Russian Engineer Reveals Evidence for Advanced Ancient Civilisation

a reply to: Marduk

Onus probandi...

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
a reply to: Marduk

Onus probandi...

Gesundheit.

originally posted by: Drawsoho

The granite is super hard quartzite

Granite is granite and quartzite is quartzite.
You're getting your rocks muddled up.

originally posted by: Drawsoho
BS: what science is saying about those sites and when offered the scientific
proof of their construction, you ignored it.

There is no proof dolomite balls, sand, copper tubes, chisels and punches ever
built the pyramids or the artifacts in Bolivia.

It is the machinations of the scientists to prove themselves right with small
scale experiments that are bound to succeed, such as Denny's vase.

As for your input it is disingenuous and partisan to the errant Egyptologists.
You have proven nothing and I know the Serapeum lid cannot be reproduced
with common hand tools and you do too. That is why you have avoided this
experiment because it would prove you wrong.


a reply to: Marduk

So we have to build the great pyramid to prove it can be built?? Do you know how stupid that sounds right?? See you want to shift the burdon of proof by creating tasks that you mist see to prove things. In an argument this is moving the goal posts. For you to prove your point you need to present proof that some sort of advanced technology was used. Like where is the plasma torch who built it what did they use as fuel. We can daydream all we like and cone up with wild claims. Problem is when you make these claims you must show proof of them. Archeology and science has tested the bore holes looked into the construction and even yes replicated things in experiments.

Sad how people like you want to down play the accomplishments of stone masons and humans in general. Stone masons were highly trained and learned their craft. Many of the techniques actually has to be rediscovered but this happens all the time. Even the Greeks working with marble had to use simple tools but created works of art. I strongly suggest you look at what,man has done with stone before you say something stupid like it can't be done. Just take a look at the marble statues and then maybe you will get an idea what stone masons can do.

a reply to: dragonridr

Couldn't agree more, I'm still waiting for all the missing Egyptian gothic cathedrals, because obviously being so advanced, they must have had the technological know how, but for some reason, none of them have survived, leaving us just the primitive, bottom heavy structures like the rest of the ancient civilisations that didn't know what steel reinforcement was...

a reply to: Marduk

...and the ancient Egyptian infrastructure and mining operations to support all that.

(Not that they didn't have infrastructure and mining operations, but it was mostly surface mining, very inefficient, and the infrastructure advances were Human Sandboxes with stools (I kid you not) as indoor plumbing)

a reply to: Granite

Sorry...off topic...having trouble knowing how to post new thread...feel free to post this all over the internet. My nephew is military intelligence and a religious nut. After serving in area 51 he made fun of me saying he saw no aliens. Immediately after he tried to drop out of intelligence and become a Hebrew translator. ( the language given to the hebrews by god?) The military said no way and sent him to Korea. Hes been there ever since.

a reply to: Harte

ok. i have been reading this site on and off since just after its inception and thats been a quite a while now,
mostly following this forum as i have a long standing interest in anthropology and construction (obviously quite important to most modern humans).
excuse my grammar and punctuation in advance, although i am sure it is of scant concern here.
marduk, harte, hanslune and others ...i hold you up for bigotry (although i would prefer to term it willful inaccuracy)
and before i am levelled by your righteous outrage, i would like to submit that i have considerable sympathy with your common reactionary positions.
i understand your frustration.you find yourselves in many of these discussions confronted by hordes of novelty crazed millenials demanding shocking revalations backed up by magical thinking, i cant begin to name them and it wouldnt matter because they are too numerous, they are in their "salad days" as shakespeare put it, green of judgement and cold of blood, and i certainly detect a lack of "sangfroid" in you three, who i am assuming from your writing are, a little more mature, like me.
which is why i call bigotry.
so, if you will, here is the crime scene
earth 20000 years before present (bp)
temperature begins to rise after a fairly thorough ice age
12900 bp meteor airburst, fragmented, hits ice sheet , n america s america australasia , creates a "black mat" in the geological layer, most big things die, massives meltwater rediverts ocean currents, earth starts downward trend in temperature once more (i.e.younger dryas and the cold snap)
11600 some event, most probably a massive solar event (another postulated cause could be the debris from the previous hit on a second or third pass) hits earth melts all that ice... very sudden in the record.....and sets us on the uptrend in temperature once more
also important to consider all these cosmic interruptions are followed by major tectonic, climatic and meteorlogical events and sea level changes on regional and global scales
so what is wrong with considering a hypothesis where we pulled out of the ice age with some form of civilization (e.g. gobekli tepe) also remebering the highlands then are the highlands now i.e. remote backwaters and most civilisation is on the existant coastline, and then we got wiped and so we tried to pull together what we had left
built some # and.. bang again, then a slow descent and an equally slow recovery to the point where i make myself read this post rennaissance egyptology crap on this site
so i will retract that bit because there is nothing wrong with egyptology, it has its place, 6000bp to 1500bp
not to get into the nitty gritty just yet, what is wrong with suggesting that the egyptians inherited the great pyramids, sphinx and some granite stuff and drew on it for personal glory
farfetched, you may say. i see it on every street in our empire
to be fair they also renovated all this stuff and maintained it and built the majority of it
and i do not believe there is any conspiracy to hide the ancient past from people. its just academia, bureacracy and politics and the problems associated with attempting to protect ancient sites
so how can we not consider that we were here and we fell and we are back, i mean what the hell do you think would be left, technology aside, the population cannot have been that high and it was a very destructive period and metal is gone after a few thousand years

originally posted by: username74
so, if you will, here is the crime scene

An interesting syncronicity...because when I talk to elementary students and high school students about geology/paleontology/ecology/anthropology, I always ask "how many of you watch NCIS or CSI or Scooby-Doo?"

12900 bp meteor airburst, fragmented, hits ice sheet , n america s america australasia , creates a "black mat" in the geological layer

You were fine up until that point.

Do the experiment (even a thought experiment) -- stick a basketball (Earth) into a sandbox (or sand trap or on the beach). Get a BB pellet and shoot (or blow) it into the sandbox right beside the basketball (not inches in front, because the Earth's atmosphere doesn't go very far. Note the spray pattern of the sand. How much of an impact does it have on Earth?

The proposed (and not accepted) meteorite was smaller than that.

So how could it affect the entire globe? Meteorites aren't ICBMs, with a consistent size, consistent explosive force, and programmable trajectory. Yes, I've heard the "multiple" theory... but if you do the math (astronomy, trajectories, and meteorites) it just doesn't add up.

And there's a distinct lack of meteorite craters. I can see missing one...but an entire swarm coming in and airbursting?

Second: there's no "black mat" layer over the globe. I go on paleontology AND archaeology digs here in Texas (one of the 'black mat' places) and can assure you there isn't any such thing at the sites I've been. You could come see for yourself.

, most big things die,

Actually, they don't... or, rather, they take a good long time to do it. Mammoths were alive long after the pyramids were built, becoming extinct around 1000 BC. Like most Great Extinctions, it wasn't a case of 'things falling over in a few days or weeks or years' but rather a decline in species and then a drop over a thousand year period.

massives meltwater rediverts ocean currents, earth starts downward trend in temperature once more (i.e.younger dryas and the cold snap)

The melt was more gradual. There were a few dramatic events, yes - but the emphasis is on 'few.'

11600 some event, most probably a massive solar event (another postulated cause could be the debris from the previous hit on a second or third pass) hits earth melts all that ice... very sudden in the record.....

There isn't a mass sudden melt.

so what is wrong with considering a hypothesis where we pulled out of the ice age with some form of civilization (e.g. gobekli tepe) also remebering the highlands then are the highlands now i.e. remote backwaters and most civilisation is on the existant coastline, and then we got wiped and so we tried to pull together what we had left
built some # and.. bang again, then a slow descent and an equally slow recovery to the point where i make myself read this post rennaissance egyptology crap on this site

In order to have a civilization, you need
...enough stored food so that non hunter-farmer professions exist (in tribes that are strictly h-g types, everyone does a little bit of everything. You don't have, for instance, someone who makes baskets full-time in exchange for food.)
... a settlement
...large enough population for work and for specialists
...domesticated animals for food and transport
...leisure time to create technology
...a trade system for goods and raw materials
...a government system
...a system of farming (for food. Without it, civilization collapses)

All of those don't just suddenly "appear" in a group of wandering hunter-gatherers. They develop from tribes that settle in one area which then expand and grow to villages... cities, etc.

This is what we see. We don't see the sudden emergence of cities with full-fledged technology. There's always villages from that same culture in the area and evidences of earlier phases of technology.

what is wrong with suggesting that the egyptians inherited the great pyramids, sphinx and some granite stuff and drew on it for personal glory

Except that...
* the pyramids didn't just "appear."
-Khufu's father and grandfather built pyramids (so Khufu had an expert labor force that had already built four or five pyramids and a bunch of mastaba tombs before that.
- the chambers are the exact same layout as the earlier structures - but it's a progress so they couldn't be copying a "discovery."
- there are other examples of sphinxes in Egypt. If they'd known about it all along, we would have seen representations from 4,000 BC and earlier.

so how can we not consider that we were here and we fell and we are back, i mean what the hell do you think would be left, technology aside, the population cannot have been that high and it was a very destructive period and metal is gone after a few thousand years

Actually, no. The Discovery Channel (or one of them) aired some Dramatic Nonsense called "After Man" which basically said "humans vanish." However, we (and you know this from reading the topics here) find evidence for even fairly primitive cultures that goes back 10,000 years and more (like the Neanderthal stone circle or the Chauvet cave paintings. Heck, we've even got the notes of one of Khufu's pyramid builders and a bill of lading for his stone.)

Technologically sophisticated materials (glass, metal) is even more durable than natural materials.

You might enjoy joining a local archaeological society and going on a public dig sometime. You'll be amazed - and you'll see the 'finds' presented on tv/Youtube, etc in a different light.

ok i admit i had a couple of glasses last night and some portions of the post may be a little vague but my dates are not so so far out "The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, also known as the Clovis comet hypothesis, is one of the competing scientific explanations for the onset of the Younger Dryas cold period after the last glacial period. The hypothesis, which scientists continue to debate, proposes that the climate of that time was cooled by the impact or air burst of one or more comets.[1][2][3]

The general hypothesis states that about 12,900 BP calibrated (10,900 14C uncalibrated) years ago, air burst(s) or impact(s) from a near-Earth object(s) set areas of the North American continent on fire, disrupted climate and caused the Quaternary extinction event in North America. This resulted in the extinction of most of the megafauna, and the rapid demise of the North American Clovis culture.[4] The Younger Dryas ice age lasted for about 1,200 years before the climate warmed again. These events are also seen as part of the Holocene extinction phenomenon.

One or more big explosions may have occurred above or possibly on the Laurentide Ice Sheet in the region of the Great Lakes. Though no major impact crater has been identified, the proponents argue that it would be physically possible for such an air burst to have been similar to but orders of magnitude larger than the Tunguska event of 1908.[5][6] The hypothesis proposed that animal and human life in North America not directly killed by the blast or the resulting wildfires would have suffered due to the disrupted ecologic relationships affecting the continent.

The impact of this postulated event (or series of events) goes beyond the Americas. A number of studies reported evidence of this impact around the world. For example, James Wittke et al. argued for the deposition of impact spherules 12,800 years ago across four continents, including Europe and the Middle East.

The evidence in favour of a meteoric impact initiating the Younger Dryas cooling period includes carbon-rich layers of soil that have been found at some 50 Clovis sites across North America. Dalton and Wittke reported that layers containing anomalous materials (nanodiamonds, metallic microspherules, carbon spherules, magnetic spherules, iridium, charcoal, soot, and fullerenes enriched in helium-3) were discovered at the very bottom of the 'black mats' of organic material that mark the beginning of the Younger Dryas.[8][9] It has been claimed that these anomalous materials cannot be explained by volcanic, anthropogenic, or other natural processes, and were therefore evidence of an impact event.[3]

Prof Richard Firestone performed a similar analysis of seven 'black mat' sites and fifteen Carolina Bay sites, which all showed increased concentrations of carbon spherules, vitreous charcoal, magnetic microspherules, nanodiamonds, iridium, fullerenes and extraterrestrial helium, which are all indicative of an extraterrestrial impact and associated biomass burning at the onset to the Younger Dryas. Although Firestone did acknowledge that previous OSL dating of the Carolina Bays suggested that they predated the Younger Dryas.[10] At the Carolina Bay sites vitreous charcoal and carbon spherules were concentrated in the upper layers of the Bay formations, and the dates derived were found to be much younger than the equivalent OSL dates. Carbon dating of the carbon spherules mostly gave dates in the future, suggesting an unusual enrichment of the 14C at the time these deposits were laid down. Carbon dating of the vitreous charcoal and charcoal gave dates from 8,450 BP to 510 in the future, again suggesting 14C enrichment. Firestone suggested that this enrichment was connected to the sudden 14C increase that has been observed at the beginning of the Younger Dryas 12.9 kyr ago (see his fig 9), which might suggest a link between these impact indicators and the Younger Dryas. In addition, a small piece of yellow pine wood was found to be vitrified on one side, which indicated exposure to a very brief temperature approaching 3,200 °C that 'melted' one side of the wood sample. Firestone suggested that this may have been caused by an intense high temperature shock-wave associated with an extraterrestrial impact.[11]

Additional data supporting the synchronous nature of the black mats, plus the simultaneous and catastrophic nature of the American Megafauna and Clovis Man extinctions was published the following year by Prof Vance Haynes. Haynes said of the catastrophic events that marked the beginning of the Younger Dryas cooling:

The megafaunal extinction and the Clovis-Folsom transition (extinction) appear to have occurred in less than 100 years, perhaps much less ... This implies that extinction of the Rancholabrean megafauna was geologically instantaneous and essentially catastrophic.[12]

No skeletal remains of horse, camel, mammoth, mastodon, dire wolf, American lion, short-faced bear, sloth, tapir, etc:, or Clovis artifacts have ever been found in situ within the YD age black mat, and no post-Clovis Paleoindian artifacts have ever been found in situ stratigraphically below it

It is conjectured that this impact event brought about the extinction of many North American Pleistocene megafauna. These animals included camels, mammoths, the giant short-faced bear and numerous other species that the proponents suggest died at this time.[20] The proposed markers for the impact event are claimed to appear at the end of the Clovis culture.[21] However, some large animals survived that time period.[22]"

phys.org...

www.youtube.com... royal astronomical society ottawa

Do the experiment (even a thought experiment) -- stick a basketball (Earth) into a sandbox (or sand trap or on the beach). Get a BB pellet and shoot (or blow) it into the sandbox right beside the basketball (not inches in front, because the Earth's atmosphere doesn't go very far. Note the spray pattern of the sand. How much of an impact does it have on Earth? The proposed (and not accepted) meteorite was smaller than that. So how could it affect the entire globe? Meteorites aren't ICBMs, with a consistent size, consistent explosive force, and programmable trajectory. Yes, I've heard the "multiple" theory... but if you do the math (astronomy, trajectories, and meteorites) it just doesn't add up. And there's a distinct lack of meteorite craters. I can see missing one...but an entire swarm coming in and airbursting? Second: there's no "black mat" layer over the globe. I go on paleontology AND archaeology digs here in Texas (one of the 'black mat' places) and can assure you there isn't any such thing at the sites I've been. You could come see for yourself.

what about the Ames Vertical Gun instead of a bb gun and a basketball,
www.scientificpsychic.com...
and i dont know the integrity the website that the articles on, i was immediately suspicious myself but the article itself isnt too bad and gives you the relevant people

so thats the first half of your reply answered, think i have to start a new reply to follow

In order to have a civilization, you need ...enough stored food so that non hunter-farmer professions exist (in tribes that are strictly h-g types, everyone does a little bit of everything. You don't have, for instance, someone who makes baskets full-time in exchange for food.)
... a settlement ...large enough population for work and for specialists
...domesticated animals for food and transport
...leisure time to create technology
...a trade system for goods and raw materials
...a government system
...a system of farming (for food. Without it, civilization collapses) All of those don't just suddenly "appear" in a group of wandering hunter-gatherers. They develop from tribes that settle in one area which then expand and grow to villages... cities, etc.

that frankly is a very linear and limited set of assumptions unless you describe the base and evolution of a modern western agrarian/manufacturing/economic society, which of course you do , because what the hell else are you going to describe, and thats because there is limited evidence to describe any alternative.
so lets break down the above bullet points to their lowest common denominators
1 shelter
2 food and transport
3 time
4 materials
5 a creed/emotional support/identity
6 more food
so they had all of that multiplied by time, such vast chasms of time, time in whch to observe natures processes some times on global scale, in a world still rich with resources- if you have read the reports of the pioneers/frontiersmen of the u s a similar situation existed there for materials the indians had little use for, notably copper.
however your prerequisites for civilisation are also a remenant age of thought recently expired but still persisting in our societies, THE AGE OF EXUBERANCE
in short the idea or assumption that stuff is there because its there and itll always be there and we can grow and grow until we just pop. so because we now know this is not the case we have the term CARRYING CAPACITY which is to say theres an amount of life an ecosystem can support before bad stuff starts to happen. suffice to say america was already at its carrying capacity when the settlers arrived hence bad stuff
our ancestors would have known this as they eat animals and know them well
and just as an offside the link below shows a different take on domestication of animals, its a treat if you havent seen it before
matadornetwork.com...
so to bring in gobekli tepe at 13900 years, with double figures of buried older cicles to 15100 years on the same site pushes that time line right through the dryas period
so not to understate this find, the work within is not for me a technology issue and the upward weights are 14 tons or so no red flags although the work and some of the sculptures are very very odd and very very good.
more specifically it was not a residence and the remains found are for a hunting diet.
so there we are. we have "not farmers", modest megaliths, workmanship, evidence of symbolism etc,
the point is its old and it doesnt fit and its such a vast period of time, and if sea levels were so much lower and your civilisations transport is mostly by water then that world lies mostly underwater so what do you expect to find in these mountainous backwaters
so again whats wrong with the vague yet likely hypothesis so we can have a meaningful look at the proposed evidence for technology is some kind of meaningful context. And the definition of technology in respect to different perceptions of physical processes

originally posted by: username74
ok i admit i had a couple of glasses last night and some portions of the post may be a little vague but my dates are not so so far out "The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, also known as the Clovis comet hypothesis, is one of the competing scientific explanations for the onset of the Younger Dryas cold period after the last glacial period. The hypothesis, which scientists continue to debate, proposes that the climate of that time was cooled by the impact or air burst of one or more comets.

I am familiar with this and I've discussed it with paleontologists and archaeologists. It hasn't gained much traction because of a number of things: mainly that the proposed meteorites would have had to act like a set of species-specific ICBM missiles. They kill off the short-faced bear but leave the grizzly (same mass), destroy the North American camel but leave deer and moose and so forth alive, kill off almost all the large mammals in South America and target a few in Australia while leaving other parts of the world untouched.

Astronomer-types seem to find it compelling, however - but they are working with planetary systems and not studying the life forms that went extinct.

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Harte
marduk, harte, hanslune and others ...i hold you up for bigotry (although i would prefer to term it willful inaccuracy)

After you called me a bigot, consider yourself lucky I'm responding.
The answer to all your questions is absence of any evidence.
If we have no evidence for a thing, then belief in that thing is not warranted.
That's "what's wrong" with it.

The amount of concepts for which there is no evidence is infinite. That is, you can make up anything you want.
So, given the absence of any evidence for any Ice Age civilization, believing in one is analogous to believing that your left hand is out to get you - even though it hasn't made it's move yet.

In the cases you describe, not only have we no evidence, we have amassed a great deal of evidence for the mainstream view.
After all, it's not like a committee of old geezers gathered and invented the mainstream view out of thin air at some clandestine meeting.

Lastly, given your interest in Anthropology, I would think that by now you would realize that the term "civilization" is just a categorization of a type of culture.
There is no evidence at Gobekli Tepe of any civilization.

There's no real reason to believe there was no culture already in place when the glaciers retreated.
In fact, we know for certain that there were several.

Harte

ok so here its important to clarify the quotation marks mark the beginning of the younger dryas impact, from the wiki entry titled the same
the implications of kinetic energy as opposed or substituted by mass
ie large -slow
ie small -fast
how the hell can you bring in icbm s into it. unless you are expressing terms of energy transference ie joules to kilotons
its about massive planetary catastrophe
in fact its about impact in a more general sense
ie the existant ecosystem and the long term effects of such events - signposted by ;
a mechanism was in effect and had consequences that left evidence to lead us to to an attempt to ascertain the effects that left the evidence or lack of expected evidence to cover a massive gap in the anthropological record
and if we seek we find, even if we find the unprecedented things we do.
people lived through this at great cost as they do through all traumatic events its in all myths, the idea of apocalypse armegedon , the flood(s) and surely they lost it all
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
the whole premise is especially ridiculous in the case of massive isostatic sea level changes
the idea that an animal of a cetain mass should exhibit the same survival reactions as an animal of any similar mass,even of a similar genus, on the basis of its mass alone is risible without geographic distribution
and you failed to respond to anyone of my counterpoints to my rebuttal
and you seem yet again to be defending that which i do not threaten
i am just trying so set up a reasonably plausible backdrop/scenario for the recent evolution of our particular flavour of monkey
so we can discuss the antics of this monkey over the past 15- 20 000 years
and then see if the marks they made and the rocks they stuck together and any potential infra structure they may or may not have intentionally or unintentionally created can be corellated with cosmic, tectonic, solar, magnetic or...in short geological/archealogical record to reverse engineer some loose chain of events that explains the primary evidence in front of us. chronologically
if we can loosely agree that we are the same cognitive animal for this 20 000 years and that we have been beset by challenges not least in the form of cosmic events (and earthquakes are wildly underrated as an influence on human civilisation) and ice ages i believe we can find a context to productively discuss these marks on stone and seemingly insane construction enterprises
oh and by the by of course the pyramids did not just appear ther, dont be so #ing disingenious, i made the point that the egyptians just wandered in there as explorers , to a place that was previously built hence my issues with the timeline and my defence of academic egyptology
and there went my sangfroid
this is what confuses me. there is no conflict
all mainstream(yeah not too happy with that term) archeaology has to do is recognise that "prehistory" is just the first bit of history
its not pre its history.

woah, havent read your post yet but i called bigotry, not the same as personally calling you a bigot, and of course i have never met you and would not know so, please dont be personally offended . will read and rely properly soon.

a reply to: Harte

actually after having read your post i retract my mollification. and note that the content of my post was again not addressed.

a reply to: Harte

ah and having read the last two paragraphs of your post again i realise i must qualify my last comment and i see to reply to a certain post the button is on the relevant reply , bear with me, this isnt normally my thing

a reply to: Harte

the very fact that gobekli tepe exists at all is evidence of civilisation. the art that was carved and the fact it was intentionally preserved.
and dont try and tar me with conspiricy theorist anchor word crap, "After all, it's not like a committee of old geezers gathered and invented the mainstream view out of thin air at some clandestine meeting. " at no point did i suggest such a thing regardless of its provenance and i set down some parameters for this hypothesised and likely enviromental situation suggested by the geological record

The amount of concepts for which there is no evidence is infinite. That is, you can make up anything you want. So, given the absence of any evidence for any Ice Age civilization, believing in one is analogous to believing that your left hand is out to get you - even though it hasn't made it's move yet.

There is no evidence at Gobekli Tepe of any civilization.

There's no real reason to believe there was no culture already in place when the glaciers retreated. In fact, we know for certain that there were several.

and what the hell is that dr strangelove and two contradictions in three consecutive paragraphs

so i make a reference to dr strangelove in reply to your metaphor of the left hand being out to get you
my reply is surely a cultural reference as was your metaphor
and the culture is a product of this civilisation
and so it seems you are suggesting we can have culture, alone
and we can have civilisation+culture

Lastly, given your interest in Anthropology, I would think that by now you would realize that the term "civilization" is just a categorization of a type of culture. There is no evidence at Gobekli Tepe of any civilization.

so if civilization is culture then the portrayed images/sculptures at g.b. must be evidence of culture/creed which means that it follows that it must indicate civilization
or would you like to clarify because before we move on to some other primary evidence it would be nice to all get our ducks in a row with this well documented example

originally posted by: username74

In order to have a civilization, you need ...enough stored food so that non hunter-farmer professions exist (in tribes that are strictly h-g types, everyone does a little bit of everything. You don't have, for instance, someone who makes baskets full-time in exchange for food.)
... a settlement ...large enough population for work and for specialists
...domesticated animals for food and transport
...leisure time to create technology
...a trade system for goods and raw materials
...a government system
...a system of farming (for food. Without it, civilization collapses) All of those don't just suddenly "appear" in a group of wandering hunter-gatherers. They develop from tribes that settle in one area which then expand and grow to villages... cities, etc.

that frankly is a very linear and limited set of assumptions unless you describe the base and evolution of a modern western agrarian/manufacturing/economic society, which of course you do , because what the hell else are you going to describe, and thats because there is limited evidence to describe any alternative.
so lets break down the above bullet points to their lowest common denominators
1 shelter
2 food and transport
3 time
4 materials
5 a creed/emotional support/identity
6 more food

Are your sources confusing culture with civilization? Culture can occur with or without cities. Civilization is a product of having cities (the implication is a certain stable population level and resources and organization that allow fast development of technology.)

... because we now know this is not the case we have the term CARRYING CAPACITY which is to say theres an amount of life an ecosystem can support before bad stuff starts to happen.

Yes, I'm familiar with it.

suffice to say america was already at its carrying capacity when the settlers arrived hence bad stuff
our ancestors would have known this as they eat animals and know them well

I'd debate this. Prehistoric peoples did help many animals into extinction (including possibly mammoths).

and just as an offside the link below shows a different take on domestication of animals, its a treat if you havent seen it before
matadornetwork.com...

Hadn't seen it. How charming! (but the reindeer are the only domesticated animals... the others are captured and tamed.)

so to bring in gobekli tepe at 13900 years... the point is its old and it doesnt fit

Yes, I'm familiar with it but to say it 'doesn't fit' isn't precise. It fits well enough with known cultures of the area.

...and its such a vast period of time, and if sea levels were so much lower and your civilisations transport is mostly by water then that world lies mostly underwater so what do you expect to find in these mountainous backwaters

This area has been above the water for millions of years, and it's not very close to any sea or ocean.