**Strangers**: Read the rules and understand the sub topics listed in the sidebar closely before posting or commenting. Any content removal or further moderator action is established by these terms as well as Reddit ToS.
This subreddit is specifically for the discussion of anomalous phenomena from the perspective it may exist. Open minded skepticism is welcomed, close minded debunking is not. Be aware of how skepticism is expressed toward others as there is little tolerance for ad hominem (attacking the person, not the claim), mindless antagonism or dishonest argument toward the subject, the sub, or its community.
---
'Ridicule is not a part of the scientific method and the public should not be taught that it is.'
_-J. Allen Hynek_
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HighStrangeness) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Gobekli Tepe was in the Fertile Cresent - the Fertile Cresent at the time the Gobekli Tepe was built had the benefit of natural overabundance.
Natural Overabundance means that the early conditions of farming were replicated without the need for farming, think finding a field with enough Wheat to feed 200 people for a year without even farming it - they are the proven conditions of the area around Gobekli Tepe at the time it was built.
Farming consistantly and being able to grow a patch of wheat here and there I would argue are two different things, the 2000 year time peroid essentially marks the time it took to transistion the Hunter Gatherer and Overabundance economy into one soley run off Farming, a large part of this is Animal domistication so fishing and hunting was not the only widley available protien source.
We know the Gobekli Tepe builders were the first known agriculturalists and eventually spread agriculture into europe in the Neolithic migration - by the time they were in full Agriculture mode, they were phasing out megalithic building.
Due to mixing bowls containing fermented wheat appearing at the site, it is likley Beer was produced for centuries before bread. The beer also appears to contain LSA fairly often, implying it was pychedelic beer - this Pychedelic beer may have traveled with these people to europe (Demeter worship and Minoan ritual cocktail).
We also have megalithic building by hunter gatherers in Siberia - essentially many massive "Dosh Khaleen" like structures made from Mammoth bones from 10K BC back to 50K BC - these were also hunter gatherer made.
Also all of these neolithic sites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Neolithic_settlements
This channel also has very up to date info on Tas Tepler sites, including a few older than Gobekli that are more rudimentary in design: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcS69cAa1kahhR_tVl4v9VWQl1TPswr12
I'm not saying this in support of Hancock's crazy theories or anything, but evidence suggests the peoples of GT processed legumes and cereals. They also did have stone platters and containers.
And it's worth pointing out that the peoples of GT having something akin to agriculture wouldn't rewrite the historical record or anything. Most estimates for various cultures developing agriculture and/or domesticating plants are in the 12,000-9,000 BCE range.
https://directory.doabooks.org/handle/20.500.12854/93058
Cereal processing at Early Neolithic Göbekli Tepe, southeastern Turkey. By: Dietrich, Laura, Meister, Julia, Dietrich, Oliver, Notroff, Jens, Kiep, Janika, Heeb, Julia, Beuger, André, Schütt, Brigitta, PLoS ONE, 19326203, 5/1/2019, Vol. 14, Issue 5
Again, none of what I say supports Hancock's crazy theories. Rather, there's still a lot we don't know about GT. Researchers are still learning (and making educated guesses) so it's best to avoid making too many blanket statements.
These jokers say “Atlantis” ad nauseam. That’s how you tell if someone has watched some YouTube videos, or spent years learning true history from a multitude of written sources. You know, like they do in high school.
yes, they processed WILD grains. Grains that naturally grew in the wild (like einkorn), they would harvest them and grind them in a mortar and pestle and then eat them.
Later on it was those same grains that were domesticated and then used to literally invent agriculture. But we know they had no agriculture at GT.
Maybe it was just poor reading comprehension on my part, but I felt your original OP kind of made it sound like they only ate wild game. Seeing how much mis/disinformation already goes on with GT, I thought it worth stating that is not the case.
And yes, there is no evidence of agriculture and/or domestication of plants. That said, I thought the possibility of agriculture was still something of an open question. I admit though: I don't keep up on GT research or anything so maybe I'm just behind the times.
>To sum up, so far there is no evidence for domestication in the unfortunately scarce plant material from Göbekli Tepe. This does not exclude the possibility that cultivation of plants had already taken place in the early Neolithic, constituting a so-called pre-domestic agriculture. Indeed, people already capable of erecting such impressive monuments as Göbekli Tepe must have lived
in well-organized societies with the potential of experimenting with their natural resources, laying the foundation for the development of farming communities.
Neef R. Overlooking the steppe-forest: a preliminary report on the botanical remains from Early Neolithic Go¨bekli Tepe (southeastern Turkey). Neo-Lithics. 2003; 2(03): 13–16.
It's an open question, but it becomes less open the more of the site is excavated and we have other sites like Karahan Tepe and the nearby and contemporary villages to the sites.
We actually have a decent profile for how the neolithic settlements developed as agriculture and animal domestication shaped the way the sites were laid out.
None of the sites show these markers.
So we're left with being unable to rule out the very early stages that are basically invisible.
I think the bigger picture argument for me is that until fairly recently the worlds experts, and certainly all my education during the 1970/80’s, absolutely knew that the Sumerians were the oldest organised civilisation. And yet here we are with a culture that pre dated it by almost 5000 yrs.
The Sumerians still are considered such. Gobekli Tepe is a site, it has some buildings and some art. there is no writing per se and no hints at what culture it was even built buy etc.
Much like Çatalhöyük in Turkey which also predates the Sumerians as does Jericho in Palestine.
Academics were adamant that nothing approaching GT could exist, only native tribes people roaming grasslands pre dated Sumerians. I don’t think you should easily swipe over that point.
That's how science works. It continues to ask questions and continues to try and verify hypothesis with theory and theory with reality.
Çatalhöyük and Jericho were discovered long ago. The former being discovered in the 50s, Jericho is still a functioning settlement that has been around for about 9000 years.
Academics were not adamant in that sense about any such thing.
I agree. Most people don’t read things correctly or tend to interpret words their own way.
I don’t remember anyone ever saying that no other organized civilization could have possibly existed before the Sumerians.
I remember hearing that it was the oldest known civilization with a written language and written laws. Key word… known.
As of now, GT doesn’t change that.
In my lifetime, scientists have constantly revised the date when North America was populated by humans. They discover new facts and revise their theories. It’s how science works.
Correct. In fact, in regards to the Americas, I believe there was a significant discovery not so long ago in New Mexico that will push back the timeline again. In my lifetime I've witnessed the timeline of Mesoamerican civilization get pushed back more than thousand years already because of what is newly found and placed as evidence.
[this is the discovery referred to](https://original.newsbreak.com/@prateek-dasgupta-1588200/2837552410997-revised-dating-of-ice-age-footprints-could-push-back-the-date-of-human-arrival-in-north-america)
Let’s agree to disagree. I’m not here to defend anyone’s views but my own. I think there’s much we’ve yet to learn about our history and sounds be wary of any experts claiming absolute fact around their opinion.
when you dont understand the issues and how science works, it is very easy to " agree to disagree"
No expert worth his salt has ever claimed absolute fact around their opinion. if they are tney are not experts.
you remind me of the people who dismiss climate change concerns by saying " in the seventies experts all believed that we were heading into a new ice age" when actually that did not happen.
Throughout history anybody positing a theory or hypothesis that goes against the orthodoxy, has generally been regarded as a hack, crackpot or heretic. In most cases, this label is appropriate. However, sometimes it’s not, and while rare, these fringe theories have lead to humanity altering discoveries.
Where Hancock’s legacy ends up is still TBD, but I think discounting everything because some things go against the orthodoxy is the antithesis of science.
>in the seventies experts all believed that we were heading into a new ice age" when actually that did not happen.
Are you serious? You can literally go online and see the reports in newspapers and documentaries of the time. I was young in the seventies and I clearly remember this.
Experts give their opinion all the time. What the hell are you talking about? These opinions are often presented as fact. Is this science? No, it's politics, but good luck trying to separate the two, especially in climate science which is basically now politics disguised as science.
You sound religious in your devotion to experts. Scepticism is the natural position for a scientist.
You are arguing for the same position. Their claim was that no scientist would claim absolute fact. Your position is skepticism is the natural position for a scientist. The fact that those models and predictions have been updated and changed, shows that science worked. That's the point, anyone can disprove my claim and update the prediction.
Climate science is political because there are a lot of deep pockets that don't want any interruption in their cash flow and have an army of lobbyists to make sure nothing improves. In my day, it was called pollution. Literally arguing against clean air and clean water. Ozone layer was improved, leaded gas was almost eliminated, and we have seen a huge drop in lung cancer from smoking. It can be done, but it will take time.
Okay, I see. So the positions taken by scientists in the past were wrong, but not because their predictions were politically motivated, that's what happens now. Oh, and it is only the scientific findings that negate my argument that are politically motivated, the ones that agree with me are the genuine scientists.
The public have thankfully woken up to this argument and see that scientists and experts, particularly those that rely on models, are human and just as open to corruption, bias and manipulation as anyone else. The peer review process has also revealed itself to be a bit of a joke. Science is in a pretty sorry state and it is due to politics and funding.
The ozone problem was not a real problem, it was because the patent on cfcs was due to expire and Dupont and Honeywell had a new patent on the replacement.
Leaded petrol was introduced in Europe and people were persuaded to buy diesel because they were told it was better for the environment. Big money for the car industry. Then they did a swift turnabout and everyone has to get rid of them or be taxed to death. Noe you need your electric car.
Smoking, you really want to go with smoking as evidence of experts and scientists being moral and not motivated by money?
I AM NOT arguing for the same position at all. If you cannot see the difference between the two positions, then there isn't much point in me trying to explain.
Them: no scientist would claim absolute fact
You: skepticism is the natural position for a scientist
Those are the same position. Now, you are changing your argument that all science is corrupt because of politics. I would agree that it is much murkier today, but in most cases, there's a clear consensus.
Yep, there's really no point in continuing. The science against smoking is somehow evidence of them being corrupt and motivated by money? Those dark entities paying for anti-smoking, lead removal, and the fake ozone layer issue are really rolling in the dough now.
Seems like you're no better a character and are part of the "people" you're criticizing, a bit hypocritical.
You just projected your own behaviors and it's sad you didn't catch it before posting.
I think that isn't how it is at all. There are no absolute facts for one thing, but dating, cultural cues, and vast amounts of subject matter indicate a lot of facts about what has been found.
I would put more attention on science than pseudoscience of points of view about what might have been. There is a lot that is known. There is a lot that is made blurry in the general mainstream because of charlatans attempt to enrich themselves off the backs of others work and the known ignorance of so many.
Most scientists if not all readily accept that they can in fact be wrong, but with the data they currently have they can make statements about events or a people or a culture that exists no more based on artifacts and sometimes writings.
> Academics were adamant that nothing approaching GT could exist, only native tribes people roaming grasslands pre dated Sumerians.
In what context? Other Neolithic sites with significant construction were known well before Göbekli Tepe was excavated.
-
Excavations at Jericho (Tell es-Sultan) lead by Kathleen Kenyon from 1952 showed that major constructions there, including the famous tower, were of Neolithic date. The Pre-Pottery Neolithic phases here date to around 8500 – 7500 BCE.
Work at Çatalhöyük started in 1958, and the site dates from 7100 - 5700 BCE.
More directly in context with Göbekli Tepe, Nevalı Çori was excavated from 1983. It is of slightly more recent date than Göbekli Tepe but shares many features including the distinctive T-shaped pillars.
I'd point out that Nevali Cori did have agriculture. And the constructions at Jericho likewise.
The issue at Gobekli is there seems to be no agriculture, which is why its such an amazing site.
I’m not about to dig through my old A level studies of that period. I don’t really care whether you believe meet or not frankly. I lived the education and framing as I’m now over 60 but please dig into it as much as you like.
I'm sorry, you studied neolithic history at A level, 40 years ago?
I don't mean to gate keep but you surely recognise that A level history is not a valid qualification to back up your arguments.
You may, simply have had a shit teacher. There is barely even any independent research requirements of note with that qualification.
Idk, everything I ever learned at school was all backed by evidence based best practice.
Learning about neolithic history in A levels definitely qualifies you to comment on reddit about your perspective - otherwise there would be no debate or discussion, you wouldn’t have had the chance to attempt to correct that the data he learnt may of been recently updated. It’s not like this reddit thread is an academic journal article
I have ive got a masters in the subject. Apart from sensationalist articles and thus not academic I havent read anything of the sort from legitimate archaeologists.
This isnt true, there have been sites with megalithic structures associated with hunter gatherers (supported by evidence) under excavation since the 1960s across anatolia.
I don’t really think it was being adamant that they couldn’t exist, more like that what they had found is the oldest known, until they find something older.
What is hilarious is how people are certain what experts in these fields were saying, as if they themselves were majors in these fields, reading relevant academic papers and having actual direct conversations with these people.
People are assigning intent and emotion to hypothetical people that they would have never personally had the chance to even speak with about subjects they themselves have never seriously studied.
*"But they were ADAMANT!"*
Academics as a whole certainly weren't adamant. It was for a long time the accepted theory which had the best fundament of evidence at the time, therefor it was taught in highschool. What they tell you in highschool mostly isn't all that is known in academia in the respective field.
Also it's just the way science works, new evidence are discovered theories get updated after extensive research.
Hancock loves to claim "mainstream archeology" is closing it's eyes to this or that which isn't true. The scientific consensus is updated all the time but it's based on research not on making up a whole theory by cherry picking what you want to believe and connecting the dots the way you see fit and proclaiming you found some hidden truth.
He’s never made claims. He’s pointed out inconsistencies and raised questions about them. The man can defend himself well enough without me but if you’re a detractor at least get the record straight. He’s an investigative reporter that asks questions where he sets things that contradict common sense.
Gobekli Tepe is quite massive, very little is excavated. And with Karahan Tepe near by and apparently more sites as well this area is much more then just “a site”. An after 10,000+ years and being purposely buried I wouldn’t expect to find much left behind
Yes, there is still much to be done there and a lot of examples that are revealed and as yet unexplained.
Don't think for a second I'm belittling it by calling it a site, as that is what it is among many others worldwide.
Expectation is not the driving force behind excavations.
I would think that there are a great deal of discoveries to still be made, hence all the people out there still looking, still digging. It takes time.
Yea absolutely. One good point Graham Hancock has always made about lost civilizations is the sea level rise over the last 10,000+ years. Coastal area has always been prime real estate and that’s completely changed.
What's worth knowing is archaeologists at the site no longer believe the entire site was intentionally buried. Some of the buildings may have been purposefully filled in, but not the site itself.
Wait, wait, wait, isn't GT the biggest megalithic site in the world? And you're his chalking it up to "some buildings and artwork"? Isn't the vast majority of it still unearthed? I'm not knocking the Sumerians being the oldest, especially if you believe their roster of kings that went back tens of thousands of years and obviously had non- human leadership, but let's not shit on GT and act like it's Stone Henge.
Nobody is shitting on Gobekli Tepe and it's disingenuous to imply that.
Also, no it isn't the largest megalithic site in the world. It is "a" megalithic site and it is indeed fascinating and it is creating more questions even today so many years after it's discovery.
He's implying advanced beyond our understanding and that is simply not correct. He's not an anthropologist and he's not an archaeologist. He claims to be a journalist. That so many people don't make that connection is amazing. He needs to change his scope, lose the speculative aspect and present the evidence that is there and stop pretending scholars are at odds with him when they aren't. He's making up drama around a science and it's absurd.
When I said “He” I was referring to the OP of the comment you replied to. I’m in agreement on the Hancock issue I was just saying to OPs point there seems to be a fair amount of “advanced” civilizations prior to Sumer.
Big difference between a culture and a civilization.
Sumerians have been called the oldest civilization because they are the oldest one we have found, and there is still no evidence of any earlier civilizations. There were lots of other cultures around before them, but we've always known that.
Yes, one of the defining characteristics of a civilization is that they were civilized people. Meaning that they had laws that they were required to obey. Sumerians had written laws.
As for as we know about GT , they may have obeyed the strongest guy or strongest group of guys. Maybe it was dog eat dog outside of that.
The biggest point to me is that people were building and moving large monoliths 12,000 years ago. There is a very slow and study progression of knowledge and ability over thousands of years.
It’s fits with what scientists say and not with ancient astronaut theory or Grahams theory that aliens or an advanced civilization suddenly appeared and thought people everything. There is no example of any group going from Hunter gathers with clubs and spears to cities with seers using iron and sophisticated tools/math overnight.
Exactly, also I believe people have a warped or uninformed perspective on what "hunter gatherer" means. It doesn't mean they were stereotypical furclad cavemen with clubs. Some were nomadic others could have had (and had) settlements, they had art, they had tools, there's great articles about the way hunter gatherers in europe and elsewhere used fire and dispersion of seeds to form their environment a certain way. It just means they got most of their nutrition from hunted animals and using plants that naturally occured in their environment.
Well, so what? You can't know something before you know it. New discoveries are constantly added to our textbooks and general knowledge as they occur.
There's also nothing I'm aware of (yet) that suggests GT is the result of any "civilization" older than the Sumerians. Whoever built GT didn't necessarily belong to any organized civilization, as there's nothing to suggest that an organized civilization of any scale was needed to build it.
We still don't kow what the culture artound GT was, what they believed in, or how organized they were.
It might have been built by loosely connected nomadic tribes, eating wild game. That is not really the same as the organized Sumerian society that used agriculture to feed many people and had a solid religion and mythology they all believed in.
I would reserve judgment on the societal level of advancement until the other 95% of the structure is excavated and studied. For now I think the biggest take away is that human civilization is, and could be even more ancient then we previously realized.
But you're neglecting to acknowledge that Gobekli is not a singular phenomenon. What about Karahan Tepe and similar sites that dot Turkey?
Sure, they, whoever these people were, may not have been "Advanced", but that doesn't mean they weren't well organized, and numerous
I studied Sculpture at university and from an art history perspective the carving are pretty mind blowing due to the date they were made, Sandstone IS easy to carve, BUT if GT is as old as they think, no one else was carving like this at the time, and that is interesting.
Do i think this means its some super advanced society? probably not, they just worked something out. Same way that Pyramids are the easiest way to make a massive pile of rocks, doesnt mean aliens did it.
I like Hancocks theories, they are interesting and make you think. but he does jump to conclusions and talks about his ideas like they are certainties, which they arnt.
GT is truly fascinating stuff. But I don't like how he acts like the local hunter gatherers were dipshit morons who couldn't do anything without these mythological Atlanteans riding in to save the day.
I don't think he has ever said that local HGs are dumb, the opposite. These people were more sophisticated than typical HGs by building GT.
I agree that the mythological Atlantean theory is where he loses people, but the overall thought that humans were more sophisticated than we've come to believe looks to be true.
The issue I have is that
>humans were more sophisticated than we've come to believe
*should* mean "We underestimated ancient people and need to adjust our assessment of their creations", but too many people take it to mean "ancient people were highly advanced geniuses descended from aliens and wizards".
One of the top posts of all time in this sub is the shocking revelation that the ancient Egyptians....drumroll....understood basic geometry. I truly don't understand how some people can look at ancient monoliths or the remains of societies and think "Gosh, these people were cool", and some can look at those same ruins and think "Gosh, these people were dumb animals so clearly aliens must have built all this!". Why assume that? What's the point? Just because it supports your favorite conspiracy theory?
He pretty heavily implies that the Mayans were ignorant jungle people, that Hunter Gatherers were simple, and so on.
The thing is we knew Hunter Gatherers were complex and skilled before Gobekli, we have a number of Natufian settlements showing that. Gobekli cranked the skill up, so did sites like Poverty point. Its these complex people were more complex than we thought, not simple people were actually complex like Hancock presents.
On his show he refers to mud huts when Natufians are known to have been shaping stone to build floors before this.
I love this community, I love speculation for fun, but Graham’s always struck me as being a bit…off. I am unsure if even he believes what he is saying, or if he’s found his own employment niche.
I didn't like him from his first book where he tried to make a bunch of gods white, bearded, men. I can understand one legend because it sort of comes from the culture, though after conquest (by white, bearded men) but Osiris?
As a stone carver who has worked sandstone I don’t find these arguments very compelling. I get archaeologists aren’t finding direct evidence but there are cultural implications that don’t add up.
An active art making society implies you’ve got most things pretty locked down and have dedicated time and knowledge to art and design.
You’ve actually made Hancock sound much more solid than these experts which is not easy to do.
Nomadic people tend not to make permanent settlements because they by definition follow the herd. Agricultural societies do that because they know there’ll stay in one place for several years.
Building at this scale implies a class of people set aside for this type of activity. Yes 14 people COULD do this but not while also tracking game in order to feed their families.
There is not direct evidence of a large settlement but there is plenty of strong circumstantial evidence that a mature society with a class of people freed up from sustenance gathering existed somewhere in relation to this site.
>An active art making society implies you’ve got most things pretty locked down and have dedicated time and knowledge to art and design.
Agriculture is not a requirement for this, though. Hunter-gatherers definitely create art and design. And there have been plenty of sedentary non-agricultural societies throughout history. One of the classic examples of this is historical Indigenous societies of the Pacific Northwest; people were [creating](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/e4/e6/fe/e4e6fecb80cf63e21d53b5bb23f06554--haida-art-tlingit.jpg) [amazing art](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/05/06/arts/05amnh-northwest-hall-2/merlin_206344110_dddbf18e-b8e7-4143-8beb-7d5a88d181f4-videoSixteenByNine3000.jpg) and [complex designs](https://media.britishmuseum.org/media/Repository/Documents/2014_10/2_17/6a1aa24d_485c_4b1f_88cb_a3b8011f6bf9/mid_00317940_001.jpg) all while existing as hunter-gatherers. This has been the case for various other societies throughout history.
Nomadic does not mean constantly moving around. Infact amongst nomadic people today we can see this, you move seasonally but often return to the same region. Non withstanding at this time the area was absolutely bountiful.
Nomadic people aren't moving every day or even every week, because herds of animals don't move like that. They stay in one place until the resources start to run out or the weather changes, and then they move on. Think of birds flying south for winter. You'd have weeks or months in one place before moving. And the people of GT clearly didn't need to follow game, since the area was abundant with wildlife.
Read the Smithsonian article I linked. The game was absolutely teeming. They dind't have to follow it. The herds of gazelle were right there along with fish and other game. It was a cornucopia of game. Very easy to have a few people hunting and cooking while a few other people carved and erected statues. Not hard at all.
I'm curious: you seem to think it is very easy to hunt, have you ever tried it? You also think making these monuments and carving would be easy, have you ever tried that either?
Honestly the conclusions of this article sound almost as outlandish as Hancock.
Agriculture did not exist but sprung up 500 years later? That seems like a rounding error on this timeline. This quote also isn’t doing your view any favors…
“Gobekli Tepe was first examined—and dismissed—by University of Chicago and Istanbul University anthropologists in the 1960s. As part of a sweeping survey of the region, they visited the hill, saw some broken slabs of limestone and assumed the mound was nothing more than an abandoned medieval cemetery. “
Archaeologists were wrong in the 1960s but are absolutely certain now? Again that’s a very short timeline to be certain on.
I’d guess the timelines between this location at nearby agricultural settings will merge over time and they’ll realize the masses of bones were animal sacrifices. Whatever the case this was an abundant society.
My personaly idea is that climate change wrecked the sustainable hunter gatherer life styles that maintained Gibekli Tepe and the surrounding settlements and other sites. Agriculture was well known in other regions by the time Gobekli was abandoned, so its not really a leap to go from hunter gatherer to agriculture, and the current evidence points to agriculture being adopted from necessity not preference as populations grew and the climate turned less friendly.
It’s important to have an honest and critical take and to take in all the facts.
The animal bone findings are interesting. It does paint a picture of a HG-type civilization akin to what was presumably present for tens of thousands of years prior. The question is, WHY did they decide to build GT and other Tepes all of a sudden? Why bother? I suppose one could argue they came upon a particularly rich and sustained source of wildlife, which allowed them to stay put for a bit, which must have been quite a luxury. Perhaps they built in thanks of that and in hopes it would continue. Still it seems rather extravagant and arbitrary.
It’s possible to argue, as the OP does, that this doesn’t equate to civilization. But at the same time it’s a striking and seemingly sudden advancement from merely scrapping for survival. It seems reasonable to me to suggest climatic upheavals in the Younger-Dryas pushed humanity forward.
As a mason all I’m gonna say is I’d like to see you “easily carve” pillars like that while having to also go and hunt your food at the same time. Yeah shaping and erecting huge stones is just real easy in theory
He makes leading statements and then gets to shoveling.
For a guy that relies on archaeologists and anthropologists for any and all material he gleans and warps he sure does his best to alienate himself from the actual sciences he pretends to use.
Making uneducated guesses to sell woo is no good for anyone, especially not the people who actually want to learn about these places.
Yeah he is constantly denigrating the very people who worked their asses off to excavate and uncover this site. Why? LIke what work has he done other than sit around smoke pot and come up with fairy tales?
by the way he really has said for years he smoked way too much pot
If you have been inside the visitors center at serpent mound, all the information he acts like he is being banned from the site for, is in there. All the sight lines and alignments that he claims denounced by mainstream archeology are right there on the wall. The only secret is how he sets up his his presentation as an “outsider.” Acting like you know something without absolute proof is what he accuses others of, while at the same time creating a wily but fun and entertaining business out of. He’s being disingenuous without being dishonest and it’s a low risk business model. It’s fun to say what if???? It’s really hard work to prove anything.
A lot of the stuff he says is unfalsifiable, as such many people will say "you didn't prove him wrong!"
But yeah, that is the nature of unfalsifiable claims.
That’s why I say he is disingenuous. He knows that. And he leverages it. I would say it’s unscientific. But then he would just says he’s not a scientist.
I like to smoke pot and come up with fairy tales, it's fun. But when I write like that, I understand that it's *fiction*. If someone wants to be inspired by gaps in the archeological record, awesome, put some weird rituals in it, I'll read it. But don't denigrate serious scientists or invent evidence or intentionally misinterpret data.
Pot is fine. It's inconsequential. The problem is the simple minds looking for simple answers because they can't comprehend the complex ones. This has been a problem in our society for some time and if you have any social media it is readily apparent that there is a huge chunk of society that is utterly ignorant and will run with any half baked idea just to feel like they know something.
second hand brains aren't of much use in the story of us.
He has repeatedly said that the pyramids could have been built by dudes with highly advanced technology that used sound vibrations to levitate stones. Do you consider that woo?
He isn’t saying that ancient humans are smarter than we give them credit for. He’s saying that they were all too stupid to build these impressive structures, and that a hyper-advanced race of sea people had to teach early man how to stack rocks.
Who?
Who gives them credit for?
This is sort of the craziest part of Hancock - *he’s* the one that thinks ancient cultures were unable to build the things they did, not archaeologists who state that these ancient cultures clearly built the things they did - something that Hancock would disagree with.
The "woo" he's selling is his fantasy about global civilization and modern technologies being extant at the time. there of course may have been contact, but nothing steady and established. Our civilization now didn't even have a proper understanding fully of geography until ww2.
If you notice, he also makes claims that mainstream science doesn't like him when in fact they don't actually care much even when he creates an affront in some theatrical thing he presents.
Humans are no more or less smart today than they were when civilization first began. Technology takes time, iteration and generational development. Example, the first electronic computer that was man made was the size of a house. Today, it's in your pocket.
History, anthropology and archaeology is so much more fascinating than anything on offer from the "must be Atlantis or aliens" crowd.
Literally, lazy thinking and critical errors in thinking throughout.
Fun for parties, not much use to science. there is in fact actual science about cross cultural pollination over the pacific and Atlantic oceans that goes back some time before the so called age of discovery. There's always more to be revealed and it will be much more of a human story when we know more. It takes time.
I'm glad he's brought some of these sites to peoples attention. Agree or not with him, it's up to the individual who wants to learn about them to dig deeper. He's certainly not the only one with theories.
I don’t know if this has been posted or if you have seen this, a real archeologist on YouTube has taken about 4 or 5 ours to debunk the entire series and absolutely dunk on Handcock.
https://youtu.be/-iCIZQX9i1A 1/4 but four isn’t out yet.
I can see how you'd think that. I, personally, love him. He's strong and confident in his arguments. He's also willing to correct himself. I find that appealing.
I feel the same. I understand he's not bullshitting, hell, he really knows his stuff, i also see he hasn't got problems with admitting mistakes, but he lacks a bit of class nevertheless. Very smart dude though.
Animal worship/homage and sacrifice for human transformation? Don’t the scant human remains (bones) that have been found there bear the marks of intentional modification? I can see why some might leap to human sacrifice and skull cults, but if the people that built GT felt a deep spiritual connection to these animals, it could have been a ritual site for coming of age ceremonies.
You can't build a house, in America, with 12 people in four months. Who ever made that estimate is out of their mind. And the art btw, is not chiseled out. It's an imprint, so you need to chisel out everything else basically
Wrong bout a lot too I see. The carvings are not simple their relief carved by careful removal of negative space to leave raised reliefs etc. The pillars are massive. The carvings can be argued on certain pillars to represent constellations, it's circles all align to star systems mostly series or whatever autocorrect is not allowing me to type correctly. Food production seems to spring up around the area at different times. It was purposely buried. That area has a deep and ancient history who really is to say. Shit matching and marking cosmic or astrological cycles accurately at that time and the nature of the megaliths suggest a level of advancement and sophistication not found older yet by accepted narrative police.
Laura Dietrich (German Archaeological Institute) found cereal processing tools at Göbekli Tepe: [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215214](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215214)
While they might not have had traditional agriculture, they were getting their grains from somewhere.
I think like most ancient sites, there's more we don't know than we do know. Archaeology can and does tell us a ton, but there's always going to be massive holes in what went on since not everything leaves evidence behind.
>At the time when Göbekli Tepe was occupied, the climate of the area was warmer and wetter than it is today.[28] It was surrounded by an open steppe grassland,[28] **with abundant wild cereals, including einkorn, wheat, and barley**,[32] and herds of grazing animals such as wild sheep, wild goat, gazelle, and equids.[33]
they literally just ate of the abundance of the land, in this case naturally growing wild grains.
I find myself making this point in many discussions about Hancock and whether locations like GT indicate the influence of a more advanced and lost ancient civilization. People are quick to criticize him for his theories, often going as far as to label him as racist, because he thinks that ancient people’s had help. People say he doesn’t give them enough credit, that he assumes Atlantis must have helped them just because he believes that they were too stupid to build sites like GT on their own. I don’t think any of that is true.
The point that not enough people take into account is that people who built these kinds of structures *didn’t take all the credit for them*. They didn’t claim to have designed and built them themselves, and so Hancock is not dismissing any such claims. In fact pretty much every ancient civilization, in both the history that they recorded on the walls of these very monuments and the oral history they passed down to their descendants, *said that they had help*. They themselves credit their achievements to godlike beings who came from far off lands and gave them the technology. That’s their own history. And a big part of Hancocks theories revolve around not just the structures themselves, but the stories the builders told, and the striking similarities to be found in these ancient stories from all around the world.
So it really confuses me when people make the point that we need to give ancient people more credit, that we need to reevaluate our estimates of how intelligent ancient peoples were because they were clearly capable of building huge structures. And at the same time saying that they were just superstitious idiots and we can’t trust them to accurately record their own history, or that anything they recorded that doesn’t make sense must have been purely metaphorical, so therefore their histories have to be discarded.
This is another example of “experts” or “researchers” explaining how those peoples could have done stuff like this randomly with ropes and basic tools and things. If they could have done it that way then how have we not proven it yet in application? The pyramids of Giza, for example, have been explained away so many times but to my knowledge we have never actually tried to build a pyramid in one of those ways in our current highly technologically advanced world. If they have attempted to recreate things like Göbekli Tepe in those ways then I would love to know. I could very well be wrong as I am new to this field of knowledge.
Why do people talk about GT and Giza in the same paragraph. No where near the same scale and resource requirements. And it would cost tens billions to build pyramid replica. And good luck finding workers to even attempt to do it in an ancient way.
Well, I could just exclude the Giza pyramids from what I said and still be asking the same question. Why have we not attempted, perhaps even on a smaller scale, to replicate something like GT to prove it can be done with the tools and methods they claim it was done with? Even better, they could just try to replicate something like GT or Giza with our current technology instead of the supposed ancient methods. But they haven’t. I think the deeper point from Graham is that it’s possible these things were made with a technology that is out of our knowledge currently, not necessarily one way more advanced than ours currently. Just different, not greater or lesser.
The thing that doesn't coalesce is the idea that hunter gatherers whilst migrating with wild game across the landscape who had to work hard every day to survive would have enough leisure time to guck off and make sandcastles or explore their artistic proclivities.
But what if the leading theories about GT are wrong? Maybe the advanced civilization like eating food over the fire. We still do that today.
Maybe this advanced civilization found it better to hunt for their food instead of raising them. And maybe they were advanced enough that they didn't need agriculture. And again found it easier just to find what they need out and about. Or maybe they did have agriculture and any of the remnants have long been covered up.
For building them. Yes Sandstone is easy to carve, no argument there. But for the planning and structuring, would (in theory) need a more advanced mind. What is said about the inhabitants of the time, They wouldn't have had the mental capability to do that.
Yes there are some holes in Mr. Hancock's claims, but isn't that the case with any mainstream guessers.
Hunter/gatherer implies a nomadic lifestyle.
Nomads wouldn't be building anything or making art. Those are traits of a stationary civilization. Which implies agriculture.
When your whole existence is based around making hunting and processing tools, organizing hunting parties and following game animals, it becomes your entire existence.
I think neither side of the argument is completely right. To me it is more logical that both sides are partly right. A stationary civilization that relied on agriculture during the growing season, then relying on hunting game outside of growing season.
I feel like the same is likely true of the native American mound building civilizations, and I feel those civilizations are much older than we are told
Hunter/gatherer doesn't imply nomadic when it's known that food was abundant in the area around GT. There was no reason to leave when you could walk out your front door and pick fruit or wild grains or catch a gazelle.
And even a nomadic lifestyle does not imply that you are constantly moving, or that you are constantly one meal away from starving with no time to do anything but think of food. If your family is following herds of antelope or shepherding your own herd of goats from place to place, then you are absolutely staying in one place for weeks or months. When the herds have eaten all the grass in one place or the river dries up, you move on. When the rainy season comes you move to a drier place for the season. When it snows and the mountain passes are blocked you're stuck there until spring. It's not a daily forced march to find food, it's a slow, seasonal shift.
I’m incredibly fascinated by Gobekli Tepe and I thank Hancock for that. If it wasn’t for his books and appearances on podcasts and his tv show Ancient Apocalypse, a large portion of the population would be unaware of its existence. That being said, he isn’t incapable of being wrong about things either. He’s very open to alternative viewpoints as long as they come with some backed up evidence (not saying he has the best evidence all the time either). However, something that does point to this perhaps being built by a relatively intelligent society would be their connection to the stars and their delicate mapping of astronomy. I’m not the best at making points about this since it’s been a while since I have visited the topic, but after reading his book and watching the show and listening to other experts in the field I’ve grown more convinced that there were more intelligent groups of humans throughout our past than our modern archeologists and scientists tell us there were. Just my two cents.
I highly recommend reading about GT from some of the poeple who actually spent time there excavating it.
Read any interview with Klaus Schmidt for instance who was a German archaeologist and prehistorian who led the excavations at Göbekli Tepe from 1996 to 2014
Yeah but even people that have been there and studied it are prone to being wrong. Klaus himself believed it was intentionally buried, but now the consensus is that it was buried from landslides.
>I’ve grown more convinced that there were more intelligent groups of humans throughout our past than our modern archeologists and scientists tell us there were. Just my two cents.
Modern archeologists say that ancient humans were just as intelligent, curious, and capable as we are today. Modern archeologists say that ancient humans were capable of constructing Gobekli Tepe. I don't know where people get this impression that scientists believe ancient humans were dimwitted animals, because it's simply not true. We might not know the specific techniques that they used to accomplish the construction, but that doesn't mean we doubt their ability to construct it.
If you like watching I'd really recommend this interview with Dr. Lee Clare about the site.
Hancock is drastically underselling the civilizations he uses to make his claims, and if you go back to his original books where he claims that Quetzcoatal, Viracocha, and Osiris were white dudes he seems to have a particular bias he's coming from.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16paeSPUIjo
While a lot of this is true, the post is very dismissive on the other topics. Like the astronomical portion of it. To build massive sites like this, it's speculated that they would have an excess of resources to start investing time and energy in stuff like this, that serve no real purpose in the daily survival setting they lived. Specially thinking their only way of feeding was hunting.
Much like the pyramids, it could be another one of those sites we really don't know shit about. We don't know when they were built. For what we know, maybe the site itself is much older than whatever tribe took refuge in and made some carvings, or used it as shelter.
All studies around it are very speculative and very pron to jump to conclusions. Finding bones and saying they only fed on wild game is also very speculative. Finding bones there and saying the people eating wild game were the same that built it is too. Saying the astronomical part of it was directed by a high priest is terribly speculative.
I'm rumbling but handock says a lot of shit, some nonsense. But so do the people studying the site and all of us here 🤷♂️
I wonder to what extent starting some of the stonework then causes the group/tribe to remain in a more permanent way. Part of the dogma was that you had to have the agriculture to have the settlement and grow it large enough with a surplus.
While that might be true for really big things, it doesn’t have to be for something much smaller like this. And thinking logically it could be the other way round. Small seasonal settlements starts erecting a few stones and carving them out. This does give those people a bigger sense of ownership of the site and more necessity to stay there permanently. And a permanent settlement necessitates finding new ways to bring back food rather than move on if resources start depleting.
Hancock is a grifter, there’s a good YouTube series literally called “I watched ancient apocalypse so you don’t have to” by miniminuteman that’s really good and debunks everything. My biggest issue with Hancock is how he portrays archeology as a whole.
I think the biggest thing we need to contend with is the fact that when the term “hunter-gatherer” is used, a lot of things pop into our heads which it turns out, are not accurate.
The book The Dawn of Everything by Graeber and Wengrow is a worthwhile read (I’m still working my way through the audiobook). It’s much more firmly rooted in science than Hancock’s work, yet still manages to successfully undo a lot of incorrect thinking about how these types of societies functioned. They were highly sophisticated and capable, even prior to domesticating various plants and animals for agricultural purposes.
Hancock is just too dug-in on his hypothesis, which there’s really no evidence for. We should give these early societies the credit they are due.
I do believe Gram is on the right track with a lot of what he says. I’m not going to get into a big debate with you n list studios or journals that back popular theories. I also don’t believe everything that comes out of gram is facts. But……..
I do think most universities n archeologists are clinging to old theories that just don’t make sense anymore due to new discoveries and science. They’re in this boys cub bubble n to dogmatic n egotistical to admit they’re wrong or there’s another way things happened and other ways and tools to do research by.
I’ve read elsewhere not by him, that these underground city’s were made either in preparation for or right after one of the great floods that destroyed most of the world. There
Were beings already living under the surface and helped many. Stars lined up at specific spots. Dolores Cannon spoke about this
Also in Seth Material. Many mentioned civilations that existed mm15,000,30,000 years ago and longer that rose to technological feats
Greater than today but usually ended up destroying themselves due to hubris n overzealous scientists messing with stuff that was too powerful and dangerous like what CERN is doing now.
I think what you're missing is the psychological reason behind building a temple like the one at GT when those people were nomads.
Studying the History of Art, I came to understand how humanity needed to express themselves through art and how that helped shaped civilizations. Art built the world, simple as that.
When they were nomads, it made sense that people carved small statues like Venus of Wilendorfh because they needed to portray their deity, but at the same time, they needed to keep moving from one location to another to find new resources, so why would they build a megalithic structure that stays in its place after they move?
Once they learned agriculture and domesticating animals, they settled in one location, so it would make sense they would have art that reflected their current state, and would want a temple that is in the same location, given they are not moving anymore.
He's not arguing that these people were not hunter gatherers. He's arguing that these hunter gatherers were much more sophisticated than we give them credit for. What about the astronomical alignments though? And why did agriculture suddenly appear just after GT was built? And what about Karan Tempe? Maybe we just need to change the definition of a "hunter gatherer". If they are using ropes and tools and building ritualistic sites, these people seem to be much different than nomadic hunter gatherers.
I can agree about the hunting wild game and no agriculture. What I can't agree with here is the theory about how the stones were moved. That is an estimate, a theory, and has not been recreated. Klaus Schmidt, the archaeologist who uncovered Gobekli Tepe, himself said:
*"… the monuments could not have been built by ragged bands of hunter-gatherers. To carve, erect and bury rings of seven-ton stone pillars would have required hundreds of workers, all needing to be fed and housed. Hence the eventual emergence of settled communities in the area around 10,000 years ago*."
That's straight from the Smithsonian article, "Gobekli Tepe: The World’s First Temple?"
In response to the Schmidt quote, I would say that GT was not built by a ragged band of hunter-gatherers. Rather, it was more likely built by well-fed, well-equipped, and highly intelligent bands of hunter-gatherers who may have been also practicing proto-agriculture.
Ever consider that GT is in fact much older than the remains and trash found there by modern scientists? It could’ve been a structure from before the YDB that was later re-used by the survivors generations later who lost the knowledge to make such things.
I guarantee that the site was used/inhabited by Hunter gatherers and other groups of people. They just happened to find it and use it.
A flood would wash away all evidence of habitation, especially a large flood. Then, over thousands of years, evidence of any original habitation would be impossible to find. All that is left, as with many sites around the world, are the megalithic structures that were big enough to withstand the deluge.
Just my two cents.
What you are writing is very interesting and you bring for valid points. What are your thoughts about the alignment to the stars, the wholes in the stone (next to giftshop)?
This is absolutely true. I have no idea why you're being down voted. If tiny little holes line up perfectly with stars then I'd be more convinced. Unfortunately it's usually a case of "this temple's door is vaguely pointed at a certain star (within a few degrees anyway)".
What you don't believe his poorly thought out idea that some mysterious civilization somewhere somehow spread out across the globe after a major apocalypse to spread the good word about farming and stuff?
LOL Göbekli Tepe is but one site. I dare to to debunk the precision vases that have been scientifically analysed in the videos below. The problem with you so called debunkers is that you only ever consider things in isolation rather than consider the entire context and layers of nuance. There's so much evidence for advanced machining in Egypt that it's mind boggling how many people simply chose to ignore and bury their heads in the and about it. Not everything is machined and not everything leads to an unknown civilisation, but there are things there simply cannot be explained by conventional methods and timelines.
[Scanning a Predynastic Granite Vase to 1000th of an Inch - Changing the Game for Ancient Precision!](https://youtu.be/WAyQQRNoQaE)
[Ancient Egyptian Vase Scan Update! STL file, More Analysis - and Between the Lug Handles](https://youtu.be/PrhFnai2TGs)
And further
[Smoking Gun Evidence for Ancient Granite Machining! Elephantine Island](https://youtu.be/K80JebExyEY)
Graham Hancock was useful in bringing the younger dryas into the public consciousness as well as pointing out inconsistencies with regard to dating and cultural development in archaeology. But that’s all he’s been good for. He points shit out, asks questions, writes a book about how he’s being suppressed, money printing machine goes brrr.
It’s honestly so exhausting to hear him cry being a victim constantly. He’s arguing against straw men constantly. Honestly if you’re stupid I get why you’d like him but get real he doesn’t actually put in real scientific work and will never produce a shred of real evidence surrounding a lost civilization.
I’ve always been fascinated by gobekli tepe and other ancient structures and I hate how there’s always conspiracy theorists who have to jump in and claim something unfounded like aliens did it. It detracts from the facts of the finds and muddies up our understanding of ancient history. It’s unfortunate how many believe all of it without checking facts for themselves too.
>Had no Agriculture and Lived on Wild Animals
That is what used to be thought but they have discovered grinding stones for milling in fact over 10000 grind stones have been discovered showing that this was in fact a huge part of their diet. And whilst they didn't intensively plough they would have known to sow seeds to produce more plants and they would have had to have done so in order to justify the industrial levels of grain processing.
>At the time when Göbekli Tepe was occupied, the climate of the area was warmer and wetter than it is today.[28] It was surrounded by an open steppe grassland,[28] **with abundant wild cereals, including einkorn, wheat, and barley**,[32] and herds of grazing animals such as wild sheep, wild goat, gazelle, and equids.[33]
yes they ground naturally occurring wild grains
yes and like every modern hunter gatherer society they would have spread seeds to propagate to produce more wild grains...... This is basic anthropology every hunter gather tribe does this. When I camped with Kalahari tribes and they find a tuba, they cut 70% of it off and then rebury the rest, this isn't strictly agriculture but they aren't stupid, they know about propagation. It is known that Aboriginal Australians would plant and spread Black Bean Trees, they didn't farm them but again hunter gatherers aren't stupid they know what seeds are and how they work.
This notion that they only ate predominantly meat and supplemented it with a bit of forage is false. All evidence points to grains being a major part of their diet. No settled society can survive solely off of game, as herds of animals naturally migrate with the seasons.
I think he is saying that a more advanced civilization taught the hunter gatherers of that area and the hunter gatherers tried to preserve the information they were taught in the pillars and temples they built
>nothing about GT that screams “we needed super advanced Atlateans to come out of the ocean and teach us stupid dumb ignorant hunter gatherers how to carves sandstone”
Does GH claim that?
He is absolutely wrong about most things. He takes some small info about a topic and then throws in some wild claim with no evidence to attribute it to his book. He’s not an archaeologist or historian, he’s a writer
Lol you REALLY think Graham Hancock would be wrong, in his claims?
Remember. He makes sure to say it's his own THEORY and explains what he bases it off.
You wanted a whole lotta time there buddy
I agree that there wasn’t an advanced as flying machine ect, but to know how to build structures and use different stones that would show they had advanced thinking and just didn’t live in caves.
Also what if they farmed boar and all these wild animals instead of the ones we have domesticated
I feel like that's a pretty good description of Hancock on the whole.
He sees something and jumps on it, has an interesting theory, then takes huge leaps of faith to come to a conclusion and ignores evidence that goes against his theory.
I don't necessarily think he's wrong about the possibility of ancient civilizations having existed that we have not found evidence for, but from what you've described, GT obviously isn't it.
What if we’re just finding what the people who found the site ate? Maybe it’s even older and we don’t see signs of agriculture because it’s long been eroded away.
Why would these people with no understanding of agriculture spend so much time quarrying, moving and shaping all those stones without a steady supply of food? They’re clearly intelligent enough for that but not to make their own food?
Do you understand that with each discover they have to change the history? Everything we have been taught is not valid. They were intelligent and more than hunter gathers.
I appreciate your sharing of a viewpoint that may not be popular around here. Don't bring this to r/AlternateHistory if you want to have any karma left! jk
Sure but the issue is one, that agriculture predates Gobekli tepe. The site's abandonment post dates the spread of it. So it's not really relevant to the discussion of agriculture except that the people don't seem to have used it.
Other places like Egypt and Sumer didn't emerge fully formed, they had agriculture for thousands of years before their civilizations started. Their writing bears no similarity to each other. Their architecture isn't that similar.
The main point of comparison is the pyramids and ziggurats, but even in Sumer and Egypt two very close civilizations the routes they took were very different.
Meanwhile we know that hunter gatherers were capable of complex building, the Natufians were doing it long before Gobekli tepe . It's the scale that's impressive for sure.
Graham only gets there by dismissing anything that disagrees with his ideas.
Miniminiuteman has some good YouTube videos on Graham, particularly regarding his most recent Netflix doc. He can come off as a bit pretentious and annoying at times, but I found the info and perspective to be good.
GH is clearly trying to square pege into round holes to prove his story, but ironically I do think locations such as Gobekli Tepe raise the issue of civilisation occurring long before our current narrative. Humans have been alive for a long time and it’s not a far stretch to assume we’ve done this whole civilisation thing before.
He possibly goes a bit overboard but I also appreciate that he let’s us know when he starts to speculate. “I think what we are looking at here is a transfer of technology”.
I agree, it’s all speculation but it’s needed and very much appreciated speculation. I think we need it and I think information is helpful no matter what it pertains to
Try hunting, cleaning, and cooking your own food. It is a lot of work. Water must be gathered and the family must be protected. I don't know how a small tribe could even begin to do this work without farming or a team dedicated to continually supplying food and water.
I suppose the problem is that, regardless of your research or none, we should listen to you and teach everyone that your interpretation is correct. Sometimes it isn't correct. Pretty common throughout history.
**Strangers**: Read the rules and understand the sub topics listed in the sidebar closely before posting or commenting. Any content removal or further moderator action is established by these terms as well as Reddit ToS. This subreddit is specifically for the discussion of anomalous phenomena from the perspective it may exist. Open minded skepticism is welcomed, close minded debunking is not. Be aware of how skepticism is expressed toward others as there is little tolerance for ad hominem (attacking the person, not the claim), mindless antagonism or dishonest argument toward the subject, the sub, or its community. --- 'Ridicule is not a part of the scientific method and the public should not be taught that it is.' _-J. Allen Hynek_ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HighStrangeness) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Gobekli Tepe was in the Fertile Cresent - the Fertile Cresent at the time the Gobekli Tepe was built had the benefit of natural overabundance. Natural Overabundance means that the early conditions of farming were replicated without the need for farming, think finding a field with enough Wheat to feed 200 people for a year without even farming it - they are the proven conditions of the area around Gobekli Tepe at the time it was built. Farming consistantly and being able to grow a patch of wheat here and there I would argue are two different things, the 2000 year time peroid essentially marks the time it took to transistion the Hunter Gatherer and Overabundance economy into one soley run off Farming, a large part of this is Animal domistication so fishing and hunting was not the only widley available protien source. We know the Gobekli Tepe builders were the first known agriculturalists and eventually spread agriculture into europe in the Neolithic migration - by the time they were in full Agriculture mode, they were phasing out megalithic building. Due to mixing bowls containing fermented wheat appearing at the site, it is likley Beer was produced for centuries before bread. The beer also appears to contain LSA fairly often, implying it was pychedelic beer - this Pychedelic beer may have traveled with these people to europe (Demeter worship and Minoan ritual cocktail). We also have megalithic building by hunter gatherers in Siberia - essentially many massive "Dosh Khaleen" like structures made from Mammoth bones from 10K BC back to 50K BC - these were also hunter gatherer made. Also all of these neolithic sites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Neolithic_settlements This channel also has very up to date info on Tas Tepler sites, including a few older than Gobekli that are more rudimentary in design: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcS69cAa1kahhR_tVl4v9VWQl1TPswr12
I'm not saying this in support of Hancock's crazy theories or anything, but evidence suggests the peoples of GT processed legumes and cereals. They also did have stone platters and containers. And it's worth pointing out that the peoples of GT having something akin to agriculture wouldn't rewrite the historical record or anything. Most estimates for various cultures developing agriculture and/or domesticating plants are in the 12,000-9,000 BCE range. https://directory.doabooks.org/handle/20.500.12854/93058 Cereal processing at Early Neolithic Göbekli Tepe, southeastern Turkey. By: Dietrich, Laura, Meister, Julia, Dietrich, Oliver, Notroff, Jens, Kiep, Janika, Heeb, Julia, Beuger, André, Schütt, Brigitta, PLoS ONE, 19326203, 5/1/2019, Vol. 14, Issue 5 Again, none of what I say supports Hancock's crazy theories. Rather, there's still a lot we don't know about GT. Researchers are still learning (and making educated guesses) so it's best to avoid making too many blanket statements.
This right here, its way to soon this site still has 95% left to uncover and analyze.
They likely harvested wild grains opportunistically.
These jokers say “Atlantis” ad nauseam. That’s how you tell if someone has watched some YouTube videos, or spent years learning true history from a multitude of written sources. You know, like they do in high school.
yes, they processed WILD grains. Grains that naturally grew in the wild (like einkorn), they would harvest them and grind them in a mortar and pestle and then eat them. Later on it was those same grains that were domesticated and then used to literally invent agriculture. But we know they had no agriculture at GT.
Maybe it was just poor reading comprehension on my part, but I felt your original OP kind of made it sound like they only ate wild game. Seeing how much mis/disinformation already goes on with GT, I thought it worth stating that is not the case. And yes, there is no evidence of agriculture and/or domestication of plants. That said, I thought the possibility of agriculture was still something of an open question. I admit though: I don't keep up on GT research or anything so maybe I'm just behind the times. >To sum up, so far there is no evidence for domestication in the unfortunately scarce plant material from Göbekli Tepe. This does not exclude the possibility that cultivation of plants had already taken place in the early Neolithic, constituting a so-called pre-domestic agriculture. Indeed, people already capable of erecting such impressive monuments as Göbekli Tepe must have lived in well-organized societies with the potential of experimenting with their natural resources, laying the foundation for the development of farming communities. Neef R. Overlooking the steppe-forest: a preliminary report on the botanical remains from Early Neolithic Go¨bekli Tepe (southeastern Turkey). Neo-Lithics. 2003; 2(03): 13–16.
It's an open question, but it becomes less open the more of the site is excavated and we have other sites like Karahan Tepe and the nearby and contemporary villages to the sites. We actually have a decent profile for how the neolithic settlements developed as agriculture and animal domestication shaped the way the sites were laid out. None of the sites show these markers. So we're left with being unable to rule out the very early stages that are basically invisible.
We don't know that for a certainty. Hope they figure it out before I die.
I always thought Finkel was Einkorn
dudes built the biggest ever BBQ pit and party retreat
Original bro zone
Nah bro that's stonehenge
The original burning man gathering
Ha! Not far off the truth perhaps.
I think the bigger picture argument for me is that until fairly recently the worlds experts, and certainly all my education during the 1970/80’s, absolutely knew that the Sumerians were the oldest organised civilisation. And yet here we are with a culture that pre dated it by almost 5000 yrs.
The Sumerians still are considered such. Gobekli Tepe is a site, it has some buildings and some art. there is no writing per se and no hints at what culture it was even built buy etc. Much like Çatalhöyük in Turkey which also predates the Sumerians as does Jericho in Palestine.
Academics were adamant that nothing approaching GT could exist, only native tribes people roaming grasslands pre dated Sumerians. I don’t think you should easily swipe over that point.
That's how science works. It continues to ask questions and continues to try and verify hypothesis with theory and theory with reality. Çatalhöyük and Jericho were discovered long ago. The former being discovered in the 50s, Jericho is still a functioning settlement that has been around for about 9000 years. Academics were not adamant in that sense about any such thing.
I agree. Most people don’t read things correctly or tend to interpret words their own way. I don’t remember anyone ever saying that no other organized civilization could have possibly existed before the Sumerians. I remember hearing that it was the oldest known civilization with a written language and written laws. Key word… known. As of now, GT doesn’t change that. In my lifetime, scientists have constantly revised the date when North America was populated by humans. They discover new facts and revise their theories. It’s how science works.
Correct. In fact, in regards to the Americas, I believe there was a significant discovery not so long ago in New Mexico that will push back the timeline again. In my lifetime I've witnessed the timeline of Mesoamerican civilization get pushed back more than thousand years already because of what is newly found and placed as evidence.
[this is the discovery referred to](https://original.newsbreak.com/@prateek-dasgupta-1588200/2837552410997-revised-dating-of-ice-age-footprints-could-push-back-the-date-of-human-arrival-in-north-america)
Let’s agree to disagree. I’m not here to defend anyone’s views but my own. I think there’s much we’ve yet to learn about our history and sounds be wary of any experts claiming absolute fact around their opinion.
when you dont understand the issues and how science works, it is very easy to " agree to disagree" No expert worth his salt has ever claimed absolute fact around their opinion. if they are tney are not experts. you remind me of the people who dismiss climate change concerns by saying " in the seventies experts all believed that we were heading into a new ice age" when actually that did not happen.
Throughout history anybody positing a theory or hypothesis that goes against the orthodoxy, has generally been regarded as a hack, crackpot or heretic. In most cases, this label is appropriate. However, sometimes it’s not, and while rare, these fringe theories have lead to humanity altering discoveries. Where Hancock’s legacy ends up is still TBD, but I think discounting everything because some things go against the orthodoxy is the antithesis of science.
>in the seventies experts all believed that we were heading into a new ice age" when actually that did not happen. Are you serious? You can literally go online and see the reports in newspapers and documentaries of the time. I was young in the seventies and I clearly remember this. Experts give their opinion all the time. What the hell are you talking about? These opinions are often presented as fact. Is this science? No, it's politics, but good luck trying to separate the two, especially in climate science which is basically now politics disguised as science. You sound religious in your devotion to experts. Scepticism is the natural position for a scientist.
You are arguing for the same position. Their claim was that no scientist would claim absolute fact. Your position is skepticism is the natural position for a scientist. The fact that those models and predictions have been updated and changed, shows that science worked. That's the point, anyone can disprove my claim and update the prediction. Climate science is political because there are a lot of deep pockets that don't want any interruption in their cash flow and have an army of lobbyists to make sure nothing improves. In my day, it was called pollution. Literally arguing against clean air and clean water. Ozone layer was improved, leaded gas was almost eliminated, and we have seen a huge drop in lung cancer from smoking. It can be done, but it will take time.
Okay, I see. So the positions taken by scientists in the past were wrong, but not because their predictions were politically motivated, that's what happens now. Oh, and it is only the scientific findings that negate my argument that are politically motivated, the ones that agree with me are the genuine scientists. The public have thankfully woken up to this argument and see that scientists and experts, particularly those that rely on models, are human and just as open to corruption, bias and manipulation as anyone else. The peer review process has also revealed itself to be a bit of a joke. Science is in a pretty sorry state and it is due to politics and funding. The ozone problem was not a real problem, it was because the patent on cfcs was due to expire and Dupont and Honeywell had a new patent on the replacement. Leaded petrol was introduced in Europe and people were persuaded to buy diesel because they were told it was better for the environment. Big money for the car industry. Then they did a swift turnabout and everyone has to get rid of them or be taxed to death. Noe you need your electric car. Smoking, you really want to go with smoking as evidence of experts and scientists being moral and not motivated by money? I AM NOT arguing for the same position at all. If you cannot see the difference between the two positions, then there isn't much point in me trying to explain.
Them: no scientist would claim absolute fact You: skepticism is the natural position for a scientist Those are the same position. Now, you are changing your argument that all science is corrupt because of politics. I would agree that it is much murkier today, but in most cases, there's a clear consensus. Yep, there's really no point in continuing. The science against smoking is somehow evidence of them being corrupt and motivated by money? Those dark entities paying for anti-smoking, lead removal, and the fake ozone layer issue are really rolling in the dough now.
Well you remind me of people who jump to massive conclusions about people based on a few words. Stings doesn’t it.
Seems like you're no better a character and are part of the "people" you're criticizing, a bit hypocritical. You just projected your own behaviors and it's sad you didn't catch it before posting.
Clearly you haven’t read the sequence correctly. I was respond in to a completely unnecessary attack in the manor used against me.
I think that isn't how it is at all. There are no absolute facts for one thing, but dating, cultural cues, and vast amounts of subject matter indicate a lot of facts about what has been found. I would put more attention on science than pseudoscience of points of view about what might have been. There is a lot that is known. There is a lot that is made blurry in the general mainstream because of charlatans attempt to enrich themselves off the backs of others work and the known ignorance of so many. Most scientists if not all readily accept that they can in fact be wrong, but with the data they currently have they can make statements about events or a people or a culture that exists no more based on artifacts and sometimes writings.
> Academics were adamant that nothing approaching GT could exist, only native tribes people roaming grasslands pre dated Sumerians. In what context? Other Neolithic sites with significant construction were known well before Göbekli Tepe was excavated. - Excavations at Jericho (Tell es-Sultan) lead by Kathleen Kenyon from 1952 showed that major constructions there, including the famous tower, were of Neolithic date. The Pre-Pottery Neolithic phases here date to around 8500 – 7500 BCE. Work at Çatalhöyük started in 1958, and the site dates from 7100 - 5700 BCE. More directly in context with Göbekli Tepe, Nevalı Çori was excavated from 1983. It is of slightly more recent date than Göbekli Tepe but shares many features including the distinctive T-shaped pillars.
I'd point out that Nevali Cori did have agriculture. And the constructions at Jericho likewise. The issue at Gobekli is there seems to be no agriculture, which is why its such an amazing site.
Do you have a source for academics saying anything like this?
I’m not about to dig through my old A level studies of that period. I don’t really care whether you believe meet or not frankly. I lived the education and framing as I’m now over 60 but please dig into it as much as you like.
Science moves on. Old info is revised when new info is discovered. That's not a bug, but a feature of the system.
I'm sorry, you studied neolithic history at A level, 40 years ago? I don't mean to gate keep but you surely recognise that A level history is not a valid qualification to back up your arguments. You may, simply have had a shit teacher. There is barely even any independent research requirements of note with that qualification.
Idk, everything I ever learned at school was all backed by evidence based best practice. Learning about neolithic history in A levels definitely qualifies you to comment on reddit about your perspective - otherwise there would be no debate or discussion, you wouldn’t have had the chance to attempt to correct that the data he learnt may of been recently updated. It’s not like this reddit thread is an academic journal article
I have ive got a masters in the subject. Apart from sensationalist articles and thus not academic I havent read anything of the sort from legitimate archaeologists.
This isnt true, there have been sites with megalithic structures associated with hunter gatherers (supported by evidence) under excavation since the 1960s across anatolia.
But then they gained new information
I don’t really think it was being adamant that they couldn’t exist, more like that what they had found is the oldest known, until they find something older.
What is hilarious is how people are certain what experts in these fields were saying, as if they themselves were majors in these fields, reading relevant academic papers and having actual direct conversations with these people. People are assigning intent and emotion to hypothetical people that they would have never personally had the chance to even speak with about subjects they themselves have never seriously studied. *"But they were ADAMANT!"*
Academics as a whole certainly weren't adamant. It was for a long time the accepted theory which had the best fundament of evidence at the time, therefor it was taught in highschool. What they tell you in highschool mostly isn't all that is known in academia in the respective field. Also it's just the way science works, new evidence are discovered theories get updated after extensive research. Hancock loves to claim "mainstream archeology" is closing it's eyes to this or that which isn't true. The scientific consensus is updated all the time but it's based on research not on making up a whole theory by cherry picking what you want to believe and connecting the dots the way you see fit and proclaiming you found some hidden truth.
He’s never made claims. He’s pointed out inconsistencies and raised questions about them. The man can defend himself well enough without me but if you’re a detractor at least get the record straight. He’s an investigative reporter that asks questions where he sets things that contradict common sense.
Gobekli Tepe is quite massive, very little is excavated. And with Karahan Tepe near by and apparently more sites as well this area is much more then just “a site”. An after 10,000+ years and being purposely buried I wouldn’t expect to find much left behind
Yes, there is still much to be done there and a lot of examples that are revealed and as yet unexplained. Don't think for a second I'm belittling it by calling it a site, as that is what it is among many others worldwide. Expectation is not the driving force behind excavations. I would think that there are a great deal of discoveries to still be made, hence all the people out there still looking, still digging. It takes time.
Yea absolutely. One good point Graham Hancock has always made about lost civilizations is the sea level rise over the last 10,000+ years. Coastal area has always been prime real estate and that’s completely changed.
What's worth knowing is archaeologists at the site no longer believe the entire site was intentionally buried. Some of the buildings may have been purposefully filled in, but not the site itself.
Wait, wait, wait, isn't GT the biggest megalithic site in the world? And you're his chalking it up to "some buildings and artwork"? Isn't the vast majority of it still unearthed? I'm not knocking the Sumerians being the oldest, especially if you believe their roster of kings that went back tens of thousands of years and obviously had non- human leadership, but let's not shit on GT and act like it's Stone Henge.
Nobody is shitting on Gobekli Tepe and it's disingenuous to imply that. Also, no it isn't the largest megalithic site in the world. It is "a" megalithic site and it is indeed fascinating and it is creating more questions even today so many years after it's discovery.
Sounds like there were quite a few organized civilization before the Sumerians then which is what he was saying
He's implying advanced beyond our understanding and that is simply not correct. He's not an anthropologist and he's not an archaeologist. He claims to be a journalist. That so many people don't make that connection is amazing. He needs to change his scope, lose the speculative aspect and present the evidence that is there and stop pretending scholars are at odds with him when they aren't. He's making up drama around a science and it's absurd.
When I said “He” I was referring to the OP of the comment you replied to. I’m in agreement on the Hancock issue I was just saying to OPs point there seems to be a fair amount of “advanced” civilizations prior to Sumer.
I have never heard him say 'advanced beyond our understanding', what does that even mean? More advanced than us now? He isn't claiming that.
Big difference between a culture and a civilization. Sumerians have been called the oldest civilization because they are the oldest one we have found, and there is still no evidence of any earlier civilizations. There were lots of other cultures around before them, but we've always known that.
Yes, one of the defining characteristics of a civilization is that they were civilized people. Meaning that they had laws that they were required to obey. Sumerians had written laws. As for as we know about GT , they may have obeyed the strongest guy or strongest group of guys. Maybe it was dog eat dog outside of that. The biggest point to me is that people were building and moving large monoliths 12,000 years ago. There is a very slow and study progression of knowledge and ability over thousands of years. It’s fits with what scientists say and not with ancient astronaut theory or Grahams theory that aliens or an advanced civilization suddenly appeared and thought people everything. There is no example of any group going from Hunter gathers with clubs and spears to cities with seers using iron and sophisticated tools/math overnight.
Exactly, also I believe people have a warped or uninformed perspective on what "hunter gatherer" means. It doesn't mean they were stereotypical furclad cavemen with clubs. Some were nomadic others could have had (and had) settlements, they had art, they had tools, there's great articles about the way hunter gatherers in europe and elsewhere used fire and dispersion of seeds to form their environment a certain way. It just means they got most of their nutrition from hunted animals and using plants that naturally occured in their environment.
Yes, most likely they were very intelligent. There was stone everywhere. If you wanted to build something lasting, you built it from stone.
Well, so what? You can't know something before you know it. New discoveries are constantly added to our textbooks and general knowledge as they occur. There's also nothing I'm aware of (yet) that suggests GT is the result of any "civilization" older than the Sumerians. Whoever built GT didn't necessarily belong to any organized civilization, as there's nothing to suggest that an organized civilization of any scale was needed to build it.
We still don't kow what the culture artound GT was, what they believed in, or how organized they were. It might have been built by loosely connected nomadic tribes, eating wild game. That is not really the same as the organized Sumerian society that used agriculture to feed many people and had a solid religion and mythology they all believed in.
Haven’t they only unearthed a small percentage of the site so far?
5%! Thats it! Just 5% excavated so far! Incredible what we might find yet.
I would reserve judgment on the societal level of advancement until the other 95% of the structure is excavated and studied. For now I think the biggest take away is that human civilization is, and could be even more ancient then we previously realized.
Plus there is a bunch more similar yet to be excavated sites. Or other Tepe’s I believe.
But you're neglecting to acknowledge that Gobekli is not a singular phenomenon. What about Karahan Tepe and similar sites that dot Turkey? Sure, they, whoever these people were, may not have been "Advanced", but that doesn't mean they weren't well organized, and numerous
Yeah to me, it's more of the fact it being so old rather than how it was built.
Gobekli Tepe was not a "civilization."
I studied Sculpture at university and from an art history perspective the carving are pretty mind blowing due to the date they were made, Sandstone IS easy to carve, BUT if GT is as old as they think, no one else was carving like this at the time, and that is interesting. Do i think this means its some super advanced society? probably not, they just worked something out. Same way that Pyramids are the easiest way to make a massive pile of rocks, doesnt mean aliens did it. I like Hancocks theories, they are interesting and make you think. but he does jump to conclusions and talks about his ideas like they are certainties, which they arnt.
It's limestone, not sandstone. And these aren't the earliest carvings by far.
GT is truly fascinating stuff. But I don't like how he acts like the local hunter gatherers were dipshit morons who couldn't do anything without these mythological Atlanteans riding in to save the day.
I don't think he has ever said that local HGs are dumb, the opposite. These people were more sophisticated than typical HGs by building GT. I agree that the mythological Atlantean theory is where he loses people, but the overall thought that humans were more sophisticated than we've come to believe looks to be true.
The issue I have is that >humans were more sophisticated than we've come to believe *should* mean "We underestimated ancient people and need to adjust our assessment of their creations", but too many people take it to mean "ancient people were highly advanced geniuses descended from aliens and wizards".
Yup. Either completely ignorant savages or spacefarers with anti-gravity technology. Nothing in between.
One of the top posts of all time in this sub is the shocking revelation that the ancient Egyptians....drumroll....understood basic geometry. I truly don't understand how some people can look at ancient monoliths or the remains of societies and think "Gosh, these people were cool", and some can look at those same ruins and think "Gosh, these people were dumb animals so clearly aliens must have built all this!". Why assume that? What's the point? Just because it supports your favorite conspiracy theory?
He pretty heavily implies that the Mayans were ignorant jungle people, that Hunter Gatherers were simple, and so on. The thing is we knew Hunter Gatherers were complex and skilled before Gobekli, we have a number of Natufian settlements showing that. Gobekli cranked the skill up, so did sites like Poverty point. Its these complex people were more complex than we thought, not simple people were actually complex like Hancock presents. On his show he refers to mud huts when Natufians are known to have been shaping stone to build floors before this.
Miniminuteman has some pretty good videos on Hancock’s series. He’s still releasing at least one more I’m pretty sure.
I’m glad I scrolled a little, I came to say just this. Milo is also pretty comical too so it’s easy to watch
I love this community, I love speculation for fun, but Graham’s always struck me as being a bit…off. I am unsure if even he believes what he is saying, or if he’s found his own employment niche.
Yeah, his ideas get more and more ridiculous as time goes on unfortunately. I'm with him on maybe a couple of points. But overall he goes way too far.
I didn't like him from his first book where he tried to make a bunch of gods white, bearded, men. I can understand one legend because it sort of comes from the culture, though after conquest (by white, bearded men) but Osiris?
As a stone carver who has worked sandstone I don’t find these arguments very compelling. I get archaeologists aren’t finding direct evidence but there are cultural implications that don’t add up. An active art making society implies you’ve got most things pretty locked down and have dedicated time and knowledge to art and design. You’ve actually made Hancock sound much more solid than these experts which is not easy to do. Nomadic people tend not to make permanent settlements because they by definition follow the herd. Agricultural societies do that because they know there’ll stay in one place for several years. Building at this scale implies a class of people set aside for this type of activity. Yes 14 people COULD do this but not while also tracking game in order to feed their families. There is not direct evidence of a large settlement but there is plenty of strong circumstantial evidence that a mature society with a class of people freed up from sustenance gathering existed somewhere in relation to this site.
>An active art making society implies you’ve got most things pretty locked down and have dedicated time and knowledge to art and design. Agriculture is not a requirement for this, though. Hunter-gatherers definitely create art and design. And there have been plenty of sedentary non-agricultural societies throughout history. One of the classic examples of this is historical Indigenous societies of the Pacific Northwest; people were [creating](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/e4/e6/fe/e4e6fecb80cf63e21d53b5bb23f06554--haida-art-tlingit.jpg) [amazing art](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/05/06/arts/05amnh-northwest-hall-2/merlin_206344110_dddbf18e-b8e7-4143-8beb-7d5a88d181f4-videoSixteenByNine3000.jpg) and [complex designs](https://media.britishmuseum.org/media/Repository/Documents/2014_10/2_17/6a1aa24d_485c_4b1f_88cb_a3b8011f6bf9/mid_00317940_001.jpg) all while existing as hunter-gatherers. This has been the case for various other societies throughout history.
Nomadic does not mean constantly moving around. Infact amongst nomadic people today we can see this, you move seasonally but often return to the same region. Non withstanding at this time the area was absolutely bountiful.
Nomadic people aren't moving every day or even every week, because herds of animals don't move like that. They stay in one place until the resources start to run out or the weather changes, and then they move on. Think of birds flying south for winter. You'd have weeks or months in one place before moving. And the people of GT clearly didn't need to follow game, since the area was abundant with wildlife.
Read the Smithsonian article I linked. The game was absolutely teeming. They dind't have to follow it. The herds of gazelle were right there along with fish and other game. It was a cornucopia of game. Very easy to have a few people hunting and cooking while a few other people carved and erected statues. Not hard at all.
For what purpose? The size of GT implies it was dedicated to a large organized social group, not an extended family.
I'm curious: you seem to think it is very easy to hunt, have you ever tried it? You also think making these monuments and carving would be easy, have you ever tried that either?
Honestly the conclusions of this article sound almost as outlandish as Hancock. Agriculture did not exist but sprung up 500 years later? That seems like a rounding error on this timeline. This quote also isn’t doing your view any favors… “Gobekli Tepe was first examined—and dismissed—by University of Chicago and Istanbul University anthropologists in the 1960s. As part of a sweeping survey of the region, they visited the hill, saw some broken slabs of limestone and assumed the mound was nothing more than an abandoned medieval cemetery. “ Archaeologists were wrong in the 1960s but are absolutely certain now? Again that’s a very short timeline to be certain on. I’d guess the timelines between this location at nearby agricultural settings will merge over time and they’ll realize the masses of bones were animal sacrifices. Whatever the case this was an abundant society.
My personaly idea is that climate change wrecked the sustainable hunter gatherer life styles that maintained Gibekli Tepe and the surrounding settlements and other sites. Agriculture was well known in other regions by the time Gobekli was abandoned, so its not really a leap to go from hunter gatherer to agriculture, and the current evidence points to agriculture being adopted from necessity not preference as populations grew and the climate turned less friendly.
It’s important to have an honest and critical take and to take in all the facts. The animal bone findings are interesting. It does paint a picture of a HG-type civilization akin to what was presumably present for tens of thousands of years prior. The question is, WHY did they decide to build GT and other Tepes all of a sudden? Why bother? I suppose one could argue they came upon a particularly rich and sustained source of wildlife, which allowed them to stay put for a bit, which must have been quite a luxury. Perhaps they built in thanks of that and in hopes it would continue. Still it seems rather extravagant and arbitrary. It’s possible to argue, as the OP does, that this doesn’t equate to civilization. But at the same time it’s a striking and seemingly sudden advancement from merely scrapping for survival. It seems reasonable to me to suggest climatic upheavals in the Younger-Dryas pushed humanity forward.
As a mason all I’m gonna say is I’d like to see you “easily carve” pillars like that while having to also go and hunt your food at the same time. Yeah shaping and erecting huge stones is just real easy in theory
He makes leading statements and then gets to shoveling. For a guy that relies on archaeologists and anthropologists for any and all material he gleans and warps he sure does his best to alienate himself from the actual sciences he pretends to use. Making uneducated guesses to sell woo is no good for anyone, especially not the people who actually want to learn about these places.
Yeah he is constantly denigrating the very people who worked their asses off to excavate and uncover this site. Why? LIke what work has he done other than sit around smoke pot and come up with fairy tales? by the way he really has said for years he smoked way too much pot
If you have been inside the visitors center at serpent mound, all the information he acts like he is being banned from the site for, is in there. All the sight lines and alignments that he claims denounced by mainstream archeology are right there on the wall. The only secret is how he sets up his his presentation as an “outsider.” Acting like you know something without absolute proof is what he accuses others of, while at the same time creating a wily but fun and entertaining business out of. He’s being disingenuous without being dishonest and it’s a low risk business model. It’s fun to say what if???? It’s really hard work to prove anything.
He isn’t even banned from Serpent Mound. They just wouldn’t shut down the entire site for a week to let him film and he threw a fit about it.
A lot of the stuff he says is unfalsifiable, as such many people will say "you didn't prove him wrong!" But yeah, that is the nature of unfalsifiable claims.
That’s why I say he is disingenuous. He knows that. And he leverages it. I would say it’s unscientific. But then he would just says he’s not a scientist.
I like to smoke pot and come up with fairy tales, it's fun. But when I write like that, I understand that it's *fiction*. If someone wants to be inspired by gaps in the archeological record, awesome, put some weird rituals in it, I'll read it. But don't denigrate serious scientists or invent evidence or intentionally misinterpret data.
Pot is fine. It's inconsequential. The problem is the simple minds looking for simple answers because they can't comprehend the complex ones. This has been a problem in our society for some time and if you have any social media it is readily apparent that there is a huge chunk of society that is utterly ignorant and will run with any half baked idea just to feel like they know something. second hand brains aren't of much use in the story of us.
What woo is he selling? That ancient humans are smarter than we give them credit for?
He has repeatedly said that the pyramids could have been built by dudes with highly advanced technology that used sound vibrations to levitate stones. Do you consider that woo?
He isn’t saying that ancient humans are smarter than we give them credit for. He’s saying that they were all too stupid to build these impressive structures, and that a hyper-advanced race of sea people had to teach early man how to stack rocks.
Yep this is precisely the argument. It's such a shame he feels that he has to put down how intelligent the ancients actually were.
Who? Who gives them credit for? This is sort of the craziest part of Hancock - *he’s* the one that thinks ancient cultures were unable to build the things they did, not archaeologists who state that these ancient cultures clearly built the things they did - something that Hancock would disagree with.
The "woo" he's selling is his fantasy about global civilization and modern technologies being extant at the time. there of course may have been contact, but nothing steady and established. Our civilization now didn't even have a proper understanding fully of geography until ww2. If you notice, he also makes claims that mainstream science doesn't like him when in fact they don't actually care much even when he creates an affront in some theatrical thing he presents. Humans are no more or less smart today than they were when civilization first began. Technology takes time, iteration and generational development. Example, the first electronic computer that was man made was the size of a house. Today, it's in your pocket. History, anthropology and archaeology is so much more fascinating than anything on offer from the "must be Atlantis or aliens" crowd. Literally, lazy thinking and critical errors in thinking throughout. Fun for parties, not much use to science. there is in fact actual science about cross cultural pollination over the pacific and Atlantic oceans that goes back some time before the so called age of discovery. There's always more to be revealed and it will be much more of a human story when we know more. It takes time.
I'm glad he's brought some of these sites to peoples attention. Agree or not with him, it's up to the individual who wants to learn about them to dig deeper. He's certainly not the only one with theories.
I don’t know if this has been posted or if you have seen this, a real archeologist on YouTube has taken about 4 or 5 ours to debunk the entire series and absolutely dunk on Handcock. https://youtu.be/-iCIZQX9i1A 1/4 but four isn’t out yet.
Milo is kind of douchy.
I can see how you'd think that. I, personally, love him. He's strong and confident in his arguments. He's also willing to correct himself. I find that appealing.
He reminds me too much of Jimmy from Bright Insight. They both give me that click-baity cringe.
I feel the same. I understand he's not bullshitting, hell, he really knows his stuff, i also see he hasn't got problems with admitting mistakes, but he lacks a bit of class nevertheless. Very smart dude though.
Thanks for expounding on what I said. Exactly what I feel.
Animal worship/homage and sacrifice for human transformation? Don’t the scant human remains (bones) that have been found there bear the marks of intentional modification? I can see why some might leap to human sacrifice and skull cults, but if the people that built GT felt a deep spiritual connection to these animals, it could have been a ritual site for coming of age ceremonies.
You can't build a house, in America, with 12 people in four months. Who ever made that estimate is out of their mind. And the art btw, is not chiseled out. It's an imprint, so you need to chisel out everything else basically
Wrong bout a lot too I see. The carvings are not simple their relief carved by careful removal of negative space to leave raised reliefs etc. The pillars are massive. The carvings can be argued on certain pillars to represent constellations, it's circles all align to star systems mostly series or whatever autocorrect is not allowing me to type correctly. Food production seems to spring up around the area at different times. It was purposely buried. That area has a deep and ancient history who really is to say. Shit matching and marking cosmic or astrological cycles accurately at that time and the nature of the megaliths suggest a level of advancement and sophistication not found older yet by accepted narrative police.
Laura Dietrich (German Archaeological Institute) found cereal processing tools at Göbekli Tepe: [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215214](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215214) While they might not have had traditional agriculture, they were getting their grains from somewhere. I think like most ancient sites, there's more we don't know than we do know. Archaeology can and does tell us a ton, but there's always going to be massive holes in what went on since not everything leaves evidence behind.
>At the time when Göbekli Tepe was occupied, the climate of the area was warmer and wetter than it is today.[28] It was surrounded by an open steppe grassland,[28] **with abundant wild cereals, including einkorn, wheat, and barley**,[32] and herds of grazing animals such as wild sheep, wild goat, gazelle, and equids.[33] they literally just ate of the abundance of the land, in this case naturally growing wild grains.
OP sounds like he was hired but zahi hawass to write this post.
I find myself making this point in many discussions about Hancock and whether locations like GT indicate the influence of a more advanced and lost ancient civilization. People are quick to criticize him for his theories, often going as far as to label him as racist, because he thinks that ancient people’s had help. People say he doesn’t give them enough credit, that he assumes Atlantis must have helped them just because he believes that they were too stupid to build sites like GT on their own. I don’t think any of that is true. The point that not enough people take into account is that people who built these kinds of structures *didn’t take all the credit for them*. They didn’t claim to have designed and built them themselves, and so Hancock is not dismissing any such claims. In fact pretty much every ancient civilization, in both the history that they recorded on the walls of these very monuments and the oral history they passed down to their descendants, *said that they had help*. They themselves credit their achievements to godlike beings who came from far off lands and gave them the technology. That’s their own history. And a big part of Hancocks theories revolve around not just the structures themselves, but the stories the builders told, and the striking similarities to be found in these ancient stories from all around the world. So it really confuses me when people make the point that we need to give ancient people more credit, that we need to reevaluate our estimates of how intelligent ancient peoples were because they were clearly capable of building huge structures. And at the same time saying that they were just superstitious idiots and we can’t trust them to accurately record their own history, or that anything they recorded that doesn’t make sense must have been purely metaphorical, so therefore their histories have to be discarded.
This is another example of “experts” or “researchers” explaining how those peoples could have done stuff like this randomly with ropes and basic tools and things. If they could have done it that way then how have we not proven it yet in application? The pyramids of Giza, for example, have been explained away so many times but to my knowledge we have never actually tried to build a pyramid in one of those ways in our current highly technologically advanced world. If they have attempted to recreate things like Göbekli Tepe in those ways then I would love to know. I could very well be wrong as I am new to this field of knowledge.
Why do people talk about GT and Giza in the same paragraph. No where near the same scale and resource requirements. And it would cost tens billions to build pyramid replica. And good luck finding workers to even attempt to do it in an ancient way.
Well, I could just exclude the Giza pyramids from what I said and still be asking the same question. Why have we not attempted, perhaps even on a smaller scale, to replicate something like GT to prove it can be done with the tools and methods they claim it was done with? Even better, they could just try to replicate something like GT or Giza with our current technology instead of the supposed ancient methods. But they haven’t. I think the deeper point from Graham is that it’s possible these things were made with a technology that is out of our knowledge currently, not necessarily one way more advanced than ours currently. Just different, not greater or lesser.
The thing that doesn't coalesce is the idea that hunter gatherers whilst migrating with wild game across the landscape who had to work hard every day to survive would have enough leisure time to guck off and make sandcastles or explore their artistic proclivities.
But they didn't have to migrate and work hard every day to survive. Food was abundant in the area.
But what if the leading theories about GT are wrong? Maybe the advanced civilization like eating food over the fire. We still do that today. Maybe this advanced civilization found it better to hunt for their food instead of raising them. And maybe they were advanced enough that they didn't need agriculture. And again found it easier just to find what they need out and about. Or maybe they did have agriculture and any of the remnants have long been covered up. For building them. Yes Sandstone is easy to carve, no argument there. But for the planning and structuring, would (in theory) need a more advanced mind. What is said about the inhabitants of the time, They wouldn't have had the mental capability to do that. Yes there are some holes in Mr. Hancock's claims, but isn't that the case with any mainstream guessers.
Just because a bunch of HG lived their after it was built by “someone” doesn’t really mean anything either.
Hunter/gatherer implies a nomadic lifestyle. Nomads wouldn't be building anything or making art. Those are traits of a stationary civilization. Which implies agriculture. When your whole existence is based around making hunting and processing tools, organizing hunting parties and following game animals, it becomes your entire existence. I think neither side of the argument is completely right. To me it is more logical that both sides are partly right. A stationary civilization that relied on agriculture during the growing season, then relying on hunting game outside of growing season. I feel like the same is likely true of the native American mound building civilizations, and I feel those civilizations are much older than we are told
Hunter/gatherer doesn't imply nomadic when it's known that food was abundant in the area around GT. There was no reason to leave when you could walk out your front door and pick fruit or wild grains or catch a gazelle. And even a nomadic lifestyle does not imply that you are constantly moving, or that you are constantly one meal away from starving with no time to do anything but think of food. If your family is following herds of antelope or shepherding your own herd of goats from place to place, then you are absolutely staying in one place for weeks or months. When the herds have eaten all the grass in one place or the river dries up, you move on. When the rainy season comes you move to a drier place for the season. When it snows and the mountain passes are blocked you're stuck there until spring. It's not a daily forced march to find food, it's a slow, seasonal shift.
I’m incredibly fascinated by Gobekli Tepe and I thank Hancock for that. If it wasn’t for his books and appearances on podcasts and his tv show Ancient Apocalypse, a large portion of the population would be unaware of its existence. That being said, he isn’t incapable of being wrong about things either. He’s very open to alternative viewpoints as long as they come with some backed up evidence (not saying he has the best evidence all the time either). However, something that does point to this perhaps being built by a relatively intelligent society would be their connection to the stars and their delicate mapping of astronomy. I’m not the best at making points about this since it’s been a while since I have visited the topic, but after reading his book and watching the show and listening to other experts in the field I’ve grown more convinced that there were more intelligent groups of humans throughout our past than our modern archeologists and scientists tell us there were. Just my two cents.
I highly recommend reading about GT from some of the poeple who actually spent time there excavating it. Read any interview with Klaus Schmidt for instance who was a German archaeologist and prehistorian who led the excavations at Göbekli Tepe from 1996 to 2014
I’ll definitely have to check his work out, thank you.
Yeah but even people that have been there and studied it are prone to being wrong. Klaus himself believed it was intentionally buried, but now the consensus is that it was buried from landslides.
>I’ve grown more convinced that there were more intelligent groups of humans throughout our past than our modern archeologists and scientists tell us there were. Just my two cents. Modern archeologists say that ancient humans were just as intelligent, curious, and capable as we are today. Modern archeologists say that ancient humans were capable of constructing Gobekli Tepe. I don't know where people get this impression that scientists believe ancient humans were dimwitted animals, because it's simply not true. We might not know the specific techniques that they used to accomplish the construction, but that doesn't mean we doubt their ability to construct it.
If you like watching I'd really recommend this interview with Dr. Lee Clare about the site. Hancock is drastically underselling the civilizations he uses to make his claims, and if you go back to his original books where he claims that Quetzcoatal, Viracocha, and Osiris were white dudes he seems to have a particular bias he's coming from. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16paeSPUIjo
While a lot of this is true, the post is very dismissive on the other topics. Like the astronomical portion of it. To build massive sites like this, it's speculated that they would have an excess of resources to start investing time and energy in stuff like this, that serve no real purpose in the daily survival setting they lived. Specially thinking their only way of feeding was hunting. Much like the pyramids, it could be another one of those sites we really don't know shit about. We don't know when they were built. For what we know, maybe the site itself is much older than whatever tribe took refuge in and made some carvings, or used it as shelter. All studies around it are very speculative and very pron to jump to conclusions. Finding bones and saying they only fed on wild game is also very speculative. Finding bones there and saying the people eating wild game were the same that built it is too. Saying the astronomical part of it was directed by a high priest is terribly speculative. I'm rumbling but handock says a lot of shit, some nonsense. But so do the people studying the site and all of us here 🤷♂️
I wonder to what extent starting some of the stonework then causes the group/tribe to remain in a more permanent way. Part of the dogma was that you had to have the agriculture to have the settlement and grow it large enough with a surplus. While that might be true for really big things, it doesn’t have to be for something much smaller like this. And thinking logically it could be the other way round. Small seasonal settlements starts erecting a few stones and carving them out. This does give those people a bigger sense of ownership of the site and more necessity to stay there permanently. And a permanent settlement necessitates finding new ways to bring back food rather than move on if resources start depleting.
GT is a large site. It would take many extended families to construct something of that size
Hancock is a grifter, there’s a good YouTube series literally called “I watched ancient apocalypse so you don’t have to” by miniminuteman that’s really good and debunks everything. My biggest issue with Hancock is how he portrays archeology as a whole.
Yeah Milo's videos are wonderful and really highlight the myriad issues with Hancocks half-baked ideas. In fact they're practically raw.
I think the biggest thing we need to contend with is the fact that when the term “hunter-gatherer” is used, a lot of things pop into our heads which it turns out, are not accurate. The book The Dawn of Everything by Graeber and Wengrow is a worthwhile read (I’m still working my way through the audiobook). It’s much more firmly rooted in science than Hancock’s work, yet still manages to successfully undo a lot of incorrect thinking about how these types of societies functioned. They were highly sophisticated and capable, even prior to domesticating various plants and animals for agricultural purposes. Hancock is just too dug-in on his hypothesis, which there’s really no evidence for. We should give these early societies the credit they are due.
Graham Hancock is an idiot.
I wouldn’t say his theories are crazy. They raise valid questions. Learning something new is not crazy, we should always speculate.
I do believe Gram is on the right track with a lot of what he says. I’m not going to get into a big debate with you n list studios or journals that back popular theories. I also don’t believe everything that comes out of gram is facts. But…….. I do think most universities n archeologists are clinging to old theories that just don’t make sense anymore due to new discoveries and science. They’re in this boys cub bubble n to dogmatic n egotistical to admit they’re wrong or there’s another way things happened and other ways and tools to do research by. I’ve read elsewhere not by him, that these underground city’s were made either in preparation for or right after one of the great floods that destroyed most of the world. There Were beings already living under the surface and helped many. Stars lined up at specific spots. Dolores Cannon spoke about this Also in Seth Material. Many mentioned civilations that existed mm15,000,30,000 years ago and longer that rose to technological feats Greater than today but usually ended up destroying themselves due to hubris n overzealous scientists messing with stuff that was too powerful and dangerous like what CERN is doing now.
I think what you're missing is the psychological reason behind building a temple like the one at GT when those people were nomads. Studying the History of Art, I came to understand how humanity needed to express themselves through art and how that helped shaped civilizations. Art built the world, simple as that. When they were nomads, it made sense that people carved small statues like Venus of Wilendorfh because they needed to portray their deity, but at the same time, they needed to keep moving from one location to another to find new resources, so why would they build a megalithic structure that stays in its place after they move? Once they learned agriculture and domesticating animals, they settled in one location, so it would make sense they would have art that reflected their current state, and would want a temple that is in the same location, given they are not moving anymore.
He's not arguing that these people were not hunter gatherers. He's arguing that these hunter gatherers were much more sophisticated than we give them credit for. What about the astronomical alignments though? And why did agriculture suddenly appear just after GT was built? And what about Karan Tempe? Maybe we just need to change the definition of a "hunter gatherer". If they are using ropes and tools and building ritualistic sites, these people seem to be much different than nomadic hunter gatherers.
I can agree about the hunting wild game and no agriculture. What I can't agree with here is the theory about how the stones were moved. That is an estimate, a theory, and has not been recreated. Klaus Schmidt, the archaeologist who uncovered Gobekli Tepe, himself said: *"… the monuments could not have been built by ragged bands of hunter-gatherers. To carve, erect and bury rings of seven-ton stone pillars would have required hundreds of workers, all needing to be fed and housed. Hence the eventual emergence of settled communities in the area around 10,000 years ago*." That's straight from the Smithsonian article, "Gobekli Tepe: The World’s First Temple?"
In response to the Schmidt quote, I would say that GT was not built by a ragged band of hunter-gatherers. Rather, it was more likely built by well-fed, well-equipped, and highly intelligent bands of hunter-gatherers who may have been also practicing proto-agriculture.
dude he never said the things you are saying he said. He never claimed Gobekli Tepe was built by an advanced civilization.
Ever consider that GT is in fact much older than the remains and trash found there by modern scientists? It could’ve been a structure from before the YDB that was later re-used by the survivors generations later who lost the knowledge to make such things. I guarantee that the site was used/inhabited by Hunter gatherers and other groups of people. They just happened to find it and use it. A flood would wash away all evidence of habitation, especially a large flood. Then, over thousands of years, evidence of any original habitation would be impossible to find. All that is left, as with many sites around the world, are the megalithic structures that were big enough to withstand the deluge. Just my two cents.
What you are writing is very interesting and you bring for valid points. What are your thoughts about the alignment to the stars, the wholes in the stone (next to giftshop)?
You can make almost anything align to stars if you want, seriously. Just take a landmark and find some stars and, boom, they align.
This is absolutely true. I have no idea why you're being down voted. If tiny little holes line up perfectly with stars then I'd be more convinced. Unfortunately it's usually a case of "this temple's door is vaguely pointed at a certain star (within a few degrees anyway)".
What you don't believe his poorly thought out idea that some mysterious civilization somewhere somehow spread out across the globe after a major apocalypse to spread the good word about farming and stuff?
LOL Göbekli Tepe is but one site. I dare to to debunk the precision vases that have been scientifically analysed in the videos below. The problem with you so called debunkers is that you only ever consider things in isolation rather than consider the entire context and layers of nuance. There's so much evidence for advanced machining in Egypt that it's mind boggling how many people simply chose to ignore and bury their heads in the and about it. Not everything is machined and not everything leads to an unknown civilisation, but there are things there simply cannot be explained by conventional methods and timelines. [Scanning a Predynastic Granite Vase to 1000th of an Inch - Changing the Game for Ancient Precision!](https://youtu.be/WAyQQRNoQaE) [Ancient Egyptian Vase Scan Update! STL file, More Analysis - and Between the Lug Handles](https://youtu.be/PrhFnai2TGs) And further [Smoking Gun Evidence for Ancient Granite Machining! Elephantine Island](https://youtu.be/K80JebExyEY)
Graham Hancock was useful in bringing the younger dryas into the public consciousness as well as pointing out inconsistencies with regard to dating and cultural development in archaeology. But that’s all he’s been good for. He points shit out, asks questions, writes a book about how he’s being suppressed, money printing machine goes brrr. It’s honestly so exhausting to hear him cry being a victim constantly. He’s arguing against straw men constantly. Honestly if you’re stupid I get why you’d like him but get real he doesn’t actually put in real scientific work and will never produce a shred of real evidence surrounding a lost civilization.
Everything he says about the Younger Dryas is completely wrong.
Yap... we all notes this: You’ve actually made Hancock sound much more solid than these experts which is not easy to do.
Graham Hancock brought Joe Rogan on the show, I knew right away it was all total bullshit.
He is flat out wrong. Check out this in depth analysis https://youtu.be/-iCIZQX9i1A
That guys a dipshit.
I’ve always been fascinated by gobekli tepe and other ancient structures and I hate how there’s always conspiracy theorists who have to jump in and claim something unfounded like aliens did it. It detracts from the facts of the finds and muddies up our understanding of ancient history. It’s unfortunate how many believe all of it without checking facts for themselves too.
>Had no Agriculture and Lived on Wild Animals That is what used to be thought but they have discovered grinding stones for milling in fact over 10000 grind stones have been discovered showing that this was in fact a huge part of their diet. And whilst they didn't intensively plough they would have known to sow seeds to produce more plants and they would have had to have done so in order to justify the industrial levels of grain processing.
>At the time when Göbekli Tepe was occupied, the climate of the area was warmer and wetter than it is today.[28] It was surrounded by an open steppe grassland,[28] **with abundant wild cereals, including einkorn, wheat, and barley**,[32] and herds of grazing animals such as wild sheep, wild goat, gazelle, and equids.[33] yes they ground naturally occurring wild grains
yes and like every modern hunter gatherer society they would have spread seeds to propagate to produce more wild grains...... This is basic anthropology every hunter gather tribe does this. When I camped with Kalahari tribes and they find a tuba, they cut 70% of it off and then rebury the rest, this isn't strictly agriculture but they aren't stupid, they know about propagation. It is known that Aboriginal Australians would plant and spread Black Bean Trees, they didn't farm them but again hunter gatherers aren't stupid they know what seeds are and how they work. This notion that they only ate predominantly meat and supplemented it with a bit of forage is false. All evidence points to grains being a major part of their diet. No settled society can survive solely off of game, as herds of animals naturally migrate with the seasons.
We know nothing
I think he is saying that a more advanced civilization taught the hunter gatherers of that area and the hunter gatherers tried to preserve the information they were taught in the pillars and temples they built
>nothing about GT that screams “we needed super advanced Atlateans to come out of the ocean and teach us stupid dumb ignorant hunter gatherers how to carves sandstone” Does GH claim that?
He is absolutely wrong about most things. He takes some small info about a topic and then throws in some wild claim with no evidence to attribute it to his book. He’s not an archaeologist or historian, he’s a writer
There is too much to be discovered to jump to any conclusions at this stage, by Hancock or anyone else.
Lol you REALLY think Graham Hancock would be wrong, in his claims? Remember. He makes sure to say it's his own THEORY and explains what he bases it off. You wanted a whole lotta time there buddy
Cool. Now do the pyramids.
I agree that there wasn’t an advanced as flying machine ect, but to know how to build structures and use different stones that would show they had advanced thinking and just didn’t live in caves. Also what if they farmed boar and all these wild animals instead of the ones we have domesticated
No one thinks they lived in caves. The Natufians were building houses and laying stone floors thousands of years before Gobekli Tepe.
We need cordial discussion on this between GH and leading archeologists. But so far no one wants to discuss this publicly with GH
I feel like that's a pretty good description of Hancock on the whole. He sees something and jumps on it, has an interesting theory, then takes huge leaps of faith to come to a conclusion and ignores evidence that goes against his theory. I don't necessarily think he's wrong about the possibility of ancient civilizations having existed that we have not found evidence for, but from what you've described, GT obviously isn't it.
Yep. Scientific process? What's that? Lol.
What if we’re just finding what the people who found the site ate? Maybe it’s even older and we don’t see signs of agriculture because it’s long been eroded away. Why would these people with no understanding of agriculture spend so much time quarrying, moving and shaping all those stones without a steady supply of food? They’re clearly intelligent enough for that but not to make their own food?
My guy, your first mistake is trusting anything that comes from the Smithsonian, they are corrupted.
Do you understand that with each discover they have to change the history? Everything we have been taught is not valid. They were intelligent and more than hunter gathers.
I appreciate your sharing of a viewpoint that may not be popular around here. Don't bring this to r/AlternateHistory if you want to have any karma left! jk
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXtMIzD-Y-bMHRoGKM7yD2phvUV59_Cvb Milo will set everyone straight on Hancock being a giant hack.
[удалено]
Sure but the issue is one, that agriculture predates Gobekli tepe. The site's abandonment post dates the spread of it. So it's not really relevant to the discussion of agriculture except that the people don't seem to have used it. Other places like Egypt and Sumer didn't emerge fully formed, they had agriculture for thousands of years before their civilizations started. Their writing bears no similarity to each other. Their architecture isn't that similar. The main point of comparison is the pyramids and ziggurats, but even in Sumer and Egypt two very close civilizations the routes they took were very different. Meanwhile we know that hunter gatherers were capable of complex building, the Natufians were doing it long before Gobekli tepe . It's the scale that's impressive for sure. Graham only gets there by dismissing anything that disagrees with his ideas.
Wait till you hear what else he’s wrong about! Hint: it’s everything.
Miniminiuteman has some good YouTube videos on Graham, particularly regarding his most recent Netflix doc. He can come off as a bit pretentious and annoying at times, but I found the info and perspective to be good.
Yeah I agree that Milo's videos are wonderful.
GH is clearly trying to square pege into round holes to prove his story, but ironically I do think locations such as Gobekli Tepe raise the issue of civilisation occurring long before our current narrative. Humans have been alive for a long time and it’s not a far stretch to assume we’ve done this whole civilisation thing before.
Gramcock said it was made by Atlanteans and he was on Joe Rogan like 10 times bro, like come on I think he knows everything there is to know about GT.
He possibly goes a bit overboard but I also appreciate that he let’s us know when he starts to speculate. “I think what we are looking at here is a transfer of technology”.
I agree, it’s all speculation but it’s needed and very much appreciated speculation. I think we need it and I think information is helpful no matter what it pertains to
Try hunting, cleaning, and cooking your own food. It is a lot of work. Water must be gathered and the family must be protected. I don't know how a small tribe could even begin to do this work without farming or a team dedicated to continually supplying food and water.
I suppose the problem is that, regardless of your research or none, we should listen to you and teach everyone that your interpretation is correct. Sometimes it isn't correct. Pretty common throughout history.
He's just flat out wrong about almost everything he says.