Who Were the Ancient Megalithic Builders?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by DangerDeath

 

What a great link


Look at this image:

www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk...

Statues, large statues, of bulls. We have evidence here, from 20k years ago, of someone being able to carve, from stone, highly artistic pieces.

Very, very interesting. From a perspective of Mazlow, it is shocking that such a hardened people found the time to develop the skill of creating art from stone.

Frankly, I think they had all the time under the Sun. There was plenty of food. The story of lack of food and starvation begins whit hoarding food and creating monopolies by organized and well armed bandits, so they can blackmail others and enslave them for their own idiotic purposes.

Vincan and similar civilizations existed for thousands of years around 5500-4500 BC near Danube river. They didn't have walls, so there were no wars, nor weapons of war. There is plenty of evidence that they had more than enough food and were culturally connected with distant civilizations from Spain to Middle East.

The issue of being too busy to have time to enhance their well being starts with the invention of the "Greatest Good"... state and politics.

en.wikipedia.org...

Vinca is 14 km from Belgrade. Another big settlement at the same time was in Banjica, part of Belgrade. That was a big hub area at that time with thousands of people. They didn't build megalith structures or anything of that kind. Because of lack of politics, I believe that structures like pyramids and other large structures were nothing but political factories meant to capture peoples attention and "organize" their life under specific, authoritative rules.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Hanslune

Originally posted by Hanslune
AAT (Aquatic Ape Theory) postulates

...another intentional redirect?...

...just in case you really misunderstood my intent - elaine morgan's theory was not the point of my post... my post starts with the words "about non-scientists submitting theories to the scientific community"...

...how she was dismissed by mainstream academia is relevant to any thread exploring possibilities - because - the theories that mainstream academia call scientific are largely speculation promoted as fact... if someone not in their clique dares to do the same, they're demonized... that is not science... that is politics...

reply to post by Wolfenz


I know about this guy, I remember seeing this earlier this year. The funny thing is that doesn't this guy look like he could easily fit at a neanderthal . But he's super strong and able to tap into more muscle energy. And your correct, Puma Punku and it's Diarite megalithic structures with precise carving (I still say machining) and other large and complicated structures. Even if they had the super strength they had to have used their knowledge and made tools to build these things and machine it. And another thing as one OP (I believe Slayer but could have been someone else) said, function follows form. Why build with these massive stones and do all this just by just muscling it into place if possible. I mean if they had the ability to think out how to place and cut (Diarite) large blocks and do it over and over and align it to astronomical formations and also know precession, why just muscle it? They had a technology and/or knowledge that made it easy for them to move and cut (in some cases melt) stone as easy as if a plasma torch or a CNC was doing it.

Genuinely good thread - my mind is currently blown.

The diagrams and pictures really put your words into perspective, some of those stones are huge.

I have several theories

- show of strength, to show rival groups of other 'humans' that we are capable of moving mountains, so go find your own settlement. Hence the defensive wall structure too - it shows intelligence and strength.

- Maybe just maybe our ancestors had access to a more..... natural outlook on life, more in-tune with the earth and the stars and used the stones as reference points - possibly as ways to measure the eternity, or better yet as ways of judging seasons and the wind and weather?

- Maybe the earth itself had something to do with it? I read theories of very early man escaping into the earth to avoid the choking atmosphere of either volcanic activity or the asteroid or whatever, maybe we spent a long time in the earth and suddenly returned to find a different group of survivors had out-bred the cave dwellers and evolved into basic hunters and coastal dwellers (as opposed to foraging and scavenging)
This could explain our spinal development (and hips, skull, brain, nervous system) as we learned to keep balance when hunting crabs and fish on shallow shores + the sudden supply of protein into our systems, to develop our brains and muscles?

- Or (a far out one) maybe the megaliths and huge stone constructions were a way of magnetically charging the frequency of our planet?

Just a few thoughts.

reply to post by hoghead cheese




I also eluded to the possibility that in that "intermediate phase" between the two [or three] of not just an increase in strength [muscle] but also a possible increase in intellect [brains] remember, Neanderthal skulls show a larger brain capacity.

Which may have helped facilitated those very intricate carvings/designs. In other words they were not as "primitive" as many still believe. They could have figured out a way [we still to this day haven't figured out] of carving such hard materials without the use of modern machines.

I've always had issues with the percieved accuracy of carbon dating, and the snobbery of science to be open to it's flaws.

Is carbon dating accurate?

Is carbon dating accurate? Only to a certain extent. In order for carbon dating to be accurate, we must know what the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 was in the environment in which our specimen lived during its lifetime. Unfortunately the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 has yet to reach a state of equilibrium in our atmosphere; there is more carbon-14 in the air today than there was thousands of years ago. Furthermore, the ratio is known to fluctuate significantly over relatively short periods of time (e.g. during the industrial revolution more carbon-12 was being produced offsetting the ratio a bit).

Carbon dating is somewhat accurate because we are able to determine what the ratio was in the unobservable past to a certain extent. By taking a carboniferous specimen of known age (that is, a specimen which we are able to date with reasonable certainty through some archaeological means), scientists are able to determine what the ratio was during a specimen's lifetime. They are then able to calibrate the carbon dating method to produce fairly accurate results. Carbon dating is thus accurate within the timeframe set by other archaeological dating techniques. Unfortunately, we aren't able to reliably date artifacts beyond several thousand years. Scientists have tried to extend confidence in the carbon dating method further back in time by calibrating the method using tree ring dating. Unfortunately, tree ring dating is itself not entirely reliable, especially the "long chronology" employed to calibrate the carbon dating method. The result is that carbon dating is accurate for only a few thousand years. Anything beyond that is questionable. This fact is born out in how carbon dating results are used by scientists in the scientific literature. Many scientists will use carbon dating test results to back up their position if the results agree with their preconceived theories. But if the carbon dating results actually conflict with their ideas, they aren't too concerned. "This attitude is clearly reflected in a regrettably common practice: when a radiocarbon date agrees with the expectations of the excavator it appears in the main text of the site report; if it is slightly discrepant it is relegated to a footnote; if it seriously conflicts it is left out altogether." (Peter James, et al. (I. J. Thorpe, Nikos Kokkinos, Robert Morkot and John Frankish), Preface to Centuries of Darkness, 1991)

So, is carbon dating accurate? It is for specimens which only date back a few thousand years. Anything beyond that is problematic and highly doubtful.

These sites could be millions of years old, we just don't know for sure.

I'd just like to say that considering the potentially sensitive nature of the threads premise that this has been one of the most enjoyable threads to read and participate in that I've written.

I want to again thank everybody both pro and con for keeping the discussion mature and civil.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Originally posted by Hanslune
AAT (Aquatic Ape Theory) postulates

...another intentional redirect?...

...just in case you really misunderstood my intent - elaine morgan's theory was not the point of my post... my post starts with the words "about non-scientists submitting theories to the scientific community"...

...how she was dismissed by mainstream academia is relevant to any thread exploring possibilities - because - the theories that mainstream academia call scientific are largely speculation promoted as fact... if someone not in their clique dares to do the same, they're demonized... that is not science... that is politics...

So how does a theory get rejected? Lots of theories by scientists get rejected. Why can't an amateurs be rejected?

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
I've always had issues with the percieved accuracy of carbon dating, and the snobbery of science to be open to it's flaws.

Is carbon dating accurate?

These sites could be millions of years old, we just don't know for sure.

There are ways to calibrate C-14 dates, presently they use this software to conduct calibration, CalPal2007_HULU, an earlier system uses (and still does) dendrochronology sequences

Science is very open to its flaws and its is well documented - why are you stating otherwise?

Link to calibration

Archaeologists use C-14 in conjunction with other dating methods

Originally posted by Hanslune
AAT (Aquatic Ape Theory) postulates a period of time when pre-homo humans where in or around water, this might have been around 2-6 million years ago - so somewhat out of the range for the Megalithic builders. The evidence is scanty.

we could have walked out of the water and achieved such things in that time frame.

can't count it out.

plenty of time.

Originally posted by fooks

Originally posted by Hanslune
AAT (Aquatic Ape Theory) postulates a period of time when pre-homo humans where in or around water, this might have been around 2-6 million years ago - so somewhat out of the range for the Megalithic builders. The evidence is scanty.

we could have walked out of the water and achieved such things in that time frame.

can't count it out.

plenty of time.

AAT is at best possible but not probable (IMHO) but in the context of the megalithic builders it would have occurred way before there construction.

As stated by the dude who mention that he was trying to make a comment about how science rejects theories - consensus either accepts or rejects theories, tens of thousands of theories have been rejected. An interesting book to look at is 'Dictionary of Theories' by Jennifer Bothamley, ISBN 1-57859-045-0. It gives a good run through of former rejected theories.

Originally posted by Hanslune
Lots of theories by scientists get rejected. Why can't an amateurs be rejected?

...i posted nothing that warranted your question - so, i reckon, you're just pulling my curls again... its okay, got a brother who cant control that urge either cuz we dropped him on his head a lot when he was a baby...

Originally posted by Hanslune - directed @ fooks
As stated by the dude who mention that he was trying to make a comment about how science rejects theories

...so, dude, uh, ya know, maybe, like it could be, dude, that uh your psychic thang is uh runnin amuck, dude... seriously, dude, cuz uh like uh what uh evidence validates your uh your presumption, dude, of anyone's uh, ya know, dude, gender?... uh no offense intended, dude, but uh, dude, presuming sorta kinda uh shoots holes in your uh attempt to project a science based logical mind, dude...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e46ab0544e53.gif[/atsimg]
...thx for the laughs (again), hans - you're a jewel... reminds me of when my adult kids went thru that dude uh like dude stage... i had nerf balls stashed around the front rooms to throw at em when they got goofy like that... gosh, those were wonderful times...

Originally posted by SLAYER69
I want to again thank everybody both pro and con for keeping the discussion mature and civil.

...ooops!... sorry... i'll go away now...

Public Service Announcement

We now return you to the regularly scheduled program
and, remember, only you can stop forest fires.

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
I've always had issues with the percieved accuracy of carbon dating, and the snobbery of science to be open to it's flaws.

Is carbon dating accurate?

These sites could be millions of years old, we just don't know for sure.

There are ways to calibrate C-14 dates, presently they use this software to conduct calibration, CalPal2007_HULU, an earlier system uses (and still does) dendrochronology sequences

Science is very open to its flaws and its is well documented - why are you stating otherwise?

Link to calibration

Archaeologists use C-14 in conjunction with other dating methods

Ask any mainstream archeologist how old these structures are, you'll get an answer.

The mainstream thinking among archeologists say that the great pyramid in Egypt is only 5,000 years old.

Those who suggest otherwise are laughed at.

What a truly facinating thread and subject i enjoyd reading it from start to finish .

I did read the entire post. I always gooble up any of your posts, really I get a sense of excitement opening them up to see what you've got. I wanted you to know you have posted 2 lately that really are of interest to me. Pima Punku - and this. As a matter of fact this resonated so deeply with this armchair anthropologist I thought about it all day today. Thanks Slayer.

reply to post by DangerDeath


interesting. very very interesting. thank you.

reply to post by Hanslune


that's what i said, plenty of time to get our poop in a pile, (tihs together) to do that.

imagine getting out of the water to live on the land!


i think the oceans are awesome but give me dry land.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

Originally posted by Hanslune
Lots of theories by scientists get rejected. Why can't an amateurs be rejected?

...i posted nothing that warranted your question - so, i reckon, you're just pulling my curls again... its okay, got a brother who cant control that urge either cuz we dropped him on his head a lot when he was a baby...

Originally posted by Hanslune - directed @ fooks
As stated by the dude who mention that he was trying to make a comment about how science rejects theories

...so, dude, uh, ya know, maybe, like it could be, dude, that uh your psychic thang is uh runnin amuck, dude... seriously, dude, cuz uh like uh what uh evidence validates your uh your presumption, dude, of anyone's uh, ya know, dude, gender?... uh no offense intended, dude, but uh, dude, presuming sorta kinda uh shoots holes in your uh attempt to project a science based logical mind, dude...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e46ab0544e53.gif[/atsimg]
...thx for the laughs (again), hans - you're a jewel... reminds me of when my adult kids went thru that dude uh like dude stage... i had nerf balls stashed around the front rooms to throw at em when they got goofy like that... gosh, those were wonderful times...

Originally posted by SLAYER69
I want to again thank everybody both pro and con for keeping the discussion mature and civil.

...ooops!... sorry... i'll go away now...

Public Service Announcement

We now return you to the regularly scheduled program
and, remember, only you can stop forest fires.

Everyone has noted that you have completely ignored responding to Hans' question concerning this claim:

...how she was dismissed by mainstream academia is relevant to any thread exploring possibilities - because - the theories that mainstream academia call scientific are largely speculation promoted as fact... if someone not in their clique dares to do the same, they're demonized... that is not science... that is politics...

in favor of petty put-downs concerning language and semantics.

The fact is, theories are completely dismissed all the time. Be they from accredited scientists or ignorant fringies out to make a buck. (And, yes, I know that last bit was a sentence fragment - feel free to make fun of my poor grammar.)
Were this fact not so, you would be arguing that stones can't fall from the sky and flies form magically from rotting meat.

You apparently know this, hence your complete avoidance of justifying your own ridiculous statements.

Harte

reply to post by fooks


a modest aside:

I have heard it called "poop in a group". Rhyme sounds cooler than consonance. Unless your V, that is.

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

The mainstream thinking among archeologists say that the great pyramid in Egypt is only 5,000 years old.

Those who suggest otherwise are laughed at.

In the same way that mainstream thinking says the Empire State Building is only 80 years old. Those who suggest otherwise are laughed at

The point is: there is evidence to suggest the date of construction of the pyramids at ~5ka, as per conventional Egyptology. There is, so far, no evidence in support of earlier dates. People have come up with ideas based on very circumstantial evidence and conjecture, but that is all. And such ideas invariably contradict one another and/or involve circular reasoning or involve reliance on other conjectures. Not exactly encouraging. If someone offered firm evidence to show either that they could not have been constructed according to mainstream thinking or must have been constructed earlier (or, indeed, later) then they will not be laughed at. Their ideas will, however, be rigorously tested before being accepted. Such is the scientific process.

( and I emphasise: I am not saying that the pyramids must be ~5ka; only that there is at present no reason to suppose otherwise )