5 ms·

No, There Wasn't An Advanced Civilization 12,000 Years Ago (2017)

andrewfromx 4y ago
Sounds like a guy who just really doesn’t like Graham Hancock. He doesn’t really go into any detail on why his theories are wrong. Just says stuff like “how do we know what hunter gatherer’s were capable of?”
blacksqr 4y ago
Tedious, condescending and tendentious. I'm not a defender or booster of Hancock's ideas, but they deserve better quality responses than he's gotten. > are we to believe that after centuries of flourishing every last tool, potsherd, article of clothing, and, presumably from an advanced civilization, writing, metallurgy and other technologies—not to mention trash—was erased? Many artifacts that could be from a former civilization have been found, but the catch-22 logic deployed in these cases is that an artifact can't be from a former civilization because none existed <-> we know no former civilization existed because no artifacts have been found. > Hancock's impact hypothesis comes from scientists who first proposed it in 2007 as an explanation for the North American megafaunal extinction around that time and has been the subject of vigorous scientific debate. If scientists are debating vigorously, isn't it worth paying attention to? > lack of any impact craters determined to have occurred around that time anywhere in the world Totally untrue [0]. > Hancock's biggest X is Göbekli Tepe Hairsplitting about meaning of "civilization". Author only seems willing to accept the kind that has appeared in recorded time. If hunter-gatherers "had already mastered all the arts and attributes of a high civilization", couldn't they be plausibly described as civilized? > Göbekli Tepe was a ceremonial religious site, not a city—there is no evidence that anyone lived there. Yes, exactly. Yet a large seasonal work force gathered there regularly for thousands of years, supplied with provisions and building materials required for the work. What sort of society does author suppose was able to organize itself to do this? Wouldn't it have been quite remarkable even if it doesn't fit authors definition of civilization? > no inscriptions or writing At Gobleki Tepe? Lot of stuff on those monoliths. Does author assume that if he doesn't understand the language or symbology, it doesn't count? > Hancock has spent decades in his vision quest to find the sages who brought us civilization. Yet decades of searching have failed to produce enough evidence to convince archaeologists that the standard timeline of human history needs major revision. The discovery of Gobleki Tepe HAS forced archaeologists to recognize that the standard timeline of human history needs major revision. Is it simply coincidence that it was constructed right around the epoch that Hancock has been trying to call attention to for decades? [0] https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=74412 https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=...

Sounds like a guy who just really doesn’t like Graham Hancock. He doesn’t really go into any detail on why his theories are wrong. Just says stuff like “how do we know what hunter gatherer’s were capable of?”

blacksqr 4y ago

Tedious, condescending and tendentious. I'm not a defender or booster of Hancock's ideas, but they deserve better quality responses than he's gotten. > are we to believe that after centuries of flourishing every last tool, potsherd, article of clothing, and, presumably from an advanced civilization, writing, metallurgy and other technologies—not to mention trash—was erased? Many artifacts that could be from a former civilization have been found, but the catch-22 logic deployed in these cases is that an artifact can't be from a former civilization because none existed <-> we know no former civilization existed because no artifacts have been found. > Hancock's impact hypothesis comes from scientists who first proposed it in 2007 as an explanation for the North American megafaunal extinction around that time and has been the subject of vigorous scientific debate. If scientists are debating vigorously, isn't it worth paying attention to? > lack of any impact craters determined to have occurred around that time anywhere in the world Totally untrue [0]. > Hancock's biggest X is Göbekli Tepe Hairsplitting about meaning of "civilization". Author only seems willing to accept the kind that has appeared in recorded time. If hunter-gatherers "had already mastered all the arts and attributes of a high civilization", couldn't they be plausibly described as civilized? > Göbekli Tepe was a ceremonial religious site, not a city—there is no evidence that anyone lived there. Yes, exactly. Yet a large seasonal work force gathered there regularly for thousands of years, supplied with provisions and building materials required for the work. What sort of society does author suppose was able to organize itself to do this? Wouldn't it have been quite remarkable even if it doesn't fit authors definition of civilization? > no inscriptions or writing At Gobleki Tepe? Lot of stuff on those monoliths. Does author assume that if he doesn't understand the language or symbology, it doesn't count? > Hancock has spent decades in his vision quest to find the sages who brought us civilization. Yet decades of searching have failed to produce enough evidence to convince archaeologists that the standard timeline of human history needs major revision. The discovery of Gobleki Tepe HAS forced archaeologists to recognize that the standard timeline of human history needs major revision. Is it simply coincidence that it was constructed right around the epoch that Hancock has been trying to call attention to for decades? [0] https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=74412 https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=...