Ancient 4,200-year-old Fortress Found

Originally posted by schuyler
I also see professional archaeologists who hate intrusion into "their" field so much that it blinds them to new insights. Rather than remain open-minded they will fight you tooth and nail for every sentence you write on something admittedly speculative, such as "Noah's Flood," for example, but won't sit down and write out a well-documented rebuttal, preferring ad hominem attacks instead.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that just because one is an archaeologist, it doesn't necessarily follow that one can't also be an arse. Couple more observations, though. The vast majority aren't. Same as anywhere else.

Second, speculation is fine...patience is tried when it is expected to receive the same status as fact. The answer is simple...prove it. As an anthro grad, you ought to have a handle on that concept. I'm one who believes that the most fun is to be had on the fringes, but you'd better be prepared to back it up.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
What a load of rubbish - it was classical archaeology that dated the site - at 11,000+ years old, not 9,000!

Typo

I meant 9,000+ B.C. which would be 11,000+

reply to post by schuyler


Good comment Schuyler and I agree in most parts one note thou

And, yeah, it moves slowly and conservatively and once in awhile an amateur like Heinrich Schliemann wins by thinking outside the box.

He didn't find Troy he found Calvert who found Troy helped by a map made by Thomas Spratt

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Don't see "Shock" anywhere in that paragraph. But if you were referring to this sentence and link

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Rarely, in some instances such as the 9,000 + year old site like Gobekli Tepe comes as a shock and hits them like a blind upper cut.

Let's hope that kind of blindsiding keeps occurring

This may help

Göbekli Tepe - the World's First Temple?

Located in modern Turkey, Göbekli Tepe is one of the most important archaeological sites in the world. The discovery of this stunning 10,000 year old site in the 1990s sent shock waves through the archaeological world and beyond, with some researchers even claiming it was the site of the biblical Garden of Eden. The many examples of sculptures and megalithic Architecture which make up what is perhaps the world’s earliest Temple at Göbekli Tepe predate pottery, metallurgy, the invention of writing, the wheel and the beginning of agriculture. The fact that hunter–gatherer peoples could organize the construction of such a complex site as far back as the 10th or 11th millennium BC not only revolutionizes our understanding of hunter-gatherer Culture but poses a serious challenge to the conventional view of the rise of civilization.

edit on 20-10-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

Like you, I've read that statement.

I don't see any evidence that it came as a "shock," though. I mean, any new finding is always a sensation. But then "sensation" doesn't fit in with what you wish to imply here, does it?

The idea that experts try to "shoehorn" new findings into their current theory is pure hogwash. This very site proves the claim is vapid.

At one time, every discovery was new. Why, then, have the timelines, the view of history, and the explanations of causes changed radically in the last 150 years?

Harte

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by schuyler

 

There is the rub...

Oftentimes it isn't "Traditional Archeologist" who stumble across a find. In the case of Göbekli Tepe it was a Shepard tending his flock who made the discovery but it took Archeologists to investigate and validate it's age. Another example, the dead sea scrolls were found by another Shepard, this one in search of a wayward member of his flock.

Happens all the time. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gnostic Gospels were found the same way. It's not that archaeologists have to "discover" the original to make it valid. It's what happens afterwards that is important. Do they use the scrolls as firewood, or do they realize the importance of a find and call in the pros? Not too long ago a bunch of farmers on a kibbutz found a 2,000 year old boat buried in the mud at the Sea of Galillee. Fortunately they realized what they had and as a result they were able to extract this thing in one piece and preserve it.

My point being is that until there is a new discovery [Like Göbekli Tepe for example] many members of the archeological community will often scoff at a new slightly varying theory if it doesn't quite fit into their paradigm. We have members here at ATS who demonstrate this very often. Your reply is a prime example of how one will speak in the definitive.

I think you are being way too harsh considering the totality of my post above which clearly presented both sides.. ANY scientific endeavor tends to work the same way with initial skepticism, and why shouldn't they? Most of these "new discoveries" turn out to be junk. Piltdown Man is a good example. One pro bought off on it and the sensationalistic press did the rest. Meanwhile, if you read the literature of the time, every other anthropologist involved expressed deep skepticism, which was buried in the scientific litertaure, it not being sensationalistic enough to pusue.

On the other hand, you have tectonic plate theory, which was initially met with skepticism, but now is considered scientific fact. Hugh Everett's "Many Worlds Theory" was greeted derisively, and in the 40's physicists Gamow and Alpher discovered the background radiation from the Big Bang and were completely ignored. A few years later they gave the Nobel Prize to the wrong guys who discovered it much later. Now, of course, Everett's "Many Worlds" theory is seriously studied and Gamow's discovery is an integral part of modern Cosmology.

I'm right with you in dissing archaeologists for pig headedness. For example, I think Hancock's theory of "Noah's Flood" happening about 12,000 BC has serious merit, but present that theory here and Hanslune basically will not allow a civil discussion of it. He turns any thread about it into a mess. Why? Because Hancock is personna non gratis, therefore EVERYTHING he says must be bunk. And it's more than a studied rebuttal. It's emotionally tainted. One wonders why all the invective? Why take this post and take the considerable time to quote each sentence independently only to make a snarly comment on it? It doesn't make much sense and I surely do not consider it professional demeanor.

As a person in the middle I'm not willing to throw either side out, so as a half-breed I'm not accepted by either as well. I take heat from both sides. But, you see, I don't consider each side all that different. Neither will brook any opposition. THAT'S what is wrong with this. So where are we relegated to? ATS. ATS, where Nibiru and December 21st sit right alongside ancient civilization. Good Lord.

reply to post by Harte


I took stunning to mean, beautiful

reply to post by schuyler


Howdy Schuyler

I'm right with you in dissing archaeologists for pig headedness. For example, I think Hancock's theory of "Noah's Flood" happening about 12,000 BC has serious merit, but present that theory here and Hanslune basically will not allow a civil discussion of it. He turns any thread about it into a mess. Why?

Sure you can have a discussion about it, people bring it up all the time. I just point out that the evidence against a biblical flood are damning. If you think you can overcome that obstacle please start another thread on it. As for Hancock his theory is great but is just missing the civilizations

Because Hancock is personna non gratis, therefore EVERYTHING he says must be bunk.

No I'm not responding to Hancocks idea, I'm responding to the idea of the biblical flood that covered the world. I believe in underworld GH talked about rising sea levels flooding out 'civilizations', I don't recall him claiming it was world covering destroying flood. We know the sea levels went up, what we don't have evidence of is civilizations being flooded by this, we do have evidence of cultures being flood out - and moving to avoid it...ie they survived

And it's more than a studied rebuttal. It's emotionally tainted.

Nope just evidence your comment seem 'emotionally tainted', lol

One wonders why all the invective?

That's probably more in your perception than my words which point to evidence

(snip) some silly stuff

THAT'S what is wrong with this. So where are we relegated to? ATS. ATS, where Nibiru and December 21st sit right alongside ancient civilization. Good Lord.

Hey we agree

reply to post by Hanslune


I couldn't help it. "Noah's Flood", and I am sucked in.

There is much that merits discussion, since discussion is the only means we have to present a thought.

That doesn't imply the Thought is factual.

That is where Johnny's points come in. The steps taken to seek the supportive evidence to verify that thought is what needs to occur, before everyone can agree on the subject being discussed.

As for the Flood, the problem stems from Babel, (aka confusion).

There are simply too many varying, and in most cases, contrary views that are held within a "personal" level. Discussion tends to diminish into squabbles apposed to building a basis to learn from.

Like you note, some date occurrences to 12000 BC, when that simply isn't a valid date for Noah's Flood. Some say the earth was enveloped completely, while Africa stands as a continent which fails to have such "lore". Then the "Christian" is told by his/her clergy of what Dogma has to suggest.

It would be stunning if there was ever a mutually agreed upon "Flood" tale, but I would think Hell would be renting spots for Ice Fishing before that occurred.

Anyhow, this is still a fantastic find, and I still will enjoy finding out who where the creators of this complex.

Ciao

Shane