There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[stevevw]

You know this how? (answer, you don't.)

No I don't. But the logic is based on the fact that we have been digging for centuries. Grave robbers have been looking in all nooks and crannies. Lidar has helped identify more sites.

But heres the opposing claim I was responding to. That not finding any more of these precision vases must mean they are fake. So why did you not make comment on such a speculative claim from your side. You seem to be monioring the posts. Or are you only monitoring one side.

Which is a conspiracy theory.

Give me a break. Do you honestly think the authorities of anything are always transparent. Thats the real consipracy. You are in reality peddling a conspiracy by claiming that authorities are always honest and trasnparent about what information they all out. That they have no vested interests. Your making humans gods.

Cairo: Egyptology in crisis
Hawass quickly became tainted along with the crumbling regime and was engulfed by damaging charges of corruption and mismanagement. On Sunday 17 July, Hawass was abruptly sacked as the Minister of State for Antiquities Affairs in an overhaul of the country’s cabinet, and his controversial reign as one of the most powerful men in the archaeological world finally came to an end.

Cairo: Egyptology in crisis - World Archaeology

As the Arab Spring flooded through Egypt’s Tahrir Square, the old political order was swept away – and with it went Egyptology’s most controversial exponent, Dr Zahi Hawass. Tom St John Gray followed events earlier this year and now considers the consequences.

www.world-archaeology.com

Now thats not whacko's saying this. This was generally acknowledged.

New sites are found with some regularity. Additionally many sites have not been fully explored and certainly all known dig sites have not been fully excavated, often intentionally.

I just think the whole idea of using the fact that we need to do more escavations which may or may not happen and when may or may not turn up more precision vases means these vases are not real and came from a neolithic time in pre dynastic Egypt.

In fact counting all the out of place signatures we have enough already discovered works to do heaps of investigation on. I agree we are discovering new potential sites through tech like beneath the pyramids or undiscovered chambers in the Giza pyramid. Or the pyramids ability to generate energy in various forms such as acoustically.

Petrie may have discovered the legendary Aswan Labyrith. But so far escavation has been denied. The Labyrith was said to rival the pyramids in magnificance and technological feat. But I guess this is another whacko conspiracy theory that even Petrie thought true.

Sorry, this is absolutely not how science is done. If you want to know the properties of genuine vases you have to examine all of them in some group (like a particular find,

How does this happen when everyone is complaining about providence. We may be lucky to find a couple of dozen to test after excluding all private vases and what is made available to testers from museums.

They test what is given to them and appreciate what has been allowed. Like the rediculous and unreal call for blind tests by those arguing with you. But its the same bias. All this restriction you want to place on those who investigate something you don't believe possible as a piori lol. You would not place thes restrictions on those supporting your ideas and assumptions.

If you want to find out the particular proprtird of particular vases proported to be Egyptian or from the Naqada culture then you home in on the ones that will most likely meet this criteria. There are literally 1,000s of vases we can be simple eyesight rule out and its a complete waste of time and money to do so. They can be immediately discounted.

The Naqada culture and into the 1st dynasties pottery and vases have literally over 100,000 items. Stone vases, pots, dishes and the like number in 10.s of 1,000s. Are you seriously suggesting that we cannot know that these vases are precise unless we measure 10, 20, 50 or 80,000 vases.

or from a specific region or time).

Even the specific region and time includes 10's of 1,000s of vases. There was some 40,000 plus just under the Stepped pyramid ranging from soft alabasta imprecise vases that you can see by eyesight and 1,000s of potentially precise vases including I would say 100,000 plus vase fragments like this one I linked earlier. They are also found under Mastaba 17 a predynastic pyramid like this one

Now lets forget about how exactly precise the method was. The circular marks clearly show some sort of very stable turning going on. PS and its not from a bore stick or bow drill as this was not available or even invented yet until late in the Old Kingdom.

So how many vases should we test from these sites. All of them or make a selection of them and if we want to show the precision choose the ones most likely to look like they would come close. Yeah tests a few softer hand made ones just to show they are different. But they are from the same site. Heck we even have an image of one from done on the site itself above.

Selecting only the "best" objects is *bad* science. What do you think would be learned if we only examine the hardest rocks, or the brightest stars, or the largest spiders? SMH.

Thats a silly comparison. For one theres 101 things you could study about a spider lol. Its legs compared to others. But even thats a specific thing. But the spider itself has many aspects. Whereas the vases if determining methodology is really a pretty single dimensional target. We have stone shaped in various hardnesses. Thats it. Thats precision tooling and machining science only.

If you wanted to find out something specific about the bightest stars or hardest rocks then including other stuff like softest rocks or dim stars will distort your study.

We already know there are less precise vases in softer stones. We can eliminate all softer stone vases. We could eliminate all times except the time period targeted.

We can do seperate studies of softer stones or include a couple in the precision tests as done by Max and others. I think for some reasons the strutiny over researchers testi9ng ideas that fall outside the generally accepted ideas causes them to suddenly increase the criteria to unreal proportions. I don't think they would demand such criterai for similar situations that were confirming their assumptions.

Karoly's plan is much better than yours unless he is also planning a "quality cut" to the object selection in those museums.

Lol so the museum only allows around 10 vases per session and the aim is to find precision vases. You want to include known imprecise vases in that 10. How many lol. Is one enough or will you complain that its not enough. If the vases are in the museums and have good providence from the period they are displayed under and look like they would more likely be precise.

Why would they choose obvious imprecise ones. We have already studied the imprecise ones as we have tons of them. Seriously is that the conditions your stipulating on these testers. That they waste their precise opportunity to tests a few vases in museums on vases we already know are imprecise to just confirm their imprecise. Seems unreal.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No I don't. But the logic is based on the fact that we have been digging for centuries. Grave robbers have been looking in all nooks and crannies. Lidar has helped identify more sites.

Your claim that (almost) everything ancient in Egypt is already dug up is NONSENSE. As I said, new sites are still being found and unknown parts of existing sites are still being found, and plenty of known things that haven't yet been excavated still exist. In. Egypt.

But heres the opposing claim I was responding to. That not finding any more of these precision vases must mean they are fake.

Those two things do not correlate.

So why did you not make comment on such a speculative claim from your side. You seem to be monioring the posts. Or are you only monitoring one side.

There is not a "your side", Steve. There is just you and the people you are arguing with. I read most of the other posts responding to you, but not always all of them. I read less of what you write back to them (TL;DR occurs a lot). I always eventually read what you wrote to me.

Give me a break. Do you honestly think the authorities of anything are always transparent. Thats the real consipracy. You are in reality peddling a conspiracy by claiming that authorities are always honest and trasnparent about what information they all out. That they have no vested interests.

Way to infer things that weren't implied. SMH. Your original "they are hiding things from us" is paranoid conspiracy speculation.

Your making humans gods.

I'm not interested in making gods. That's your thing.

Cairo: Egyptology in crisis
Hawass quickly became tainted along with the crumbling regime and was engulfed by damaging charges of corruption and mismanagement. On Sunday 17 July, Hawass was abruptly sacked as the Minister of State for Antiquities Affairs in an overhaul of the country’s cabinet, and his controversial reign as one of the most powerful men in the archaeological world finally came to an end.

Cairo: Egyptology in crisis - World Archaeology

As the Arab Spring flooded through Egypt’s Tahrir Square, the old political order was swept away – and with it went Egyptology’s most controversial exponent, Dr Zahi Hawass. Tom St John Gray followed events earlier this year and now considers the consequences.

www.world-archaeology.com

Now thats not whacko's saying this. This was generally acknowledged.

What's the conspiracy supposed to be in that article? I didn't spot one.

I just think the whole idea of using the fact that we need to do more escavations which may or may not happen and when may or may not turn up more precision vases means these vases are not real and came from a neolithic time in pre dynastic Egypt.

@Stopped_lurking makes a good point, or rather implies a good question. When new high status graves from this period (predynastic to early dynastic) are found do they contain hard stone vases? If they do, they should be examined and tested. If they don't, or contain very few, why is that the case? Is this related to possible fakes in private collections? I don't know, but the questions are interesting.

For some reason your reply to my comment about new sites and digs you continued...

In fact counting all the out of place signatures we have enough already discovered works to do heaps of investigation on. I agree we are discovering new potential sites through tech like beneath the pyramids or undiscovered chambers in the Giza pyramid.

There is no "tech" below the pyramids.

Or the pyramids ability to generate energy in various forms such as acoustically.

Pyramids *DO NOT* generate energy. Both of these are nutso claims from pyramid freaks that have been around for decades. Do you want us to take you seriously, or not?

Petrie may have discovered the legendary Aswan Labyrith. But so far escavation has been denied. The Labyrith was said to rival the pyramids in magnificance and technological feat. But I guess this is another whacko conspiracy theory that even Petrie thought true.

Did you watch another "unchartedX" video? Sigh.

Now we get to your response to my criticism of the "find the best looking vases" scanning plan as bad science.

How does this happen when everyone is complaining about providence.

No one else is talking about "providence", just you. The rest of us are concerned about the provenance of objects for good reasons. These words are not the same. Please learn the difference.

We may be lucky to find a couple of dozen to test after excluding all private vases and what is made available to testers from museums.

Ideally all would be taken from a single cache, like a royal tomb with lots of objects to randomly sample.

They test what is given to them and appreciate what has been allowed. Like the rediculous and unreal call for blind tests by those arguing with you.

I'm not calling for blind tests. I am calling for uniform sampling. The sampling you are proposing is anything but uniform and unbiased.

But its the same bias.

It isn't.

All this restriction you want to place on those who investigate something you don't believe possible as a piori lol.

You are projecting it onto me. I am not involved in this testing nor do I have any plans to get involved with it. I question the claims made by your vase buddies, but that is irrelevant as I am not designing or executing a research plan. You are talking about a research plan that has confirmation bias built into it. That is *BAD* science.

You would not place thes restrictions on those supporting your ideas and assumptions.

I absolutely would. That's how science works.

If you want to find out the particular proprtird of particular vases proported to be Egyptian or from the Naqada culture then you home in on the ones that will most likely meet this criteria. There are literally 1,000s of vases we can be simple eyesight rule out and its a complete waste of time and money to do so. They can be immediately discounted.

Nope. You catalog the general features of an entire find and then take a balanced sample (by size, style, stone type, etc.) for detailed testing. Interesting questions include things like are softer stone objects more or less circular than hard stone objects. What about smaller verses larger? Etc. That is how you design a scientific study.

The Naqada culture and into the 1st dynasties pottery and vases have literally over 100,000 items. Stone vases, pots, dishes and the like number in 10.s of 1,000s. Are you seriously suggesting that we cannot know that these vases are precise unless we measure 10, 20, 50 or 80,000 vases.

Good. Plenty of objects to draw a sample from. That sample has to be at least dozens, perhaps a couple hundred.

Even the specific region and time includes 10's of 1,000s of vases. There was some 40,000 plus just under the Stepped pyramid ranging from soft alabasta imprecise vases that you can see by eyesight and 1,000s of potentially precise vases including I would say 100,000 plus vase fragments like this one I linked earlier.

Don't trust your eyes. MEASURE. Science works on measurement not "eyeballing".

They are also found under Mastaba 17 a predynastic pyramid like this one

View attachment 371712

Now lets forget about how exactly precise the method was. The circular marks clearly show some sort of very stable turning going on. PS and its not from a bore stick or bow drill as this was not available or even invented yet until late in the Old Kingdom.

I was talking about sampling and you give a picture of a single object. Do you not understand what sampling is?

So how many vases should we test from these sites.

I gave a number above.

All of them or make a selection of them and if we want to show the precision choose the ones most likely to look like they would come close.

No, not that would "come close" to some idea of perfection. Ones that cover the variety of objects. The kind of testing you have in mind would probably need to exclude broken or damaged objects.

Yeah tests a few softer hand made ones just to show they are different. But they are from the same site. Heck we even have an image of one from done on the site itself above.

Absolutely the sample should contain objects of the different materials. That's how you tell if they are different -- measure both types.

Thats a silly comparison.

It certainly isn't. As I said you clearly don't know anything study design. That's fine. I just wish you would be OK admitting it.

For one theres 101 things you could study about a spider lol. Its legs compared to others. But even thats a specific thing. But the spider itself has many aspects. Whereas the vases if determining methodology is really a pretty single dimensional target. We have stone shaped in various hardnesses. Thats it. Thats precision tooling and machining science only.

If you wanted to find out something specific about the bightest stars or hardest rocks then including other stuff like softest rocks or dim stars will distort your study.

Before you can do a study of O-type main sequence stars you need to know how to define them and what is different about then and say ZZ Ceti stars or your study will be useless.

We already know there are less precise vases in softer stones. We can eliminate all softer stone vases.

No you can't. The difference between hard and soft stone objects is quite important if you want to eventually draw conclusions about construction methodology.

We could eliminate all times except the time period targeted.

If you can determine it, this would certainly be an actually reasonable selection criterion as it would eventually narrow the time period tested. Alternatively objects could be group by time period to see how they differ or are similar.

We can do seperate studies of softer stones or include a couple in the precision tests as done by Max and others.

Different kinds of stone: good. Mixing in measurements from different studies: Problematic.

I think for some reasons the strutiny over researchers testi9ng ideas that fall outside the generally accepted ideas causes them to suddenly increase the criteria to unreal proportions. I don't think they would demand such criterai for similar situations that were confirming their assumptions.

Huh?

Lol so the museum only allows around 10 vases per session and the aim is to find precision vases. You want to include known imprecise vases in that 10. How many lol.

They aren't "known imprecise vases until they have been demonstrated to be so by measurement.

Is one enough or will you complain that its not enough. If the vases are in the museums and have good providence from the period they are displayed under and look like they would more likely be precise.

Documentation on each object will be needed.

Why would they choose obvious imprecise ones. We have already studied the imprecise ones as we have tons of them. Seriously is that the conditions your stipulating on these testers. That they waste their precise opportunity to tests a few vases in museums on vases we already know are imprecise to just confirm their imprecise. Seems unreal.

To repeat a third time: If you don't measure you don't know. Knowledge comes from measurement, not hope. I'm sorry if science is too hard for you and the vase guys. (OK, not that sorry. Buck up, buttercups.)

 

[stevevw]

Now that we have gone back to images of cuts in rocks here is a statue of Bahubali one of the largest free standing monolithic statues carved from granite and completed around 980 AD.

View attachment 371693
​

(The fig leaf is a modern day construction not to upset conservative Christian sensitivities).

I'm more impressed that they managed to cultivate such a plant with the perfect foil lol. They could have at least done it in stone to keep in line with the statue.

How do you know that even in 980AD that this culture had knowledge in their own way besides pounding and rubbing for years to achieve what they did.

Though big and impressive it pales into insignificance at some of the early Egyption feats. The pyramids dwaft this status for one and its not just one piece of work by 100s together as part of that one works.

That ain't granite but composite quartzite which is far harder to work with than granite. Its a stone calvers nightmare in stone shaping. The statue itself is 1,000 tons. But the block it comes from would have been around 1500 tons. They had to transport this up river some 500 miles from the quarry. We have problems moving 100 ton loads with heavy lifters and trucks.

Now lets look at the technological development of iron and when it became hard enough to cut through or shape granite without the use of abrasives.

Period	Material/Technology	Hardness (Mohs)	Could cut granite w/out abrasives?	Notes
< 1200 BCE	Bronze	3–4	❌	Used abrasives (sand + copper saws)
1200–600 BCE	Wrought iron	4	❌	Slightly tougher, still too soft
600–400 BCE	Early carburized steel	5–6	⚠️ Limited	Could peck, not slice granite
18th century	Crucible steel	7–8	✅	First reliable granite chisels
20th century	Tungsten carbide / Diamond	9–10	✅✅	Industrial stonecutting era

​

Using the 'logic' employed in this thread based on the fallacies of argument of personal incredulity and argument from ignorance,

Do you have to add such personalised rhetoric lol. Just state the facts. This is a sure sign that someone is more invested than just the science and facts itself without even determining whether the facts are correct or not.

even though the carvers of the statue had access to iron tools, the tools were not hard enough to cut directly or shape granite, the technology only became available in the 18th century with the development of crucible steel which is carbon hardened.

Therefore your logic is even though the signatures clearly look like modern signatures they somehow hand crafted these signatures without any tech at all.

We are talking on par if not superior shaping and cutting of the most hard stones 5,000 plus years ago. Some in composit quartzite.

Not just that we can cut all the crap of these being made by pounding, grinding and rubbing by once again the signatures on the works like statues and other works such as the image of obeliskes with circular saw overcuts in the works themselves as part of creating them. In this case clear circular saw or some sort of saw capable of cutting the entire base of this statue into its thight and overcutting what is one of the hardest stones.

Like the vases we see the superior work of the earliest Egyptians compared to later works such as this precise leg and knee of a statue of pharoah Khufu compared to a later statue from Ramses II.

The Ramses statue does look like it was hand chiseled and roughly made. Theres little fine detail, quite a rough and unpolished finished.

So therefore they must have used some unknown super technology like the predynastic Egyptians, in fact every cut mark in granite, a granite block or statue that was produced before the advent of crucible steel in the 18th century must have been produced using this super technology which then disappeared without a trace.

Most of the precision works and I mean precision and have actual modern looking signatures in them are from the earliest dynasties or predynasty. There are some works that are amazing that come later but there is still question over their origin just like the vases. They may also date back to the earliest times.

Nevertheless this is not denying that there may have been some knowledge that was preserved in some limited way within later dynasties. But the vase majority and the best examples come from the earliest times. Which at the vesy least is coming from a time that is suppose to have less tech compared to later cultures who had the wheel, even sophisticated wheels and laths, logistics, and various metals and developed tooling.

An obvious question which arises why did this super technology disappear only to be replaced by a major backwards step in technology in using crucible steel?!!

Because the westernised idea of knowledge and tech being a slow and gradual evolution from simple to complex or simple to better techniques through the accumulation of knowledge is a forced idea about what knowledge is.

The whole point of this thread is that knowledge and tech may have peaked and fallen many times and was lost and restarted in different ways. That ancient cultures peaked in their own kind of knowledge different from today and then collapsed for various reasons. If there was a massive catastrophy that wiped out most of humankind today.

In 5 or 10,000 years we could say some of that knowledge was lost and we had to start again to gradually build up to a level of knowledge which may be different to how knowledge was understood in the past.

This may happen in smaller examples where localised knowledge peaks and falls and peaks and falls in different ways. Sometimes some still having that knowledge while others did not. Its a continually peaking and falling phenomena and not this fixed westernised materialistic and scientific idea of simple to complex.

Here are the facts abrasive cutting went well into the 19th century using a sand and water slurry like the ancient Egyptians had used in combination with copper saws thousands of year earlier.

Except the signatures are completely different. Copper saw of copper tude and sand abrasions don't cut. They abrase and thus a usually not sharp and thin or leave sharp planes in cuts like electric planers and routers.

This is the orthodoxy that is being challenged by the tests and the out of place signatures that clearly do not have the same witness marks as copper and abrasions.

Works such as the statue of Bahubali are a testament to craftmanship not technology.

Therefore there was no lathe, or wheel which produces good circularity. No one is saying there was no pounding and rubbing. Especially rubbing and polishing. They are the final stages. We are talking about the cutting and shaping of the hardest stones. I mean some of these cuts would need to be 50 foot long and 12 feel wide. Thats a massive copper saw.

Good old pounding and rubbing can explain even impossible feats that are well recognised that can only be achieved by tech. In some ways your doing what you protest the whackos. By appealing to such unreality as though humans can rub precision tools into existence without any help from tech.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Yes, we exclude them. If these precision vases actually were made 5000 years ago, we would expect to keep finding them in new digs.

Lol new digs. I think they have dug up aaabout everything. Unless the authorities are hiding stuff from us. Or a new grave or tomb is found with some vases. Like I said we don't need to do that when theres literally 1,000's already available in museums and private collections.

No I don't. But the logic is based on the fact that we have been digging for centuries. Grave robbers have been looking in all nooks and crannies. Lidar has helped identify more sites.

But heres the opposing claim I was responding to. That not finding any more of these precision vases must mean they are fake. So why did you not make comment on such a speculative claim from your side. You seem to be monioring the posts. Or are you only monitoring one side.

How did you go from my first quote to "That not finding any more of these precision vases must mean they are fake."? That is not what I said, I'm was just making the observation that if it is normal to find these 5000+ year high-precision vases, we should sooner or later find them in well-provenanced circumstances. Then all the vases going back to 1979 become inconsequential. Instead, when looking at the well-provenanced vases we can see today there is no need to invoke some lost knowledge or ancient technology (Olgas vases are within a factor 2-3 in quality, well possible to be the product of some very skilled artisan), IMO.

 

[sjastro]

I'm more impressed that they managed to cultivate such a plant with the perfect foil lol. They could have at least done it in stone to keep in line with the statue.

How do you know that even in 980AD that this culture had knowledge in their own way besides pounding and rubbing for years to achieve what they did.

Though big and impressive it pales into insignificance at some of the early Egyption feats. The pyramids dwaft this status for one and its not just one piece of work by 100s together as part of that one works.

View attachment 371720 View attachment 371721

That ain't granite but composite quartzite which is far harder to work with than granite. Its a stone calvers nightmare in stone shaping. The statue itself is 1,000 tons. But the block it comes from would have been around 1500 tons. They had to transport this up river some 500 miles from the quarry. We have problems moving 100 ton loads with heavy lifters and trucks.

Do you have to add such personalised rhetoric lol. Just state the facts. This is a sure sign that someone is more invested than just the science and facts itself without even determining whether the facts are correct or not.

Therefore your logic is even though the signatures clearly look like modern signatures they somehow hand crafted these signatures without any tech at all.

We are talking on par if not superior shaping and cutting of the most hard stones 5,000 plus years ago. Some in composit quartzite.

Not just that we can cut all the crap of these being made by pounding, grinding and rubbing by once again the signatures on the works like statues and other works such as the image of obeliskes with circular saw overcuts in the works themselves as part of creating them. In this case clear circular saw or some sort of saw capable of cutting the entire base of this statue into its thight and overcutting what is one of the hardest stones.

View attachment 371717 View attachment 371716

Like the vases we see the superior work of the earliest Egyptians compared to later works such as this precise leg and knee of a statue of pharoah Khufu compared to a later statue from Ramses II.

View attachment 371718 View attachment 371719

The Ramses statue does look like it was hand chiseled and roughly made. Theres little fine detail, quite a rough and unpolished finished.

Most of the precision works and I mean precision and have actual modern looking signatures in them are from the earliest dynasties or predynasty. There are some works that are amazing that come later but there is still question over their origin just like the vases. They may also date back to the earliest times.

Nevertheless this is not denying that there may have been some knowledge that was preserved in some limited way within later dynasties. But the vase majority and the best examples come from the earliest times. Which at the vesy least is coming from a time that is suppose to have less tech compared to later cultures who had the wheel, even sophisticated wheels and laths, logistics, and various metals and developed tooling.

Because the westernised idea of knowledge and tech being a slow and gradual evolution from simple to complex or simple to better techniques through the accumulation of knowledge is a forced idea about what knowledge is.

The whole point of this thread is that knowledge and tech may have peaked and fallen many times and was lost and restarted in different ways. That ancient cultures peaked in their own kind of knowledge different from today and then collapsed for various reasons. If there was a massive catastrophy that wiped out most of humankind today.

In 5 or 10,000 years we could say some of that knowledge was lost and we had to start again to gradually build up to a level of knowledge which may be different to how knowledge was understood in the past.

This may happen in smaller examples where localised knowledge peaks and falls and peaks and falls in different ways. Sometimes some still having that knowledge while others did not. Its a continually peaking and falling phenomena and not this fixed westernised materialistic and scientific idea of simple to complex.

Except the signatures are completely different. Copper saw of copper tude and sand abrasions don't cut. They abrase and thus a usually not sharp and thin or leave sharp planes in cuts like electric planers and routers.

This is the orthodoxy that is being challenged by the tests and the out of place signatures that clearly do not have the same witness marks as copper and abrasions.

Therefore there was no lathe, or wheel which produces good circularity. No one is saying there was no pounding and rubbing. Especially rubbing and polishing. They are the final stages. We are talking about the cutting and shaping of the hardest stones. I mean some of these cuts would need to be 50 foot long and 12 feel wide. Thats a massive copper saw.

Good old pounding and rubbing can explain even impossible feats that are well recognised that can only be achieved by tech. In some ways your doing what you protest the whackos. By appealing to such unreality as though humans can rub precision tools into existence without any help from tech.

Instead of rambling on incessantly was the statue of Bahubali produced using unknown technology, yes or no?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Though big and impressive it pales into insignificance at some of the early Egyption feats. The pyramids dwaft this status for one and its not just one piece of work by 100s together as part of that one works.

That ain't granite but composite quartzite which is far harder to work with than granite. Its a stone calvers nightmare in stone shaping. The statue itself is 1,000 tons. But the block it comes from would have been around 1500 tons. They had to transport this up river some 500 miles from the quarry. We have problems moving 100 ton loads with heavy lifters and trucks.

You been watchin' Ben van Crank from unchainedX again, Steve?

There is no need to "explain" any thing that is not real. Those are not real pictures. There is nothing to "explain" other than your gullibility, which remains a mystery.

 

[stevevw]

How did you go from my first quote to "That not finding any more of these precision vases must mean they are fake."? That is not what I said, I'm was just making the observation that if it is normal to find these 5000+ year high-precision vases, we should sooner or later find them in well-provenanced circumstances.

But this is not a good solution to determining whether the existing vases are in the precise class or not. Sure there may be another tomb or two out there with a few vases. But waiting to discover another tomb could mean anytime.

The area where most are discovered is not a big area. Its not as if they are all over Egypt. I think between the museums and what is has already been discovered. Including those in museums and under the Stepped pyramid and Mastaba 17 will keep testers going if they are allowed to test them.

But like I keep saying the very best examples that would substancially make the case for precision vases have already been taken out of the ground and are in the hands of private collectors. Maybe some have good providence. But many will only go back to some auction house or private sale or gift with maybe a auction house certificate. Or gifted without much documentation.

It is these vases that need to be tested as they are the best examples. Somehow they have to develop a way to work out their authenticity. Maybe a forensic signature of some sort. Modern tech should be able to develop some test that would identify certain markers with 5,000 year old vases as opposed to maybe 60 year old vases.

Then all the vases going back to 1979 become inconsequential. Instead, when looking at the well-provenanced vases we can see today there is no need to invoke some lost knowledge or ancient technology

How can you make such a claim when only a few vases with good providence have been tested and so far there have been at least 5 or 6 fall in the precise class on par with modern machining out of around 20. If we times that by every time they manage to get into a museum then we are collecting a number of precise vases.

Thats not even counting that in the future or even now that a method can be developed to authenticate the many best examples in private collections like Matt Bealls. This would give tremendous weight to the existence of many of these vases.

This is all pretty new research and investigation. Don't shut it down before it has a chance to do more tests lol.

(Olgas vases are within a factor 2-3 in quality, well possible to be the product of some very skilled artisan), IMO.

Come on Hans not this again. I have said several times now and all the testers have stated this. That Olgo actually used modern tech (a wheel with ball bearings) for stability and like a lathe. Thats how she was able to achieve those higher scores in that particular vase. I even showed you the images from the video of her making the vase. She is clearly seen turning the vase on a wheel.

This actually supports what the testers are saying. That to achieve the level of symmetry and circularity a wheel or lathe was used. Not purely the unaided hands of the artist without a wheel or lathe in shaping the roundness that it mimicks lathing.

In some ways the idea that the ancients could craft what we call machined CNC over 5,000 years ago even before the wheel is itself an amazing feat of advanced knowledge. Its more or less saying they didn't need all the modern tech that has taken humans 5,000 years to develop. They could match us without all the hassel of machines.

 

[BCP1928]

Stop turning everything in politics and morality. Just deal with the evidence lol. You actually acknowledge that your making a value judgement. If thats the case then did it ever occur to you that your value judgement may be your own lol. That is being projected.

That your using a subjective determination to dispute the evidence. Thats not science and you complain about those who propose alternative knowledge as being unscientific.

Ok lets take the trigger word 'primitive' which is a common word used to describe prehistory cultures. Lets call it a less advanced culture as far as tech was concerned compared to modern times. Before the wheel the methods were less advanced as far as making round stuff.

The Naqada were a late neolithic culture. By then, most of the technological developments on which civilizations rest were in place: plant and animal breeding, cordage and textiles, fired ceramics, basic wood, stone and metal work (including alloying and heat treating) and the wheel. I suppose if you want to call that technological level "primitive" you can, but the rest of us will just think you're being silly.

Yes there is. Not just the biblical flood but every flood story from all cultures. Are you saying they just purely made this up. Like hey we need to create a false story to make out religion more interesting.

No all these cultures are basing their flood myths on a real flood event. In fact we have evidence for massive flooding around 8,000 to 14,000 years ago that had mega flooding. We see the evidence in the landscape. Scientific studies have been done.

The question is why would not ancient culture at that time who survived or who were decendents of the people of that time not create a story about such an event.

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth | National Center for Science Education

Introduction The Bible (Genesis 6–9) describes a worldwide flood (the Noachian Flood) covering even the highest mountains of the earth and the construction of a huge boat (a rectangular box-like craft) that transported animals, at least two of a kind of all land animals on the earth.

ncse.ngo

Now if this mega flood happened locally why would cultures not record such an event. Its based on a real event. Just like the possibility that during those mega floods a city that was well advanced in that time or looked upon as a great city that was looked to was then wiped out in a relatively short time. Then as time goes by this becomes legend.

This is what I am talking about with hard or hyper skepticism that it even blinds people from the real possibility that these legends are based on real events that may be the basis. All the cultures themselves and not the so called whackos are the ones saying these ancients had advanced knowledge that could create these great works.

The hard skeptics are actually the ones relegating these ancients to certain ways by insisting that all these myths and legands are make believe and not based on some reality.

Lol I just told you I never said that they actually had CNC maching and you double down. Typical. You can't handle dealing with the hard evidence in the ground.

Ok at least the idea of vases being traded is attempting to link them back to a culture who may have had the ability to make them. Which supports that some sort of turning was involved and not just by hands.

But even then at 3,600BC the potters wheel that existed in Mesopotamia was the slow version that had lots of wobble.

Why would it have lots of wobble?

We find tons of examples of softer vases and copies from this method. Some are pretty good but never at the level of these vases.

Then your very selective in assumptions which is sort of supporting my point. That your assumptions have no basis in reality.

Saying "lost technology from some ancient vanished culture" is completely different to saying "lost knowledge from Atlantis". Your using a baited word that is well know to represent whackery. Your qualifying all investigation into lost advanced knowledge as whackery by simply adding that word and you know it lol.

"Lost technology from some ancient vanished culture," a culture which you cannot name or describe. At least Atlantis has a name.

That is you and not me or anyone who serious investigates lost advanced knowledge. In fact its even a study subject in rediscovering the lost Indigneous knowledge of cultures at University lol. Its something the cultures are trying to do and rediscover. Your actually the one creating the conspiracy.

What conspiracy?

 

[BCP1928]

You been watchin' Ben van Crank from unchainedX again, Steve?

There is no need to "explain" any thing that is not real. Those are not real pictures. There is nothing to "explain" other than your gullibility, which remains a mystery.

I happened across an unchainedx video while I was scrolling YouTube this morning. Watched part of it, decided it wasn't good enough for the History Channel.

 

[sjastro]

You been watchin' Ben van Crank from unchainedX again, Steve?

There is no need to "explain" any thing that is not real. Those are not real pictures. There is nothing to "explain" other than your gullibility, which remains a mystery.

He probably thinks The Mummy and The Scorpion King are historical documentaries.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I happened across an unchainedx video while I was scrolling YouTube this morning. Watched part of it, decided it wasn't good enough for the History Channel.

That implausible, eh?

 

[Stopped_lurking]

But this is not a good solution to determining whether the existing vases are in the precise class or not. Sure there may be another tomb or two out there with a few vases. But waiting to discover another tomb could mean anytime.

So look at the well provenanced examples in museum collections in the mean time.

The area where most are discovered is not a big area. Its not as if they are all over Egypt. I think between the museums and what is has already been discovered. Including those in museums and under the Stepped pyramid and Mastaba 17 will keep testers going if they are allowed to test them.

But like I keep saying the very best examples that would substancially make the case for precision vases have already been taken out of the ground and are in the hands of private collectors. Maybe some have good providence. But many will only go back to some auction house or private sale or gift with maybe a auction house certificate. Or gifted without much documentation.

Then they can tell us next to nothing, identify the ones with good provenance put the rest aside

It is these vases that need to be tested as they are the best examples.

But we don't know what they are an example of.

Somehow they have to develop a way to work out their authenticity. Maybe a forensic signature of some sort. Modern tech should be able to develop some test that would identify certain markers with 5,000 year old vases as opposed to maybe 60 year old vases.

So work on that then, if the main project requires such a method. That itself would be publishable.

How can you make such a claim when only a few vases with good providence have been tested and so far there have been at least 5 or 6 fall in the precise class on par with modern machining out of around 20. If we times that by every time they manage to get into a museum then we are collecting a number of precise vases.

Thats not even counting that in the future or even now that a method can be developed to authenticate the many best examples in private collections like Matt Bealls. This would give tremendous weight to the existence of many of these vases.

This is all pretty new research and investigation. Don't shut it down before it has a chance to do more tests lol.

Come on Hans not this again. I have said several times now and all the testers have stated this. That Olgo actually used modern tech (a wheel with ball bearings) for stability and like a lathe. Thats how she was able to achieve those higher scores in that particular vase. I even showed you the images from the video of her making the vase. She is clearly seen turning the vase on a wheel.

I'm not Hans. I was talking about O2 and O3, in comparison to the Petrie vases. The O1 vase is already on par with the Petrie vases. And it only requires something we already know existed in the near east at the time. No need to invoke ancient technology or y lost knowledge.

This actually supports what the testers are saying. That to achieve the level of symmetry and circularity a wheel or lathe was used. Not purely the unaided hands of the artist without a wheel or lathe in shaping the roundness that it mimicks lathing.

In some ways the idea that the ancients could craft what we call machined CNC over 5,000 years ago even before the wheel is itself an amazing feat of advanced knowledge.

The Petrie vases are not of a comparable quality to modern vases. Why don't you look at the plots? They clearly don't klustren with the modern vases.

Its more or less saying they didn't need all the modern tech that has taken humans 5,000 years to develop. They could match us without all the hassel of machines.

 

[stevevw]

The Naqada were a late neolithic culture. By then, most of the technological developments on which civilizations rest were in place: plant and animal breeding, cordage and textiles, fired ceramics, basic wood, stone and metal work (including alloying and heat treating) and the wheel. I suppose if you want to call that technological level "primitive" you can, but the rest of us will just think you're being silly.

Nevertheless the Naqada did not have the wheel, potters wheel or the bore stick or bow drill. They made pots by the coil and slab method because they did not have the potters wheel.

You can call it primitive or whatever name you like. You seem to be triggered by the word 'primitive'. Primitive is probably one of the most common words used when describing and comparing tech in ancient times compared to tech in modern times. Lets call it less advanced or more simple forms of tech.

Like the potters wheel is now modern machine lathing or how any tech has progressed from no devices to simple devices and tools to more advanced that help complete the job quicker, more efficently, more precisely and even to the point where today robotics are replacing humans.

In some ways some of the ancient methods are more advanced in that they understood nature and were able to utilise natures own tech rather than try to copy it like today. So the advanced tech we are talking about is nothing like modern tech.

So there were two lines of tech happening. The one we use today which is the slow progressive evolution of scientific methods. The other the eternal knowledge of nature and manipulating and utilising its forces.

Why would it have lots of wobble?

Because they were the first versions were very basic. They never had the later tech of ball bearings to stablise the wheel. But even the later Bore stick method was very wobbly by its very design. It had a off set arm that was designed to turn the stick which naturally had to wobble to make it spin. You can see how they leave uneven walls compared to the precise vases.

The white vases are alabasta and made the traditional way. The blue ones are bits of the more precise vases. This is a good example as its under the Stepped pyramid which would have been the time aound 2600BC when the basic potters wheel came in. So we have a mix of precise and hand made vases in the same site. This is the same site where the black hard stone vase had machine marks on it like it was lathed.

.

"Lost technology from some ancient vanished culture," a culture which you cannot name or describe. At least Atlantis has a name.

Lol ask the cultures themselves. They go into great detail naming them, descibing them and their abilities. Why don't you believe them. Are they also quacks and conspiracists.

You don't have to name them. Its just plain logic and factual. There was a massive flood at a time when cultures had developed to a level of knowledge that was then lost with the destruction of some cultural centers. That the future cultures passed on the stories how how this happened.

The cultures tell us themselves that great knowledge was lost. But even the science tells us.

Scientific Evidence for the Many Myths of the Great Flood

Scientific Evidence for the Many Myths of the Great Flood | Ancient Origins

The story of Noah and the Great Flood is not unique. There are a few myths that describe a huge deluge, but there is also scientific evidence to consider.

www.ancient-origins.net

By the same logic if we go back we find other catastrophes including mega floods after the last iceage where cities and cultures were wiped out. We have much archeological evidence for what would have been the equivelant of cities on coasts now under water. Others buried deep and we are still discovering them like Gobekli Tepe.

What conspiracy?

That these ancient cultures are whacko in saying their ancestors had advanced knowledge. That they were incapable of having knowledge that may have been different yet more advanced as far as creating these works and other advanced knowledge about nature ect.

 

[Ophiolite]

You can call it primitive or whatever name you like. You seem to be triggered by the word 'primitive'. Primitive is probably one of the most common words used when describing and comparing tech in ancient times compared to tech in modern times. Lets call it less advanced or more simple forms of tech.

These remarks simply demonstrate, again, your lack of understanding of the field of study. If you were writing a century, or certainly a century and a half, in the past then the term would be apposite. However, this is 2025. The term has been progressively abandoned by workers in the field for three reasons:

• Theoretical — it assumes a linear evolution/development of technology, language, culture, religion, etc.,which is now recognised as an oversiplification.
• Empirical — ethnography has repeatedly showed that so-called “primitive” peoples have and had complex, adaptive technology and systems, rendering the word 'primitive' lacking in meaning.
• Ethical and political —it has been misused to justify dispossession and paternalistic policies.

Any one of these reasons is sufficient to call the usage into question. Together they justifiy the decision by professional bodies and workers in the field to avoid it.

You, however bandy it about, exposing your ignorance of the changes in approach and language over the last 3/4 of a century. So the word doesn't trigger your critics, it just undermines your argument and exposes your flimsy foundations.

 

[sjastro]

Instead of rambling on incessantly was the statue of Bahubali produced using unknown technology, yes or no?

Since @stevevw seems to be struggling to provide an answer lets fast forward to 18th century India where temples and statues were being renovated or constructed.
One such statue from the period in southern India was this.

​

Note the detail in the tail and sharp edges of the pedestal in this granite carving which going by the nonsense perpetrated in this thread could not have been done by iron tools of the time not being hard enough nor abrasives. Instead it required some unknown super technology no one has been able to find.

Around 1750 the British East India Company had gained economic control of southern India which was the first step of colonization of the subcontinent by the British.

​

One of the objectives of the British East India Company was to import new technologies from the subcontinent or improve on them.

Category	Technology / Process	Indian Origin / Region	How It Influenced Britain	Period of Transfer
Textile Manufacturing	Cotton spinning and weaving (Muslin, Calico)	Bengal, Gujarat, Coromandel Coast	Inspired British mechanized textile industry; led to inventions like the Spinning Jenny and Power Loom to imitate Indian fabric quality.	17th–18th centuries
Dyeing and Printing	Natural dye techniques (indigo, madder, chay root) and block printing	Bengal, Madras, Gujarat	Transferred artisanal dye chemistry to British dyehouses; initiated chemical dye research in 18th century Britain.	17th–18th centuries
Metallurgy	Crucible steel (Wootz steel)	South India (Mysore, Tamil Nadu)	Provided basis for early European steel experiments; influenced development of Sheffield steelmaking.	Late 17th–early 19th centuries
Zinc Distillation	Retort-based zinc smelting	Zawar mines, Rajasthan	Predated European zinc smelting by centuries; process later replicated industrially in Britain.	18th century
Shipbuilding	Teak-wood hulls, caulking, iron nails, and hydrodynamic hull design	Bombay (Mumbai), Calcutta	Adopted in British naval and merchant ship design; Indian-built ships (e.g., HMS Trincomalee) used in Royal Navy.	18th–early 19th centuries
Agronomy / Botany	Knowledge of cotton, indigo, and opium cultivation	Bengal, Bihar, Deccan	Helped expand plantation economies in British colonies; introduced Indian crops to global markets.	18th century
Paper and Ink Production	Handmade paper and carbon-based inks	Kashmir, Bengal	Improved British handmade paper quality for official records and printing.	17th–18th centuries
Medicine and Chemistry	Ayurvedic and Unani herbal remedies	Across India	Contributed to early pharmacological and botanical studies in Britain; basis for colonial botanical gardens.	18th century
Mathematics and Surveying	Indigenous trigonometry, land measurement, astronomy	Kerala, Mysore	Influenced British colonial cartography and geodesy; adopted Indian surveying methods (e.g., use of gnomons, chains).	Late 18th century
Ceramics and Dye Pigments	Glazed pottery, indigo-based ceramic coloration	Bengal, Sindh	Inspired British ceramics (Staffordshire pottery) and blue pigment development.	18th century

Isn't it remarkable the British East India Company did not import this super technology from the subcontinent which would have completely altered the course of the Industrial Revolution.
Instead they brought back Wootz steel which was carbon hardened iron and used on the subcontinent for centuries but still not hard enough to be used on granite without abrasives. The breakthrough came with an improved process for hardening iron discovered by Benjamin Huntsman around 1740.

Using Occam's razor craftmanship using existing tooling discovered by archaeologists or in later times confirmed by contemporary accounts is far superior and logical to invoking a variation of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[BCP1928]

Nevertheless the Naqada did not have the wheel, potters wheel or the bore stick or bow drill. They made pots by the coil and slab method because they did not have the potters wheel.

You can call it primitive or whatever name you like. You seem to be triggered by the word 'primitive'. Primitive is probably one of the most common words used when describing and comparing tech in ancient times compared to tech in modern times. Lets call it less advanced or more simple forms of tech.

Like the potters wheel is now modern machine lathing or how any tech has progressed from no devices to simple devices and tools to more advanced that help complete the job quicker, more efficently, more precisely and even to the point where today robotics are replacing humans.

In some ways some of the ancient methods are more advanced in that they understood nature and were able to utilise natures own tech,

They grew the vases???

rather than try to copy it like today. So the advanced tech we are talking about is nothing like modern tech.

What kind of magical woo are you talking about here?

So there were two lines of tech happening. The one we use today which is the slow progressive evolution of scientific methods. The other the eternal knowledge of nature and manipulating and utilising its forces.

All tech is based on a knowledge of nature and manipulating and utilizing its forces. That's what technology is.

Because they were the first versions were very basic. They never had the later tech of ball bearings to stablise the wheel. But even the later Bore stick method was very wobbly by its very design. It had a off set arm that was designed to turn the stick which naturally had to wobble to make it spin. You can see how they leave uneven walls compared to the precise vases.

What is your source for this conjecture? Why is a ball bearing inherently more stable than a sleeve bearing?

The white vases are alabasta and made the traditional way. The blue ones are bits of the more precise vases. This is a good example as its under the Stepped pyramid which would have been the time aound 2600BC when the basic potters wheel came in. So we have a mix of precise and hand made vases in the same site. This is the same site where the black hard stone vase had machine marks on it like it was lathed.

.View attachment 371762

Lol ask the cultures themselves. They go into great detail naming them, descibing them and their abilities. Why don't you believe them. Are they also quacks and conspiracists.

You don't have to name them. Its just plain logic and factual. There was a massive flood at a time when cultures had developed to a level of knowledge that was then lost with the destruction of some cultural centers. That the future cultures passed on the stories how how this happened.

It is neither logical nor factual Those are all unverifiable stories whose antecedents you know nothing whatever.

The cultures tell us themselves that great knowledge was lost. But even the science tells us.

Scientific Evidence for the Many Myths of the Great Flood

Scientific Evidence for the Many Myths of the Great Flood | Ancient Origins

The story of Noah and the Great Flood is not unique. There are a few myths that describe a huge deluge, but there is also scientific evidence to consider.

www.ancient-origins.net

By the same logic if we go back we find other catastrophes including mega floods after the last iceage where cities and cultures were wiped out. We have much archeological evidence for what would have been the equivelant of cities on coasts now under water. Others buried deep and we are still discovering them like Gobekli Tepe.

Yes, it appears that civilization arose much earlier than had been previously thought. So what? They still haven't found Atlantis, which by your account would have to be technologically superior to any of them.

That these ancient cultures are whacko in saying their ancestors had advanced knowledge. That they were incapable of having knowledge that may have been different yet more advanced as far as creating these works and other advanced knowledge about nature ect.

 

[Hans Blaster]

They grew the vases???

What kind of magical woo are you talking about here?

All tech is based on a knowledge of nature and manipulating and utilizing its forces. That's what technology is.

What is your source for this conjecture? Why is a ball bearing inherently more stable than a sleeve bearing?

It is neither logical nor factual Those are all unverifiable stories whose antecedents you know nothing whatever.

Yes, it appears that civilization arose much earlier than had been previously thought. So what? They still haven't found Atlantis, which by your account would have to be technologically superior to any of them.

This keeps getting weirder.

 

[stevevw]

They grew the vases???

Lol yes in a way I think. I think the ancients knew a lot about how nature works. We have always regarded the ancients stories about medicine and natural remedies as witch doctors and superstitution. But I think there is some truth that they understood how nature works better than we do today.

That includes chemistry and physics as well as astronomy and the seasons ect. As they were more linked to nature they were actually immersed in it to the point they discovered some of its secrets. How to utilise and manipulate nature. How to use natures own forces and ability of nature to change nature itself.

Not that they were scientists or academic in their knowledge. Rather just through experience of nature itself that they were more deeply immersed in it that they understood it and discovered how it worked and were able to utilise this.

What kind of magical woo are you talking about here?

Its not magical. The ability of ancients and even Indigenous peoples to understand nature and have a deeper knowledge of nature is well recognised.

Even in recent times western science has come to understand the deep knowledge say Aboriginals had of the land, of working with nature. They have been around for 60,000 years and managed to survive and thrive.

All tech is based on a knowledge of nature and manipulating and utilizing its forces. That's what technology is.

Yes so it makes sense that back in ancient times when there was no Enlightened rationalism, empiricalism and modern tech all the ancients had was living in and with nature. Who do you think came to understand nature better. Western science which is a 3rd party observation trying to understand nature from the outside in.

Or ancients who lived within nature itself. Were ruled by nature, by the sun, moon and stars, seasons, plants, and animals were spirits. Their world was spirits and experiences of nature. How can you say that our outside looking in 'paradigm' can know nature and reality better than those who are actually immersed in it.

What is your source for this conjecture? Why is a ball bearing inherently more stable than a sleeve bearing?

Ok add that to the list. They also never had the sleeve bearing. The point is they never had a trurning device at that time. The potters wheel whether by ball bearings or sleeve did not come into Egypt until around Djsoers dynasty 2600BC. The Naqada stone vases date back to 3600BC.

It is neither logical nor factual Those are all unverifiable stories whose antecedents you know nothing whatever.

They are facts. The fact that massive floods or other castastrophes have wiped out cities in the past. The fact that the stories and legends are based on a real even. Just elaborated. This part is fact.

So therefore it is reasonable to accert that at least some of these stories are based on a real city or culture of people who were fairly advanced in the eyes of the story tellers.

Now the part about how advanced they were is the conjecture. But what is regarded as advanced. These are the out of place works I am linking. This is the evidence.

So we can put it together. We have the ancients telling us there were advanced people and knowledge that was lost. We have evidence of massive catastrophes wiping out large areas where people lived. We have archelogical evidence of megaliths that date back 5,6 or 10,000 years plus. We even are finding evidence of cultures under the ocean off coasts. Or in deep layers whose culture has disappeared.

Yes, it appears that civilization arose much earlier than had been previously thought. So what? They still haven't found Atlantis, which by your account would have to be technologically superior to any of them.

I am not making it about Atlantis, you are. If we can acknowledge that civilisation is much older than we thought. Then why can't we also acknowledge that the knowledge and technical knowhow either goes back further than we thought.

Or by going back further than we thought. Be more advanced than we thought because it started earlier than we thought lol. Thats all I am saying and then trying to find ways in which the evidence supports this. Such as the out of place works.

Its a reasonable hypothesis to at least investigate and not dismiss as just being quackery lol.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

We even are finding evidence of cultures under the ocean off coasts. Or in deep layers whose culture has disappeared.

What are you thinking about here? What evidence do we have of advanced cultures that predates agriculture?

Natufians? How do that support ancient technology and lost knowledge?

 

[stevevw]

What are you thinking about here? What evidence do we have of advanced cultures that predates agriculture?

I think thats part of the issue. That there is a orthodox timeline and definition of what is the progression of knowledge and tech. That humans evolved from flint tool carrying neolithics and gradually discovered agriculture and then settled into civilisation.

I think this type of knowledge was coming and going for maybe 8 or 10,000 years or maybe more. And it was not about subsistence through agriculture that formed settlements and cities. There was a range of reasons such as availability of animals, fish, natural crops ect. Some stayed and built settlements and some were nomadics all through history.

But the greatest motivation for settlements was the gods. Was cultural belief that created centers of worship and then settlements were built and the need for food. Gobekli Tepe is a prime example. This temple is only one of many that are in the area. GT is only 10% escavated and altogether this represents a sophisticated level of worship and social ability some 11 to 14,000 years ago.

There are many sites and even greater ones like this throughout the world. So imagine these temples and megaliths standing all around the place where people are gathering and socialising and having to feed many. Grains have been found as well as various animal bones. Even beer making from memory lol. They seem to also know about astronomy and the solstice and other spiritual ideas about animals and nature.

Natufians? How do that support ancient technology and lost knowledge?

The 'Out of Africa' theory. See this is another mainstream narrative thats not necessarily true thats being forced into the picture. Sure theres decendents who can be traced back to more primitive times.

But even this can be misrepresenting the real picture. There can also be advanced cultures that are lost and then those that come after are more or less starting again. Because they lost the knowledge.

If there was a catastrophe that wiped out large areas of humankind now we would lose knowledge. If there were some cultures that peaked in their knowledge and most were wiped out or even died out or abandoned their city as the archeological evidence shows. If they disappear in a relatively short time then knowledge is lost.

I think its arrogant that we in the west claim that our knowledge is superior and that the only real knowledge is empirical knowledge.