4 ms·

At this point, the evidence overwhelmingly points to the idea that we don't have any idea about our actual history. I'm not a fan of Graham Hancock, but his and

At this point, the evidence overwhelmingly points to the idea that we don't have any idea about our actual history. I'm not a fan of Graham Hancock, but his and a few others' work really did get some things right.

singularity2001 6y ago
No, there is a (more or less) steady increase of urban/social complexity from Gobekli Tepe to Vinca, Maykop and Eridu. Shimao fits quite well into the picture if one accepts a concentric multiwave expansion of 'civilization' with metallurgy as one of its hallmarks. The ever growing center region of course being between Mesopotamia and the Black Sea. It will be most interesting if indeed a sign system similar to the Anau seal will show up. Even before Shimao there was strong evidence that metallurgy was introduced into China from the steppe via Erlitou. Shimao just sits in the right place.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  Pretending does not provide insight.
- darkhorse13 6y ago
  How does your view make sense of things like the 40,000 year old stone bracelet made using drill tools? Link: https://www.archaeology.org/news/3270-150507-siberia-denisovan-bracelet https://www.archaeology.org/news/3270-150507-siberia-denisov... Personally, I wish more mainstream archaeologists would be brave enough to say "we don't really know", instead of fitting everything into the Ancient Near East Civilizations theory.
  - singularity2001 6y ago
    Bracelets and more generally art are part of the (Epi)Paleolithic package since at least 70000BC South Africa. Claiming that these were truly made by Denisovians or similarly Neanderthals requires much more evidence in my opinion, especially since those finds coincide with the arrival of modern humans
    - ncmncm 6y ago
      I see that you missed the point about the bracelet. The point was about its method of manufacture, which does not show up anywhere else for tens of millennia. Are you claiming it was planted? Denial is good for turf defense, but not so good for truth.
      - singularity2001 6y ago
        It's not about denial, it's about integrating it into the existing framework of knowledge instead of creating a complete new theory. Very interesting discovery in any case, at the very least shifting the dates a bit (as always). Maybe you are right and homo sapiens did learn these arts from Denisovan people. Do Denisovans have a history which leads to this developmental stage? Because 'we' do and delicate stone workings are part of our skillset earlier than this find: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_historic_inventions#Upper_Paleolithic_to_Early_Mesolithic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_historic_invention... Wikipedia may need an update though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drill#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drill#History Summary: Not planted, but maybe traded (for women?)
        darkhorse13 6y ago
        Trying to integrate everything into an existing framework even when there is very strong evidence that the foundation of that framework is shaky at best is a really stupid idea in my opinion. For example, if your framework begins with the assumption that advanced civilization started in Mesopotamia around 3000 BCE, every seemingly advanced discovery that originates from a time before 3000 BCE simply becomes "art" or just a stepping stone to a more complex society (as you claim Gobekli Tepe is, leading to Eridu). And it is not about creating a completely new theory, it's simply about saying "we don't really know". That is a far more open-minded approach to these kind of things. But unfortunately, we don't live in a world where people are able to let go of their egos and admit that there are gaps in our knowledge, and maybe something other than the mainstream could be closer to the truth.
        ncmncm 6y ago
- ncmncm 6y ago
  To suggest anything "steady" between the end of GT c. 9000 BP and Vinca c. 7700 bp requires willful ignorance of the magnitude of 1300 years. And to suggest Shimao is somehow unsurprising flies in the face of a century of sinology, which offers no hint of any large-scale organization anywhere in China, never mind there. Erlitou postdates Shimao by four centuries.
goto11 6y ago
I'm not familiar with Hancock, but he seems like some kind of pseudoacheologist? What did he get right compared to actual historians and archeologist?
- ncmncm 6y ago
  He is journalist who gets around. He has wacky ideas but keeps his eyes open, so sees things, and isn't afraid to say what he sees. "Pseudo" is just namecalling. There is only correct and wrong. "Real" archaeologists are, also, often wrong, often because they are afraid to say what is right in front of them.
  - darkhorse13 6y ago
    Thank you for articulating this comment. As I said before, I am really not a fan of some of Graham's out-there ideas, but actual archaeologists have been wrong time after time, and most people don't realize that it is not a hard science. This crowd of scientists (and their supporters) like to hand wave people like Graham away by labeling them with the "pseudo" moniker, as if nothing he says has any value. Throwing the baby with the bath water.
    - goto11 6y ago
      > actual archaeologists have been wrong time after time Of course, that is the nature of science and research. My question is, what is it Graham has been right about where archeologist have been wrong?
      - ncmncm 6y ago
        Any honest historian will admit Göbekli Tepe is the most astonishing find in a century. Hancock has been talking for decades about an expectation to find constructions exactly that old, i.e. coincident with major sea level rise. Similarly, major early civilization in the Americas. Similarly, a continental-scale catastrophe in the Americas in near pre-history. Similarly, miles of construction under 60+ ft of water off India. His methods are not respected and the ideas are often not, initially, his own ("journalist", remember), but he does get around, and his "pseudo-science" has an uncanny way of becoming ordinary science. His ideas (sudden pole shifts, comets synchronized to earth's rotational precession) are often very, very wrong, but science is equipped to handle wrong.

singularity2001 6y ago

No, there is a (more or less) steady increase of urban/social complexity from Gobekli Tepe to Vinca, Maykop and Eridu. Shimao fits quite well into the picture if one accepts a concentric multiwave expansion of 'civilization' with metallurgy as one of its hallmarks. The ever growing center region of course being between Mesopotamia and the Black Sea. It will be most interesting if indeed a sign system similar to the Anau seal will show up. Even before Shimao there was strong evidence that metallurgy was introduced into China from the steppe via Erlitou. Shimao just sits in the right place.

ncmncm 6y ago
Pretending does not provide insight.
darkhorse13 6y ago
How does your view make sense of things like the 40,000 year old stone bracelet made using drill tools? Link: https://www.archaeology.org/news/3270-150507-siberia-denisovan-bracelet https://www.archaeology.org/news/3270-150507-siberia-denisov... Personally, I wish more mainstream archaeologists would be brave enough to say "we don't really know", instead of fitting everything into the Ancient Near East Civilizations theory.
- singularity2001 6y ago
  Bracelets and more generally art are part of the (Epi)Paleolithic package since at least 70000BC South Africa. Claiming that these were truly made by Denisovians or similarly Neanderthals requires much more evidence in my opinion, especially since those finds coincide with the arrival of modern humans
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    I see that you missed the point about the bracelet. The point was about its method of manufacture, which does not show up anywhere else for tens of millennia. Are you claiming it was planted? Denial is good for turf defense, but not so good for truth.
    - singularity2001 6y ago
      It's not about denial, it's about integrating it into the existing framework of knowledge instead of creating a complete new theory. Very interesting discovery in any case, at the very least shifting the dates a bit (as always). Maybe you are right and homo sapiens did learn these arts from Denisovan people. Do Denisovans have a history which leads to this developmental stage? Because 'we' do and delicate stone workings are part of our skillset earlier than this find: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_historic_inventions#Upper_Paleolithic_to_Early_Mesolithic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_historic_invention... Wikipedia may need an update though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drill#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drill#History Summary: Not planted, but maybe traded (for women?)
      - darkhorse13 6y ago
        Trying to integrate everything into an existing framework even when there is very strong evidence that the foundation of that framework is shaky at best is a really stupid idea in my opinion. For example, if your framework begins with the assumption that advanced civilization started in Mesopotamia around 3000 BCE, every seemingly advanced discovery that originates from a time before 3000 BCE simply becomes "art" or just a stepping stone to a more complex society (as you claim Gobekli Tepe is, leading to Eridu). And it is not about creating a completely new theory, it's simply about saying "we don't really know". That is a far more open-minded approach to these kind of things. But unfortunately, we don't live in a world where people are able to let go of their egos and admit that there are gaps in our knowledge, and maybe something other than the mainstream could be closer to the truth.
      - ncmncm 6y ago
ncmncm 6y ago
To suggest anything "steady" between the end of GT c. 9000 BP and Vinca c. 7700 bp requires willful ignorance of the magnitude of 1300 years. And to suggest Shimao is somehow unsurprising flies in the face of a century of sinology, which offers no hint of any large-scale organization anywhere in China, never mind there. Erlitou postdates Shimao by four centuries.

goto11 6y ago

I'm not familiar with Hancock, but he seems like some kind of pseudoacheologist? What did he get right compared to actual historians and archeologist?

ncmncm 6y ago
He is journalist who gets around. He has wacky ideas but keeps his eyes open, so sees things, and isn't afraid to say what he sees. "Pseudo" is just namecalling. There is only correct and wrong. "Real" archaeologists are, also, often wrong, often because they are afraid to say what is right in front of them.
- darkhorse13 6y ago
  Thank you for articulating this comment. As I said before, I am really not a fan of some of Graham's out-there ideas, but actual archaeologists have been wrong time after time, and most people don't realize that it is not a hard science. This crowd of scientists (and their supporters) like to hand wave people like Graham away by labeling them with the "pseudo" moniker, as if nothing he says has any value. Throwing the baby with the bath water.
  - goto11 6y ago
    > actual archaeologists have been wrong time after time Of course, that is the nature of science and research. My question is, what is it Graham has been right about where archeologist have been wrong?
    - ncmncm 6y ago
      Any honest historian will admit Göbekli Tepe is the most astonishing find in a century. Hancock has been talking for decades about an expectation to find constructions exactly that old, i.e. coincident with major sea level rise. Similarly, major early civilization in the Americas. Similarly, a continental-scale catastrophe in the Americas in near pre-history. Similarly, miles of construction under 60+ ft of water off India. His methods are not respected and the ideas are often not, initially, his own ("journalist", remember), but he does get around, and his "pseudo-science" has an uncanny way of becoming ordinary science. His ideas (sudden pole shifts, comets synchronized to earth's rotational precession) are often very, very wrong, but science is equipped to handle wrong.