Russian Engineer Reveals Evidence for Advanced Ancient Civilisation

originally posted by: username74
and so it seems you are suggesting we can have culture, alone
and we can have civilisation+culture

That's correct. Culture and civilization are two different things. The Naqada culture, for instance, is not a civilization although they did have towns and practice farming.

a reply to: Byrd

ok , maybe we can have a little arabian market on this

Are your sources confusing culture with civilization? Culture can occur with or without cities. Civilization is a product of having cities (the implication is a certain stable population level and resources and organization that allow fast development of technology.)

that would be my confusion, i just want an agreed definition, "stable population level and resources and organization that allow fast development of technology" thats the important bit and we dont neccesarily need the fast bit either because we have time and the levels of population dont need to be arbitrary

I'd debate this. Prehistoric peoples did help many animals into extinction (including possibly mammoths).

still with ya, although to qualify u.s. was at its carrying capacity for h+g tribes
domesticated or captured and tamed they still work for you esp if their taming is an industry or a cottage industry

...and its such a vast period of time, and if sea levels were so much lower and your civilisations transport is mostly by water then that world lies mostly underwater so what do you expect to find in these mountainous backwaters This area has been above the water for millions of years, and it's not very close to any sea or ocean.

yes i meant to intimate that g.b. was a backwater, although there are two younger settlements nearby that possibly owe their origin to this site , and the real hubs although much smaller in scale, with a semi nomadic population are beneath the sea

but in general yeah looks like the same page

the captured and tamed bit refers to livestock not h+g tribes

as an aside i cant not mention how eerily similar the hands on the megaliths are to the moai of easter island. its such a minor anatomical thing that seems so unlikley. weird

Well, there is lots of evidence out there that these ancient civilizations had some sort of technology. Why would anyone believe that in millions of years that modern humans were the only advanced race that inhabited this planet. It could be humans, it could have been some other hominid that did this. Just because we have not found their tools along with an instruction manual doesn't mean they did not do it. Especially when there these structures out there that hold some evidence of advanced toolwork. There are some stone binders in a few of the pyramids in South America too.

Nobody wants to give credit to these ancient beings that built these structures. Read some of these ancient texts from two to three thousand years ago, look at some of their sewer systems and structures. These people of that time were not cavemen or barbarrians, they were like us. Now with so little change in people in that time, how long before that were we intelligent and maybe there were highly inteligent people or beings that taught them.

I will not accept the common consensus of the day of that field of science. I will not believe that we, in the last five hundred years, were the only ones who had a big increase in technology, especially when it seems there is no evidence that exists that we were the only ones. Where is the technology? The metals were probably melted down by barbarians that decided to loot and kill and rule the country side to make weapons and junk to make them look rich. That is what has happened throughout history.

a reply to: rickymouse
yeah its vast possible area of discussion so its best to stick with whats solid
thats why i was leery of getting into too much detail
if you look at the masonry and structure without trying to discern who when and why then it becomes a purely engineering problem. and if you dont worry about how they built it you will be forced to look how its built which should begin to tell you about itself. and even then that wont help with the big picture

a reply to: username74

I looked at a lot of the evidence, and I can say I do not know how they made those things but know it was not with the tools they said they made them with. Just because they found a few stone tools on the site does not mean that those tools were used in the construction. I am a contractor, I do not let my guys leave tools on the job. Broken tools go to the scrapyard a friend owns. I try not to throw metal in the garbage, it can be melted and reused.

I have used a lot of mason tools, I know how to see the marks saws make on things. I even used bricks to sand brick walls to clean off some mortar. I have used concrete to sharpen blades. I own diamond cement blades and saws. I have seen the pictures, someway they did use circular blades.

I actually saw circular saw cuts on rocks I unearthed, two feet under ground. Now it could be that there was someone dumping scrap rock here but the depth is too deep to have been done within the last four hundred years. So who did it, this place was all Indians two hundred fifty years ago. Someone from Europe may have been here or their technology may have been here. Also, many of the rocks here were hauled here, some look to be from down by Arizona. Who ever put them in rows here did it long ago. From what I have researched it was a minimum of a thousand years. They liked to grind rocks also, also they made some rocks using clay based cement like material. They knew how to do it, but that is not actually strange if they were from anywhere in Europe.

I tried to find out who was here, but they did not leave a note that I have found. Strange shaped rocks in rows, rocks that can be used to start fires in piles, and ground stone pieces in strange shapes. Lots of old broken stone knives buried in the ground, but the Indians would have buried those so nobody would cut their feet..

Probably some Indians with European influence. I have found symbols but the symbols for many cultures are similar and there will only be a single symbol, not any writing of any kind. A hand shaped glaze heated on stone and cured, it was a small hand, maybe a kids hand. Kind of cool, but nothing to identify the people with, lots of clay shards buried in the ground too.

Nothing to show Aliens were here other than Europeans who would have been aliens to the Indians of the time.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Well, there is lots of evidence out there that these ancient civilizations had some sort of technology.

Sure, I dont think anyone argues that there was technology utilized in the creation of these magnificent sites across the world. I think the area of dissent is in what one refers to as technology. Bronze and copper tools used in the construction of the pyramids and mortuary temples at Giza is a massive technological leap from Natufian culture or PPNA sites like Jericho.

Why would anyone believe that in millions of years that modern humans were the only advanced race that inhabited this planet.

As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Incredulousness does not meet this threshold.

It could be humans, it could have been some other hominid that did this.

Which hominid would that be? Any member of our genus would be considered human by paleoanthropoligists.

Just because we have not found their tools along with an instruction manual doesn't mean they did not do it. Especially when there these structures out there that hold some evidence of advanced toolwork. There are some stone binders in a few of the pyramids in South America too.

Likewise, disbelief in the ingenuity of Bromze Age craftsmen doesn't mean there was some magical superior civilization thst is SO magical they left absolutely no evidence that can link them with any archeological or anthropological sites anywhere in the world.

Nobody wants to give credit to these ancient beings that built these structures.

This here is one of the most outlandish statements I've seen in awhile. You have got to be holding some really fine goodies in your stash box if you think any and every Anthropologist and/or Archaeologist wouldn't give their first born to Beelzebub to have their entire career made in the shade by authoring a paper proving the existence of an earlier, paradigm displacing civilization that supersedes what is currently accepted as the beginning of civilization as we know it.

Read some of these ancient texts from two to three thousand years ago, look at some of their sewer systems and structures. These people of that time were not cavemen or barbarrians, they were like us. Now with so little change in people in that time, how long before that were we intelligent and maybe there were highly inteligent people or beings that taught them.

Well, let's put a little perspective on this scenario... 2 KA was the turn of the first millennium, the height of Roman power in the Western world as Augustus had become Emperor not too long before as well as the Annexing of Egypt, Germania was settled down and expansion into Brittain was well under way. Philos of Byzantium was creating steam powered automatons, the 2nd Temple still stood in Jerusalem, Persia was the only thing standing in the way of Roman expansion towards the East and the world of that time was farther removed from the building of the monuments at the Giza plateau, from the earliest dated scripts found at Harrapa and the beginnings of Mesopotamia than it is from the present.

No... These people were not barbarians or the loathsome anachronism of cavemen as a reference. How long were people intelligent? Again, it's all relative towards what one considers intelligence. As shown in another recent thread, Neanderthals in France were creating ritualistic gathering places 1000 feet away from sunlight deep within a cave 175,500 years ago.This shows a great deal of planning, cooperation and teamwork required to achieve the end result and long before similar "modern" behaviors appear in HSS.

Neanderthal were navigating open sea and traveling to places that could not be seen from the coast indicating a familiarity with ocean currents, navigation, and the ability to plan ahead and utilize teamwork and strategies to attain their goals.When HSS first met up with our European cousins in the Levant some 60 KA, The Neanderthal they encountered were creating superior lithics which they taught to their newfound relatives who then improved upon this technology. People were harnessing controlled fires 400 KA, using pigments and jewelry to decorate their dead prior to burial well over 100KA. Should I keep going?

Eh... Why not go one more. Tool making has occurred since the time of Lucy (over 3 million years ago). So again... Depending on how you want to arbitrarily define intelligence, one could make an argument for as recently as a couple of thousand years ago to as far back as a few million. Take your pick.

I will not accept the common consensus of the day of that field of science. I will not believe that we, in the last five hundred years, were the only ones who had a big increase in technology,

To quote from Jerry McGuire...SHOW ME THE MONEY! Incredulousness is not evidemce that supports your preferred version of history.

especially when it seems there is no evidence that exists that we were the only ones.

So if there is no evidence that we were the only ones(I'll play along despite the fact that in science we don't prove negatives) then the only alternative is that there is copious evidence for your magic men. It should clearly be insurmountable, No? Should I hold my breath?

Where is the technology? The metals were probably melted down by barbarians that decided to loot and kill and rule the country side to make weapons and junk to make them look rich. That is what has happened throughout history.

Well isn't that convenient! Now,you're exonerated from having to provide evidence in support of your hypothesis because you can just explain it away with rationalizations.

originally posted by: peter vlar

Well isn't that convenient! Now,you're exonerated from having to provide evidence in support of your hypothesis because you can just explain it away with rationalizations.

Yup, someones been paying too much attention to Graham Hancock again...
"We are a race with amnesia", = "they were a race that cleaned up all signs of their existence"

a reply to: Marduk

ok marduk, it wasnt a very constructive reposte to a bit of a wild post and theres alot of that. lets just dissemble this.
hancocks writing is not supposed to be a peer reviewed paper,i have watched a little, i havent read his books but if i did i would accept that its speculation, although not quite so outlandish as some notable others and reasonably coherent. i dont think hes a big aliens guy but i could be wrong. circumstantially its not too bad but the evidence based stuff is very tangental, but he is looking at real stuff and its there. its just he sells speculative entertainment but he and others have drawn great attention to the value of antiquity. (you can watch ancient aliens with the sound off and you get an interesting visual montage)
i would nt be too heavy on people believing outlandish things, its not like our society values truth when it comes up against interests
i think hancock is implying a cultural amnesia. which isnt a fantastic context to use this word in as we dont have a race memory per se for a start.
but there is evidence of cataclysm
and there are things of great (but debatable) antiquity
and there is paradigm and emotional bias

a reply to: peter vlar

This here is one of the most outlandish statements I've seen in awhile. You have got to be holding some really fine goodies in your stash box if you think any and every Anthropologist and/or Archaeologist wouldn't give their first born to Beelzebub to have their entire career made in the shade by authoring a paper proving the existence of an earlier, paradigm displacing civilization that supersedes what is currently accepted as the beginning of civilization as we know it.

you sure about that, bro?
maybe rebury it
academia is littered with reputations sent to hell in their lifetimes only to be exonerated later

a reply to: username74

and to follow its very unlikey there is ever going to be a single discovery that shifts paradigm on its lonesome, and it will take some time for assembling findings and peer review so you would be up to your neck in it by the time you were sure. but still you would have though gobekli tepe would have made more of a splash but i guess theres not really a comprehensive way to stuff this into the heads of the public. the scale of time is too vast after 2000 4000 years we dont really have a historical framework to fit it in.
it has basically made pre history part of history. like the neanderthals leaving flowers on graves.
out of the past these things come fully formed out of the dark and serve to remind us what a blind spot it is for archeaology. i think maybe thats what gets the visceral response from the more grounded members

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Marduk

ok marduk, it wasnt a very constructive reposte to a bit of a wild post and theres alot of that. lets just dissemble this.
hancocks writing is not supposed to be a peer reviewed paper,i have watched a little, i havent read his books but if i did i would accept that its speculation,

Then that's just you, the vast majority of his readership are too naïve to realise they are being lied to...

originally posted by: username74
although not quite so outlandish as some notable others and reasonably coherent. i dont think hes a big aliens guy but i could be wrong. circumstantially its not too bad but the evidence based stuff is very tangental, but he is looking at real stuff and its there.

Nope, he's looking at real stuff and pretending its something else, like
The Egyptians didn't built the pyramids, they were planned by a lost race and built around 10,500BCE.
In the face of overwhelming evidence this changed to
"the Egyptians did build the pyramids, but the plans were drawn up by a lost race in 10,500BCE
or
The S American cultures were too stupid to civilise themselves and had to wait for a white guy (from a lost race) to turn up and show them how to do it

As you suspect, to support this claim, Hancock misrepresents, fabricates and lies about the evidence. Claiming for instance that the Popul Vuh is an uncontaminated document of pre Colombian culture, when it was written by a Catholic priest...

originally posted by: username74its just he sells speculative entertainment but he and others have drawn great attention to the value of antiquity. (you can watch ancient aliens with the sound off and you get an interesting visual montage)
i would nt be too heavy on people believing outlandish things, its not like our society values truth when it comes up against interests
i think hancock is implying a cultural amnesia. which isnt a fantastic context to use this word in as we dont have a race memory per se for a start.
but there is evidence of cataclysm
and there are things of great (but debatable) antiquity
and there is paradigm and emotional bias

The paradigm about our history is based upon evidence subjected to scientific method, if you want to go believe the ravings of a non qualified journalist, who's evidence is based on profit. That's up to you..

But anyone these days who postulates a "Lost race" of civilisers in antiquity, is stealing from Hancock

The origins of the Sumerian culture are known, no lost race required
The origins of the Egyptian culture are known, no lost race required
The origins of the Greek culture are known, , no lost race required

Yanno, they are all like that, now if you think you have discovered a culture, who's origins aren't already understood by academic historians, then produce it. Because talking about it as if its a reality without any supporting evidence makes your whole argument moot....

originally posted by: username74
so i make a reference to dr strangelove in reply to your metaphor of the left hand being out to get you
my reply is surely a cultural reference as was your metaphor
and the culture is a product of this civilisation
and so it seems you are suggesting we can have culture, alone
and we can have civilisation+culture

Lastly, given your interest in Anthropology, I would think that by now you would realize that the term "civilization" is just a categorization of a type of culture. There is no evidence at Gobekli Tepe of any civilization.

so if civilization is culture then the portrayed images/sculptures at g.b. must be evidence of culture/creed which means that it follows that it must indicate civilization

No. "Portrayed images" predate civilization by tens of thousands of years.
You are using the wrong term. Civilization requires more than artwork.
When you use terms incorrectly, you might as well be typing gibberish on your keyboard.

or would you like to clarify because before we move on to some other primary evidence it would be nice to all get our ducks in a row with this well documented example

My point exactly. If you don't use the term "civilization" properly, then what you say concerning civilization is also improper.
I note you say your concerns were not addressed in my post. In fact, they were:

The answer to all your questions is absence of any evidence.
If we have no evidence for a thing, then belief in that thing is not warranted.
That's "what's wrong" with it.

Regarding your left hand, it was the first ridiculous claim that popped into my head. That's why I said it.
Like I said, if you require no evidence, why, then you can make up anything at all and demand others tell you "What's wrong with it?"

Harte

a reply to: Marduk

Nope, he's looking at real stuff and pretending its something else, like The Egyptians didn't built the pyramids, they were planned by a lost race and built around 10,500BCE. In the face of overwhelming evidence this changed to "the Egyptians did build the pyramids, but the plans were drawn up by a lost race in 10,500BCE or The S American cultures were too stupid to civilise themselves and had to wait for a white guy (from a lost race) to turn up and show them how to do it As you suspect, to support this claim, Hancock misrepresents, fabricates and lies about the evidence. Claiming for instance that the Popul Vuh is an uncontaminated document of pre Colombian culture, when it was written by a Catholic priest...

ha ha, ok, fair enough, like i said i havent read any so i wasnt aware of the extent of the speculations

if you want to go believe the ravings of a non qualified journalist, who's evidence is based on profit

i didnt say that i did, i was clearly not aware of the the depth of his heresy

The origins of the Sumerian culture are known, no lost race required The origins of the Egyptian culture are known, no lost race required The origins of the Greek culture are known, , no lost race required

what is this lost race issue? who was lost? loss implies that you had to begin with something. humans were there for the whole show, along with every other beastie. they did what they did and left traces, mtc-dna etc .
we have either found these indications or not. its about an enormous body of knowledge that is always being added to. in recent years with the increase of technology and enthusiasm due to exposure it has become clear that the more we find out the more questions arise but these questions are not about what happened in the time period described above

Yanno, they are all like that, now if you think you have discovered a culture, who's origins aren't already understood by academic historians, then produce it. Because talking about it as if its a reality without any supporting evidence makes your whole argument moot....

what?
my argument? what are its terms again? refresh my memory? i remember trying to set up a hypothesis in relation to the subject of this thread, but i still cant get it through the door.
and i dont claim to have discovered anything and for you to suggest that there is nothing left to discover from the ivory tower of academia looking back into the past (and you did, in the paragraph above, look just above) is the height of... well never mind

originally posted by: username74

what?
my argument? what are its terms again? refresh my memory?

originally posted by: username74
its just he (Graham Hancock) sells speculative entertainment

My rebuff is that he doesn't do that at all, He is a dishonest peddler of lies and knows it...

a reply to: Harte

ah harte. i ve just noted we have a mood bar at the side. sorry to see you are appalled. dont worry, i am not completely feral.

Civilization requires more than artwork

ok. what does artwork require?


"My point exactly. If you don't use the term "civilization" properly, then what you say concerning civilization is also improper.
I note you say your concerns were not addressed in my post. In fact, they were:


The answer to all your questions is absence of any evidence.
If we have no evidence for a thing, then belief in that thing is not warranted.
That's "what's wrong" with it."

well technically, thats absence within the discovered evidence, also i am working towards postulating that there is some compelling evidence to suggest that we should expect some of the existing evidence to be revised in a different context. but first i am trying to define some loose parameters to create it

"If we have no evidence for a thing, then belief in that thing is not warranted."

and the above is fairly specious, because this entire thread is based on proposed evidence and yet here you are

and civilisation
civilisation

the stage of human social development and organization which is considered most advanced.
"the Victorians equated the railways with progress and civilization"
synonyms: human development, advancement, progress, enlightenment, edification, culture, cultivation, refinement, sophistication
"a higher stage of civilization"
the process by which a society or place reaches an advanced stage of social development and organization.
the society, culture, and way of life of a particular area.
plural noun: civilizations; plural noun: civilisations
"the great books of Western civilization"
synonyms: culture, customs, mores, way of life, attainments, achievements; More
society, nation, people, community
"the ancient civilizations of the Mediterranean"
the comfort and convenience of modern

what i was worried about was whether our tree of technology and infra structure was a prerequisite to the definition and scale is a relative point in this definition
i wasnt nit picking its just so i dont trip up on semantics later

a reply to: Marduk

My rebuff is that he doesn't do that at all, He is a dishonest peddler of lies and knows it...

ha ha, yeah ok man, i think i might have to check this guy out just to see why hes upset you so much

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Marduk

My rebuff is that he doesn't do that at all, He is a dishonest peddler of lies and knows it...

ha ha, yeah ok man, i think i might have to check this guy out just to see why hes upset you so much

knock yourself out
grahamhancock.com...
Its not him. its all of them, Childress, Icke, Hancock, Sitchin, they are all lying for profit, I have issues with people who make a career from dishonesty
You should too

a reply to: Marduk

Who are some reputable scholars or historians that you feel we should support?

Are there any that tiptoe into the fringe a bit? or is it just those individuals you dislike? For their outside the box thinking?


I want to know because apparently the books you're reading, have all the answers. Sign me up.