7 x headed serpent + Man bags

Post Reply New Topic

We had load bearing structures all over the world long before we had the calculus to evaluate the strength of those structures.

By your argument, we could not have had spears or bows and arrows prior to having the calculus to evaluate their flight paths.

^^^ I'll go with the engineer. According to convention, the Egyptians and Romans developed load-bearing structures without the benefit of modern calculus. They relied on empirical methods, observation, and practical experience, alongside mathematical principles known at the time, to design and build massive structures.

But it's one thing to make prediction without calculus for load bearing involving 500kg-1 tonne stones, it's quite another when you are predicting load bearing for 80-100 tonnes like the upper chambers of the Kings Gallery of the great pyramid some 40 feet high or the trillion stones in Balbek Lebanon where the load being carried varies from 750-1000 tonnes all without calculus.

CD, it seems like you're applying the god of the gaps fallacy to all sorts of unanswered questions in anthropology and archaeology, only substituting god with aliens or Hancockian civilizations. It's pseudoscience quackery without any positive evidence.

The goalposts and standards of required evidence shift back and forth as need be so you can justify dismissing any other proposed solutions, while protecting your pet speculation (since it's not a theory and it's not even a hypothesis).

Regarding ancient technologically sophisticated societies:

Metal ores are never pure when extracted and when you smelt them you also smelt the impurities.

One common impurity is lead, and some of it burns off as during the smelting process and enters the water cycle, where it eventually winds up in sediments and becomes a measurable signal in the geological record.

If you want to find evidence of a technological civilization that worked with metals, you just need to look for lead in the sediment record. If you don't see a spike in lead, then you know there wasn't a technological civilization active at that corresponding time.

Meaning:

Hancockian civilizations were either limited to stone technology (greatly undermining the idea they were far more advanced than the neolithic societies who's accomplishments people insist on doubting) or that they simply did not exist at all.

Or more bluntly: Graham Hanhock being correct is precluded by the available evidence. With that in mind, he's probably not the best guy to cite as an expert.

^^^ Don't get me wrong, I am not invalidating all conventional archaeological theories. But I am pointing out the obvious that conventional theories cannot adequately account for the non-linear development of building technology in ancient times across the entire globe.

And its not just buildings, statues and even pottery show non-linear development where older finds show advanced workmanship which by 2000BC suddenly seemed to no longer be used, whether you are talking about the middle east, South America or the Indo-Pacific.

the Indus Valley civilisation is a great example of this. an unknown people established planned cities built out of brick with drainage, and indoor plumbing 6000 years ago. then around 1500BC India went through a dark ages where people only lived in thatched huts or mud brick till the arrival of Europeans.

Also, if you don't count the Taj Mahal as an example of great architectual projects existing in India prior to Europeans (I guess the Mughals are European now...):



But, ultimately this entire tangent is just an attempt at distracting from the point.