Researchers like Graham Hancock and Randal Carlson (and many more) have come to the conclusion that there must have been an ancient civilization in the deep past of prehistory. They believe this civilization was destroyed at the end of the last ice age, twelve or thirteen thousand years ago.
They believe this because they think structures like the Great Pyramid couldn't have been built by prehistoric people. They think that the knowledge to build these structures had to have come from an advanced civilization.
I believed this theory for a long time, because it makes sense. For instance, there is a host of mathematical knowledge in the pyramids around the world. It LOOKS like there must have been an advanced civilization whose descendants imparted this knowledge.
But as I looked into it, I have noticed that it doesn't make sense in other ways. For one, there is an obvious progression of human development, in less advanced tool-making etc. to more advanced as we go through prehistory. There are artifacts that show this. I think archaeologists and anthropologists have it right. There was little progress in tool making until about fifty thousand years ago, when there was an explosion of advancement suddenly. I think this is when we got our language faculty, which Noam Chomsky thinks was a saltation. This is when we become fully modern human beings.
Then there is little progress until about 9000 years ago, when people begin farming. And then another few thousand years to the first civilization. The archaeological record is clear on this.
If there was an ancient advanced civilization, there would be remnants of it SOMEWHERE. And we find zero evidence for this. This is why I think these researchers are flat out wrong.
So, something else must be going on. I have a theory, and I will go into it in part 2.
No comments:
Post a Comment