Historical mysteries:12,000 Years city in Kurdistan. older then Pyramids, and anythin

I have to say I have very grave doubts about the claims made in your link

 

Would you like to share those grave doubts? Perhaps you have the archaeological expertise to postulate a theory of your own.

 

You mean about Nibiru and making this slave class from dust and blood???

 

Sorry, I am with Wizard here.

One of the first things I do when reviewing a source is to try to vet it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vetting

That means looking at their credibility, and other articles to see if it has any kind of integrity.

When looking at the "Editors Notes", I see an attempt to link a lecture he gave about Indians coming from Europe to the History Channel (for credibility), and not much else. Doing more research, it seems that Gary Vey (Editor/Owner) is a Graphic Artist who owns an ad agency in Germany. And has written about such fascinating topics as HAARP, the petroglyphs he has personally translated about the Ark of the Covenant, UFOs, and the truth behind Freemasonry.

Sorry, but I reject this as well, without even reading the link at all. I give it absolutely no credibility due to the source.

 

There are cities and settlements older than the pyramids in almost every continent. This is not surprising since those who built the pyramids had great understanding and skill in construction that it was probably acquired by their ancestors building houses and fortifications .

Permanent settlement means agriculture (and in at least one case mining) and there is no better place to settle than the fertile crescent .

 

The Pseudo-archaeology Research Archive (PARA) is an online repository for scholarship relating to topics in pseudo-archaeology (including various cult, fantastic, and fringe archaeologies, as well as related topics in cultural and physical anthropology).

Adopting a healthy skepticism towards pseudo-archaeological theories and thinking, we contend that an attitude of critical analysis and empirical rigor is a vital part of the scholarly enterprise.

http://pseudoarchaeology.org/

 

+1 i can not find anything about it in the e-ent

 

Where is the archeology to begin with. A photo of a bunch of people standing around carved stones proves nothing other than a bunch of people standing around carved stones. First principles suggest context has to be established. This has not been done on any level.

 

And the whole thing is very sad, as evidenced by some of the contributions on this page. Archeology and the history of man is weird, exciting and amazing enough without having to make stuff up

 

I have always thought there was a lot of fraud and politics involved.

 

Yeah well I think the oldest examples of that I can think of date back to Old Kingdom Egypt. It is always good propaganda to link yourself with leaders from a golden age

 

Archeology is the science of making up theories with very little evidence to back them up. Every time they make a new discovery their old time line goes into the trash.

 

With that attitude this conversation is probably best put at an end. I would suggest you find copies of shows such as "Time Team" and see what processes archeologists and other go through to establish their positions on various fines. And how often archeologists are confronted with information and finds they know they will never know the truth about.

Without so much as digging a pit they have pronounced what the site was, how many lived there and how old it is. Thats not archeology or any other science, thats just guessing

 

Next you'll be telling me that archeology is an exact science.

 

It precise enough to tell if a site is 200,000 years old or 1500

 

What was the reaction of the scientific community when Heinrich Schliemann said he'd discovered Troy?

 

There were no professional archeologists when he destroyed the site.

 

And what's happened since?

 

Which of the four Troys?

 

Exactly, archaeology is continuously disproving the previous theory. I actually don't give a **** about the theory I posted, it's not my theory. Although it should be clear that archaeological evidence keeps pushing the time line further back. It's interesting to speculate on how long people have been building permanent settlements.

 

People have been trying to put the place back together. Schliemann's trench pretty much screwed later attempts to date the upper cities. A lot of potential knowledge has been lost in his egotistical dive for Helen's treasure

 

No one would argue that - But to postulate a civilization orders of magnitude older than anything we are aware of is going to take a lot more than some photos of stones and guesses.

Three things have to happen at that site

Find samples of the grain they ate

Find charcoal

Look at the techniques used to fashion the rocks, find evidence of the tools used

 

Actually, a lot of the oldest sits simply no longer exist, and will never be found again due to sea level rise.

A great many of the oldest sites known have been near shorelines. And since 3000 BCE the oceans have risen an average of 6 meters, in some places even more (depending on ocean slope, plate tectonics, silting, etc). So a great many sites are now underwater and are only found through luck.

And it always bugs me when I see a "Map of the Ancient World" that shows the Tigris and Euphrates running into the Shatt al-Arab before exiting to the Persian Gulf. 4-5,000 years ago these were still 2 separate rivers, not the conjoined river system we know today (over 200 km of land has been added due to silting and other geological factors).

The most important find in any archaeological search is to find their middens (that is their garbage dump to those not familiar with the terminology).

Buildings and rocks alone tell you very little about a civilization, their garbage tells a researcher far more then buildings ever would.

 

Both rivers (Tigris and Euphrates) have wandered a bit over the eons and the delta seems to have extended about 150 miles..

To make matters more complicated the Arabian Peninsula is still tipping east into the Persian Gulf.... so yes .. I am sure some sites have been lost under salt water and sand.