Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Amen-Moses:
[QB]I think someones got it arse backwards, it is mainstream Archeology that claims our ancestors were thick not Hancock et al.

A perfect example was with those cities found off the western coast of India, a piece of wood found on top of the remains dates to 6000 BCE, indicating that the remains themselves predate that. What was the Archeologist response? To claim that the wood could have come from somewhere else because they just cannot accept that our ancestors were advanced enough to live in cities that long ago.

Amen, Catal Huyuk dates to about 6000 BCE, and is accepted by one and all.

I really can't see why you are complaining. It's good scientific conservatism, that's all. The Hancock crowd argues that the ancients, who mastered lost wax casting, invented the zero, and founded philosophy, were too dumb to move big rocks. Funny how the focus here is always on technology -- a sure sign that people like Hancock et al are racists. Technology as a measure of man is an idea invented by Europeans to justify their exploitation of other cultures. Funny how Hancock and co complain that the ancients were too dumb to mvoe rocks, but never mention much more difficult and intricate things they developed. It also shows a severe gender bias, always hand in hand with racism, of course. The focus is always on he-man tech, like rock moving. Nobody ever argues that the aliens invented dyeing, sewing, clothmaking, or other "feminine" tech. Do you realize how many steps are involved in the making of a skirt from bark cloth? That's some seriously involved technology.....

Vorkosigan

Amen-Moses

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:

I really can't see why you are complaining. It's good scientific conservatism, that's all. The Hancock crowd argues that the ancients, who mastered lost wax casting, invented the zero, and founded philosophy, were too dumb to move big rocks.

WTF? Hancock claims it was precisely the ancients who did it! The only difference is that he puts the date way back beyond where any mainstream Egyptologist will accept that the ancients were advanced enough to do it.

What I don't understand is why when he puts a date of say 10,000 BCE on the valley temple he is called a crank yet similar workmanship in the levant area is now accepted to be that old. Surely that should add some credence to his theories?;

Amen-Moses

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: Amen-Moses ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Vorkosigan
This is something I have never understood: How the aspect of race comes into the issue.
Please explain that to me.

Amen Moses
What are Graham Hancocks Theories about the matter?

/* puts on moderators hat
And hey Amen, you need to watch your tone
/* removes moderators hat - looks around then hides it

Amen-Moses

Originally posted by IntenSity:

This is something I have never understood: How the aspect of race comes into the issue.
Please explain that to me.

And me, the Egyptian, Sumerians and Inca/Maya civilisations claimed themselves to have recieved their technologies from outsiders so I don't see hwo it can be racist to claim that they were telling the truth! Would it be racist to point out that Egypt did not invent the chariot but instead were taught it by the Hyksos, who in their turn probably got the technology from the Hittites?

What are Graham Hancocks Theories about the matter?

Simply that an earlier advanced culture passed on some of their technologies to the emerging civilisations that we currently know of, which is a claim they make themselves. No mention is made of who this culture was but the ancestors of modern "white man" were at the time scrabbling around in caves somewhere. Personally I think he and others have got some shred of the truth but not all of it and his claims of the Antartic continent being the home of this earlier culture is to me a tad far fetched. I reckon the evidence for this culture will be found under the deserts of north Africa and Arabia or possiby even in China.;

Amen-Moses

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: Amen-Moses ]</p>

atrahasis

When my collugue [Skepticwithachainsaw] says that
["The Egyptian engineers were very likely just very inventive and cunning with the technology they possessed, they used "simple" mechanical principles to great effect, like rollers, pulleys and levers. They had an enormous man power in the form of Slaves (and whips… . Bear in mind that the Egyptians were already quite accomplished mathematicians."] he displays a very low level knowHow of archeology he uses examples which he saw O.K i dont disapprove seeing as way of presenting a fact but He [Skepticwithachainsaw] says that he saw a programme on guys doing what they THOUGHT that its the way Monoliths were elected. Mr. Skepticwithachainsaw you don't present examples of programmes you saw as evidence to show or rather to proof past events. It is clear beyond doubt that either you did not get my question or you have a very shallow grasp on archeology
Mr marduck and Mr IntenSity are only persons who got my question. So Mr. Skepticwithachainsaw go and have a look at that book by Hancock [The Finger Prints Of the Gods]

--------------------------------------------------

Mr. IntenSity look at this:
In his novel Graham Hancock says that the Ice age might be a cause to the break between the first civilisation and present day civilisation --&gt; The [ice age] did it happen?.

atrahasis

When my collugue [Skepticwithachainsaw] says that
["The Egyptian engineers were very likely just very inventive and cunning with the technology they possessed, they used "simple" mechanical principles to great effect, like rollers, pulleys and levers. They had an enormous man power in the form of Slaves (and whips… . Bear in mind that the Egyptians were already quite accomplished mathematicians."] he displays a very low level knowHow of archeology he uses examples which he saw O.K i dont disapprove seeing as way of presenting a fact but He [Skepticwithachainsaw] says that he saw a programme on guys doing what they THOUGHT that its the way Monoliths were elected. Mr. Skepticwithachainsaw you don't present examples of programmes you saw as evidence to show or rather to proof past events. It is clear beyond doubt that either you did not get my question or you have a very shallow grasp on archeology
Mr marduck and Mr IntenSity are only persons who got my question. So Mr. Skepticwithachainsaw go and have a look at that book by Hancock [The Finger Prints Of the Gods]

--------------------------------------------------

Mr. IntenSity look at this:
In his novel Graham Hancock says that the Ice age might be a cause to the break between the first civilisation and present day civilisation --&gt; The [ice age] did it happen?.

<img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Ted Hoffman

Amen Moses,
Antarctic? (Do you mean Antlantis?), I think as far as material culture is concerned (archaeological findings) there is some inconclusive "findings". It just depends on how a particular historian or archaeologist interprets it. There is a lot of arm-twisting and resistance in archaeological circles when someone claims to have found something new. Normally they get drowned out by harsh, sartirical criticism. Egyptologists for instance have really fought people who seemed not to hold the same ideas they are peddling (that the Pyramids were burial tombs).
For example, there are people who have said the religious books are not myths per se but dumbed-down versions of what actually took place e.g Mesopotamean Enuma Elish and Astra Hasis, The Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh , Hebrew Genesis, Exodus etc. These were "stories" that were guarded with great secrecy and ordinary people only got them when the "mystery societies" died to be replaced by (organised) religion. I think there is something to that and if we do not change our paradigm and apply strictly 20th Century thinking when looking at how the ancients operated, we may continue to be baffled by what we see without gleaning any knowledge from the little that is there.

Mostly, when someone comes up with some theory people find far-fetched, they are treated as freaks and their ideas are prortrayed as silly and unfounded. Zechariah Sitchin and Erich Von Daniken being some of them.

Mostly, therse are guys who apply common sense backed by historical evidence. But before their theories are circulated, they are treated with derision and ostracized roundly. I am of the idea that we need to allow new paradigms when looking at the past. Our failing (in my opinion) is that we are so self-centered that we do not allow anything we find inconceivable (at face value) to be even examined.

That being said, some of the criticisms Z. Sitchin has got are very fair and square, but most people are dismissive about ideas that conflict with mainstream ideologies or frameworks.

What are your thoughts on this? I mean for example, evolution says that a species just acquires characteristics that enable it to "survive" optimally in its environment. Why do we have such a huge brain which we only use partly? Why is the cortex also known as "neo-cortex" - are we sure evolution satisfactorily explains our genetic endowments can all be ascribed to evolution? Does evolution clearly explain how homo erectus "jumped" to homo sapiens?
How long has Homo Sapiens walked on this planet? Doesn't Mitochondrial Eve suggest a single "mother" for homo sapiens? Is it irrational to ask where this woman came from?

I do not wish to hijack this topic since my questions belong to Evolution/ Creation, but I believe you get "the idea".

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Skepticwithachainsaw

isaiah
You seem to take this a tad personally but anyway...
Fair enough I will readily admit that my lack of knowledge in archaeological matters, and I no haven't read the book.

Actually I can accept that they're may have been a earlier form of Civilisation, I don't know, I wasn't there.
However : I have a few questions:
1) Where is the evidence of this advanced technology? Why haven't we found solar-powered hair dryers (or whatever) in the Pyramid of Giza (which I get the impression he is using as evidence)? In particular we know that the Egyptians and similar civilisations made a point of burying the It's all very well speculating that something was constructed using an advanced technological tool, but when you don't have any hard evidence, that's all it is.

2) Why aren't their any depiction of the tools/other technology? Surely they would be viewed as extremely important, and so has influenced the art, yet I know of no such depiction.

3) Why did the Civilisation teach different numerical methods and writing styles to different "proto-civilisations"? For example the Mayan number system is very different from the Inca System (which uses a system of knots in threads... ) and the Egyptian system. Surely if they were all taught from one Civilisation they would all use the same system. (Esp with the importance of Maths in Science and Engineering)


I suppose you could argue that the knowledge behind making the tools was long gone and that the tools were too valuable to bury (even with a Pharaoh) but this is becoming even more speculative.

My point about the Raising of the Monoliths is that it shows that such feats were possible without requiring "high technology", yes we cannot be sure (yet.. ) about the techniques that were used, but it shows that it was possible.

Umm Humans on Antarctica?
Why the hell would anyone live there? It's been frozen over for a rather long time (check the ice Cores for example), why would a Civilisation form there of all places?

And I don't see how the Ice Age (and the subsequent flood when the ice retreated) could have annihilated an entire Civilisation, it wasn't that quick, I mean if it happened now I'm pretty sure that at least some of our civilisation would be able to emergrate and relocate quickly enough.

Yes I missed the question on my first response. I don't know how far back he is claiming the Civilisation was meant to be so I'm not sure what is a potential candidate. Anyway, to wipe out such a technologically advanced civilisation it must have been very sudden.
I suppose some possibilities include:

1) Super Volcanic activity, somewhat doubtful, although I have heard that it was suspected that an Eruption of such a Super-Volcano, called Toba 74000 years ago was responsible for a very strange bottle-neck in the genetic code. I.e it wiped out practically all of human life was wiped out and our genetic code contains a far smaller deviation than expected.
Have a look here <a href="http://www.dawn.com/2000/02/05/int14.htm" target="_blank">www.dawn.com/2000/02/05/int14.htm</a> <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/supervolcanoes_script.shtml" target="_blank">www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/supervolcanoes_script.shtml</a>

Apparently there's a Super Volcano under Yellowstone national park which has been overdue an explosion for about 40,000 years! Have a look… <a href="http://www.solcomhouse.com/yellowstone.htm" target="_blank">www.solcomhouse.com/yellowstone.htm</a>

2) Super-Disease, although you would expect them to be able to fend it of.

3) Massively devastating Civil War.

4) Or the old favourite Asteroid/comet/ Meteorite strike, which likewise seems unlikely (esp as you would expect they would have seen it and made preparations…

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: Skepticwithachainsaw ]</p>

Vorkosigan

This is something I have never understood: How the aspect of race comes into the issue.

See Michael Adas'
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0801497604/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">Machines As the Measure of Men : Science, Technology, and Ideologies of Western Dominance </a> for an excellent take.

But basically, as any archaeologist of the New World could tell you, Europeans evolved these stories because they could not believe little brown people could build such amazing stuff.

Alan Alford in Gods of the New Millenium builds a compeling case about the functional purpose of the pyramids (of course the Egyptologists claim that it was for burying the Pharaohs etc).

Yes, it is stupid of Egyptologists to claim the Pyramids were for burying Pharoahs when (1) the ancient Egyptian's own documents say so (2) the documents of other cultures written about Egypt say so (3) we find dead Pharoahs in them (40 no other purpose for them is known

Mostly, when someone comes up with some theory people find far-fetched, they are treated as freaks and their ideas are prortrayed as silly and unfounded. Zechariah Sitchin and Erich Von Daniken being some of them.

Mostly, therse are guys who apply common sense backed by historical evidence. But before their theories are circulated, they are treated with derision and ostracized roundly.

As Sitchin and Von Daniken know nothing about any ancient civilization, and are known for lying, inventing information, and misrepresenting sources, of course no one takes them seriously. There is also no evidence for their views.

...and there is still lack of an adequate explanation about how the ancients went about their lives.

Well of course. Much of the evidence is lost. But because our knowledge is incomplete, it does not follow that aliens taught the Egpytians how to build Pyramids.

Almost everything the ancients left behind in all civilizations, Andean, Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Mesoamerica that has been found to be "advanced" has been attributed to agricultural and religious purposes.

Totally incorrect. I suggest you read some of the serious works on, say, the Incas. Start with <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195070690/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">Inca Architecture and Construction at Ollantaytambo</a> by Jean-pierre Protzen. Protzen is a field archaeologist with experience in both Egypt and S. America, and is probably the world's leading expert on Inca construction technology. After you read a real work on the ancients, you'll find that Von Daniken and Hancock are spouting heaps of racist shit.

Also, the two websites I gave isaiah above contain good references. Frank Dornenburg's site on the pyramids and Sitchin, which rips him to shreds, is a good place to start.

Vorkosigan

Marduk

"Mostly, when someone comes up with some theory people find far-fetched, they are treated as freaks and their ideas are prortrayed as silly and unfounded. Zechariah Sitchin and Erich Von Daniken being some of them."

That is because they present their arguments in a way that leaves them open to derision. I’ve read all of Sitchin’s books and I have copies of most of the original Sumerian texts he uses. Sitchin cuts and pastes like a wildman to make them say what he wants (look them up on the web and compare the two) or get a copy of The Myths of Sumer by Noah Kramer whom Sitchin likes to quote.
Why would aliens teach the Egyptians Hieroglyphs and the Sumerians Cuneiform and the Mayans something else? He claims the same gods were in all three places.
Why would beings that could navigate the solar system need a bunch of big rocks to tell them what time it was, haven’t they heard of watches? Sitchin claims the Annunaki built these things for there own use not our benefit. So Marduk would know when it was his turn to rule, the age of the Ram! Bah! Aliens would not give a hoot about a celestial phenomenon like the movement of the constellations, which is only noticeable from Earth in such a fashion. And would it really take 2000 years for aliens to complete Stonehenge ?
Why not tell the Egyptians “hey! That guys dead, forget about it, stick him in a hole, don’t waste so much time and resources with all this mummy crap.”
He wants to sell books, not make sound arguments. I’ve seen a real Sumerologist from the U. of Chicago complain about how Sitchin is always confusing Sumerian with Akkadian (Annunaki is an Akkadian word not Sumerian, I forget what the Sumerians called them,) this seemed to bother him more than the Alien stuff.
Sitchin could have written an interesting book comparing all these ancient myths regarding ‘gods’ coming to Earth from the ‘heavens’ to teach mankind; Osiris coming from the stars to teach agriculture, Prometheus, the Nephilim, the Watchers, the Negas etc. and then pointed out some of the more intriguing stories. Which I will admit do seem to suggest alien contact of some form at some time. Some of these texts do contain some material that I confess seem highly unusual coming from Bronze Age writers.
But he presents it all as a factual soap opera/sci-fi story using unrelated stories, parts of stories etc. for his timeline. E.g. Marduks father was Ea his brother such and such, yea sometimes they are and sometimes not, the stories have different versions and relationships depending on when they were written. He tries to do too much with too little and claim it as fact when it’s pure speculation.
It is too easy to find simpler explanations, very imaginative people writing stuff about things in the sky, of course this doesn’t mean he’s wrong either.