27 ms·

Going to go out on a personal opinion limb here, but I think we dismiss far too much in archaeology and ancient recorded history, even with the evidence all aro

Going to go out on a personal opinion limb here, but I think we dismiss far too much in archaeology and ancient recorded history, even with the evidence all around us. I predict one day there will be a great revival in archaeology as we start to cast off our erroneous assumptions about native peoples stories of their history. A few Examples that have really stuck in my mind: The recorded history of the Egyptians says their dynasties go back FAR longer than is accepted by modern Egyptology, yet we dismiss it. The water erosion on the sphynx, as well as the change in flow of the Nile away from some of thier earlier cities, backs up their claim. Techniques to "carbon date" stone have been dismissed largely because they tell us some structures are much older than we think. Not possible therefore the science must be wrong... but what if its the other way around? Plato describes Atlantis in great detail, which was passed down to him from his elders. We actually know of a site that matches his description exactly in Mauritania, deep in the Sahara, which would have been an island 12 thousand years ago when seas were higher. It has all the exact dimensions he described correct and geography correct, has the same stone color as he described their buildings, has the springs on the central island, is beyond the straits of Gibraltar, and has plenty of artifacts strewn everywhere, yet we still dismiss it as a tall tale and no one will dig there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richat_Structure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richat_Structure You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to take this stuff seriously. More than likely they were just a civilization advanced for their time (maybe Roman era advanced) but something happened to them. The Richat is likely a natural volcanic anomaly that they simply built on. Plenty more where that came from that challenge our recorded history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunung_Padang_Megalithic_Site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunung_Padang_Megalithic_Site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gornaya_Shoria_megaliths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gornaya_Shoria_megaliths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobekli_Tepe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobekli_Tepe And to top it all off, I think most likely the Younger Dryas Impact Event described by Randal Carlson (great Joe Rogan Podcast about this out there) is the "Flood" event recorded by multiple cultures and responsible for wiping out traces of civilization past 12,000 years ago. This 12,000 year number recurs over an over when we talk about these sites that defy the narrative that it all started in Mesopotamia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesi... Again, personal opinion here, but it sure as hell all lines up.

biglenny 8y ago
The whole field is full of dogmatists. The timeline of human history probably looks a lot different than the one we have written in textbooks. _But_, take any of Graham Hancock's claims with a spoon-full of salt. He's not from a scientific background nor has he published any scientific work. It's easy to be lulled by the grandeur of the tales he tells on JRE.
- noetic_techy 8y ago
  Although I never mentioned Hancock, I don't buy much of what Hancock is selling. They originally just had Randall on, then later they had Randall and Hancock. I think Randalls research has WAY more foundation to it, and Hancock is riding his coat tails. I do find his commentary intriguing sometimes.
princekolt 8y ago
To be fair the local people seem pretty close-minded about the origins of Gunung Padang. The local scientific community insists most of it is natural, and that because they found later evidence of less advanced technology, it is then impossible there was a more advanced culture previously there. However, this has been known to happen over and over again, with the most known example being the Mayans. At the same time, for a body of scientists, they seem pretty uninterested in finding the truth.
- WalterBright 8y ago
  > At the same time, for a body of scientists, they seem pretty uninterested in finding the truth. There's no reason anyone who believes the accepted truth is wrong can't go do some research to prove otherwise. (Like Schliemann did.) Expecting others to be obliged to investigate one's own crackpot theories isn't fair. Their reluctance to do so is not evidence of a conspiracy against the truth. For example, in the 1970's a popular theory was that 100 mpg carburetors existed, and a vast conspiracy by Big Oil was suppressing all information about them. The proof of this conspiracy was, naturally, nobody was able to find any evidence of such carburetors.

biglenny 8y ago

The whole field is full of dogmatists. The timeline of human history probably looks a lot different than the one we have written in textbooks. _But_, take any of Graham Hancock's claims with a spoon-full of salt. He's not from a scientific background nor has he published any scientific work. It's easy to be lulled by the grandeur of the tales he tells on JRE.

noetic_techy 8y ago
Although I never mentioned Hancock, I don't buy much of what Hancock is selling. They originally just had Randall on, then later they had Randall and Hancock. I think Randalls research has WAY more foundation to it, and Hancock is riding his coat tails. I do find his commentary intriguing sometimes.

princekolt 8y ago

To be fair the local people seem pretty close-minded about the origins of Gunung Padang. The local scientific community insists most of it is natural, and that because they found later evidence of less advanced technology, it is then impossible there was a more advanced culture previously there. However, this has been known to happen over and over again, with the most known example being the Mayans. At the same time, for a body of scientists, they seem pretty uninterested in finding the truth.

WalterBright 8y ago
> At the same time, for a body of scientists, they seem pretty uninterested in finding the truth. There's no reason anyone who believes the accepted truth is wrong can't go do some research to prove otherwise. (Like Schliemann did.) Expecting others to be obliged to investigate one's own crackpot theories isn't fair. Their reluctance to do so is not evidence of a conspiracy against the truth. For example, in the 1970's a popular theory was that 100 mpg carburetors existed, and a vast conspiracy by Big Oil was suppressing all information about them. The proof of this conspiracy was, naturally, nobody was able to find any evidence of such carburetors.