They were outsiders who immigrated to the Olman area via boat, most likely as sailors or passengers on transoceanic voyages that went on for probably hundreds of years.

So they knew the secret of immortality as well?

“these Native American craftsmen had lively imaginations”

A bold statement. But condescending. So they were not artists? ‘Just’ imaginative craftsmen? Are you sure they were men? Is it really your opinion that ancient artists (or craftspeople) were depicting only the products of their imaginations, rather than cultural-historical objects and ideas of importance? Objects such as statuary are rarely products of whimsy, as you suggest.

It’s also an ahistorical statement made to imply a degree of unthinking racism in your subject. Were the Olmecs ‘Native American’? They might come to be considered so, hundreds of years later. But what did they call themselves?

If there’s the possibility that ancient transoceanic travel was going on at the time, there’s the possibility that these imaginative people were carving from life.

My other objection is that the statue head on the left looks to be mongoloid, rather than negroid. It seems you’ve been directed by your source. Have another look and see what you see.

I’m waiting for someone to come up with a role for the Tunguska Event in all of this. Hmm, must call my publisher.

Well, Aprilista. if the head on the left looks mongoloid, that makes sense, because that’s what the Olmecs were. I don’t think anyone has a clue what the Olmecs called themselves – they didn’t leave a written language, unlike the Maya.

Aprilista,

Thank you for such an incisive post. As a parody of self-righteous political correctness and epistemic relativism, it is both subtle and amusing. I especially enjoyed the part about needing to know whether or not these inclusive and ethnocentric Olmec sculptresses considered themselves Native American. (I’m guessing it was an understated reference on those who pander to Native American creation myths.)

“those who pander to Native American creation myths.”

Do you mean those who comprehend the cultures of others?

What creation myths do you prefer people to pander to?

Aprilista,

Do you mean those who comprehend the cultures of others?

No. I mean those who pander to Native American creation myths.

Apologies if I’ve missed the obvious, but I don’t get what you mean by ‘pander to’ in this context.

Re ‘Afrocentric historians’.
Geography doesn’t seem to be a strong point with these charlatans. When you consider that the maritime achievements of the West Africans were so limited that transport to the Cape Verde Islands (discovered by the Portuguese) was beyond them, it seems ridiculous to suppose that they could have traveled many times that distance and got all the way to Central America !

“What creation myths do you prefer people to pander to?”

Oh, the irony of this question appearing on a site dedicated to dubunking nonsensical myths of all shapes and sizes.

And also the PC gibberish in aprilista’s comments is very amusing too. Maybe it’s time for counterknowledge to mention the Alan Sokal hoax, just in case some who read this blog are unfamiliar with it.

“PC gibberish”

As I recall, I was gently implying that, without further evidence, it’s rash to make assumptions about who was involved in producing culture in an ancient civilisation.

… Historical and archaeological inquiry is best undertaken with an open mind. Preconceptions and excess cultural baggage may hamper one’s reading of the evidence on the ground.

And, of course, there’s a difference between close-minded people and those who bring experience to bear.

So, in summary, the author’s beliefs are just as speculative as Hancock’s.

“blah blah blah… lively imaginations” – now that’s science in action folks!!!

Isn’t a more likely explanation that the Olmecs had encountered some African people or, possibly, the Olmecs were African?

What’s a “cult archaeologist” anyhow????

Obviously Hatcher isn’t a professional archaeologist but an experienced traveller who has visited loads of sites. But hey, if having your own unorthodox ideas damns you as cultist, then we may as well go back to the dark ages.

Now I geddit – the delicious double meaning in counterknowledge does actually refer to your own mission to stop or “counter” rival forms of information or “knowledge”. Correct me if I;m wrong.

Aprilista,

As I recall, I was gently implying that, without further evidence, it’s rash to make assumptions about who was involved in producing culture in an ancient civilisation.

Well, no, that’s not all you were doing. For one thing, you accused the author of the original post of racism and sexism for referring to the creators of these artefacts as “craftsmen” and not “artists” – and you did so despite the fact that the word “craftsmen” can mean “artisan” or “artist”, and, its suffix notwithstanding, can be gender neutral. In other words, you were detecting these prejudices in “homeopathic concentrations” – i.e. where they don’t exist.

Judean Peoples Front,

So, in summary, the author’s beliefs are just as speculative as Hancock’s.

Well that might indeed be a summary. Quite what on Earth it’s a summary of, however, remains something of a mystery.

Ed. I chided the OP for condescension and rehearsing ahistorical thinking.

It’s important to remember that what you think and what others think may often differ.

It’s important to remember that what you think and what others think may often differ.

Exquisite.

It’s off topic, but I’m wondering how the 9/11 “truthers” are going to deal with this.

A better explanation for some Olmec statues looking Chinese is that Olmecs and other Native Americans were of Asian ancestry. Some Indians look very Chinese. As to the “Negroid” features of the Olmec heads (the football player heads) one explanation is that the rulers were highly inbred and this led to deformities.

Saw the word “negroid,” clicked expecting evidence of dread C’thuhu’s awakening.

Left disappointing, screaming in tongues.

Glad to see that white people still firmly believe in white supremacy. It will inevitably be their downfall. smh

Guys, Seriously, put your cocks away and the rulers down.
It stings when someone one-ups your opinions that you’ve worked so hard to mould but you’re never gonna know that you’re 100% correct in your idea of the truth so keep the floor open for alternative discussion points without the need to re-educate.

Childress puts forward a selection of truths and facts. Some may argue that the order in which he does this is created to bring the audience to a shared conclusion, whether factual or nay, but he asks us “How is this possible?”, rather than stating it to be undeniable. Creating a discussion point and thats what we’re doing is it not?……Or were you in fact roaming around a few millenia ago with the Meso-Americans to be so sure of yourselves.

Plus he has an extremely silly voice for a narrator that keeps me listening.
Sounds like someone from South park.

Two things, there is no evidence that there was any trans-Atlantic voyages 2500 years ago, the time period that the Olmecs live. Then, all the human remains that were associated with the Olmecs and the ones that built the heads, had similar DNA to the people who live there today. Also, they is greater variation between them and people from West Africa than from the people who Populate Eastern Siberia.

You might want to listen to these cult-archaeologists than philanthropist like Graham Hancock. Also, I do find it racist to say that an indiginous culture could not have built monuments when in fact, they could have. That is exactly what Graham Hancock is saying.

Sorry, I meant real Archaeology, not cult-archaeology.

Indians don’t come out of a cookie-cutter. Both heads look like people I know; members of the same tribe. Have any of you been to a reservation?

Why do some of you people hate your African ancestry so much? If you cannot disprove the evidence given, accept it. The hate many of you have for your own ancestry will not change the facts.

It is really pathetic that some people in this world despite access to the information technology thats avalible to them continue to express stupid racist denials about the acomplishments of ancient african peoples and what they created in this world. I just laff at their ongoing willingness to be ignorant. The olmecs were black africans and it’s nothing you or anybody else can do anything about it.

Olmecs were an American Indian people. Afrocentrics are in dire need to make up for their lack of progress and/or ignorance as to who their direct ancestors were. Also missing is a genuine connection with any African peoples.

To Multiplesourses and Ken Williams Sr. There is no evidence of a Tranatlantic crossing between Africa and Central America at any time in history before 1500 AD. There is no evidence of there being Africans in Central American at anytime before 1500 AD. The only evidence that you have that the heads were built by Africans is in the way they look, and that can also be explained without having to use an outside source. “Van Sertima’s (the man who came up with the hypothesis) asserts that they are clearly African in appearance, and indeed they do possess full lips and broad noses. Van Sertima, however, ignores the fact that many of the Olmec heads also have flat faces like American Indians, not prognathic profiles (jutting-out lower faces) like Africans. He also chooses not to see what appear to be epacatnthic folds on the eyelids of the statues-these are typical of Old World Asians and American Indians.” -Ken Feder; Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries.

Lastly, about being racist? Is it not racist to take away the accomplishments of one culture and give it to another? Saying that the Olmecs did not build those heads is like saying the Egyptians did not build the pyramids.

To RolandofGilead and other skeptics on this subject of the Olmecs: First, I completely agree that taking and ignoring the accomplishments of native peoples anywhere in this world is a crime against humanity . The entire western world and 99 percent of it’s academic institutions to this day still maintains a mindset of eurocentric superiority which reinforces it’s belief systems through every media source avaliable and the school institutions on every level. Second, there are and have been scores of historians thoughout generations who support the research on ancient africans crossing the world’s oceans and establishing settlements of different kinds in many lands.Third,
there are hundreds of ancient artifacts that are linked to Africa that have been discoverd in Mexico and are on display in their many museums. Fourth, now if you and others don’t want to do the proper research and read more , that’s your intellectual problem. Fifth, Dr. Ivan Van Sertima and all of his peers on this unique and fascinating subject will all be vindicated.

“First, I completely agree that taking and ignoring the accomplishments of native peoples anywhere in this world is a crime against humanity . The entire western world and 99 percent of it’s academic institutions to this day still maintains a mindset of eurocentric superiority which reinforces it’s belief systems through every media source avaliable and the school institutions on every level.”

Uhm, No. Despite the Eurocentric ideals that I may espouse, (WTF does that even mean???) that still doesn’t change the fact there is no evidence what-so-ever that African’s built the Heads, nor do the heads even look African. You see, there is a thing called fact, which does not care what country I’m from.

“Second, there are and have been scores of historians thoughout generations who support the research on ancient africans crossing the world’s oceans and establishing settlements of different kinds in many lands.”

Like who? Graham Hancock? Van Danikan? Robert Schlock? None of these men are historians or archaeologist. They have constantly ignored all evidence that calls their pet hypothesis into doubt, and continiously push irrelevant points that have been debunked. Not to mention that Graham Hancock believes the world is coming to an end on Dec, 12 2012. They are no different from the 9/11 truthers or creationists.

Also, I would like to add that just because somebody can build a raft and sail it across the Atlantic, does not mean it was being done 3000 years ago. I’ve got news for ya, the confederates during the civil war had the materials and technology to make liquid fueled rockets. However, there is no evidence that they did. That is how we know they didn’t. Where is your evidence of Africans or Asians crossing 3000 years ago?

“Third, there are hundreds of ancient artifacts that are linked to Africa that have been discoverd in Mexico and are on display in their many museums.”

Really? Can I see a link to these artifacts, maybe some context as to where and when these artifacts are found? Yes, it might be interesting to find a Roman coin in Maine, but it doesn’t mean that the Romans were there when the coin was found in the context of an 18th century farmstead. There are plenty of artifacts that come from around the world found in the Americas. The only problem, is that they are found well within the context of the Contact Period. There is a reason that Archaeologists note stratigraphy of a site. That is how they date the site.

“Fourth, now if you and others don’t want to do the proper research and read more , that’s your intellectual problem.”

I don’t have a problem. I listen to people who have meticulously mapped, surveyed, and detailed the site, not someone who looks at a picture and then decides what it looks like.

“Fifth, Dr. Ivan Van Sertima and all of his peers on this unique and fascinating subject will all be vindicated.”

For some reason, I highly doubt that. I quoted an actual archaeologist. What do you have.

Dear Mr. RolandofGilead,

An Ancient African Proverb: Lies can run for years, but the truth can catch them in a day.

Keep living until you find out !!!!!

Dear Ken Williams Sr.

Archaeology deals with facts. If you want truth, I’m sure you can find a philosophy class somewhere.

I’m still waiting for you to produce the evidence for you to actually back up your claim. A quotation about truth is not evidence, and it proves to me that you really don’t know what you are talking about.

There is one cure for the absurd idea that the Olmecs were “Africans”. Just look at some pictures of contemporary Native Indian inhabitants of the region. Guess what. You find many that look like the”Negroid” heads and others that look like the “Mongoloid” and others that look like the “Semitic” heads. As been said before the evidence for such contact is minimal to zero. Further it apears that Olmec civilization emeerged from pre-existing village cultures. Oh and when Van Sertima originally suggested his idea Olmec civilization was thought to emerge c. 800 B.C.E., and the source an Nubian dominated Egypt, the date is now pushing 1500 B.C.E. and earlier which throws a wrench in that idea.

As for keeping you mind open for new ideas. Well if you ignore vast amounts of data the way Childress does your hardly having a open mind. Oh and please explain why anyone should take this idea the slightest bit seriously when the only “evidence” in support of it is sculptures of people who look like natives who live in the region today?

Finally, someone else who thinks to look at the actual people involved. Thank you, Pacal.

Two things, there is no evidence that there was any trans-Atlantic voyages 2500 years ago, the time period that the Olmecs live. Then, all the human remains that were associated with the Olmecs and the ones that built the heads, had similar DNA to the people who live there today. Also, they is greater variation between them and people from West Africa than from the people who Populate Eastern Siberia.
You might want to listen to these cult-archaeologists than philanthropist like Graham Hancock. Also, I do find it racist to say that an indiginous culture could not have built monuments when in fact, they could have. That is exactly what Graham Hancock is saying.

The best explanation for the so-called “negroid” traits in Olmec statue and in some Olmec crania is that there were two waves of humans migrating from Asia. The earliest wave of humans from Asia resembled modern Melaneseans and Africans the latter wave resembled so-called Mongoloids. Both types lived in Meso-America at least until the age of the Spanish conquest.

‘Plenty of other Olmec statues look as if they depict people from other parts of the world because these Native American craftsmen had lively imaginations. It really is as simple as that.’
Then i stopped reading…

Why are these phenomena easier to argue about than actually research? If I were to buy a car; I could stay at home, looking at photos online, reading anecdotes about the car, and so on…
or- I can actually LOOK at the car, drive it, and so on.
The persons involved in it’s design and production are irrelevant.

IMPORTANT: Mr. Damian Thompson has not ‘driven this car’, but has only collated an opinion borne of his research, which he put forward as fact (and with an inherent meanness that is very off-putting, might I add)…if Mr. Thomson has actually visited the Land of the Olmecs, done a visual survey of the current inhabitants of the area, and interiewed the area’s primary archaeological personnel- I formally apologize, and heartily so.
Mr. Hancock has test-driven the car.
He’s been to Cenral America numerous times, seen almost all of the heads and other important artefacts-touched them!- and spoken wth numerous local CREDENTIALed EXPERTS.
It is painfully obvious that Damien hasn’t read the material he condemns.
Mr. Thomson wastes everyone’s time arguing something that can be conclusively proven with a minimum of effort.
Of course, the local artisans had the imagination, talent, and technology to craft these heads.
I personally believe there was an African influence on the locals, but that this influence was via ET intervention. THIS IS MY OPINION, as I have yet to ‘drive’ that car. (and probably never will)
Damien-intelligent folks (such as yourself…i AM a fan!) should never state their opinion (or even other people’s opinions) as fact. To do so is immature, irresposible, and damaging to the collective forward momentum of the human race.
PS-Aprilista, my opinion is that you have such a sexy brain!
peace to all-
RA Boesenberg

Graham Hancock is great, I really like him. He is not some lunatic with weird ideas based on nothing. I dont like the comparison with Danniken, who has ideas based on nearly nothing, or Zitchin, but not hancock. And his ideas and theories should be looked into because they have solid bones to it, they could also help us to understand certain aspect of the amazing mysteries of Human Civilisation. And a lot of academics are starting to realize that now. And millions of people around the world too.
This is how our understandings evolved, we always reviewed our own ideas in the past, even if it is painfull, to find new truth and make new discoveries. Humans make mistake, and the fact that we might have misunderstood and misinterpreted some of the legacy of the Ancient World is not something that should be ruled out, but considered. Too much evidences to be ignored. Look back in History and it really wouldn’t be the first time that we got it wrong, really wrong, until someone said “hang on a minute, what about……” Examples are way too many to be worth named here. Come on, we were convinced that the planet was flat! It would be arrogant to think that we haven’t made such mistake again, or that we won’t.
I think archeologists and egyptologists don’t like that fact that non-professionals could have seen something they missed for years, and there is a pride issue here. If they all worked together we would make huge progress in these fields.
Hancock might be wrong, and he doesn’t claim to provide the absolute thruth, but instead he suggests a new approach, a different point of view. Instead of stupid attacks and pitiful attempts to ridicule him, there should be a real debate.
And seriously, if you have a minimum of common sense, an open mind and a certain obvious logic, you will see that he has a point. A Big one, too big to be dismissed as fantasy.
Anyway, blind people can stay blind, they dont read and then they talk……silly. Sad.
Hancock is onto something, and wether you like it or not, that something is out there.
Among many things, I really wonder about that Yonagumi structure, what about that? Fantasy? LOL

RA Boesenberg and Sanji’s posts are hilarious. Such cultivated and worked up ignorance. Yes Hancock talked to the experts and proceeded to ignore practically all that they said to him. His books are filled with fantasy and deep ignorance. The section on Tiwanku is esspecially funny.

Hancock goes on for pages about Tiwanku being over 10 thousand years old while taking barely any notice of th fact that practically everyone who as worked on the site dates it to c. 300-1000 C.E. (A.D.).

Olmec sites have benn excavated and NO remains indicating an African presence ot ET have been found. There are of course plenty of remains of pre Olmec village cultures indicating and showing the development of Olmec civilization with no indication of Old World influence.

Critical literature on Hancock is abundant and indicates that he is a distorter and fantastist.

Hancock as simply driven his car over a cliff, probably because he as self-blinded himself. He as also openly admited that he is a one sided researcher out to defend his “client”.

Well i have talked to Mesoamerican Archaeologists and specialists and with no exceptions they regard Hancock as a crank.

So Boesenberg you think the Olmec were influenced by ET? That of course only shows me that you are deeply ignorant about Olmec archaeology.

As for Sanji, well what you said about Yonagumi is amusing. Haen’t done much research on it, it seems. Except of course possibly true believer material.

Thanks for the laughs guys.

Oh and please explain to me why the statues look like modern Indians who live in the area if they are suppossed to be of Africans?

Well reading my comment again, I do sound a bit like a simple – minded hippy. Right, let me precise a few things, I am not a full-on Hancock fan. I do not know a huge amount about him, but I saw “Quest for the Lost Civilisation”, and I read “Supernatural”, an absolutely amazing book, unrelated to his usual topics it seems. I really didn’t see what in there makes him a worthless ignorant. History, as we know it, is probably quite distorted and incomplete already.
After this I decided to look further into his work and theories. I have been a bit surprised by the range of his ideas and even found that sometimes he goes quite far actually. He made me think about a trigger-happy cowboy shooting in all directions in the hope of hiting a target.

Also, the next thing I did, immediately, was to researched his critics. This is how I came on this page.
Quite frankly, from what I ve read so far, most critics do indeed show flaws in his ideas, and he is probably wrong on some of them, no doubt about that. But what I also see is people picking on details – but flaws -, in a speech fuelled with bad faith, arrogance and bitterness. Then they dismiss the entire caracter, the theory talked about, as well as his other ideas and then brand him an amateur, lunatic, pseudo archeologosist and so on. And this is where I think it’s wrong, even with flaws, his ideas are still quite interesting, still valid enough to be worth further serious studies, and especially the general frame of mind behind it, something that his opponents and established theories do not take in count, at all. His ideas about Egypt and the Orion Correlation Theory is so obvious that I don’t understand why they are not taken in count by people that still haven’t manage to solve the mystery themselve.
He is obviously very clever and down to earth, his appraoch and the way he thinks is what I like; It deserves attention and debate.

And usually, lets face it, the established ideas he is fightning against most definitely leave room for plenty of inconsistencies, mysteries and MANY legitimate questions to be raised, don’t you think?
Even if he might be wrong, he has a certain angle on these subjects that science ignores, and his view would certainly help. I think we need people like him to shake things up a bit, and progress. Because this is how we alwasy did.

Regarding that Yonagumi structure, I don’t know what you mean by “True believer material”. What I believe is that we have here an underwater structure that has the same base lenght of the Great Pyramid (not completely sure about that), that is aligned North / South, and seems man-made. And last time it was above water was 8 to 12000 years ago, a time where no one on earth could have had the technology or knowledge to do it. I find this fact, on its own, taken apart from any context or theory, is quite amazing, isn’t it?. It is not garanteed that it is man made, but in my opinion this is just a matter of time. Japan’s top marine geologist and many other seems to think that this possibilty is high enough to bet their own career on it. I have seen many pics of it, do you really think that nature did that?? Not impossible, but mathematically, scientifically and logicaly, it seems quite unlikely. The odds speak volume.

Anyway, about this page’s subject, I had no specific opinion about it so far, apart that this is just another weird subject to study. So Hancock promotes garbage about it? Ah cool, why then? Your answer is “because these Native American craftsmen had lively imaginations. It really is as simple as that”.

Heh??? Jesus, what if they didn’t have “a lively imagination”?? It is possible but that is not a study, this is just an assumption. Great work, thanks Einstein.
I had a look on this site, and I found a whole topic about 9/11, and how people that think that US government might have been involved are idiots.
If this is an American website, man THAT is hilarious.

@RA Boesenberg

Have you read “Fingerprints of the Gods?” I have. Not once did Hancock consult any archaeologist, DNA specialist, or historian who would know anything on the matter. Sorry, Hancock did not test drive car either.

Sanji you say:

His ideas about Egypt and the Orion Correlation Theory is so obvious that I don’t understand why they are not taken in count by people that still haven’t manage to solve the mystery themselve.

I smile a big smile and laugh out loud. Just the barest amount of research will indicate that the orion correlation like the 10500 BCE correlation is dubious. (It is from Edgar Cayce for example) Of course the pyramids around Giza do NOT form the constellation orion unless you do a major distortion. Further there were two pharoahs who lived between the builders of the three great pyramids who did NOT build at Giza. Of course did not not remember that Hancock propsed that the pyramids were built to commemorate a date c. 10500 B.C.E. A completly absurd idea. THe number of Egyptologists who give any credence to this idea can be numbered at close to 0. Oh and as for the three pyramids of Giza looking like Oions belt. Well only if Orion’s belt was backwards.

As for

Regarding that Yonagumi structure, I don’t know what you mean by “True believer material”. What I believe is that we have here an underwater structure that has the same base lenght of the Great Pyramid (not completely sure about that), that is aligned North / South, and seems man-made. And last time it was above water was 8 to 12000 years ago, a time where no one on earth could have had the technology or knowledge to do it. I find this fact, on its own, taken apart from any context or theory, is quite amazing, isn’t it?. It is not garanteed that it is man made, but in my opinion this is just a matter of time. Japan’s top marine geologist and many other seems to think that this possibilty is high enough to bet their own career on it. I have seen many pics of it, do you really think that nature did that?? Not impossible, but mathematically, scientifically and logicaly, it seems quite unlikely. The odds speak volume.

Yep you have swallowed truebeliever material by the cartload. I felt like rolling around the floor laughing when I read the above. The overwhelming majority of Geologists who have examined Yonagumi rate it as natural. The fact that you haven’t come across this only indicates your lack of research. So sorry the “site” is natural geology. Yep I’ve seen the pics and it looks natural to me. The fact that you have said the above only tells me you have done research in true believer places.

As for this comment

But what I also see is people picking on details – but flaws -, in a speech fuelled with bad faith, arrogance and bitterness. Then they dismiss the entire caracter, the theory talked about, as well as his other ideas and then brand him an amateur, lunatic, pseudo archeologosist and so on. And this is where I think it’s wrong, even with flaws, his ideas are still quite interesting, still valid enough to be worth further serious studies, and especially the general frame of mind behind it, something that his opponents and established theories do not take in count, at all.

Aww we call a crank a crank and a distorter a distorter. We’re so bad. Sorry but Hancock is a distorter his treatment of both the Maya and Tiwanaku are replente with examples of incredible distortion. His discusion of the Mayan calander is a monument to bad scholarship. The rest of his works are incredible examples of fraud and fakery. The theory is nonsense that does not in the least deserve to be taken seriously. Hancock”s “evidence” non existant. We are talking about a man who took the face on Mars seriously here. Of course no account as per usual is taken of Hancocks view of professional archaeologists as conspirators covering up the truth or his calculated contempt for them.

Thank you again for giving an excellent example of how a true believer forms and of course showing once again deep ignorance.

Look man, I didn’t post here to start a debate about every aspects of Hancock’s work and theory, like I can see everywhere else, or to be branded an ignorant by a smug head who dont know anything about me, what I know or what I do for a living. I came here to see critics about him and once again these critics are rubbish or not enough to make me think hancock is worthless. You can find answers about what you just said on the Giza pyramids OCT and Yonagumi yourself so I wont bother trying to defend these point cos others are doing that already.
“These poeple had a lively imagination, it really is as simple as that”
Bless you.
You people play your role perfectly. Pigeons don’t even know they are pigeons, so I will just let you keep enjoying the smell of your own farts on this little online circus, and keep walking pass the blind and fools.

Sanji, you said:

Look man, I didn’t post here to start a debate about every aspects of Hancock’s work and theory, like I can see everywhere else, or to be branded an ignorant by a smug head who dont know anything about me, what I know or what I do for a living. I came here to see critics about him and once again these critics are rubbish or not enough to make me think hancock is worthless. You can find answers about what you just said on the Giza pyramids OCT and Yonagumi yourself so I wont bother trying to defend these point cos others are doing that already.
“These poeple had a lively imagination, it really is as simple as that”
Bless you.
You people play your role perfectly. Pigeons don’t even know they are pigeons, so I will just let you keep enjoying the smell of your own farts on this little online circus, and keep walking pass the blind and fools.

Oh well You should really not say anything as once again you reveal your deep ignorance and utter unwillingless to learn. Read some basic texts on Egyptology and Archaeology first, which you have so plainly failed to do.

As for being a smug head thats a little rich coming from someone who says:

You people play your role perfectly. Pigeons don’t even know they are pigeons, so I will just let you keep enjoying the smell of your own farts on this little online circus, and keep walking pass the blind and fools.

I’m not going to take seriously being called a pigeon, which
is your way of saying I’ve been sucked into believing stuff that is not true, from someone who quite clearly does not have much knowledge of Archaeology. I suggest that if anyone is the pigeon it is you who has been sucked into swallowing Hancock’s and others dubious crap. If you want to swallow the lies and distortions of people like Hancock please do so. please continue to ignore the vast mountain of evidence that refutes their fantasies.

As for this comment:

You can find answers about what you just said on the Giza pyramids OCT and Yonagumi yourself so I wont bother trying to defend these point cos others are doing that already.

Yep true believers and other fatasists are continuing to distort and lie about those things. THe fact is that the overwhelming majority of geologists reject the idea that Yonagumi is artificial. The vast majority of Egyptologists reject the OCT and the Great Pyramids. The speculations, fantasies and hand waving of the true believers are of little interest to the real experts. I can only suggest that you look at this extensive and massive literature demolishing this crap.

P{lease continue to fantasize yourself has possessed by true knowledge that us, poor deluded “pigeons” who rely on real evidence are excluded from. The evidence is quite overwhelming that Hancock deliberately distorts and is a shoddy scholar. As mentioned before his stuff about the dates of Tiwanaku and the Mayan Calander are quite enough to consign him to the garbage heap.

Of course the critics of Hancock are “rubbish” even though they have found error after error, nonsense after nonsense in Hancock all of which is easily found on the web. AS for being labeled as ignorant by a smug head? Well there is no reason for anyone to label you as ignorant your own comments do that quite well enough. As for not knowing you. Well based on your comments you are indeed phenomenally ignorant of archeaology and much else.

THank you for once again indicating that so many people attracted to alternative nonsense feel that they have special knowledge that the rest of us “pigeons” don’t have. As for farts please continue to enjoy Hancock’s abundant number 2s.

Hey, Sanji, here are two authors to start with if you want to know about real archaeology: Brian Fagan and Ken Feder.

I think the only garbage we can talk about is this stupid article. Whoever wrote it, he only makes statements and talks shit about Graham Hancock because he does not agree with him. He should realise Mr Hancock theories are being serioulsy taken into account by those who dare see things, not in the way we are said at universities by the statuos quo, but what the evidence itsel suggests. He says the olmecs were “imaginative”.
That ’s pathetic. I invite you to debate with ideas and not speak stupidities just because you are envious of Mr. Hancock contributions to unveil the humankind’s past.

Pacal and Sanji are nothing else but stupid apprentices who spit on Hancock’s work just because they are said to do so. A couple of arrogant misers whose only purpose is to convince people that the orthodox ancient history is the owner of complete trutth. How much are you paid? Perhaps you both defend is a crappy job at a faculty full of old biased arecheologists, so bitter that they can not accept the inconsistencies of their “discipline” (I do not call it science, since arqueology is not a science, physics is science, not this shit, chiefly when you see they are afraid of a multidisciplinaty aproach when studying the misteries of the past). You both guys, should be aware that we do not need your fucking point of view to get to grips with questions and conclusions about the ancient past of mankind. Why do not you come back to the shithole you came from?

Think about this, Hancock is more famous tham you could ever dream, because he dared say what you ingnore. History will say who was right, either hancock or a couple of anonym archeology aficionados of this shitty website.

Incognitus if you have any ability to read you should realize that Sanji thinks Hancock is great. I suppose you mean Roland of Gilead. Like Sanji though you display deep transcedent ignorance. Let us look at your bowel movements.

He should realise Mr Hancock theories are being serioulsy taken into account by those who dare see things, not in the way we are said at universities by the statuos quo, but what the evidence itsel suggests.

The fact that Hancock as a few deluded followers who know next to nothing about Archaeology impresses me not at all. As for what the evidence suggests. Mr. Hancock of course as is typical for him ignores the evidence and what it says. The evidence overwhelmingly says that Twanaku is less than 2000 years old, but Hancock ignores it. The evidence does not support Hancock’s prehistoric supercivilization, but in fact refrutes and of course he ignores it.

Pacal and Sanji are nothing else but stupid apprentices who spit on Hancock’s work just because they are said to do so. A couple of arrogant misers whose only purpose is to convince people that the orthodox ancient history is the owner of complete trutth. How much are you paid? Perhaps you both defend is a crappy job at a faculty full of old biased arecheologists, so bitter that they can not accept the inconsistencies of their “discipline” (I do not call it science, since arqueology is not a science, physics is science, not this shit, chiefly when you see they are afraid of a multidisciplinaty aproach when studying the misteries of the past). You both guys, should be aware that we do not need your fucking point of view to get to grips with questions and conclusions about the ancient past of mankind. Why do not you come back to the shithole you came from?

Lets see a complete novice like Hancock, with little real knowledge tries to overthrow the work of thousands of scholars with nothing more than a fantasy of wish fulfillmen t and the defenders of so-called Orthodoxy are arrogant!? Irony of ironies.

Like all good true believers you fantasize that any opponents of your revealed truth are motivated by bias and of course are paid. Well I’m not being paid at all for this, sadly! Also the usual conspiracy psychosis / delusion.

So Archaeology is not a science. Thank you for showing a most deep ignorance. Please read an introductory text to Archaeology. Of course you then label it “shit”. Please explain to me in detail how to do do a dig in the desert versus underwater. How to perform a carbon 14 test. Please explain Paleoethnobiology. How to do a shell midden Analysis? All of which are involved modern Archaeology.

As for being afraid of a multidisplinary approach. Well that is exactly what modern Archaeology involves routinely. Your statement about fear only provides abundant evidence that you are indeed phenomnally ignorant of Archaeology.

Like all true believers when your cherished delusions are attacked you react by screams of hysteria. Sorry but I didn’t come out of a shithole and so won’t ever be going there.

As for thinking about Hancock’s fame. Why should I? I’m glad he as made himself rich off the deludded and guilible, because that is the only way the guilible and credulous will learn. As for daring to say what I ignore. Hancock is merely saying pseudoscientific crap that others have said before, it is nothing new but the same old snake oil. The verdict is already in and was in long before Hancock and it says he is full of it.

OK; Pacal, you want to play hard? Lest do it.
You, Mr. Almighty encarnation of archeology, explain to me a few things and make me wise:

1) Baalbek in Lebanon: How did the ancients cut and moved blocks of 1500 tones? What is the technical method to to this? Why are our modern cranes not able to move them and the ancientswere?

2) How do you date stone using C14?

3) Why the similarities between cultures like the mayans and egiptians, why did both cultures were avid stargazers and built pyramids? Are all of these similarities “just coincidence”?

4) Why does the sphinx have evidence of erosion caused by massive water flow on it? When does the climate record say Egipt had a rainy weather? Robert Schoch put his reputation at stake saying this is the case with the sphinx…was he wrong?

4) Finally, how are we suppose to trust a horde of biased individuals when they can not even offer an open explanation to these dilemas?

5) Give the link to the archeological papers that show your points. If not, I will suposse you are a windbag and nothing more!!!!

Finally, Richard Feymann was very critic of scientific methods in social sciences (which includes archeology, as far as I understand), see and grow intellectually:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaO69CF5mbY

From the point of view of a phycisist, archeology is just a bunch of innacurate methods whose uncertainty grows the more we go back in time. It is not a natural science. When we are talking about pre-history events, I think archeology is more flawed than ever.

SAnji, sorry for what I said about you, I think I put you side by side with that discusting Pacal, which is already a painful mistake!!!
Really sorry!!!

Incognitus you can read my reply to your nonsense at.
http://makinapacalatxilbalba.blogspot.com/2010/07/hancock-woo-graham-hancock-following-is.html

Hey Pacal,:I have read all your astonishing compilation of books and ad-hominems. It is funny to believe you are very wise because you have wasted your life loving books instead of women, but that is your problem, not mine. You should not reveal your secrets in your website. However, in my view you are a biased ignorant.

1) You supported my point that C!4 method can not date stone. From that point of view, it means dating of organic material is highly dependent on the interpretation of the archeologist.

You quoted:
“The stones were transported over a path only 600 meters length and about 15 meters *downhill*. The quarry is 1160 meters high, and the temple 145 meters. So it was easy to keep the stones on an even level to their final resting place and it was unnecessary to lift them about 7 meters as some authors claim. As you might know, Rome is the city with the most obelisks outside of Egypt. They stole the things by the dozen and took them home. The heaviest known obelisk weighs 510 tons, and it was transported some 1000’s of *kilometers*. This transport was documented by the roman author Marcellinus Comes. The Romans even left detailed paintings and reliefs about the ways to move such things : as on the bottom of the Theodosius-obelisk in Istanbul. They used “Roman-patented” winches, in German called “Göpelwinden” which work with long lever ways. To move a 900 ton stone, they needed only 700 men. The transport was slow, about 30 meters a day, because they had to dismantle and rebuild the winches every few meters, to pull the obelisk with maximum torque. But in Baalbek, where they moved several blocks, maybe they built an alley of winches, where they passed the block from winch to winch.”

My answer to that is SHOW IT. Has this experiment been done with such weights there? Of course not. I see many 2000 tones blocks moved and that fit perfectly in a complex distribution. I know for sure the most powerful cranes can not lift weight heavier than 300 tones. If you were an Engineer, you would understand it is just not a matter of leting them go down the hill, as your very purposely selected quotation says. I will not believe your quotation because it contradicts common sense, my common sense tells me it is not possible to move such kind of blocks

2) You have answered as expected. C14 can not date stones. Why do archeologists dare say with complete certainty the date in wich any monument was built? It is left to the analist criterium, and that is not valid in such matters. There is a degree of uncertainty that is ihnerent to this method and that can not be helped, as simple as that. In the most ancient monuments, the interpretation deduced by archeologists may be flawed or biased to let the evidence fit in the stream of knowledge they accept. What guarantees that the monument and the age of the carbon dated sample are the same? As far as I see it, a monument could be far older than the carbon dated samples and this fact may not be detected by the archeological survey. I find a problem with this, sorry.

You seem to assume you should trust the archeologists and that we should believe they are never biased or whatsoever. If you were a natural scientist you would understand that is not the case. Doesn’t matter. The IPCC is a clear example of how preconceptions can even make you doubt about a “serious research”. If climate scientists are prone to this thing, I believe archeologists as well. So your claim of complete trust to the methods of these people doesn’t work for me.

3) You seem completely unaware of the many similarities between these ancient cultures. Tell me something…have you read Hancock’s work? I bet you have not. He points out the parallels among these cultures with good clarity. He may not be right in everything he claims, but the evidence of something wrong with the accepted archeology explanation is vast, in my view we have a case here. In Physics, if you have an anomaly in a theory that does not fit it makes your theory crumble. Why is not this the case in archeology? You say they are “scientists”.
You tell me “that human civilizations have similarities because they are human civilizations”, a poor explanation for someone who boast his intelligence for reading dusty second-hand books in a library. If you were archeologist unless… what it shows is that you are not aware of such similarities, therefore you should undertake your own investigation in the matter.

4) Do you contradict Robert Schoch? His evidence comes from geology, a natural science, certainly more robust and accurate that this “science” called archeology. So I have to believe you instead of DR. Schoch, which is a leading scholar in his field? You must be kidding!!! Of course his arguments are disputed by ignorants in geological aspects, which find it easy to give support to their preconceived ideas on the Sphinx.

5) I am not paying you, that is true. I would pay quality job, not your second-hand research. If you say you are right, you have to show it. If you do not want to be asked, you do not get into this forum.
I will not recommend you so many books, as I would not like to end up like you. Please take a look a the archeological inconsistencies that DR. Cremo points out in the following book:
http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Archeology-Hidden-History-Human/dp/0892132949

He has a PhD and he does not find what I have told you coming from “an ignorant”. I do not care what you may think, what you think is your problem. But you should be aware that people have the right to question even the academia when searching for answers. People like you can only see and believe what they have been said by a system who wants you to believe what is useful to them. You should make an effort for not sticking your head in the sand and try to open your mind at these inconsistencies, and start to question. But it may be late for you, as far as I see.

You are right, I may not take time to read your books. I live in paradise, not in that shitty land called Canada, full of snow and with freezing temperatures most of the year. Specimens like you are rare here, since we are not obliged to spend our lifes secluded at home or in libraries for not having something interesting to do.

Pakal, I would like to make public how you try to misinform us. You quote about the Theodosius Obelisk, which weighs 400 tones.
See the following link:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brswanson/2809124885/

THis obeliks was cut into three or two pieces to make possible its transportation. It was originaly 30m tall when in Egipt, but for some technical problem it is now 19m tall. Very interesting. You dare put this obeliks of 400 tones which had to be cut to be moved as comparable to the baalbek blocks. Do you really think people are stupid?

This is another example of people whose knowledge is based how spending their lives reading academic books (real aficionados) but not based on commoon sense.

Sorry, the more you read your arguments, the more I am convinced you do not know what you are talking about.

Icognitus Just as I expected a flood of ad-hominoms that are meaningless and even more powerful indications that you are a true believer and deeply ignorant. Thank you for your concern about my personal life and why are you dragging that in all?

Regarding Carbon 14 dating. Not the slightest bit interested in learning how it works it seems. Again the question of does carbon 14 date rocks is a red herring and is meaningless. No one expects it to date rocks at all. Then again if it did the dates would be in millions of years n’est pas?

But then your further comments indicate that you have absolutely no willingness to find out how carbon 14 is done. As for errors of course they happen and that is why Carbon 14 has all sorts of protocals etc., to minimizes errors. Of course error happen but why should that be a surprise which is why more than one date should be done.

As for your “common sense” regarding Baalbek. If the Romans could move 3 blocks weighing over 100 tons each from Egypt to Constaninople (Istambul) than they could move 1000 tons 1000 yards or less. I note you don’t deal with the evidence found in digs at Baalbek that date the monument to Roman times. As for a crane well I would think we could move a thousand ton block if we wanted to do so. And in fact concrete oil drilling platforms weighing more are moved all the time. As for the crane. So what. The Romans and Egyptians had ropes, pulleys and enourmous work forces. Oh and by the way ancient methods of moving rocks are tested all the time and they work. The only difference between moving a big block and a small block is the labour, time involved the techniques were the same. “Common sense” dictates that this methods were the same only larger. Oh and if Archimedes could design a gaget to lift a ship out of the water the Romans could devise a technique to move 1000 tons 100 yards or less. If the Romans could build 100 miles of Road and 100 miles of aquduct, both more difficult than Baalbek, than they could build Baalbek. Oh and please show that the Romans could not have moved a thousand ton block less than 1000 yards.

As for similarities you just don’t get it. Similarities don’t prove contact they just are similarities. For smoeone who is convinced that Archaeology isn’t like Physics, you seem to want it to be so.

Do you honestly feel that the fact we are human would not lead to cultural similarities without contact? Also you forget the similarities are in many cases vague. After all Mayan and Egyptian pyramids are not very similar. Oh and did you know that pyramids in Peru pre-date Egyptian? The fact is their as been virtually no evidence of old world artifacts in pre-columbian america. Which would be the case if there was contact. Oh and i’ve read Hancock’s Fingerprints of the Gods and several others.

As for Robert Schoch. Obviously you haven’t read or read very badly the stuff I linked too. Do you forget that Geologists have disputed him. Well if it upsets your preconcieved views continue to ignore that fact.

You complain about my second hand research. Well it is obvious you have done no research yourself and thank you for indicating that you have little to no willingness to do reseach yourself.

As for Cremo. Read his book. It was a incredibly funny read. The guy is guilible. Yep he has a Phd and is a creationist and a Vedic scholar. He is another true believer like Hancock. Who now goes around saying the world may end in 2012.

It is you who has stuck his head in the sand and thank you for telling me that you probably won’t read the books I suggested. I guess you don’t want your “truth” questioned. As for thinking people are stupid, well you don’t think the Romans could move those blocks etc. I don’t think your stupid, but you are as this posting shows deeply ignorant and utterly unwilling to remedy that.

As for the personal comments and the insulting reference to my country all it proves is that you are acting 5 years old.

“Plenty of other Olmec statues look as if they depict people from other parts of the world because these Native American craftsmen had lively imaginations. It really is as simple as that.”
LooooooooooL
Man I haven’t laughed so much this week. Thank you, your arrogant ignorance has just made my day.
Keep writing.

I told myself I wouldn’t bother looking again at this crappy page where two individuals think they know about things just because they ve read books that everyone agreed to keep as non questionable truths and facts. Well I just had a look to see how things are going on this lost web page.
Sorry guys, Hancock and others outsmarted you, “experts” and everyone else, it is really as simple as that. They made fools of everyone else. Though they just observed things with a open mind free from academic protocols and took notes.
Experts are so old, bitter and up they re own arse that they will never reconsider or debate. Well its always been like this anyway. Nothing new really. Rinse. Repeat. Here you go, you just got 2000 years of History.
You people play the role of the bunch of cultivated guys who just will never get it. And its fine, this your role, this is what you are. You will always sit on it, blinded and fooled by your own knowledge, and the arrogance that comes out of it.
Yonagumi….off course most experts all agree to say it s natural. They all know (and this applies to other disciplines and about other subjects) what’s gonna happen to their career if they dont jump on the train. I m not interested in experts who think its natural..well exceptionnally impressive and rare to be more accurate. I m interested in experts who think it s man made. And so should you.
And this applies to Giza, south american sites and more.
Anyway, this situation where everyone tries to convince others that they are in the wrong is pointless.
Someone is right, and someone is wrong. And whether you like it or not, I think hancock is the closest to being right, that’s it. End of the story.
Dunno if you guys will watch it, I hope you will, but I found this quite interesting, two lectures from Hancock and Bauval

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDDlHSjkz0g
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA9JysD5ASk&feature=channel

The second one from Bauval is particulary interesting. If you do watch it, please let me know what you think. It is not too long and I would like to know what you both think of it. Yes they are a few little inconsistencies in what they say, even me noticed it, but it is still awesome. Though I expect you to say something about it being hilarious and showing deep ignorance and bla bla.

If you have something you would like to show me that supports your ideas, I will definitely watch it, so please dont hesitate to share.
Easy boyzz, speak soon.

Hey, Incognitus…

To answer your first question, I make $11.95 an hour working forty hours a week at Smithfield Luter pulling hogs. I wonder where my check from these so called cabal of archaeologist is at. I’m also 28, which I did not think made me old.

Now, here comes the beatdown. Hancock, (I have read Fingerprints of the Gods and actually am ashamed of the fact that I believed it at one point) provides no evidence that those heads are african in origin except that they look african. Well shiver me timbers, they must have been football players too because they’re wearing football helmets. Not really, but just to point out how stupid it is to make an assumption based on looks. This is what Hancock does, and he is wrong.

Your next question about some stones in Lebennon, the space shuttle weighs 2010 tons. Yet, somehow NASA has the ability to not only move this thing over to a launch pad over a mile from its dock, but also put it in orbit. And here’s the kicker, they do it without a crane. Hmmm, but your common sense would tell me this it not possible. You want to know how the stones were moved, probably by using cutting tools (these people had bronze and iron), and they probably moved them by putting them on wooden rollers. It’s that simple. …Or do you think they used some alien technology but did not leave any behind. Pacal answered this question for you, my suggestion is to stop insulting him.

Now on to C14 Radiometric Carbon Dating. Yes, C14 cannot date rock, but that is a strawman anyway. Archaeologist do not date rock and they do not use C14 all that much because they have to establish provenience. Dating the rock that a building is made out of only dates the rock and when it was created, it does not tell when the rock was first cut out of the ground and used as building material. The actual date of the rock is useless information to an archaeologist.

Also, there are ways to date rock, here are a few:
Uranium-Lead Dating
Uranium-Thorium Dating
Rubidium-Strontium Dating
[/pedantic]

Now, for the Maya/Egyptian connection. There was none. The pyramids in Egypt are true pyramids were as the pyramids in Mexico are not true pyramids. They are modified mounds with temples on top to symbolized a temple on a hill or horizon. The writing, artwork, and technology of the Mayans are very different from the Egyptians. Not to mention the time frame does not match up either. The Egyptian Kingdom went from Approx. 3500 BC to 750 BC when they became part of some other empire in history. The Maya City States went from 200BC to 1200 AD. There is a 550 year difference between the two. The only real similarity is the stargazing, but every human culture in history did that. It’s easy to find out things about the heavens when you don’t have TVs, Radios, and Videogames.

As for the Sphinx, Pacal answered this question perfectly. I will like to add that limestone and sandstone both are brittle rock. You can break it off in you hands and rub it into powder. It is very grainy and is easily broken. This has been demonstrated by archaeologists in both the Southwest and Egypt. I’ve actually held sandstone and I know from personal experiance how brittle it is. Brittle rock weathers easily.

BTW, Robert Shloch also said the movie Zeitgeist was acurate and true when it is neither. He has no credibility as a scientist as far as I’m concerned.

Now, I’m not going to do your research for you. You are making the claims, you back them up. Everything I have posted can be backed up just by looking on Wikipedia and Pacal has list of sources as well. I have neither the time nor the patiance and if you want me to prove you wrong, I’m not going to do it. You can look at the facts for what they are. If you don’t want to accept them for what they are, that’s your problem, not mine. Just be prepared when you wind up on the wrong side of history.

Hey Sanji. I do not care what you believe, and I am not here to convince you about Hancock? work. In fact, he may have made mistakes as well, as much as the archeologists are spreading lies about human’s past. It is up to do your own research. What I said Pakal is MY opinion, this is a debate forum, so read, say your opinion and support your arguments, that is all you have to do, no sensible person would claim complete credibility, as long as this person is humble enough to accept his own ignorance (except Pakal of course). I do not care whether you belive it or not, so do not worry and be happy!!!! I also believe all the crap you have just written.

I am beginning to suspect Rolando Gilead and Pakal are the same guy. In any case, Rolando, keep your bloody research for yourself, I am capable enough of doing mine. I have presented my arguments. Look at what you said:

“Your next question about some stones in Lebennon, the space shuttle weighs 2010 tons. Yet, somehow NASA has the ability to not only move this thing over to a launch pad over a mile from its dock, but also put it in orbit. And here’s the kicker, they do it without a crane. Hmmm, but your common sense would tell me this it not possible. You want to know how the stones were moved, probably by using cutting tools (these people had bronze and iron), and they probably moved them by putting them on wooden rollers. It’s that simple. …Or do you think they used some alien technology but did not leave any behind. Pacal answered this question for you, my suggestion is to stop insulting him.”

You are quite a real fool if you think this argument explains the Baalbek anomaly. Are you suggesting the ancients count on similar technology to lift those masive blocks? If that is the case, you are giving the kiss of death to your own argument.

If this is not what you meant, then you are giving the ancients credit for leifting a weight that can only be lifted by the modern NASA spaceship infrastructure, which undermines your arguments against the fact that the ancients used a diffierent technology. I challenge you to describe here how you move a 2000 tone block using ropes and timber logs, how you achive the uncanny precision in order to make these blocks fit perfectly.
I would like to read the nonsese you will come up with.

With your argument, you are just saying that such blocks can only be lifting with modern technology, so thans for supporting what I said.

Reality is so simple, but so difficult to understand for some people, that they tend to give poorly supported explanations for things that are completely obvious if you apply common sense.

Sanji, sorry mate, I have misinterpreted your words again, sorry for my rude tone. I amply agree with you.

I am beginning to suspect Rolando Gilead and Pakal are the same guy. In any case, Rolando, keep your bloody research for yourself, I am capable enough of doing mine. I have presented my arguments. Look at what you said:

Wow, you have no reading comprehension skills. You can’t even get my nick right. BTW, when are you going to complain about my argument, why don’t you provide some evidence to back up yours. Pakal provided sourced material, so why don’t you stop insulting our intellegence here.

You are quite a real fool if you think this argument explains the Baalbek anomaly. Are you suggesting the ancients count on similar technology to lift those masive blocks? If that is the case, you are giving the kiss of death to your own argument.

It’s time for you to either put up of shut up. If the ancients could not have built these megaliths using their own technology, then what technology did they use? If they didn’t build them, then who did? Aliens? Atlanteans? Some white Anglo-Saxon God?

The concept of lifting heavy objects is something so simple, that a child could understand it. If you truly knew what the hell you are talking about, you would understand that the concepts of pulleys and levers are farely simple concepts to understand and they would have been availible to the ancients. When you add enough elbow grease, you can move anything. Also, there is carpentry and masonry techniques that were developed then that are still in use today, because they are so simple and they work. You have provided absolutely no evidence to counter this except that no modern crane can lift those heavy blocks, which does not impress me any. Hell, my example of not having to have a crane to lift heavy objects went right over your head. So, that proves to me you don’t know what you are talking about.

Sorry, Incognitus, you fail.

As an actual Archaeologist i can atest to many an artifact being swept under the carpet by the academic establishment when it deos not fit the reigning paradigm. Examples abound. You do not need to be credentialed to have a fully rounded perspective on any subject, just an interest and an ability to think critically. The willingness to blindly accept information from so-called experts displayed on this forum is a measure of the sucess of the indoctrination system that is erroneously tremed education

ooops, mispelling ot termed in last sentence. before all you pedants jump down my throat.

So, Ragnarok, how may tertiary flakes did you see swept under the cover?

Hi guys, I m still waiting to see what you think of the two links I posted above, both leading to a conference that Hancock and Beauval had a while back. The subjects of them isn’t really about the Olmec mystery, though it is mentionned too.
I ask this because this page isn’t about the olmec. This page is about Hancock being a worthless ignorant who’s name should disappear in History before his evil lies and distortions get more attention, or a smart guy who had the balls to bring something new on the table, when the greatest minds of History have failed to explain an abondant amount of mysteries and inconsistencies about our past, our history and legacy. If you cant even agree about these amazing abnormalities and the questions they implicates then there s no point talking at all.

So here you go, I m not a full on fan of hancock, I m ready to think he is wrong and a liar ect ect if anyone can show it without acting like a little arrogant child not ready yet to reconsider the validity of his knowledge without leaving his pride aside.
And as far as I know, there s no reason to assume that the olmecs depicted accurately people from across the sea “just because they had a lively imagination”. Really? The lack of real foundations based on research and reason behing such statement is baffling, so you better show off some thinking and study of your subject if you attack a person like hancock, boy. I ve been looking out for critcics about him for a while now and this is as far as it gets; low level statements from frustrated little kids full of themselves.
So, please watch those videos if you wanna talk, and go over every point which you think is absurdity. Then show me something solid that proves it. Simple. Oh and please, avoid stuff like “The OCT theory cannot work because you have to put the map upside down”, you gotta be really stupid or blind to brush aside such amazing possibilty and the many other reasons to think so, just because it doesnt fit the current way of thinking about maps in the 21th century, because if you wanna recreate the sky the way you see it from the ground you dont need to invert anything. I couldnt find any real, solid critics about Hancock, so you guys can hopefully show me some good stuff?

Watch these videos, then come back and show some good critics, we ll see what happens.

Shibeee

sanji i to came to this site for exactly the same reasons has u and come to the same conclusion .watched both videos thanks for that .my first introduction to bauval who i think is both intelligent and honest man listening to him now on information machine try watching black genesis by bauval and dont waste your time arguing with pacal think him rude and offensive and blind to exploration of facts

Yeh it s probably pointless to discuss with those guys, because in the end I m just gonna repeat what hancock and others have already said, and I m gonna read here the same critics Ive seen, which sometimes are legitimate, but never good, solid, proven, unbreakable reasons to completely dismiss hancock and every single aspect of his work. In the end, what he says has been going on for a quite a while through history, it s not brand new, so that debate has already been going on for ages.
Maybe because people like me haven’t yet spend a massive amount of time reading work to boost their knowledge, intelligence and ego, that what might be actually misleading or wrong, it s easier to get on with the “outside the box” way of thinking.
I wont go into details because they all say it better than me, but his position about C14 dating process for ancient monuments, his position about the Ice Age and its many mysteries, about maps found around the globe showing what might be locations unknown at the time, about ancient monuments that seem to have atronomical aspects to it, about underwater structures looking suspicious, about drawings, texts, interpretation of some ancient texts. and so on and so on….
There is just so much that you cant just ignore all of this, even when “it’s not a prefect match”, “most specialists disagree “, “he isnt a professional” and blah blah blah blah.
There are obviously a lot yet to discover about ourselves and our past, and that dude and his mates definitely bring something worth looking into. If a lot of experts of our time are against even debating or considering all this with a new eye, then so be it. It happened countless times before. Doesnt mean we should blindly believe people like him, but if you sit on your books and ignore such caracter, then you really have shit in your eyes and your ears, and your slowing down the learning process of mankind. Anyway, I m wasting my time typing all this, lets agree to disagree.
Guys I m still waiting to hear your opinion about those two videos

Kevin you say:

sanji i to came to this site for exactly the same reasons has u and come to the same conclusion .watched both videos thanks for that .my first introduction to bauval who i think is both intelligent and honest man listening to him now on information machine try watching black genesis by bauval and dont waste your time arguing with pacal think him rude and offensive and blind to exploration of facts.

Bauval is not worth taking the slightest bit seriously along with Hancock. The whole Orion correlation thing as been exploded long ago. You are not aware that the consilation of Orion when imposed on Pyramids at Giza and the Neighbouting area don’t match up. But then Bauval’s a joke. Have you bothered to read up on why the majority of Geologists do not accept a early date for the Sphinx as suggested by Schoch? Or how about how Bauval and Hancock were gunning for a 10500 B.C.E., date for ther Sphinx and basically ignoring that even Schoch gave a date after 8000 B,C.E. Of course do you accept the idea that the great pyramid was planned in 10500 B.C.E., although built thousands of years later to reflect the date of 10500 B.C.E. Which by the way Hancock got from Edgar Cayce, (the sleeping prophet). Both of them have been in the past quite ready to accuse Egyptologists of lying, of fraud, fabrication and forgery. In Fingerprints of the Gods Hancock accused an 19th century Egyptologist of fabricating Khufu’s name on stone blocks found in the chambers above the Kings chamber. Hancock has since retracted this baseless accusation but he continues to blither on about wicked Archeologists supressing the truth.

As for your last comment given the quite vicious names I’v e been called here I find you thinking me rude / offensive hilarious. I’ve merely said you guys were ignorant and clueless. Which you most evidently are. As for blind to exploration of the facts. Depends. If you mean the made up nonsense of Hancock and Bauval; that is speculation and fantasy not fact. But then you guys seem to have absolutely no interest in doing any sort of real research at all, but just mouth whatever Bauval and Hancock pull out of their asses.

Sanji you say:

Yeh it s probably pointless to discuss with those guys, because in the end I m just gonna repeat what hancock and others have already said, and I m gonna read here the same critics Ive seen, which sometimes are legitimate, but never good, solid, proven, unbreakable reasons to completely dismiss hancock and every single aspect of his work. In the end, what he says has been going on for a quite a while through history, it s not brand new, so that debate has already been going on for ages.

Yep the debate between the cranks and wackjobs as been going on for ages. Almost all of it in the minds of the cranks. Thank you for indicating that you have no desire to do any real research.

As for your request for unbreakable reason to dismiss Hancock. What about the simple fact that his lost super civilization seems to have vanished without a trace. How about the fact that each and everyone of the anomolies he points to is almost always asa a “prosaic” explaination. How about Hancocks conspiracy mongering. I should not forget to note Hancock’s 2012 boosterism.

From Baalbak, (built in Roman times), to the Piri Re’is map Hancock recycles mysteries that are not mysteries.

Maybe because people like me haven’t yet spend a massive amount of time reading work to boost their knowledge, intelligence and ego, that what might be actually misleading or wrong, it s easier to get on with the “outside the box” way of thinking.

Yep musn’t have ones head clogged with knowledge it might inhibit’s one ability to swallow woo. I guess ignorance is a blessed state and knowing nothing is cool. Oh and Hancock doesn’t think outside the box his thought is firmly in the area of twentieth century crank Archaeology, he is right up their with Von Daniken, and esspecially Robert Charroux, (One Hundred Thousand Years of Man’s Unknown History).

I wont go into details because they all say it better than me, but his position about C14 dating process for ancient monuments, his position about the Ice Age and its many mysteries, about maps found around the globe showing what might be locations unknown at the time, about ancient monuments that seem to have atronomical aspects to it, about underwater structures looking suspicious, about drawings, texts, interpretation of some ancient texts. and so on and so on….
There is just so much that you cant just ignore all of this, even when “it’s not a prefect match”, “most specialists disagree “, “he isnt a professional” and blah blah blah blah.

Hancock’s position about Carbon 14 and how it is used to date monuments is deeply ignorant. Hancock never seems to get the fact that the materials that are associated with the momuments are dated. But then how Archaeologists do that would require him to read some of the many texts about Carbon 14 dating and how to use it. For dating methods see Archaeology, Second Edition, Renfrew, Colin, THames and Hudson, London, 1996.

He could also use with reading a book about climate history. Say Climate Change in Prehistory, Burroughs, William J., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005.

And of course has mentioned above Hancock’s “mysteries” are almost always not mysteries at all.

It is quite easy to ignore most of it, because it is generally not a mystery, and what little is “mysterious” does not require a unknown super civilization or aliens. I should mention here that foe a time Hancock supported the idea of alien monuments on Mars, he as backed away from that I hope.

I lost any respect for Hancock from reading the sections of <Fingerprints of the Gods (A deliberate play on Von Daniken’s Chariots of the Gods, in my opinion.), from his shoddy chapters on the Maya and Tiwanaku. In th Tiwanaku chapter he almost entirely, (except for a throw away line) ignores the conventional date of the site and instead advances a far out date based on astronomical alighments deduced from recently reconstructed buildings. These dates contradict dozens of Carbon 14 results along with ceramic, and stratigraphy studies to say nothing of ethno-historical data all of which date the site 200-1000 C.E (A.D.). Please see Ancient Tiwanku, Janusek, John Wayne, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008, The Tiwanaku, Kolata, Alan L., Blackwell, Oxford, 1993.

As for the Maya please see The Ancient Maya, Sixth Edition, Sharer, Robert J, & Traxler, Loa P, Stanford University Press, Stanford CA, 2006, pp. 102-120, for the Mayan calander. It also shows why Hancock’s discussion of it is a crock. Hancock’s discussion of the Sarcophagus lid in the tomb of Pacal at Palenque is also totally bogus.

There are obviously a lot yet to discover about ourselves and our past, and that dude and his mates definitely bring something worth looking into. If a lot of experts of our time are against even debating or considering all this with a new eye, then so be it. It happened countless times before. Doesnt mean we should blindly believe people like him, but if you sit on your books and ignore such caracter, then you really have shit in your eyes and your ears, and your slowing down the learning process of mankind. Anyway, I m wasting my time typing all this, lets agree to disagree.
Guys I m still waiting to hear your opinion about those two videos

Thank you for the Galileo gambit, the typical cliche of cranks everywhere. However for every Galileo who was right there were 10,000 cranks who were way wrong.

As for seeing it with a new eye? Nope! Its the same old same old processed woo. In the 19th century Ignatius Donnelly was touting woo in his Atlantis: The Antediluvian World, in the early twethieth century we had Edgar Cayce and in the late 60’s and into the 70’s we had Von Daniken, along with countless others. It is the same old crap served for another generation.

As for shit in eyes and ears. Since people like Hancock listen to other woo miesters and ignire reams and reams of data while continuing their diet of woo. It is clear who has shit in their eyes and ears and it is Hancock and those who believe like him.

Although it is nice to know that you think the hard won knowledge of the past won over the past century or so is shit.

Some more reading:

Invented Knowledge, Fritze, Ronald, H, Reaktion Books, London, 2009.

Ancient Astraunauts, Cosmic Collisions and other Popular THeories about Man’s Past, Stiebing, William H, Prometheus Books, Buffalo NY, 1984.

Giza: The Truth, Lawton, Ian & Ogilvie-Herald, Chris, Invisible Cities Press, Montpelier Vermont, 2001.

P.S. The two links are to films that are merely the same dull old nostrums that have been coming from those two for quite sometime.

Sanji as an example of Hancock’s problem “common sense” is a comment he makes that Khufu’s hieroglyph being found on stone blocks inside the great pyramid is meaningless, and further that they were possibly forged. The quality of Hancock’s scholarship is clear from that comment.

First Hancock fudges were the marks were found and ignores that they were quarry marks not just marks. In otherwords blocks marked for transportation to a building site. Also the blocks with the quarry mark were found in a chamber above the Kings Chamber in the great pyramid that had been sealed from the building of the Great Pyramid until the 19th century. Hancock manages to nicely fudge that it must mean, most likely, that the pyramid was built for a King named Khufu.

Hancock’s dismissal of the “marks” a a possible forgery by the Egyptologist / explorer Vyse. This is nonsense. Oh and it now appears that the quarry “marks” contine round the corners into the crevacies between blocks. So much for forgery.

Of course Hancock gets the idea that the marks may be forgeries from author Zecharia Sitchin in his book Stairway to Heaven.

An excellent source for info on this is pp. 95-113, of Giza The Truth, by Ian Lawton and Chris Ogilvie-Hera;d, Invisible Cities Press, Montpelier VT, 2001. The above book is of especial interest in that the authors are very sympathetic to “alternative” history and archaeology. The same book is excellent on the date of the Great Pyramid, accepting the traditional date of Khufu’s reign c. 2600 B.C.E. I could of course mention carbon 14 dating results. Hancock also ignores the very clear line of development of pyramid construction from Djoser’s Step Pyramid to the Great Pyramid. Hancock leaves out the Red Pyramid, the Bent Pyramid, the Pyramid of Medium and a couple of pyramids which were started and not completed. Which shows a definite development of technique. For more Read The Pyramids of egypt, by I.E.S. Edwards, Penguin Books, London, 1970, and multiple further editions.

The same dissesction can be performed on comment after comment Hancock makes.

I m making a cool post, will take a bit of time because I m not english and I want it to be comprehensible. So please keep an eye on this page.
Ive just read all the comments on this page, and somehow if you step back from it, arguments for and against hancock (and those type of ideas) all make sense at some point. I want to debate a bit more with you guys, because it will help me to get a better opinion. But clearly, there are A LOT of really,really, really odd things about the ancient world. This fact on its own should make all of us accept that there is definitely something strange about our past history, because otherwise pages and discussions like the ones presented here wouldn’t exist, or need to. Quite brilliant, I find this very exciting.
Will be back asap.

Damn my computer doesn’t work anymore! Humm I m going back home for Christmas so I ll do it from there, I ll post within the next 2/3 weeks.
Btw I posted the above after a heavy night, what I meant to say is that I wanna present a few odd things to you guys and see what you think.
Speak soon.

I thought I should read the infamous FOG before I post anything else, so I m doing that. I m halfway through it now, will be done in, lets say, one month or so.
Easy guys, speak soon

Any novice can look at those stone heads and see that they are Amerindian. I was once fooled into believing the supposed “Negroid” features until I saw pictures of Natives from the region that resembled those stone heads. People who say the giant heads look Negroid have flawed racialist views. This is simply 15th – 19th Century perceptions of race. This poses a problem for Hancock and the Afrocentrics, because all of these claims stem from the “opinion” of an alleged African phenotype.

It’s great that there are experts in the field but we can argue this without them. Not saying we don’t need them, just saying that if Afrocentrics and the Hancocks of the world can invent junk history then we can debunk them easily because they only have opinion.

The Olmecs were Amerindian. There is no mystery to who they were and there is no proof of any African influence.

Fallacious argument is fallacious. Ever heard of the mitochondrial Eve? Keep calling leading researchers “cult-archaeologists” and “afro-centric racists” if that’s all you can muster as proof that they are wrong. Please don’t use facts or do research for yourself, just keep labeling people you don’t agree with.

bohemianexile you say:

Fallacious argument is fallacious. Ever heard of the mitochondrial Eve? Keep calling leading researchers “cult-archaeologists” and “afro-centric racists” if that’s all you can muster as proof that they are wrong. Please don’t use facts or do research for yourself, just keep labeling people you don’t agree with.

What does Mitochondrial Eve have to do with the fact that Olmec statutes look like modern day Amerindian natives of the area? There is NO need to postulate that the statutes are depictions of Africans. There is also no evidence Archaeologically of an African presence in Olmec culture / society. Calling Hancock and other pseudo-scientists researchers is of course hilarious. Just look at the bibliographies of their books, full of references to all the familiar tropes and crap of yes “cult” and “pseudo-scientist” cant. As for proof they are wrong it exists in abundance. Everytthing from genetic studies to archaeology shows they are wrong.

It is a fallacious arguement to assume, and it is an assumption, that because the statutes “look like” African they are Africans esspecially since there are people in the area today, Amerindians, who look like the statutes. Calling people like Hancock “researchers” is in my opinion deeply insulting to those real researchers who work in the field. Perhaps you should read some of their work. May I recomend the following.

Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica, Christopher A. Pool, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007.
The Olmecs, Richard A. Diehl, Thames and Hudson, London, 2004.
The Ancient Kingdoms of Mexico, Nigel Davies, Penguin Books, London, 1982.
Mesoamerica Goes Public: Early Ceremonial Centers, Leaders and Communities, in Mesoamerican Archaeology, Ed. Julia A. Hendon & Rosemary A. Joyce, Blackwell Pub. Oxford, 2004, pp. 43-72.
Mexico: From the Olmecs to the Aztecs, 6th Edition, Michael D. Coe & Rex Koontz, Thames and Hudson, London, 2008, pp. 39-100.
First Peoples in a New World, David J. Meltzer, University of California Press, Berkeley CA, 2009, pp. 184-207.
Art, Ritual, and Rulership in the Olmec World, F. Kent Reilly, in The Ancient Civilizations of Mesoamerica, Ed. Michael E. Smith & Marilyn A. Masson, Blackwell Pub., Oxford, 2000.
CA Forum on Anthropology: Robbing Native American Cultures: Van Sertima’s Afrocentricity and the Olmecs, Gabriel Haslip-Viera & Bernard Ortiz de Montellano, & Warren Barbour, in Current Anthropology, v. 38, No. 3, Jun. 1997, pp. 419-441.
The Spanish Entrada: A Model for Assessing Claims of Pre-Columbian between the Old and New World, Kenneth L. Feder, in North American Archaeologist, v. 15, No. 2, Ed. Roger W. Moeller, Baywood Pub. Co. Inc., Amityville NY, 1994, pp. 147-166.

Opps! Kent Reilly’s article is on pp. 369-399 of The Ancient Civilizations of Mesoamerica.

They were outsiders who immigrated to the Olman area via boat, most likely as sailors or passengers on transoceanic voyages that went on for probably hundreds of years.

So they knew the secret of immortality as well?

“these Native American craftsmen had lively imaginations”

A bold statement. But condescending. So they were not artists? ‘Just’ imaginative craftsmen? Are you sure they were men? Is it really your opinion that ancient artists (or craftspeople) were depicting only the products of their imaginations, rather than cultural-historical objects and ideas of importance? Objects such as statuary are rarely products of whimsy, as you suggest.

It’s also an ahistorical statement made to imply a degree of unthinking racism in your subject. Were the Olmecs ‘Native American’? They might come to be considered so, hundreds of years later. But what did they call themselves?

If there’s the possibility that ancient transoceanic travel was going on at the time, there’s the possibility that these imaginative people were carving from life.

My other objection is that the statue head on the left looks to be mongoloid, rather than negroid. It seems you’ve been directed by your source. Have another look and see what you see.

I’m waiting for someone to come up with a role for the Tunguska Event in all of this. Hmm, must call my publisher.

Well, Aprilista. if the head on the left looks mongoloid, that makes sense, because that’s what the Olmecs were. I don’t think anyone has a clue what the Olmecs called themselves – they didn’t leave a written language, unlike the Maya.

Aprilista,

Thank you for such an incisive post. As a parody of self-righteous political correctness and epistemic relativism, it is both subtle and amusing. I especially enjoyed the part about needing to know whether or not these inclusive and ethnocentric Olmec sculptresses considered themselves Native American. (I’m guessing it was an understated reference on those who pander to Native American creation myths.)

“those who pander to Native American creation myths.”

Do you mean those who comprehend the cultures of others?

What creation myths do you prefer people to pander to?

Aprilista,

Do you mean those who comprehend the cultures of others?

No. I mean those who pander to Native American creation myths.

Apologies if I’ve missed the obvious, but I don’t get what you mean by ‘pander to’ in this context.

Re ‘Afrocentric historians’.
Geography doesn’t seem to be a strong point with these charlatans. When you consider that the maritime achievements of the West Africans were so limited that transport to the Cape Verde Islands (discovered by the Portuguese) was beyond them, it seems ridiculous to suppose that they could have traveled many times that distance and got all the way to Central America !

“What creation myths do you prefer people to pander to?”

Oh, the irony of this question appearing on a site dedicated to dubunking nonsensical myths of all shapes and sizes.

And also the PC gibberish in aprilista’s comments is very amusing too. Maybe it’s time for counterknowledge to mention the Alan Sokal hoax, just in case some who read this blog are unfamiliar with it.

“PC gibberish”

As I recall, I was gently implying that, without further evidence, it’s rash to make assumptions about who was involved in producing culture in an ancient civilisation.

… Historical and archaeological inquiry is best undertaken with an open mind. Preconceptions and excess cultural baggage may hamper one’s reading of the evidence on the ground.

And, of course, there’s a difference between close-minded people and those who bring experience to bear.

So, in summary, the author’s beliefs are just as speculative as Hancock’s.

“blah blah blah… lively imaginations” – now that’s science in action folks!!!

Isn’t a more likely explanation that the Olmecs had encountered some African people or, possibly, the Olmecs were African?

What’s a “cult archaeologist” anyhow????

Obviously Hatcher isn’t a professional archaeologist but an experienced traveller who has visited loads of sites. But hey, if having your own unorthodox ideas damns you as cultist, then we may as well go back to the dark ages.

Now I geddit – the delicious double meaning in counterknowledge does actually refer to your own mission to stop or “counter” rival forms of information or “knowledge”. Correct me if I;m wrong.

Aprilista,

As I recall, I was gently implying that, without further evidence, it’s rash to make assumptions about who was involved in producing culture in an ancient civilisation.

Well, no, that’s not all you were doing. For one thing, you accused the author of the original post of racism and sexism for referring to the creators of these artefacts as “craftsmen” and not “artists” – and you did so despite the fact that the word “craftsmen” can mean “artisan” or “artist”, and, its suffix notwithstanding, can be gender neutral. In other words, you were detecting these prejudices in “homeopathic concentrations” – i.e. where they don’t exist.

Judean Peoples Front,

So, in summary, the author’s beliefs are just as speculative as Hancock’s.

Well that might indeed be a summary. Quite what on Earth it’s a summary of, however, remains something of a mystery.

Ed. I chided the OP for condescension and rehearsing ahistorical thinking.

It’s important to remember that what you think and what others think may often differ.

It’s important to remember that what you think and what others think may often differ.

Exquisite.

It’s off topic, but I’m wondering how the 9/11 “truthers” are going to deal with this.

A better explanation for some Olmec statues looking Chinese is that Olmecs and other Native Americans were of Asian ancestry. Some Indians look very Chinese. As to the “Negroid” features of the Olmec heads (the football player heads) one explanation is that the rulers were highly inbred and this led to deformities.

Saw the word “negroid,” clicked expecting evidence of dread C’thuhu’s awakening.

Left disappointing, screaming in tongues.

Glad to see that white people still firmly believe in white supremacy. It will inevitably be their downfall. smh

Guys, Seriously, put your cocks away and the rulers down.
It stings when someone one-ups your opinions that you’ve worked so hard to mould but you’re never gonna know that you’re 100% correct in your idea of the truth so keep the floor open for alternative discussion points without the need to re-educate.

Childress puts forward a selection of truths and facts. Some may argue that the order in which he does this is created to bring the audience to a shared conclusion, whether factual or nay, but he asks us “How is this possible?”, rather than stating it to be undeniable. Creating a discussion point and thats what we’re doing is it not?……Or were you in fact roaming around a few millenia ago with the Meso-Americans to be so sure of yourselves.

Plus he has an extremely silly voice for a narrator that keeps me listening.
Sounds like someone from South park.

Two things, there is no evidence that there was any trans-Atlantic voyages 2500 years ago, the time period that the Olmecs live. Then, all the human remains that were associated with the Olmecs and the ones that built the heads, had similar DNA to the people who live there today. Also, they is greater variation between them and people from West Africa than from the people who Populate Eastern Siberia.

You might want to listen to these cult-archaeologists than philanthropist like Graham Hancock. Also, I do find it racist to say that an indiginous culture could not have built monuments when in fact, they could have. That is exactly what Graham Hancock is saying.

Sorry, I meant real Archaeology, not cult-archaeology.

Indians don’t come out of a cookie-cutter. Both heads look like people I know; members of the same tribe. Have any of you been to a reservation?

Why do some of you people hate your African ancestry so much? If you cannot disprove the evidence given, accept it. The hate many of you have for your own ancestry will not change the facts.

It is really pathetic that some people in this world despite access to the information technology thats avalible to them continue to express stupid racist denials about the acomplishments of ancient african peoples and what they created in this world. I just laff at their ongoing willingness to be ignorant. The olmecs were black africans and it’s nothing you or anybody else can do anything about it.

Olmecs were an American Indian people. Afrocentrics are in dire need to make up for their lack of progress and/or ignorance as to who their direct ancestors were. Also missing is a genuine connection with any African peoples.

To Multiplesourses and Ken Williams Sr. There is no evidence of a Tranatlantic crossing between Africa and Central America at any time in history before 1500 AD. There is no evidence of there being Africans in Central American at anytime before 1500 AD. The only evidence that you have that the heads were built by Africans is in the way they look, and that can also be explained without having to use an outside source. “Van Sertima’s (the man who came up with the hypothesis) asserts that they are clearly African in appearance, and indeed they do possess full lips and broad noses. Van Sertima, however, ignores the fact that many of the Olmec heads also have flat faces like American Indians, not prognathic profiles (jutting-out lower faces) like Africans. He also chooses not to see what appear to be epacatnthic folds on the eyelids of the statues-these are typical of Old World Asians and American Indians.” -Ken Feder; Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries.

Lastly, about being racist? Is it not racist to take away the accomplishments of one culture and give it to another? Saying that the Olmecs did not build those heads is like saying the Egyptians did not build the pyramids.

To RolandofGilead and other skeptics on this subject of the Olmecs: First, I completely agree that taking and ignoring the accomplishments of native peoples anywhere in this world is a crime against humanity . The entire western world and 99 percent of it’s academic institutions to this day still maintains a mindset of eurocentric superiority which reinforces it’s belief systems through every media source avaliable and the school institutions on every level. Second, there are and have been scores of historians thoughout generations who support the research on ancient africans crossing the world’s oceans and establishing settlements of different kinds in many lands.Third,
there are hundreds of ancient artifacts that are linked to Africa that have been discoverd in Mexico and are on display in their many museums. Fourth, now if you and others don’t want to do the proper research and read more , that’s your intellectual problem. Fifth, Dr. Ivan Van Sertima and all of his peers on this unique and fascinating subject will all be vindicated.

“First, I completely agree that taking and ignoring the accomplishments of native peoples anywhere in this world is a crime against humanity . The entire western world and 99 percent of it’s academic institutions to this day still maintains a mindset of eurocentric superiority which reinforces it’s belief systems through every media source avaliable and the school institutions on every level.”

Uhm, No. Despite the Eurocentric ideals that I may espouse, (WTF does that even mean???) that still doesn’t change the fact there is no evidence what-so-ever that African’s built the Heads, nor do the heads even look African. You see, there is a thing called fact, which does not care what country I’m from.

“Second, there are and have been scores of historians thoughout generations who support the research on ancient africans crossing the world’s oceans and establishing settlements of different kinds in many lands.”

Like who? Graham Hancock? Van Danikan? Robert Schlock? None of these men are historians or archaeologist. They have constantly ignored all evidence that calls their pet hypothesis into doubt, and continiously push irrelevant points that have been debunked. Not to mention that Graham Hancock believes the world is coming to an end on Dec, 12 2012. They are no different from the 9/11 truthers or creationists.

Also, I would like to add that just because somebody can build a raft and sail it across the Atlantic, does not mean it was being done 3000 years ago. I’ve got news for ya, the confederates during the civil war had the materials and technology to make liquid fueled rockets. However, there is no evidence that they did. That is how we know they didn’t. Where is your evidence of Africans or Asians crossing 3000 years ago?

“Third, there are hundreds of ancient artifacts that are linked to Africa that have been discoverd in Mexico and are on display in their many museums.”

Really? Can I see a link to these artifacts, maybe some context as to where and when these artifacts are found? Yes, it might be interesting to find a Roman coin in Maine, but it doesn’t mean that the Romans were there when the coin was found in the context of an 18th century farmstead. There are plenty of artifacts that come from around the world found in the Americas. The only problem, is that they are found well within the context of the Contact Period. There is a reason that Archaeologists note stratigraphy of a site. That is how they date the site.

“Fourth, now if you and others don’t want to do the proper research and read more , that’s your intellectual problem.”

I don’t have a problem. I listen to people who have meticulously mapped, surveyed, and detailed the site, not someone who looks at a picture and then decides what it looks like.

“Fifth, Dr. Ivan Van Sertima and all of his peers on this unique and fascinating subject will all be vindicated.”

For some reason, I highly doubt that. I quoted an actual archaeologist. What do you have.

Dear Mr. RolandofGilead,

An Ancient African Proverb: Lies can run for years, but the truth can catch them in a day.

Keep living until you find out !!!!!

Dear Ken Williams Sr.

Archaeology deals with facts. If you want truth, I’m sure you can find a philosophy class somewhere.

I’m still waiting for you to produce the evidence for you to actually back up your claim. A quotation about truth is not evidence, and it proves to me that you really don’t know what you are talking about.

There is one cure for the absurd idea that the Olmecs were “Africans”. Just look at some pictures of contemporary Native Indian inhabitants of the region. Guess what. You find many that look like the”Negroid” heads and others that look like the “Mongoloid” and others that look like the “Semitic” heads. As been said before the evidence for such contact is minimal to zero. Further it apears that Olmec civilization emeerged from pre-existing village cultures. Oh and when Van Sertima originally suggested his idea Olmec civilization was thought to emerge c. 800 B.C.E., and the source an Nubian dominated Egypt, the date is now pushing 1500 B.C.E. and earlier which throws a wrench in that idea.

As for keeping you mind open for new ideas. Well if you ignore vast amounts of data the way Childress does your hardly having a open mind. Oh and please explain why anyone should take this idea the slightest bit seriously when the only “evidence” in support of it is sculptures of people who look like natives who live in the region today?

Finally, someone else who thinks to look at the actual people involved. Thank you, Pacal.

Two things, there is no evidence that there was any trans-Atlantic voyages 2500 years ago, the time period that the Olmecs live. Then, all the human remains that were associated with the Olmecs and the ones that built the heads, had similar DNA to the people who live there today. Also, they is greater variation between them and people from West Africa than from the people who Populate Eastern Siberia.
You might want to listen to these cult-archaeologists than philanthropist like Graham Hancock. Also, I do find it racist to say that an indiginous culture could not have built monuments when in fact, they could have. That is exactly what Graham Hancock is saying.

The best explanation for the so-called “negroid” traits in Olmec statue and in some Olmec crania is that there were two waves of humans migrating from Asia. The earliest wave of humans from Asia resembled modern Melaneseans and Africans the latter wave resembled so-called Mongoloids. Both types lived in Meso-America at least until the age of the Spanish conquest.

‘Plenty of other Olmec statues look as if they depict people from other parts of the world because these Native American craftsmen had lively imaginations. It really is as simple as that.’
Then i stopped reading…

Why are these phenomena easier to argue about than actually research? If I were to buy a car; I could stay at home, looking at photos online, reading anecdotes about the car, and so on…
or- I can actually LOOK at the car, drive it, and so on.
The persons involved in it’s design and production are irrelevant.

IMPORTANT: Mr. Damian Thompson has not ‘driven this car’, but has only collated an opinion borne of his research, which he put forward as fact (and with an inherent meanness that is very off-putting, might I add)…if Mr. Thomson has actually visited the Land of the Olmecs, done a visual survey of the current inhabitants of the area, and interiewed the area’s primary archaeological personnel- I formally apologize, and heartily so.
Mr. Hancock has test-driven the car.
He’s been to Cenral America numerous times, seen almost all of the heads and other important artefacts-touched them!- and spoken wth numerous local CREDENTIALed EXPERTS.
It is painfully obvious that Damien hasn’t read the material he condemns.
Mr. Thomson wastes everyone’s time arguing something that can be conclusively proven with a minimum of effort.
Of course, the local artisans had the imagination, talent, and technology to craft these heads.
I personally believe there was an African influence on the locals, but that this influence was via ET intervention. THIS IS MY OPINION, as I have yet to ‘drive’ that car. (and probably never will)
Damien-intelligent folks (such as yourself…i AM a fan!) should never state their opinion (or even other people’s opinions) as fact. To do so is immature, irresposible, and damaging to the collective forward momentum of the human race.
PS-Aprilista, my opinion is that you have such a sexy brain!
peace to all-
RA Boesenberg

Graham Hancock is great, I really like him. He is not some lunatic with weird ideas based on nothing. I dont like the comparison with Danniken, who has ideas based on nearly nothing, or Zitchin, but not hancock. And his ideas and theories should be looked into because they have solid bones to it, they could also help us to understand certain aspect of the amazing mysteries of Human Civilisation. And a lot of academics are starting to realize that now. And millions of people around the world too.
This is how our understandings evolved, we always reviewed our own ideas in the past, even if it is painfull, to find new truth and make new discoveries. Humans make mistake, and the fact that we might have misunderstood and misinterpreted some of the legacy of the Ancient World is not something that should be ruled out, but considered. Too much evidences to be ignored. Look back in History and it really wouldn’t be the first time that we got it wrong, really wrong, until someone said “hang on a minute, what about……” Examples are way too many to be worth named here. Come on, we were convinced that the planet was flat! It would be arrogant to think that we haven’t made such mistake again, or that we won’t.
I think archeologists and egyptologists don’t like that fact that non-professionals could have seen something they missed for years, and there is a pride issue here. If they all worked together we would make huge progress in these fields.
Hancock might be wrong, and he doesn’t claim to provide the absolute thruth, but instead he suggests a new approach, a different point of view. Instead of stupid attacks and pitiful attempts to ridicule him, there should be a real debate.
And seriously, if you have a minimum of common sense, an open mind and a certain obvious logic, you will see that he has a point. A Big one, too big to be dismissed as fantasy.
Anyway, blind people can stay blind, they dont read and then they talk……silly. Sad.
Hancock is onto something, and wether you like it or not, that something is out there.
Among many things, I really wonder about that Yonagumi structure, what about that? Fantasy? LOL

RA Boesenberg and Sanji’s posts are hilarious. Such cultivated and worked up ignorance. Yes Hancock talked to the experts and proceeded to ignore practically all that they said to him. His books are filled with fantasy and deep ignorance. The section on Tiwanku is esspecially funny.

Hancock goes on for pages about Tiwanku being over 10 thousand years old while taking barely any notice of th fact that practically everyone who as worked on the site dates it to c. 300-1000 C.E. (A.D.).

Olmec sites have benn excavated and NO remains indicating an African presence ot ET have been found. There are of course plenty of remains of pre Olmec village cultures indicating and showing the development of Olmec civilization with no indication of Old World influence.

Critical literature on Hancock is abundant and indicates that he is a distorter and fantastist.

Hancock as simply driven his car over a cliff, probably because he as self-blinded himself. He as also openly admited that he is a one sided researcher out to defend his “client”.

Well i have talked to Mesoamerican Archaeologists and specialists and with no exceptions they regard Hancock as a crank.

So Boesenberg you think the Olmec were influenced by ET? That of course only shows me that you are deeply ignorant about Olmec archaeology.

As for Sanji, well what you said about Yonagumi is amusing. Haen’t done much research on it, it seems. Except of course possibly true believer material.

Thanks for the laughs guys.

Oh and please explain to me why the statues look like modern Indians who live in the area if they are suppossed to be of Africans?

Well reading my comment again, I do sound a bit like a simple – minded hippy. Right, let me precise a few things, I am not a full-on Hancock fan. I do not know a huge amount about him, but I saw “Quest for the Lost Civilisation”, and I read “Supernatural”, an absolutely amazing book, unrelated to his usual topics it seems. I really didn’t see what in there makes him a worthless ignorant. History, as we know it, is probably quite distorted and incomplete already.
After this I decided to look further into his work and theories. I have been a bit surprised by the range of his ideas and even found that sometimes he goes quite far actually. He made me think about a trigger-happy cowboy shooting in all directions in the hope of hiting a target.

Also, the next thing I did, immediately, was to researched his critics. This is how I came on this page.
Quite frankly, from what I ve read so far, most critics do indeed show flaws in his ideas, and he is probably wrong on some of them, no doubt about that. But what I also see is people picking on details – but flaws -, in a speech fuelled with bad faith, arrogance and bitterness. Then they dismiss the entire caracter, the theory talked about, as well as his other ideas and then brand him an amateur, lunatic, pseudo archeologosist and so on. And this is where I think it’s wrong, even with flaws, his ideas are still quite interesting, still valid enough to be worth further serious studies, and especially the general frame of mind behind it, something that his opponents and established theories do not take in count, at all. His ideas about Egypt and the Orion Correlation Theory is so obvious that I don’t understand why they are not taken in count by people that still haven’t manage to solve the mystery themselve.
He is obviously very clever and down to earth, his appraoch and the way he thinks is what I like; It deserves attention and debate.

And usually, lets face it, the established ideas he is fightning against most definitely leave room for plenty of inconsistencies, mysteries and MANY legitimate questions to be raised, don’t you think?
Even if he might be wrong, he has a certain angle on these subjects that science ignores, and his view would certainly help. I think we need people like him to shake things up a bit, and progress. Because this is how we alwasy did.

Regarding that Yonagumi structure, I don’t know what you mean by “True believer material”. What I believe is that we have here an underwater structure that has the same base lenght of the Great Pyramid (not completely sure about that), that is aligned North / South, and seems man-made. And last time it was above water was 8 to 12000 years ago, a time where no one on earth could have had the technology or knowledge to do it. I find this fact, on its own, taken apart from any context or theory, is quite amazing, isn’t it?. It is not garanteed that it is man made, but in my opinion this is just a matter of time. Japan’s top marine geologist and many other seems to think that this possibilty is high enough to bet their own career on it. I have seen many pics of it, do you really think that nature did that?? Not impossible, but mathematically, scientifically and logicaly, it seems quite unlikely. The odds speak volume.

Anyway, about this page’s subject, I had no specific opinion about it so far, apart that this is just another weird subject to study. So Hancock promotes garbage about it? Ah cool, why then? Your answer is “because these Native American craftsmen had lively imaginations. It really is as simple as that”.

Heh??? Jesus, what if they didn’t have “a lively imagination”?? It is possible but that is not a study, this is just an assumption. Great work, thanks Einstein.
I had a look on this site, and I found a whole topic about 9/11, and how people that think that US government might have been involved are idiots.
If this is an American website, man THAT is hilarious.

@RA Boesenberg

Have you read “Fingerprints of the Gods?” I have. Not once did Hancock consult any archaeologist, DNA specialist, or historian who would know anything on the matter. Sorry, Hancock did not test drive car either.

Sanji you say:

His ideas about Egypt and the Orion Correlation Theory is so obvious that I don’t understand why they are not taken in count by people that still haven’t manage to solve the mystery themselve.

I smile a big smile and laugh out loud. Just the barest amount of research will indicate that the orion correlation like the 10500 BCE correlation is dubious. (It is from Edgar Cayce for example) Of course the pyramids around Giza do NOT form the constellation orion unless you do a major distortion. Further there were two pharoahs who lived between the builders of the three great pyramids who did NOT build at Giza. Of course did not not remember that Hancock propsed that the pyramids were built to commemorate a date c. 10500 B.C.E. A completly absurd idea. THe number of Egyptologists who give any credence to this idea can be numbered at close to 0. Oh and as for the three pyramids of Giza looking like Oions belt. Well only if Orion’s belt was backwards.

As for

Regarding that Yonagumi structure, I don’t know what you mean by “True believer material”. What I believe is that we have here an underwater structure that has the same base lenght of the Great Pyramid (not completely sure about that), that is aligned North / South, and seems man-made. And last time it was above water was 8 to 12000 years ago, a time where no one on earth could have had the technology or knowledge to do it. I find this fact, on its own, taken apart from any context or theory, is quite amazing, isn’t it?. It is not garanteed that it is man made, but in my opinion this is just a matter of time. Japan’s top marine geologist and many other seems to think that this possibilty is high enough to bet their own career on it. I have seen many pics of it, do you really think that nature did that?? Not impossible, but mathematically, scientifically and logicaly, it seems quite unlikely. The odds speak volume.

Yep you have swallowed truebeliever material by the cartload. I felt like rolling around the floor laughing when I read the above. The overwhelming majority of Geologists who have examined Yonagumi rate it as natural. The fact that you haven’t come across this only indicates your lack of research. So sorry the “site” is natural geology. Yep I’ve seen the pics and it looks natural to me. The fact that you have said the above only tells me you have done research in true believer places.

As for this comment

But what I also see is people picking on details – but flaws -, in a speech fuelled with bad faith, arrogance and bitterness. Then they dismiss the entire caracter, the theory talked about, as well as his other ideas and then brand him an amateur, lunatic, pseudo archeologosist and so on. And this is where I think it’s wrong, even with flaws, his ideas are still quite interesting, still valid enough to be worth further serious studies, and especially the general frame of mind behind it, something that his opponents and established theories do not take in count, at all.

Aww we call a crank a crank and a distorter a distorter. We’re so bad. Sorry but Hancock is a distorter his treatment of both the Maya and Tiwanaku are replente with examples of incredible distortion. His discusion of the Mayan calander is a monument to bad scholarship. The rest of his works are incredible examples of fraud and fakery. The theory is nonsense that does not in the least deserve to be taken seriously. Hancock”s “evidence” non existant. We are talking about a man who took the face on Mars seriously here. Of course no account as per usual is taken of Hancocks view of professional archaeologists as conspirators covering up the truth or his calculated contempt for them.

Thank you again for giving an excellent example of how a true believer forms and of course showing once again deep ignorance.

Look man, I didn’t post here to start a debate about every aspects of Hancock’s work and theory, like I can see everywhere else, or to be branded an ignorant by a smug head who dont know anything about me, what I know or what I do for a living. I came here to see critics about him and once again these critics are rubbish or not enough to make me think hancock is worthless. You can find answers about what you just said on the Giza pyramids OCT and Yonagumi yourself so I wont bother trying to defend these point cos others are doing that already.
“These poeple had a lively imagination, it really is as simple as that”
Bless you.
You people play your role perfectly. Pigeons don’t even know they are pigeons, so I will just let you keep enjoying the smell of your own farts on this little online circus, and keep walking pass the blind and fools.

Sanji, you said:

Look man, I didn’t post here to start a debate about every aspects of Hancock’s work and theory, like I can see everywhere else, or to be branded an ignorant by a smug head who dont know anything about me, what I know or what I do for a living. I came here to see critics about him and once again these critics are rubbish or not enough to make me think hancock is worthless. You can find answers about what you just said on the Giza pyramids OCT and Yonagumi yourself so I wont bother trying to defend these point cos others are doing that already.
“These poeple had a lively imagination, it really is as simple as that”
Bless you.
You people play your role perfectly. Pigeons don’t even know they are pigeons, so I will just let you keep enjoying the smell of your own farts on this little online circus, and keep walking pass the blind and fools.

Oh well You should really not say anything as once again you reveal your deep ignorance and utter unwillingless to learn. Read some basic texts on Egyptology and Archaeology first, which you have so plainly failed to do.

As for being a smug head thats a little rich coming from someone who says:

You people play your role perfectly. Pigeons don’t even know they are pigeons, so I will just let you keep enjoying the smell of your own farts on this little online circus, and keep walking pass the blind and fools.

I’m not going to take seriously being called a pigeon, which
is your way of saying I’ve been sucked into believing stuff that is not true, from someone who quite clearly does not have much knowledge of Archaeology. I suggest that if anyone is the pigeon it is you who has been sucked into swallowing Hancock’s and others dubious crap. If you want to swallow the lies and distortions of people like Hancock please do so. please continue to ignore the vast mountain of evidence that refutes their fantasies.

As for this comment:

You can find answers about what you just said on the Giza pyramids OCT and Yonagumi yourself so I wont bother trying to defend these point cos others are doing that already.

Yep true believers and other fatasists are continuing to distort and lie about those things. THe fact is that the overwhelming majority of geologists reject the idea that Yonagumi is artificial. The vast majority of Egyptologists reject the OCT and the Great Pyramids. The speculations, fantasies and hand waving of the true believers are of little interest to the real experts. I can only suggest that you look at this extensive and massive literature demolishing this crap.

P{lease continue to fantasize yourself has possessed by true knowledge that us, poor deluded “pigeons” who rely on real evidence are excluded from. The evidence is quite overwhelming that Hancock deliberately distorts and is a shoddy scholar. As mentioned before his stuff about the dates of Tiwanaku and the Mayan Calander are quite enough to consign him to the garbage heap.

Of course the critics of Hancock are “rubbish” even though they have found error after error, nonsense after nonsense in Hancock all of which is easily found on the web. AS for being labeled as ignorant by a smug head? Well there is no reason for anyone to label you as ignorant your own comments do that quite well enough. As for not knowing you. Well based on your comments you are indeed phenomenally ignorant of archeaology and much else.

THank you for once again indicating that so many people attracted to alternative nonsense feel that they have special knowledge that the rest of us “pigeons” don’t have. As for farts please continue to enjoy Hancock’s abundant number 2s.

Hey, Sanji, here are two authors to start with if you want to know about real archaeology: Brian Fagan and Ken Feder.

I think the only garbage we can talk about is this stupid article. Whoever wrote it, he only makes statements and talks shit about Graham Hancock because he does not agree with him. He should realise Mr Hancock theories are being serioulsy taken into account by those who dare see things, not in the way we are said at universities by the statuos quo, but what the evidence itsel suggests. He says the olmecs were “imaginative”.
That ’s pathetic. I invite you to debate with ideas and not speak stupidities just because you are envious of Mr. Hancock contributions to unveil the humankind’s past.

Pacal and Sanji are nothing else but stupid apprentices who spit on Hancock’s work just because they are said to do so. A couple of arrogant misers whose only purpose is to convince people that the orthodox ancient history is the owner of complete trutth. How much are you paid? Perhaps you both defend is a crappy job at a faculty full of old biased arecheologists, so bitter that they can not accept the inconsistencies of their “discipline” (I do not call it science, since arqueology is not a science, physics is science, not this shit, chiefly when you see they are afraid of a multidisciplinaty aproach when studying the misteries of the past). You both guys, should be aware that we do not need your fucking point of view to get to grips with questions and conclusions about the ancient past of mankind. Why do not you come back to the shithole you came from?

Think about this, Hancock is more famous tham you could ever dream, because he dared say what you ingnore. History will say who was right, either hancock or a couple of anonym archeology aficionados of this shitty website.

Incognitus if you have any ability to read you should realize that Sanji thinks Hancock is great. I suppose you mean Roland of Gilead. Like Sanji though you display deep transcedent ignorance. Let us look at your bowel movements.

He should realise Mr Hancock theories are being serioulsy taken into account by those who dare see things, not in the way we are said at universities by the statuos quo, but what the evidence itsel suggests.

The fact that Hancock as a few deluded followers who know next to nothing about Archaeology impresses me not at all. As for what the evidence suggests. Mr. Hancock of course as is typical for him ignores the evidence and what it says. The evidence overwhelmingly says that Twanaku is less than 2000 years old, but Hancock ignores it. The evidence does not support Hancock’s prehistoric supercivilization, but in fact refrutes and of course he ignores it.

Pacal and Sanji are nothing else but stupid apprentices who spit on Hancock’s work just because they are said to do so. A couple of arrogant misers whose only purpose is to convince people that the orthodox ancient history is the owner of complete trutth. How much are you paid? Perhaps you both defend is a crappy job at a faculty full of old biased arecheologists, so bitter that they can not accept the inconsistencies of their “discipline” (I do not call it science, since arqueology is not a science, physics is science, not this shit, chiefly when you see they are afraid of a multidisciplinaty aproach when studying the misteries of the past). You both guys, should be aware that we do not need your fucking point of view to get to grips with questions and conclusions about the ancient past of mankind. Why do not you come back to the shithole you came from?

Lets see a complete novice like Hancock, with little real knowledge tries to overthrow the work of thousands of scholars with nothing more than a fantasy of wish fulfillmen t and the defenders of so-called Orthodoxy are arrogant!? Irony of ironies.

Like all good true believers you fantasize that any opponents of your revealed truth are motivated by bias and of course are paid. Well I’m not being paid at all for this, sadly! Also the usual conspiracy psychosis / delusion.

So Archaeology is not a science. Thank you for showing a most deep ignorance. Please read an introductory text to Archaeology. Of course you then label it “shit”. Please explain to me in detail how to do do a dig in the desert versus underwater. How to perform a carbon 14 test. Please explain Paleoethnobiology. How to do a shell midden Analysis? All of which are involved modern Archaeology.

As for being afraid of a multidisplinary approach. Well that is exactly what modern Archaeology involves routinely. Your statement about fear only provides abundant evidence that you are indeed phenomnally ignorant of Archaeology.

Like all true believers when your cherished delusions are attacked you react by screams of hysteria. Sorry but I didn’t come out of a shithole and so won’t ever be going there.

As for thinking about Hancock’s fame. Why should I? I’m glad he as made himself rich off the deludded and guilible, because that is the only way the guilible and credulous will learn. As for daring to say what I ignore. Hancock is merely saying pseudoscientific crap that others have said before, it is nothing new but the same old snake oil. The verdict is already in and was in long before Hancock and it says he is full of it.

OK; Pacal, you want to play hard? Lest do it.
You, Mr. Almighty encarnation of archeology, explain to me a few things and make me wise:

1) Baalbek in Lebanon: How did the ancients cut and moved blocks of 1500 tones? What is the technical method to to this? Why are our modern cranes not able to move them and the ancientswere?

2) How do you date stone using C14?

3) Why the similarities between cultures like the mayans and egiptians, why did both cultures were avid stargazers and built pyramids? Are all of these similarities “just coincidence”?

4) Why does the sphinx have evidence of erosion caused by massive water flow on it? When does the climate record say Egipt had a rainy weather? Robert Schoch put his reputation at stake saying this is the case with the sphinx…was he wrong?

4) Finally, how are we suppose to trust a horde of biased individuals when they can not even offer an open explanation to these dilemas?

5) Give the link to the archeological papers that show your points. If not, I will suposse you are a windbag and nothing more!!!!

Finally, Richard Feymann was very critic of scientific methods in social sciences (which includes archeology, as far as I understand), see and grow intellectually:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaO69CF5mbY

From the point of view of a phycisist, archeology is just a bunch of innacurate methods whose uncertainty grows the more we go back in time. It is not a natural science. When we are talking about pre-history events, I think archeology is more flawed than ever.

SAnji, sorry for what I said about you, I think I put you side by side with that discusting Pacal, which is already a painful mistake!!!
Really sorry!!!

Incognitus you can read my reply to your nonsense at.
http://makinapacalatxilbalba.blogspot.com/2010/07/hancock-woo-graham-hancock-following-is.html

Hey Pacal,:I have read all your astonishing compilation of books and ad-hominems. It is funny to believe you are very wise because you have wasted your life loving books instead of women, but that is your problem, not mine. You should not reveal your secrets in your website. However, in my view you are a biased ignorant.

1) You supported my point that C!4 method can not date stone. From that point of view, it means dating of organic material is highly dependent on the interpretation of the archeologist.

You quoted:
“The stones were transported over a path only 600 meters length and about 15 meters *downhill*. The quarry is 1160 meters high, and the temple 145 meters. So it was easy to keep the stones on an even level to their final resting place and it was unnecessary to lift them about 7 meters as some authors claim. As you might know, Rome is the city with the most obelisks outside of Egypt. They stole the things by the dozen and took them home. The heaviest known obelisk weighs 510 tons, and it was transported some 1000’s of *kilometers*. This transport was documented by the roman author Marcellinus Comes. The Romans even left detailed paintings and reliefs about the ways to move such things : as on the bottom of the Theodosius-obelisk in Istanbul. They used “Roman-patented” winches, in German called “Göpelwinden” which work with long lever ways. To move a 900 ton stone, they needed only 700 men. The transport was slow, about 30 meters a day, because they had to dismantle and rebuild the winches every few meters, to pull the obelisk with maximum torque. But in Baalbek, where they moved several blocks, maybe they built an alley of winches, where they passed the block from winch to winch.”

My answer to that is SHOW IT. Has this experiment been done with such weights there? Of course not. I see many 2000 tones blocks moved and that fit perfectly in a complex distribution. I know for sure the most powerful cranes can not lift weight heavier than 300 tones. If you were an Engineer, you would understand it is just not a matter of leting them go down the hill, as your very purposely selected quotation says. I will not believe your quotation because it contradicts common sense, my common sense tells me it is not possible to move such kind of blocks

2) You have answered as expected. C14 can not date stones. Why do archeologists dare say with complete certainty the date in wich any monument was built? It is left to the analist criterium, and that is not valid in such matters. There is a degree of uncertainty that is ihnerent to this method and that can not be helped, as simple as that. In the most ancient monuments, the interpretation deduced by archeologists may be flawed or biased to let the evidence fit in the stream of knowledge they accept. What guarantees that the monument and the age of the carbon dated sample are the same? As far as I see it, a monument could be far older than the carbon dated samples and this fact may not be detected by the archeological survey. I find a problem with this, sorry.

You seem to assume you should trust the archeologists and that we should believe they are never biased or whatsoever. If you were a natural scientist you would understand that is not the case. Doesn’t matter. The IPCC is a clear example of how preconceptions can even make you doubt about a “serious research”. If climate scientists are prone to this thing, I believe archeologists as well. So your claim of complete trust to the methods of these people doesn’t work for me.

3) You seem completely unaware of the many similarities between these ancient cultures. Tell me something…have you read Hancock’s work? I bet you have not. He points out the parallels among these cultures with good clarity. He may not be right in everything he claims, but the evidence of something wrong with the accepted archeology explanation is vast, in my view we have a case here. In Physics, if you have an anomaly in a theory that does not fit it makes your theory crumble. Why is not this the case in archeology? You say they are “scientists”.
You tell me “that human civilizations have similarities because they are human civilizations”, a poor explanation for someone who boast his intelligence for reading dusty second-hand books in a library. If you were archeologist unless… what it shows is that you are not aware of such similarities, therefore you should undertake your own investigation in the matter.

4) Do you contradict Robert Schoch? His evidence comes from geology, a natural science, certainly more robust and accurate that this “science” called archeology. So I have to believe you instead of DR. Schoch, which is a leading scholar in his field? You must be kidding!!! Of course his arguments are disputed by ignorants in geological aspects, which find it easy to give support to their preconceived ideas on the Sphinx.

5) I am not paying you, that is true. I would pay quality job, not your second-hand research. If you say you are right, you have to show it. If you do not want to be asked, you do not get into this forum.
I will not recommend you so many books, as I would not like to end up like you. Please take a look a the archeological inconsistencies that DR. Cremo points out in the following book:
http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Archeology-Hidden-History-Human/dp/0892132949

He has a PhD and he does not find what I have told you coming from “an ignorant”. I do not care what you may think, what you think is your problem. But you should be aware that people have the right to question even the academia when searching for answers. People like you can only see and believe what they have been said by a system who wants you to believe what is useful to them. You should make an effort for not sticking your head in the sand and try to open your mind at these inconsistencies, and start to question. But it may be late for you, as far as I see.

You are right, I may not take time to read your books. I live in paradise, not in that shitty land called Canada, full of snow and with freezing temperatures most of the year. Specimens like you are rare here, since we are not obliged to spend our lifes secluded at home or in libraries for not having something interesting to do.

Pakal, I would like to make public how you try to misinform us. You quote about the Theodosius Obelisk, which weighs 400 tones.
See the following link:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brswanson/2809124885/

THis obeliks was cut into three or two pieces to make possible its transportation. It was originaly 30m tall when in Egipt, but for some technical problem it is now 19m tall. Very interesting. You dare put this obeliks of 400 tones which had to be cut to be moved as comparable to the baalbek blocks. Do you really think people are stupid?

This is another example of people whose knowledge is based how spending their lives reading academic books (real aficionados) but not based on commoon sense.

Sorry, the more you read your arguments, the more I am convinced you do not know what you are talking about.

Icognitus Just as I expected a flood of ad-hominoms that are meaningless and even more powerful indications that you are a true believer and deeply ignorant. Thank you for your concern about my personal life and why are you dragging that in all?

Regarding Carbon 14 dating. Not the slightest bit interested in learning how it works it seems. Again the question of does carbon 14 date rocks is a red herring and is meaningless. No one expects it to date rocks at all. Then again if it did the dates would be in millions of years n’est pas?

But then your further comments indicate that you have absolutely no willingness to find out how carbon 14 is done. As for errors of course they happen and that is why Carbon 14 has all sorts of protocals etc., to minimizes errors. Of course error happen but why should that be a surprise which is why more than one date should be done.

As for your “common sense” regarding Baalbek. If the Romans could move 3 blocks weighing over 100 tons each from Egypt to Constaninople (Istambul) than they could move 1000 tons 1000 yards or less. I note you don’t deal with the evidence found in digs at Baalbek that date the monument to Roman times. As for a crane well I would think we could move a thousand ton block if we wanted to do so. And in fact concrete oil drilling platforms weighing more are moved all the time. As for the crane. So what. The Romans and Egyptians had ropes, pulleys and enourmous work forces. Oh and by the way ancient methods of moving rocks are tested all the time and they work. The only difference between moving a big block and a small block is the labour, time involved the techniques were the same. “Common sense” dictates that this methods were the same only larger. Oh and if Archimedes could design a gaget to lift a ship out of the water the Romans could devise a technique to move 1000 tons 100 yards or less. If the Romans could build 100 miles of Road and 100 miles of aquduct, both more difficult than Baalbek, than they could build Baalbek. Oh and please show that the Romans could not have moved a thousand ton block less than 1000 yards.

As for similarities you just don’t get it. Similarities don’t prove contact they just are similarities. For smoeone who is convinced that Archaeology isn’t like Physics, you seem to want it to be so.

Do you honestly feel that the fact we are human would not lead to cultural similarities without contact? Also you forget the similarities are in many cases vague. After all Mayan and Egyptian pyramids are not very similar. Oh and did you know that pyramids in Peru pre-date Egyptian? The fact is their as been virtually no evidence of old world artifacts in pre-columbian america. Which would be the case if there was contact. Oh and i’ve read Hancock’s Fingerprints of the Gods and several others.

As for Robert Schoch. Obviously you haven’t read or read very badly the stuff I linked too. Do you forget that Geologists have disputed him. Well if it upsets your preconcieved views continue to ignore that fact.

You complain about my second hand research. Well it is obvious you have done no research yourself and thank you for indicating that you have little to no willingness to do reseach yourself.

As for Cremo. Read his book. It was a incredibly funny read. The guy is guilible. Yep he has a Phd and is a creationist and a Vedic scholar. He is another true believer like Hancock. Who now goes around saying the world may end in 2012.

It is you who has stuck his head in the sand and thank you for telling me that you probably won’t read the books I suggested. I guess you don’t want your “truth” questioned. As for thinking people are stupid, well you don’t think the Romans could move those blocks etc. I don’t think your stupid, but you are as this posting shows deeply ignorant and utterly unwilling to remedy that.

As for the personal comments and the insulting reference to my country all it proves is that you are acting 5 years old.

“Plenty of other Olmec statues look as if they depict people from other parts of the world because these Native American craftsmen had lively imaginations. It really is as simple as that.”
LooooooooooL
Man I haven’t laughed so much this week. Thank you, your arrogant ignorance has just made my day.
Keep writing.

I told myself I wouldn’t bother looking again at this crappy page where two individuals think they know about things just because they ve read books that everyone agreed to keep as non questionable truths and facts. Well I just had a look to see how things are going on this lost web page.
Sorry guys, Hancock and others outsmarted you, “experts” and everyone else, it is really as simple as that. They made fools of everyone else. Though they just observed things with a open mind free from academic protocols and took notes.
Experts are so old, bitter and up they re own arse that they will never reconsider or debate. Well its always been like this anyway. Nothing new really. Rinse. Repeat. Here you go, you just got 2000 years of History.
You people play the role of the bunch of cultivated guys who just will never get it. And its fine, this your role, this is what you are. You will always sit on it, blinded and fooled by your own knowledge, and the arrogance that comes out of it.
Yonagumi….off course most experts all agree to say it s natural. They all know (and this applies to other disciplines and about other subjects) what’s gonna happen to their career if they dont jump on the train. I m not interested in experts who think its natural..well exceptionnally impressive and rare to be more accurate. I m interested in experts who think it s man made. And so should you.
And this applies to Giza, south american sites and more.
Anyway, this situation where everyone tries to convince others that they are in the wrong is pointless.
Someone is right, and someone is wrong. And whether you like it or not, I think hancock is the closest to being right, that’s it. End of the story.
Dunno if you guys will watch it, I hope you will, but I found this quite interesting, two lectures from Hancock and Bauval

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDDlHSjkz0g
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA9JysD5ASk&feature=channel

The second one from Bauval is particulary interesting. If you do watch it, please let me know what you think. It is not too long and I would like to know what you both think of it. Yes they are a few little inconsistencies in what they say, even me noticed it, but it is still awesome. Though I expect you to say something about it being hilarious and showing deep ignorance and bla bla.

If you have something you would like to show me that supports your ideas, I will definitely watch it, so please dont hesitate to share.
Easy boyzz, speak soon.

Hey, Incognitus…

To answer your first question, I make $11.95 an hour working forty hours a week at Smithfield Luter pulling hogs. I wonder where my check from these so called cabal of archaeologist is at. I’m also 28, which I did not think made me old.

Now, here comes the beatdown. Hancock, (I have read Fingerprints of the Gods and actually am ashamed of the fact that I believed it at one point) provides no evidence that those heads are african in origin except that they look african. Well shiver me timbers, they must have been football players too because they’re wearing football helmets. Not really, but just to point out how stupid it is to make an assumption based on looks. This is what Hancock does, and he is wrong.

Your next question about some stones in Lebennon, the space shuttle weighs 2010 tons. Yet, somehow NASA has the ability to not only move this thing over to a launch pad over a mile from its dock, but also put it in orbit. And here’s the kicker, they do it without a crane. Hmmm, but your common sense would tell me this it not possible. You want to know how the stones were moved, probably by using cutting tools (these people had bronze and iron), and they probably moved them by putting them on wooden rollers. It’s that simple. …Or do you think they used some alien technology but did not leave any behind. Pacal answered this question for you, my suggestion is to stop insulting him.

Now on to C14 Radiometric Carbon Dating. Yes, C14 cannot date rock, but that is a strawman anyway. Archaeologist do not date rock and they do not use C14 all that much because they have to establish provenience. Dating the rock that a building is made out of only dates the rock and when it was created, it does not tell when the rock was first cut out of the ground and used as building material. The actual date of the rock is useless information to an archaeologist.

Also, there are ways to date rock, here are a few:
Uranium-Lead Dating
Uranium-Thorium Dating
Rubidium-Strontium Dating
[/pedantic]

Now, for the Maya/Egyptian connection. There was none. The pyramids in Egypt are true pyramids were as the pyramids in Mexico are not true pyramids. They are modified mounds with temples on top to symbolized a temple on a hill or horizon. The writing, artwork, and technology of the Mayans are very different from the Egyptians. Not to mention the time frame does not match up either. The Egyptian Kingdom went from Approx. 3500 BC to 750 BC when they became part of some other empire in history. The Maya City States went from 200BC to 1200 AD. There is a 550 year difference between the two. The only real similarity is the stargazing, but every human culture in history did that. It’s easy to find out things about the heavens when you don’t have TVs, Radios, and Videogames.

As for the Sphinx, Pacal answered this question perfectly. I will like to add that limestone and sandstone both are brittle rock. You can break it off in you hands and rub it into powder. It is very grainy and is easily broken. This has been demonstrated by archaeologists in both the Southwest and Egypt. I’ve actually held sandstone and I know from personal experiance how brittle it is. Brittle rock weathers easily.

BTW, Robert Shloch also said the movie Zeitgeist was acurate and true when it is neither. He has no credibility as a scientist as far as I’m concerned.

Now, I’m not going to do your research for you. You are making the claims, you back them up. Everything I have posted can be backed up just by looking on Wikipedia and Pacal has list of sources as well. I have neither the time nor the patiance and if you want me to prove you wrong, I’m not going to do it. You can look at the facts for what they are. If you don’t want to accept them for what they are, that’s your problem, not mine. Just be prepared when you wind up on the wrong side of history.

Hey Sanji. I do not care what you believe, and I am not here to convince you about Hancock? work. In fact, he may have made mistakes as well, as much as the archeologists are spreading lies about human’s past. It is up to do your own research. What I said Pakal is MY opinion, this is a debate forum, so read, say your opinion and support your arguments, that is all you have to do, no sensible person would claim complete credibility, as long as this person is humble enough to accept his own ignorance (except Pakal of course). I do not care whether you belive it or not, so do not worry and be happy!!!! I also believe all the crap you have just written.

I am beginning to suspect Rolando Gilead and Pakal are the same guy. In any case, Rolando, keep your bloody research for yourself, I am capable enough of doing mine. I have presented my arguments. Look at what you said:

“Your next question about some stones in Lebennon, the space shuttle weighs 2010 tons. Yet, somehow NASA has the ability to not only move this thing over to a launch pad over a mile from its dock, but also put it in orbit. And here’s the kicker, they do it without a crane. Hmmm, but your common sense would tell me this it not possible. You want to know how the stones were moved, probably by using cutting tools (these people had bronze and iron), and they probably moved them by putting them on wooden rollers. It’s that simple. …Or do you think they used some alien technology but did not leave any behind. Pacal answered this question for you, my suggestion is to stop insulting him.”

You are quite a real fool if you think this argument explains the Baalbek anomaly. Are you suggesting the ancients count on similar technology to lift those masive blocks? If that is the case, you are giving the kiss of death to your own argument.

If this is not what you meant, then you are giving the ancients credit for leifting a weight that can only be lifted by the modern NASA spaceship infrastructure, which undermines your arguments against the fact that the ancients used a diffierent technology. I challenge you to describe here how you move a 2000 tone block using ropes and timber logs, how you achive the uncanny precision in order to make these blocks fit perfectly.
I would like to read the nonsese you will come up with.

With your argument, you are just saying that such blocks can only be lifting with modern technology, so thans for supporting what I said.

Reality is so simple, but so difficult to understand for some people, that they tend to give poorly supported explanations for things that are completely obvious if you apply common sense.

Sanji, sorry mate, I have misinterpreted your words again, sorry for my rude tone. I amply agree with you.

I am beginning to suspect Rolando Gilead and Pakal are the same guy. In any case, Rolando, keep your bloody research for yourself, I am capable enough of doing mine. I have presented my arguments. Look at what you said:

Wow, you have no reading comprehension skills. You can’t even get my nick right. BTW, when are you going to complain about my argument, why don’t you provide some evidence to back up yours. Pakal provided sourced material, so why don’t you stop insulting our intellegence here.

You are quite a real fool if you think this argument explains the Baalbek anomaly. Are you suggesting the ancients count on similar technology to lift those masive blocks? If that is the case, you are giving the kiss of death to your own argument.

It’s time for you to either put up of shut up. If the ancients could not have built these megaliths using their own technology, then what technology did they use? If they didn’t build them, then who did? Aliens? Atlanteans? Some white Anglo-Saxon God?

The concept of lifting heavy objects is something so simple, that a child could understand it. If you truly knew what the hell you are talking about, you would understand that the concepts of pulleys and levers are farely simple concepts to understand and they would have been availible to the ancients. When you add enough elbow grease, you can move anything. Also, there is carpentry and masonry techniques that were developed then that are still in use today, because they are so simple and they work. You have provided absolutely no evidence to counter this except that no modern crane can lift those heavy blocks, which does not impress me any. Hell, my example of not having to have a crane to lift heavy objects went right over your head. So, that proves to me you don’t know what you are talking about.

Sorry, Incognitus, you fail.

As an actual Archaeologist i can atest to many an artifact being swept under the carpet by the academic establishment when it deos not fit the reigning paradigm. Examples abound. You do not need to be credentialed to have a fully rounded perspective on any subject, just an interest and an ability to think critically. The willingness to blindly accept information from so-called experts displayed on this forum is a measure of the sucess of the indoctrination system that is erroneously tremed education

ooops, mispelling ot termed in last sentence. before all you pedants jump down my throat.

So, Ragnarok, how may tertiary flakes did you see swept under the cover?

Hi guys, I m still waiting to see what you think of the two links I posted above, both leading to a conference that Hancock and Beauval had a while back. The subjects of them isn’t really about the Olmec mystery, though it is mentionned too.
I ask this because this page isn’t about the olmec. This page is about Hancock being a worthless ignorant who’s name should disappear in History before his evil lies and distortions get more attention, or a smart guy who had the balls to bring something new on the table, when the greatest minds of History have failed to explain an abondant amount of mysteries and inconsistencies about our past, our history and legacy. If you cant even agree about these amazing abnormalities and the questions they implicates then there s no point talking at all.

So here you go, I m not a full on fan of hancock, I m ready to think he is wrong and a liar ect ect if anyone can show it without acting like a little arrogant child not ready yet to reconsider the validity of his knowledge without leaving his pride aside.
And as far as I know, there s no reason to assume that the olmecs depicted accurately people from across the sea “just because they had a lively imagination”. Really? The lack of real foundations based on research and reason behing such statement is baffling, so you better show off some thinking and study of your subject if you attack a person like hancock, boy. I ve been looking out for critcics about him for a while now and this is as far as it gets; low level statements from frustrated little kids full of themselves.
So, please watch those videos if you wanna talk, and go over every point which you think is absurdity. Then show me something solid that proves it. Simple. Oh and please, avoid stuff like “The OCT theory cannot work because you have to put the map upside down”, you gotta be really stupid or blind to brush aside such amazing possibilty and the many other reasons to think so, just because it doesnt fit the current way of thinking about maps in the 21th century, because if you wanna recreate the sky the way you see it from the ground you dont need to invert anything. I couldnt find any real, solid critics about Hancock, so you guys can hopefully show me some good stuff?

Watch these videos, then come back and show some good critics, we ll see what happens.

Shibeee

sanji i to came to this site for exactly the same reasons has u and come to the same conclusion .watched both videos thanks for that .my first introduction to bauval who i think is both intelligent and honest man listening to him now on information machine try watching black genesis by bauval and dont waste your time arguing with pacal think him rude and offensive and blind to exploration of facts

Yeh it s probably pointless to discuss with those guys, because in the end I m just gonna repeat what hancock and others have already said, and I m gonna read here the same critics Ive seen, which sometimes are legitimate, but never good, solid, proven, unbreakable reasons to completely dismiss hancock and every single aspect of his work. In the end, what he says has been going on for a quite a while through history, it s not brand new, so that debate has already been going on for ages.
Maybe because people like me haven’t yet spend a massive amount of time reading work to boost their knowledge, intelligence and ego, that what might be actually misleading or wrong, it s easier to get on with the “outside the box” way of thinking.
I wont go into details because they all say it better than me, but his position about C14 dating process for ancient monuments, his position about the Ice Age and its many mysteries, about maps found around the globe showing what might be locations unknown at the time, about ancient monuments that seem to have atronomical aspects to it, about underwater structures looking suspicious, about drawings, texts, interpretation of some ancient texts. and so on and so on….
There is just so much that you cant just ignore all of this, even when “it’s not a prefect match”, “most specialists disagree “, “he isnt a professional” and blah blah blah blah.
There are obviously a lot yet to discover about ourselves and our past, and that dude and his mates definitely bring something worth looking into. If a lot of experts of our time are against even debating or considering all this with a new eye, then so be it. It happened countless times before. Doesnt mean we should blindly believe people like him, but if you sit on your books and ignore such caracter, then you really have shit in your eyes and your ears, and your slowing down the learning process of mankind. Anyway, I m wasting my time typing all this, lets agree to disagree.
Guys I m still waiting to hear your opinion about those two videos

Kevin you say:

sanji i to came to this site for exactly the same reasons has u and come to the same conclusion .watched both videos thanks for that .my first introduction to bauval who i think is both intelligent and honest man listening to him now on information machine try watching black genesis by bauval and dont waste your time arguing with pacal think him rude and offensive and blind to exploration of facts.

Bauval is not worth taking the slightest bit seriously along with Hancock. The whole Orion correlation thing as been exploded long ago. You are not aware that the consilation of Orion when imposed on Pyramids at Giza and the Neighbouting area don’t match up. But then Bauval’s a joke. Have you bothered to read up on why the majority of Geologists do not accept a early date for the Sphinx as suggested by Schoch? Or how about how Bauval and Hancock were gunning for a 10500 B.C.E., date for ther Sphinx and basically ignoring that even Schoch gave a date after 8000 B,C.E. Of course do you accept the idea that the great pyramid was planned in 10500 B.C.E., although built thousands of years later to reflect the date of 10500 B.C.E. Which by the way Hancock got from Edgar Cayce, (the sleeping prophet). Both of them have been in the past quite ready to accuse Egyptologists of lying, of fraud, fabrication and forgery. In Fingerprints of the Gods Hancock accused an 19th century Egyptologist of fabricating Khufu’s name on stone blocks found in the chambers above the Kings chamber. Hancock has since retracted this baseless accusation but he continues to blither on about wicked Archeologists supressing the truth.

As for your last comment given the quite vicious names I’v e been called here I find you thinking me rude / offensive hilarious. I’ve merely said you guys were ignorant and clueless. Which you most evidently are. As for blind to exploration of the facts. Depends. If you mean the made up nonsense of Hancock and Bauval; that is speculation and fantasy not fact. But then you guys seem to have absolutely no interest in doing any sort of real research at all, but just mouth whatever Bauval and Hancock pull out of their asses.

Sanji you say:

Yeh it s probably pointless to discuss with those guys, because in the end I m just gonna repeat what hancock and others have already said, and I m gonna read here the same critics Ive seen, which sometimes are legitimate, but never good, solid, proven, unbreakable reasons to completely dismiss hancock and every single aspect of his work. In the end, what he says has been going on for a quite a while through history, it s not brand new, so that debate has already been going on for ages.

Yep the debate between the cranks and wackjobs as been going on for ages. Almost all of it in the minds of the cranks. Thank you for indicating that you have no desire to do any real research.

As for your request for unbreakable reason to dismiss Hancock. What about the simple fact that his lost super civilization seems to have vanished without a trace. How about the fact that each and everyone of the anomolies he points to is almost always asa a “prosaic” explaination. How about Hancocks conspiracy mongering. I should not forget to note Hancock’s 2012 boosterism.

From Baalbak, (built in Roman times), to the Piri Re’is map Hancock recycles mysteries that are not mysteries.

Maybe because people like me haven’t yet spend a massive amount of time reading work to boost their knowledge, intelligence and ego, that what might be actually misleading or wrong, it s easier to get on with the “outside the box” way of thinking.

Yep musn’t have ones head clogged with knowledge it might inhibit’s one ability to swallow woo. I guess ignorance is a blessed state and knowing nothing is cool. Oh and Hancock doesn’t think outside the box his thought is firmly in the area of twentieth century crank Archaeology, he is right up their with Von Daniken, and esspecially Robert Charroux, (One Hundred Thousand Years of Man’s Unknown History).

I wont go into details because they all say it better than me, but his position about C14 dating process for ancient monuments, his position about the Ice Age and its many mysteries, about maps found around the globe showing what might be locations unknown at the time, about ancient monuments that seem to have atronomical aspects to it, about underwater structures looking suspicious, about drawings, texts, interpretation of some ancient texts. and so on and so on….
There is just so much that you cant just ignore all of this, even when “it’s not a prefect match”, “most specialists disagree “, “he isnt a professional” and blah blah blah blah.

Hancock’s position about Carbon 14 and how it is used to date monuments is deeply ignorant. Hancock never seems to get the fact that the materials that are associated with the momuments are dated. But then how Archaeologists do that would require him to read some of the many texts about Carbon 14 dating and how to use it. For dating methods see Archaeology, Second Edition, Renfrew, Colin, THames and Hudson, London, 1996.

He could also use with reading a book about climate history. Say Climate Change in Prehistory, Burroughs, William J., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005.

And of course has mentioned above Hancock’s “mysteries” are almost always not mysteries at all.

It is quite easy to ignore most of it, because it is generally not a mystery, and what little is “mysterious” does not require a unknown super civilization or aliens. I should mention here that foe a time Hancock supported the idea of alien monuments on Mars, he as backed away from that I hope.

I lost any respect for Hancock from reading the sections of <Fingerprints of the Gods (A deliberate play on Von Daniken’s Chariots of the Gods, in my opinion.), from his shoddy chapters on the Maya and Tiwanaku. In th Tiwanaku chapter he almost entirely, (except for a throw away line) ignores the conventional date of the site and instead advances a far out date based on astronomical alighments deduced from recently reconstructed buildings. These dates contradict dozens of Carbon 14 results along with ceramic, and stratigraphy studies to say nothing of ethno-historical data all of which date the site 200-1000 C.E (A.D.). Please see Ancient Tiwanku, Janusek, John Wayne, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008, The Tiwanaku, Kolata, Alan L., Blackwell, Oxford, 1993.

As for the Maya please see The Ancient Maya, Sixth Edition, Sharer, Robert J, & Traxler, Loa P, Stanford University Press, Stanford CA, 2006, pp. 102-120, for the Mayan calander. It also shows why Hancock’s discussion of it is a crock. Hancock’s discussion of the Sarcophagus lid in the tomb of Pacal at Palenque is also totally bogus.

There are obviously a lot yet to discover about ourselves and our past, and that dude and his mates definitely bring something worth looking into. If a lot of experts of our time are against even debating or considering all this with a new eye, then so be it. It happened countless times before. Doesnt mean we should blindly believe people like him, but if you sit on your books and ignore such caracter, then you really have shit in your eyes and your ears, and your slowing down the learning process of mankind. Anyway, I m wasting my time typing all this, lets agree to disagree.
Guys I m still waiting to hear your opinion about those two videos

Thank you for the Galileo gambit, the typical cliche of cranks everywhere. However for every Galileo who was right there were 10,000 cranks who were way wrong.

As for seeing it with a new eye? Nope! Its the same old same old processed woo. In the 19th century Ignatius Donnelly was touting woo in his Atlantis: The Antediluvian World, in the early twethieth century we had Edgar Cayce and in the late 60’s and into the 70’s we had Von Daniken, along with countless others. It is the same old crap served for another generation.

As for shit in eyes and ears. Since people like Hancock listen to other woo miesters and ignire reams and reams of data while continuing their diet of woo. It is clear who has shit in their eyes and ears and it is Hancock and those who believe like him.

Although it is nice to know that you think the hard won knowledge of the past won over the past century or so is shit.

Some more reading:

Invented Knowledge, Fritze, Ronald, H, Reaktion Books, London, 2009.

Ancient Astraunauts, Cosmic Collisions and other Popular THeories about Man’s Past, Stiebing, William H, Prometheus Books, Buffalo NY, 1984.

Giza: The Truth, Lawton, Ian & Ogilvie-Herald, Chris, Invisible Cities Press, Montpelier Vermont, 2001.

P.S. The two links are to films that are merely the same dull old nostrums that have been coming from those two for quite sometime.

Sanji as an example of Hancock’s problem “common sense” is a comment he makes that Khufu’s hieroglyph being found on stone blocks inside the great pyramid is meaningless, and further that they were possibly forged. The quality of Hancock’s scholarship is clear from that comment.

First Hancock fudges were the marks were found and ignores that they were quarry marks not just marks. In otherwords blocks marked for transportation to a building site. Also the blocks with the quarry mark were found in a chamber above the Kings Chamber in the great pyramid that had been sealed from the building of the Great Pyramid until the 19th century. Hancock manages to nicely fudge that it must mean, most likely, that the pyramid was built for a King named Khufu.

Hancock’s dismissal of the “marks” a a possible forgery by the Egyptologist / explorer Vyse. This is nonsense. Oh and it now appears that the quarry “marks” contine round the corners into the crevacies between blocks. So much for forgery.

Of course Hancock gets the idea that the marks may be forgeries from author Zecharia Sitchin in his book Stairway to Heaven.

An excellent source for info on this is pp. 95-113, of Giza The Truth, by Ian Lawton and Chris Ogilvie-Hera;d, Invisible Cities Press, Montpelier VT, 2001. The above book is of especial interest in that the authors are very sympathetic to “alternative” history and archaeology. The same book is excellent on the date of the Great Pyramid, accepting the traditional date of Khufu’s reign c. 2600 B.C.E. I could of course mention carbon 14 dating results. Hancock also ignores the very clear line of development of pyramid construction from Djoser’s Step Pyramid to the Great Pyramid. Hancock leaves out the Red Pyramid, the Bent Pyramid, the Pyramid of Medium and a couple of pyramids which were started and not completed. Which shows a definite development of technique. For more Read The Pyramids of egypt, by I.E.S. Edwards, Penguin Books, London, 1970, and multiple further editions.

The same dissesction can be performed on comment after comment Hancock makes.

I m making a cool post, will take a bit of time because I m not english and I want it to be comprehensible. So please keep an eye on this page.
Ive just read all the comments on this page, and somehow if you step back from it, arguments for and against hancock (and those type of ideas) all make sense at some point. I want to debate a bit more with you guys, because it will help me to get a better opinion. But clearly, there are A LOT of really,really, really odd things about the ancient world. This fact on its own should make all of us accept that there is definitely something strange about our past history, because otherwise pages and discussions like the ones presented here wouldn’t exist, or need to. Quite brilliant, I find this very exciting.
Will be back asap.

Damn my computer doesn’t work anymore! Humm I m going back home for Christmas so I ll do it from there, I ll post within the next 2/3 weeks.
Btw I posted the above after a heavy night, what I meant to say is that I wanna present a few odd things to you guys and see what you think.
Speak soon.

I thought I should read the infamous FOG before I post anything else, so I m doing that. I m halfway through it now, will be done in, lets say, one month or so.
Easy guys, speak soon

Any novice can look at those stone heads and see that they are Amerindian. I was once fooled into believing the supposed “Negroid” features until I saw pictures of Natives from the region that resembled those stone heads. People who say the giant heads look Negroid have flawed racialist views. This is simply 15th – 19th Century perceptions of race. This poses a problem for Hancock and the Afrocentrics, because all of these claims stem from the “opinion” of an alleged African phenotype.

It’s great that there are experts in the field but we can argue this without them. Not saying we don’t need them, just saying that if Afrocentrics and the Hancocks of the world can invent junk history then we can debunk them easily because they only have opinion.

The Olmecs were Amerindian. There is no mystery to who they were and there is no proof of any African influence.

Fallacious argument is fallacious. Ever heard of the mitochondrial Eve? Keep calling leading researchers “cult-archaeologists” and “afro-centric racists” if that’s all you can muster as proof that they are wrong. Please don’t use facts or do research for yourself, just keep labeling people you don’t agree with.

bohemianexile you say:

Fallacious argument is fallacious. Ever heard of the mitochondrial Eve? Keep calling leading researchers “cult-archaeologists” and “afro-centric racists” if that’s all you can muster as proof that they are wrong. Please don’t use facts or do research for yourself, just keep labeling people you don’t agree with.

What does Mitochondrial Eve have to do with the fact that Olmec statutes look like modern day Amerindian natives of the area? There is NO need to postulate that the statutes are depictions of Africans. There is also no evidence Archaeologically of an African presence in Olmec culture / society. Calling Hancock and other pseudo-scientists researchers is of course hilarious. Just look at the bibliographies of their books, full of references to all the familiar tropes and crap of yes “cult” and “pseudo-scientist” cant. As for proof they are wrong it exists in abundance. Everytthing from genetic studies to archaeology shows they are wrong.

It is a fallacious arguement to assume, and it is an assumption, that because the statutes “look like” African they are Africans esspecially since there are people in the area today, Amerindians, who look like the statutes. Calling people like Hancock “researchers” is in my opinion deeply insulting to those real researchers who work in the field. Perhaps you should read some of their work. May I recomend the following.

Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica, Christopher A. Pool, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007.
The Olmecs, Richard A. Diehl, Thames and Hudson, London, 2004.
The Ancient Kingdoms of Mexico, Nigel Davies, Penguin Books, London, 1982.
Mesoamerica Goes Public: Early Ceremonial Centers, Leaders and Communities, in Mesoamerican Archaeology, Ed. Julia A. Hendon & Rosemary A. Joyce, Blackwell Pub. Oxford, 2004, pp. 43-72.
Mexico: From the Olmecs to the Aztecs, 6th Edition, Michael D. Coe & Rex Koontz, Thames and Hudson, London, 2008, pp. 39-100.
First Peoples in a New World, David J. Meltzer, University of California Press, Berkeley CA, 2009, pp. 184-207.
Art, Ritual, and Rulership in the Olmec World, F. Kent Reilly, in The Ancient Civilizations of Mesoamerica, Ed. Michael E. Smith & Marilyn A. Masson, Blackwell Pub., Oxford, 2000.
CA Forum on Anthropology: Robbing Native American Cultures: Van Sertima’s Afrocentricity and the Olmecs, Gabriel Haslip-Viera & Bernard Ortiz de Montellano, & Warren Barbour, in Current Anthropology, v. 38, No. 3, Jun. 1997, pp. 419-441.
The Spanish Entrada: A Model for Assessing Claims of Pre-Columbian between the Old and New World, Kenneth L. Feder, in North American Archaeologist, v. 15, No. 2, Ed. Roger W. Moeller, Baywood Pub. Co. Inc., Amityville NY, 1994, pp. 147-166.

Opps! Kent Reilly’s article is on pp. 369-399 of The Ancient Civilizations of Mesoamerica.

Surely Stonehenge is a modern hoax designed to keep archaeologists in jobs, mostly making glossy documentaries for BBC/History Channel scratching their beards and going “Hmm, ritual and religion…”

PS I have an A level in archaeology and my wife a degree in it. I am concerned about how little evidence is needed to create a “theory” in archaeology. These tentative ideas are hypotheses at best and sometimes merely semi-coherent narratives.

It seems fairly obvious to me that Stonehenge is – in fact – the remains of the ground floor of a stone-age multi-storey car park.

I believe that careful measurement of the gaps between the stones will reveal that they are just slightly too small to easily park a car in, which will, of course, prove my theory correct.

This reminds me of the archaeologists who have spent millions of dollars to prove their THEORY of how the pyramids were built. Each time I read or saw someone proving their theory COULD be how they were built, I asked myself,”How much did it cost to prove that they COULD have been built that way?

Then we finally find out they aren’t rocks. Instead they are concrete poured into molds. All that money spent for nothing. I wonder how much of it was my tax money? How much more money is going to be spent to PROVE another THEORY on this or other subjects that it COULD be a certain thing.

Surely Stonehenge is a modern hoax designed to keep archaeologists in jobs, mostly making glossy documentaries for BBC/History Channel scratching their beards and going “Hmm, ritual and religion…”

PS I have an A level in archaeology and my wife a degree in it. I am concerned about how little evidence is needed to create a “theory” in archaeology. These tentative ideas are hypotheses at best and sometimes merely semi-coherent narratives.

It seems fairly obvious to me that Stonehenge is – in fact – the remains of the ground floor of a stone-age multi-storey car park.

I believe that careful measurement of the gaps between the stones will reveal that they are just slightly too small to easily park a car in, which will, of course, prove my theory correct.

This reminds me of the archaeologists who have spent millions of dollars to prove their THEORY of how the pyramids were built. Each time I read or saw someone proving their theory COULD be how they were built, I asked myself,”How much did it cost to prove that they COULD have been built that way?

Then we finally find out they aren’t rocks. Instead they are concrete poured into molds. All that money spent for nothing. I wonder how much of it was my tax money? How much more money is going to be spent to PROVE another THEORY on this or other subjects that it COULD be a certain thing.

In 1994 a victory stele was discovered at Tel Dan. The tablet fragment, written in aramaic, specifically mentions victories over a “king of Israel” and a king of the “House of David.” The stele currently resides in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.

Source, http://www.english.imjnet.org.il

Read Ramsey’s account of the several items confirming Luke’s account of Jesus and the Apostles, including several archaeological finds. A similar process of verification has been taking place for John, e.g. the discovery of the pool of Bethesda in Roman Jerusalem, and so on. As for the Old Testament, there are serious issues with dating, but if you consider the huge amount of modern biblical study that depends on Egyptian evidence – archaeological by definition – I think you might want to reconsider.

I think the point is that archeology doesn’t tell us much about the lives of specific individuals. The fact that various steles mention certain rulers don’t tell us anything more than their names. The reference to the “House of David” just tells us that the rulers of Israel traced themselves back to someone named David, who may or may not have been mythical – think King Arthur. It certainly doesn’t help us understand King David, whether he existed or not.

Another example is the pool that Fabio mentioned. What does this tell us? Suggesting that the fact that a pool mentioned in the story exists authenticates some aspect of the story is foolish. It’s like suggesting that Achilles must have met Hector because we’ve proven that Troy existed.

VorJack: what it does is support the narrative. In the mid-nineteenth century there was a determined effort, centred on the German university of Tuebingen, to disprove the historicity and date of the New Testament, trying to show that no book of it was older than the second century, and that therefore they could not possibly embody living memories of their subjects. This effort was defeated – although a number of misguided spirits still cling to it – by the progressive discovery that the narratives describe, detail by detail, a world that existed only in the mid-first century, that was already passing away by the end of the first century, and that could not possibly have been reconstructed, in such detail and with such absence of anachronisms, in the second or later centuries. (That is because the ancients did not have the techniques of historical novelists. Everyone familiar with classical or biblical writing knows that when they try to reconstruct the past they always fall into anachronism.) Also, these discoveries often enlarged, in small ways, our understanding of NT events which would otherwise remain inexplicable or wrongly understood. There is no space here to give more than a couple of examples. Example no.1: after Paul has visited Cyprus and been heard by the local Roman governor, he makes a very strange detour, straight into the heart of Anatolia and into an insignificant town called Lystra. Why? Well, archaeological evidence has shown us that this same governor owned large estates in Lystra’s neighbourhood. Clearly, he had invited Paul to visit his little fiefdom. And this tells us two things: first, that the story only makes sense in a political situation that applied only in a few years in the mid-first century – that particular governor, his private property; and second, that when Luke tells us that Paul had made a strong impression on that particular governor, he was not exaggerating. Example number two: the crowd baying for Jesus’ blood when Pilate tried to save him. Archaeology shows that the lithostraton or pavement in front of the Procurator’s palace was in fact a small, constricted square which could hold at most a few hundred men. The crowd that called for Jesus’ blood was almost certainly a rent-a-mob sent in by the Sanhedrin, who wanted him dead at all costs; at any rate, this was the day of preparation for Passover, and every self-respecting properly religious Jew was at home or in his tent preparing for the great sacrifice. In other word, the passage that has been interpreted for centuries as throwing the guilt of Jesus’ blood upon all Jews has been misinterpreted; most Jews had nothing to do with his condemnation, which indeed was rushed through with unseemly haste out of the fear that the great crowds of natives and pilgrims in Jerusalem for Passover might hear something about it and revolt.

Fabio –

I am not equipped to date ancient narratives, so I accept without comment the scholarly consensus (or what I perceive to be the consensus) that the Gospels were written in the late 1st Century. [Mark: ~70AD, etc.]

However, I don’t see how this relates to the question of whether archeology can or cannot tell us about individuals or individual stories. It can help us understand the context of those stories, as you’ve pointed out, which helps us to understand what the author of the stories meant. But I don’t see how it can verify this or that miracle story, or help us understand the nature of this or that person.

If the ancient Roman historians tell us that Augustus was fathered by the god Apollo in the form of a giant white snake while his mother was sleeping in front of the temple, what can archeology tell us? It can show that the temple did exist at that time, it can find inscriptions that verify that the name of the mother is correct, perhaps it can show that napping in front of the temple was an accepted practice. It can show, as you describe, that the authors were drawing from their knowledge of the times, but all authors do. I don’t see how it can prove that the snake existed, or that the strange conception happened.

Vorjack,

The original challenge was “Can anyone point me to a single archaeological find that has added to our historical knowledge of (a) Moses, (b) Kind David, (c) Solomon or (d) Jesus?”

The vicory stele answers that challenge. The stele is ancient, around 900 bce, it is an extra-biblical archaeological find, and most important, it was believed to be from an enemy of the israeli kingdom proclaiming its victory over the house of david.

The age of the stele is significant, roughly 100 years after King David’s purported reign. If so, that suggests that the rulers of israel were tracing their lineage back to an age within living memory. I think you are hard pressed to say the myth of a fabled david developed so quickly in people’s minds if he didn’t exist.

Also, the fact that the stele was made by the obvious enemies of israel – proclaiming their victory of israel – suggests it is far more reliable as historical fact than myth. I think your argument would be more persuasive if the myth makers had created the stele, than by another society bragging about the defeat of their enemy.

Finally, I think you raised the bar too far – ‘archeology doesn’t tell us much about the lives of specific individuals.” Absent finding a live witness or the actual remains of a person archeology doesn’t tell much about the lives of a specific individuals at all – and it’s not supposed to. Archeology is the scientific study of the physical evidence of past human societies recovered through excavation. Archaeology should tell us about ancient cultures and societies, not an individual. Sometimes, of course, we luck out due to things like ancient preservation techniques and climate, but that’s the exception.

Ron,

Still skeptical. The Tel Dan Stele is important, no question. I’ll agree that it probably means that the rulers of Israel traced themselves back to a purported figure named David. I’d quibble with the date – I usually hear 8th or 9th century, meaning a span from 899-730s. But again, this isn’t my field.

But again, how much does this really tell us? I’d question just how much we can draw about the historical David from this mere mention. Let’s side step one argument and agree that there was an historic David. Does the fact that there was a ruler named David mean that we know anything about him? Again, many historians think that there was a historic King Arthur, but everything we “know” about him comes from myth and legend. So while they might agree that the rules of economy and parsimony mean that we should accept a historical Arthur, we simply can’t say anything about him. And what good does it do us, historically, to say that a person existed when we only know the name (maybe) and the gender? Not much, it seems to me.

The fact that the the rulers of Israel traced themselves back to such a figure who existed even a “mere” 100 years (which is more than the three-generation reach-back, I hasten to point out) does not verify the accounts we have in the Hebrew Testament. I don’t think we can assume that the rulers of Damascus who created the stele really gave a damn about Israelite genealogy or history. They knew that the Omri dynasty called itself the House of David, so they put that up on the stele so that passers by would know exactly who got defeated.

“Absent finding a live witness or the actual remains of a person archeology doesn’t tell much about the lives of a specific individuals at all – and it’s not supposed to.”

Well good, we’re in agreement. Sooooo …. what’s this argument about, anyway?

Vorjack,

By way of reminder, the challenge thrown down was: “Can anyone point me to a single archaeological find that has added to our historical knowledge of . . . Kind David . . . ?”

I think the stele answers the challenge pretty good, and we agree it’s “important.” So the argument ends. But, that challenge was only the genesis of our argument.

I can’t resist correcting you on one point though. David’s reign in Jerusalem is dated from 995-962, and the stele was dated from roughly the same time period, making it far more contemperaneous than you give it credit.

We’ve beaten an exodus from the original challenge to the general argument of how archeology does or doesn’t shed light on individual historical figures.

I think that over time, facts are coming to light that tend to prove biblical people and events, rather than cast doubt on them. (I’m refering to biblical events like individuals, invasions, kingdoms etc. and not supernatural events)

You, on the other hand, seem to think archeological finds tending to expand human knowledge, via historical names and gender, “don’t do much good.”

You sound, almost, as if you don’t like knowledge!

Cheers.

VorJack: you have said nothing to disprove my contention that my two examples add to our knowledge of, one, the journeys of St.Paul and the characters who appear during them, and, two, the circumstances of Jesus’ death sentence. You just affirm, without argument, that nothing is added. Nothing is added when we find that one stage of Paul’s journey was designed and encouraged by the Roman governor of Cyprus? Nothing is added when we find that Jesus was condemned on the screams of a manipulated rent-a-mob? Now you are just being silly. Eviden tly you are a man of faith, meaning by faith the power to believe what we know to be wrong.

Beyonfd the name, the biblical texts say nothing about Mary of Magdala. There are many traditions within the more ancient Christian faith communities, which tend to contradict each other. Some traditions hold that she was a prostitute; others that she was a noblewoman.; others that she was, as the Gospel of John suggests, the woman who first saw the risen Jesus. There is no evidence that she was the woman who anointed the feet of Jesus, though it is commonly held that she was. There is certainly no proof for the trendy idea that she was the wife of Jesus. So attributing whatever these artefacts might be to Mary is impossible. But I suppose this story does remind us of the cultural fascination with this woman, if she existed. How can a figure of such ambiguity inspire such interest throughout the ages?

Gazza: you are partially right, but not all traditions are equally valuable. If that was the case, the “Holy blood and holy grail” account of history should be taken just as seriously. This may surprise you, but different traditions may be examined, compared, connected with their cultural background, and used to find out a lot of things about history. You are using the usual kind of know-nothing rhetoric deployed since the nineteenth century to pretend that the historical background of the New Testament is unknowable (this is not a personal remark: what I call “know-nothing rhetoric” is unfortunately a cultural heritage) when in actual fact scholarship has got well beyond its pessimistic assumptions.

Many syncretistic religions formed gnosticism. Gnosticism was rivaling against Christianity and gnosticism held itself better religion as Christianity was. Word gnosticism comes from Greek word gnosis, which means knowledge. Gnosticism was various effects, for instance, some Gnostics taught that divinity can be achieved through unity of the man and woman. This thought led some Gnostics to reach for divinity through sexual intercourse between the man and woman. There existed also some Gnostics, who abstained from sexual intercourse. When we know the fact that Gnostics held Christians as their enemies and that Gnostics held themselves better as Christians and that Gnostics wanted to show in every way that Gnosticism was better as Christianity, so Gnostics made so called gnostic gospels were they twisted, slandered and misrepresented the real gospels. Gnostics went so far in this misrepresent that they wrote “new gospels” by faking the real gospels. In these faked gospels Gnostics wrote that Jesus Christ was an ordinary man who has a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene.

http://koti.phnet.fi/elohim/marymagdalene.html

I would not blame the archaeologists. They are allowed to surmise that a vial of perfume might be similar to another vial of perfume. To me, a vial is a vial: they are all similar.
But I do blame any journalist who pretends not to notice that the word similar was in the statement put out by the archaeologist.

In 1994 a victory stele was discovered at Tel Dan. The tablet fragment, written in aramaic, specifically mentions victories over a “king of Israel” and a king of the “House of David.” The stele currently resides in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.

Source, http://www.english.imjnet.org.il

Read Ramsey’s account of the several items confirming Luke’s account of Jesus and the Apostles, including several archaeological finds. A similar process of verification has been taking place for John, e.g. the discovery of the pool of Bethesda in Roman Jerusalem, and so on. As for the Old Testament, there are serious issues with dating, but if you consider the huge amount of modern biblical study that depends on Egyptian evidence – archaeological by definition – I think you might want to reconsider.

I think the point is that archeology doesn’t tell us much about the lives of specific individuals. The fact that various steles mention certain rulers don’t tell us anything more than their names. The reference to the “House of David” just tells us that the rulers of Israel traced themselves back to someone named David, who may or may not have been mythical – think King Arthur. It certainly doesn’t help us understand King David, whether he existed or not.

Another example is the pool that Fabio mentioned. What does this tell us? Suggesting that the fact that a pool mentioned in the story exists authenticates some aspect of the story is foolish. It’s like suggesting that Achilles must have met Hector because we’ve proven that Troy existed.

VorJack: what it does is support the narrative. In the mid-nineteenth century there was a determined effort, centred on the German university of Tuebingen, to disprove the historicity and date of the New Testament, trying to show that no book of it was older than the second century, and that therefore they could not possibly embody living memories of their subjects. This effort was defeated – although a number of misguided spirits still cling to it – by the progressive discovery that the narratives describe, detail by detail, a world that existed only in the mid-first century, that was already passing away by the end of the first century, and that could not possibly have been reconstructed, in such detail and with such absence of anachronisms, in the second or later centuries. (That is because the ancients did not have the techniques of historical novelists. Everyone familiar with classical or biblical writing knows that when they try to reconstruct the past they always fall into anachronism.) Also, these discoveries often enlarged, in small ways, our understanding of NT events which would otherwise remain inexplicable or wrongly understood. There is no space here to give more than a couple of examples. Example no.1: after Paul has visited Cyprus and been heard by the local Roman governor, he makes a very strange detour, straight into the heart of Anatolia and into an insignificant town called Lystra. Why? Well, archaeological evidence has shown us that this same governor owned large estates in Lystra’s neighbourhood. Clearly, he had invited Paul to visit his little fiefdom. And this tells us two things: first, that the story only makes sense in a political situation that applied only in a few years in the mid-first century – that particular governor, his private property; and second, that when Luke tells us that Paul had made a strong impression on that particular governor, he was not exaggerating. Example number two: the crowd baying for Jesus’ blood when Pilate tried to save him. Archaeology shows that the lithostraton or pavement in front of the Procurator’s palace was in fact a small, constricted square which could hold at most a few hundred men. The crowd that called for Jesus’ blood was almost certainly a rent-a-mob sent in by the Sanhedrin, who wanted him dead at all costs; at any rate, this was the day of preparation for Passover, and every self-respecting properly religious Jew was at home or in his tent preparing for the great sacrifice. In other word, the passage that has been interpreted for centuries as throwing the guilt of Jesus’ blood upon all Jews has been misinterpreted; most Jews had nothing to do with his condemnation, which indeed was rushed through with unseemly haste out of the fear that the great crowds of natives and pilgrims in Jerusalem for Passover might hear something about it and revolt.

Fabio –

I am not equipped to date ancient narratives, so I accept without comment the scholarly consensus (or what I perceive to be the consensus) that the Gospels were written in the late 1st Century. [Mark: ~70AD, etc.]

However, I don’t see how this relates to the question of whether archeology can or cannot tell us about individuals or individual stories. It can help us understand the context of those stories, as you’ve pointed out, which helps us to understand what the author of the stories meant. But I don’t see how it can verify this or that miracle story, or help us understand the nature of this or that person.

If the ancient Roman historians tell us that Augustus was fathered by the god Apollo in the form of a giant white snake while his mother was sleeping in front of the temple, what can archeology tell us? It can show that the temple did exist at that time, it can find inscriptions that verify that the name of the mother is correct, perhaps it can show that napping in front of the temple was an accepted practice. It can show, as you describe, that the authors were drawing from their knowledge of the times, but all authors do. I don’t see how it can prove that the snake existed, or that the strange conception happened.

Vorjack,

The original challenge was “Can anyone point me to a single archaeological find that has added to our historical knowledge of (a) Moses, (b) Kind David, (c) Solomon or (d) Jesus?”

The vicory stele answers that challenge. The stele is ancient, around 900 bce, it is an extra-biblical archaeological find, and most important, it was believed to be from an enemy of the israeli kingdom proclaiming its victory over the house of david.

The age of the stele is significant, roughly 100 years after King David’s purported reign. If so, that suggests that the rulers of israel were tracing their lineage back to an age within living memory. I think you are hard pressed to say the myth of a fabled david developed so quickly in people’s minds if he didn’t exist.

Also, the fact that the stele was made by the obvious enemies of israel – proclaiming their victory of israel – suggests it is far more reliable as historical fact than myth. I think your argument would be more persuasive if the myth makers had created the stele, than by another society bragging about the defeat of their enemy.

Finally, I think you raised the bar too far – ‘archeology doesn’t tell us much about the lives of specific individuals.” Absent finding a live witness or the actual remains of a person archeology doesn’t tell much about the lives of a specific individuals at all – and it’s not supposed to. Archeology is the scientific study of the physical evidence of past human societies recovered through excavation. Archaeology should tell us about ancient cultures and societies, not an individual. Sometimes, of course, we luck out due to things like ancient preservation techniques and climate, but that’s the exception.

Ron,

Still skeptical. The Tel Dan Stele is important, no question. I’ll agree that it probably means that the rulers of Israel traced themselves back to a purported figure named David. I’d quibble with the date – I usually hear 8th or 9th century, meaning a span from 899-730s. But again, this isn’t my field.

But again, how much does this really tell us? I’d question just how much we can draw about the historical David from this mere mention. Let’s side step one argument and agree that there was an historic David. Does the fact that there was a ruler named David mean that we know anything about him? Again, many historians think that there was a historic King Arthur, but everything we “know” about him comes from myth and legend. So while they might agree that the rules of economy and parsimony mean that we should accept a historical Arthur, we simply can’t say anything about him. And what good does it do us, historically, to say that a person existed when we only know the name (maybe) and the gender? Not much, it seems to me.

The fact that the the rulers of Israel traced themselves back to such a figure who existed even a “mere” 100 years (which is more than the three-generation reach-back, I hasten to point out) does not verify the accounts we have in the Hebrew Testament. I don’t think we can assume that the rulers of Damascus who created the stele really gave a damn about Israelite genealogy or history. They knew that the Omri dynasty called itself the House of David, so they put that up on the stele so that passers by would know exactly who got defeated.

“Absent finding a live witness or the actual remains of a person archeology doesn’t tell much about the lives of a specific individuals at all – and it’s not supposed to.”

Well good, we’re in agreement. Sooooo …. what’s this argument about, anyway?

Vorjack,

By way of reminder, the challenge thrown down was: “Can anyone point me to a single archaeological find that has added to our historical knowledge of . . . Kind David . . . ?”

I think the stele answers the challenge pretty good, and we agree it’s “important.” So the argument ends. But, that challenge was only the genesis of our argument.

I can’t resist correcting you on one point though. David’s reign in Jerusalem is dated from 995-962, and the stele was dated from roughly the same time period, making it far more contemperaneous than you give it credit.

We’ve beaten an exodus from the original challenge to the general argument of how archeology does or doesn’t shed light on individual historical figures.

I think that over time, facts are coming to light that tend to prove biblical people and events, rather than cast doubt on them. (I’m refering to biblical events like individuals, invasions, kingdoms etc. and not supernatural events)

You, on the other hand, seem to think archeological finds tending to expand human knowledge, via historical names and gender, “don’t do much good.”

You sound, almost, as if you don’t like knowledge!

Cheers.

VorJack: you have said nothing to disprove my contention that my two examples add to our knowledge of, one, the journeys of St.Paul and the characters who appear during them, and, two, the circumstances of Jesus’ death sentence. You just affirm, without argument, that nothing is added. Nothing is added when we find that one stage of Paul’s journey was designed and encouraged by the Roman governor of Cyprus? Nothing is added when we find that Jesus was condemned on the screams of a manipulated rent-a-mob? Now you are just being silly. Eviden tly you are a man of faith, meaning by faith the power to believe what we know to be wrong.

Beyonfd the name, the biblical texts say nothing about Mary of Magdala. There are many traditions within the more ancient Christian faith communities, which tend to contradict each other. Some traditions hold that she was a prostitute; others that she was a noblewoman.; others that she was, as the Gospel of John suggests, the woman who first saw the risen Jesus. There is no evidence that she was the woman who anointed the feet of Jesus, though it is commonly held that she was. There is certainly no proof for the trendy idea that she was the wife of Jesus. So attributing whatever these artefacts might be to Mary is impossible. But I suppose this story does remind us of the cultural fascination with this woman, if she existed. How can a figure of such ambiguity inspire such interest throughout the ages?

Gazza: you are partially right, but not all traditions are equally valuable. If that was the case, the “Holy blood and holy grail” account of history should be taken just as seriously. This may surprise you, but different traditions may be examined, compared, connected with their cultural background, and used to find out a lot of things about history. You are using the usual kind of know-nothing rhetoric deployed since the nineteenth century to pretend that the historical background of the New Testament is unknowable (this is not a personal remark: what I call “know-nothing rhetoric” is unfortunately a cultural heritage) when in actual fact scholarship has got well beyond its pessimistic assumptions.

Many syncretistic religions formed gnosticism. Gnosticism was rivaling against Christianity and gnosticism held itself better religion as Christianity was. Word gnosticism comes from Greek word gnosis, which means knowledge. Gnosticism was various effects, for instance, some Gnostics taught that divinity can be achieved through unity of the man and woman. This thought led some Gnostics to reach for divinity through sexual intercourse between the man and woman. There existed also some Gnostics, who abstained from sexual intercourse. When we know the fact that Gnostics held Christians as their enemies and that Gnostics held themselves better as Christians and that Gnostics wanted to show in every way that Gnosticism was better as Christianity, so Gnostics made so called gnostic gospels were they twisted, slandered and misrepresented the real gospels. Gnostics went so far in this misrepresent that they wrote “new gospels” by faking the real gospels. In these faked gospels Gnostics wrote that Jesus Christ was an ordinary man who has a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene.

http://koti.phnet.fi/elohim/marymagdalene.html

I would not blame the archaeologists. They are allowed to surmise that a vial of perfume might be similar to another vial of perfume. To me, a vial is a vial: they are all similar.
But I do blame any journalist who pretends not to notice that the word similar was in the statement put out by the archaeologist.

And systematic genocide and slavery of these races was not racist?

… and I like red balloons.

No, wait, that’s off topic, just like your comment was Steve (are you the mentioned author – Steve Taylor?).

We can all acknowledge that terrible, terrible things have been done to groups of peoples all through time, and that it isn’t something to be proud of. But all DT is doing here is pointing out rubbish anthropology.

One particular point made by Taylor has always really annoyed me for its complete inaccuracy – that there was no war in pre-European tribal cultures and “the last 6000 years of war, oppression, misery and hardship” have just been a blip on the time radar. Incorrect. Your “unfallen” Oceanic cultures had been engaged in warfare since they arrived in the area. Were there no losers in those fights? No children left parentless? No spoils of war to the victors? No oppression and misery of the vanquished?

Are you really confused, Thompson? Can you really not answer your own question?

A rash comment, it was off topic, first thing that came to mind on the subject of racism and indigenous cultures.

No I’m not Steve Taylor.
I do have admiration for the few indigenous hunter gatherers remaining in the world, and I have understanding for the indigenous peoples in various parts of the world that do not seem to be able to adapt to the modern industrial/agricultural culture and way of thinking.
There does definitly seem to be biological as well as cultures factors involved,
The words ‘inherently superior’, I believe, are Damians interpretation of Steve’s work, and not strictly accurate. Inherently different would be more fitting.

I am also in no doubt that tribal conflict has always been a big part of human existence, it is after all ‘the nature of the beast’. However you cant doubt that agriculturalism meant claiming land and must surely have increased the intensity of conflicts.

The ‘Noble Savage’ myth rides again…

I doubt that the term racist is appropriate for this kind of garbage – it’s just a rehashing of the Romantic image of the noble savage, and nobody has yet bettered Hobbes’ acerbic retort that the life of the savage, far from being noble, is “nasty, brutsh and short”.

The fantasies of idyllic hunter-gatherer societies omit such unpleasant details as infant mortality, and deaths from what today are easily preventable diseases

As for the “respectful attitude to nature” of the peoples of Oceania – I’m afraid extinctions occurred wherever Polynesians sailed, and long before any Europeans arrived.
The saddest example is New Zealand where all species of moa were hunted to extinction within a few centuries.

Likewise with Australia – the megafauna of that continent were destroyed by the aboriginals, not by the later European immigrants. In the Americas the evidence is not quite so conclusive – but it is certainly suggestive that several species of elephant roamed the North American plains before homo sapiens crossed the Bering Straits, and within a relatively short period there were none left.

Very nice little observation by the author actually.

I can understand what Steve Taylor is implying, namely – that the racism present in society toward ‘lesser’ peoples is perhaps unwarranted. Of course it is. The Europeans – a vast, sparsely populated continent of land with little agricultural production.

It is interesting that some posters have pointed out that the traditional indeginuous groups actually destroyed ecosystems rather than live within them.

There is a debate to be had, but Steve Taylor has not addressed it; the world, today, has rewarded imperialism. I believe the main benefits of indeginuous cultures stem from their culture, not their lifestyle. The failure of tribes to put their cultural experiences in writing, or perhaps the failure of the ‘civilised’ empires of Europe and Asia to help them put their experiences in writing has meant any real hope of learning from their history has been forgone. Although, we cannot learn from their past, it would be dangerous to assume they were either; wholly regrettable or wholly perfect.

Paul Fauvet – have you got links, or better yet articles, explaining these findings.

I can’t believe I’ve been accused of racism! But it’s almost as bad to be accused of bad science or ‘rubbish anthropology.’ All I can say that you’re almost completely unaware of the recent evidence on hunter-gatherers and prehistoric peoples e.g. for the lack of warfare, egalitarian social principles etc. You’re stating archaic neo-colonial assumptions about the ‘brutality’ and primitive-ness of prehistoric life, and that of contemporary hunter-gatherer peoples. You obviously need to read my book to survey this evidence, but check out the work of anthropologists like Bryan Ferguson, Richard Gabriel, Jared Diamond, Marshall Sahlins or JMG Van der Vennen – all very respectable and conventional scholars who are certain that warfare is a late development in human history.

Is someone guilty of pseudoscience just because they express views which contradicts traditional assumptions?

best

Steve Taylor

@ Steve Taylor – a product (Thompson’s book/brand/career, presumably) is being sold here.

The author of this blog post clearly doesn’t feel the need to offer defences or explanations of his position. If he did, he might have had the decency to respond by now.

Like the many purveyors of ‘counterknowledge’ they seek to expose, they seem content to rely on the lazy journalism and stop short of actual scholarship and analysis by merely posing a question for further debate.

Perhaps Damian would rather portray the illusion that ST is not worthy of a reply, rather than enter into open debate and be found guilty of unreasonable embellishments and conclusions.
By these standards this blog site could just as easily be perceived as racist due to the anti islamic / pro semitic undercurrent that runs through the site

I think you’re right – I knew nothing of this site when I replied, but checked it out afterwards, and am amazed by its bigotry and small-mindedness. If you check out the reviews of Damian Thompson’s book, you’ll see a lot of people held a similar opinion of that. It’s very surprising since he’s apparently a staunch catholic – who does he defend his own supernatural and irrational beliefs?

@ Vinny

I don’t think it’s fair to accuse us of lazy journalism, in view of some of our independent investigative work:
http://counterknowledge.com/?p=238

But look out for a series of posts soon from a new contributor that I am confident will silence any such lingering suspicions.

@ Steve Taylor

I’m not sure how one can be classified as “racist” for appearing “anti-Islamic”, but, regardless, what you say is completely untrue.

We do go after holocaust deniers, certainly. But perhaps you have an issue with that?

Bear in mind also that this blog is the work of a number of authors, each with their own take on counterknowledge and their own (I suppose) axes to grind. I, for example, while writing on the rise of creationism (be it Islamic or Christian), could never be accused of pro-Semitic bias.

And systematic genocide and slavery of these races was not racist?

… and I like red balloons.

No, wait, that’s off topic, just like your comment was Steve (are you the mentioned author – Steve Taylor?).

We can all acknowledge that terrible, terrible things have been done to groups of peoples all through time, and that it isn’t something to be proud of. But all DT is doing here is pointing out rubbish anthropology.

One particular point made by Taylor has always really annoyed me for its complete inaccuracy – that there was no war in pre-European tribal cultures and “the last 6000 years of war, oppression, misery and hardship” have just been a blip on the time radar. Incorrect. Your “unfallen” Oceanic cultures had been engaged in warfare since they arrived in the area. Were there no losers in those fights? No children left parentless? No spoils of war to the victors? No oppression and misery of the vanquished?

Are you really confused, Thompson? Can you really not answer your own question?

A rash comment, it was off topic, first thing that came to mind on the subject of racism and indigenous cultures.

No I’m not Steve Taylor.
I do have admiration for the few indigenous hunter gatherers remaining in the world, and I have understanding for the indigenous peoples in various parts of the world that do not seem to be able to adapt to the modern industrial/agricultural culture and way of thinking.
There does definitly seem to be biological as well as cultures factors involved,
The words ‘inherently superior’, I believe, are Damians interpretation of Steve’s work, and not strictly accurate. Inherently different would be more fitting.

I am also in no doubt that tribal conflict has always been a big part of human existence, it is after all ‘the nature of the beast’. However you cant doubt that agriculturalism meant claiming land and must surely have increased the intensity of conflicts.

The ‘Noble Savage’ myth rides again…

I doubt that the term racist is appropriate for this kind of garbage – it’s just a rehashing of the Romantic image of the noble savage, and nobody has yet bettered Hobbes’ acerbic retort that the life of the savage, far from being noble, is “nasty, brutsh and short”.

The fantasies of idyllic hunter-gatherer societies omit such unpleasant details as infant mortality, and deaths from what today are easily preventable diseases

As for the “respectful attitude to nature” of the peoples of Oceania – I’m afraid extinctions occurred wherever Polynesians sailed, and long before any Europeans arrived.
The saddest example is New Zealand where all species of moa were hunted to extinction within a few centuries.

Likewise with Australia – the megafauna of that continent were destroyed by the aboriginals, not by the later European immigrants. In the Americas the evidence is not quite so conclusive – but it is certainly suggestive that several species of elephant roamed the North American plains before homo sapiens crossed the Bering Straits, and within a relatively short period there were none left.

Very nice little observation by the author actually.

I can understand what Steve Taylor is implying, namely – that the racism present in society toward ‘lesser’ peoples is perhaps unwarranted. Of course it is. The Europeans – a vast, sparsely populated continent of land with little agricultural production.

It is interesting that some posters have pointed out that the traditional indeginuous groups actually destroyed ecosystems rather than live within them.

There is a debate to be had, but Steve Taylor has not addressed it; the world, today, has rewarded imperialism. I believe the main benefits of indeginuous cultures stem from their culture, not their lifestyle. The failure of tribes to put their cultural experiences in writing, or perhaps the failure of the ‘civilised’ empires of Europe and Asia to help them put their experiences in writing has meant any real hope of learning from their history has been forgone. Although, we cannot learn from their past, it would be dangerous to assume they were either; wholly regrettable or wholly perfect.

Paul Fauvet – have you got links, or better yet articles, explaining these findings.

I can’t believe I’ve been accused of racism! But it’s almost as bad to be accused of bad science or ‘rubbish anthropology.’ All I can say that you’re almost completely unaware of the recent evidence on hunter-gatherers and prehistoric peoples e.g. for the lack of warfare, egalitarian social principles etc. You’re stating archaic neo-colonial assumptions about the ‘brutality’ and primitive-ness of prehistoric life, and that of contemporary hunter-gatherer peoples. You obviously need to read my book to survey this evidence, but check out the work of anthropologists like Bryan Ferguson, Richard Gabriel, Jared Diamond, Marshall Sahlins or JMG Van der Vennen – all very respectable and conventional scholars who are certain that warfare is a late development in human history.

Is someone guilty of pseudoscience just because they express views which contradicts traditional assumptions?

best

Steve Taylor

@ Steve Taylor – a product (Thompson’s book/brand/career, presumably) is being sold here.

The author of this blog post clearly doesn’t feel the need to offer defences or explanations of his position. If he did, he might have had the decency to respond by now.

Like the many purveyors of ‘counterknowledge’ they seek to expose, they seem content to rely on the lazy journalism and stop short of actual scholarship and analysis by merely posing a question for further debate.

Perhaps Damian would rather portray the illusion that ST is not worthy of a reply, rather than enter into open debate and be found guilty of unreasonable embellishments and conclusions.
By these standards this blog site could just as easily be perceived as racist due to the anti islamic / pro semitic undercurrent that runs through the site

I think you’re right – I knew nothing of this site when I replied, but checked it out afterwards, and am amazed by its bigotry and small-mindedness. If you check out the reviews of Damian Thompson’s book, you’ll see a lot of people held a similar opinion of that. It’s very surprising since he’s apparently a staunch catholic – who does he defend his own supernatural and irrational beliefs?

@ Vinny

I don’t think it’s fair to accuse us of lazy journalism, in view of some of our independent investigative work:
http://counterknowledge.com/?p=238

But look out for a series of posts soon from a new contributor that I am confident will silence any such lingering suspicions.

@ Steve Taylor

I’m not sure how one can be classified as “racist” for appearing “anti-Islamic”, but, regardless, what you say is completely untrue.

We do go after holocaust deniers, certainly. But perhaps you have an issue with that?

Bear in mind also that this blog is the work of a number of authors, each with their own take on counterknowledge and their own (I suppose) axes to grind. I, for example, while writing on the rise of creationism (be it Islamic or Christian), could never be accused of pro-Semitic bias.

The Stone of Destiny is commonly known as Jacob’s Stone and does has, according to tradition, its origins in the middle east. He does refer to it as an Egyptian/Israeli artifact. Israeli, according to the story of Jacobs pillow on Mt Moriah and speculates that it could be Egyptian, based on the writings of Ralph Ellis and the similarity in coronation ritual.

It is said to have travelled through Egypt between the time of Jacob and 850AD, so in actual fact according to legend it was taken from Egypt, and could well have been used for ritual purposes there.

Sorry to be rude, but “could well” is another favourite construction of alternative “historians”.

Now we know this man is making it all up. All ancient civilisations were created by Altantean missionaries, not Egyptian. As any fule kno.

The man is a numpty. The “Egyptian” theory re: the Scots’ descent from Scota, the name they gave the Egyptian princess who saved Moses, was invented in the Middle Ages, as a bit of oneupmanship versus the English, who claimed (on behalf of Britain as a whole) that the land was founded by a Trojan called Brutus. There is no historical evidence for Steve’s claims about the coronation stone.

Silverwhistle:
Absolutely, there is no historical evidence regarding the Stone of Scone prior to 850ad. I make no claims but simply quote common folklore and tradition. Even Echans claims are really just speculation about something of which there is much mystique and obvious importance, but so little documented history.

Steve, it’s quite late folklore, and regarded as highly dubious: part of the mediaeval ‘Scota’ myth, which was a deliberate literary fabrication. I don’t regard it as of any great mystique.

(I am, btw, both a mediaevalist and a Scot.)

The first time I saw a reference to the ‘Scota’ myth was in the ‘Slaine’ comic strip published in ‘2000AD’.

That just about tells you all you need to know about its veracity.

Silverwhistle, do you consider there to be any history to the stone prior to 850AD? Or do you think it’s just a lump of Scottish quarry sandstone?

The Stone of Destiny is commonly known as Jacob’s Stone and does has, according to tradition, its origins in the middle east. He does refer to it as an Egyptian/Israeli artifact. Israeli, according to the story of Jacobs pillow on Mt Moriah and speculates that it could be Egyptian, based on the writings of Ralph Ellis and the similarity in coronation ritual.

It is said to have travelled through Egypt between the time of Jacob and 850AD, so in actual fact according to legend it was taken from Egypt, and could well have been used for ritual purposes there.

Sorry to be rude, but “could well” is another favourite construction of alternative “historians”.

Now we know this man is making it all up. All ancient civilisations were created by Altantean missionaries, not Egyptian. As any fule kno.

The man is a numpty. The “Egyptian” theory re: the Scots’ descent from Scota, the name they gave the Egyptian princess who saved Moses, was invented in the Middle Ages, as a bit of oneupmanship versus the English, who claimed (on behalf of Britain as a whole) that the land was founded by a Trojan called Brutus. There is no historical evidence for Steve’s claims about the coronation stone.

Silverwhistle:
Absolutely, there is no historical evidence regarding the Stone of Scone prior to 850ad. I make no claims but simply quote common folklore and tradition. Even Echans claims are really just speculation about something of which there is much mystique and obvious importance, but so little documented history.

Steve, it’s quite late folklore, and regarded as highly dubious: part of the mediaeval ‘Scota’ myth, which was a deliberate literary fabrication. I don’t regard it as of any great mystique.

(I am, btw, both a mediaevalist and a Scot.)

The first time I saw a reference to the ‘Scota’ myth was in the ‘Slaine’ comic strip published in ‘2000AD’.

That just about tells you all you need to know about its veracity.

Silverwhistle, do you consider there to be any history to the stone prior to 850AD? Or do you think it’s just a lump of Scottish quarry sandstone?

From the website:

“The pilgrims are wanderers in the invisible landscape of the heart.”

Real Crocodile Dundee stuff.

Echan’s blog is a classic – you try finding a piece of Counterknowledge bollocks that *isn’t* in there.

The one uniting factor in this sort of thing is the insistence that ‘Mother Earth’ isn’t feeling at all well. The implication is that the entire planet, to its hot, radioactive core, is an organism. Either these people don’t know life is a very thin layer on a big ball of non-living matter, or more likely they don’t care about a boring old fact.

That said, I just watched a DVD of the old Hammer movie ‘X The Unknown’ , in which it turns out that the earth’s core is full of life. Perhaps I should refer the pilgrims to it.

Colonialist elitist racist attitude to the “lesser” races who are clearly underdeveloped and incapable of looking after themselves: “part of his mission to assist Japanese in becoming sovereign individuals capable of making theor own informational choices”.

Newage enlightened attitude to other peoples: “part of his mission to assist Japanese in becoming sovereign individuals capable of making theor own informational choices”.

Yup, the racism is staggering – I think this guy needs plenty of exposure, but not of the variety he normally enjoys.

And yet this highly evolved mind doesn’t know how to use a spell checker, apparently. Or is ‘theor’ a new age term?

@valdemar: well, my Northern cousins used to address me as th’Eor…

‘He is a “talking shaman” who takes the job very seriously yet evokes a great deal of laughter at his events.’

Two responses come to mind:

(1) Are other shaman (shamen?) trappists?
(2) Do people laugh at him or with him?

Thanks for the link to the website, Damian. Cant wait to read it.

Rifty

To be perfectly honest, I think Satish Kumar and the Resurgence Trust sound very dignified and not at all the sort of thing I’d clasify as counterknowledge. Or the sort of thing I’d feel comfortable ridiculing at all. Now as for Graham Hancock……

No, I’m not claiming that Satish Kumar disseminates counterknowledge – I’m asking what the hell he is doing lending his name to this enterprise, some of whose “pilgrims” peddle garbage.

oo err, i see the film is due out in Spring 2009, will it be competing with the new Star Trek movie?

From the website:

“The pilgrims are wanderers in the invisible landscape of the heart.”

Real Crocodile Dundee stuff.

Echan’s blog is a classic – you try finding a piece of Counterknowledge bollocks that *isn’t* in there.

The one uniting factor in this sort of thing is the insistence that ‘Mother Earth’ isn’t feeling at all well. The implication is that the entire planet, to its hot, radioactive core, is an organism. Either these people don’t know life is a very thin layer on a big ball of non-living matter, or more likely they don’t care about a boring old fact.

That said, I just watched a DVD of the old Hammer movie ‘X The Unknown’ , in which it turns out that the earth’s core is full of life. Perhaps I should refer the pilgrims to it.

Colonialist elitist racist attitude to the “lesser” races who are clearly underdeveloped and incapable of looking after themselves: “part of his mission to assist Japanese in becoming sovereign individuals capable of making theor own informational choices”.

Newage enlightened attitude to other peoples: “part of his mission to assist Japanese in becoming sovereign individuals capable of making theor own informational choices”.

Yup, the racism is staggering – I think this guy needs plenty of exposure, but not of the variety he normally enjoys.

And yet this highly evolved mind doesn’t know how to use a spell checker, apparently. Or is ‘theor’ a new age term?

@valdemar: well, my Northern cousins used to address me as th’Eor…

‘He is a “talking shaman” who takes the job very seriously yet evokes a great deal of laughter at his events.’

Two responses come to mind:

(1) Are other shaman (shamen?) trappists?
(2) Do people laugh at him or with him?

Thanks for the link to the website, Damian. Cant wait to read it.

Rifty

To be perfectly honest, I think Satish Kumar and the Resurgence Trust sound very dignified and not at all the sort of thing I’d clasify as counterknowledge. Or the sort of thing I’d feel comfortable ridiculing at all. Now as for Graham Hancock……

No, I’m not claiming that Satish Kumar disseminates counterknowledge – I’m asking what the hell he is doing lending his name to this enterprise, some of whose “pilgrims” peddle garbage.

oo err, i see the film is due out in Spring 2009, will it be competing with the new Star Trek movie?

Shhh. The illuminati swore him to silence. Where else do you think he could have found such esoteric knowledge?

We asked him to stop mentioning us. Frankly, we’re a bit embarrassed by him.

Aargh!! I clicked on that link and read Patrick Geryl’s manifesto, or whatever it is. You now owe me 10 minutes of my life back. Plus several million brain cells that were leached osmotically into that morass of mind-numbing stupidity, that Slough of Despond devoid of any sense or education!

Dear me, I can prophesy that this will play havoc with the London Olympics.

I came across your site from a character assignation you did on some other “alternative history” book. I am not a fan of such material but I did find your “review” deeply personal and in places highly irrational. It was enough for me to check the personality behind said review and from there I discovered that you write for a religious newspaper – the Catholic something or other. It came as such a surprise to be honest.

You see, I can sympathise with your distaste for the fantasies of many new agers and alternative history types but then you go and spoil it all by having beliefs as equally bizarre.

I mean let us look at the facts. as a theist you believe:

In an invisible fairy king in the sky. There are many such fairy kings quoted in folk myth but for whatever reasons you have chosen your version of said sugar plum fairy at random

This faiey king – as you would expect really – has “magical super powers” and completely circumnavigates the laws of physics at will. Indeed, “he” can do so easily as it seem you believe that he made said laws,

If you wish hard enough (known as prayer) your particular fairy king will grant your wishes – just like in “Aladdin”?.

When you die, you will either – if you have done what your fairy king asks (which includes leaving your friends ass alone)- go to a magical fairy kingdom in the sky. However, if you are bad you will go to another fairy kingdom but one were mythical figures called demons will poke red hot pokers up your dead anus (seems a little extreme to me but what do i know.)

You were born “bad” (sinful) because of some women’s ate a piece of fruit.

Someday, the world will end because a bad fairy called Satan, will father a son that looks human but is really naughty.

However, he will not be successful because your fairy king will send his “son” back to earth flying in the air (like superman perhaps?) to save the day at the last minute. However, things may get a little crowed on earth at this time as everyone who has ever died will be raised from the dead (zombies?) for “final Judgement. One pictures a scene from “Night Of The Living Dead”

Oh, did I mention, that your fairy king and his “church” believes that all homosexuals are “evil (sinful) and will also go to the bad fairy kings place? Or that your fairy king father a son who also had magical powers and could:

Walk on water
Turn water into wine (good party trick that one)
Was born although his mother had never had sex
Bring the dead back to life and indeed managed to bring himself back to life and then fly into the air for the first time to go to the magic fairy kingdom in the sky.

I am completely with you, all those silly new agers and alternative history people and their crazy theories. Its lucky we can rely on “sane”, “rational” “non deluded” people such as yourself.

“character assignation”?

I always feel it speaks volumes of a blogs readership when the only reply to commentary is to point out one of many typos – but what would I know

First, I thought your comment was a rather tedious and overlong anti-religious rant that was quite irrelevant to the post.

Second, using assignation instead of assassination, which I assume is what you meant, is not a typo; it is an error.

“Demons will poke red hot pokers up your dead anus”.

That was a suspiciously detailed line, Bob (and weirdly poetic). You’ve clearly given the procedure some thought. Do I detect a hint of jealousy?

I’m sorry—I thought you were referring to a scene in the movie Hancock—perhaps the DVD version. I didn’t think anyone actually believed this crap—both my kids are mayan, and they’ve got plans for 2013.

so…
all that back and forth and no one discussed 2012? at all?

Shhh. The illuminati swore him to silence. Where else do you think he could have found such esoteric knowledge?

We asked him to stop mentioning us. Frankly, we’re a bit embarrassed by him.

Aargh!! I clicked on that link and read Patrick Geryl’s manifesto, or whatever it is. You now owe me 10 minutes of my life back. Plus several million brain cells that were leached osmotically into that morass of mind-numbing stupidity, that Slough of Despond devoid of any sense or education!

Dear me, I can prophesy that this will play havoc with the London Olympics.

I came across your site from a character assignation you did on some other “alternative history” book. I am not a fan of such material but I did find your “review” deeply personal and in places highly irrational. It was enough for me to check the personality behind said review and from there I discovered that you write for a religious newspaper – the Catholic something or other. It came as such a surprise to be honest.

You see, I can sympathise with your distaste for the fantasies of many new agers and alternative history types but then you go and spoil it all by having beliefs as equally bizarre.

I mean let us look at the facts. as a theist you believe:

In an invisible fairy king in the sky. There are many such fairy kings quoted in folk myth but for whatever reasons you have chosen your version of said sugar plum fairy at random

This faiey king – as you would expect really – has “magical super powers” and completely circumnavigates the laws of physics at will. Indeed, “he” can do so easily as it seem you believe that he made said laws,

If you wish hard enough (known as prayer) your particular fairy king will grant your wishes – just like in “Aladdin”?.

When you die, you will either – if you have done what your fairy king asks (which includes leaving your friends ass alone)- go to a magical fairy kingdom in the sky. However, if you are bad you will go to another fairy kingdom but one were mythical figures called demons will poke red hot pokers up your dead anus (seems a little extreme to me but what do i know.)

You were born “bad” (sinful) because of some women’s ate a piece of fruit.

Someday, the world will end because a bad fairy called Satan, will father a son that looks human but is really naughty.

However, he will not be successful because your fairy king will send his “son” back to earth flying in the air (like superman perhaps?) to save the day at the last minute. However, things may get a little crowed on earth at this time as everyone who has ever died will be raised from the dead (zombies?) for “final Judgement. One pictures a scene from “Night Of The Living Dead”

Oh, did I mention, that your fairy king and his “church” believes that all homosexuals are “evil (sinful) and will also go to the bad fairy kings place? Or that your fairy king father a son who also had magical powers and could:

Walk on water
Turn water into wine (good party trick that one)
Was born although his mother had never had sex
Bring the dead back to life and indeed managed to bring himself back to life and then fly into the air for the first time to go to the magic fairy kingdom in the sky.

I am completely with you, all those silly new agers and alternative history people and their crazy theories. Its lucky we can rely on “sane”, “rational” “non deluded” people such as yourself.

“character assignation”?

I always feel it speaks volumes of a blogs readership when the only reply to commentary is to point out one of many typos – but what would I know

First, I thought your comment was a rather tedious and overlong anti-religious rant that was quite irrelevant to the post.

Second, using assignation instead of assassination, which I assume is what you meant, is not a typo; it is an error.

“Demons will poke red hot pokers up your dead anus”.

That was a suspiciously detailed line, Bob (and weirdly poetic). You’ve clearly given the procedure some thought. Do I detect a hint of jealousy?

I’m sorry—I thought you were referring to a scene in the movie Hancock—perhaps the DVD version. I didn’t think anyone actually believed this crap—both my kids are mayan, and they’ve got plans for 2013.

so…
all that back and forth and no one discussed 2012? at all?