M.J.Thomas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> As I understand it, Hancock and others are arguing
> for civilisation starting thousands of years
> earlier than is currently thought by 'orthodox'
> archaeologists and historians.
> Here we have new evidence of a civilisation
> thriving in Europe 2,000 years before Stonehenge
> and the Giza pyramids. Broadly speaking, this
> discovery favours - but does not in itself prove -
> the views of Hancock and others.

It depends what is meant by the phrase "lost civilization", though. IIRC (and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - it's years since I skimmed through OM and FoG), Hancock, Bauval & Co. argue that there was a lost civilization that was originally based in Antarctica; then lived somewhere or other that disappeared in a cataclysm, thus giving rise to the Atlantis myth; and finally moved to Egypt, where, amongst other things, they built the Pyramids. Oh, and I think they might have gone to South America, too ... and weren't they all supposed to have originally come from Mars ?? (As I say: I apologize if I've got any of the details wrong).

What the archaeologists seem to have found at Kyhna, Aythra and Dresden, however, is evidence of the "monumental Vision" of "an increasingly sophisticated farming culture" that perhaps had distant roots somewhere in Mesopotamia. Nothing there about Antarctica, Atlantis, Egypt or space travel.

Hermione
Director/Moderator - The Hall of Ma'at

Rules and Guidelines

hallofmaatforum@proton.me