17 ms·

Egypt's pyramids may have been built on a long-lost branch of the Nile

• tiffanyh 2y ago
  It might be related, there's a hypotheses that the Sphinx had massive water erosion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphinx_water_erosion_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphinx_water_erosion_hypothesi...
  • tootie 2y ago
    That theory is espoused by the same people who think it was built by aliens. It's not plausible. Per this study, by the time the Sphinx is built rainfall has already decreased substantially. The rain erosion theory requires the Sphinx be thousands of years older than records indicate and predate the first pharaoh by several millennia.
    • tiffanyh 2y ago
      > That theory is espoused by the same people who think it was built by aliens. I think this is a common misunderstanding. Yes, there are some who think aliens built the pyramids. But there is an equally large group of people who think that humans pre-ice age were advanced like we are today. And when the ice age happened 12,000 years ago - that knowledge was lost. When you then look at build sites around the world from this perceptive, structures like the Sphinx and others (like Göbekli Tepe), begin to appear much older than convention teachings might imply. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göbekli_Tepe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göbekli_Tepe EDIT: for those interested more in this topic, there is a Netflix series on it (called "Ancient Apocalypse"). I can't attest to the validity of the statements made in the series, but the arguments are compelling (and not alien related). https://grahamhancock.com/ancient-apocalypse/ https://grahamhancock.com/ancient-apocalypse/
      • sidewndr46 2y ago
        is there even a single documented case of finding writing at Gobekli Tepe? My understanding is there is no evidence of a writing system
        • tiffanyh 2y ago
          Yes https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=90367#:~:text=Current%20archeological%20evidence%20in%20the,i.e.%20a%20time%20coinciding%20with https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=90367...
          • Retric 2y ago
            No. You misunderstood that quote, the emergence of writing is far more recent and at different locations. Thus “within 30km of” not at Göbekli Tepe. “Current archeological evidence in the form of seals, reliefs, steles, lead strips, and wood panels, across almost one-hundred Anatolian sites, including some within 30 km of Göbekli Tepe, dates the emergence of the hieroglyphic script used to write in Luwian to the late 15th century B.C.E.,” Göbekli Tepe was inhabited ~9500-8000 BCE, so ~6500 years before the writing examples given.
            • sidewndr46 2y ago
              So the writing is found in the same area, but may be from a much later civilization?
              • deleted 2y ago
                [deleted]
              • deleted 2y ago
                [deleted]
              • danparsonson 2y ago
                That's the idea - settlements are usually built in favourable areas (e.g. next to rivers) so the same site may be continuously inhabited or repeatedly reinhabited over very long periods of history.
      • Retric 2y ago
        There’s quite a bit of evidence for the existing timeline. People quibble about radiocarbon dating, but there’s multiple methods. For example by comparing rings on enough wooden objects you can get a firm this can’t be older than X date. https://www.nps.gov/tont/learn/nature/dendrochronology.htm https://www.nps.gov/tont/learn/nature/dendrochronology.htm
        • tiffanyh 2y ago
          Exactly, and radiocarbon dating puts Göbekli Tepe at being ~12,000 years old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göbekli_Tepe#:~:text=Radiocarbon%20dating%20shows%20that%20the,Neolithic%20A%20(PPNA)%20period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göbekli_Tepe#:~:text=Radiocarb....
          • AlotOfReading 2y ago
            That's simultaneously true, and misleading to the point of being wrong. The earliest parts of the layers date that far back, yes. The features of Gobekli Tepe that people who aren't archaeologists actually care about like the obelisks date much later around the second phase of the neolithic (PPNB). Also note that Gobekli Tepe is neither the oldest site we know of nor unique in having monumental architecture. Even within the Tepler culture, Karahan Tepe dates earlier and I'm sure you heard of the older site of Jericho.
          • danparsonson 2y ago
            From your link: "Radiocarbon dating shows that the earliest exposed structures at Göbekli Tepe were built between 9500 and 9000 BCE"
            • Retric 2y ago
              ~9500 BCE + 2024 - 1 = ~11,523 years ago. So yea not quite 12,000 years ago.
              • danparsonson 2y ago
                Oops, thank you - I can't read apparently!
      • NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
        >But there is an equally large group of people who think that humans pre-ice age were advanced like we are today. And when the ice age happened 12,000 years ago - that knowledge was lost. Advanced as in late neolithic or even early bronze? Sure, I could find that tenuously plausible. Advanced as in space age, heavily dependent on petroleum products, etc... not even slightly plausible.
      • noslenwerdna 2y ago
        If they were as advanced as we are now, we would have seen that the atmospheric CO2 levels had been higher back then, no? This paper draws the conclusions that such a civilization would be visible in the geological record. https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.03748 https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.03748
        • narrator 2y ago
          It could be that the technological civilization arose extremely quickly, and only in certain limited geographical areas before the population could grow to overwhelm the earth with industrial production. They might have had a completely different morality that led to this pattern. It was before the founding of all religions we have today.
          • bluGill 2y ago
            Maybe, but I doubt that as technology seems needs a lot of specialists. You don't have time to focus on one small area in depth if you also need to farm/hunt/gather. We need generations for someone to come up with the idea of writing, make it better, educate kids in it... And of course before the printing press books took a lot of time and so even if you created something passing it to someone else is hard. Primitive people were not stupid, they just needed a lot of time to figure out things that we now think are obvious.
            • seadan83 2y ago
              I think you under emphasized the first part of your point. Living in a modern community is easy mode. Without that, mass time and effort are needed to subsist
          • datavirtue 2y ago
            The morality of all religions can be traced back to Zoroastrian roots, which is effectively pre-historic.
        • ahakki 2y ago
          Only if you assume that the supposed advanced ancient civilization oxidized large amounts of fossil hydrocarbon.
      • jahewson 2y ago
        This is the 2nd dumbest conspiracy theory ever.
        • wincy 2y ago
          Nobody is conspiring to “keep this under wraps” so it can’t be a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy requires people who have some hidden knowledge and are keeping it secret?
          • konfusinomicon 2y ago
            the shape shifting lizard people are the conspirators. only one of them would say it's not as to throw us all of the trail. we're on to you wincy, we are on to you...
          • roywiggins 2y ago
            Graham Hancock insists that his ideas aren't being taken seriously by the archeological community because they find them too threatening, rather than for the real reason: that they think he's plain wrong. In this view, archaeologists "know" that he's really on to something, but refuse to look closer. He's claimed to have been "banned" from Egypt (which might even be true, I don't know). The whole vibe is this is the truth that THEY don't want you to know.
      • christkv 2y ago
        There is the whole theory about the Sumerians coming from a civilisation at the bottom of the Persian Gulf. As the ice age came to an end the rising sea wiped it out making them move to higher ground.
        • njarboe 2y ago
          Also theorized as the source of the great flood myths. As the Gulf flooded the shore line would be moving around a meter per day for centuries/millennia.
      • mburns 2y ago
        More interesting still is an archaeologist debunking Graham Hancock’s nonsense. https://youtu.be/-iCIZQX9i1A?si=521Y4VpqaQqPeBpq https://youtu.be/-iCIZQX9i1A?si=521Y4VpqaQqPeBpq
        • unclad5968 2y ago
          Graham himself debated an actual archeologist on the Rogan podcast not too long ago. I think he makes it pretty clear that he's mostly advocating that there is a nonzero amount of evidence for a pre ice age civilization that was significantly more advanced than immediate post ice age civilizations. Im not convinced he's correct, but that doesn't make his stuff invalid. He's basically just presenting an alternative interpretation of the data and academic archeology is vilifying him for it, which they've done to several people before who ended up being right. Of course in his shows he presents everything as fact, just like every other science does.
          • danparsonson 2y ago
            > Of course in his shows he presents everything as fact, just like every other science does That is problematic though, because genuine science is never/should never be presented as fact unless it's irrefutable. I'm fairly sure that's one big reason why he comes in for so much criticism, aside from any questions about the veracity of his ideas.
          • mandmandam 2y ago
            > in his shows he presents everything as fact I've only seen one of his shows, but he didn't present anything in it as facts except actual facts.
      • roywiggins 2y ago
        If you like video essays, I enjoyed this movie-length debunking of Ancient Apocalypse. tl;dr: The evidence is simply not there, and real archeology is much, much more interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iCIZQX9i1A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iCIZQX9i1A
        • masklinn 2y ago
          Milo also visited Göbekli Tepe, as well as Karahan Tepe (a site which likely predates Göbekli and is believed to be related as there are lots of shared features), and a few other more recent sites of southern turkey: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXtMIzD-Y-bNsVeMHjFjF003GU1Stt8WF https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXtMIzD-Y-bNsVeMHjFjF...
        • cavillis 2y ago
          thank you for posting this! I loved Ancient Apocalypse, very entertaining. It has been frustrating trying to find refutations of some of the theories/questions posed by it. When the subject is brought up anywhere with experts it is usually dismissed with a bunch of ad-hominem attacks which is just not helpful for anyone trying to learn
          • roywiggins 2y ago
            It doesn't help that Graham Hancock levels his own ad hominem attacks, claiming that archeologists don't take his ideas seriously to protect their own egos and jobs.
            • colibri727 2y ago
              archeologist do that to themselves, it's not a monolithic block https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DL1_EMIw6w&t=33m20s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DL1_EMIw6w&t=33m20s Not that those who challenge the status quo can also turn into bullies later in life, once their paradigm is established. This is well exposed in the first part of America Before (one of Hancock's book) >At the outset of the twentieth century many scholars took the view that the Americas had been devoid of any human presence until less than 4,000 years ago. >[...] >the most influential figure in disseminating and enforcing the view that the New World had only recently been populated by humans was a frowning and fearsome anthropologist named Aleš Hrdlička >[...] >throughout the 1920s and 1930s compelling evidence began to emerge that people had reached the Americas thousands of years earlier than Hrdlička supposed. Of particular importance in this gradual undermining of the great man’s authority was a site called Blackwater Draw near the town of Clovis >[...] >The Smithsonian sent a representative, Charles Gilmore, to take a look at the site but—perhaps unsurprisingly under Hrdlička’s malign shadow—he concluded that no further investigation was justified. >[...] >Anthropologist Edgar B. Howard of the University of Pennsylvania disagreed.He began excavations at Blackwater Draw in 1933, quickly finding quantities of beautifully crafted stone projectiles with distinctive “fluted” points >[...] >Before and after 1943, the year in which both Howard and Hrdlička died, further discoveries of fluted points of the Blackwater Draw type—increasingly referred to as “Clovis points” after the nearby town of that name—continued to be made. This ever-accumulating mass of new evidence left no room for doubt and even the most stubborn conservatives (Hrdlička excepted) were eventually forced to agree that the Clovis culture had hunted animals that became extinct at the end of the last Ice Age and that humans must therefore have been in the Americas for at least 12,000 years. >[...] >a consensus soon began to emerge that no older cultures would ever be found—and what is now known as the “Clovis First” paradigm was conceived. We might say, however, that it was not officially “born” until September 1964. That was when archaeologist C. Vance Haynes, today Regents Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at the University of Arizona and a senior member of the National Academy of Sciences, published a landmark paper >[...] >because of lowered sea level during the Ice Age, much of the area occupied today by the Bering Sea was above water, and where the Bering Strait now is, a tundra-covered landscape connected eastern Siberia and western Alaska. Once over the land bridge, however, it was Haynes’s case that the migrant hunters could not have ventured very far before confronting the daunting barrier of the Cordilleran and Laurentide Ice Sheets >[...] >Tom Dillehay, professor of anthropology at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee, began excavations at Monte Verde in southern Chile in 1977 and found evidence that humans had been present there as far back as 18,500 years ago. >[...] >Tom Dillehay’s most dogged and determined critic, perhaps predictably, has been C. Vance Haynes, whose 1964 paper launched the Clovis First theory and who by 1988 had used his influence, and his outreach in the scientific journals, to dismiss every case thus far made for supposedly pre-Clovis sites in the Americas. >[...] >Indeed by 2012 the bullying behavior of the Clovis First lobby had grown so unpleasant that it attracted the attention of the editor of Nature, who opined: “The debate over the first Americans has been one of the most acrimonious—and unfruitful—in all of science. … One researcher, new to the field after years of working on other contentious topics, told Nature that he had never before witnessed the level of aggression that swirled around the issue of who reached America first.
      • njarboe 2y ago
        The last ice age ended around 12,000 years ago and started about 115,000 years ago[1]. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Period
        • tiffanyh 2y ago
          > We know that the Earth has had at least five major ice ages. The first one happened about 2 billion years ago and lasted about 300 million years. The most recent one started about 2.6 million years ago, and in fact, we are still technically in it. https://www.space.com/ice-ages-on-earth-could-humans-survive https://www.space.com/ice-ages-on-earth-could-humans-survive
        • masklinn 2y ago
          Ice age are properly defined as periods of "extensive ice sheets" at the poles, contrasted with "greenhouse periods" of no polar ice sheets (or glaciers). Ice ages are comprised of glacial and interglacial periods. The Last Glacial Period is... a glacial period. We're currently in an interglacial. But still an ice age, since there's ice at the poles (for now anyway).
          • njarboe 2y ago
            Thanks for the info. I was just using ice age in the same way the parent was. Glacial Period is more technically correct.
      • nurple 2y ago
        Thanks for bringing these topics up, I find the raft of evidence quite compelling. I also find it quite interesting how much pushback on alternative hypotheses there is from the mainstream scientists. I even attempted to have a conversation with GPT4 about the possibility that ancient humans created the pyramids, and it told me I was being RACIST! Like, what? The thing that sells me, besides the erosion, is the absolutely astonishing artifacts that were left behind. There is no way I could be convinced that hand-driven bronze tooling was cutting diorite to a precision we would struggle to meet today, carving schists so thin you can see light pass through, absolutely perfect symmetry, and creation of granite stoneware with multivariate surface geometry that we'd be unable to do without a precision-destroying tool change. I find the tool marks on the partially excavated obelisk in Aswan particularly compelling. It's like they had technology that could scoop granite like warm ice cream. One person doing somewhat interesting research here and other ancient sites is Ben from Uncharted-X. He brings a lot of first-hand content and analysis of areas many can not access, though it is pretty light on conclusions (probably for the best). As an example, this geometric analysis of a pre-dynastic vase carved from granite belies the capabilities of a forgotten generation of this planet's inhabitants: https://unsigned.io/log/2023_02_24_Initial_Geometric_Analysis_of_the_Pre_Dynastic_Vase.html https://unsigned.io/log/2023_02_24_Initial_Geometric_Analysi...
        • roywiggins 2y ago
          > The thing that sells me, besides the erosion, is the absolutely astonishing artifacts that were left behind. There is no way I could be convinced that hand-driven bronze tooling was cutting diorite to a precision we would struggle to meet today, carving schists so thin you can see light pass through, absolutely perfect symmetry, and creation of granite stoneware with multivariate surface geometry that we'd be unable to do without a precision-destroying tool change. The explanation is pretty simple: with sufficient effort and skill, it's possible to produce extraordinary works of precision. You cannot underestimate what people can do with sufficient patience and expertise. However, each artifact is going to be different, because they're hand-made. If you found half a dozen objects that matched each other to extreme precision, you'd have a more serious case- that's the sort of thing you expect to need machine tools for. One very good way to debunk this stuff is to look at the best stuff that came out of the Renaissance: we know, for certain, that they weren't carving that stuff with power tools.
      • thaumaturgy 2y ago
        Agh, this is so close to being a really interesting perspective. "Advanced" can mean a couple of different things. I think your comment and Graham Hancock's stuff is using it in the sense of "technologically advanced", i.e., access to earth-moving equipment or something. But there's also "advanced" in the sense of "ability to reason", and that's much more interesting to think about! I think there's a tendency in the modern perspective to equate technological advancement with intelligence, and so we (laypeople and dilletantes especially) tend to think of these long-ago cultures as being sort of comprised of primitive people because they built primitive things, by modern standards. Writing systems, technology, politics & governance, math, chemistry, mechanical systems, metallurgy and materials science, medicine -- minor periodic and localized variations aside, all of these were pretty darn primitive, near as we can tell, and so the people must have been, too. But maybe advanced people do primitive things because the process of developing technology takes a long time. Think about everything that's required to reliably produce steel; maybe a prerequisite for steel is 10,000 years of agriculture. The "Primitive Technology" channel on YouTube is a great case study. We have an individual who has access to modern knowledge and technology, but re-producing it is extraordinarily laborious and he's still in the mud hut phase of development -- and he can escape that time period at any time to get access to modern medicine and a rich, nutrient-dense diet. I think this might be a strong argument against ancient technologically advanced civilizations (and alien claptrap). It's unlikely that things really developed that much out-of-order because it just takes too dang long to develop all the steps between basic agriculture and powered machinery. It's kind of like that counter-argument against the "moon landing was a hoax" nutters: in 1969, we didn't yet have the film technology required to fake a moon landing. It was easier to get on a rocket to the dang thing! We knew it could be possible to fake it, but we didn't have the tools to do it, yet. So, it's fun to think of past cultures and neolithic humans as being basically us, in terms of intelligence and reasoning and capability, but without any of the modern affordances we have now.
        • sebastos 2y ago
          Strongly agree that this one is both very fun to think about and rings true. I sometimes imagine imagine it as parallel to the advancement of the world of computers, which has sort of been like watching the development an entire civilization in miniature. Early computer pioneers were, we know, incredible minds whose talent was the very thing that put us on the hard road to progress. Sure, nowadays, random people are able to casually accomplish much more in absolute terms, but it's because they're standing on the shoulders of giants. All that said, I do tend to be sort of a Graham Hancock apologist. My take is that most people go too extreme with him. They either think he's a crackpot loony who must be taken at face value and debunked as a purveyor of pseudoscience OR they think he's a rebel truthteller: the only one who will look at the real facts, bravely pushing through the corrupt academic swamp. It seems obvious to me that he's neither. He's just an author who stumbled on a compelling, mind-expanding idea. Roughly stated: what if we know less about the past than we think, and thus underestimate our ancestors? I think the interesting thing about Graham Hancock's spiel has nothing to do with any of his specific pieces of archaeological evidence that he digs up, which are very clearly marshaled to make a point he has already decided on making. (This is bad science, 100%.) Rather, the thing he brings to the table is more like a philosophical approach that is genuinely fresh and interesting. And I do think he will one day be vindicated in some way, because we act like we have way more precise knowledge about the past than we actually do. This is sort of an epistemology thing, so appealing directly to the evidence and the current anthropological understanding isn't really engaging with him in good faith. He's pointing out that the Troys of history prove that we consistently overestimate how completely we've understood history and what is and is not reasonable. Over time we tend to acclimate to that picture, and then the problem multiplies, because we tend to only accept things that seem to fit with the now-banal-seeming history we already know, leading to even more banal hypotheses gaining traction. Some of his best writings relate to the systematic bias against catastrophism that existed, and showing how these types of errors in epistemology lead to actual errors of science down the line.
      • tootie 2y ago
        Humans have been humans for at least 200K years. And those primitive humans had the same capabilities we do today. But the kind concerted effort and organization required for monumental construction still took hundreds of generations to develop. Megaliths older than the Sphinx certainly exist, but the Sphinx is orders of magnitude more complex. Not just in terms of engineering and tools (the Sphinx was carved with metal tools) but the size of the well-governed population required to do the labor. It is inconceivable that a society could spring out of the marshlands to build the Sphinx and leave no other trace for thousands of years. And then for a new civilization to show up with all the technology and culture they had, falsify a load of records to say they built it along with the Pyramids. Hancock isn't just wrong, he's a fraud. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/z8p83b/is_there_any_credibility_about_graham_hancock/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/z8p83b/is_th...
        • wins32767 2y ago
          > And those primitive humans had the same capabilities we do today. Evolution has been ongoing on humans the whole time we've been a species. Drinking milk in adults has only been a capability we've had for ~6000 years. I'd be hard pressed to claim that there haven't been other capabilities that have evolved over that time that led to our ability to have more social organization.
          • seadan83 2y ago
            Lactose tolerance AFAIK is a single enzyme. That taking 6000 years to develop I think is evidence against what you are saying. Specifically, that is a tiny adaptation compared to the organization of the human brain. Is 30x more time than lactose tolerance enough for significant brain changes? I find it implausible, I would guess the major adaptations of the brain are on the order of millions of years, not a couple hundred thousand. The adaptations for social organization seemingly have been with us for a long time. AFAIK humans have been in large groups for a very long time, as long as they have been homo sapiens (Large being over 50 members, and take that with a grain of salt, that is only my possibly incorrect understanding). I do find it very plausible that people 1k, 10k, 50k and maybe even 200k years ago were all smart (Plato probably is far smarter than most alive today). Though, smart and education are different, while smart- the body of knowledge was limited.
      • allturtles 2y ago
        > Yes, there are some who think aliens built the pyramids. > But there is an equally large group of people who think that humans pre-ice age were advanced like we are today. Not GP, but to me, these two theories are both wildly implausible, so "think it was built by aliens" is a handy shorthand for "believes an implausible theory about the origins of the pyramids." There's zero reason not to believe the "orthodox" theory about the pyramids. There is even an actual contemporaneous written papyrus record referring to the Giza construction project [0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diary_of_Merer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diary_of_Merer
      • burkaman 2y ago
        It's still aliens with this guy. > In his book Supernatural: Meetings with the Ancient Teachers of Mankind, Hancock (2006) explored the cultural importance of shamanism and psychedelics and the idea that nonhuman entities from other realms kickstarted human culture. Hancock draws parallels between shamanic spirit journeys, narratives of fairies, and modern alien abduction accounts. Shamanism is "nonsensical to 'rational' Western minds" as it is based on "the notion that the human condition requires interaction with powerful nonphysical beings" (Hancock 2019:220). He has also discussed this idea in public presentations. In America Before, Hancock (2019) again emphasizes access to the Otherworld of souls and nonhuman entities through psychedelic "plant allies." - http://onlinedigeditions.com/publication/?i=634462&article_id=3531896 http://onlinedigeditions.com/publication/?i=634462&article_i... He was able to do a Netflix series because his son is the "Director of Nonfiction" there (https://thetvcollective.org/breakthroughleaders/industry-experts/sean-hancock/ https://thetvcollective.org/breakthroughleaders/industry-exp...).
        • mandmandam 2y ago
          That is a very common thing with ancient and even modern shamans. So, how does saying so in a book about ancient shamans equate to an endorsement that aliens built the pyramids? People love attacking this guy but the attacks always seem to be remarkably poor strawmen. What's so hard about believing we were smarter than acknowledged 10,000 years ago?
          • burkaman 2y ago
            > the idea that nonhuman entities from other realms kickstarted human culture I'm not attacking him I'm just posting some quotes. In addition to his ideas about lost prehistoric societies influencing ancient Egyptians, he in turn believes that those prehistoric societies were influenced by aliens. I don't think this is an attack and I don't think he would disagree with this summary of his beliefs.
            • mandmandam 2y ago
              I spent less than one minute googling, and came up with this [0] on my first try: > I am quite clear, however, having spent more than quarter of a century walking the walk across many of the most intriguing ancient archaeological sites on earth, and digging into ancient texts and traditions from all around the world, that NO ancient archaeological site and NO ancient text or tradition that I have yet come across provides persuasive evidence for the “ancient astronaut hypothesis”. > ... My own view is that all of the anomalies of history and prehistory pointed to by advocates of the ancient astronaut hypothesis are far better and more elegantly explained as emanating from a lost, advanced HUMAN civilization of prehistoric antiquity than from high-tech alien visitors from another planet. So, you just made that up, even though he expressly says the opposite on his own website. Why would you do that? 0 -https://grahamhancock.com/ancient-aliens-or-a-lost-civilization/ https://grahamhancock.com/ancient-aliens-or-a-lost-civilizat...
      • robbiep 2y ago
        I spent my younger and teenage years obsessed with graham Hancock and his ideas. I can confidently say after more than 16 years of listening to his talks, reading and re-reading his books and listening to the shifts of his emphasis, that he is full of shit in regard to his many hypothesis regarding some ancient culture pre-ice age that was the Ur-culture and is responsible for building lots of things in lots of places that we now falsely attribute to other civilisations. When you get really into to him, the problem is he isn’t even internally consistent. In fingerprints of the gods he’s all into these things, then in heaven’s mirror he’s all going Gaga first on Ur-maps and then on fixed ratios/SI units and in the sign and the seal he’s pandering ultimately to the Masonic Lodge. It is so convenient that these civilisations would have had, in his estimation, to have the sophistication and technology level of the 20th century, but left behind only artifacts that in many instances ended up getting ‘claimed’ by other civilisations. Give me a break.
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      • donkey_oaty 2y ago
        Graham Hancock is literally just making up stories and saying "wouldn't it be cool if this happened" with absolutely zero evidence. The guy can't understand why archeologist don't like his theories, but he doesn't have theories, he has fiction stories.
        • mandmandam 2y ago
          "Hey archaeologists - here's a cool thing that doesn't fit with your timeline. Here are some ideas that could explain what's going on, but they're just ideas don't lynch me!" The archaeological establishment: "Lynch this fucker!"
          • Hikikomori 2y ago
            Except he provides no evidence at all. It's cool fiction but nothing more than that.
            • mandmandam 2y ago
              That's just not true. He's really quite good at delineating the actual evidence while telling a thought-provoking story.
              • Hikikomori 2y ago
                Which evidence?
                • mandmandam 2y ago
                  I would usually say, you first, since you made the outrageous claim he "provides no evidence at all". But this might be fun... You do know the difference between evidence and proof though, right? I'll go look at the most recent article on his website [0], and we'll see if there's evidence presented, or if he "provides no evidence at all"... To avoid bias - and save time, because I'm doing your research for free - I asked ChatGPT to examine whether he provided evidence or not: ... Evidence Provided by Graham Hancock Cultural and Archaeological Evidence: Hancock frequently references archaeological findings and scientific studies to support his theories. For example, he discusses the discovery of ancient human remains in California dating back 130,000 years, which challenges the conventional timeline of human migration into the Americas. Comparative Analysis: He often draws parallels between distant cultures to suggest the existence of a lost ancient civilization. For instance, he points out similarities between the spiritual beliefs of ancient Egyptians and Native American mound builders, arguing that these cannot be mere coincidences and suggesting a shared heritage from a forgotten civilization. Scientific Studies: Hancock cites recent studies and technologies, such as LIDAR, which have uncovered large, ancient geoglyphs and cities in the Amazon, suggesting advanced pre-Columbian civilizations that were previously unknown. Historical Documentation:He references historical texts and accounts from early archaeologists and explorers, such as the work of Flinders Petrie and Margaret Murray in Egypt, to support his claims about the existence of older and technologically advanced civilizations. Analysis of the Evidence Pros: Innovative Perspective: Hancock provides a fresh look at ancient history by challenging established narratives, which encourages further investigation and discussion. Detailed References: His works are often well-documented with footnotes and references to scientific studies, which lend a certain level of credibility to his arguments. Cons: Interpretation of Evidence: Critics argue that Hancock often selectively interprets evidence to fit his theories, sometimes ignoring data that contradicts his views . Speculative Nature: Some of his conclusions are speculative and not universally accepted by the academic community, relying heavily on what some consider circumstantial evidence. Conclusion While Graham Hancock does provide evidence to support his claims, the validity and interpretation of this evidence are often contested. His approach is not always balanced, as he openly admits to focusing on evidence that supports his alternative historical narratives. Readers must critically evaluate his claims and consider the broader academic consensus when interpreting his work. ... Summarizing: At least 4 different types of evidence are regularly laid out. Benefits to his approach include encouraging fresh investigation and discussion, and the cons are acknowledged by Hancock himself. I'm no Hancock fanboy - I've seen one show of his. But I've seen the way he gets attacked and it's so often so dumb. It reminds me of how people attack Assange and Snowden, or RMS, or Jared Diamond: surprisingly emotional, personal, venomous, and more often than not completely made up (as in this case). 0 - https://grahamhancock.com/hancockg23/ https://grahamhancock.com/hancockg23/
      • attheicearcade 2y ago
        Anyone who believes Hancock’s ideas should really watch the debate with Flint Dibble[0], in which Hancock eventually admits he has no evidence of his ancient civilisation, and Rogan, who is a long time friend and believer of Hancock, seems to end up siding more with Flint. [0] https://youtu.be/-DL1_EMIw6w https://youtu.be/-DL1_EMIw6w
    • wudangmonk 2y ago
      That it was embraced by the ancient aliens crowd does not dismiss the findings. It has what appears to be water erosion, now the claim should be challenged if you do not believe it was made by water erosion and truely believe it was made by something else. The problem is when things are ignored because they are inconvenient and you settle on attacking the individuals to the point where if you do not 100% believe in what the Egyptologist say then you must be an ancient aliens believer. I'm sure some people are motivated by such a belief but ancient aliens is the same as giving up and saying that god did it, it does nothing to get you closer to understanding anything, if anything it gets you infinitely farther since in your eyes there is nothing to figure out.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • wnevets 2y ago
    > , attributing their creation to Plato's lost civilization of Atlantis over 11,500 years ago what is with the obsession that ancient egyptians were incapable of building these monuments?
    • alephnerd 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • chucke1992 2y ago
        Except the heirs of that ancient civilization disappeared post Ptolemy dynasty. It has never been that old Egypt again.
      • tiffanyh 2y ago
        That's ridiculous. How do you explain Stonehenge then? (which was built in England yet no one can explain how Brits did it) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge
        • alephnerd 2y ago
          I was disputing the notion that Egyptians CAN'T build monuments. I think my tone might have been too tongue in cheek. > which was built in England yet no one can explain how Brits did it To quote one of my favorite Adult Swim shows (China IL) - "F**ing people figured it out ... Nerd don't estimate all of humanity by the limits of your capabilites"
          • lupusreal 2y ago
            I don't think anybody says the Egyptians couldn't build the Sphinx, they obviously built a lot of stuff at that scale or larger which isn't disputed. Plenty of people do claim that about the pyramids, but that's a separate and (IMHO) far kookier claim than the Sphinx stuff.
            • 2y ago
  • primer42 2y ago
    > Egyptologists, geologists and others have rejected the water erosion hypothesis and the idea of an older Sphinx, pointing to archaeological, climatological and geological evidence to the contrary.
  • lodovic 2y ago
    That was debunked, the same erosion was found in the rock at the quarry site where the stones for the Sphinx were originally taken from.
    • alephnerd 2y ago
      Also, Schwaller de Lubicz was very loco and racist (very antisemitic and was close with a number of the earlier ideologues of the Thule movement)
    • taejavu 2y ago
      How did the erosion happen? At what time period was that much water there?
      • robbiep 2y ago
        You know sand and wind erode as well, right?
        • nvilcins 2y ago
          Different ways of erosion leave different kinds of traces. The ones in the Sphinx enclosure are indicative of water (more specifically - rainfall) erosion.
      • colibri727 2y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_pump_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_pump_theory
    • beeandapenguin 2y ago
      The Sphinx wasn't built with stone from a quarry, it was carved from the bedrock. It has since been restored a number of times, one of which added layers of limestone block which is easily distinguishable from the original shape.
      • 2y ago
  • baq 2y ago
    and the pyramids too, for that matter - nobody stole the white limestone covering, it just melted away. it has some implications on when exactly these things were really built if it would be true. the height of the water which did that would be quite preposterous, too.
    • UberFly 2y ago
      The pyramids were treated as a quarry over the millennia. Much of the outer casing and more was used to build medieval Cairo.
      • masklinn 2y ago
        A sadly common fate for big stone buildings nearby any settlements. Lots of towers and castles in europe also ended up like that after their maintenance stopped.
        • gen220 2y ago
          From an alternative angle, it's not tragic but rather a triumph of the people who "actually" live there, to be able to repurpose old structures to modern use. In Napoli, there's a set of pretty old (>300 years, I'd guess?) apartment buildings in the historic center, where if you view the buildings and curvature of the street from the sky or google maps, make a clear C shape. The foundation of the buildings is a repurposing of a roman amphitheater. By the time that they began to convert the bottom 10 ft of the amphitheater into the basement of the homes, the amphitheater had been unused for centuries and the remaining high-quality building material had already been scavenged and repurposed for construction elsewhere in the city. Naples, and many other "ancient" european cities that are still places inhabited majority by working people, are full of examples like this. It's kind of cool to see people living in a place where history is so overwhelming that it becomes banal.
          • Hikikomori 2y ago
            I visited that amphitheater last year as part of the underground tour, really cool. Might have read it at the Colosseum, but part of it were used by one of the noble houses to construct their Palazzo in Rome. Barberini if I remember correctly.
• sanex 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • itronitron 2y ago
    Regardless, it makes sense they would want to have easy access to fresh water. Maybe instead they rerouted the river afterwards so that others would have less use of the spaceport.
    • throwup238 2y ago
      That would explain all the mummies too. They were sucked dry of their water by the aliens! But only the wealthy people. They didn’t want any of that commoner water.
      • sambull 2y ago
        Left over from their jerky production outpost
        • liotier 2y ago
          Lavishly packaged though !
      • adolph 2y ago
        Dehydration is also the approach used by Trisolarians and tartigrades.
    • Detrytus 2y ago
      More importantly: they transported those huge stone blocks by rafting them down the river.
• smm11 2y ago
  I thought they were built by the golf course.
• duxup 2y ago
  I wonder would the proposed harbor locations have left any structure to indicate that they were in fact harbor temples rather than just temples? I also wonder how much the river moves within that flood plain. I lived in a flood plain at one point and the river even season to season seemed to "move" a noticeable amount.
  • bluGill 2y ago
    I would expect that harbors were mostly made of wood. Stone is too heavy and would sink into the bottom, and they didn't have access to enough metals to think about bronze (much less iron). Wood of course rots - while the climate in Egypt is the most conductive to wood not rotting, if it was a harbor structure I'd expect (read I'm not sure here!) that the area remained as a swamp for a while thus rotting away anything left behind before to fully dried up.
    • teruakohatu 2y ago
      The oldest surviving dugout canoe found could be as old as 10k years old. Certainly a number of ancient Egyptian boats have been found and dated to around the time of the pyramids. So dock piles could possibly have survived. Of course there were no doubt a large number of boats and only a small number of temple docks.
      • JoBrad 2y ago
        I think it’s likely that they would have been dug up and reused, given the relative scarcity of wood.
      • selimthegrim 2y ago
        Are these the dugout canoes made by the Indians who lived in Santa Barbara County?
      • bluGill 2y ago
        Egypt's deserts are about the perfect climate for preserving wood. However the area near water is not desert and so not perfect. Boats would be moved, but the piers (such as they were in those days, I doubt we are talking a modern shipyard structure) would remain in the water, and in general when a river moves the area remains a swamp long enough for any wood to rot. The type of wood used maters, some wood rots much faster than others. Boats would have been made from rot resistant wood since they are in the water. I wouldn't be surprised if they used any old wood for the piers since the water course and floods mean the piers need to be rebuilt every year anyway - but this is pure speculation.
• empath-nirvana 2y ago
  It makes a lot of sense because obviously having a river there makes the transport of materials a lot easier, but i do wonder how nobody noticed this before.
  • duxup 2y ago
    Well the pyramids in question are right next to a flood plain so I don't think this idea is out of the blue entirely.
  • schmidt_fifty 2y ago
    I can't speak to "the literature" but people have been colloquially talking about the mysterious lack of a canal since at least the 90s. One of the reasons people floated was a no-longer-active branch of the nile.
  • nwhnwh 2y ago
    I am an Egyptian, I read about this years ago. But maybe they didn't have a solid proof back then.
    • irrational 2y ago
      Thank you. I too remember reading about this years ago. I even checked the date of the paper to see if it was from years ago.
      • thekid314 2y ago
        Yeah, I photographed this story for the Smithsonian. It was talking about how the stones were transferred by boat from near Tora to Saqqara. The water came most of the way up to the now seasonal lake near the pyramids there. But also the river used to flood so there were some seasons when the water was high enough to easily transport the stone directly from Tora I assume. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ancient-egypt-shipping-mining-farming-economy-pyramids-180956619/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ancient-egypt-shippin...
    • SergeAx 2y ago
• danking00 2y ago
  There’s also a lighter weight Nature News article about it https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01449-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01449-y
  • dang 2y ago
    Thanks! I've changed the URL above to that from https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01379-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01379-7 (the paper). Those who are interested can read both, of course.
• imjonse 2y ago
  Is there new evidence for this? It has been the main hypothesis for why the pyramids are far from the river, I thought it was generally accepted.
  • Simon_ORourke 2y ago
    There's been plenty of discussion about cutting a canal to deliver blocks to the build site, but this makes more sense.
  • jorts 2y ago
    I thought it was well-known. If memory serves correctly on my visit to the Sphinx the guide talked about where the water came to just adjacent to it.
  • shellfishgene 2y ago
    As the paper was just published I'd assume it contains lots of new evidence?
• kuprel 2y ago
  So maybe the pyramids are older than we thought?
• ck2 2y ago
  The "fact" about the pyramids I simply cannot believe is the insistence of many historians that slaves weren't used If true now THAT is amazing, personally I think the people in power in ancient Egypt simply rewrote their records. Virtually no other ancient culture and its world-level marvels can make that claim Great-Wall-of-China they basically used to throw slaves into the filler after they became too old or injured, people today are basically walking and taking photos on top of a mass-grave of horrors
  • duxup 2y ago
    Why would it seem that slaves would have had to be used?
    • bombcar 2y ago
      People who are paid to do work they don't want to do don't believe in the existence of people who would do work they don't want to do for money. (In reality the distinction between slave and employee is blurred over thousands of years and it's hard to use our words to talk about their setups. It's likely that both slave and non-slave labor (taking slave to be unpaid coerced labor) was used; just as our society uses both, either openly or discretely.)
      • duxup 2y ago
        I also would assume that the state and/or religion aspect may have resulted in citizens (skilled and otherwise) willing to volunteer as well. The local church down the road from me can bring out a TON of people to work for free for various activities, and they're upset if they miss out. It doesn't seem unimaginable that non slave locals in Egypt would be similarly motivated and even enthusiastic about working / being a part of it all.
        • masklinn 2y ago
          I would also assume that good pay is a strong incentive, and public works have been used time and again as a form of welfare.
• bluish29 2y ago
  While it makes sense that it would make it easier to transport materials via the river. It does not make sense in context of pyramids purpose were tombs where they should be away from places where people usually live. Specially that even at this point of history, looting tombs was a common occurring problem. So with these mega projects, you would think that moving them away would make sense although making it much harder. Easier to think that they made a canal to deliver fresh water for the project from the nearest location of the nile which is a couple of Kilometers aways (~ 8 km).
  • willvarfar 2y ago
    They are hard for tomb robbers to miss? They were made to be seen; would they not be within sight of the subjects who worshipped the Pharaohs as gods?
  • duxup 2y ago
    I believe many of the pyramid sites had temples and areas that were designed for human activities / ceremonies.
• jwueller 2y ago
  If anyone is curious, here is an amazing and scientific YouTube channel mostly focused on the pyramids: https://youtube.com/@historyforgranite https://youtube.com/@historyforgranite
  • pests 2y ago
    Seconded, I've tried posting videos here before. His explanation of the great pyramid being a public/private devotion place, not a secret grave, makes the most sense to me. It would be like Lenin's Mausoleum. Everyone knows where its at, who is there, and you can go see him and leave offerings. Previous tombs were robbed and looted because the king was buried and forgotten and no one cared anymore. Probably helped their followers maintain power after their death too. (purposefully not using any names, I am skeptical on the official story of who built what for who)
  • nwhnwh 2y ago
    If you want something that is more mysterious than the pyramids, google "Serapeum of Saqqara"
• skilled 2y ago
  Is it at all possible they were built with advanced physics we know nothing about? What about spiritual technology? Buddhists and Hindus talk about “miracles” often, so why couldn’t the Pyramids be one of those miracles? It really renders the discussion meaningless when you are trying to justify the impossible with wild theories and whatnot. No machine today can do what they did all that time ago and yet we still talk about it like there is a practical and logical answer to it.
  • Suppafly 2y ago
    you forgot the /s unless you really are a wackjob.
    • skilled 2y ago
      So there is a logical explanation as to how the pyramids were built?
      • buildbot 2y ago
        Slave labor and ramps. Just kidding, you and I both know that they are landing pads for Goa'uld starships so they probably used their tech. (Plus slaves).
        • msla 2y ago
          > Slave labor and ramps. Except not slaves. https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/who-built-the-egyptian-pyramids-not-slaves https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/who-built-the-... > The best evidence suggests that pyramid workers were locals who were paid for their services and ate extremely well. We know this because archaeologists have found their tombs and other signs of the lives they lived.
      • 7thaccount 2y ago
        Just because we don't know whatever low tech methods were used doesn't make it magic. There's a video of a guy moving multiple ton bricks in his backyard easily using some rods to act as a conveyor built. It's not something we tend to think about anymore as we have much better options now. Given a little time though and people will figure out low tech solutions. Look up "wallywallington" on YouTube and see how trivial moving incredibly heavy things can be with simple leverage.
• hackthemack 2y ago
  I found another article that I found more lightweight and accessible. Has some pictures of the people involved. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/egypt-pyramids-nile-ahramat-archaeology https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/egypt-pyr...
  • cydonian_monk 2y ago
    That article is paywalled and locked to National Geographic subscribers only. I'm not sure we have the same definition of accessible.
    • woleium 2y ago
      https://archive.is/sILbH https://archive.is/sILbH
• marshallward 2y ago
  > “The pyramids seem like pretty monumental work” You don't say...
  • pavlov 2y ago
    “Cutting-edge psychological research suggests that pharaohs may have suffered from megalomania”
    • loceng 2y ago
      "Breaking news - older civilizations than currently have been found may have had most evidence of their existence wiped out by major events"
    • s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Megalomania is characterized by delusion.
      • bqmjjx0kac 2y ago
        I'm willing to entertain the idea that the god kings had some delusions
        • nkrisc 2y ago
          If they're indulged by society as a whole, are they delusions?
          • krapp 2y ago
            It's the "god" part of "god king" that was the delusion, and all of the wasted effort that went into ensuring the Pharoah's resurrection and immortality after death. And yes, it's a delusion regardless of how many people believe in it.
            • abduhl 2y ago
• cchi_co 2y ago
  Since childhood, I have been fascinated by Egyptian history. It's mesmerizing
  • Ductapemaster 2y ago
    Myself as well. I recently listened to an episode on Egyptian history from this podcast and really enjoyed it — consider checking it out! https://fallofcivilizationspodcast.com/ https://fallofcivilizationspodcast.com/
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • cchi_co 2y ago
      [dead]
  • brunoarueira 2y ago
    Me too, I would like to visit the Egypt one day :)
  • nashashmi 2y ago
    And the conspiracy theories that surround them?
• DiabloD3 2y ago
  I thought they sorta kinda knew this already? One of the most batshit theories I've heard is it was actually a sort of water well on demand, the weight of the pyramid pushing down on an underground aquifer fed by a then-unknown branch of the Nile, forcing water up through a man-made well. I wonder if they started looking for the missing tributary because of this theory.
• tamimio 2y ago
  Or maybe that branch was man-made, for one to help builders to transport the materials, and also to build the pyramid itself after controlling the water level there with some man-made dams.
  • ethbr1 2y ago
    Martians are well known for their proficiency building canals. [0] [0] History Channel
    • Hikikomori 2y ago
      That theory predates the history channel by 100 years or so.
      • magicalhippo 2y ago
        Which makes it an excellent candidate for being covered extensively on the I'm-not-saying-it's-aliens-but-it's-aliens History Channel.
        • ethbr1 2y ago
          Like some sort of prehistoric aliens?
        • kristianp 2y ago
          Don't forget your large serving of ads for crime shows. Love hearing about the great serial killers /s.
• noman-land 2y ago
  This may support one of my favorite theories of how the pyramids were built. With water! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1y8N0ePuF8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1y8N0ePuF8
  • Daz1 2y ago
    This has been throughly debunked
    • noman-land 2y ago
      Yeah? Got any resources I can check out?
      • Daz1 2y ago
        The Secret of the Great Pyramid by Bob Brier and Jean-Pierre Boudin
• dudeinjapan 2y ago
  Why would the pyramids not have been built on the water? Why would they pick a random site in the middle of the sand dunes?
  • Daz1 2y ago
    Because (the Giza pyramid at least) was built at the site of a massive limestone quarry and a substantial (~20%) proportion of the internal volume of the pyramid is composed of natural rock formation they didn't need to fill in with sandstone.
    • gavindean90 2y ago
      Yea, but you might decide to build a pyramid if a site like that was next to a nice river.
      • dudeinjapan 2y ago
        Location location location
• jjallen 2y ago
  Isn't getting the stones to the site the easier, much less interesting part of this? By far more interesting is how they actually constructed the things.
• once_inc 2y ago
  I've recently been looking into the natron theory, which I also like. Instead of chiselling out big granite blocks and moving them long distances, you use a bucket of powder and a lot of wood ash to chemically form rocks.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • saalweachter 2y ago
    What do the energy and material requirements look like? How much heat, how much wood, how much natron?
    • dredmorbius 2y ago
      Wood, in an environment in which trees were exceptionally scarce and high-value assets.
• chucke1992 2y ago
  Considering that we can even see in the real time the disappearance of rivers, I wonder how many rivers and branches have been lost in history.
  • bluGill 2y ago
    The Mississippi used to change course every year, and was about double the current length - all while following essentially the same route. (until the US army got involved). How do you want to count that?
  • dredmorbius 2y ago
    "Stream capture", a/k/a "river capture" or "river piracy" is A Thing: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_capture> We know that rivers change courses, and there are both known and unknown instances of this. Edit: "capture" above originally read "crapture".
    • dredmorbius 2y ago
      Erm, capture. Get your mind out of the sewer, dred...
• wander1 2y ago
  Try this for an easier read: https://theconversation.com/we-mapped-a-lost-branch-of-the-nile-river-which-may-be-the-key-to-a-longstanding-mystery-of-the-pyramids-230092 https://theconversation.com/we-mapped-a-lost-branch-of-the-n...