Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Megalithic and Prehistoric Sites

This is incredible if true, pushing back human developments by 14,000 years and suggesting we are not the first :eek:

Sensational report that Indonesia’s Gunung Padang site is 25,000 years old
the previous record holder, Turkey’s Göbekli Tepe stone monuments, are thought to be about 11,000 years old.
But Gunung Padang could be more than twice the age of these ancient megaliths, say the authors in a paper in Archaeological Prospection. “Evidence from Gunung Padang suggests advanced construction practices were already present when agriculture had, perhaps, not yet been invented,” they claim.
And the Guardian throws in some irrelevant information just to cast doubt :mad:
Controversy has been fuelled by the discovery that the paper was proofread by the controversial British writer Graham Hancock. He argues that a once sophisticated, ancient culture – subsequently destroyed in a cosmic incident – brought science, technology, agriculture and monumental architecture to the primitive people who populated the world after the last ice age. Gunung Padang could be an example of their handiwork, he has suggested in his Netflix series, Ancient Apocalypse.
Natawidjaja told the Observer last week that he considered Hancock’s ideas to be “a reasonable working hypothesis”.

:)
 
The stuff they're finding at Gobekli Tepe is going to transform our understanding of human history. It's now obvious that it was a highly sophisticated civilization, with everything we think of as art and culture already in place twelve thousand years ago. This wasn't built by "cavemen."

 
I think that this claim is very implausible.
The Gunung Padang claim or the one about Gobekli Tepe?

Hard agree if it's the first. Young Shippy almost fell for some of that stuff. Got a few of those 10000 year old lost civilisation books. Very skeptical about that kinda stuff nowadays.


Didn't think Gobekli Tepe was controversial nowadays. Cool to hear about painted statues though.
 
The Gunung Padang claim or the one about Gobekli Tepe?

Hard agree if it's the first. Young Shippy almost fell for some of that stuff. Got a few of those 10000 year old lost civilisation books. Very skeptical about that kinda stuff nowadays.


Didn't think Gobekli Tepe was controversial nowadays. Cool to hear about painted statues though.
Gunung Padang. The Gobekli Tepe claims are not that out of line with what was already known, and as far as I know they are not contested.

Graham Hancock is simply someone who does what he does for fame and fortune.
 
Gunung Padang. The Gobekli Tepe claims are not that out of line with what was already known, and as far as I know they are not contested.

Has that post disappeared? Or is it just because I have twatface on ignore?

Graham Hancock is simply someone who does what he does for fame and fortune.
and is even more of a loon in his spare time :)
 
Not sure where the "11,000 year-old" date in that headline comes from. The article makes no mention of it, and neither does the press release form the archaeologists.
It's within the already-known range of settlement dates though, so while it's an interesting find it doesn't push the date back or anything.

As for even older "civilization", it isn't impossible, but if it existed it wasn't widespread. We'd see evidence of farming in the pollen record, and it would be strange indeed to not have found any archaeological remains. Gubekli Tepi dates from just after the last glaciation, while modern Homo Sapiens date to a few 10ky before its beginning. Global climate during that time was not particularly pleasant, so it's a reasonable hypothesis that while we had the capability for complex societies all that time, it took a warming world to allow that capability to flourish.
 
I thought that part of thrill of this is that it is pre-agraculture?

If there were complex cultures before this who happened to build with more ephemeral mediums than stone what trace would we even see?

Not claiming there were of course Just curious about what you would look for if it was pre agriculture and using mostly biological materials.

I guess there would have to be some flints, scrapers, hand axes, etc. Even if everything else was wood and leather. Do postholes still show up after that long?
 
As for even older "civilization", it isn't impossible, but if it existed it wasn't widespread. We'd see evidence of farming in the pollen record, and it would be strange indeed to not have found any archaeological remains.

Good to see you Crispy.

The consensus seems to be that GT was deliberately destroyed and concealed. If that practice was widespread it would explain the absence of remains.

And I believe there is evidence of ultra-ancient farming in the pollen record, in California among other places. David Graeber writes about it in The Dawn of Everything.
 
I thought that part of thrill of this is that it is pre-agraculture?

The new evidence suggests that agriculture was practiced much earlier than previously suspected, that it was often practiced alongside hunter-gathering, and that it was usually abandoned after a while--in all probability precisely BECAUSE it tended to give rise to what we call "civilization."
 
Good to see you Crispy.

The consensus seems to be that GT was deliberately destroyed and concealed. If that practice was widespread it would explain the absence of remains.
The "deliberate burial" hypothesis is outdated. More detailed stratigraphic analysis and C14 dating of charcoal fragments embedded in mud mortar has revealed a layered history of the site, with older buildings collapsing, being abandoned, parts reused, buildings re-excavated, repaired/restructured and re-used.

1703085628979.png
source: Kinzel, M. and Clare, L. (2020) Monumental – compared to what? A perspective from Göbekli Tepe

And I believe there is evidence of ultra-ancient farming in the pollen record, in California among other places. David Graeber writes about it in The Dawn of Everything.

Any agricultural pollen in ancient California is still within the Holocene though, just by considering the earliest evidence for humans in the Americas. As you say, small-scale farming was often practised alongside hunting/gathering and pasturalism. And as GT (and many other similar sites) show, you don't need agriculture for complex societies to develop. But as soon as you scale agriculture up to a collective endeavour, the resulting surplus makes it far easier for such societies to form. And when it does happen, it leaves a massive mark. The agricultural revolutions in the middle East, China, America etc. are blindingly obvious in the archaeology and there's just no sign of it at scale before then. Maybe it will be discovered one day and that would be fascinating.
 
Any agricultural pollen in ancient California is still within the Holocene though, just by considering the earliest evidence for humans in the Americas. As you say, small-scale farming was often practised alongside hunting/gathering and pasturalism. And as GT (and many other similar sites) show, you don't need agriculture for complex societies to develop. But as soon as you scale agriculture up to a collective endeavour, the resulting surplus makes it far easier for such societies to form. And when it does happen, it leaves a massive mark. The agricultural revolutions in the middle East, China, America etc. are blindingly obvious in the archaeology and there's just no sign of it at scale before then. Maybe it will be discovered one day and that would be fascinating.

What interests me is the idea that some hunter-gatherers may have taken up agriculture and then, having noted its effects on their culture and society, given it up and gone back to hunter-gathering. That would refute the idea that agriculture is an advance on hunter-gathering, and even the idea that civilization is an advance on tribal society. It would constitute a significant challenge to the concept of history as progress.
 
I used to have no idea how many circles there were in that part of the world. I thought it was Stonehenge and Avebury (which I've been to) and that was it. jealous!
 
Back
Top Bottom