Home of the The Hall of Ma'at on the Internet
Home
Discussion Forums
Papers
Authors
Web Links

May 7, 2024, 12:21 pm UTC    
June 11, 2005 12:01PM
I'm sure that not even Messrs B&H can always be wrong but, as they say, the devil (or God -- depending on your perspective) is in the detail. When you look at the specifics of what Messrs B&H proposed (Mr B specifically proposed significantly earlier dates for various Egyptian monuments, Mr H specifically proposed an advanced global master-race, both around 12,500 BP) they have exactly nothing in common with the recent discoveries in Central Europe, either in the nature of the discoveries or in the period of construction.

Firstly, anyone who cannot see a serious discrepancy between 4600BC and 10500 BC needs to take some basic history lessons. However, I suspect that it is not an inability to see a discrepancy, but an intent to mislead, coming, as it does, with a somewhat crass choice to misrepresent the orthodox position on the chronology of human activity in Central Europe (which, to take a few snapshots, is that farming was established in the Balkans by 6500 BC, and that by 6000 BC there were villages around the Mediterranean and that settled farming communities had been established as far north as modern day Belgium and Holland; and that megalithic tombs in Western Europe date at least as far back as 5000BC).

What these recent discoveries suggest is that the date for European monumental architecture needs to be pushed back a thousand years or so (not the 2000 as another post falsely suggested) so that it is approximately contemporary with the beginnings of monumental architecture around the Eastern Mediterranean and Mesopotamia. The provisional dates of construction of these new discoveries is contemporary with the date for which it is already known that copper was being worked in the same region.

And just to pre-empt any future attempts to misrepresent the orthodox position, let's all try to remember that it is that there have been settled agricultural communities dating at least as far back as 10000 BP. When Messrs B&H can provide unequivocal and un-cooked evidence of advanced civilisations or global master-races prior to that, I may start giving them some credence.

--

Stephen
Subject Author Posted

Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

barry June 11, 2005 04:20AM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Anthony June 11, 2005 05:39AM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

M.J.Thomas June 11, 2005 06:22AM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Hermione June 11, 2005 07:56AM

Bingo.

Anthony June 11, 2005 07:58AM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

M.J.Thomas June 11, 2005 08:55AM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Hermione June 11, 2005 10:42AM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Doug Weller June 11, 2005 02:47PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Hermione June 11, 2005 03:35PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Joe_S June 11, 2005 02:56PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

wirelessguru1 June 12, 2005 12:03AM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Joe_S June 12, 2005 07:41PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

wirelessguru1 June 12, 2005 07:52PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

barry June 11, 2005 10:27AM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Hermione June 11, 2005 11:19AM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

John Wall June 11, 2005 12:12PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Hermione June 11, 2005 12:18PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

John Wall June 11, 2005 12:28PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Doug Weller June 11, 2005 02:52PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Hermione June 11, 2005 03:30PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Anthony June 11, 2005 07:38PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

darkuser June 11, 2005 07:49PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

wirelessguru1 June 11, 2005 11:30PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

darkuser June 12, 2005 05:40PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

wirelessguru1 June 12, 2005 06:57PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Doug Weller June 12, 2005 01:58AM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

darkuser June 12, 2005 05:44PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Doug Weller June 13, 2005 12:15AM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

darkuser June 13, 2005 02:43AM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Dave L June 11, 2005 07:28PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Joe_S June 11, 2005 02:52PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

wirelessguru1 June 12, 2005 12:08AM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Joe_S June 12, 2005 07:48PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

wirelessguru1 June 12, 2005 07:59PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

barry June 11, 2005 06:27AM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Anthony June 11, 2005 07:36AM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

M.J.Thomas June 11, 2005 07:47AM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Rick June 12, 2005 11:41AM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Anthony June 12, 2005 03:05PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Rick June 12, 2005 04:23PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Anthony June 12, 2005 04:34PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Katherine Reece June 12, 2005 04:39PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Rick June 12, 2005 05:14PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

wirelessguru1 June 12, 2005 07:05PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Anthony June 12, 2005 08:33PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

RickB June 12, 2005 10:28PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Stephen Tonkin June 13, 2005 12:22AM

Rick, read this

Anthony June 13, 2005 07:57AM

Re: Rick, read this

Lee June 13, 2005 09:10AM

Re: Rick, read this

Anthony June 13, 2005 09:17AM

Re: Rick, read this

Lee June 13, 2005 10:37AM

Re: Rick, read this

Stephen Tonkin June 13, 2005 02:11PM

Re: Rick, read this

Lee June 13, 2005 04:09PM

Re: Rick, read this

Stephen Tonkin June 13, 2005 11:14PM

Rick

Warwick L Nixon June 15, 2005 09:42AM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Stephen Tonkin June 13, 2005 12:13AM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

RickB June 13, 2005 01:19AM

Cyclopean walls

Hermione June 13, 2005 04:11AM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

darkuser June 12, 2005 07:04PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

wirelessguru1 June 12, 2005 07:19PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Stephen Tonkin June 13, 2005 12:27AM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Ritva Kurittu June 13, 2005 03:26AM

Warning: adult content

barry June 11, 2005 07:06AM

Re: Warning: adult content

bernard June 11, 2005 11:42AM

Re: Warning: adult content

barry June 11, 2005 12:40PM

Re: Warning: adult content

bernard June 11, 2005 12:54PM

Re: Warning: adult content

barry June 11, 2005 01:37PM

a note on human nature

Warwick L Nixon June 12, 2005 10:16AM

Re: a note on human nature

Ritva Kurittu June 12, 2005 11:12AM

Re: a note on human nature

Warwick L Nixon June 13, 2005 09:46AM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Hermione June 11, 2005 07:35AM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Anthony June 11, 2005 07:53AM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

goaten June 11, 2005 08:08AM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Stephen Tonkin June 11, 2005 12:01PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

wirelessguru1 June 11, 2005 01:16PM

What Anthony said

Stephen Tonkin June 11, 2005 01:55PM

Second question for Barry...

Anthony June 12, 2005 10:42AM

It was a play on words of a historical person

barry June 12, 2005 10:59AM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Pete Clarke June 13, 2005 04:24AM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Michael Lehmann June 13, 2005 04:28PM

Welcome back, Michael

Anthony June 13, 2005 05:06PM

Re: Welcome back, Michael

John Wall June 13, 2005 05:30PM

Thank you ! ... nt

Katherine Reece June 13, 2005 06:08PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Ritva Kurittu June 13, 2005 06:37PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Pete Clarke June 14, 2005 02:55AM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Michael Lehmann June 15, 2005 05:39PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Pete Clarke June 17, 2005 03:31AM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Doug Weller June 14, 2005 02:49PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Don Holeman June 14, 2005 03:01PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Doug Weller June 14, 2005 03:10PM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Pete Clarke June 15, 2005 02:46AM

Re: Perhaps Hancock/Bauval are not always wrong

Anthony June 15, 2005 07:39AM

Something that I don't understand about the German ruins story-

C. Loggy June 13, 2005 09:28PM

Re: Something that I don't understand about the German ruins story-

bernard June 13, 2005 10:23PM

Re: Something that I don't understand about the German ruins story-

Hermione June 15, 2005 03:55AM

Re: Something that I don't understand about the German ruins story-

Pete Clarke June 15, 2005 07:51AM

Re: Something that I don't understand about the German ruins story-

Warwick L Nixon June 15, 2005 11:48AM

Re: Something that I don't understand about the German ruins story-

Jon K July 16, 2005 02:51PM

Re: Something that I don't understand about the German ruins story-

Hermione July 17, 2005 05:48AM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login