Who Were the Ancient Megalithic Builders?

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by fooks

 

Probably all of the above.
That plus Neanderthal boy from wrong side of the cave meets a young Sapien girl from the upper East side.

so that's how the legend of "west side story" got started!



proves it's all been done before!

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by DangerDeath

 

"I think the question is "why" rather than "who" or "how".

I completely disagree. I think the "how" needs to be answered first because that would give us an indication of "who" and then before we ask the "why" we need to get over the answer to the first question.

Good point but I agree with DangerDeath, I think the "why" will answer most of our questions we ever had about the past, including "who" and "how". As great as Slayers post was, we are still left with more questions than answers. Just like the Ancient astronaunt theory, modern day academia and religion.

Originally posted by fooks
so that's how the legend of "west side story" got started!

proves it's all been done before!

True..

But back then it wasn't "The Sharks vs The Jets" it was "The "Sticks vs The Stones"

Hesiod's book, which is entitled Bibliotheca, and can be considered the first encyclopedia written, deals with much of known history 5th century b.c. up to 9th century a.d. and notes and cites books which sadly no longer exist.

Well my point being is he speaks of Greek gods and their forbearers, the Titans, like they were real people. Perhaps the tales of these 'giants' were pureblood hominids that were considered gods and more advanced than their human counterparts (the Titans knew everything from astronomy, warfare, sailing, metallurgy and the well-known Titan, Prometheus, gave mankind fire). They mated with humans and gave us Hercules, etc.

Titans=pureblood hominids->Greek Gods=hybrids of the purest mixing->humans=diluted with the occasionally hybrid bred in to create a super-strong human, or demigod.

These are just my thoughts I needed to type aloud and on record to review later, thought I’d post and share them here were they may or may not be relevant.

reply to post by AMANNAMEDQUEST


Actually that's a fascinating take on it. I've often wondered if there were more to those Greek myths/tales than just imagination.

Interesting interpretation.

www.stanford.edu...


books.google.com... LQVLJ2Jk9-tYXcnj40988oaDRxQ&hl=en&ei=8CVXTs-tBOHj0QH5-rSeDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=The%20Greeks%20and%20 Romans%20displayed%20fossils%20in%20their%20temples&f=false

In her book The First Fossil Hunters: Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times, Adrienne Mayor argues that the Greeks and Romans used fossil evidence—the enormous bones of long-extinct species—to support existing myths and to create new ones.

"Mayor makes a convincing case that the places where a lot of these myths originate occur in places where there are a lot of fossil beds," said Strasser. "She also points out that in some myths monsters emerge from the ground after big storms, which is just one of those things I had never thought about, but it makes sense, that after a storm the soil has eroded and these bones appear."

news.nationalgeographic.com...

The First Fossil Hunters:
Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times

humanexperience.stanford.edu...

Explaining Giant Bones
www.americanscientist.org...

Following is some information taken from the book "The First Fossil Hunters"
gargoylestore.com...
Fossil-hunting scientists are raving over evidence that some ancient legends of monsters are based on pre-Christian nomads' discovery of dinosaur bones in central Asia, hundreds of years before the time of Jesus.

For example, the myth of the griffin, a winged lion with a birdlike beak, was apparently inspired by the nomads' discoveries of fossilized bones of protoceratops, an animal that existed more than 65 million years ago, according to "The First Fossil Hunters: Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times" by Adrienne Mayor.

The book has thrilled paleontologists -- researchers who study fossils -- by showing that their science dates from ancient times, much longer ago than previously thought. Mayor shows in her book that ancient Greek and Roman researchers thousands of years ago collected numerous fossils of large extinct mammals and displayed them in temples and museums. "There they identified fossils as the relics of giants, heroes and monsters of myth," she says. Some ancient writers argued that the enormity of the supposed "human" remains proved the human race had since "degenerated" or "run down," becoming smaller and weaker.

Mayor "has uncovered a barely noticed source for many of the myths of the Old World, and for the first time has assembled in an orderly way the evidence for early man's discovery of and explanations for fossil remains," says classical art historian Sir John Boardman of Oxford University. Thanks to her analysis, he says, many ancient "texts, sites, and pictures will never seem quite the same again."

The ancient bones' biggest impact was on popular culture. For example, many ancient Greek vases of the seventh through fifth centuries B.C. depict griffins.

gargoylestore.com...

reply to post by Stormdancer777



I cant see how they got the idea for the griffin from the discovery of a protoceratops skeleton.

I just dont see it.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Read about the fossils of Samos a long time ago
www.stanford.edu...


Fossils in Ancient Greek Art.
farm1.static.flickr.com...
The fossils of Samos
www.stanford.edu...

Paleontological Excavations in Samos

virtualexplorer.com.au...

Comment: All religions past and present speak of their god(s) as if they were real - do you expect them to act like they were dead? Also remember that the Greeks saw their gods as being with human like foibles and actions, who interacted with humanity on a regular basis.

Perhaps this so called hybrid created by the joining of the two groups could have been what caused the appearance of the RHnegative blood line. To this day scientists and the medical profession alike have no idea as to where and when this so called mutation occurred. There is a small part of the population that has the blood factor today, but maybe in the past at one time there were many more. There are quite a few of these RH negatives who claim to have certain attributes and abilities which gives them a so called "heads up" on the rest of the bloodlines. If they still exist today although in deminished numbers then they obviously were around thousands of years ago and might then have been percieved as more advanced by their peers. The diluting of the DNA in regard to the other part of the population from crossbreeding likely did not occur in these hybrids due to the fact that the RHnegative blood line was restricted to having to mate with only other RH negatives.It is surprising to note as well that a lot of the people in the power positions in the world today are of that blood line. I personally think that the ancients knew alot more than we give them credit for but then as now the knowledge was in the hands of just a few.

reply to post by bestintentions


I looked around a little, and i could not find a good explanation of the name as well.

In Dutch "Hun" is a word to point out to others. But you might be right it has an older different meaning in the context of the stone structures.

Look a this:

"Dolmen" originates from the expression taol maen, which means "stone table" in Breton, and was first used archaeologically in Théophile Corret de la Tour d'Auvergne's Origines gauloises.[2] The etymology of the German Hünenbett or Hünengrab and Dutch Hunebed all evoke the image of giants building the structures. Of other Celtic languages, cromlech derives from Welsh and quoit is commonly used in Cornwall. Anta is the term used in Portugal and Galicia, Spain. Dös or dyss is used in Sweden.

Source

In Dutch:

Dutch version (little different)

Ande here (In english) a little more info and a lot of pictures:

Hunebeden

I read somewhere that it was believed that angels slept with humans, and that is what created the giants. God became angry at the angels and cursed them, or something of the sort. There has to be something to it....

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Strype
If we can find millions of tiny samples relating and/or identifying every other *known* species of the homo genus, why can't we find the ones that are supposedly two or three times larger than the ones we're finding every day? ( Please refrain from bringing up the few known hoaxes related to this topic. If they existed, the evidence would be everywhere, not a bone being conjured up every 30 years.

)

The Giant angle is all a matter of perspective. I feel the whole idea of Giants has been over the centuries been blown way out of proportion and exaggerated beyond reality.

If the average height of a certain earlier Homo-Sapien group was about 5' 5" for argument sake and they came into contact with a group of say "Cro Magnons" who were on average 6' to 6' 6" they could have been considered "Giants" by the shorter group.

Over time as the "stories" were passed down through the generations and elaborated upon "As Myths often are" the "Giants got taller" Meanwhile the story tellers themselves were slowly growing in height through the centuries [Due to better nutrition and environmental factors] reaching 6' on average in the real world.

So in reality they weren't Giants at all.
Not in the real sense.

edit on 25-8-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

Alright. With that said, how were these "giants" of a 6' to 6' 6" stature supposed to be able to build these megalithic structures? We have plenty of 6' 6" "giants" roaming the world today, but I don't see them lifting 20 ton blocks into perfect alignments. Are we able to explain this part?


Cheers,
Strype

Originally posted by SLAYER69
From what I've read. If a skeleton is found which appears to be more "Neanderthal-ish" then it is classified as either being an "Early or Late Neanderthal". However, if it is closer in appearance to Modern Humans then it is classified as either being an "Early or Late Homo Sapien" no further explanation is generally given. Before some jump in and ruin my bowl of Cheerios they'll first have to admit that the majority of the time no DNA is taken [If even available] to prove the Skeleton is actually closer to one group or the other Genetically speaking.

Originally posted by Harte
Given that H. Sapiens did not evolve from Neandertal, the above is misguided.

Neandertal is a classification that we made up. If it has the morphology of a Neandertal, then it is a Neandertal.

Originally posted by SLAYER69...I wasn't saying "H Sapien evolved from them" I was implying a possible crossbred period. Again not evolving. Which is why I find the following paragraph rather interesting. You state that it has already been "Proven BTW"

Originally posted by Harte
These are two different species of Homo. It's like saying an Emu might be misclassified as an Ostrich. I get that you're leading into the possibility of hybridization (which has already been proven, BTW,) but there's not gonna be any misidentification of a hybrid as a Neandertal or Human.

Yes, proven:
Link

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Again I'm sorry you're making the assumption that that's what I meant.

What I am saying is that Neandertal is merely a classification of a hominid type.

If a sample appears to be more "Neandertal-ish," it will (and should) be classified as a Neandertal.

An Emu could be classified as an Ostrich, if there weren't so many differences between the two. Given the broad variation in both H. Sapiens and H. Neandertalis, there could easily be many individuals of both species that could be classified incorrectly. I doubt it has happened, though, because we don't have that many remains of Neandertals, so we don't have the broad variations to worry about.

Originally posted by Harte
Think what you want about the (former) Cro Magnons, but you would be wrong.

They are (were) just as H. Sapiens as we are. The only reason they used to be thought to be different is the cultural bias of Anthropologists of the time.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Fair enough but wouldn't it also prove that the prevailing opinions for the time/period or location did in fact either misinterpret or as you've stated have a "Certain Bias" while presenting their version of events?

Doesn't this in some way still go on?

It surely does.

We exist in our own cultural context and always will.

Harte

Awesome job Sir.

I am beginning to think you are wasting your time here. You should look at being published and/or teaching.

You have, again, taken all of ATS members thoughts/ideas/feeelings etc and put them down for everyone to read.

Truly an honor to see/read your work.....

BLOWN AWAY AGAIN!!!

reply to post by SLAYER69


Thought you might get a kick out of this, Slay:

Sex with Neanderthals and another close relative -- the recently discovered Denisovans -- has endowed some human gene pools with beneficial versions of immune system genes, report researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine in an article to be published online by the journal Science at the Science Express website on Aug. 25.

From ScienceDaily: www.sciencedaily.com...

Last year, a partial genome sequence of Neanderthals, who died out approximately 30,000 years ago, revealed that these trysts left as much as 4 percent Neanderthal DNA in the genetic blueprint of some present-day humans. Last December, the genome of another human cousin, the extinct Denisovans, made clear that up to 6 percent of some people's genomes are Denisovan in origin.

And then this:

Now, a team of researchers led by Peter Parham, PhD, professor of structural biology and of microbiology and immunology, has found that these matings had a positive effect on modern human fitness. "The cross breeding wasn't just a random event that happened, it gave something useful to the gene pool of the modern human," said Parham, who is senior author on the study.

Need more coffee to really dig in, but had to share with you after seeing this article...

Originally posted by Strype
Alright. With that said, how were these "giants" of a 6' to 6' 6" stature supposed to be able to build these megalithic structures? We have plenty of 6' 6" "giants" roaming the world today, but I don't see them lifting 20 ton blocks into perfect alignments. Are we able to explain this part?
Cheers,

Fair enough...

Now you've either chose to ignore the theory of Hybridization between "Neanderthals and Homo-Sapien" or may have simply over looked the MAIN angle of the thread. Neanderthals although shorter had 2 to 3 times [Or More] our strength. If there was a cross-over period between the two species it is feasible that the resulting "Hybrid" would not only be taller but also posses an great increase in strength.

As I've further stated in the thread. As more and more Homo-Sapiens coming out of Africa were introduced into their blood line and less and less Neanderthal contributions, over time nearing the beginnings of recorded history by that time they had aggregated down to what we have today.

In Theory...

This started out as a relatively nice thread, but apparantly has sidestepped to a bunch of racistic crap.

It isn't interresting "who" did it. Becuase the ideology of these being giants, is merely the wondering minds of nomads who look at fossils, and allow their imagination to go to far. Just as the greeks saw a skeleton of an elephant and imagined it to be a cyclops.

That they used machinery, is just a hoax. Much like the Scandinavian runestone on Newfoundland. Not interresting either.

The reason all these monolythic building blocks were abandoned in "mid work" is, or should be, obvious. The circumstances changed, This should really have been a clue to anyone. Another clue, should be that on the mountain where they are taken, there is a magnetic anomaly. And proof positive, that these weren't giants, should be the size of the doors, made to allow humans, as well as cattle to enter ... they hardly are big enough for giants.

To wonder about how they did it, and how earth changed to make it impossible or how it was possible, is one thing. To go around and IMAGINE it was some giant, is literally insane. An elephant wouldn't move them, neither would a human giant. Even if we have proof positive, that there once was humanoids of up to 3m living in America, they wouldn't lift it anymore than an elephant. Let alone carry it for long distances.

The enormous "egoism", that "our ancesters were aliens". Or the more profound, "our enemies were evil abonimations in the eyes of God", doesn't fly either. Nor does "theory of Atlantis", or "we were once a race of enormous technology". This is just racistic crap, not worth mentioning. Move onto other perspectives.

So, if an elephant can't move these rocks. And these rocks were moved over long distances. There is ony one alternative, that when they were moved, they weren't so heavy. There is no other alternative ... and clues such as magnetic anomalies, should have tipped anyone off.

The only conspiracy here, is to hide from the public. How the earth has changed, and allow people to imagine these things to be attributed to "Aliens", or "Giants of old", all to serve the purpose of "religious" concepts as well as current powers to keep their hold on resources.

Howdy

So, if an elephant can't move these rocks. And these rocks were moved over long distances. There is ony one alternative, that when they were moved, they weren't so heavy. There is no other alternative

Except by moving them by manpower, look too at how few really heavy stones were moved and the amount of time and the world wide dispersion by geography and time

Heavy stones list

Only 14 stones over 400 tons were ever moved - probably because it was hard work and they only did it when highly motivated.

Originally posted by bjarneorn
This started out as a relatively nice thread, but apparantly has sidestepped to a bunch of racistic crap.

When and where?
Please give us more proof other than your opinion on this accusation please.

It isn't interresting "who" did it. Becuase the ideology of these being giants, is merely the wondering minds of nomads who look at fossils, and allow their imagination to go to far. Just as the greeks saw a skeleton of an elephant and imagined it to be a cyclops.

I appreciate that example.
Many of us were already aware of that scenario.
Please, Proceed.

That they used machinery, is just a hoax. Much like the Scandinavian runestone on Newfoundland. Not interresting either.

First off if you have no interest in that possibility then why bother reading about it in the first place?
Second and more importantly none of that was mentioned in my OP.

The reason all these monolythic building blocks were abandoned in "mid work" is, or should be, obvious. The circumstances changed, This should really have been a clue to anyone.

There are many examples of "Accomplished work" Not all such sites were "abandoned" before completion.

Another clue, should be that on the mountain where they are taken, there is a magnetic anomaly. And proof positive, that these weren't giants, should be the size of the doors, made to allow humans, as well as cattle to enter ... they hardly are big enough for giants.

Agreed. Now wheres the controversy?
Have you actually read the OP?

To wonder about how they did it, and how earth changed to make it impossible or how it was possible, is one thing. To go around and IMAGINE it was some giant, is literally insane.

Again, Did you bother reading the OP?

An elephant wouldn't move them, neither would a human giant. Even if we have proof positive, that there once was humanoids of up to 3m living in America, they wouldn't lift it anymore than an elephant. Let alone carry it for long distances.

Well, thats an interesting perspective. Care to elaborate on it further? Seems to me that in fact you are somewhat acknowledging the possibility of perceived Giants?

The enormous "egoism", that "our ancesters were aliens". Or the more profound, "our enemies were evil abonimations in the eyes of God", doesn't fly either.

Interesting but not really part of the discussion.

Nor does "theory of Atlantis", or "we were once a race of enormous technology". This is just racistic crap, not worth mentioning. Move onto other perspectives.

Seems to me that so far in this thread you're the only one bringing up "Atlantis" angle, AGAIN. Did you bother reading the OP?

So, if an elephant can't move these rocks. And these rocks were moved over long distances. There is ony one alternative, that when they were moved, they weren't so heavy. There is no other alternative ... and clues such as magnetic anomalies, should have tipped anyone off.

So this is supposed to be a more realistic scenario than a possible Genetic connection with a hominin cousin of ours who may have temporarily influenced us in an intermediate period of our collective past with an increase of greater strength?

The only conspiracy here, is to hide from the public. How the earth has changed, and allow people to imagine these things to be attributed to "Aliens", or "Giants of old", all to serve the purpose of "religious" concepts as well as current powers to keep their hold on resources.

Well thanks for the commentary.
It was interesting to say the least.