• Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Tuesday Aug 19, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST (date has been pushed). This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Graham Hancock and the ancient civilization theory

Do you think this theory is correct?


  • Total voters
    109
We disagree on Hancock's motives, but it's irrelevant to me and largely besides the point.

Agreed, he's made tens of millions compiling other people's work and I'm sure he's smiling all the way to the bank. His motives really don't matter to me anymore.

On point 2, perhaps I am lumping the most famous of archeological work (Egyptology) in with good field work done. Egyptology as it stands in the literature is generally a dogmatic religion. It's based on 19th century and early 20th century ideas. I am just going to assume you don't know what the "proofs" are for some of the assumptions made about Egypt specifically, because they are so bereft of substance in what they do assume that you're clearly uninformed if you use the line of logic "they know how to read hieroglyphics and you don't, thus they know more than you are"...99.9% of what we know has nothing to do with hieroglyphics, our understanding of their symbolic writing system is still largely considered mediocre, if not poor. Last on this, I don't mean to bash archeology or the people who do the work but their work is inherently difficult and they are largely guessing...and ideas are passed off as fact (i.e., Khufu built the great pyramid as a tomb for himself) when they are based on farcically little evidence from any normal "science" based perspective.

I am definitely not equating Egyptology with hard sciences where predictions are tested on a regular basis. I am though questioning your rigor and perhaps bias on this topic. Do you believe you have all the information and knowledge you require to make such a judgement on Egyptology?

I'm not going to relitigate the history of Overkill, it was the dominant theory for the longest time, period...you suggesting it wasn't is not even worth discussing really. There were always other theories, Overkill was always the dominant one, based on when humans SUPPOSEDLY (now incorrectly) populated the Americas. Regardless, it is now obviously a silly idea.

Why are you calling Overkill a theory? In Science there is a distinct difference between the two:

A hypothesis is a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. A theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors. A theory is always backed by evidence; a hypothesis is only a suggested possible outcome, and is testable and falsifiable.

Sure it had a following but Overkill was never ever the accepted theory by consensus among the experts and has always remained a hypothesis.
 
Agreed, he's made tens of millions compiling other people's work and I'm sure he's smiling all the way to the bank. His motives really don't matter to me anymore.



I am definitely not equating Egyptology with hard sciences where predictions are tested on a regular basis. I am though questioning your rigor and perhaps bias on this topic. Do you believe you have all the information and knowledge you require to make such a judgement on Egyptology?



Why are you calling Overkill a theory? In Science there is a distinct difference between the two:

A hypothesis is a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. A theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors. A theory is always backed by evidence; a hypothesis is only a suggested possible outcome, and is testable and falsifiable.

Sure it had a following but Overkill was never ever the accepted theory by consensus among the experts and has always remained a hypothesis.
Your critique on overkill amounts to a grammar correction. I used the wrong word. You got me there. It was the dominant hypothesis by those who study the issue, you are revisionist to the extreme on refuting that point. This, word usage and associated correction noted aside, is probably a moot issue and would be hard to quantify. I've been following this for a long time, Overkill is by far the most noted and recognized mainstream academia and popular idea in my experience. We can move on...you saying it wasn't the "accepted hypothesis" is you carefully choosing your words...because we both know there was no accepted hypothesis. It was always the most known and popular.

Regarding Egyptology and my criticism of the evidence used to direct thought towards the idea Khufu built the great pyramid in 20 years as a tomb, yes, I'm pretty well versed on why that is assumed and how bereft of depth the notion is. Are you or better, is it a notion you think is well backed up? There have recently been papyrus writings found by "gang" leaders at the time of Khufu suggesting movement of materials up the Nile towards Giza...and this material is added to the "evidence" already accrued to suggest indeed the tomb was being built. Never mind no mention of construction methods or whether this was ANOTHER restoration project (several of which are known) or the initial construction. Yet it gets called "further evidence"...yeah, further evidence on a poor, very old hypothesis.

Your appeal to authority argument regarding Egyptology doesn't refute what I'm saying about the Great Pyramid as tomb idea. I think if you were to examine the idea, you'd agree with me but im happy to discuss if you take specific issue with my general position that for an almost fully accepted hypothesis, the Khufus tomb idea is really poorly thought out.
 
Last edited:
Your critique on overkill amounts to a grammar correction. I used the wrong word. You got me there. It was the dominant hypothesis by those who study the issue, you are revisionist to the extreme on refuting that point. This, word usage and associated correction noted aside, is probably a moot issue and would be hard to quantify. I've been following this for a long time, Overkill is by far the most noted and recognized mainstream academia and popular idea in my experience. We can move on...you saying it wasn't the "accepted hypothesis" is you carefully choosing your words...because we both know there was no accepted hypothesis. It was always the most known and popular.

If our discussion was not centered around science my clarification would be pedantic as the words are used interchangeably. Since our discussion primarily revolved around science, the distinction had to be noted as the words have VERY different meanings. Overkill was a popular hypothesis but NEVER the accepted theory as there was a lot of criticism and not enough data. And yes, you're right there was no accepted consensus theory on this topic so you trying to suggest that mainstream archaeology/science was blatantly wrong on this is a little strange. But moving on...

Regarding Egyptology and my criticism of the evidence used to direct thought towards the idea Khufu built the great pyramid in 20 years as a tomb, yes, I'm pretty well versed on why that is assumed and how bereft of depth the notion is. Are you or better, is it a notion you think is well backed up? There have recently been papyrus writings found by "gang" leaders at the time of Khufu suggesting movement of materials up the Nile towards Giza...and this material is added to the "evidence" already accrued to suggest indeed the tomb was being built. Never mind no mention of construction methods or whether this was ANOTHER restoration project (several of which are known) or the initial construction. Yet it gets called "further evidence"...yeah, further evidence on a poor, very old hypothesis.

Your appeal to authority argument regarding Egyptology doesn't refute what I'm saying about the Great Pyramid as tomb idea. I think if you were to examine the idea, you'd agree with me but im happy to discuss if you take specific issue with my general position that for an almost fully accepted hypothesis, the Khufus tomb idea is really poorly thought out.

I have never looked at any of the evidence regarding Khufu's tomb and I'm not sure why it's being brought up now. Is your position just a critique of Egyptology/Archaeology or do you have your own theory as to who built the pyramids?
 
If our discussion was not centered around science my clarification would be pedantic as the words are used interchangeably. Since our discussion primarily revolved around science, the distinction had to be noted as the words have VERY different meanings. Overkill was a popular hypothesis but NEVER the accepted theory as there was a lot of criticism and not enough data. And yes, you're right there was no accepted consensus theory on this topic so you trying to suggest that mainstream archaeology/science was blatantly wrong on this is a little strange. But moving on...



I have never looked at any of the evidence regarding Khufu's tomb and I'm not sure why it's being brought up now. Is your position just a critique of Egyptology/Archaeology or do you have your own theory as to who built the pyramids?
Your pointing out my incorrect usage of theory v hypothesis was totally warranted. I'm used to colloquialisms like "tomb theory" and I used it incorrectly given you've engaged on a bit higher level than most do on this topic...let's face it, and I share some blame, but subjects like these normally devolve into nonsense and you corrected my lowering of the discourse. All good and fair in retrospect there.

Regarding overkill, it's being relegated, rightfully so, to at best second fiddle to a far and away first place culprit...natural catastrophe including a sudden 1200 year winter essentially. We're lucky we made it through the onset, duration and termination of the Younger Dryas. It was severe.

I really have looked at the architecture in Egypt closely as an amateur and have developed a pretty nuanced view of things I'm pretty secure in...in so far as what is clearly known vs what clearly has the signs of fudgery and questionable conclusions. I bag on professional Egyptology but mostly it's just a distaste for dogmatic beliefs and a few people at the top who reflect poorly on things...there are ideas within it that haven't changed with the times. There plenty of people doing amazing work, that shouldn't get lost.

You're not gonna get me to give some idea about the pyramids at Giza, regarding how, why and when but I can tell you what I know in disparate hard fact if you want to have a go at it? It's actually, in my humble opinion, probably not a tomb for Khufu and thus probably not built in twenty years, but I wouldn't take the accomplishment away from old kingdom Egypt. The real problem and hard thing to explain isn't the 2.3m out blocks (the sheer amount of stone is befuddling but uncomplicated in certain respects)...it's the sophistication of the internal structure, materials used and the fact that it is utterly unrecognizable in function. The orthodox explanations are really lazy given what we're looking at inside.

I went to
 
They rudely cut granite slabs as an example that it could be done. they did not even start polishing it.
The Romans moved blocks of around 650-700 ton (which is why I said just shy of the 800 tons of Baalbek) and while the romans had cranes, sometimes using several in conjunction to overcome the weight-limits of one, they preferred the timetested method of making ramps and drag the stones in place and then remove the ramps.
Yes it is impractical and time consuming to move large stones, but it sure is impressive when they are in place -and that is the point of doing it. Atleast when the point of huge blocks of stones is not to be a retaining wall to stabilize ground for buildings (then the more massive the stone the better) -as in Baalbek.
The problem with the granite boxes being hermetically sealed is that they never remotely was. It is a made up lie that ancient aliens true-believers cannot seem to get let go. They. Were.Not Hermetically.Sealed.stone. Nor do they have perfect angles, they are not perfectly smooth, they are not flawless.

STFU and go away. Moron!

You can't precisely cut granite with copper, lol 4mm an hour with a copper saw is a joke, . The Romans weren't lifting 16k ton blocks.








These guys are saying it's precisely cut and air tight. I haven't seen anything proves they are wrong.
 
Last edited:
Reading about the Hypothesis now and it looks like it's still far from being considered a Theory with a lot of research still needed to be done. A criticism I found to be curious:

"A study of Paleoindian demography found no evidence of a population decline among the Paleoindians at 12,900 ± 100 BP, which was inconsistent with predictions of an impact event.[32] They suggested that the hypothesis would probably need to be revised.[33][34] "

Not sure how the ancient PaleoIndians could survive relatively untouched but this more advanced civilization could be wiped out.
Hunter gatherer way of life is very resilient against natural catastrophes, in general. Not a defense of Hancock, by the way. Just a sidenote.

edit: oh my god I didn't check the dates on this thread please don't hate me
 
Of course he's correct. I can basically destroy an logical argument to the contrary.

Human beings are AT LEAST 200k years old in modern form. That means you take a homo sapien sapien from 150k years ago, dress him up in modern clothes and give him a shave, he's exactly the same as we are today. Same brain case, same everything. Should we expect they weren't similarly ambitious and attempting all the same progress we are today?

You're going to honestly argue, and academia does, that advanced* civilization hasn't risen and fallen several times in those time periods between us and 200k years ago? Gimme a break. And it just so happens we know absolutely nothing about what was going on before the Younger Dryas cold snap (mild description of an event that would cripple our current civilization).

Ambition was always there, you don't get innovators and inventors that often now with a huge population and easily attainable information. And without the written language you're just not gonna pass on ideas very well, every idea is an adjacent step from something previous. Inventions have been exponentially rising until sometime in the mid 20th century during recorded history.

I like that idea, I want it to be so... but if you look at what they cultivated when agriculture became a thing that matches up with the story we've all been told. Same goes for skeleton's we got small, sick and weak when we went from hunter-gatherers to farmers. If you find bones that show anything similair to that from before 10000 BC then that's undeniable proof to anyone... where is it?
 
The theory itself is interesting, but Graham Hancock is too much of a hack for me to believe his words.
 
Ambition was always there, you don't get innovators and inventors that often now with a huge population and easily attainable information. And without the written language you're just not gonna pass on ideas very well, every idea is an adjacent step from something previous. Inventions have been exponentially rising until sometime in the mid 20th century during recorded history.

I like that idea, I want it to be so... but if you look at what they cultivated when agriculture became a thing that matches up with the story we've all been told. Same goes for skeleton's we got small, sick and weak when we went from hunter-gatherers to farmers. If you find bones that show anything similair to that from before 10000 BC then that's undeniable proof to anyone... where is it?
Few things...

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the human fossil record. Specifically, how little of it exists. Basing a general understanding of human populations on fossils is ridiculous because the record is incredibly sparse.

Inventions have not been linearly rising since Sumer and Egypt. Not at all. There have been humongous dips in sophistication along the way. And for long periods of time. We now know that Egypt was doing basically everything and more than the Greeks mathematically (for example), no ideas original, there's nothing new under the sun, etc...

You assertion about written language is also lacking perspective. Nobody has any assertive knowledge there was no written language...it's origins are completely unknown.

Just as Clovis First died a predictable debt despite being such a "certainty", so will Sumer as the origin of civilization. It makes zero logical sense that civilization with agriculture only began 7-9k years ago but could not develop in the previous 95% of modern human existence. Our "invention of agriculture" and civilization also just happens to have occurred directly subsequent the greatest mass extinction of mega fauna since the death of the dinosaurs. Probably not a coincidence that we know next to nothing about what humans were doing culturally prior to 12.8k years ago, when the world literally got destroyed.
 
Just started his new book. This will be my 4th book of his I've read. Graham is awesome. Such a humble, down to earth guy too every time I've corresponded with him. Dude mailed me an autographed book tag from England to my house for his last book. He didn't have to do that shit.
 
Few things...

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the human fossil record. Specifically, how little of it exists. Basing a general understanding of human populations on fossils is ridiculous because the record is incredibly sparse.

Inventions have not been linearly rising since Sumer and Egypt. Not at all. There have been humongous dips in sophistication along the way. And for long periods of time. We now know that Egypt was doing basically everything and more than the Greeks mathematically (for example), no ideas original, there's nothing new under the sun, etc...

You assertion about written language is also lacking perspective. Nobody has any assertive knowledge there was no written language...it's origins are completely unknown.

Just as Clovis First died a predictable debt despite being such a "certainty", so will Sumer as the origin of civilization. It makes zero logical sense that civilization with agriculture only began 7-9k years ago but could not develop in the previous 95% of modern human existence. Our "invention of agriculture" and civilization also just happens to have occurred directly subsequent the greatest mass extinction of mega fauna since the death of the dinosaurs. Probably not a coincidence that we know next to nothing about what humans were doing culturally prior to 12.8k years ago, when the world literally got destroyed.

I do not missunderstand the human fossil record. We have bones enough to see what happened. People got smaller from a onesided diet, we know this. It would happen every time agriculture started if it happened more than once. 20000 years ago, 30000 years ago 40000 years ago. We would have seen it. Even if it's small none (as far as I know) show the signs of agriculture, so do you think they lived parallell with farmers and it just happened that the remains we were able to find showed no signs of it?

You are right about the written language, no way to prove they didn't use one from further back. Probably easiest to write on some hide or clay, same with what tools were invented out of wood. But from cavepaintings we can tell they did not have a written language, so if it happened it happened pretty near the 12.8k years ago, got "lost" and the found out again. I'm not sure that's more or less logical than the other explanation, but probably one of the things you'd make sure to carry on once you knew it, second best invention after speech.

I don't think they knew more than the Greeks. But they were advanced and it is very impressive what they managed to do. Like I said I want to believe this happened and Egypt is one thing that seems a bit off, Gobleki Tepi too I guess.

You make a good point about agriculture showing up soon thereafter, but if it was discovered earlier I still think it would have just kept going even if there was major impacts that ruined a lot, it's pretty hard thing to reset/forget once you know it.

They have found wild barley from before 12k8 years ago, and no remains of our "modern" wheat.

Same thing happens in modern time, all our technology gets destroyed, only 10% survive... do we lose writing and farming in the process?

Personally I'm not so sure it was even such a great idea, you lived a better life as a hunter gatherer (compared to an ancient farmer), besides the uncertainty of food supply which if we would have stayed with it would have improved too with better long distance weapons and traps.
 
Could it be that the asteroidial impact 12800 years ago became the reason for agriculture? You've lived a good life hunting, living in a tribe (easy to see how inovation doesn't happen that often if you live together 50-150 people and main concern is food for the day). Then one day asteroids left in our solar system impacts earth. They could have all been wiped out, better get a surplus of food so we know we'll survive if it happens again.

They found that cave in France which Neanderthals and then humans occupied up to 10000 years ago (Neanderthals 40000 years ago). I don't think there has ever been anything written in a language, only expression in carvings, clay and stone figures.

Agriculture made humans small and weak. According to http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence:

"Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years. Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record tell about where and how early humans lived and when certain technological innovations were invented."

I don't think anything shows the effects of agriculture, which also lead to way worse teeth with more cavities, and teeth is if not the then one of the most commonly found pieces of human fossils. None of them point to anything like that happening before that time.

Graham has that thing about there being markings of rainfall on rocks used when the Sphinx was built. We had stone tools for a long ass time, it's not impossible to think they carved a bunch of rocks long time ago and those were the first rocks already there and used when they constructed the Sphinx? I'm not saying I know that it's so, it was a long time since I've listened to him, I like the idea and I think someone who actually know their shit should debate Graham on a podcast so people could understand this better (I know very little, I don't believe agriculture was invented more than once because that and writing you'd never forget. But I like his idea, I wanted to believe it, but I can't.).

I'm not against anyone who thinks otherwise, I would like to know what proof there is for this theory, seems like very little, but there might be things I'm not aware of.
 
Just started his new book. This will be my 4th book of his I've read. Graham is awesome. Such a humble, down to earth guy too every time I've corresponded with him. Dude mailed me an autographed book tag from England to my house for his last book. He didn't have to do that shit.
The people that ad hom attack him and call him a "hack" are just parroting something that some "skeptic" said...none of them have actually ever looked at his body of compilation data work (which is extremely professional and well composed) nor have they ever cared to examine the incredible amount of direct field work he has done in the area of archeology. His field experience would make 95% of professional archeologists blush with envy. This motherfucking did 300+ open water dives in challenging professional diving conditions. He has incredible cajones and walks the walk, despite whether one agrees with his conclusions.
 
The people that ad hom attack him and call him a "hack" are just parroting something that some "skeptic" said...none of them have actually ever looked at his body of compilation data work (which is extremely professional and well composed) nor have they ever cared to examine the incredible amount of direct field work he has done in the area of archeology. His field experience would make 95% of professional archeologists blush with envy. This motherfucking did 300+ open water dives in challenging professional diving conditions. He has incredible cajones and walks the walk, despite whether one agrees with his conclusions.

Yeh he is the real deal. The guy has lived an extraordinary life. If you haven't picked up America Before, I recommend it. I'm only a couple chapters in but it's classic Graham.
 
I do not missunderstand the human fossil record. We have bones enough to see what happened. People got smaller from a onesided diet, we know this. It would happen every time agriculture started if it happened more than once. 20000 years ago, 30000 years ago 40000 years ago. We would have seen it. Even if it's small none (as far as I know) show the signs of agriculture, so do you think they lived parallell with farmers and it just happened that the remains we were able to find showed no signs of it?

You are right about the written language, no way to prove they didn't use one from further back. Probably easiest to write on some hide or clay, same with what tools were invented out of wood. But from cavepaintings we can tell they did not have a written language, so if it happened it happened pretty near the 12.8k years ago, got "lost" and the found out again. I'm not sure that's more or less logical than the other explanation, but probably one of the things you'd make sure to carry on once you knew it, second best invention after speech.

I don't think they knew more than the Greeks. But they were advanced and it is very impressive what they managed to do. Like I said I want to believe this happened and Egypt is one thing that seems a bit off, Gobleki Tepi too I guess.

You make a good point about agriculture showing up soon thereafter, but if it was discovered earlier I still think it would have just kept going even if there was major impacts that ruined a lot, it's pretty hard thing to reset/forget once you know it.

They have found wild barley from before 12k8 years ago, and no remains of our "modern" wheat.

Same thing happens in modern time, all our technology gets destroyed, only 10% survive... do we lose writing and farming in the process?

Personally I'm not so sure it was even such a great idea, you lived a better life as a hunter gatherer (compared to an ancient farmer), besides the uncertainty of food supply which if we would have stayed with it would have improved too with better long distance weapons and traps.
this is all very reasonable, certainly a level headed examination regardless of whether we agree point for point. To preface any long discussion we might have, I don't think there was some incredible level of advancement in prehistory that would mirror our own today that we are just somehow not seeing the remnants of. I do think that tracks of development can vary wildly though, and that while for instance they may not have pursued plastics and fossil fuel usage, they made have made other inroads technologically that we do not understand or follow today, but if we knew about would consider them very advanced...I can speculate on this but it really boils down to the values of a society.

I disagree on the completeness of the fossil record, but that isn't worth arguing over, your points aren't completely invalid just because I think the sample size is way too small.

Your point about cave paintings regarding written language is just suggestive of certain, probably small or isolated, populations at certain times not having writing. It could be indicative of what was going on throughout the world, but it's too small a window to view it through.

Egypt is incredibly hard to understand, not only because we know very little in truth about the Old Kingdom, but because a lot of the orthodox narratives muddy the conversation because while accepted academically, some of the ideas are patently ridiculous and based on ridiculous reasoning/"evidence".

There is simply no modern equivalent to the events surround the Younger Dryas epoch of time (12.8k to 11.6k ybp)...nothing even remotely close. Which accounts for why we should expect to find literally almost nothing from what transpired prior other than what essentially amounts to the rubble of the former world (sounds like hyperbole, I'm happy to go into why it is an understatement if anything).
 
Yeh he is the real deal. The guy has lived an extraordinary life. If you haven't picked up America Before, I recommend it. I'm only a couple chapters in but it's classic Graham.
Have it, haven't had the time to read it...well, just been into other shit, IE,a wife, raising a 3 year old and a 10 year old plus a job lol.
 
Could it be that the asteroidial impact 12800 years ago became the reason for agriculture? You've lived a good life hunting, living in a tribe (easy to see how inovation doesn't happen that often if you live together 50-150 people and main concern is food for the day). Then one day asteroids left in our solar system impacts earth. They could have all been wiped out, better get a surplus of food so we know we'll survive if it happens again.

They found that cave in France which Neanderthals and then humans occupied up to 10000 years ago (Neanderthals 40000 years ago). I don't think there has ever been anything written in a language, only expression in carvings, clay and stone figures.

Agriculture made humans small and weak. According to http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence:

"Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years. Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record tell about where and how early humans lived and when certain technological innovations were invented."

I don't think anything shows the effects of agriculture, which also lead to way worse teeth with more cavities, and teeth is if not the then one of the most commonly found pieces of human fossils. None of them point to anything like that happening before that time.

Graham has that thing about there being markings of rainfall on rocks used when the Sphinx was built. We had stone tools for a long ass time, it's not impossible to think they carved a bunch of rocks long time ago and those were the first rocks already there and used when they constructed the Sphinx? I'm not saying I know that it's so, it was a long time since I've listened to him, I like the idea and I think someone who actually know their shit should debate Graham on a podcast so people could understand this better (I know very little, I don't believe agriculture was invented more than once because that and writing you'd never forget. But I like his idea, I wanted to believe it, but I can't.).

I'm not against anyone who thinks otherwise, I would like to know what proof there is for this theory, seems like very little, but there might be things I'm not aware of.
Not to get too far into the weeds, though I will if necessary, but the erosion on the sphinx isn't an issue of Graham vs. other people...it's an issue of geology vs. orthodox egyptological history that was formed in the late 1800's/early 1900's. What most people don't understand about Egyptology is that while filled with many very competent people, it is hardly a hard science (as some portray it to be). It's art history, and again, it's filled with very smart people, but also some very dogmatic and antiquated (literally and figuratively) ideas.

Part of the paradox with advancing the idea of previously unknown civilizations falls squarely on the shoulders of the still emerging science behind the geological events that occurred which caused the Younger Dryas. As severe as it was, and everyone agrees is was bizarrely and unusually severe where HALF of the animals over 125 lbs in body weight went extinct so fast they couldn't reproduce, we still don't have definitive causation for the period. Anything that extreme by definition leaves a fog sitting behind it. While civilization development may have never risen prior to the younger dryas, we do know that we should not expect to find much if any trace of it after understanding the events that caused and how extreme they really were.

For perspective, if the YD event occurred today, 10k years from now future anthropologists would be sifting through the rubble trying to determine what we were doing and if we had even been here. Our civilization would come to an end overnight.

Just for your food for thought, a funny coincidence (if there are such things on this level accuracy) that is now well understood revolves around Plato's exact dating of the "fall (sinking) of atlantis"...in his dialogues of Criteas and Timeaus, he pegs a date of 9600bc...in other words, 11,600 years ago...in other words, the culmination event of the scientifically known period...the Younger Dryas end, where global temps rose as much as 16 degrees F within 10 years (max), and could have happened literally in as little as weeks or months (the ice core recording data can't peg things down to that accuracy, but it's possible). It's funny to me because Plato is one of our most prized historical accountants...except when it comes to atlantis. Interesting.
 
Have it, haven't had the time to read it...well, just been into other shit, IE,a wife, raising a 3 year old and a 10 year old plus a job lol.

Audiobooks are great when you're busy. I was a delivery driver for awhile and I'd blow through 3-4 books a week at work.
 
this is all very reasonable, certainly a level headed examination regardless of whether we agree point for point. To preface any long discussion we might have, I don't think there was some incredible level of advancement in prehistory that would mirror our own today that we are just somehow not seeing the remnants of. I do think that tracks of development can vary wildly though, and that while for instance they may not have pursued plastics and fossil fuel usage, they made have made other inroads technologically that we do not understand or follow today, but if we knew about would consider them very advanced...I can speculate on this but it really boils down to the values of a society.

I disagree on the completeness of the fossil record, but that isn't worth arguing over, your points aren't completely invalid just because I think the sample size is way too small.

Your point about cave paintings regarding written language is just suggestive of certain, probably small or isolated, populations at certain times not having writing. It could be indicative of what was going on throughout the world, but it's too small a window to view it through.

Egypt is incredibly hard to understand, not only because we know very little in truth about the Old Kingdom, but because a lot of the orthodox narratives muddy the conversation because while accepted academically, some of the ideas are patently ridiculous and based on ridiculous reasoning/"evidence".

There is simply no modern equivalent to the events surround the Younger Dryas epoch of time (12.8k to 11.6k ybp)...nothing even remotely close. Which accounts for why we should expect to find literally almost nothing from what transpired prior other than what essentially amounts to the rubble of the former world (sounds like hyperbole, I'm happy to go into why it is an understatement if anything).

Absolutely, I don't think anyone of us will "win" this argument. But I think my understading of it will be better for it. Fossil record isn't huge, but most common the more recent. 40k->10k years ago way more fossils than half a million to six million years ago. Teeth which will tell us if they had agriculture or not are plentyful. Thousands of teeth from that time, that's not enough?

What is the explanation for the lost knowledge of written language and agriculture. Despite the impact, we, a lot of animals and plants did survive, so why not grow where other things were still growing? If someone made a crossbow, a fishing net or some great footwear and that shit gets lost in time I can readily accept that... but the way you've gotten your food since you've been in existence (individual born when agriculture was already a thing), you lost that? I don't understand how that could ever happen.
 
Not to get too far into the weeds, though I will if necessary, but the erosion on the sphinx isn't an issue of Graham vs. other people...it's an issue of geology vs. orthodox egyptological history that was formed in the late 1800's/early 1900's. What most people don't understand about Egyptology is that while filled with many very competent people, it is hardly a hard science (as some portray it to be). It's art history, and again, it's filled with very smart people, but also some very dogmatic and antiquated (literally and figuratively) ideas.

Part of the paradox with advancing the idea of previously unknown civilizations falls squarely on the shoulders of the still emerging science behind the geological events that occurred which caused the Younger Dryas. As severe as it was, and everyone agrees is was bizarrely and unusually severe where HALF of the animals over 125 lbs in body weight went extinct so fast they couldn't reproduce, we still don't have definitive causation for the period. Anything that extreme by definition leaves a fog sitting behind it. While civilization development may have never risen prior to the younger dryas, we do know that we should not expect to find much if any trace of it after understanding the events that caused and how extreme they really were.

For perspective, if the YD event occurred today, 10k years from now future anthropologists would be sifting through the rubble trying to determine what we were doing and if we had even been here. Our civilization would come to an end overnight.

Just for your food for thought, a funny coincidence (if there are such things on this level accuracy) that is now well understood revolves around Plato's exact dating of the "fall (sinking) of atlantis"...in his dialogues of Criteas and Timeaus, he pegs a date of 9600bc...in other words, 11,600 years ago...in other words, the culmination event of the scientifically known period...the Younger Dryas end, where global temps rose as much as 16 degrees F within 10 years (max), and could have happened literally in as little as weeks or months (the ice core recording data can't peg things down to that accuracy, but it's possible). It's funny to me because Plato is one of our most prized historical accountants...except when it comes to atlantis. Interesting.

Yes, I don't understand why they just don't set up a debate. But that's usually just two people of different opinion not listening to one another.

What do you mean our civilization would come to an end? There would still be survivors even though most would be ill prepared for it, and a lot of people would starve to death no doubt. But sow and reap, fishing and hunting would still keep people alive, it is only lost if everyone dies.

I'm sure the story from Plato was based on a true story somewhat. It becomes a little bit like grandma's telephone, but over a couple of thousand years, there could have been a pretty sophisticated civilization that got flushed into the sea, written language can have been around... well I don't know how far back really. I don't know if it could have been carved in rock and just eradicated by latest ice age for instance, and only old stuff in caves remains. But that cave in France shows animation (using the campfire) (they show it at the end of Cave of Forgotten Dreams), but not a single letter. Not everyone alive on earth during that time could write though I'm sure, since that's still a thing today.

There seems to be different camps regarding if that impact has even happened. I was not aware, I've never seen anything but support for it up until today. Just shows how little everyone can fully agree on.
 
Back
Top