Who Were the Ancient Megalithic Builders?

reply to post by SLAYER69


You did it again Slayer. I really do harbour a deep feeling of appreciation for that brain of yours and your keen yearning to uncover the mysteries of our civilized origins.

Originally posted by bestintentions
reply to post by DangerDeath

 

thank you for bringing up the subject of a different perspective to arranging our judgments, a different approach to technological measuring units. I’m sure I will be only one in many who feel, wow, finally a possible method is taken into consideration, that recognizes my innermost important values that i have worked on so hard.

for me your approach is just as much an earthquake as slayer’s proposition. (i don’t know how original either of you are, it doesn’t matter. i reckon you both rock ats)

why do you mention buddhist analysis though? could you please argue this point a bit with me. if i think of buddhism i also perceive it as a precursor to christianity and i see one of their common traits in the way both use older existing expressions of models of the world (e.g. symbolism in churches, iconography, epithats, festivals etc) to overlay them with their expression of a model of the world for their version of conditioning. i can’t see them using fair measuring units to understand a variety of people.



ah, an other great sentence of yours: But modern civilization denies this to almost everyone. ?????? It needs stupid slaves who know to do what they are asked to do, and the rest is just "having fun".

may i add my suggestion to this:

modern civilization takes advantage of us. it is not them who deny us learning. they deny us subsidised education, but not learning. if, then unfortunately we ourselves deny learning. they only understand this our mistake and manipulate us with it.

and so we play along (probably a lot has to do with our stupidity) and we do what they ask us to do and the rest is just having fun.

if we had this advanced, spiritual, fair and beautiful model of assessing ourselves (in terms of possible scales you mentioned) established, we would have a different understanding of what ‘fun’ realy is - and ‘they’ would loose their power of tyranny.

learning is always available - unless one thinks learning is restricted to profit making. true and valuable learning is not taught in our university system today.

sorry - now i have to rush to work again - will continue

Thank you for asking this

I am talking about original Buddhism, which is an analytical, existential philosophy (approach or attitude).

It is analytical like in Descartes - who discarded everything they taught him in school and started to look for the real thing.

But, more important, analytical is synonymous to critical - and critical (as opposed to hypocritical) is questioning everything and thus: deconstructing it. Word science comes from "scire" which means to "cut", "analyze" (like in "scissors").

The whole difference in social practice comes in this pair of opposites: you either follow protocols (which is not critical behavior - hypocritical) or you deconstruct protocols (which is very dangerous because it is qualified as "terrorism", to use most up to date term).

Back to topic.
The question of WHY (which also implies WHO) is pending at all times because it is mystery and thus represents a focus which cannot be discerned (again "scire" in root of this word) properly and clearly. Being so, it represents a "magnetic" pole, like in Tesla rotating generator of alternating current. This is very important, because difference in potential is all we need to keep moving.

I will give you an example in poetical (critical) thinking about this subject (monoliths).

Suppose that at those times when standing stones were placed so humans (of all kinds, doesn't matter) were not so numerous and lived dispersed in small communities which did not have complicated social structure and no "authority" of the kind that becomes when the state was invented.

So this kind of society was spread everywhere on Eurasian continent, from today's Britain to Korea, and maybe further than that. The global social structure was like a network composed of individual "nodes", and global social hierarchy was "horizontal" rather than "pyramidal". The word "hierarchy" doesn't really apply to such network, because it indicates "vertical" + "arhe" (above). It was anarchical (an arhe - without above) rather than hierarchical (organized) humankind.

At one moment those individual nodes start GROUPING. Simple groups with one (slab) above - dolmens.
Then, you have "temples", which represent an "organized" group with distinguished functions. Those "temples" represent various kinds of activities, and they definitely do represent specific protocols in executing those functions. Everything becomes "ritual" - from eating (there are many animal bones found in those temples, not just because of "sacrifice", but because they eat there, those temples were like eateries. Other aspects of social life are reflected there too.

Next phase is when those gigantic stones start grouping into WALLS. Those walls have two functions, protection from those outside and sifting outsiders - those who are willing to join and become functional units of society (in most cases simply slaves) and those who try to get on top (competing with the present authorities).

Those who have visited ancient cities, like Mycenae or Knossos and Phaestos (on Crete), would have noticed that those structures are basically storage for for food, and added to that storage is a "court", and they are surrounded with walls. Hoarding food (monopoly) and "protecting" it was the primary function of walled cities.


CHURCHES - Christianity or any other (my perception of Buddhism is just about the analytical method, popular Buddhism has nothing to do with that) represent an ORGANIZED (dogmatic) protocol like in MATRIX. Organized religious life is the opposite to critical (anarchical) attitude. Being critical directly involves questioning of the AUTHORITIES and in most cases is considered the greatest crime. Being critical may pass unnoticed if the critical person doesn't directly involve with social structure (which is about depleting energy from the base of the pyramid towards its top).

At the same time when STONE was used as a symbol, and constitutes a realistic part of organized human life (as in building material) - emotions and ideas get the same function. You can build walls and pyramids from both emotions and ideas (they are quite parallel and can transform one into another - this is all in Buddha's philosophy as well as in Spinoza). One typical critical personality from ancient times i Heraclitus, btw.

Emotional walls, ideological walls - all emotions and ideas are conditioned in us from the first breath and define our social behavior. There are too many examples. In case of Socrates, we see that his critical attitude - he was aiming at deconstructing protocol thinking (dogmatic "thinking") of his fellows - critically threatened social structure, and so he was to be removed from within walls (ostracized or killed).

Brilliant example of how emotional protocol works and consumes people is Medea (Euripides). In this drama, Euripides first describes the (unjust) social structure and then shows how it destroys a person (Medea) which strictly follows the "logic".

This can be discussed at length because in literally everything we do protocols are involved and there is no "need" to be smarter than that.


GIANTS - someone with extra power to create such monumental structures - not just huge stones, but society too!

Basically, what I am saying, whether those huge stones were moved by hundreds of people or with some unknown means - is that it was the power of IDEAS (and EMOTIONS) which created those "miracles".

Emotions and ideas, as well as "will", are similar in one thing - they are PROJECTIONS. (Schopenhauer wrote a book World and Will as Projection. His work is on the Buddhist alignment.)

Seeing monoliths as a network is a projection. Seeing how they develop, from single individual stones, to groups of stones, to circular arrangements, to scientific purpose (like in ancient observatory) and I will tell you why this is important. Science (again "scire") is used to explain and determine "natural order" which is then projected as "social order".

CALENDER - one of the most important tools in social organization. It is clear why they needed observatories - to determine timing of all activities. From agricultural activities to dietary schedule (when is what to be eaten). Thus, science (religion) gets into every pore of personal life, brings protocol into it and eliminates critical behavior.



I hope these indications will be useful to start more critical approach to this ancient mystery because it may unravel them in a more practical way.

I also want to say something about THEORY. Theoria is a Greek word for "projection", it means - vision, view. What we see is all that matters. The question is, do we want to see a picture in which everything is in its place (like frozen and unchangeable) or we want a dynamical picture, which changes at all times.

The THEORY of Evolution is basically on track with frozen picture, it suggests (that's the most common misinterpretation of evolution) gradual advance toward the TOP and clearly is synonymous to pyramidal projection. This is why ancient people were PRIMITIVE and then gradually became SAPIENS. Which, of course, is not true, but it serves the purpose of PRESENT social structure where there is ELITE on top, and mass of less prominent individuals elsewhere.

From existential or poetical standing point, theory needs to be operational, which doesn't mean - true. Because a theory proven true becomes dogma and then it does not support critical thinking. This is why the mystery is important, because it does not allow creation of dogma and initiates critical thinking - like in this very lively OP.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Brilliant question.

Brilliant research.

Can I ask what you do? Because I have been a researcher all my life but I get too impatient to delve so deep.

So, that makes me a crap researcher and you a great one.

OK, I watched the vid that Slayer posted several pages ago, the one with David Hatcher Childress and Chris Dunn. It was an hour and a half of nice video, cool ruins, scenic stuff, and colorful locals, but little real information. In one scene DHC stood above some ruins, and said, "Let's go down there and look at the evidence." Well, he went down there, but BS'ed his way thru. Chris Dunn was not allowed to talk much. In another scene, I squirmed in my chair while DHC explained that the close-fitting blocks of a wall were placed, taken out, carved, set back in, inspected, taken out, carved, etc, until a fit was achieved. BS! How could he be so close and not see it! The blocks were LAPPED!! I do not know how they were pulled back and forth to lap them, or what abrasive was used, but the way they are fitted tells me it was done so. Further, I can look at one of those "Inca" walls and see in what order the stones were lapped/set in place. The fact that they could move such stones at all indicates that they (whoever "they" were) had no problem lapping stones of such size.

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by Hanslune
Ah, no they moved the thunderstone in historic times without powered machinery in the 18th century, its weight was 2,000 then later cut down to 1250 tons. Earlier a number of obolisks were moved from Egypt to Rome and a number of European capitals.

The obilisks?

These are stones, that were cut out "in place", and then balanced up into place. Nothing particularly peculiar about them.

Did they lift them with pulleys made out of wood, put them on a ship of clay and sail them to rome?

Bull# ... pardon my french.

Why would the romans go to Africa, to fetch a block of stone? Shouldn't that be a clue, to anyone? There has to be something special about that rock, apart from it's beauty. The russians, taking a boulder and "rolling" it along 6 km, in the 18th century is a feat, but nothing in comparison.

You have tales all over the place, from here to timbuktu. The Icelandic "strongest man in the world", John Paul, once tried to move a stone in Iceland. He nudged it ... the same stone, is said to have been lifted and swinged by another man, just over a century and a half ago. What has changed? Humans changed to sissies, despite their enormous intake of steroids ... or earth changes. I say "earth changes" ... none of these things were a major feat at the time, they were possible because of a natural anomaly. They were abandoned, because anomaly changed.

If you want me to take your notion of the pulley and clay boats seriously, then I suggest you repeat the process. You finish those obelisks, and then put them on clay botes and sail them the same way ... with those clay boats.

Howdy Bjarneorn

The Roman took the obilisks as war trophies - something they did in most countries. Roman writers of the time recorded these obilisks. "Clay" boat? No idea were you got that but the Roman's used wooden ship - as did the Egyptians. The Romans were very good engineers and most probably used cranes and windlasses to move the stones. They Roman's moved eight (I believe) obilisks to Rome from Egypt

List of obilisks in Rome

As a special bonus, don't forget Mainstream Science's overall opinion, implicit in thier assumtions: Ancient Man was Primitive - Everything Ancient Man built was a Temple - Temples are for the Religious --> Religious people are primitive.

Here's a challenge; make a list of building in AE that don't deal with religion...let me know how that works out

I've never met an archaeologist who thinks ancient peoples were dumb or primitive, but I have seen a lot of fringe believers say that. Remember the term 'primitive' has more than one meaning.

I just wanted to thank everybody for their participation.

Great Job

reply to post by Hanslune

I've never met an archaeologist who thinks ancient peoples were dumb or primitive, but I have seen a lot of fringe believers say that. Remember the term 'primitive' has more than one meaning.

Hey, I was just trying to be funny.

Here's a challenge; make a list of building in AE that don't deal with religion...let me know how that works out

Again, I was just trying to be funny. Sorry I failed.
What's "AE"? Ancient Egypt? If so, lots of those buildings could easily not be religious. Especially the ones with no markings. Depends on your perspective.

Now you've got me trying to defend something that was originally intended to be humorous sarcasm. I'm gonna quit now while you're ahead.

Alright Slayer...took me a bit to get through the 12 pages that amassed here. The OP was brilliant. Like others, I do hope you put your research into some sort of compendium. Being an "open license" advocate, I would encourage you to freely distribute it in .pdf form, given the nature of the beginnings of this research.

I really was impressed with the notion expressed where the Neandertals left art behind. That is a very interesting idea. I do believe that they lived more recently, in a more pure form at least, than we are able to confirm.

I also believe that the Ainu (before interbreeding with Asians) and the Jomon both look extremely Amerind. I showed some Ainu images to my wife, and she thought they were indians that, strangely, had beards. Right down to the style of textile and art (you can see the similar origins in both).

I also am intrigued by the poster who mentioned a "2nd wave" of H. Sapiens into Europe, with fresh Neandertal DNA to add back into their mix.

It seems to me that the "natural state" of humans is black skin/course hair. Perhaps it is the Neandertal/Denisovan/other semi-humans that gave rise to all the more fair skinned/softer hair ethnic groups? On a side note, I am just chomping at the bit to point out that "real" humans are black to some redneck.

Originally posted by Tsurugi
reply to post by Hanslune

 

I've never met an archaeologist who thinks ancient peoples were dumb or primitive, but I have seen a lot of fringe believers say that. Remember the term 'primitive' has more than one meaning.

Hey, I was just trying to be funny.

Here's a challenge; make a list of building in AE that don't deal with religion...let me know how that works out

Again, I was just trying to be funny. Sorry I failed.
What's "AE"? Ancient Egypt? If so, lots of those buildings could easily not be religious. Especially the ones with no markings. Depends on your perspective.

Now you've got me trying to defend something that was originally intended to be humorous sarcasm. I'm gonna quit now while you're ahead.

Howdy Sword

LOL, I was writing for the non-English speakers who might not see your humour. What you put in as humour would is believed by some! Smiley faces were created just for that : ]

It was a trick question, almost everything in Egypt can be associated with religion. Most cultures until the 19th century were religious dominated. The only things that can (maybe) not associated would be the one dam they built, a number of fortifications, quarries and their extensive irrigation projects.

reply to post by Hanslune

Howdy Sword

Haha! Howdy.

LOL, I was writing for the non-English speakers who might not see your humour. What you put in as humour would is believed by some! Smiley faces were created just for that : ]

Quite right. Didn't think about the non-english speakers. My apologies.

Originally posted by Tsurugi
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Howdy Sword

Haha! Howdy.

LOL, I was writing for the non-English speakers who might not see your humour. What you put in as humour would is believed by some! Smiley faces were created just for that : ]

Quite right. Didn't think about the non-english speakers. My apologies.

None needed !

日本語が出来ますか

reply to post by Hanslune

日本語が出来ますか

If that says what I think it says...no. I wish. One day I will learn, I swear.

reply to post by Tsurugi


Well get to work then bakasan!

Originally posted by Egyptia
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

You did it again Slayer. I really do harbour a deep feeling of appreciation for that brain of yours and your keen yearning to uncover the mysteries of our civilized origins.

Heh Heh

We will see. Only time will tell.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Who were the Ancient Megalithic Builders?

The Antediluvians...

Originally posted by Theophoros

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Who were the Ancient Megalithic Builders?

The Antediluvians...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c36b6041902e.jpg[/atsimg]


That's pretty generic.
Could you elaborate further...?

reply to post by SLAYER69


Loving the picture response

I think hes just talking about the hypothetical civilizations thought to have lived before the great flood, like the Nephilim.

Pretty lame Answer to your Q on his part though.

Ok, I could have sworn I'd posted a reply. I know I wrote it yesterday...thought I'd hit the button...but, alas, 'tis not here. Argh! I guess I'll have to redo it all. The good thing is that, in the meantime, I thought of a few other things that would support my take on this so I guess there is a silver lining. lol

First, as always, you've asked the right question and proceeded to present your case in a thoughtful and well-educated manner. Kudos for that. However, I have one thing that I think you should consider.

Could some of these sites actually be pure neanderthal or, at the least, have pure neanderthal origins and were later copycatted and/or added on to by homo sapiens and/or your hypothesized hybrid? In recent years, new finds and studies about their abilities in art, music and and stone tool making seem to imply that neanderthanls were as smart as homo sapiens or so nearly so that the difference wouldn't matter.

Venus figurines wiki
Are Upper Paleolithic blade cores more productive than Middle Paleolithic discoidal cores? A replication experiment
Neanderthal Flute

And, if they had the knowledge, smarts, industriousness and want to create all these, I don't think it's too far out of the question that building megalithic structures was within their capabilities. What do you think?

reply to post by Mad Simian


Excellent question.

Maybe. I thought of that as well. I'd love to see some concrete evidence.