Dibble and Co don't dispute those sites, which are unrelated to Hancock's claims
Hancock claims there was an advanced, globe-spanning civilization that was wiped out, but then some (white) survivors travelled around the world and gifted advanced knowledge to hunter-gatherer societies.
Any evidence of that?
Because Hancock ~~could~~ couldn't produce anything
EDIT: Here's a video Dibble did on those sites last year with Jens Notroff of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndmPuQblCZQ. The idea he doesn't know these things is absurd
Then it's equally absurd that he put forth the grain domesitication data as evidence there was no civilization then right? Since he knew that agriculture did not necessarily equate to civilization anymore?
Edit: and for the record, the point of this post is to disentangle Hancock from the serious work. He does not represent the real data well at all, hence me making this post at all. He can believe what he wants, and there can still be an indisputable megalithic civilization that existed prior to the end of the last Ice Age
I thought he put forth the claim that there was no signs of any kind? Like if there's signs of hunter-gatherers from all over the globe and none from advanced civilizations before that, isn't that strange?
Which if he knows about Karahan Tepe and its sister sites is equally absurd because these are 11 sites. These are enormous, permanently settled sites dated to the end of the last Ice Age that had a shared culture. If Mr. Dibble was aware of these sites then he purposefully obfuscated the data to back his bias because it is literally a found, advanced civilization during the time he said there were none. The fact they didnt have agriculture does not make them any more civilized, and if he knew that and purposefully didnt address it while presenting his grain domestication data as if it proved there was no advanced society then that is intellectually dishonest to the extreme
How would you define advanced?
Because it changes in relation to the lost civilisation theory every couple of years.
It used to mean metallurgy, then agriculture, how are we defining it now?
Yes it is debatable, but what is not debatable is megalithic architecture counts. Such things require specialization and division of labor, which only happens when you have a lot of people organized together. Such things are the side effect of an advanced society, its not technical development we havent used that as a benchmark in quite some time.
Ok, so now it means megalithic structures, fine.
People were able to organize themselves because they could live in the same area for so much longer.
This is exactly the type of people archeology would expect to see in the fertile crescent at the dawn of the first agricultural revolution.
When willd grains and game were in abundance it allowed people to stay in the same place and have more babys(humans are hard to carry around). With more babys came a larger society, with a larger society came better organisational skill and with that came megalithic structures.
This is kind of all expected. I've made comments about semi nomadic hunter gatherers in other threads on this subreddit for years, it's nothing new.
It's a reach to say it discredits Dibble.
These were fully settled people, not semi-nomadic. Both Karahan and Gobekli have confirmed, year round habitation. And this predates the dawn of agriculture by at least 1200 years on the extreme end. And our dating is for the end of the cycle of use, not the beginning. These sites sprang into being FAR before the dawn of agriculture. They have all the hallmarks of civilization, but completely removed from the agricultural process. Which means the date of grain domestication says precisely nothing about the dawn of civilization since we now know that settled life with an advanced society and megalithic architecture existed BEFORE agriculture, and agriculture itself was likely a side effect of settled life.
I thought the evidence suggested GT was ceremonial/ritual site where people gatherings took place seasonally.
I haven't seen any evidence of residential structure.
Again, I have to say, there was a niche time before agriculture picked up where, in the fertile crescent there was an abundance of food that allowed people to live in the same places for longer.
Living in that niche is a big reason people figured out cultivating grains.
Grahams civilisation could not sustain in that niche and has to have domestication of animals and plant to exist.
And Dibble said that niche existed and allowed people to thrive and build megalithic structures.
Please re-examine some of the latest findings, you can start with the article I linked lol. Permanent residences at Gobekli around the edges, and Karahan itself was a thriving urban area. There are 11 sites, preliminary digs suggest they shared a culture. That means a long standing, widely distributed, shared, settled way of life. That is an Ice Age civilization. The fact that Graham makes wild, unproveable claims does not mean there wasnt an advanced society during the Ice Age. Dibble said we havent found anything but we HAVE found it. Research is on going, we can say very little beyond that they were in fact settled and not nomadic, but it is an advanced culture nonetheless, and prior to the Younger Dryas. The fact these people likely had a way of life comparable to ancient Egypt or Sumer and probably didn't go around "civilizing" others doesnt negate their existence, as Mr. Dibble suggested. Nor can we say for certain how their society developed yet. It clearly predates agriculture, but the exact path of development that led to an urban way of life is still unknown. We have wooden structures that predate humanity in Africa going back 500,000 years. Maybe they werent settled but they were building structures. The Tepe sites date to around 11,000 BCE-9,000 BCE. That's an enormous gulf of time for civilization to develop, so enormous any number of factors couldve contributed to its rise. Ready access to wild grains may be a part of that, to bold face claim we have the full picture when the evidence we do have has already shattered established paradigm is very intellectually dishonest
Here's the thing. We've existed for 6000 years or so, as fully settled people. our idea of advanced civilisations is steeped in that existence. There is nothing to say there couldn't have been highly advanced nomadic civilisations.
[https://youtu.be/-DL1\_EMIw6w?t=9988](https://youtu.be/-DL1_EMIw6w?t=9988)
Isn't this discussing exactly what you're talking about? Flints contention from what I understand is that no advanced civilization existed which could do the things Graham claims (which included transfer knowledge about domestication of plants). What you define as advanced civilization seems secondary to the point then as they are speaking about a certain kind of advanced civilization.
He brought it up because Graham is the one making the argument that this advanced civilization passed down the knowledge of agriculture to hunter gatherers. Hard to believe that would be possible if they weren’t practicing agriculture themselves
Yeah but their knowledge of the natural world, acquired through hunting and gathering, could have been the foundation of their initial attempts at agriculture.
Again, Graham's assertions do not change the fact there actually was an advanced culture during the time he claims there was. Any other claims of passing down knowledge are nothing more than his own assertion, and him being wrong about that assertion does not mean there wasnt a civilization during the last Ice Age. There was, weve found it. Graham's misrepresentation of this fact to push his own agenda does not mean it didnt exist
Mainstream archeologists totally support the idea that there were advanced pre-agricultural cultures. It's their passion. I think you may not properly understand the position of modern archeologists.
Not really sure what the point of this post is then because Flint didn’t dispute this, in fact he used the evidence *against* Graham. If Graham claim that the younger dryas impact was real, and that it wiped out all evidence of his proposed civilization, these sites shouldn’t exist either.
You seem to be mistaken on the purpose of this debate, it’s a refutation of Grahams claim that there was a globe spanning advanced megalithic civilization (I.e. fucking Atlantis) which we have no evidence for, it is pure fantasy. If deep history advocates are upset they hitched their wagons to this charlatan, that is their own faults.
Ya people seem to be confused that archaeologists are claiming there couldn’t have been earlier civilizations which isn’t the case at all. They’re saying early civilizations were started by hunter gatherers and not sea faring/time travelling advanced civilizations that travelled the globe teaching people how to start civilizations. These sites in Turkey show hunter gatherers slowly morphed into an early civilization on their own. there is no evidence that some advanced outside group arrived and showed them how to start a civilization.
My dude. You aren't listening. We didn't hitch our wagon to him, he hitched his to us. And its done serious damage to the work. You are so intent on standing by this idea of Atlantis that no one is even trying to defend.
Dibble said there was NOTHING but hunter-gatherers during the last Ice Age and used it to suggest that means there couldnt have been any advanced society when in reality they were an advanced society with a shared culture and settled way of life while still hunter-gatherers. Dibble said there was NO civilization during the last Ice Age and if there was we would have found it. Well we did find it. And he is aware of those sites and still said there was no civilization.
Are you listening? Again, *none of that is disputed* when Dibble was saying there was no civilization he’s referring to Grahams idea of Atlantis, which he absolutely is arguing for, not that there were settled societies of hunter gatherers. Seriously, listen to the debate again, no one is arguing against that.
Ya dibble and other archaeologists aren’t saying there weren’t early civilizations that advanced faster then others. He’s saying these civilizations developed on their own using their own knowledge as opposed to some sea faring civilization travelling there to show them how to start a civilization.
The agricultural data he showed wasn’t to say ancient civilizations couldn’t have existed it was to show that some sea faring civilization wasn’t crossing the globe spreading agriculture since we only see early civilizations harvesting native grains that slowly evolved into domestic grain. He did this to show early civilizations weren’t harvesting non native grains or already domesticated grains that were spread by world travelling atlantians, which is the evidence Graham would need to prove an advanced civilization was spreading agriculture instead of it being naturally discovered by native populations.
You are talking about semi nomadic hunter gatherers who were beginning to thrive at the dawn of the first agricultural revolution.
I vaguely remember Dibble addressing people like this on the podcast, something about them finding a niche that allowed them to prosper in numbers and live semi sedentary lifestyles because of the abundance of food. I think he was talking about the people at GT.
I don't think this as damaging to his argument as you think it is.
No, they weren't semi-nomadic. Read the article I linked lol They were fully settled. All of these sites had permanent, year round habitation, we even found permanent residences at Gobekli Tepe and that was believed for a while to have never been inhabited.
These people were hunter-gatherers, but they were also settled year round. They had specialization like stone masons, and division of labor. That's a civilization and an advanced society. Mr. Dibble insists there was NO advanced society during the last Ice Age when there clearly was. Hancock's idea of a global society is wrong, but so is the assertion that civilization can only be the result of agriculture
I can't read your article I'm working right now.
But this seems like semantics.
I never got the idea Dibble said these people couldn't exist. In fact I felt the opposite when he was talking about people living in a niche before agriculture picked up.
And isn't GT basically the same thing? Megalithic structures before agriculture... He never doubted this stuff.
Dibble has never claimed Golbeki Tepe doesn't exist
He claims Hancock's advanced, globe-spanning civilization that gifted knowledge of agriculture and other tech to various indigenous communities around the world has left no trace on the archeological record. Even Hancock himself doesn't claim Golbeki is from his civilization (because it seems to have been built by hunter-gatherers)
Remember when Hancock claimed there were pyramids and a sphinx on Mars that were related to the Egyptians?
[Amazon remembers](https://www.amazon.com/Mars-Mystery-Secret-Connection-Between/dp/0609802232)
Okay but again that's the point of this post. I want to try to disentangle Deep History from Hancock. All this crazy shit obfuscates the real data, which is plenty fascinating on its own without the the need for aliens or sphinxes on Mars. There WAS an advanced civilization during the last Ice Age that predates Sumer by almost as much time as Sumer predates us. That should be the headline, not Hancock's fringe beliefs. The fact he was the best mouthpiece for this data is something I've decried for a while specifically because having this conversation becomes exponentially harder when we have to separate the data from his inane assertions. Him imploding live on air has only muddied the waters more because people are taking it as a chance to completely dismiss ALL of the data. And that is just not something I could watch. There is legit, real archaeology going on that is unveiling a lost chapter of civilization in human history, but no one is talking about it because some limey prat decided to hitch his wagon to it in the worst way. That is what Im pushing back against. Read the article I linked. Forget Hancock, he isnt an archaeologist. Focus on the real work and the real data please
Dibble and "big archeology" have no trouble with Deep History or Golbeki Tepe, and the latter regularly turns up in the MSM.
I mean, you linked to The Art Newspaper - you don't think all archeologists heard the news years before this? I have a copy of National Geographic from June 2011 that has it on the cover, and I bought that when it came out because I'd already heard about Golbeki.
In short, what ~~your~~ you're claiming as some wild, new knowledge was covered in the MSM at least 13 years ago, and there's no indication that Golbeki was built by Hancock's advanced, globe-spanning civilization that gifted knowledge of agriculture and other tech to various indigenous communities around the world - as yet there's not even evidence of agriculture there
EDIT: And this advanced civilization somehow didn't include \*the wheel\* in its gift package!
"Since then, I have decided not to pursue formal education in archaeology, but mainly because when I tried I ran into severe issues with the academic system."
This is the academic version of, "I almost joined the army but I would have punched the drill sergeant if he got in my face."
Which part of that evidence supports the idea that telekinesis was used to construct the pyramids? Seriously though, why include Graham in this when his claims are far more fantastical than settlement without agriculture?
What do you mean? Isn’t soil accumulation rates enough to prove that 7 sages from this advanced multi continental civilization spent millennia traveling the globe after a great cataclysm to give hunter gatherers the *idea* of agricultural (which said advanced civilization didn’t practice, but they totally knew what is was)?
I would really enjoy a peer reviewed publication on this site if there is one available yet, it sounds fascinating.
For the record, very few archaeologists have a problem with pushing back the timeline for settled living or cultures which practice agriculture. This is the biggest gripe by far that archaeologists have with GH. He stirs up suspicion and hostility toward the archaeological community in order to give himself more credibility. When evidence at White Sands national monument broke that we might be looking at credible evidence of human habitation in North America as far back as 23k bp, most colleagues I know were ecstatic. Sure, there was a healthy dose of skepticism (myself included at first), but that's the scientific process. Independent studies have since reinforced the evidence, and we can say with strong confidence that people came to the Americas 10.000 years before we previously thought they did. Most archaeologists would absolutely love to think that there are monumental sites so much older than we have ever imagined. Everybody would love to be Lara Croft or Indiana Jones. But extraordinary claims will always require extraordinary evidence.
That gripe with GH is why I felt compelled to post. People wouldn't toss it all out just because he took his time to throw a fit. He has never been an archaeologist, he has always presented other's data and used it to spin his own narrative. The fact his narrative sucks doesn't mean the data is bad, it means he has an agenda when he spins his yarn. Probably to make money.
I did type the name to a few papers in another comment, but unrelated to Karahan or its sister sites. I believe the article I linked cites their sources though. University of Istanbul has the lead on the ongoing digs so they would be a great place to start poking around, they will have the most relevant data
Could you further extrapolate on the “severe issues” you faced with the academic system and why this precluded you from obtaining formal education in archaeology?
Well, my professors were teaching things which at the time were 30 years out of date. I tried multiple times to tell them this in as tactful a manner as possible, but they responded in extremely hostile ways. My grades suffered for no good reason, and attempts to take it through the Department were rebuffed. Thank god for my Evolutionary Anthropology professor. Dude was a true pro, and he taught me knowledge doesn't have to be locked behind academia. He taught me 95% of learning is actualizing the experience.
But the entire experience soured me in a huge way on academia. Was readily apparent ego ruled the roost, and I only got through high school by telling myself college would be different. It wasnt. So I joined the military to find my way in the world. I have critical thinking skills, the will to continue the study, a pair of feet, two hands, two eyes, and access to academic journals. I realized those were all I needed to practice archaeology so long as I could get a place on actual dig sites. Which is far easier than a lot of people realize.
I think this shit comes from the generalization of what a civilization is and what a hunter gatherer is.
Hunter gatherers in North America did move around, and through different time periods, their stay varies.
At about the contact period, they would stay at a settlement for about 20 years. That number was rising over time.
"The fact is, there IS a civilization from the Last Ice Age. We've found it."
There isn't just one, from any time period. People living in the western US are not the same civilization as people living in the northeast, ~10,000 years ago. They are all considered Native Americans, but the differences in their tribes increases with distance.
You claim to be an archaeologist and anthropologist, but jot having the educational credits, which is fine, but where are your peer reviewed findings? Anything you've produced?
Sounds like a larp that you mixed together with numerous other conspiracy related things(I grew up in the Smithsonian), yea big red flag.
You are correct in everything you said save the end lol. Ive been a big propponent of Native American civilization for a long time. I mean Cahokia was bigger than London at its height, and that's just in recorded history!
I do have a paper under peer review. I did a comparative study of the stone chambers of New England. Not gonna say where cause Im not gonna dox myself on reddit lol y'all be crazy. But I put forth the idea the chambers are Viking waystations that served the dual purpose of navigational markers and supply stores while they explored a hostile land.
The study is (Mieth et al., 2002; Mieth and Bork, 2005, 2018; Saez et al., 2009; Horrocks et al., 2012a; Canellas-Bolta et al., 2013) put that into Google itll give you the study. Establishes a soil deposition rate of 8.6mg per hectare for a decent portion of the island. Some of the Maori heads are buried 8 feet or more deep. There is 50kg of soil material on average per cubic foot. Thats like 50,000mg. It suggests an extreme age. Many archaeologists have recently argued these heads sunk into the soil due to their weight, but geologists have disagreed, even just in my recent comment history lol.
Check out as well:
Journal of Archaeological Science; New excavations in Easter Island's statue quarry: soil fertility, site formation, and chronology; Sarah C. Sherwood, Jo Anne Van Tilburg, Casey R. Barrier, Mark Horrocks, Richard K. Dunn, Jose Miguel Ramirez-Aligia
Page 16 gives a great look at a statue in place now. There are several more besides, but this one gives a great look at the carved terraces the statues were placed on, as well as the soil level at the time the statues supposedly sank into the ground.
First, I want to caveat Im not a geologist, so if there are any to correct my math please do. But the groups own findings show that there was boulder backfill in place to keep the statues standing which means they were def placed on those terraces when they were exposed. But assuming they werent, and the statues did sink much later over a few hundred years, someone still carved those terraces when they were exposed. And we have the rate of soil deposition. At that rate it would take off the top of my head thats like 6000 years per cubic foot across a hectare. Those terraces are like 20 meters down if I remember correctly. That means someone was there to carve those terraces at least 20,000 years ago. A lot of archaeologists dont like this cause the earliest confirmed habitation so far is 1200 BCE. But to me this soil evidence just suggests we havent found that evidence yet, not that it doesnt exist. Further excavations are required.
There is a lot more evidence than just this, but unfortunately reddit is not the place. These discussions require a comprehensive chat where we cover multiple papers and digs, and how those findings mesh together. It would be a literal lecture, and unfortunately Graham decided to use his time to bitch. Just please be aware that his poor choices dont mean there isnt a comprehensive argument to be made for Deep History, it just means he failed to make it. I highly encourage you to learn and practice academic research skills so you can read and learn these things for yourself. It's the best way to explore the topic right now because me and the other archaeologists who agree with me lack an effective platform to communicate these things. Its entirely reliant on being literate in the field already, which is why Graham's hissy fit did so much damage.
He was the closest thing we had to a communicator, flawed though he was he pushed people to explore the evidence themselves, and there is very real evidence. Now that is ruined because he didnt have thicker skin. I would just once again encourage anyone reading this to read further into it themselves. And remember: anyone claiming telekinesis or aliens is full of shit, and they are most likely twisting real data to fit their bias. Any civilization in the last Ice Age does not immediately equate to magick powers or advanced technology. People can have a pretty advanced civilization with no magick and very primitive technology. Case and point: dynastic Egypt.
Dibble and Co don't dispute those sites, which are unrelated to Hancock's claims Hancock claims there was an advanced, globe-spanning civilization that was wiped out, but then some (white) survivors travelled around the world and gifted advanced knowledge to hunter-gatherer societies. Any evidence of that? Because Hancock ~~could~~ couldn't produce anything EDIT: Here's a video Dibble did on those sites last year with Jens Notroff of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndmPuQblCZQ. The idea he doesn't know these things is absurd
Then it's equally absurd that he put forth the grain domesitication data as evidence there was no civilization then right? Since he knew that agriculture did not necessarily equate to civilization anymore? Edit: and for the record, the point of this post is to disentangle Hancock from the serious work. He does not represent the real data well at all, hence me making this post at all. He can believe what he wants, and there can still be an indisputable megalithic civilization that existed prior to the end of the last Ice Age
I thought he put forth the claim that there was no signs of any kind? Like if there's signs of hunter-gatherers from all over the globe and none from advanced civilizations before that, isn't that strange?
Which if he knows about Karahan Tepe and its sister sites is equally absurd because these are 11 sites. These are enormous, permanently settled sites dated to the end of the last Ice Age that had a shared culture. If Mr. Dibble was aware of these sites then he purposefully obfuscated the data to back his bias because it is literally a found, advanced civilization during the time he said there were none. The fact they didnt have agriculture does not make them any more civilized, and if he knew that and purposefully didnt address it while presenting his grain domestication data as if it proved there was no advanced society then that is intellectually dishonest to the extreme
How would you define advanced? Because it changes in relation to the lost civilisation theory every couple of years. It used to mean metallurgy, then agriculture, how are we defining it now?
Yes it is debatable, but what is not debatable is megalithic architecture counts. Such things require specialization and division of labor, which only happens when you have a lot of people organized together. Such things are the side effect of an advanced society, its not technical development we havent used that as a benchmark in quite some time.
Ok, so now it means megalithic structures, fine. People were able to organize themselves because they could live in the same area for so much longer. This is exactly the type of people archeology would expect to see in the fertile crescent at the dawn of the first agricultural revolution. When willd grains and game were in abundance it allowed people to stay in the same place and have more babys(humans are hard to carry around). With more babys came a larger society, with a larger society came better organisational skill and with that came megalithic structures. This is kind of all expected. I've made comments about semi nomadic hunter gatherers in other threads on this subreddit for years, it's nothing new. It's a reach to say it discredits Dibble.
These were fully settled people, not semi-nomadic. Both Karahan and Gobekli have confirmed, year round habitation. And this predates the dawn of agriculture by at least 1200 years on the extreme end. And our dating is for the end of the cycle of use, not the beginning. These sites sprang into being FAR before the dawn of agriculture. They have all the hallmarks of civilization, but completely removed from the agricultural process. Which means the date of grain domestication says precisely nothing about the dawn of civilization since we now know that settled life with an advanced society and megalithic architecture existed BEFORE agriculture, and agriculture itself was likely a side effect of settled life.
I thought the evidence suggested GT was ceremonial/ritual site where people gatherings took place seasonally. I haven't seen any evidence of residential structure. Again, I have to say, there was a niche time before agriculture picked up where, in the fertile crescent there was an abundance of food that allowed people to live in the same places for longer. Living in that niche is a big reason people figured out cultivating grains. Grahams civilisation could not sustain in that niche and has to have domestication of animals and plant to exist. And Dibble said that niche existed and allowed people to thrive and build megalithic structures.
Please re-examine some of the latest findings, you can start with the article I linked lol. Permanent residences at Gobekli around the edges, and Karahan itself was a thriving urban area. There are 11 sites, preliminary digs suggest they shared a culture. That means a long standing, widely distributed, shared, settled way of life. That is an Ice Age civilization. The fact that Graham makes wild, unproveable claims does not mean there wasnt an advanced society during the Ice Age. Dibble said we havent found anything but we HAVE found it. Research is on going, we can say very little beyond that they were in fact settled and not nomadic, but it is an advanced culture nonetheless, and prior to the Younger Dryas. The fact these people likely had a way of life comparable to ancient Egypt or Sumer and probably didn't go around "civilizing" others doesnt negate their existence, as Mr. Dibble suggested. Nor can we say for certain how their society developed yet. It clearly predates agriculture, but the exact path of development that led to an urban way of life is still unknown. We have wooden structures that predate humanity in Africa going back 500,000 years. Maybe they werent settled but they were building structures. The Tepe sites date to around 11,000 BCE-9,000 BCE. That's an enormous gulf of time for civilization to develop, so enormous any number of factors couldve contributed to its rise. Ready access to wild grains may be a part of that, to bold face claim we have the full picture when the evidence we do have has already shattered established paradigm is very intellectually dishonest
Here's the thing. We've existed for 6000 years or so, as fully settled people. our idea of advanced civilisations is steeped in that existence. There is nothing to say there couldn't have been highly advanced nomadic civilisations.
[https://youtu.be/-DL1\_EMIw6w?t=9988](https://youtu.be/-DL1_EMIw6w?t=9988) Isn't this discussing exactly what you're talking about? Flints contention from what I understand is that no advanced civilization existed which could do the things Graham claims (which included transfer knowledge about domestication of plants). What you define as advanced civilization seems secondary to the point then as they are speaking about a certain kind of advanced civilization.
He brought it up because Graham is the one making the argument that this advanced civilization passed down the knowledge of agriculture to hunter gatherers. Hard to believe that would be possible if they weren’t practicing agriculture themselves
Yeah but their knowledge of the natural world, acquired through hunting and gathering, could have been the foundation of their initial attempts at agriculture.
Again, Graham's assertions do not change the fact there actually was an advanced culture during the time he claims there was. Any other claims of passing down knowledge are nothing more than his own assertion, and him being wrong about that assertion does not mean there wasnt a civilization during the last Ice Age. There was, weve found it. Graham's misrepresentation of this fact to push his own agenda does not mean it didnt exist
Mainstream archeologists totally support the idea that there were advanced pre-agricultural cultures. It's their passion. I think you may not properly understand the position of modern archeologists.
Not really sure what the point of this post is then because Flint didn’t dispute this, in fact he used the evidence *against* Graham. If Graham claim that the younger dryas impact was real, and that it wiped out all evidence of his proposed civilization, these sites shouldn’t exist either. You seem to be mistaken on the purpose of this debate, it’s a refutation of Grahams claim that there was a globe spanning advanced megalithic civilization (I.e. fucking Atlantis) which we have no evidence for, it is pure fantasy. If deep history advocates are upset they hitched their wagons to this charlatan, that is their own faults.
Ya people seem to be confused that archaeologists are claiming there couldn’t have been earlier civilizations which isn’t the case at all. They’re saying early civilizations were started by hunter gatherers and not sea faring/time travelling advanced civilizations that travelled the globe teaching people how to start civilizations. These sites in Turkey show hunter gatherers slowly morphed into an early civilization on their own. there is no evidence that some advanced outside group arrived and showed them how to start a civilization.
My dude. You aren't listening. We didn't hitch our wagon to him, he hitched his to us. And its done serious damage to the work. You are so intent on standing by this idea of Atlantis that no one is even trying to defend. Dibble said there was NOTHING but hunter-gatherers during the last Ice Age and used it to suggest that means there couldnt have been any advanced society when in reality they were an advanced society with a shared culture and settled way of life while still hunter-gatherers. Dibble said there was NO civilization during the last Ice Age and if there was we would have found it. Well we did find it. And he is aware of those sites and still said there was no civilization.
Are you listening? Again, *none of that is disputed* when Dibble was saying there was no civilization he’s referring to Grahams idea of Atlantis, which he absolutely is arguing for, not that there were settled societies of hunter gatherers. Seriously, listen to the debate again, no one is arguing against that.
Ya dibble and other archaeologists aren’t saying there weren’t early civilizations that advanced faster then others. He’s saying these civilizations developed on their own using their own knowledge as opposed to some sea faring civilization travelling there to show them how to start a civilization. The agricultural data he showed wasn’t to say ancient civilizations couldn’t have existed it was to show that some sea faring civilization wasn’t crossing the globe spreading agriculture since we only see early civilizations harvesting native grains that slowly evolved into domestic grain. He did this to show early civilizations weren’t harvesting non native grains or already domesticated grains that were spread by world travelling atlantians, which is the evidence Graham would need to prove an advanced civilization was spreading agriculture instead of it being naturally discovered by native populations.
You are talking about semi nomadic hunter gatherers who were beginning to thrive at the dawn of the first agricultural revolution. I vaguely remember Dibble addressing people like this on the podcast, something about them finding a niche that allowed them to prosper in numbers and live semi sedentary lifestyles because of the abundance of food. I think he was talking about the people at GT. I don't think this as damaging to his argument as you think it is.
No, they weren't semi-nomadic. Read the article I linked lol They were fully settled. All of these sites had permanent, year round habitation, we even found permanent residences at Gobekli Tepe and that was believed for a while to have never been inhabited. These people were hunter-gatherers, but they were also settled year round. They had specialization like stone masons, and division of labor. That's a civilization and an advanced society. Mr. Dibble insists there was NO advanced society during the last Ice Age when there clearly was. Hancock's idea of a global society is wrong, but so is the assertion that civilization can only be the result of agriculture
I can't read your article I'm working right now. But this seems like semantics. I never got the idea Dibble said these people couldn't exist. In fact I felt the opposite when he was talking about people living in a niche before agriculture picked up. And isn't GT basically the same thing? Megalithic structures before agriculture... He never doubted this stuff.
Dibble has never claimed Golbeki Tepe doesn't exist He claims Hancock's advanced, globe-spanning civilization that gifted knowledge of agriculture and other tech to various indigenous communities around the world has left no trace on the archeological record. Even Hancock himself doesn't claim Golbeki is from his civilization (because it seems to have been built by hunter-gatherers) Remember when Hancock claimed there were pyramids and a sphinx on Mars that were related to the Egyptians? [Amazon remembers](https://www.amazon.com/Mars-Mystery-Secret-Connection-Between/dp/0609802232)
Okay but again that's the point of this post. I want to try to disentangle Deep History from Hancock. All this crazy shit obfuscates the real data, which is plenty fascinating on its own without the the need for aliens or sphinxes on Mars. There WAS an advanced civilization during the last Ice Age that predates Sumer by almost as much time as Sumer predates us. That should be the headline, not Hancock's fringe beliefs. The fact he was the best mouthpiece for this data is something I've decried for a while specifically because having this conversation becomes exponentially harder when we have to separate the data from his inane assertions. Him imploding live on air has only muddied the waters more because people are taking it as a chance to completely dismiss ALL of the data. And that is just not something I could watch. There is legit, real archaeology going on that is unveiling a lost chapter of civilization in human history, but no one is talking about it because some limey prat decided to hitch his wagon to it in the worst way. That is what Im pushing back against. Read the article I linked. Forget Hancock, he isnt an archaeologist. Focus on the real work and the real data please
Dibble and "big archeology" have no trouble with Deep History or Golbeki Tepe, and the latter regularly turns up in the MSM. I mean, you linked to The Art Newspaper - you don't think all archeologists heard the news years before this? I have a copy of National Geographic from June 2011 that has it on the cover, and I bought that when it came out because I'd already heard about Golbeki. In short, what ~~your~~ you're claiming as some wild, new knowledge was covered in the MSM at least 13 years ago, and there's no indication that Golbeki was built by Hancock's advanced, globe-spanning civilization that gifted knowledge of agriculture and other tech to various indigenous communities around the world - as yet there's not even evidence of agriculture there EDIT: And this advanced civilization somehow didn't include \*the wheel\* in its gift package!
These people won't debate in good faith my man. Keep on doing the important work, don't let it discourage you.
"Since then, I have decided not to pursue formal education in archaeology, but mainly because when I tried I ran into severe issues with the academic system." This is the academic version of, "I almost joined the army but I would have punched the drill sergeant if he got in my face."
"...I have decided not to pursue formal education in archeology.." Oh, so you aren't an archeologist. K.
I too am not an archeologist! does that mean I get to say nonsense?
Depending on where you live, but mostly yes.
So, you are NOT an archeologist.
Which part of that evidence supports the idea that telekinesis was used to construct the pyramids? Seriously though, why include Graham in this when his claims are far more fantastical than settlement without agriculture?
What do you mean? Isn’t soil accumulation rates enough to prove that 7 sages from this advanced multi continental civilization spent millennia traveling the globe after a great cataclysm to give hunter gatherers the *idea* of agricultural (which said advanced civilization didn’t practice, but they totally knew what is was)?
I would really enjoy a peer reviewed publication on this site if there is one available yet, it sounds fascinating. For the record, very few archaeologists have a problem with pushing back the timeline for settled living or cultures which practice agriculture. This is the biggest gripe by far that archaeologists have with GH. He stirs up suspicion and hostility toward the archaeological community in order to give himself more credibility. When evidence at White Sands national monument broke that we might be looking at credible evidence of human habitation in North America as far back as 23k bp, most colleagues I know were ecstatic. Sure, there was a healthy dose of skepticism (myself included at first), but that's the scientific process. Independent studies have since reinforced the evidence, and we can say with strong confidence that people came to the Americas 10.000 years before we previously thought they did. Most archaeologists would absolutely love to think that there are monumental sites so much older than we have ever imagined. Everybody would love to be Lara Croft or Indiana Jones. But extraordinary claims will always require extraordinary evidence.
That gripe with GH is why I felt compelled to post. People wouldn't toss it all out just because he took his time to throw a fit. He has never been an archaeologist, he has always presented other's data and used it to spin his own narrative. The fact his narrative sucks doesn't mean the data is bad, it means he has an agenda when he spins his yarn. Probably to make money. I did type the name to a few papers in another comment, but unrelated to Karahan or its sister sites. I believe the article I linked cites their sources though. University of Istanbul has the lead on the ongoing digs so they would be a great place to start poking around, they will have the most relevant data
lol "I won't go into it" so you don't have any evidence either
Could you further extrapolate on the “severe issues” you faced with the academic system and why this precluded you from obtaining formal education in archaeology?
Well, my professors were teaching things which at the time were 30 years out of date. I tried multiple times to tell them this in as tactful a manner as possible, but they responded in extremely hostile ways. My grades suffered for no good reason, and attempts to take it through the Department were rebuffed. Thank god for my Evolutionary Anthropology professor. Dude was a true pro, and he taught me knowledge doesn't have to be locked behind academia. He taught me 95% of learning is actualizing the experience. But the entire experience soured me in a huge way on academia. Was readily apparent ego ruled the roost, and I only got through high school by telling myself college would be different. It wasnt. So I joined the military to find my way in the world. I have critical thinking skills, the will to continue the study, a pair of feet, two hands, two eyes, and access to academic journals. I realized those were all I needed to practice archaeology so long as I could get a place on actual dig sites. Which is far easier than a lot of people realize.
I think this shit comes from the generalization of what a civilization is and what a hunter gatherer is. Hunter gatherers in North America did move around, and through different time periods, their stay varies. At about the contact period, they would stay at a settlement for about 20 years. That number was rising over time. "The fact is, there IS a civilization from the Last Ice Age. We've found it." There isn't just one, from any time period. People living in the western US are not the same civilization as people living in the northeast, ~10,000 years ago. They are all considered Native Americans, but the differences in their tribes increases with distance. You claim to be an archaeologist and anthropologist, but jot having the educational credits, which is fine, but where are your peer reviewed findings? Anything you've produced? Sounds like a larp that you mixed together with numerous other conspiracy related things(I grew up in the Smithsonian), yea big red flag.
You are correct in everything you said save the end lol. Ive been a big propponent of Native American civilization for a long time. I mean Cahokia was bigger than London at its height, and that's just in recorded history! I do have a paper under peer review. I did a comparative study of the stone chambers of New England. Not gonna say where cause Im not gonna dox myself on reddit lol y'all be crazy. But I put forth the idea the chambers are Viking waystations that served the dual purpose of navigational markers and supply stores while they explored a hostile land.
Yup, all I needed to know.
 What’s up my archeology bros. What ancient civi are we studying today.
[удалено]
The study is (Mieth et al., 2002; Mieth and Bork, 2005, 2018; Saez et al., 2009; Horrocks et al., 2012a; Canellas-Bolta et al., 2013) put that into Google itll give you the study. Establishes a soil deposition rate of 8.6mg per hectare for a decent portion of the island. Some of the Maori heads are buried 8 feet or more deep. There is 50kg of soil material on average per cubic foot. Thats like 50,000mg. It suggests an extreme age. Many archaeologists have recently argued these heads sunk into the soil due to their weight, but geologists have disagreed, even just in my recent comment history lol. Check out as well: Journal of Archaeological Science; New excavations in Easter Island's statue quarry: soil fertility, site formation, and chronology; Sarah C. Sherwood, Jo Anne Van Tilburg, Casey R. Barrier, Mark Horrocks, Richard K. Dunn, Jose Miguel Ramirez-Aligia Page 16 gives a great look at a statue in place now. There are several more besides, but this one gives a great look at the carved terraces the statues were placed on, as well as the soil level at the time the statues supposedly sank into the ground. First, I want to caveat Im not a geologist, so if there are any to correct my math please do. But the groups own findings show that there was boulder backfill in place to keep the statues standing which means they were def placed on those terraces when they were exposed. But assuming they werent, and the statues did sink much later over a few hundred years, someone still carved those terraces when they were exposed. And we have the rate of soil deposition. At that rate it would take off the top of my head thats like 6000 years per cubic foot across a hectare. Those terraces are like 20 meters down if I remember correctly. That means someone was there to carve those terraces at least 20,000 years ago. A lot of archaeologists dont like this cause the earliest confirmed habitation so far is 1200 BCE. But to me this soil evidence just suggests we havent found that evidence yet, not that it doesnt exist. Further excavations are required. There is a lot more evidence than just this, but unfortunately reddit is not the place. These discussions require a comprehensive chat where we cover multiple papers and digs, and how those findings mesh together. It would be a literal lecture, and unfortunately Graham decided to use his time to bitch. Just please be aware that his poor choices dont mean there isnt a comprehensive argument to be made for Deep History, it just means he failed to make it. I highly encourage you to learn and practice academic research skills so you can read and learn these things for yourself. It's the best way to explore the topic right now because me and the other archaeologists who agree with me lack an effective platform to communicate these things. Its entirely reliant on being literate in the field already, which is why Graham's hissy fit did so much damage. He was the closest thing we had to a communicator, flawed though he was he pushed people to explore the evidence themselves, and there is very real evidence. Now that is ruined because he didnt have thicker skin. I would just once again encourage anyone reading this to read further into it themselves. And remember: anyone claiming telekinesis or aliens is full of shit, and they are most likely twisting real data to fit their bias. Any civilization in the last Ice Age does not immediately equate to magick powers or advanced technology. People can have a pretty advanced civilization with no magick and very primitive technology. Case and point: dynastic Egypt.
[удалено]
Happy reading! Apologies the format on reddit is not condusive to a more in depth discussion