The_Unknown_Banana

lol - that's The Unknown Banana, thanks

I'm no expert, so I have no idea which discoveries were made after the 1800's. However, the supposed "Father of modern Egyptology", Flinders Petrie, was only beginning his investigations in Egypt around the time that book was published. Hence, I imagine a lot has changed as new artifacts are recovered. (Such as the narmer pallette, or the narmer & scorpian mace-heads, among others). As I understand it, petrie classified which time periods certain types of artifacts came from. (ie. The earliest predynastic period being the Amration, had things like simple blacktopped pottery, and bodies in graves had no orientation. In a later stage of development, the Gerzean, artifacts become more complex, and bodies were aligned according to where they believed the land of the dead was). At later stages there were also king lists, amongst other things, which state which king reigned when.

Is this what you're looking for? I know that there have been many redefinitons of the dynastic periods, etc since new discoveries have been made.

All I'm saying is, I wouldn't trust a 100 year old book about egyptology.

Doctor X

Methinks one of the best questions asked about a historical aspect of the Flood Myths was by a poster on another board who estimated how much manure was produced by day and how much effort would be required to remove it . . . not to mention where does one put all of the food to "create" it.

--J.D.

markfiend

Underworld by Hancock develops the theory further.

Basically sea levels were up to 100 metres lower at the last glacial maximum; the glaciation melted in three "bursts" at around 15000 BCE, 13000BCE and 9000BCE. (This bit is AFAIK agreed to by most geologists)

However Hancock's hypothesis that there were city-based civilisations on some of the land that was flooded is a bit more contentious Although one area he investigates in Underworld, the north-west of India, has turned up some interesting archaeological discoveries from under the water dating to around 9000BC. You can find a lot more on Hancock's site www.grahamhancock.com

Incidentally, I may have the dates wrong, and I can't be bothered looking them up

contracycle

A BIT more contentious? The mans a frothing loon.

http://www.thehallofmaat.com/maat/ar...?sid=42&page=1

The_Unknown_Banana

I've been trying to get my hands on a copy of that book for a little while now... it was out of print last time I looked for it

Love the grahamhancock site, been checking there for a while now thanks

The_Unknown_Banana

Graham hancock is not very popular with these people that's for sure. See here for graham hancock's personal refutation of what that site says about him.

contracycle

On the first page Hancock refers to the "proliferating "debunking" industry in cyberspace.", thus casting aspersions on his critics credibility and motiviation. Not a good start.

I've seen Hancocks shows although I have not read the books. But I have seen him make the argument to camera, and I am unconvinced... in fact, more than unconvinced, I think that he is making desperate leaps, and sometimes employing semantic obscurantism, to make his case.

He digs up some interesting stuff. It's worth keeping an eye on these borderline cases, IMO, because you never know what they might find (although the likelihood is they will misinterpret it). But the main theory is rubbish.

I'll tell you what bugs me most about Hancock - the insistence that people could not have invented X, they need some higher prior people to tell them. How technology started in the first place appears to be a mystery to Hancock.

Now, if you are interested in nearly this sort of thing, I can highly recommend Richard Rudgely's Lost Civilisations of the Stone Age. This is not really crypto-archeology, though, and certainly doesn't make any claims to lost Lemuria or anything - Rudgeley explores evidence for human engineering and the technical exploitation of the world back a long way further than we tradictionally describe the beginnings of technical thought and societies. This is radical enough to be an eye opener, and the evidential basis is much more sound.

The_Unknown_Banana

Thanks I will have a look into it. I also recommend you read Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods to get a better insight into where he's coming from. (Though he has admitted that fingerprints was meant to be an eye opener, and get people thinking. Still, it provides evidence and opinions from other people too, so if you want to ignore his opinions, then the stuff he digs up is still interesting )

I see what you're saying, however he does have many reasons to believe that the ancient egyptians etc just popped out of nowhere & suddenly built these impressive structures (Great Pyramids). He reckons there would be evidence of previous attempts, as you don't just build something this amazing on a first go. (Something which he claims we can't build today. He gets his opinions from engineers etc, so I could be convinced) Whether his skeptisicm is warrented or not I don't know.

I guess he just doesn't buy the egyptologists stance, which is that the mastabas were the first stage in the evolution of the pyramids. Also, the poor quality of all other pyramids afterwards (which looks like a de-evolution) is explained by the egyptologists as the egyptians running out of the resources to build any more pyramids as great as the great pyramids. Still, a healthy dose of skeptisicm in any case is good imo

Marduk

“He reckons there would be evidence of previous attempts, as you don't just build something this amazing on a first go. “

This is what bothers me about Hancock and those like him, this just isn’t true. Check out the step pyramid of Zoeser, the ‘bent’ pyramid and the Red pyramid at Saquarra. All built before the Giza pyramids, some more successful than others.
I don’t object to wild theories about aliens or lost civilizations (they are good for science, stir things up now and then), even if it’s based on mythology alone, but can't we at least be a little professional and tell the truth or at least look something up if he isn’t sure? Is that too much to ask?

The_Unknown_Banana

You see, you're just assuming that the bent pyramids/red pyramids were built before the great pyramids. I'm not sure on hancock's stance on the issue, but some books I've read theorise that pyramids built by the egyptians were actually trying to copy the pyramids that were already there, hence none of them come close to the same level of engineering. (Though the red/bent pyramids are also interesting. I've also heard, contrary to egyptologist belief, that the bent pyramid wasn't a mistake. There is so much on this issue!). I think my main gripe with the great pyramids - besides the fact that they are such a marvel, and it is debatable whether we could build them today - is the fact that they are automatically attributed to the ancient egyptians as tombs. When in fact none of them contained a single body, and neither did they have any art or writing to to worship the sun god and pave the way for their king's ascent. As far as I can tell, they only believe the pyramids were built by the ancient egyptians because of external sources written afterwards. (Since the egyptians were so big on propoganda, I am skeptical of these sources). There's also the sphinx, and I've heard many good arguments which say that it was not built for khafre(sp), but was already there and only the head recarved. (geologists information regarding rainfall on the sphinx, and also just the proportion of head to body doesn't seem right)

Wow, what a big ramble! Still, I prefer to remain agnostic on this issue :P I think there is enough information to warrant looking into, which is what hancock is apparently trying to inspire people to do.