4 ms·

"If there were truly some sort of globe-spanning advanced civilization existing ~11KYA we'd have found at least one single piece of their material culture by no

"If there were truly some sort of globe-spanning advanced civilization existing ~11KYA we'd have found at least one single piece of their material culture by now, but we haven't." What about Gobekli Tepe? "Nor have we found any genetic evidence in people or crops that there was any kind of "Empire" connecting parts of Europe or Africa as we find time and time again with real empires that actually existed in prehistory." Wouldn't Europe have been mostly tundra/ice that long ago? Also, what about this article (not Europe, but other global implications), do you dispute it specifically? https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9629774/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9629774/ You seem to be really upset (and frankly insulting) at the prospect of people being curious about the idea that we don't know everything about our history yet. There is a very wide gap between believing a theory is true or being certain its not true, and that gap is the humility to accept we aren't sure yet and there is room to be surprised. Skepticism is healthy, but why be dismissive of peoples' interest to consider or search for new evidence? What exactly is the risk? Isn't it more risky to stop developing the science and pursuing the truth? Is this really about scientific rigor, or do you have some reason to want there not to have been more developed civilizations pre-younger dryas than we previously thought existed? What's the harm to you in other people asking these questions and going out and trying to answer them?

jcranmer 2y ago
> What about Gobekli Tepe? What about it? It's one of the oldest Neolithic settlements we've identified, but otherwise, it's not particularly unusual within our understanding of Neolithic Mesopotamia. When GP is talking about "material culture", they're (probably) referring to the archaeological definition of culture, which means you need to give an explanation as to what makes an artifact indicative of belonging to a culture. The shape of an arrowhead perhaps, or maybe the kind of style used in painting pottery. Something that lets an archaeologist dig something up and go "aha, this is culture X!" Age isn't one of those characteristics. But of course the province of pseudoarchaeology is to come up with a theory and work everything into evidence for that theory. Atlantis is old, Göbleki Tepe is old, therefore Göbleki Tepe is Atlantean! > Skepticism is healthy, but why be dismissive of peoples' interest to consider or search for new evidence? What exactly is the risk? Most of the people that tend to propose these theories aren't interested in searching for evidence. See for example, Graham Hancock, who has been peddling the same theory for 30 years and has done nothing to actually produce better evidence for it except to whine that mainstream archaeologists don't want to listen to him because they're stuck in their own stupid ways. (Of course, in that same time, mainstream archaeology has thoroughly demolished the Clovis-First hypothesis which was previously disfavored, precisely because the pre-Clovis adherents actually did the legwork to produce better evidence to make it more accepted!) You can also see this with archaeoastronomy, which is borderline fringe--its better practitioners have made some success by listening to the criticisms and persevering in efforts to get better, stronger evidence to buttress their claims. As a basic rule of thumb, if someone's response to criticism is to chide scientists for being rigid in their thinking rather than going out to try to get better evidence, then that's a strong sign they're engaged in pseudoscience and not science. As for the risk, a lot of these theories bear a deep legacy of overt racism just begin their skin; they've historically been used to devalue the abilities of the people who've made them (e.g., Great Zimbabwe). Nowadays, they've been modified to edit out the basic message of "white people taught everybody how to civilization," so it's no longer quite as overt as their late 19th century ancestors... but you can still see the lingering traces of it in "an ancient civilization taught everybody how to civilization."
- FloorEgg 2y ago
  There is so much about your comment here that I appreciate (similar to your other reply to me). Thank you. I wish I had time right now to thoughtfully ask a couple questions I have, but it will have to wait. I am compelled to squeeze this in: "As for the risk, a lot of these theories bear a deep legacy of overt racism just begin their skin; they've historically been used to devalue the abilities of the people who've made them (e.g., Great Zimbabwe). Nowadays, they've been modified to edit out the basic message of "white people taught everybody how to civilization," so it's no longer quite as overt as their late 19th century ancestors... but you can still see the lingering traces of it in "an ancient civilization taught everybody how to civilization."" - Wow! Holy cow, I had no idea, and this hadn't remotely crossed my mind. If anything, I would have thought the opposite. (that evidence of incredible achievements by ancient civilizations would diminish [relatively] the achievements of modern ones).
  - protocolture 2y ago
    One of hancocks claims is that his urcivilisation that seeded technology all over the planet were white. He has dropped the claim from more recent works but never recanted it.
    - FloorEgg 2y ago
      So I read up on what you are saying and some of Hancock's past work, and I see how the theory could be seen as diminishing the accomplishments of indigenous cultures or denying their own capacity for innovation. Prior to today, I hadn't read any of Graham Hancock's work and have no attachment to him or his theory. I was under the impression that the younger dryas impact hypothesis was accepted by Geology (I actually learned from this thread that it's not). If one is to assume that the younger dryas was caused by cataclysmic meteorite impacts, then the idea that an ancient civilization was wiped out in said cataclysm seems plausible and triggered my curiosity. Given that the impact hypothesis hasn't reached the burden of proof, then I am not sure what to make of it. That said, I don't appreciate any implication that just because someone is interested in evidence of undiscovered pre younger dryas civilizations they are racist. Not speaking of Hancock specifically, but I would appreciate being able to have a conversation about the evidence without feeling like someone is implying I am racist because I am interested in it. (Keep in mind I wasn't the one who brought up Hancock)
protocolture 2y ago
>You seem to be really upset (and frankly insulting) at the prospect of people being curious about the idea that we don't know everything about our history yet. Scientific Curiosity should never involve insisting something exists without evidence or any intention of looking for it. This is where hancocks people always fall back to. Science just isnt "Imaginitive" enough to give enough time to their theories. Whereas you meet any scientist in the field and they will tell you how 3 broken pots and a pile of bones translates into an amazing civilisation. I dont think archeologists could survive being even 1 iota more imaginative. >Skepticism is healthy, but why be dismissive of peoples' interest to consider or search for new evidence? They should search for that evidence instead of writing 20 books, some of them DEEEPLY racist, demanding other people search for that evidence on their behalf. >Isn't it more risky to stop developing the science and pursuing the truth? There are tons of people in the field right now developing the science and pursuing the truth. >do you have some reason to want there not to have been more developed civilizations pre-younger dryas than we previously thought existed? What's the harm to you in other people asking these questions and going out and trying to answer them? The person trying to force a narrative on history is Hancock. The danger is that he doesn't hypothesize, he instructs his legion of morons that his word is the truth and they need to buy more of his books to discover said truth.
- FloorEgg 2y ago
  Okay, I get it. You really don't like Hancock and you think he's racist. I was trying to have a dialog about the actual evidence of the theory that the Richat structure could have been home to an advanced civilization that was wiped out in a flood ~12-13,000 years ago. Here is what interests me: - What evidence supports the theory, what evidence falsifies the theory - If it's inconclusive, what kind of evidence would we need to find to either prove of falsify, and where would we look for it. Because you have dragged in Hancock and his "people" (whatever that means) into this, I find it really hard to have a constructive dialog with you about the actual evidence and theory. Do you have any interest in setting aside the big fat red herring? Here goes my best effort: "There are tons of people in the field right now developing the science and pursuing the truth." There are tons of people pursuing archeological excavations of the Richat structure? If not, then what novel theories are the archeology community pursuing? "Scientific Curiosity should never involve insisting something exists without evidence or any intention of looking for it." I am not doing that, and you are responding to me. I am asking about a theory and what evidence proves or disproves it. All science starts with observations and theories. My intention was to have a respectful dialog about the topic of the article, hoping I might learn something.

jcranmer 2y ago

> What about Gobekli Tepe? What about it? It's one of the oldest Neolithic settlements we've identified, but otherwise, it's not particularly unusual within our understanding of Neolithic Mesopotamia. When GP is talking about "material culture", they're (probably) referring to the archaeological definition of culture, which means you need to give an explanation as to what makes an artifact indicative of belonging to a culture. The shape of an arrowhead perhaps, or maybe the kind of style used in painting pottery. Something that lets an archaeologist dig something up and go "aha, this is culture X!" Age isn't one of those characteristics. But of course the province of pseudoarchaeology is to come up with a theory and work everything into evidence for that theory. Atlantis is old, Göbleki Tepe is old, therefore Göbleki Tepe is Atlantean! > Skepticism is healthy, but why be dismissive of peoples' interest to consider or search for new evidence? What exactly is the risk? Most of the people that tend to propose these theories aren't interested in searching for evidence. See for example, Graham Hancock, who has been peddling the same theory for 30 years and has done nothing to actually produce better evidence for it except to whine that mainstream archaeologists don't want to listen to him because they're stuck in their own stupid ways. (Of course, in that same time, mainstream archaeology has thoroughly demolished the Clovis-First hypothesis which was previously disfavored, precisely because the pre-Clovis adherents actually did the legwork to produce better evidence to make it more accepted!) You can also see this with archaeoastronomy, which is borderline fringe--its better practitioners have made some success by listening to the criticisms and persevering in efforts to get better, stronger evidence to buttress their claims. As a basic rule of thumb, if someone's response to criticism is to chide scientists for being rigid in their thinking rather than going out to try to get better evidence, then that's a strong sign they're engaged in pseudoscience and not science. As for the risk, a lot of these theories bear a deep legacy of overt racism just begin their skin; they've historically been used to devalue the abilities of the people who've made them (e.g., Great Zimbabwe). Nowadays, they've been modified to edit out the basic message of "white people taught everybody how to civilization," so it's no longer quite as overt as their late 19th century ancestors... but you can still see the lingering traces of it in "an ancient civilization taught everybody how to civilization."

FloorEgg 2y ago
There is so much about your comment here that I appreciate (similar to your other reply to me). Thank you. I wish I had time right now to thoughtfully ask a couple questions I have, but it will have to wait. I am compelled to squeeze this in: "As for the risk, a lot of these theories bear a deep legacy of overt racism just begin their skin; they've historically been used to devalue the abilities of the people who've made them (e.g., Great Zimbabwe). Nowadays, they've been modified to edit out the basic message of "white people taught everybody how to civilization," so it's no longer quite as overt as their late 19th century ancestors... but you can still see the lingering traces of it in "an ancient civilization taught everybody how to civilization."" - Wow! Holy cow, I had no idea, and this hadn't remotely crossed my mind. If anything, I would have thought the opposite. (that evidence of incredible achievements by ancient civilizations would diminish [relatively] the achievements of modern ones).
- protocolture 2y ago
  One of hancocks claims is that his urcivilisation that seeded technology all over the planet were white. He has dropped the claim from more recent works but never recanted it.
  - FloorEgg 2y ago
    So I read up on what you are saying and some of Hancock's past work, and I see how the theory could be seen as diminishing the accomplishments of indigenous cultures or denying their own capacity for innovation. Prior to today, I hadn't read any of Graham Hancock's work and have no attachment to him or his theory. I was under the impression that the younger dryas impact hypothesis was accepted by Geology (I actually learned from this thread that it's not). If one is to assume that the younger dryas was caused by cataclysmic meteorite impacts, then the idea that an ancient civilization was wiped out in said cataclysm seems plausible and triggered my curiosity. Given that the impact hypothesis hasn't reached the burden of proof, then I am not sure what to make of it. That said, I don't appreciate any implication that just because someone is interested in evidence of undiscovered pre younger dryas civilizations they are racist. Not speaking of Hancock specifically, but I would appreciate being able to have a conversation about the evidence without feeling like someone is implying I am racist because I am interested in it. (Keep in mind I wasn't the one who brought up Hancock)

protocolture 2y ago

>You seem to be really upset (and frankly insulting) at the prospect of people being curious about the idea that we don't know everything about our history yet. Scientific Curiosity should never involve insisting something exists without evidence or any intention of looking for it. This is where hancocks people always fall back to. Science just isnt "Imaginitive" enough to give enough time to their theories. Whereas you meet any scientist in the field and they will tell you how 3 broken pots and a pile of bones translates into an amazing civilisation. I dont think archeologists could survive being even 1 iota more imaginative. >Skepticism is healthy, but why be dismissive of peoples' interest to consider or search for new evidence? They should search for that evidence instead of writing 20 books, some of them DEEEPLY racist, demanding other people search for that evidence on their behalf. >Isn't it more risky to stop developing the science and pursuing the truth? There are tons of people in the field right now developing the science and pursuing the truth. >do you have some reason to want there not to have been more developed civilizations pre-younger dryas than we previously thought existed? What's the harm to you in other people asking these questions and going out and trying to answer them? The person trying to force a narrative on history is Hancock. The danger is that he doesn't hypothesize, he instructs his legion of morons that his word is the truth and they need to buy more of his books to discover said truth.

FloorEgg 2y ago
Okay, I get it. You really don't like Hancock and you think he's racist. I was trying to have a dialog about the actual evidence of the theory that the Richat structure could have been home to an advanced civilization that was wiped out in a flood ~12-13,000 years ago. Here is what interests me: - What evidence supports the theory, what evidence falsifies the theory - If it's inconclusive, what kind of evidence would we need to find to either prove of falsify, and where would we look for it. Because you have dragged in Hancock and his "people" (whatever that means) into this, I find it really hard to have a constructive dialog with you about the actual evidence and theory. Do you have any interest in setting aside the big fat red herring? Here goes my best effort: "There are tons of people in the field right now developing the science and pursuing the truth." There are tons of people pursuing archeological excavations of the Richat structure? If not, then what novel theories are the archeology community pursuing? "Scientific Curiosity should never involve insisting something exists without evidence or any intention of looking for it." I am not doing that, and you are responding to me. I am asking about a theory and what evidence proves or disproves it. All science starts with observations and theories. My intention was to have a respectful dialog about the topic of the article, hoping I might learn something.