Mayan palace at least 1,000 years old uncovered by archeologists in Mexico

[moksha]

Noticed an LDS themed movie on TV tonight: The Robot vs The Aztec Mummy. Channel 9.

[Random]

Well, there are those burial rites of the Neanderthals. I am sure religion has been around a very long time.

No doubt.

Ever since I read Fingerprints of the Gods by Graham Hancock, I've seriously rethought the idea of how long I thought "modern" people existed on this planet (as a tbm, I was sure it was roughly 6k years).

[Random]

I recently became familiar with the archeological finding of Gobekli Tepe in Turkey via the Joe Rogan podcast interviews with Graham Hancock. Fascinating stuff. Supposedly some egyptologists are also thinking now that the Sphinx should be dated to around 8,000 BCE as well, and is thus not an artifact of the Egyptians. The ability of human beings to build these things 10,000 years ago and the technological demands has people scratching their heads.

Fingerprints of the Gods is where I was first introduced to the idea of the sphinx originally having a lion's head/face and being a lot older than the Egyptians. The person who came up with the theory pointed out that there was water erosion all over the sphinx, except for the head. I forget his complete argument, but he convinced me that the theory had merit. And I can totally see a vain pharoah having his head/face carved into it.

[Arcturus]

The person who came up with the theory pointed out that there was water erosion all over the sphinx, except for the head. I forget his complete argument, but he convinced me that the theory had merit. And I can totally see a vain pharoah having his head/face carved into it.

Fascinating! I didn't get that detail from the podcast. If this is true, a pretty solid hypothesis indeed.

[Just This Guy]

The idea that water erosion occurred on the Sphinx has been around since the 50's. The problem that there is no other other evidence to cooperate it. The generally accepted theory is that humidity in the air reacts with salt within the limestone and causes it to flak off in a patter similar to water erosion. This is consistent with other rocks and structures in the area.

Additionally, even if the climate were wetter, they Sphinx is built on higher round and not in a place that would normally get weathered to the degree claimed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphinx_wa ... hypothesis

[Random]

The difference in the book I read, Just This Guy, was that there was not as much water erosion on the head as there was on the body - plus the head is apparently a little smaller than it seems it ought to be. (And in the book I"m currently reading - Magicians of the Gods - the author believes there was flooding that came from the smaller dryas (small ice age after the big one, and just before things warmed up more and more and more).)

It's really frustrating to me to be enticed by so many ancient things, and all we really have are theories - and scientists who think they have it all figured out fighting against theories they don't like/that would seriously disturb their established ideas and timelines.

I really wish there was a way to know for sure - but I honestly don't know how that can happen.

[Hagoth]

...and scientists who think they have it all figured out fighting against theories they don't like/that would seriously disturb their established ideas and timelines.

Yeah, that sounds like Graham Hancock. I think some of his stuff is really interesting but when you listen to his lectures (I haven't read his books) you hear a lot of this kind of thing: "scientists and archaeologists don't talk about me because they are so egotistical that they won't consider anything but their own stuffy old out-of-date ideas." Not to say there isn't a degree of truth to that but most of the archaeologists I know are pretty much the opposite; they would LOVE to throw out some new, mindblowing theories IF they had credible evidence to support it. Hancock, on the other hand, makes all kinds of claims on very tenuous evidence and accepts extremely remote possibilities as axioms. He builds his arguments to a large part by disparaging people who don't make the same wild leaps of logic because they limit themselves to verifiable scientific evidence. He is not stepping up and superseding their evidence with equally compelling evidence, he is taking it a notch down to attack the people producing the evidence.

What Hancock is doing is a lot of fun, but If everyone went out on limbs as far as he does we would have no kind of useful hypotheses or historical timeline at all. It would be sheer chaos. There are certainly lot of amazing things we don't know about the ancients (and things like Goebekli Teppi are being discovered by real archaeologists, who are excited to find them - not trying to cover them up) but I think we need to be aware that some of these fringe guys use arguments and reasoning that are very much along the same lines as Book of Mormon apologists. I went into a little bit of detail on another thread concerning Hancock's claims about the Piri Reis Map, so I won't talk about it here. Suffice it to say that I think it is best to always carry a few grains of salt in our pockets.

[Random]

Yeah, that sounds like Graham Hancock. I think some of his stuff is really interesting but when you listen to his lectures (I haven't read his books) you hear a lot of this kind of thing: "scientists and archaeologists don't talk about me because they are so egotistical that they won't consider anything but their own stuffy old out-of-date ideas."

Thankfully, his books focus more on what he has discovered (with a lot of photos) and what he thinks, though he does sometimes mention that archeologists generally disagree with him - and the part of my post you quoted is what I perceive his opinion to be. (I've never attended any of his lectures and have zero desire to do so.)

I do think he brings up some interesting ideas, and many of those ideas could be right (or really close to the truth).

[Random]

I think we need to be aware that some of these fringe guys use arguments and reasoning that are very much along the same lines as Book of Mormon apologists.

This makes me so glad that my eternal salvation does not hang on Graham Hancock - nor on any scientist - nor on any religious leader/organized religion.

[2bizE]

I heard a rumor that within the Mayan temple, they found Hebrew writing, sheep and horse bones, steel swords, curloms, coins, and all manner of BOM lore. Also, three large natives were seen protecting the site...

[Hagoth]

I think we need to be aware that some of these fringe guys use arguments and reasoning that are very much along the same lines as Book of Mormon apologists.

This makes me so glad that my eternal salvation does not hang on Graham Hancock - nor on any scientist - nor on any religious leader/organized religion.

Amen and amen

[Hagoth]

I heard a rumor that within the Mayan temple, they found Hebrew writing, sheep and horse bones, steel swords, curloms, coins, and all manner of BOM lore. Also, three large natives were seen protecting the site...

But the arrogant archaeologist who don't want their precious apple cart overturned are keeping it hidden! This is where all of these roads come together. The State archaeologist for the US Forest Service told me he attends meetings in Provo of a group of "Book of Mormon archaeology" enthusiasts. He said they always accuse him of being part of the big cover-up conspiracy that keeps all of the BoM evidence under wraps. Why? Well, that would show that all of those book-smart archaeologist don't know as much as one 19th century uneducated farmboy.