Gunung Padang new results and the possibility it was built 23,000 years ago !

originally posted by: stirling
This is interesting if true....and leads to some speculations...
The Sphinx is also an enigma which has been recently dated by Shock as about that age as well....give or take...and it all seems to indicate a world wide civilisation which flourished around that time frame.

Ah no Dr Shoch presented a theory that if might be older; others did not agree at best the idea is in suspension or unproven. Oh and it isn' 'recent' he presented his idea in the early 90's about twenty years ago.

At present there is no indication of a world wide civilization at that period - there is however clear evidence of many cultures at various levels of technology - but no civilization until Sumer.

a reply to: 727Sky

Yeah this is an interesting one eh? The problem is most of the information coming out is coming out on fringe sites. There is a possibility it is real or we have another "Bosnian hills as pyramids fraud' forming.

a reply to: Hanslune

Hi Hans,

There is no 'school of archaeology' no monolithic organization - its hundreds of schools using consensus with much dissent. What 'holds them back'? Evidence; where the evidence is found it moves; ie Catalhuyuck, Gobekli Tepe and Aşıklı Höyük come to mind.

No Monolithic organization no, but a definite and pervasive dogmatic approach unlike many other modern sciences. Modern Archaeology has an unfortunate tendency to make the evidence fit a paradigm then close the book imo, instead of making the paradigm fit the evidence. Where the evidence is overwhelming it moves. Egyptology is one example, where many theories are based on the "work" of early 20th century adventurers who were little more than vandals, dynamiting ancient sites with no more knowledge of empirical method than the average man in the street.

At present there is no indication of a world wide civilization at that period - there is however clear evidence of many cultures at various levels of technology - but no civilization until Sumer.

Depends on what you term civilization, but this is a potentially long discussion.

The problem is most of the information coming out is coming out on fringe sites

I don't regard the Jakarta post or the Indonesian government as fringe sources.

Hope your well

originally posted by: Culcullen
a reply to: Hanslune


No Monolithic organization no, but a definite and pervasive dogmatic approach unlike many other modern sciences. Modern Archaeology has an unfortunate tendency to make the evidence fit a paradigm then close the book imo, instead of making the paradigm fit the evidence. Where the evidence is overwhelming it moves. Egyptology is one example, where many theories are based on the "work" of early 20th century adventurers who were little more than vandals, dynamiting ancient sites with no more knowledge of empirical method than the average man in the street.

Egyptology is also not a monolithic organization either. Many of the theories developed earlier are still the best fit to the evidence we have, some of those theories (involving Christianity have been dropped). Early participants inm any early science can be seen as crude - its the nature of the development of science.

Depends on what you term civilization, but this is a potentially long discussion.

Classic definition which involves writing:Take your pick

I don't regard the Jakarta post or the Indonesian government as fringe sources.

In this case Graham Hancock forum