As long as I have remembered, archaeology and the pursuit of lost civilisations have fascinated me. There are many beliefs and issues about how long man and its civilisation has been around. Well unless we were there, then there are no absolutes and the teachings that society haphazardly force upon us is more fiction then fact. Sure in modern history there are more facts, but it is the belief that ancient civilisations did not start up until approx 6000 years ago, and there was nothing but stone age man before that. Lets look at the big picture, man has been wondering around this blue planet for at least 100 000 years, as say the modern scientists, and only in 6000 years out of a 100 000 has man decided to build a hut, live in large groups and grow agriculture plants. Now for 94 000 years mankind could not be bothered, and preferred to live in the wild hunting and gathering. Using logical thinking I do not believe this, as there was no biological or intellectual difference between man today and 100 000 years ago, so what prevented man from advancing in those 94 000 years or what started off the development of civilisation.
Lets look at what has happen in the last 6000 years – man has started practicing agriculture, building huts, smelting metals, building boats, writing, creating commerce, then for some reason they built the pyramids not just in Egypt, but all around the world, as well as many other stone structures. Now, why is that and why are they all built around the same time. How come the Mayan Calenders are more accurate than modern ones, and why is it that for such an isolated people to be so advanced, they knew more about stars, planets and their movements then Europeans could hope to achieve in a thousand years.
Is it because of modern historian’s dogmatic thinking, suppression by religious factions, politics, or loss of historical evidence through war, or natural disasters? Are European historian’s so insecure that they must make out that they where the first transatlantic explorers, the inventors of all that is high culture and technologically advanced?
My mind boggles with so many holes in the course of human history. I have often wonder if man had advanced before to a high cultured and technically advanced civilisation only to be destroyed by a natural or unnatural disasters that would set back their culture to a former primitive stage to start again. Will it happen again, it looks that way, so what if we had a nuclear war, or virus outbreak, or a global natural disaster and 80 to 90% of the population died, do you think that the remaining 10 – 20% of the population would be able to continue current technologies, and lifestyle?
After a few of thousand years will there be any evidence left to show we were here in this high tech world at all, or will their religious/historical/political belief’s cover it up and control what information is allowed to be public knowledge. I have an inkling it’s happening now, with so many archaeology anomalies and out of place artefacts, how can we know what is truth and what is fiction?
I am not a creationist, or a die-hard Darwinist, I am a human being searching for the truth and there is a saying of mine I follow; “Question everything, Disregard nothing, and then the Truth will be Found”. I am not a scientist or a highly educated person, but I do have a mind of my own and as long as I have control over my own beliefs, society can not keep me in the dark forever.
Can anyone confirm or deny this? Can anyone give information that may help me on my journey to the truth?

This is an age old question that there are no known answers. You can only surmise what may be the truth. Who know, 6000 years ago, maybe that's when Aliens first visited.

(Good post!)

Aliens now that is an interesting theory, I have thought that intervention from an outside influence possible, but as long as the government denise this and the ET's don't officially say g'day we can not prove it. There are other possiblities such as cosmic radiation changing our DNA and giving the human brain a kick start, but that is still just a theory.

Confirm or deny what? You make several statements.

Sorry if I had too many questions in my text, but I feel they are linked in some way, my main question was basiclly way did civilization start off so late by history standards. Man had a long time to get going or did it start earlier and stop for a while for some reason?

sounds about right

The Sumerians claimed that there civilization was attributed to the Annunaki...people from Heaven whom taught them just about everything useful in building what we think of as civilization.

They went from being illiterate nomads, barely beyond cave men, to city-dwellers who were practicing astronomy, agriculture, and metallurgy. And seemingly did it witihn a few centuries.

How? Divine intervention? Aliens guidance? Who knows?

Are you talking about planet X (Nibiru)

I agree with your line of thought. I find sometimes amazing to see how a civilization could build for example the Temple of Jupiter, a structure that has rocks that no known modern artifact could lift by itself. I too think that we have pictured lost civilizations as dumb and inmoral and stuff, but I do think that once we had technology that we don't even imagine right now.

I find that our society has imposed us of some knowledge of how we need to picture old civilizations. I am neither a creationist ( I find the story on the bible sometimes ridiculous) , but I have seen many gaps for example in the theory of evolution,so I am neither a hardcore fan of evolution. I want the truth, and I can't trust interpretations...I hope someday we will find the absolute truth.

One thing that annoys me nowadays, is that if you doubt evolution, then you are commiting heresy and people think of you as a religious fundamentalist. Damn I hate that. Anyway, I agree with you on your line of thought.

Things I repent that modern man did:
- Columbus burned and destroyed many Indian artifacts and written history
- The fires of the library of Alexandria (we lost TONS of info there)
- many more, but I don't remember now

EDIT: and for the 6000 question, I think that evolution has teach us that 100 000 old men were as intelligent as an ape, and that our brains somehow evolved to reach the intelligence we have now..

Well, there's the first bit - the definition of a civilisation. I read an article in The New Scientist a year or so ago about a huge area that had a very dense population but was dated at 8000BC or so. They were debating whether this is evidence of a civilisation or not because of a number of factors. For example, though there were huge numbers of people living in an area, there was no evidence of commercial areas, industrial, or even set cemetaries - most bodies were buried beneath the "houses". So, while civilisations didn't officially start until the Sumerians, it doesn't mean that before that, there was no language, culture or anything beyond "stone age men". Keep in mind that, after the stone age, there was the bronze age, iron age... It wasn't a sudden jump.


Fascinating isn't it? Maybe it has something to do with human nature and thought. In the same way that two independent people can come up with the same idea.


It's not more accurate is it? It was more accurate than every other civilisation of its time and up until our current calender was created. I think you're exaggerating with your last statement though. Are you saying that the Mayans knew about as much about the makeup of stars, planets, galaxies, etc etc as we do now?


Probably all of them. Screeds of information is lost through war and natural disasters. Book burnings, destroyed monuments, tidal waves, think about how many historic buildings are lost to earthquakes. Though it sounds like a conspiracy theory, authorities do cover up discoveries. It happens in Egypt because the locals don't like their "truth" being undermined. My sister didn't want to do Egyptian archaeology for that reason. Also, sometimes if certain finds don't match the set chronological order, the finding is dismissed or ignored, lest the archaeologist's reputation is ruined for such an outlandish proposal. It happens but I don't think all the time, though.

Last of all, you'd be surprised how fast technology helps with progress. We have learned to build on prior knowledge instead of always starting from square one. But, without the first few steps, you wont go anywhere fast.

Sorry for responding this, but yes, the Mayan Calendar is more accurate than the Gregorian one. Do a search on wikipedia or any other astronomy site. Its more accurate like about 1/10 of a day or something like that. I do not have the exact fact right now

EDIT:
365.242036 days - Mayan
365.2425 days - Gregorian

Sources:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/MayanCalendar.html
http://www.factbites.com/topics/Mayan

Ah, thanks QueryAnalyzer, I didn't know that. I knew they had the days calcualated to more decimals than other calendars but didn't realise it was so much more accurate *reads up on it*

EDIT:
Wow

Thanks guys for the feedback, I have tried to talk to my friends about the topic, but most of the time they think I am weird by just bringing it up. I hope the truth will reveal itself in good time, maybe when we are ready to grasp the big picture.

Hey Potholer, could you expand a bit on that Egyptian issue.
Of why the authorities cover it up, and some examples if you have. I am interested in learning about that.

Sure, Query . I was going to but figured that, if someone was interested, they'd ask, rather than typing it all out and no one reading it.

Give me a sec to find a few sources and give proper details. I know at least one example off the top of my head but not names or dates - which is most important with this sort of thing.

EDIT:
Ok, right now having a few issues finding sites that look respectable but one example I can mention is that a number of vases were discovered with very thin necks. They were dated at a time earlier than should be for necks that thin (because, supposedly, at the given date, the egyptians weren't advnaced enough to produce such thin necks) so the finds weren't officially announced.

I'm wracking my brains trying to remember where I've heard these things from

I have read a few articles of coverups all over the world, one interesting one was with New Zealand, where there was evadence of Celtics arriving at The Waipoua Forest. A non-Polynesian culture that preceded the Maori, but the local tribe was not happy about the find and complained to the government, which in turn covered up the find and put in a policy to with hold archaeological information from the public for 75 years.

Yeah, I heard about that one too, Harks. We watched a wee video in Social Studies about the origins of the indigenous Maori and one particular researcher stumbled upon ruins in Waipoua Forest and afterwards was forbidden to take cameras or go there again.



Not exactly Egyptian but that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. I'd make more headway if I could only remember the name of the head of egyptian archaeology. He played a part in not letting people dig in certain places.

I guess its kind of hard finding any trustful sites on the issue. But I understand the governments hiding that stuff. If I were an owner of a pharmaceutical company, who distributes X pill , but if I made a research in which I gave X pill to a group of people, and a sugar pill to another group, and both groups have the same behaviour towards both pills, then I would be in a situation of a placebo effect, but I will dismiss the study because it puts in danger my business.

Many people make their lives around our current scientific knowledge, so a change in that, would mean the end for the career of many people...For example, physics have a hard time accepting dark matter, or dark energy or this tetraneutrons, because maybe this would mean that we need to rewrite physics, and it would be hard to tell millions of physicists that what they learned in college does not have any further sense.

hmmm...do you think that the Annunaki and the "sons of heaven" mentioned in the Bible could have been the same? They are mentioned in 1 paragraph in Genesis, where it mentions the origin of the Nephilim ...

Genesis 6:1-4
When man began to multiply on earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of heaven saw how beautiful the daughters of man were, and so they took for their wives as many of them they chose. Then the Lord said: "My Spirit shall not remain in man forever, since he is but flesh. His days shall comprise one hundred and twenty years."
At that time the Nephilim appeared on earth (as well as later), after the sons of heaven had intercourse with the daughters of man, who bore them sons. They were the heroes of old, the men of reknown.

Although, the sons of heaven's actions doesn't really fit with "heavenly" behavior...I believe the fallen angels would be more likely canidates to have behaved that way...

I remember reading in the Book of Enoch that they were the ones who taught us things we didn't know...

enoch

check out Ch. 7 and 8...

also...in the last line of the Genesis paragraph ^, they mention the heroes of old...who are they talking about?...or at least, does anyone have a theory?...

Hi Harks,

Understand your original posting, and relate very fully in wanting to understand.

Before I set forward a few questions, I would point out I believe that there has been a civilisation (how do you determine more advanced? we argue technology, but what if the civilisation never stumbled across electricity? and their society was based on law, and that there was no need for prisons? argueably a more sound ivilisation than ours without technology) before our own.

Why would man not develope from 100k years ago to 6k?

Why are there tribes in south america that live in makeshift huts and hunt today?
Why are eskimos living in homes made of ice and hunting?

If it is genuinely proven that the water damage to the Sphinx is from the temperate era that predates other structures in the region, then you can argue for a date of 14k BC?

Given a world affecting event happened 75k years ago, then man would only have had 25k years to develope to todays standards.

I read somewhere, but never heard of since that 6k years ago (i think) there were massive basalt flows in the northern hemisphere which poisoned a good deal of the land.
Again this would hinder development.

Try a book `Fingerprints of the Gods` by Graham Hancock. I enjoyed this read, and although some of the items in there were very one sided opinion, I also foun a large amount rose very relevant points.
Its moer what you make of the evidence than having something thrust down your throat.

Should anyone know a better book, I would be more than happy to know, and read myself, so this is open

Good luck Harks in the search, and remember it may be more your opinion than fact in the end.

TC
R47

rmbr mans been evolving for roughly 4.5 million years ago[wtf did we do in all that time eh?]. And we missd the industrial revolution about 2000 years ago when the greeks invented steam power, then they forgot all about it. Took us another 2000 years to catch up again, but by then it was too late, we werent socialy advanced enough as people to harness such powers safely. Now were screwed.

hey man
you are on the right track.
Also start looking at buildings around the world that are aligned to the summer and winter solaciste. it wont give you answers but you will get a very good look at the bigger picture.
Intresting text mate

Try Hevans mirror by graham hancock
or a few of eric von dankiens books

I think its the same for most of us. our friends dont grasp what we are trying to figure out.

As for an alien technology theory, it is interesting that peoples seperated by oceans and continents all attribute their "assistance" in developing their civilization to benificent reptilian creatures. In China they are the dragons, in the western hemisphere they are "flying serpents like Kulakan and Quetzelcoatl, and in Sumeria they are servant mushushu dragons to the Gods, and to the Hebres they arethe "Watchers" which may be the reptilain creatures described in the book of Enoch with "heads like serpents full of sharp teeth." Based on the Book of job, Satan is one of these creatures, and later described as a "dragon" as well. All of these legends suggest advanced, reptiloid creatures probably not of this world since there is no paleontological evidence of an advanced reptile species developing on earth, though there is no reason to dismiss such possibilities on another planet, where perhaps there was not an extinction event such as that which destroyed the dinosaurs.

The same "reptilian helper" theory also fits the "God-creator" model as well, in that if we accept the evolutionary record, bipedal reptiles existed 200 million years before mankind, and one kind may have been the suitable "body" for a creator God to improve with greater intelligence to serve as assistants. The overwhelming scriptural and pictograhical evidence establishes that that the earliest, and most important heavenly creatures of Judao-Christian theology are distinctly reptilian in nature, the Seraphim, a word meaning in Hewbrews "bright/fiery winged serpents" -- perhaps the same "dragons" that persist in the legends of virtually every human culture.

Wouldnt it be wierd if, instead of an asteriod plummeting to Earth and wiping out life all those years ago, that it was an alien space craft.

Should these beings have come from this craft with an understanding of religion it would make sense that whatever their destination they would always relate to `coming from the stars` as is highlighted in many many religious texts around the world.

Some plans for pyrmids may have existed and were built as observatories to find (in an ET style scenario) home.

Im afraid I dont believe it, but would certainly like to. I mean.,... the ship would have been destroyed on impact?

I can not get away with alien technology either.... The worlds greatest inventions appear to be the wheel, sliced bread and football.

All these I can quite easily manage by myself, and I am certainly no alien....

Oh dear.... I think I have well and truly lost the plot! Sorry ppl.

TC
R47

well some NASA exo-bioligists, seem to think the possibility that asteroid fragments from Mars landed on earth and contained the necesary organisms to populate earth with life. Stems from the fact that mars was once like earth, but got wiped into a hell world after too many asteroid hits.

interesting......

What I want to know, is how come for hundreds of thousands of years man kept to the surface of the Earth. And yet, with a few decades of first managing powered flight for just a few yards above the ground, he was landing on the Moon!

Surely that can only be explained by alien intervention?

Mankind has advanced further in the last 50 years than in the previous 500,000.......

war. And ruthless german efficiency.

Mankind's progress has never been a steady thing. It has always been in rapid sprints, followed by relative quite.

sadly usualy when theres wars happening

A theory about human evolution is that alien beings came to earth and did DNA manipulation on the local homo type species to develop slaves. Now these slaves where suppose to mine minerals from the earth, and for this to be possible they had to develop an intelligence and after a while the slaves becomes self aware. So the slaves fight back, because they want to be free. Then the gods leave the slaves to fend for them selves taking all their toys with them.

Now do many people believe in this story or does anyone have a better theory?

Small Villages and settling began much earlier than 6,000 years ago. The city of UR and Catal-Hyuk both began around 8,000 BC, which was 10,000 years ago.

also-- Im sure the smallest villages and settling began in like 9,000BC though. Maybe earlier.

Thing with evolution, is that every find..every discovery has to be bent towards the theory of change, not statusism... thats not really scientific to me . the data should determine the theory, not bend the data to suit the theory .

I have to agree with you on this one. And when bending the data, be careful not to interfer with others interpretations. With every new discovery of a fossil, the "procedure" of evolution is modified. We even have debates whether it was gradual or a punctuated equilibrium's evolution. I think the best thing with evolution is to stop analyzing fossils and build a strong theory and write it down on science books, cause this debate is never going to end.

P.S. Just in case, for any hard core evolutionists out there, I am not a follower of ID, nor I endorse it or sponsor it haha I'm just placing my point of view. I do "believe" in evolution, but I wrote my own bible on it

Indeed Much of the idea that mankind 'suddenly' advanced to covilisation is 50 years out of date. People were living in 2 storey houses, with nice, bright, white plaster walls, 10,000 years ago in the Middle east.

However, the real reason why we only started 'advancing' from around 12,000 years ago is probably tied in with the climate. For 100,000 years before then, climate had been swinging wildly between cold and wet and warm and dry. Any embryonic civilisations would have lasted just a few hundred years before a sudden switch in climate destroyed it. The relative climatic stability of the past 10,000 years finally allowed us to advance without such major set-backs - though there were still a few 'near misses'....

That would be a scientific catastrophy. The whole purpose of scientific methodology, in fact, one of the very five pre-requisites, is that new data must be accounted for in any given theory. Every new discovery of a fossil gives us more data, which must be accounted for; we cannot simply ignore data because we think we have enough. A theory cannot be strong if it ignores new data that contradicts it. Darwin believed evolution was forever a slow and steady rate of change. Fossil record indicates there have been periods of sudden evolutionary growth. Because of the new data, we are forced to modify Darwin's original theory to include it. Today, both the steady state and the punctuated equilibrium theory are considered to be scientifically valid.

Science is not done by compromise, nor is it done to give a sense of stability. To stop investigating, to stop researching, to stop analyzing, would reduce scientific methodology to a faith, which would defeat the entire purpose of it.



Then you missed the entire purpose of it. Science is not done by compromise, nor is it done to give a sense of stability. To stop investigating, to stop researching, to stop analyzing, would reduce scientific methodology to a faith. Faith has no place in science.

There are a few anomilies on this earth that contradict historical beliefs, and that is the belieif their where no atomic explosion on earth before Hiroshimo or the American testing.
There is high raditation levels in the north end of the Dead Sea and also in India that can only be contributed to an atomic explosion. There is a belief that they where space stations and where destroyed when the humans where in uprising in the ancient times.

The thing that's not quite right in evolution is that there is not a single fact that could be tested under laboratory conditions that supports the transition theory. This leaves us with many speculations of how could it have happened. The scientific method has 4 requisites:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

#4 is the black sheep of the family, unfortunatedely if we want to stick strongly with science, this point needs to be fullfilled. I know, evolution seems obvious under your and my point of view, but if we want to follow strictly scientific rules, we need to stick also with rule #4 and not hide it, just because we think evolution is obvious. This is one of the things ID's are exploiting and are relying on this one to try to "lower" the theory to a hypothesis level. The only solution would be to show, under strict lab conditions, that speciation actually occurs. Science has never shown this (correct me if I am wrong, please), speciation has only been inferred, falling into a circular reasoning. Speciation occurs because evolution occurs, and evolution occurs because speciation occurs. More on this one (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html)

I think a smarter approach could have been to first propose a study "On the Similarities of Species" and not "On the Origins of Species". This theory would have been certainly corroborated, and no dispute over it, perhaps with the latest discovery of the similarities between chimp/human DNA. And then, construct an hypothesis of evolution, and try to produce natural speciation (not artificial one), due to natural selection pressures, under observed experiments. I know, it would be kind of hard due to the span required for speciation, but we need to accomplish that. Sometimes the definition of a theory is bent too much.

This could help define what is a theory


I hope you got the main idea I was trying to expose. Science is science and rules need to be fulfilled. For science, common sense is subjective. Prejuices are subjective. Worldwide support is not evidence. And tons of books on it are also not evidence. Rules and protocols are evidence, just that. And as you told me, faith has no place in science.

For person X, ghosts must be real due to common sense, having the same validity as if you and me say evolution must be real due to common sense.

Correct me I am wrong in any point, specially if you know of an instance of a natural speciation, that has been widely accepted by biologists to have ocurred under controlled "scientific method" conditions. I know some observations, but they are highly disputed, and also we have to take into account the definition of a new species, that's quite controversial. But I am open to learn from someone in a better position to talk about speciation.

ehh...sort of...

Okay, yes, the scientific method, as you posted, does indeed exist, and it is the basic first steps of scientific discovery as taught in grade school. However, it needs to be understood that it is only the vey basics of what scientific methodology is about. While these four steps are the mantra of high school students everyone, when it comes down to actual, honest-to-goodness research, the scientific method is right up there with instructions on opening the jar of jelly prior to making a sandwich. In other words, they are so basic that they aren't even a part of the equation anymore; they are simply a force of habit.

What governs scientific methodology are the five pre-requisites of sceintific methodology. These are rules, of sorts, which every single theory in existance, without exception, must meet, prior to being considered scientific. There is no grandfathering, no exceptions, and no changes without a darn good reason that applies to all of science in general, not to a specific phenomenon (since these are rules that affect all scientific methodology, not just individual theories).

The prerequisites for scientific methodology are as follows:

1) The first would be that it needs to explain the currently existing data.
2) The second is that it would have to be able to predict future events based on that data, in order to encompass data discovered in the future.
3) The conclusion would have to be logical enough so that an unbiased third party would naturally arrive at the same results.
4) The theory must be falsifiable.
5) The explanation offered must be a verifiable event i.e. a logical path must lead from the data to the result.

I would be happy to expand more on the subject of scientific methodology, as that is my personal area of interest.


Speciation is not only observable, it is a common honors science school project. The key here is to accurately define your terminology. For the purposes of evolution, the word "species" defines two types of creatures who, for instinctual, social, or morphological reasons, are unable to sustain successful reproduction. These definitions are important because nature cares very little about how humans attempt to define her, and different aspects of the same thing can, in fact must, have different meanings, depending on their context.

Now, in regards to speciation, the most common example presented is that of the Hawthorn fly and the Apple Fly. I can post something that I previously presented in a debate on that, if you would like.



Ah, but now you run into more of a political error than anything to do with science.

Darwin first came up with the idea of evolution during his voyages on the Beagle. Why didn't he write about it back then? Because, as a scientist, he was compelled to support his claims in as through a manner as possible. Moreover, because his claims where so utterly outrageous, he knew full well that he would have to find absolutely incontrevertible evidence that his ideas had merit. To that end, he spent an astonishing 20 years gathering data and compiling his theory. He would have spent even more, except for a sudden call he received from an up and comin young biologist who's name has been lost to the ages. It seems this young scientist had come up with a radical theory concerning the creation of animals not by God, but rather as adaptations of other similar animals, and wanted Darwin's advice on how to present the concept in front of his fellow scientists at their convention. Darwin, sensing himself about to be scooped, gave the young scientist some advice to get him out of the way, and rapidly gathered his papers and reserved his place at the convention, ahead of the young scientist, and therefore became the person credited (rightly so) with the birth of evolutionary theory.

Scientist take great pride in their work, and it is unrealistic to ask someone to wait until 'all' the data is in before making a conclusion. The simple fact of the matter is that we have no idea if all the data will ever come in, and until that time, we have to work with what we have.

Oy...

Look...okay, I don't know about India (you'll have to give a few more details), but the Dead Sea Basin, being the lowest point on Earth, attenuates a unique ultraviolet B radiation wave. It doesn't come from a bomb, it comes from the sun. The phenomena is not mysterious, and is measured on a daily basis for the purposes of the spas and healing centers that take advantage of this radiation for healing.

The radiation at the Dead Sea has nothing to do with atomic explosions or space stations, or any such...stuff. Chances are pretty good whatever you are referring to in India has a natural cause as well.

that is quite fascinating, it is good to learn something new each day. I will look more into it. thanks

Here is a statement I read on another site:
Evidence at Mohenjo-Daro



When excavations of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro reached the street level, they discovered skeletons scattered about the cities, many holding hands and sprawling in the streets as if some instant, horrible doom had taken place. People were just lying, unburied, in the streets of the city.

And these skeletons are thousands of years old, even by traditional archaeological standards. What could cause such a thing? Why did the bodies not decay or get eaten by wild animals? Furthermore, there is no apparent cause of a physically violent death. These skeletons are among the most radioactive ever found, on par with those at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

and here is the link:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_ancient_atomic_3d.htm

I think you will find that, if you look up the story of Mohenjo-Daro, the only place that you will find the story of bodies found scattered, green glass, and radiationg, is at sites promoting the idea of ancient atomic wars. You will not find a single site concerning archeological data, that reports any sort of unusual radioactivity, accumulation, or signs of anything anachronistic about this site.

Thisis not to say that Mohenjo-Daro was not unusual! If a place like this didn't exist, you would have to make it up, because the history, or at least as much of it as could be identified, is rather fantastic. I encourage you to read up on it.

In all cases, I would submit to you that if the only place in which you can find a particular story (and almost word by word derived from a single Pravda article at that), is on sites dedicated to promoting a particular idea, then perhaps that story might have no basis other than what is assumed by the sites promoters.

Ok I do have to agree with you there, but if we rely all our assumption on released archaeology data we will never get the whole truth. Do you think that many scientists will publish data that will contradict the current dogmatic thinking of known history? I think not.
Here is what I have read in one of your archaeology data sites:

"The last major excavation project at the site was carried out by the late Dr. G. F. Dales in 1964-65, after which excavations were banned due to the problems of conserving the exposed structures from weathering.

Since 1964-65 only salvage excavation, surface surveys and conservation projects have been allowed at the site. Most of these salvage operations and conservation projects have been conducted by Pakistani archaeologists and conservators.

The most extensive recent work at the site has focused on attempts at conservation of the standing structures undertaken by UNESCO in collaboration with the Department of Archaeology and Museums, as well as various foreign consultants.

Details of the most recent salvage excavations and conservation are found in obscure journals or reports that are not readily available to the public, but are listed in the Bibliography for those interested in searching them out. "

Anyone hear this story before?

Oh, yes. It is a very common one.



Very much so. Every scientists dreams of being able to overturn the status quo. Discovering new things is what makes a scientist famous, what makes the funding roll in, what bring prestige to your name.



Like I said, very common. The simple fact of the matter is that old site are...well, old. Their age gives them a certain sensibility, and having a variety of people trampting about here and there without careful monitoring has destraoyed more than one site. The same thing is going on at the Sphynx and the Great Pyramids at Giza. Too many people where putting the monuments in danger, so the pyramids are rotated on the tourist schedule (to say nothing of the Sphynx, which crumbles when you look at it the wrong way).

Part of being an archeologist is protecting the history that you are trying to study. That's why it takes so long.

I think the 96,000 year gap in history is just lost because its so old. Alot of things may have been ruined when later people built over it, or used materials from the early buildings. We have a hard time excavating things that are only a few hundred years old, so stuff really old is just lost. But I know that we have alot cultural artifacts from antiquity. Cooking, building, textile technology, etc., I'm sure were all improved little by little through all those thousands of years. Those ancient civilations were building on the past, just as we do.

It looks like our history has been recycled a fair bit, whether it was building foundations from an old site to a new site or resmelting metals. Man is lazy at the best of times, if he finds something already there he will use it rather then do it the hardway.(or do we call it innovation) So yes we have lost a lot of our history, but there is still hope that there are a few things out there that might fill in the gaps.

"still hope that there are a few things out there that might fill in the gaps" Yes, always hope. I'm fascinated by the ancients. Probably our best hope is for new technology to better interpret what is found. Maybe when we are old we'll learn alot of what we wonder about today. My Grandmother has always been interested in the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were discovered when she was younger than I am now, but she is now 93 years old and avidly reads anything new that they find out about them...........