6 ms·

The mainstream view of our history has some massive unexplained mysteries. For example the ability of ancient people to work with massive slabs of stone in a wa

by brango 9y ago

The mainstream view of our history has some massive unexplained mysteries. For example the ability of ancient people to work with massive slabs of stone in a way we'd struggle to do now even with modern machinery. Not just the Pyramids and Stonehenge, but the stone foundations at Cuzco and also Baalbeck temple which apparently has foundational stones estimated to weigh 1000 tons.

justin_vanw 9y ago
This is just 'ancient astronaut' nonsense. If you gave modern people some incentive to move big stones around without heavy machinery they would figure out how to do it in a couple of months. It's just not hard to do, and people have been moving much larger pieces of stone during recorded history, so we know the techniques used perfectly well. Lots of the obelisks in Rome are far larger than any prehistoric stones moved or worked, and we know how they did it and it's impressive. Impressive isn't the same as an unexplained mystery.
- brango 9y ago
  Who mentioned ancient astronauts? Archeologists don't seem to be as blasé as you about this: > Nothing puzzles archaeologists so much as impracticality, and although the karst topography of Baalbek demands strong foundation stones, and although one big stone is easier to move than many smaller stones, the pillars holding up the temple’s podium, van Ess says, are bigger than they need to be. In fact, Baalbek is one of a series of ancient projects that are under rigorous study by the Germans for being unnecessarily large. https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/baalbek-myth-megalith https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/baalbek-myth-megalit...
  - aleksei 9y ago
    Though it seems they're more puzzled by the "unnecessary" size of the structure rather than transportation of the slabs. Also, somewhat ironically, the posted link mentions ancient astronauts.
  - jacobolus 9y ago
    Archaeologists also aren't structural engineers, usually. So they often have quite different ways of approaching problems. As an example of what happens when a structural engineer does some amateur archaeology, check out http://theoldexplorer.com/index.php/the-lost-secrets-of-maya-technology http://theoldexplorer.com/index.php/the-lost-secrets-of-maya...
  - twelve40 9y ago
    I found this link to be pretty interesting read on the topic. Kind of takes the mystery out of it though : ) http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2010/03/history-of-human-powered-cranes.html http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2010/03/history-of-human-powe...
  - Someone 9y ago
    Many gothic cathedrals still standing also are stronger than they have to be. Reason? Building was still guesswork at the time and the ones built too weak have long collapsed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauvais_Cathedral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauvais_Cathedral is an edge case. So, it may be lack of structural engineering knowledge. They also may have intended to build something bigger, but realised they ran out of time or money, or the “something bigger” collapsed, and this is a rebuild, reusing parts.
- mmjaa 9y ago
  I think, the further back in history we go, the kookier things get - and that this is a positive, not a negative aspect of the experience. We in the modern age have conditioned ourselves to be subjugated to science - well, for the humans alive 20,000 years ago, cave-paintings were science. The fact that we don't understand them now, and have very strong opinions about the nature of civilisation in that period of human history, is more of the effect that time and history have on human consciousness - namely, occlusion and obfuscation. Kooky explanations for the weird and unusual artefacts we discover in the modern age are to be expected - we are as oblivious to the meaning of ancient art/science as they would be, had we a time machine, of our modern rocketry and iPhones and so on. I think the Imperial View which tends to lead one to discount observations made beyond the lunatic fringe is less valuable than the conjecture and supposition that occurs when someone, perhaps weird and unintelligent, says to themselves "What if ...?" and then subsequently go off to investigate. Never forget, even Newton was considered a crackpot for a period. We kill and eat our messiahs, after all, it is an ancient and provocative segment of human psyche, that we have been unable to shake the bonds of cannibalistic behaviour in our societies - sure, we're not cooking and roasting on an open fire, unless that fire is a metaphor for the modern thinker, convinced of their own righteousness. I'm personally unconvinced that there weren't ancient civilisations with advanced technologies, yet undiscovered, which moved mountains for their own purposes. We need only look at the deleterious effect of technology in our own generation to understand just how banal things can get, vis a vis forgotten science, and specifically technology. Perhaps the ancients did have anti-gravity capable flying machines that allowed them to build these structures - and perhaps the tech was lost in a few generations because of the deleterious effects of "planned obsolescence" at such scale. Unless someone is willing to stick their neck out and ask "What if .. there are UFO's buried under these mountains/&etc.?", we'll never really know. Of course I understand the requirement that sense trump fiction - however I don't agree that the line is so drawn in the sands and stones of the ancients. There are many, many signs that we do not understand, and yet many clues that there is more to ancient history, and particularly civilizations beyond our comprehension, than there is 'total certainty of fact'. Heck, even the Pentagon admits it doesn't know it all about UFO's, c'mon ..
  - antonvs 9y ago
    > Perhaps the ancients did have anti-gravity capable flying machines Anti-gravity like that is essentially impossible according to physics. Even if you decide that you think general relativity is wrong, if a society had antigravity, we would expect to see many more signs of their technological advancement. Unless of course you want to believe that they used some sort of magic, using say incantations instead of technology.
rebuilder 9y ago
I remember seeing a video demonstration of how a single person can erect stones as in Stonehenge. Basically, you lever it up bit by bit by placing a log or b other fulcrum under the stone, off-center, and place weights on the shorter end until the other end of the stone lifts. Add a higher fulcrum on the other side, repeat until the stone is high enough to be tipped into a hole dug into the ground to hold it.
- 4lejandrito 9y ago
  Maybe this one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYQBDhkBfr0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYQBDhkBfr0
  - rebuilder 9y ago
    That's probably it. The technique is a little different from my recollection, but that's memory for you.
- brango 9y ago
  Don't forget they had to drag them from Southern Wales. Getting them in place was just the final phenomenal feat.
  - rebuilder 9y ago
    It's impressive, yes. And probably we don't know exactly how it was done. But that's not the same as saying it's an unexplained mystery - we just don't know which particular methods they used, even if we know one or more ways in which it could have been done.
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      "(W)e don't know exactly how it was done" is exactly what "unexplained mystery" means.
      - tomcooks 9y ago
jsz0 9y ago
Almost all of these mysteries are all easily explained by acknowledging we under estimated the abilities of ancient anatomically modern humans.
- sd8dgf8ds8g8dsg 9y ago
  Indeed. This seems to be the most common fallacy when looking into ancient astronaut claims.
gerbilly 9y ago
Suppose you wanted to stand a large stone on end? How would you do it? Just get a stout log and a bunch of men and pry up one end of the stone and shovel dirt and debris under it. Then pry it up again and repeat. It would take a long time but eventually you could get it standing.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  So, you've a 45 ton stone to lever up, how do you move the log that would be though enough to use as a lever ... How about the fulcrum stone, how do you move that ... levers will the way down?
  - gerbilly 9y ago
    Dig a hole beneath the other end of the stone, it turns the ground into a fulcrum.
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      Which is nearly impossible in some geologies, the extreme being on rock, eg in a quarry.
empath75 9y ago
They started by moving small slabs of stone and gradually moved up to bigger ones. There are thousands of years worth of pyramids sitting around the banks of the nile, and you can see the development. It's not like they started with the Pyramids at Giza, which indeed would have been an unexplainable accomplishment.

by brango 9y ago

justin_vanw 9y ago

This is just 'ancient astronaut' nonsense. If you gave modern people some incentive to move big stones around without heavy machinery they would figure out how to do it in a couple of months. It's just not hard to do, and people have been moving much larger pieces of stone during recorded history, so we know the techniques used perfectly well. Lots of the obelisks in Rome are far larger than any prehistoric stones moved or worked, and we know how they did it and it's impressive. Impressive isn't the same as an unexplained mystery.

brango 9y ago
Who mentioned ancient astronauts? Archeologists don't seem to be as blasé as you about this: > Nothing puzzles archaeologists so much as impracticality, and although the karst topography of Baalbek demands strong foundation stones, and although one big stone is easier to move than many smaller stones, the pillars holding up the temple’s podium, van Ess says, are bigger than they need to be. In fact, Baalbek is one of a series of ancient projects that are under rigorous study by the Germans for being unnecessarily large. https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/baalbek-myth-megalith https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/baalbek-myth-megalit...
- aleksei 9y ago
  Though it seems they're more puzzled by the "unnecessary" size of the structure rather than transportation of the slabs. Also, somewhat ironically, the posted link mentions ancient astronauts.
- jacobolus 9y ago
  Archaeologists also aren't structural engineers, usually. So they often have quite different ways of approaching problems. As an example of what happens when a structural engineer does some amateur archaeology, check out http://theoldexplorer.com/index.php/the-lost-secrets-of-maya-technology http://theoldexplorer.com/index.php/the-lost-secrets-of-maya...
- twelve40 9y ago
  I found this link to be pretty interesting read on the topic. Kind of takes the mystery out of it though : ) http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2010/03/history-of-human-powered-cranes.html http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2010/03/history-of-human-powe...
- Someone 9y ago
  Many gothic cathedrals still standing also are stronger than they have to be. Reason? Building was still guesswork at the time and the ones built too weak have long collapsed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauvais_Cathedral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauvais_Cathedral is an edge case. So, it may be lack of structural engineering knowledge. They also may have intended to build something bigger, but realised they ran out of time or money, or the “something bigger” collapsed, and this is a rebuild, reusing parts.
mmjaa 9y ago
I think, the further back in history we go, the kookier things get - and that this is a positive, not a negative aspect of the experience. We in the modern age have conditioned ourselves to be subjugated to science - well, for the humans alive 20,000 years ago, cave-paintings were science. The fact that we don't understand them now, and have very strong opinions about the nature of civilisation in that period of human history, is more of the effect that time and history have on human consciousness - namely, occlusion and obfuscation. Kooky explanations for the weird and unusual artefacts we discover in the modern age are to be expected - we are as oblivious to the meaning of ancient art/science as they would be, had we a time machine, of our modern rocketry and iPhones and so on. I think the Imperial View which tends to lead one to discount observations made beyond the lunatic fringe is less valuable than the conjecture and supposition that occurs when someone, perhaps weird and unintelligent, says to themselves "What if ...?" and then subsequently go off to investigate. Never forget, even Newton was considered a crackpot for a period. We kill and eat our messiahs, after all, it is an ancient and provocative segment of human psyche, that we have been unable to shake the bonds of cannibalistic behaviour in our societies - sure, we're not cooking and roasting on an open fire, unless that fire is a metaphor for the modern thinker, convinced of their own righteousness. I'm personally unconvinced that there weren't ancient civilisations with advanced technologies, yet undiscovered, which moved mountains for their own purposes. We need only look at the deleterious effect of technology in our own generation to understand just how banal things can get, vis a vis forgotten science, and specifically technology. Perhaps the ancients did have anti-gravity capable flying machines that allowed them to build these structures - and perhaps the tech was lost in a few generations because of the deleterious effects of "planned obsolescence" at such scale. Unless someone is willing to stick their neck out and ask "What if .. there are UFO's buried under these mountains/&etc.?", we'll never really know. Of course I understand the requirement that sense trump fiction - however I don't agree that the line is so drawn in the sands and stones of the ancients. There are many, many signs that we do not understand, and yet many clues that there is more to ancient history, and particularly civilizations beyond our comprehension, than there is 'total certainty of fact'. Heck, even the Pentagon admits it doesn't know it all about UFO's, c'mon ..
- antonvs 9y ago
  > Perhaps the ancients did have anti-gravity capable flying machines Anti-gravity like that is essentially impossible according to physics. Even if you decide that you think general relativity is wrong, if a society had antigravity, we would expect to see many more signs of their technological advancement. Unless of course you want to believe that they used some sort of magic, using say incantations instead of technology.

rebuilder 9y ago

I remember seeing a video demonstration of how a single person can erect stones as in Stonehenge. Basically, you lever it up bit by bit by placing a log or b other fulcrum under the stone, off-center, and place weights on the shorter end until the other end of the stone lifts. Add a higher fulcrum on the other side, repeat until the stone is high enough to be tipped into a hole dug into the ground to hold it.

4lejandrito 9y ago
Maybe this one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYQBDhkBfr0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYQBDhkBfr0
- rebuilder 9y ago
  That's probably it. The technique is a little different from my recollection, but that's memory for you.
brango 9y ago
Don't forget they had to drag them from Southern Wales. Getting them in place was just the final phenomenal feat.
- rebuilder 9y ago
  It's impressive, yes. And probably we don't know exactly how it was done. But that's not the same as saying it's an unexplained mystery - we just don't know which particular methods they used, even if we know one or more ways in which it could have been done.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    "(W)e don't know exactly how it was done" is exactly what "unexplained mystery" means.
    - tomcooks 9y ago

jsz0 9y ago

Almost all of these mysteries are all easily explained by acknowledging we under estimated the abilities of ancient anatomically modern humans.

sd8dgf8ds8g8dsg 9y ago
Indeed. This seems to be the most common fallacy when looking into ancient astronaut claims.

gerbilly 9y ago

Suppose you wanted to stand a large stone on end? How would you do it? Just get a stout log and a bunch of men and pry up one end of the stone and shovel dirt and debris under it. Then pry it up again and repeat. It would take a long time but eventually you could get it standing.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago
So, you've a 45 ton stone to lever up, how do you move the log that would be though enough to use as a lever ... How about the fulcrum stone, how do you move that ... levers will the way down?
- gerbilly 9y ago
  Dig a hole beneath the other end of the stone, it turns the ground into a fulcrum.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    Which is nearly impossible in some geologies, the extreme being on rock, eg in a quarry.

empath75 9y ago

They started by moving small slabs of stone and gradually moved up to bigger ones. There are thousands of years worth of pyramids sitting around the banks of the nile, and you can see the development. It's not like they started with the Pyramids at Giza, which indeed would have been an unexplainable accomplishment.