Please read more carefully: You were claiming "mainstream" narratives had civilization at 5-6000 yr which is not what they claimed at all. I noted that it was a date more like a creationist narrative.
And I am saying this is what mainstream science was saying up until recently. It was common consensus that civilisation came about around 6,000 years ago in Mes
Many millennia ago, the tides turned for ancient Sumerians who built the first civilization — literally. Rising in southern Mesopotamia around 6,000 years ago,
Learn how the first civilization in Mesopotamia depended on tides and how it responded when faced with a major environmental challenge.
www.discovermagazine.com
civilisation began 6000 years ago with the first cities in Mesopotamia.
The discovery that farming might not have been the catalyst for civilisation means we must completely rethink the timeline of the first complex societies
www.newscientist.com
6000 years and 12000 years ago are NOT the same time period (not even "more or less").
Today the line has expanded but this was the common date of around 6,000 years ago. But other discoveries have expanded this date.
So? It was discovered 60 years ago and excavated 30 years ago. It is not a new site. Why get tied up in some past version of narrative. I'm sorry but narrative just isn't that important. The site isn't even the oldest settlement in that phase of civilization. The archeology has moved way past being "shocked" by it. See:
en.wikipedia.org
It was the mainstream who created the narrative. They had no choice but yto acknowledge that civilisations or sophisticated sieties were around well before 6,000 years.
Gobekli Tepe when rediscovered 30 years ago was a revelation and it is still being touted as an enigma to the mainstream narrative. The point is there are many Gobekli Tepes around the world that are hidden or deminished as not important or even denied altogether.
Allowing all the evidence may completely change how we view the mainstream narrative that has been fed to us. Like other areas theres been a lot of gatekeeping about what is really happening.
Sounds like you are part of the "some say" given how you ended that statement.
Thats because it is about what people say, the narratives they make. Some are deemed conspiracy and others are deemed orthodox. It also depends on what is being allowed or not. The control of information. Its good to allow all the narratives and the evidence so we can determine for ourselves what is reality.
"[Australia] is a primitive scociety that has not yet developed [the republic] and is stuck at a more primitive form of government [monarchy]." -- Sid Meyer
Yes another narrative which is not necessarily the case based on a particular worldview that the Repulic form of governance is superior. England and Australia to a large extent would disagree and believe its the other way around.
But that is different to say archeology which can be grounded in whats being found literally in the ground. Though political narratives can be grounded in real lived applications. But arguements can be made for either way as its a subjective determination to a large degree.
You could say the Indigenous Aboriginals have had a successful form of governance for 60,000 years before western colonialist who thought they knew better wrecked it all.
Sure it does. Don't be foolish.
How can you say that. Just a simple look at say the copper saws on record will show immediately that it does not match the end results. But I think we have been down this path before. If you cannot acknowledge this then I cannot say much more.
I disagree with your conclusion and so we have a stalemate. I can provide evidence and I am sure you will dispute it no matter what.
Pass on more videos from yet another prehistory grifter.
Lol ok. So was anything in that video fact. Or is it dismissed out of hand. This is not the first time I have heard such claims. Including from mainstream archeology and science that the timeline for such works coming from later cultures doesn't fit.
Mainstream tries to attribute these megaliths to the later cultures who would have had to have built them in less than 200 years.
You're talking about "ancient Atlanta Atlantis" theory again, whether you realize it or not. That theory has an extremely unsavory history that I don't think you support.
First I'm not talking about Atlantis and have never supported such an idea. I pointed out that the myth of Atlantis was possibly based on a true event but then made legend. Most myths are originally based on a true event but then elaborated into myths.
That is completely different from actually supporting the mythological aspect of such stories.
Quoth the wikipedia:
In 1837 four additional
relieving chambers were found above the King's Chamber after tunnelling to them. The chambers, previously inaccessible, were covered in hieroglyphs of red paint. The workers who were building the pyramid had marked the blocks with the names of their gangs, which included the pharaoh's name (e.g.: "The gang, The
white crown of Khnum-Khufu is powerful"). The names of Khufu were spelled out on the walls over a dozen times. Another of these graffiti was found by
Goyon on an exterior block of the 4th layer of the pyramid.
[28] The inscriptions are comparable to those found at other sites of Khufu, such as the alabaster quarry at Hatnub
[29] or the harbour at
Wadi al-Jarf, and are present in pyramids of other pharaohs as well.
[30][31]
en.wikipedia.org
Where you can read the rest of the summarized evidence (w/ references) for construction by Khufu and then the dating section which puts it clearly in the 3 millenium BCE.
The claim you are repeating is a ridiculous one with no credence. The source that is providing it is likely to not be credible about ancient history.
I am not making any claim one way or the other. As mentioned pharoahs were renowned for putting their name to other peoples works. The idea that Khufu may not have built the great Pyramid has been around for near 100 years.
The problem is there is little evidence of who and how the pyramids were built. Unlike in later dynasties there are no piantings or hyroglyphs of how the pyramids were built. But there is speculation that the pyramids or perhaps part there of such as the inner chambers were around earlier than the proposed date of 2600BC.
Nope, nope, nope. Not going to deal with those cranks again.
Lol well you can't learn if you keep dismissing stuff out of hand.
Atlantis is a fictional island that is a minor component of a couple works of Plato.
And most of the world flood myths are based on a real flood event and not just made up out of thin air. The Atlantis myth is refelected like the flood myth in many cultures.
Like I said it may have been a real city or metropolis at that time which was inundated. I think its more than a oincident for example that Platos Atlantis just happens to date around the same time as the large iceage floods around 12000BC. So the myth may be created out of a real event passed down.
The drying of the Sahara may have led to people taking refuge in the Nile and accelerating the starting of Egyptian society, but it has nothing to do with a island that wouldn't be invented for thousands of years.
I think you missed what I was saying. I said the rivers running through north Africa that we can now see their dry tracks were left by massive flooding well before they dried up. We are talking maybe another 5 or 6,000 years before people having to move towards the existing rivers.
So well before Egypt there may have been civilisations with megaliths that were destroyed by the ice melts around 12,000 years ago. These same megalith type works are found all over the world from around the same time.
That is why there is speculation that the pyramids may be older than thought because most of this type of megalith came around the same time all over the world and then more or less disappeared. Later cultures then came and found these megaliths and repaired and added to them.
That is why we see two destinct types of architect within the same culture as linked earlier. The same for the Egyptians. All the megaliths are attributed to around a 100 year period over 3,000 plus years. Then this stops and later Egyptians cannot come close to matching such feats.
Their hyroglyphs and wall art show everything and how they built and made artifacts except how they made the pyramids. Not even a mention. We know Ramese put his name to a lot of work that was not his. Djsor was known for taking artifacts found as his own. Who knows.
Sure dude.
Unsure dude lol
www.christianforums.com
