posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 11:49 AM
Making my way slowly thru your first posts, some comments:
Then just where the hell have we been for the preceding 165,000 to 188,000 years?
Hans: All the present evidence shows we were hunter-gathers and type of living used by the majority of the people up to recent times and still used
today in a few places. There is no sign of domestication of grains or animals until villages begin to appear, the probably arose together – if there
were earlier civilizations – what did they eat? Why no development of agricultural crops and domesticated animals? Could we have missed villages the
size of Catalhoyuk? Sure could but it seemed to have had limited cultural effects on the surrounding areas.
Hans: You made mention of herders and such – even they use technology like items to carry water and food – no unassociated pottery arrays are
known from the areas you mentions, nor are their unassigned stone tool or metal tool arrays? So why no sign of these things?
I find it rather interesting when we consider that there has been no real evidence of Stone Age tool making in India. Then out of nowhere again we
have one of the worlds earliest civilizations show up along the Indus valley.
Hans: Stone tools have been found in numerous areas of India, I’m unsure of what you are basing this on, is this a fringe claim? One of the latest
large finds. I will check on that also to see if it has a basis in fact.
Many megalithic sites create real problems for archaeologists when they attempt to date them. It's funny how many leave that crucial bit of critical
information out when they state that a theory that does not fit into the accepted timeline is wrong.
Hans: I don’t quite understand your comments here, yep no way to date certain types of rock. Yes they don’t mention a date if they have no
associated data on which to base a date- why do you find that funny? Should they just make up stuff?? LOL. They do have for many sites cultural
information which they can associate with some ruins – if a fringe theory doesn’t take in account known dates then yes it can be stated it is
wrong. What would you expect them to do accept it??
Once a stone is cut and put into place there is no way to date when that occurred so in order to find out the date of such locations they search for
other clues mainly carbon from village camp fires, grave sites etc.
Hans: Unless you date the material found under and around it or in the quarry. Most Carbon dating I believe is of this type
Who’s to say that those locations are not from village campsites or migration through that area that occurred thousands of years after the stone
structures were erected?
Hans: Because in most cases you can tell the difference and they will discuss that in the site report. Where possible dating of multiple materials is
used, in particular of pottery, brick, bone, obsidian and other objects not just carbon. You might wish to look into stratigraphy and more importantly
pedology and stratigraphic context.
I'll get to the rest of your fine material a bit later.