the Sphinx,I said the two were candidates, not that they were built by the same people. They're candidates because we don't know who built them or why.
You're getting boring, liberal. You ignored posts about genetics and DNA evidence about migrations, to repeat what was already said. Your "arguments" are nothing more than idiotic "gotchas", ad hominems, and insults. It's obvious you're just a redditoid with an unhealthy obsession with Hancock (or anyone who thinks differently from the dominant, liberal view).
Like I pointed out before, most of your arguments are exactly the same kind liberals use to deboonk communism and promote capitalism. You have the same visceral reaction to "Graham Hancock" and "lost civilisation" as liberals do to "Karl Marx" and "communism".
<capitalism hasn't collapsed yet, therefore Karl Marx is wrong<Find me a communist country. You can't? That means communism doesn't work No.36839
>>36838>we don't know who built them or whyBoth structures are located in regions with a long history of human occupation. Please explain where exactly your understanding of Gobekli Tepe differs from the archaeological consensus.
No.36840
>>36839>Both structures are located in regions with a long history of human occupation.OK. Who built Gobleki Tepe?
No.36841
>>36840Late epipaleolithic humans who were already known to have occupied the region. There might be a connection to the Natufian culture that was located to the south of it.
No.36842
Who built Gobleki Tepe?
>>36841>humans who were already known to have occupied the regionSource?
No.36843
>>36842>Source?For the existence of humans in Anatolia 12.000 years ago?
No.36845
>>36843>For the existence of humans in Anatolia 12.000 years ago?No, for your claim. The existence of humans in Anatolia 12.000 years ago who are thought to have built Gobleki Tepe. You can't say "they were there, therefore they built it". Did the Amazonian native tribes build the roads that run through Amazonia? They're in the same place after all.
You haven't provided a single journal article or any kind of source for your claims. Why do you think you don't have to? Because it is "common sense", "everyone knows" and "all historians agree"? You relish in the fact you subscribe to the dominant view. Your posts drip with arrogance and smugness, lib.
No.36846
>>36811> I study archaeology and Gobekli Tepe came up at in the first lesson on Westasian prehistory. It was discovered and dated by mainstream archaeologists, so I don't get why you bring it up.People bring up Gobekli Tepe because it was discovered after people like Hancock were claiming we should find sites from that period, meaning his theories (and others) have predictive powers. Maybe you should be studying philosophy of science.
No.36849
>>36847OP here, let's go through these.
>https://m.imdb.com/title/tt22807484/While Hancock's Netflix show is a good introduction to Hancock's view (mostly because of the interviews with geologists and archeologists), I don't like it spends a whole episode on Bimini Road (which to me looks like a natural formation).
>https://www.world-mysteries.com/strange-artifacts/lol.
>https://grahamhancock.com/dmisrab11/That's not even written by Hancock. Don't know if he runs the website, but he is a person who gives a platform to these "out there ideas". Hancock doesn't think the Bosnian "pyramids" are pyramids but he is still nice about it and generous to the archeologist in Bosnia making those claims.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XinHysu0mNIThey're 1000 year old steps in India. Hardly the work of an ancient, "lost" civilisation. Unless there is something I'm missing?
>the guy who got bannedI don't see a ban message. Are you the guy?
If your best retort to the information I posted is to false flag as me and post nonsense to discredit the other stuff, then I don't know what to tell you. i encourage people to try to come up with good arguments and I have changed my mind on several things in the course of these threads. Debate, dialogue, dialectics is how we learn and expand our knowledge. It saddens me you feel so threatened by a difference of opinion that you're so adversarial and will resort to these underhanded tactics to "win".
No.36850
>>36849The man who said there is no evidence was replied to here, it slipped my eyes the first time
>>36794 No.36851
>>36849More examples of the civilization mainstream archeology downplays
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yonaguni_Monumenthttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism(Could not have been made by the technology of the time and was propably based on older technology)
No.36852
>>36850The answer is that if any artefacts are to be found, they would be under water. The sea has risen some ~280m and since humans like to live by the coast (even today most people do), it stands to reason that the artefacts of the "lost" civilisation are to be found on the bottom of the sea.
They are still finding settlements and even roads under water. And these are close to the coast, so they are able to be seen from the air/satellites.
>Road Built 7,000 Years Ago Found at The Bottom of The Mediterranean Seahttps://www.sciencealert.com/road-built-7000-years-ago-found-at-the-bottom-of-the-mediterranean-sea
>Archaeologist discovers 6,000 year-old island settlement off Croatian coasthttps://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/science/archaeologist-discovers-6000-year-old-island-settlement-off-croatian-coast-2021-06-24/How can one still scoff at the idea we could find more of these settlements, roads and structures under the sea?
No.36853
>>36851>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yonaguni_MonumentRobert Schoch (the geologist who said there is water erosion on and around the Sphinx) said the Yonaguni Monument is a natural formation. To me (a layman) Yonaguni Monument looks man-made.
The problem is that these sites get very little attention and study from mainstream archeologists. And what's more, because of the stigma associated with these "alternative" ideas and the "pseudoarcheology" label, archeologists and the universities, funds and foundations that fund their work are hesitant to pursue these endeavours.
Some will laugh that this is a "conspiracy", but it is people looking at their self-interest. Just like capitalism could be called a conspiracy, yet it is a collection of people (the bourgeoisie) who are protecting their own interests.
No.36854
>>36851I used to think the Piri Reis map was not good evidence but DeDunking pointed out that it had accurate logitudinal distance between Africa and South America which wasn't yet worked out at the time the artifact "originates" from (1513).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piri_Reis_mapThe idea that they could have measured this longitude at all accurately by "dead reckoning" as the mainstream claims is absurd.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_reckoning#Errors No.36855
>>36852No, their civilization was not confined to seabeds, ergo the sphinx.
No.36856
>>36855Btw not just the other egyptian structures but many other examples like the megaliths found in ireland and some early mesopotamian temples, which have near perfect astronomical positioning. They were either built by earlier peoples, or later peoples using their technology.
No.36857
>>36845This is like asking for a source for WW1 really ending in 1918 but fine.
>The present study of the chipped stones assemblages from Göbekli Tepe was initiated in 2017 and is still ongoing. Based on the results of the new study, it can now be precisely proven that the chipped stone artefacts of Göbekli Tepe show close connections to chipped stones assemblages from sites of the upper and middle Euphrates area.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360996154_but_it_is_not_clear_at_all_where_all_the_debris_had_been_taken_from_Chipped_Stone_Artefacts_Architecture_and_Site_Formation_Processes_at_Gobekli_TepeNo idea why you thought you could win an argument over human presence in 10.000 BC Anatolia.
>>36846You need to post his prediction or stfu. If it is vague it doesn't count.
No.36858
>>36857 (me)
What really pisses me off about you people, besides obviously not having done the most basic reading, is the ignorance of actual groundbreaking discoveries that have changed our understanding of prehistory. I have never seen a Hancock fan talk about Bruniquel cave or the pre columbian chickens in South America. You don't actually care about archaeology, you just want to regurgitate idealist new age shit.
No.36860
>>36857>You need to post his prediction or stfu. If it is vague it doesn't count.lol
>claim for years that we should expect to find significant archaeological sites dating to a specific time>get laughed at>sites dating to that time are found, that don't fit into the existing narrative and imply greater technical advancement than expectedIt's really not that complicated. Hancock for sure is on some new age hippie shit but his basic point about how much of the past has been forgotten is reasonable.
>ignorance of actual groundbreaking discoveries that have changed our understanding of prehistoryGobekli Tepe is one of the biggest examples of that. The reason it's talked about so much is there's such a wealth of evidence and its dating aligns well with the Younger Dryas.
No.36861
>>36857>it can now be precisely proven that the chipped stone artefacts of Göbekli Tepe show close connections to chipped stones assemblages from sites of the upper and middle Euphrates area.That can mean several things: people from Gobleki Tepe traveled to the Euphrates, or as Hancock suggests, Gobleki Tepe could have been a place where people learned skills like agriculture, building, etc.
The centrepoints of enclosures B, C and D, together form an equilateral triangle. I never knew hunter-gatherers did mathematics.
It's hilarious how you're trying to present Gobleki Tepe as figured out when they're discovering new things there all the time. But that is what you libs do, pretend nothing surprises you and think labeling something is the same as understanding it.
>Late epipaleolithic humans who were already known to have occupied the regionIt actually doesn't say anything about who built it (which culture, civilisation), when, how, and why. Yet to you it's enough, apparently lol.
No.36862
>>36858>I have never seen a Hancock fan talk about Bruniquel cave Neanderthals built the stone structures in the cave. No one is thinking the "lost" civ was a Neanderthal one.
>or the pre columbian chickens in South America. Meaning Polynesians could have brought them. And some are even disputing the DNA results which yielded those conclusions.
Maybe nobody is talking about them because in relation to the "lost" civ theory they are nothingburgers?
No.36863
Ah, the ancient mysteries of human migration and the lost civilizations never cease to intrigue the curious mind! While your theory is certainly imaginative, let's embark on a journey through time, speculation, and a sprinkle of sarcasm.
Imagine a prehistoric scenario where our distant ancestors suddenly found themselves in the possession of mighty ocean-going ships. Did they stumble upon a user-friendly instruction manual for shipbuilding left behind by an advanced, yet conspicuously absent civilization? Or did they attend a maritime college, hidden deep in the Amazon rainforest, where they earned their diplomas in nautical engineering?
Now, to address your delightful hypothesis of ancient mariners navigating the icy waters of the Last Glacial Maximum. Picture this: prehistoric humans, donned in furs, huddled around a campfire, meticulously planning their voyage across glaciers taller than skyscrapers. They had sled dogs, of course, because who doesn't take their four-legged friends on an epic glacial journey?
Alternatively, let's consider the notion that ancient South Americans developed ocean-going ships before they could even compose a grocery list. Perhaps they had an enlightening encounter with aliens who bequeathed them not only the secrets of shipbuilding but also interstellar travel tips. After all, ancient astronauts make for excellent dinner party conversation.
In all seriousness, while these imaginative scenarios are entertaining to contemplate, it's essential to rely on evidence and scientific research to understand the past. Archaeologists and anthropologists continue to uncover valuable insights into human history, and while the mystery of early human migration persists, it's unlikely to involve interstellar education or miraculous shipbuilding leaps. Nonetheless, the human story is full of astonishing achievements and remarkable journeys that continue to inspire wonder and exploration.
No.36864
>>36860>he is too afraid to post the predictionSo it was vague and unscientific.
>Gobekli Tepe is one of the biggest examples of thatIt already gets enough attention tbh. I don't want to play it down, but megalithic monuments being a couple thousand years older than originally thought, doesn't strike me as significant as the oldest known human construction. It was a ritual site dating around 175.000 years BP and it has to have been built by Neandertals because Homo sapiens wasn't present in Europe yet. It proves that Neandertals had a similar cognitive capacity for complex ritualistic behavior, which was strongly disputed before its discovery in the Bruniquel cave.
>dating aligns well with the Younger DryasAligned in how far? It dates roughly 1000-2000 years after the younger dryas period.
>>36861Weird how Hancocks ancient civ happens to use the same type of stone tools, that were already known to have been used by natives of the region.
>>36862>real breakthroughs are nothing burgersAs I said, you don't actually care about archaeology.
No.36866
>>36863>Did they stumble upon a user-friendly instruction manual for shipbuilding left behind by an advanced, yet conspicuously absent civilization? Or did they attend a maritime college, hidden deep in the Amazon rainforest, where they earned their diplomas in nautical engineering?That's the theory, that the ancient, "lost" civilisation taught others shipbuilding, astronomy and navigation.>>36864
>megalithic monuments being a couple thousand years older than originally thought, doesn't strike me as significant Then you know nothing about Gobleki Tepe, which is only one 'Tepe' (hill in Turkish, iirc) out of a vast array of them in southern Anatolia. Karahan Tepe being another famous one.
Why Gobleki Tepe is significant is because while obviously showing building, carving, mathematical and astronomical (some think carvings are of constellations) prowess, they also found a cache of seeds. It is a place that shows the beginning (if not the first) of a settled lifestyle, when hunter-gatherers stopped being hunter-gatherers and started building a civilisation.
>It dates roughly 1000-2000 years after the younger dryas period.Carbon dating of the site is unreliable because Gobleki Tepe was buried several hundred years after it was built, and as far as I know, they analysed and dated the bits from the dirt/garbage used to bury Gobleki Tepe.
>It proves that Neandertals had a similar cognitive capacity for complex ritualistic behaviorAnd yet they still went extinct.
>the same type of stone tools, that were already known to have been used by natives of the region.How do you know Gobleki Tepe wasn't the place where they learned how to make those tools?
>real breakthroughsThe pre-Colombian chicken DNA is disputed, so hardly proven. And even if it was real, all it would prove is that Polynesians brought the chicken to South America (from South East Asia perhaps) in the last 1000-1500 years ago. We're discussing ancient history.
>As I said, you don't actually care about archaeology.And? This thread is about the "lost" civ and out understanding of ancient history, archaeology is but one of the tools used, along with geology, mathematics, genetic testing, etc. If you wish to discuss archaeology and Neanderthals, start a thread about it.
No.36867
>>36866>How do you know Gobleki Tepe wasn't the place where they learned how to make those tools?Because the same type of tools and arrowheads were already found at older sites.
>Carbon dating of the site is unreliable because Gobleki Tepe was buried several hundred years after it was built, and as far as I know, they analysed and dated the bits from the dirt/garbage used to bury Gobleki Tepe.>several hundred yearsAccording to your own statemnt its construction can't have taken place more than several hundred years before the the date range established by carbon dating. This is just sad.
No.36868
>>36863We have evidence of this civilization. Why are there signs of water damage on egyptian structures and why do they have no writing inside? Why are there impossibly old human footprints in the americas? Why are liberals so mad when this is mentioned? Just curious.
No.36870
>>36867>already found at older sitesGobleki Tepe is the
oldest site of its kind. Also, source?
>its construction can't have taken place more than several hundred years before the the date range established by carbon datingShortly after the end of the Young Dryas, yes. There's also a margin of error in these estimates.
>>36868>Why are there signs of water damage on egyptian structures and why do they have no writing inside?The water erosion is on the Sphinx and the rock it has been carved out of. There are no hieroglyphics, texts or records that mention the Sphinx. There are no hieroglyphics inside the Great Pyramid of Giza, or any of the other pyramids, which is weird since the supposedly earlier and later pharaoh burial chambers had hieroglyphics floor to ceiling.
>Why are there impossibly old human footprints in the americas? >impossibly oldHomo Sapiens have been on Earth for over 300.000 years.
>Why are liberals so mad when this is mentioned? You tell us.
No.36872
>>36870>oldest site of its kindIt is part of the Khiamian material culture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khiamian_culture>There's also a margin of error in these estimatesAnon your entire argument relies on the lower end of the margin of error.
>A far better source of organic remains for the direct dating of architectural structures is the wall plaster used in the enclosures. This wall plaster comprises loam, which also contains small amounts of organic material. A sample (KIA-44149, cf. Tables 1-4) taken from the wall plaster of Enclosure D gives a date of 9984 ± 42 14C-BP (9745-9314 calBC at the 95.4% confidence level), thus placing the circle in the PPNAhttps://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/2016/06/22/how-old-ist-it-dating-gobekli-tepe/ No.36873
>>36870Dumb. Hancock's theory has all the proof it needs. I was not attacking him. The pyramids do have water damage, and the footprints are only impossibly old for mainstream historians.
No.36875
>>36874Wait shouldn't the migration of the ancient civilisation start sooner than that?
>has to ignore my argument about preexisting material cultureThe burden of proof is on you. A new group of people would have introduced a different material culture.
BTW can you perhaps for once define to which degree this ancient civilisation was 'advanced'?
No.36879
>>36875>Wait shouldn't the migration of the ancient civilisation start sooner than that? Wait, you aren't familiar with the theory/narrative? How can you disagree with something you don't even know?
The theory goes that there was a human civilisation that developed before/during the last ice age. This civilisation had knowledge of shipbuilding, mathematics, astronomy, engineering, agriculture. They existed alongside hunter-gatherers. Then, at the end of the Young Dryas, Earth passed through an asteroid belt (that's what meteor showers are). In the asteroid belt was one big one, or a few of them, that impacted Earth. It impacted Earth in the northern hemisphere where there were massive glaciers (several kilometers tall), basically a big store of water. The force from the impact(s) melted the glaciers and the meltwater flooded the Earth, wiping away anything near the coast. As the glaciers continued to melt the sea level rose, plunging whole continents under water, changing the landscape drastically.
Some members of this civilisation survived. To ensure the survival of the human race, they sailed around the world, teaching hunter-gatherers the aforementioned skills, mathematics, engineering, etc. Perhaps the people of the civilisation presented themselves as gods (would be a good way to make people listen to you) and due to their knowledge and technology probably seemed like gods, like we would to a less advanced culture.
The flood, the teaching, the teachers, all became myth and got remembered and the story passed on through oral tradition.
>has to ignore my argument about preexisting material cultureI asked you for proof of this material culture predating Gobleki Tepe. Gobleki Tepe is the oldest site of its kind, so it would make sense that is where the material culture started/spread from.
>The burden of proof is on you. You're making the claim that there existed a material culture
before Gobleki Tepe was built. You have not shown this.
>A new group of people would have introduced a different material culture.Which is what probably happened at Gobleki Tepe.
>BTW can you perhaps for once define to which degree this ancient civilisation was 'advanced'?>for onceDo you want a list of their tools? We've been over this:
>they could build ships that could cross oceans>they knew geometry and mathematics (Pi, for example)>they knew astronomy, about Earth's axial precession>they knew geography, about Earth's geographic north, probably mapped a lot of the coasts>they knew engineering, enough to build the Pyramid of Giza No.36883
>>36879>Wait, you aren't familiar with the theory/narrative? How can you disagree with something you don't even know?You keep changing some parts of your theory. Which isn't inherently bad, but be honest about it.
>The force from the impact(s) melted the glaciers and the meltwater flooded the Earth, wiping away anything near the coast. As the glaciers continued to melt the sea level rose, plunging whole continents under water, changing the landscape drastically.>Some members of this civilisation survivedThis is exactly what confuses me. In a prior thread your source for rising sea waters argued for about 12 mm every year (which is correct). But now you seem to argue for a flash flood. I assumed your proposed migration event would have had to have happened earlier because any coastal settlment would have become flooded long before Gobekli Tepe and it wouldn't make sense for people to wait until there cities are fully submerged, before migrating.
>I asked you for proof of this material culture predating Gobleki Tepe. Gobleki Tepe is the oldest site of its kind, so it would make sense that is where the material culture started/spread fromKhiamian and Natufian culture. Both were semi sedentary hunter gatherers and proto farmers. The Natufian culture who were levantine predecessors of the Khiamian culture already experimented with simple rock constructions for their settlements.
>they could build ships that could cross oceansHow do you know that. Both Gobekli Tepe and Ancient Egypt could be reached without boats.
>they knew geometry and mathematics (Pi, for example)How many digits?
>they knew engineering, enough to build the Pyramid of GizaThen why are there no Khiamian points beyond Sinai?
No.36884
>>36864>megalithic monuments being a couple thousand years older than originally thought, doesn't strike me as significant as the oldest known human construction.What a dumb opinion. It doesn't take any special knowledge or technology to for humans to construct something. We have probably been doing it long before we were homo sapiens sapiens (as evidenced by your own example of neanderthals doing it). What makes those examples interesting and valuable is their rarity because of their age. They don't in and of themselves say something groundbreaking.
Gobekli Tepe on the other hand shatters the preconceptions about what humans were capable of organizing and executing at the time. Megalithic sites require a large degree of coordination, surplus labor, time invested, and craft skill to produce.
>It proves that Neandertals had a similar cognitive capacity for complex ritualistic behavior, which was strongly disputed before its discovery in the Bruniquel cave.Anybody who disputes that the neanderthals were comparable enough to us to build things is pretty much by definition a race realist, but then again that's the whole field of archaeology isn't it? Yeah no wonder you would rather focus on "whoa did you know neanderthals were people too??? incredible!!1!1!"
No.36894
>>36883>You keep changing some parts of your theory. >Which isn't inherently bad, but be honest about it.Which parts? As I've said before:
>>36849<I have changed my mind on several things in the course of these threads. So I don't know why you think it is a gotcha.
>In a prior thread your source for rising sea waters argued for about 12 mm every year (which is correct).It was a mix of two. Sudden, flash flood of meltwater, that changed the sea currents and then after the initial impact, the glaciers continued to melt more slowly. I don't know why you think it has to be one or the other.
>But now you seem to argue for a flash flood. I've always maintained there was a sudden flood. Can you point to the post in question? Then I can tell you if it was me or another anon.
>I assumed your proposed migration event would have had to have happened earlier because any coastal settlment would have become flooded long before Gobekli Tepe and it wouldn't make sense for people to wait until there cities are fully submerged, before migrating.Humans have been constantly migrating. I was pointing out the migratory genetic evidence found in coastal areas that perhaps they migrated by boats. These would have been precursors to the more advanced boats of the "lost" civilisation. The development of the "lost" civ would have had to have started during or before the last ice age, if they were to be advanced enough to travel around the world and teach hunter gatherers at the end of the Young Dryas. Archeologists deny the possibility of migrations by boat because humans aren't known to have had boats that could undertake the journey across the ocean during the last ice age. It doesn't have much to do with the "lost" civ theory except to say that humans may have been more advanced earlier than we think.
>A mysterious group of humans crossed the Bering land bridge from Siberia into the Americas thousands of years ago, genetic analyses reveal. Modern-day signatures of this ‘ghost population’ survive in people who live deep in the Brazilian Amazon, but the two research teams who have made the discovery have different ideas about when and how these migrants reached the Americas1,2.
>Skoglund’s discovery — which is published online on 21 July in Nature2 — was that members of two Amazonian groups, the Suruí and the Karitiana, are more closely related to Papua New Guineans and Aboriginal Australians than other Native Americans are to these Australasian groups. The team confirmed the finding with several statistical methods used to untangle genetic ancestry, as well as additional genomes from Amazonians and Papuans. “We spent a lot of time being sceptical and incredulous about the finding and trying to make it go away, but it just got stronger,” says Reich.https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18029From Papua New Guinea to the Amazon, without leaving a trace in N. America. To me the logical way for that to happen is by boats. But archeologists say "no boats!"
>Khiamian and Natufian culture. Both were semi sedentary hunter gatherers and proto farmers. The Natufian culture who were levantine predecessors of the Khiamian culture already experimented with simple rock constructions for their settlements.And they were in the Levant, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, perhaps Euphrates. No evidence they were in Anatolia, except your article that says "points on the tools were similar".
>Both Gobekli Tepe and Ancient Egypt could be reached without boats.Ancient Egypt relied on boats on the Nile for transport of goods, and Ancient Egyptians sailed the Mediterranean. Gobleki Tepe, if it was built at the of the Young Dryas, after a flash flood, I can understand why they'd want to make it deep in-land, on an elevated position.
>How many digits?Probably a lot. Do you even know how Pi is calculated? Pi is the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle. You take a stick, holding one end in place, turn it so it circumscribes a circle. You then measure the circumference of the circle and divide it by twice the length of the stick. That's Pi.
>Then why are there no Khiamian points beyond Sinai?I thought your argument was that Khiamian material culture was found at Gobleki Tepe and perhaps they built it. You said:
>There might be a connection to the Natufian culture that was located to the south of it.Now you say there is no connection. So which is it? Natufian and Khiamian culture not reaching Anatolia means Gobleki Tepe was built by someone else.
No.36898
>>36849The website is under his supervision and so wouldn't contain intellectually deficient articles. The link about "The Sphinx Of Balochistan" is more fuel for the theory, and I don't see why the bosnoan pyramids wouldn't be considered man-made. Most likely they were used as a platform for temples like the ziggurats or mayan pyramids, but the temple on top rotted away with time as well.
No.36910
The handick retard is still going on i see. And other idiots are indulging him.
No.36913
>>36884Trying to understand the cognitive abilities of other hominids isn't race realism lmao. We are talking about a different species not 'race', which is a social construct that is loosely based on phenotypic traits.
>>36894Only the Natufian culture was located mainly in the Levant (first pic). Their succesors the Khiamian culture spread further into south Anatolia (second pic) and built Gobekli Tepe. I mentioned the Natufians because they built permanent settlement and the later Khiamians expanded on these developments.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282574218_Natufian_huts_and_hamlets_experimenting_for_a_sedentary_lifeAs you can also see in the second pic, the Khiamian culture did not spread beyond Sinai. Thus your earlier assertion that Hancocks civilisation introduced the Khiamian points, contradicts your other claim that they were also present in Egypt at the same time.
I don't see much of a point in discussing the meteor flash flood part, because there already are to many holes in your theory, even if the impact hypothesis were true. You don't need an ancient civiliastion to explain that start of the Neolithic. Agriculture has developed completly seperatly in other parts of the world, why can't this also have happened in western Asia?
No.36914
>>36913>>36913>the Khiamian culture spread further into south Anatolia (second pic) and built Gobekli TepeSource? This is your fabrication, there are no archeologists saying Khiamian culture built Gobleki Tepe. Your pic also doesn't show Karahan Tepe, or any other sites that are part of Tas Tepeler.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karahan_Tepehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta%C5%9F_TepelerIn fact, it says it was built by the Göblekitepe Culture. So it is a culture distinct from Khiamian culture.
Who's the pseudoarcheologist now? I bet you'd rather say it was aliens who built the pyramids before you agree with Hancock. Your motivation is "proving Hancock wrong" so you come up with all kinds of bullshit for which there is no evidence.
>Thus your earlier assertion that Hancocks civilisation introduced the Khiamian points, WHAT THE FUCK? I never said that. You said that Gobleki Tepe is part of the Khiamian material culture
>pic relbecause of some arrowheads. I said that if anything,
if,
if they were connected, it would make sense Gobleki Tepe would be the source. But then you yourself said Khiamian culture did not go past Sinai, therefore
Gobleki Tepe was built by a material culture separate and distinct from Khiamian or Natufian material culture. A culture the archeologists call Göblekitepe Culture.
As I said before, you're out of arguments and you rely on these word games and twisting of words to… what? You're not convincing me or anyone else. You're dishonest and slimey. You're motivated by "prove Hancock wrong" like the good, programmed lib you are. You don't care about the truth, or knowledge, or learning, all you care about is "owning" Hancock and "winning" an online discussion on an irrelevant board of a niche site, thus confirming (to yourself) the dominant status of the mainstream liberal ideology. You are afraid of honest investigation because you're afraid Hancock might be right, and then your lib friends would all laugh at you. And to you liberals social acceptance is far more important than the truth.
I actually want to learn, collate as much evidence for or against, and you're actively trying to disrupt that. Why? Why does learning piss you off so much? Why does Hancock trigger you so much?
I'd rather talk to myself and update this thread as I find new things, articles and studies, than have to talk to you and untwist the results of your mental gymnastics.
No.36915
For the record, these are my posts.
>>36674>>36676>>36683>>36685>>36687>>36689>>36691>>36694>>36698>>36700>>36707>>36711>>36718>>36788>>36790>>36793>>36807>>36809>>36813>>36814>>36816>>36818>>36819>>36821>>36824>>36830>>36832>>36833>>36834>>36836>>36838>>36840>>36842>>36845>>36849>>36852>>36853>>36862>>36861>>36866>>36870>>36874>>36879>>36894>>36914
>I don't see much of a point in discussing the meteor flash flood part, because there already are to many holes in your theorySuch as? I posted articles about it here
>>36707, have you gone through all of them? What have you found and what do you think caused the end of the last ice age? "Supervolcanos"? LOL
No.36916
>>36914>Karahan TepeThe map was supposed to give you an idea of the spread of the Khiamian material culture (which sometimes gets refered to as early PPNA, because some Archaeologists disagree with the naming). Karahan is also a more recently discovered site that is still being excavated.
>In fact, it says it was built by the Göblekitepe Culture. So it is a culture distinct from Khiamian culture.We are talking about material cultures. Those are not defined (as much) by their cultural practices, which most of the time can't be reconstructed, but by their tools and construction methods. For example we don't know if Natufians viewed themselves to be one coherent group, but they did share one material culture.
>>36915>What have you found and what do you think caused the end of the last ice age?Doesn't matter. Even if the Meteor theory is true, there is no material evidence for Hancocks civilisation. I also don't understand how the meteor caused a flash flood.
No.36919
Guys you are doing it wrong. He will not listen to any serious evidence, he will either ignore it completely or make an asinine response like
>>36894 here about Pi measurement.
Instead you should just troll the faggot. Last time i made him so salty he started to post photos of his pasty liberal hands to prove he knows anything about construction. That's what you should do also.
No.36921
>>36919I would agree if this thread were on the main board. My replies take little effort since he makes many obvious mistakes and I just want to see what happens when I keep pushing him. He has no choice but to keep replying to my posts, since nobody else is giving him attention on here.
No.36929
>>36916So you not only deny evidence but also want to remain wilfully ignorant?
No.36931
>>36929ONE artefact or structure, that is all I am asking for.
Also explain how the meteor lead to a flash flood.
And while you are at it, explain why Hancocks ancient civilisation never expanded more than a couple hundred meters from the coast. I can't think of any examples for a group of subsistence farmers that limited themselves in such a way.
No.36933
>>36931nta but if there's any truth to Hancock's speculations the culture would probably be at the level of early Neolithic southern China.
So yes, technologically advanced but still subsistence farmers, and yes that culture in its southern expansion across the sea did indeed hug the coasts.
No.36936
>>36933Sad that the only answer to my questions, that has any merit, didn't come from the Hancock schizo.
No.36953
>>36916>Those are not defined (as much) by their cultural practices, which most of the time can't be reconstructed, but by their tools and construction methods.Precisely. There are no similar constructions to the Tepes, that's why they say Gobleki Tepe and Karahan Tepe belong to a separate material culture. They are not part of the Khiamian or Natufian material culture.
>I also don't understand how the meteor caused a flash flood.Glaciers are very big ice cubes. These ice cubes can be kilometers (or miles) tall. That is a lot of water.
>pic relhttps://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-extent-of-glaciation-during-the-Last-Glacial-Maximum-during-the-Late-Pleistocene_fig9_275040990The white stuff in the north of the planet are glaciers.
A meteor is an asteroid (big rock that can contain iron, platinum, and other metals) that is on a collision course with Earth. These meteors can be huge, like the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs hundreds of years ago. These meteors, pulled by Earth's gravitational pull accelerate towards the Earth. As they accelerate through the atmosphere, they compress the air in front of them, so they become very, very hot. So hot in fact that they glow (you may have seen "shooting stars", which aren't stars at all, but smaller meteors entering the atmosphere and burning up). Now you have a massive, buning metal-rock object hurtling to the Earth, picking up energy/momentum. When this rock hits the Earth, all that heat and energy it has collected has to go/dissipate somewhere (conservation of energy). If it hits a big block of ice, that energy will go into the ice (with some energy being converted to sound), melting it. The release of energy will be quite sudden and fast, and therefore it will melt a lot of the ice suddenly. When ice melts, it becomes water, and as they say, rest is history.
>>36919>asinine response like >>36894 (You) here about Pi measurement.You asked me an asinine question. You asked how many digits of Pi they knew, thinking it is some gotcha cause you don't know how Pi is calculated. You thought it was some complicated equation computers have to do, when in reality one can get an approximation of Pi using a stick and a string. And the beauty of it it doesn't matter what units you use to measure the diameter and circumference, centimeters, inches, cubits, Pi is always the same because it is a ratio of those values.
>Last time i made him so salty he started to post photos of his pasty liberal hands to prove he knows anything about construction.Making up lies is not a sign of confidence. If your position relies on making stuff up, then you don't even think it can stand on its own merits. I posted links to the previous threads and what you're saying never happened. Otherwise post the pics.
>>36931>ONE artefact or structure, that is all I am asking for.We haven't explored the whole planet, how can you say it isn't out there?
>Also explain how the meteor lead to a flash flood.Already have in this post.
>And while you are at it, explain why Hancocks ancient civilisation never expanded more than a couple hundred meters from the coast.Much more than a "couple.hundred meters" was submerged after the sea levels rose. Try to look at a before and after map. Whole continents were submerged.
>I can't think of any examples for a group of subsistence farmers that limited themselves in such a way.Because you made it up.
<make up thing<say you're surprised the thing you made up never happened>>36936You're a fucking dweeb, MiniMan.
No.36955
>>36953>>36954First of all I don't even like the minuteman guy. The way he insists on Gobekli Tepe having been built buy huntergatherers is unfounded at the moment. As of this moment we don't have any clear evidence on whether or not the early phases coincided with early agriculture.
>meteorThat is not the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. According to the hypothesis the meteor disintegrated when entering earths atmosphere, which lead to the changes in earths climate. There is nothing about a global flash flood.
If such a massive global flood did occure you should be able to point towards geological evidence for it.
>still mad about the Pi questionlmao
>Making up lies is not a sign of confidenceI fully believe that anon. I caught you lying about your prior posts before.
>We haven't explored the whole planet, how can you say it isn't out there?You admitted that you have nothing. I win.
No.36956
>>36955 (me)
Lets be honest, you are just a coping angloid that is big mad, about us Levantines creating civilisation.
No.36960
>>36955>That is not the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. According to the hypothesis the meteor disintegrated when entering earths atmosphere, which lead to the changes in earths climate. Next time don't get so excited at finding a "gotcha" that you stop reading as soon as you think you've found it.
<The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis: Review of the impact evidencehttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012825221001781 In the next paragraphs it says this fragments impacted the Earth.
>pic relThat is why it is called the Younger Dryas
Impact Hypothesis. Everything I have said about the meteor impact is still true.
>still mad about the Pi question>How many digits of Pi did the lost civilization know?You're the one who doesn't know the basic math behind Pi, thinking it is some super complicated number hard to calculate. You don't even need that many digits for the vast majority of things, certainly not building. NASA uses fifteen digits but that's because distances between planets are huge, so a higher degree of accuracy is required than for distances of tens, hundreds and thousands of meters.
>How advanced was the "lost" civilisation? More advanced than you, apparently.
>I caught you lying about your prior posts before.Another baseless claim. Don't you have anything better to do than to "troll" me?
>I win.Seeing everything as a competition is a sign of someone who has been fully socialised into capitalism and has internalised the dominant ideology's logic. What are you even doing on this website if you aren't willing to criticise the dominant ideology, or if you happen to be a liberal, challenge your learned preconceptions? Are you here just to laugh at the "dumb commies"?
Communism isn't when everything stays the same but there's a world government and no money. Communists want to change
everything, the totality of capitalism, including your liberal academic institutions teaching bullshit like consensus is more important than reality. You don't give a fuck about the truth, all you care about is that we all agree with the dominant narrative, nobody must question it, otherwise they will be fact-checked, pre-bunked, de-bunked, canceled, marginalised, and called a pseudo-whatever.
And you're not even a little bit funny. Sad.
No.36961
>>36956>us Levantines creating civilisation.>anti-hancock lib has been a nationalist all alongIf you want to keep believing "you" created civilisation, no amount of evidence will ever convince you. You're motivated by emotion, not reason.
No.36962
>>36960So according to this paper the meteor did exactly what I said it did. Now where is the evidence for the giant wave?
And even if you could prove it, you still have no material or genetic evidence.
There is no need for a prior civilisation teaching people agriculture besides wishful thinking, they figured it out on their own.
>>36961cower before me whitey
No.36963
>>36953>You asked me an asinine question.Never asked you anything, you retarded schizo, i just pointed out how asinine your understanding of measurement is. Then again last time you couldn't even undestand that you don't need to constantly lift the stones up and back to ground to fit them to make a wall out of them.
>I posted links to the previous threads and what you're saying never happened. Otherwise post the pics.Still mad i see. Seethe, shitlib.
No.36986
<Confirming the age of ancient footprints
Have Tarantino sniff them
No.36992
>>36931>ignores evidence>posts picrure of guy pretending to be blind alongside itIs this really where trolling has gone?
No.36994
>>36992I'd love to see the evidence.
No.37000
>>36994Been posted several times, even in the OP
No.37001
>>37000There is nothing about artefacts or global tsunamis in the OP. Why are you lying again?
No.37075
>>37034Why are you shifting the goal posts away from the giant murder wave? Did you lie about having evidence?
>Ancient footprintsHumans could have arrived even earlier (didn't you read the article?) or they maybe even got there by boat (early humans also made it to australia with boats)
>historical industryCould you name some people you consider to be part of Big Archaeology?
No.37087
>>36674>>>/edu/16648 is also a thread about this topic
No.37090
>>36954This dude lives rent free in your mind bro.
No.37109
based archeologists proving the Bible correct yet again. the only explanation for how this could have happened is the Flood and Noah's Ark.
No.37140
Archaeologists discover 476,000 year old structure, thought to be oldest known wooden structure …
Researchers from two UK universities have discovered what they say is the oldest known wooden structure, which they found at the Kalambo Falls, in Zambia, and, at almost 500,000 years old, predates the emergence of Homo sapiens. The archaeologists think the two large logs they found were joined together to make a structure, possibly the foundation of a platform or part of a dwelling. Prof Larry Barham, from the University of Liverpool’s Department of Archaeology, said whoever built this structure “transformed their surroundings to make life easier, even if it was only by making a platform to sit on by the river to do their daily chores. These folks were more like us than we thought.”
No.37141
>>37140>oldest human artefact is no longer from israelbased
No.37143
>>37142Meh close enough, they're part of the human family like neanderthals
No.37157
>>37156
What is that suppose to be evidence of?
No.37162
>>37157?
>people have been using tools to build artificial structures for hundreds of thousands of years, not just the last ~10k>a lot of our structures weren't built from stone or other materials that will last a long time, so a lot of the evidence has rotted away>contemporary history/archaeology theories keep having dates for developmental milestones pushed back because every time we find the oldest thing (so far) we assume we're not going to find an example that's even older No.37168
>>37162It's a known fact that humans could build structures even before neolith. In fact in the last thread you even tryed to deny that because your argument was "how could they suddenly learn how to build stuff without some aliens or white people teaching them" and everybody and their mother were saying that hunter-gatherers knew how to build. You are one stupid motherfucker.
What it doesn't prove is existence of some super advanced civilization back then.
No.38832
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph%27s_granariesUhhm…. Don't tell me Handcock's theories were based on Christian nonsense?? No… the Pyramids must have been built as granaries… despite following all the conventions of Egyptian tombs, being known by ancestors as tombs and having literal contemporary writing INSIDE them saying they were tombs… but where are the bodies in these monuments that were constantly pilfered for at least 1500 years?
No.38833
>>38832are you telling me cuntham shitcock and all the other ancient aliens ass conspiracies are thinly veiled reactionary propaganda? im absolutely shocked
No.38835
>>38832I always wondered why building the pyramids put a granary in all your towns in civ 2
No.38836
>>38835Ah fuck, I can't believe they've done this
No.38837
>>38832When did Hancock say they pyramids were grain silos? His whole thing is that they were built using more advanced knowledge than the usually attributed to the builders, and that they relate to the stars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoastronomyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_correlation_theory No.40952
>>36675> the anti communist Hancuck Except that Hancock is a self-proclaimed Socialist and anti-liberal? I don't know whether the man is right or not, I don't have the archeological/historical authority to say definitively (and neither do any of the anons in this thread tbh), but these posts screaming about how he's [insert right-wing boogieman] hold no water. I can only conclude that this is because Nazi LARP pursued research of alternative Ancient Civilization history as part of their mystical brainworms, but that's just ideologues band-wagoning on an already existing concept, just as /pol/ does with a lot of anti-liberal critics.
TL;DR: He's not a nazi or a schizo for making theories and not sticking to the mainstream narrative. None of us know the real objective truth, especially as to Ancient History, so we are in no position to say that he's wrong. Rather than reflexively getting mad, it's best to read and think about the arguments and evidence Hancock presents and decide objectively whether his claims hold merit or not.
No.40953
>>40952He cited a guy who was one of those woo nazis in one of his books, but he also cited a bunch of other people tbf. The idea that these ideas about lost civilizations started with the nazis is obviously wrong if you think about it for a second (like how the Atlantis story dates back at least as far as
Plato). There definitely are racists today who push this stuff but they're also certainly not the only ones, and the liberal method of "racist do it so nobody else can" is always very stupid and in the case of alternative theories of history outright politically dangerous because it's used to cast anybody who questions the mainstream liberal history or racism or some other ism.
No.40954
>>40953I've brought up this point before on other subjects but, There are many established MAINSTREAM theories and subjects that were studied by the Nazis and are accepted as fact, such as in biology. You may dislike these people for who they are, but it does not automatically make them wrong, that's dogmatism. I am in no way arguing for Nazi science or some shit, but my point is that you can't dismiss evidence just because the person that brings it up is an ideological enemy. A Soviet archeologist was one of the people that cracked the code of Mayan writing, by all ideological reasoning, Western historiography and archeologists should have rejected his work as something "those damn commies made up", but that's not how that works. And like you said, he does cite many other people who aren't Nazis.
>in the case of alternative theories of history outright politically dangerous because it's used to cast anybody who questions the mainstream liberal history or racism or some other ism. Absolutely, it's how the Holodomor myth continues to be propagated despite many Western historians like Stephen Wheatcroft debunking it and having no communist or Soviet/Russian sympathies.
No.40963
>>40954>it's how the Holodomor myth continuesThe Holodomor being a myth is academic consensus. The myth is perpetuated by activists and journalists, who utilize media connections to promote their agenda. Kind of like how Hancock used his connections to get a documentary on netflix.
No.40969
>>40963>The Holodomor being a myth is academic consensus.It isn't. Historians to this day continue to propagate it as an unironic genocide of the Ukrainian People, even before 2014. History books in American Universities talk about it as a genocide and use the same old debunked myths and photos of the 1922 famine, and these textbooks and journals given to students to read are written by Ph.D 'historians' and 'academics'. Media propagating it further in films and other forms is a form of base-superstructure interaction. Netflix produces anything and everything, no matter how true or false, same as the History Channel and Discovery Channel before it. The Hancock documentary series is clearly a result of a big media company exploiting something. Hancock simply wasn't dumb enough to not take the chance to get a wider audience to his research.
Regardless of what your stance on Hancock may be, to compare his theories on alternative history with the CIA-shit Holodomeme is bad-faith false equivalency.
I don't agree with all his theories, but I don't presume to simply dismiss him because 80 years ago, the Nazi party latched on to alt-history for propaganda purposes. By that logic any valid criticism of the Capitalist system that /pol/ also shares, is now invalidated because the alt-right is riding the coat-tails of something they had no part of.
No.40970
>>40963>The Holodomor being a myth is academic consensus.Man i am a very, extremely lazy guy, so if you could inform me about studies that are against the "Holodomor" narrative please inform me.
I searched for the topic in a very long time on the internet and never actually got results
Almost all sources say "red famine" or "communism genocide" stuff. Is hard to take those "studies" seriously.
No.40972
>>40963dangerously bourgeois cope and factually wrong as already pointed out
Holodomor myth has been debunked but is still a popular interpretation in mainstream academia, because - and I cannot emphasize this enough -
academia itself is subject to bias, not just the reporting and education as you imply. This is the real kernel of the problem, the objection to any competing narrative with "the science" as it stands. Hancock has problems with his ideas but some of them also have some merit. But many academics fall prey to scientism or positivism and treat their field like a higher revealed truth rather than an ongoing process of study. That's because "science" and academia has been codified within bourgeois liberal society as a substitute for religion and academics for the clerics. That's not to say that academia is bad, but it can be (and has been) corrupted by its sociopolitical context for the interests of the ruling class. Part of this function entails protecting the reigning theories, which have been crafted to suit bourgeois interests.
No.40976
>>40963>The Holodomor being a myth is academic consensustry telling that to Glowiepedia
>>40972bourgeois historiography isn't science though, unlike historical materialism
No.40977
>>40976>bourgeois historiography isn't science thoughThat's what's being defended from counternarratives, not historical materialism.
No.40979
The responses are very telling.
This isn't about truth, it is about being a contrarian. Even if you have the backing of mainstream academics you have to pretend otherwise, because them agreeing with you threatens your status as brave rebels, who fight the lies of those academic eggheads. Sad.
No.40980
>>40979What the fuck is this vague accusation even referring to? To whom?
No.40981
>>40979What are you talking about? The overall point of "there are older cultures we haven't found yet" or "ancient peoples were more advanced than we give them credit for" are pretty mainstream. Some of the more marginal and less important claims that Hancock reports are also seeing more evidence pointing towards them, like that crater found under the Hiawatha glacier or the South American crop residue found on Rapa Nui.
No.40983
>>40982>In the early 1930s a series of food crises affected major agricultural countries,[4] the one in the UkSSR being an outright famine:
>[…] the USSR experienced an unusual environmental disaster in 1932: extremely wet and humid weather that gave rise to severe plant disease infestations, especially rust. Ukraine had double or triple the normal rainfall in 1932. Both the weather conditions and the rust spread from Eastern Europe, as plant pathologists at the time documented. Soviet plant pathologists in particular estimated that rust and other fungal diseases reduced the potential harvest in 1932 by almost nine million tons, which is the largest documented harvest loss from any single cause in Soviet history.
>— Mark Tauger, [5]This was followed by severe drought.
>Anticommunist sabotage also had an influence.[6][7] While collectivization might have influenced the famine, its extent remains disputed, but is likely that inappropriate procurement targets also contributed to the crisis.
>The Soviets responded to the famine by sending food aid and reducing food quotas and food exports.[8][9][10][11] Despite their efforts, modern analysis indicates that 1.8–2.5 million people still perished, which corresponds to the Soviet estimate of 2.4 million.[12]https://wiki.leftypol.org/wiki/Famines_in_the_Soviet_Union Unique IPs: 63