Pyramid in Bosnia?

[Kagemusha]

Bosnian Author Semir Osmanagić,claims that he has found Pyramids near town of Visoko. Excavations have started at April 2006 and are ongoing. He doesnt just claim that he has found one but several Pyramids on the area that was the medieval Capital of Bosnia.He claims as the Pyramids date between 12000 BC- 500BC(Pretty long time methinks)Here are some pics from the excavations:











Do you guys believe that this could be actually true?And these excavations will give us a piece of lost history. That there has been a coulture in Europe that has builded these Pyramids?And if so,what coulture that could have been?

Here are is a website with more information and Wiki article about these alledged Pyramids:

http://www.bosnian-pyramid.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_pyramid

[Rodion Romanovich]

Cool! Actually many sources indicate it isn't completely impossible that the Balkan or Asia minor region had civilizations predating those of Egypt and Mesopotamia. However, until they've made C14 tests I think it's too early to say anything. As the structures are pyramids I'd say it's probably from before roman times, so 500 BC at the latest seems a reasonable guess IMO. But how old they could be at the maximum I won't try to guess. It'll be interesting to see what time they're dated to after C14 tests are made.

[ShadesWolf]

This is amazing...

Why hasnt it been covered by the media more ?

[Keba]

Well, if it turns out to be true, and if I have the free time, I might just go over there and take a look. It's only five, six hours away by car.

And it was covered, in the Balkans, at least, the rest of the world was busy with silly little things like the war in Iraq, Iran going atomic, etc, etc. Besides, it's Bosnia, it didn't get attention when there was a war there (which included UN troops caught in the middle), so why should it get any attention now?

[Tzar Dusan of Serbs]

I am from Serbia,this is neigbour state of Bosnia.I dont think this is true,but never the less if it is true I wouldnot be suprised.In my country there is neolitian vilage called Starcevo,scientist say that Starcevo were not just a village,they say that Starcevo have realy great borders,something like neolitian country.This is realy cool and they were advanced,but not military advanced:( Nomadic tribes who knows how to make bronze swords have crushed them.Scientist say that Starcevo was the biggest neolitian society in the Europe.

[Aenlic]

The find in Visoko, Bosnia has proponents and opponents. The dig is only some 6 months old, though; so it's very early. Some say that instead of pyramids, however, they might simply be fortified Roman forts, with paved Roman roads to the top. We'll see.

As for the Starčevo-Körös culture, it is one of the oldest farming cultures in the area. It was probably a part of the huge proto-Indo-European culture which flourished along the Danube and may have had roots in the flooding of the former Black Sea lake, and was later replaced by the more readily defined Vinča culture.

[Mount Suribachi]

He claims as the Pyramids date between 12000 BC- 500BC

Wow, he's really going out on a limb there ain't he?

However, until they've made C14 tests I think it's too early to say anything.

Take it from me, as someone who works in Analytical Chemistry for a living, don't put too much faith in radiometric dating

[Banquo's Ghost]

As has been noted, the proposed timeline of 12,000 - 500 BC helps not a jot.

On first look, the hill that is supposed to be the pyramid appears to be far, far too big. It would be almost impossible to create a stable structure of that magnitude.

Having said that, the ingenuity of the ancients has been underestimated before, and I look forward to more evidence. Like a proposed date.

[Kralizec]

I'm inclined to agree with the critics who don't think this is a real pyramid. But if it's true, then great

[edyzmedieval]

1 day by car from my location I guess.

But I have my doubts whether this is a real pyramid. Nevertheless, I still prefer the Egyptian piramids.

[Aenlic]

In spite of my doubts, I am still reminded of the woman in Peru who spent years trying to convince other archaeologists that the regular-looking hills scattered near the coast in a valley in Peru were actually pyramids and buildings. When she finally got funding and permission to excavate, they discovered the lost city of Caral. And the city dates from 3000 BCE, making it contemporary with the first Egyptian pyramid at Saqqara.

I still have my doubts about the Visoko site; but I'll keep an open mind.

[Rodion Romanovich]

In spite of my doubts, I am still reminded of the woman in Peru who spent years trying to convince other archaeologists that the regular-looking hills scattered near the coast in a valley in Peru were actually pyramids and buildings. When she finally got funding and permission to excavate, they discovered the lost city of Caral. And the city dates from 3000 BCE, making it contemporary with the first Egyptian pyramid at Saqqara.

I still have my doubts about the Visoko site; but I'll keep an open mind.

Very interesting, I was still under the impression Egypt had the oldest pyramids. One interesting thing is that apart from the pyramids in Egypt, most other pyramids seem covered by vegetation, that's why the Egyptian pyramids were discovered first and given so much credit, while in fact they might not be that unique at all, other than in perhaps size?

Another interesting thing is that further up north, cultures often made huge heaps of stone which were later covered by vegetation, creating the well-known grave-heaps that exist in many places in Europe. If the vegetation covering pyramids further south was an intentional plan, then these grave-heaps and pyramids would actually pretty much be the same principle - which raises the question why it is a recurring theme. Could it even be possible that the Egyptian pyramids were also covered in vegetation once - after all it's claimed that the Sahara desert was a flourishing forest region some thousand years BC so it isn't completely impossible...

[Banquo's Ghost]

Very interesting, I was still under the impression Egypt had the oldest pyramids. One interesting thing is that apart from the pyramids in Egypt, most other pyramids seem covered by vegetation, that's why the Egyptian pyramids were discovered first and given so much credit, while in fact they might not be that unique at all, other than in perhaps size?

Absolutely. Also, Egypt was near to the Europeans and their developing interest in archaeology in the 18th century.

Could it even be possible that the Egyptian pyramids were also covered in vegetation once - after all it's claimed that the Sahara desert was a flourishing forest region some thousand years BC so it isn't completely impossible...

Very unlikely. The great pyramids were in fact faced with white marble (and possibly capped with gold) which would have made them a quite amazing sight - but clearly not intended to be hidden with vegetation.

The Sahara has been a desert for a long time, and was savannah before that. Linky. There was a theory bandied about some years ago by a geologist that the Sphinx showed evidence of water erosion, meaning that it would have had to have been built 10,000 years before the accepted date. Critique. If this were true, the likely conditions for vegetal overgrowth might have existed. But then again, why make the pyramid shine white if it will get covered in mould?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Very unlikely. The great pyramids were in fact faced with white marble (and possibly capped with gold) which would have made them a quite amazing sight - but clearly not intended to be hidden with vegetation.

The Sahara has been a desert for a long time, and was savannah before that. Linky. There was a theory bandied about some years ago by a geologist that the Sphinx showed evidence of water erosion, meaning that it would have had to have been built 10,000 years before the accepted date. Critique. If this were true, the likely conditions for vegetal overgrowth might have existed. But then again, why make the pyramid shine white if it will get covered in mould?

Good point, so at least the Egyptian pyramids were most likely not intended to be covered.

[Avicenna]

Perhaps this shows that the Indo-Europeans were quite advanced before spreading out?

This might be an ancient civilisation which beats the Minoans to the first great European civilisation!

Legio: another factor which makes the Pyramids in Egypt so special is that they were built during the Old Kingdom, which isn't long after the Egyptians settled. Perhaps they drew inspiration from these Pyramids?

[Aenlic]

I'll admit that we're still suffering the effects of the somewhat misinformed opinions of the early archaeologists of the 19th century, who were severely prejudiced by their reliance on Greco-Roman historians. They assumed that civilization began in the fertile crescent and Egypt; because they didn't know any better. That paradigm still has a pretty firm grasp on modern ideas. But things are coming around.

The data suggests that the Australian tribes have been there for perhaps as long as 45,000 years or more. Finds in South America clearly indicate civilizations contemporaneous with Egypt and Mesopotamia with just as sophisticated building techniques. And, of course, we have next to no knowledge of those settlements and civilizations which were drowned by the rising sea levels after the end of the last Ice Age, or drowned by the Black Sea flood, or which built using methods which don't weather well over millenia - using wood and mud bricks, for example, instead of stone.

Our entire conception of the beginnings of civilization are based upon the obvious and relatively easy finds of stone works in a dry desert environment. So, it's best to keep an open mind and not rely too heavily on the narrow-minded theories of the 19th century.

[Incongruous]

No they excepted that the forst Civilization started in the area known as the fertile cresent in Babylon, modern day Iraq not in Egypt.
As for the coming round, I have seen little evidence to suggest this except the laughable black Athena theory.

[Papewaio]

Take it from me, as someone who works in Analytical Chemistry for a living, don't put too much faith in radiometric dating

Radiometric dating is a horses for courses kind of thing. Accurate in the right framework, useless outside of it.

Carbon dating is one of the least accurate of radiometric dating because of its assumptions on the amount that a living vs dead life form will retain of the isotopes.

Uranium dating is fairly accurate as a % of the time span looked at.

[Aenlic]

No they excepted that the forst Civilization started in the area known as the fertile cresent in Babylon, modern day Iraq not in Egypt.
As for the coming round, I have seen little evidence to suggest this except the laughable black Athena theory.

I said "the fertile crescent and Egypt" if you'll go back and read what I actually posted.

I recommend reading something about the current theories surrounding the Black Sea flood, the origins of proto-Indo-European peoples, the origins of proto-Turkic peoples, the recently established genetic evidence pointing to Central Asia as a genotype bottleneck for everyone alive except peoples in Australia and Oceania and parts of Asia and the ties to the genetic evidence regarding Australia and pre- and post- population bottleneck migrations out of Africa, the finds at Caral in Peru, and the gold mine dating evidence from the Danube coast of the Black Sea. You'll find plenty of controversy and plenty of discussion about the real origins of civilization that contradict the out-dated and extremely biased 19th century expectations of people working only from a knowledge of classical texts and the fragments of visible and easily located archaeological evidence without the benefit of the last 100 years of scientific advances.

None of the above means that the finds in Bosnia are Egyptian pyramids; but it does point to problems with the current paradigm regarding the origins of civilization. The fertile crescent as the origin of civilization is beginning to look like believing that the Earth is flat. It's based on faulty and incomplete evidence mixed with anecdotal classical literature which was written by even less informed people, all of which affected interpretations of archaeology until advances in science could overcome the entrenched bias.

[Rodion Romanovich]

One mind-boggling thought is that perhaps the key factor in the river cultures isn't the fertility along the rivers, but aridness of the surrounding desert. Trapped in an island of fertility next to a river, surrounded by a sea of arid terrain, once one group in such an area would get the upper hand it would be pretty well protected from outside competitors coming to compete for the area. That would give a form of security against military threats. It's probable that civilization developed weapon-making before settled societies, so armed nomads would probably have been a big problem at this time. In areas with evenly fertile ground over a large area, nomadic cultures would have been more successful, it would have been pointless to settle somewhere because remember that the first settled cultures must have had a lot more difficult time surviving than the nomadic cultures of the same time - the earliest wheat was of very low quality, for instance, so staying in the same area no matter how it changed could be a bit of stupidity. Also, in areas further away from the equator fertility, while more evenly distributed over the ground, is quite low where it is at it's highest, and the earth fragile so growing own food with the earliest primitive methods, and making metal out of ore etc. with the earliest methods must have hurt nature a lot, and made it better to move from an area after exploiting it for a while. Not until civilization gave an advantage in population numbers and weapon technology did it give those groups who embraced civilization a better chance of survival than nomadic life could give. And the river regions provided settlers with such a protected area where they could build up such an infrastructure isolated from any nomadic competition. The desert protected them until they had reached a point where their larger population size, centralized and pipelined production systems for weapons etc., and other things made them more powerful so they could compete with the nomads, who up till then must have had an advantage in both their better chances of supplying themselves with nourishing food, and their (because of the better food) better health. The fertility of the regions allowed the early civilizations to screw up and exploit ground too hard, with the ground still being able to heal itself fairly quickly, but a more important key factor was that the desert isolated them so that a culture along such a river which exploited the fertility too hard had nowhere to go with the surrounding deserts, and risked getting assimilated by other groups living along the river. That way, a more sustainable living-style could be developed.

So it's probably the deserts, not the fertility along the rivers, that gave birth to the earliest larger civilizations. While civilizations in other areas might have been able to have temporary successes in building large structures, inventing things such as writing and weapon technology and so on, they weren't able to stay isolated for long enough in the early period. The earliest progresses in weapon technology and breeding of wheat was most likely not very effective at all. However when the package "civilization" which had been developed in the protected regions around the rivers contained significantly more advanced weaponry and a wheat that could compete with the nourishing meat the nomads would get, then civilization spread. The desert gave the river cultures the following:
- military security - protection during the unstable early civilization phase, when settled life would elsewhere have been less benefitial than nomadic life
- forcing a development of a sustainable enough agriculture
- forcing the breeding of more nourishing wheat etc.
After these developments, the civilization concept could compete against the nomads with it's superior weaponry, fortifications, mass-production and superiority in numbers in war, a concept which made civilization spread.

Even if there were other advanced cultures, the river cultures still stand out as remarkable. They were the first civilizations that lasted for a longer period of time. As such, they were not necessarily the cradle of civilization, but the cradle of lasting civilization, and the reason why civilization later spread to the rest of the world.

[Aenlic]

Very interesting points! Looking at it that way might explain the growth of some of the larger South Armerican civilizations at around the same time. Peru is very arid; and access to plentiful water and/or better irrigation methods while surrounded by less habitable areas could explain groups such as those who built the cities of Caral. Eventually the more successful groups come into contact and conflict with each other and that only increases the rate of technological change. But the concept of the fertile crecsent and Egypt as the cradle of civilization ignores more recent evidence of similar farming techniques in the Danube river valley at the same time as the Egyptian and Mesopotamian cultures.

There were several areas, particularly river areas, which were far more fertile than the so-called fertile crescent at the time. But by far the largest was the area around the pre-eustasy Black Sea lake. We know it was inhabited prior to the flood from the Bosporus (Ballard discovered proof in his expedition a few years ago). The freshwater lake (flooded sometime around 5500 BCE) and the rivers leading into it, particularly the Danube and the Volga would have been much more than an oasis in the desert. Along with fresh water, fertile soil and low yield early grains, there would have been much more fishing and hunting and trade. Surrounded by forbidding terrain to the south, southeast and west, it was well-protected.

The earliest evidence for agriculture in Egypt, Mesopotamia and the Danube river valley all date from not long after the proposed dates of the flood. All were nearly simultaneous. It seems reasonable to propose the exodus in several directions of a farming culture more advanced than those others to be the cause. They were running, walking more likely, from the flooded area, which turned from a much smaller river-fed, freshwater lake into a larger salty sea, killing off all of the freshwater fish in a matter of a few months or even weeks. The exodus also explains certain mysteries in proto-Indo-European language development, particularly regarding the Yamna and Kurgan cultures.

Granted, this is all still speculation on the part of many researchers; but it does a much better job of explaining the inconsistencies resulting from 20th century finds than the theories espoused in the 19th century do.

[edyzmedieval]

Update on the fact.

http://www.archaeology.org/online/fe...ic/update.html

[Rosacrux redux]

Besides a few rather interesting theories (but completely unfounded and without the slightest piece of evidence) there is NO established basis on claiming that civilization as we know it started anywhere outside the triangle Asia Minor - Mesopotamia - Egypt. No evidence whatsoever. In Mesopotamia and Asia Minor we've found cities dating from the late 5th milenium BC, even Caral is 2000 years younger than that. We do know that the Americas and "old world" didn't have any regular contacts before the "discovery" by Colombus, so "our" civilization does not originate from the Andean area. Caral is an impressive find, but it does not compare to the cities of Mesopotamia, Egypt, Asia Minor and Iran in the same timeframe: it held no more than 3.000 souls when it was a thriving metropolis of the Supe culture. Comparisons? Well, even "the first european city", Sesklon in Thessaly, seems to have had more than 5.000 inhabitants in the 5th milenia BC.

The funny theories about proto-turkic people (the fertile Gobhi theory, the settlers-from-Mu theory etc.) are just laughable attempts by nationalists and mysticists, while the Black Sea theory albeit extremely interesting has no archeological evidence whatsoever to support it. It's just a funny theory and nobody has found something to base it on.

One should keep in mind this: Not every idea of the past is prone on radical revision. Believe it or not, people before us had minds of their own and they discovered the truth in many areas. Next thing is, we call Einstein outdated and replace his relativity theories because... "we know better"

[Kralizec]

The funny theories about proto-turkic people (the fertile Gobhi theory, the settlers-from-Mu theory etc.) are just laughable attempts by nationalists and mysticists, while the Black Sea theory albeit extremely interesting has no archeological evidence whatsoever to support it. It's just a funny theory and nobody has found something to base it on.

I don't know, the theory of a thriving civilization on a continent between Europe and America that eventually dissapears and also takes the entire continental plate with it into non-existence seems kinda plausible to me

[Rosacrux redux]

The intesting part about the Atlantis theory (and the out-of-Mu theory, and the fertile Gobhi theory and the city-below-the-himalaya theory and several others) have been formulated as theories precisely in the 19th century, the time our friend Aenlic states that produced a lot of outdated theories that should be dismissed with.

Well, let's dismiss the extravagant fairy tales and find some actual archeological evidence before constructing new theories that have no legs to stand on.

[Rosacrux redux]

[Spino]

That pyramid in Bosnia looks massive! Very cool. I'm sure the international academic community as well as Bosnia's bureau of tourism are drooling in anticipation of the day when the entire site has been excavated.

[Aenlic]

Besides a few rather interesting theories (but completely unfounded and without the slightest piece of evidence) there is NO established basis on claiming that civilization as we know it started anywhere outside the triangle Asia Minor - Mesopotamia - Egypt. No evidence whatsoever. In Mesopotamia and Asia Minor we've found cities dating from the late 5th milenium BC, even Caral is 2000 years younger than that. We do know that the Americas and "old world" didn't have any regular contacts before the "discovery" by Colombus, so "our" civilization does not originate from the Andean area. Caral is an impressive find, but it does not compare to the cities of Mesopotamia, Egypt, Asia Minor and Iran in the same timeframe: it held no more than 3.000 souls when it was a thriving metropolis of the Supe culture. Comparisons? Well, even "the first european city", Sesklon in Thessaly, seems to have had more than 5.000 inhabitants in the 5th milenia BC.

You should consider reviewing some of the material regarding chronologies. Most of the archaeology done in the last 200 years is based on faulty dating of the Egyptian dynasties. For example, the dating of Sesklon depends entirely on an unsupported assumption of a Greek Dark Ages, which was created merely to match later Greek dates with Egyptian dynasties. But the dating of those Egyptian dynasties is based on 19th century work which along with being flawed, also tried to reconcile Egyptian dates with Biblical dates. The Biblical dates were founded on even less archaeological evidence. Now, those archaeological Biblical finds which are finally being discovered are dated based on Egyptian dynastic chronologies which were dated based on non-archaeological Biblical dating. It's the worst kind of circular reasoning. Now, archaeological dating, via strata, is finally coming under much closer scrutiny. Those finds in the strata which didn't match the accepted dating were called "heirlooms" if found in too late a strata or "intrusions" if found in too early a strata. And then they were just ignored, because the didn't fit the "facts" of the accepted dating. Tossing out or ignoring data just because it doesn't fit the accepted dates is wrong. That's bad science. Archaeology is only now recovering from all that bad science.

Evidence is beginning to suggest that the Egyptian dynastic chronologies need to be shortened by at least 200 years, maybe more. This would mean adjusting Biblical finds, Greek finds and most other dating done for the last 200 years. Sothic dating, in particular is becvoming more suspect. It all depends on who the Shishak, King of Egypt, was mentioned in Kings I and Chronicles II. Most old chronology dating depends very heavily on Shishak being the equivalent of Shoshenq I, founder of the 22nd Dynasty. But more modern chronologies, like Rohl's, suggest that Shishak was really Ramses II. Some others argue for Shishak being Thutmose III.

Along with that, archaeologists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries tended to simply add years onto the dating of their finds to make them older. They'd assume, without any evidence, that there were missing layers in the strata, or in the record. Egyptian dynastic dating includes two such interludes, just to make the dates match up with non-archaeological Biblical suppositions. As I mentioned, Greek archaeology has a huge one.

If you want to learn more about the gaping holes in our system of dating antiquities, which often were simply guesses made in the 19th century to conform to Biblical dates and keep the religious happy, then I recommend looking into Rohl's New Chronology, or James' modified version. And this distrust of the dating isn't really even new. Even Isaac Newton got his hand in the mix with his The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended.

And almost all of our dating of archaeological finds in the Middle East depends entirely on those above things. Ptolemy's Canon, the Bible, 19th century bad science, the Sothic dating system, and Manetho's works. None of these constitute reasonably accurate dating systems. Attempts to reconcile them always end up with a need to put centuries worth of "Dark Ages" into the chronology to create synchronicities.

The funny theories about proto-turkic people (the fertile Gobhi theory, the settlers-from-Mu theory etc.) are just laughable attempts by nationalists and mysticists, while the Black Sea theory albeit extremely interesting has no archeological evidence whatsoever to support it. It's just a funny theory and nobody has found something to base it on.

The part you put in bold is entirely incorrect. Aside from linguistic evidence done by linguistic archaelogists, Bob Ballard located settlement sites off the Black Sea coast of Turkey. Those settlement sites are the tell-tale mounds of human settlement building on previous human settlement. They have also located stone and brick structures. The problem is that it's too deep to dive, and not amenable to the tried and true (and often hidebound) dry land archaeology methods. And in 2002, they've located a delta which flowed into the Bosporus from what was the Black Sea Lake, which had fossil evidence of fresh water shellfish.

One should keep in mind this: Not every idea of the past is prone on radical revision. Believe it or not, people before us had minds of their own and they discovered the truth in many areas. Next thing is, we call Einstein outdated and replace his relativity theories because... "we know better"

They did indeed have minds of their own. And many were prone to letting religion guide their reasoning. The modern resurgence of things like "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" being a case in point. We still aren't free from bad science; but we're getting better all the time.

[Rosacrux redux]

You should consider reviewing some of the material regarding chronologies. Most of the archaeology done in the last 200 years is based on faulty dating of the Egyptian dynasties.

what I consider "bad science": Creating a theory based on intuition, wishfull thinking, nationalistic aims, prejudices, baseless assumptions etc. and then proceeding to find evidence to support that theory. That's "bad science". The even worst scenario is when your "evidence" does not fit into the picture so you either discard it, or "modify" it in order to actually prove your theory.

Regarding the "false egyptian dating"... well, I think you are wrong. All available dating methods (do you have any better to suggest? one that has not been used and may prove otherwise? do you have dating to provide that suggests otherwise?) have been used and the many inconsistencies regarding the particular dynasties and other technicalities, have been pointed out by gazillions of researchers but do not change the basic assumptions as to the main timeline of the egyptian culture.

For example, the dating of Sesklon depends entirely on an unsupported assumption of a Greek Dark Ages, which was created merely to match later Greek dates with Egyptian dynasties.

you completely lost me here... what has Sesklon (a neolithic, 6th-5th milenia B.C. site) has to do with the "unsupported assumption of a Greek Dark Ages"? This takes more than just a leap of imagination, to connect those two together. Sesklon dating was based mostly on strata dating and Carbon dating, anyway. And the "dark ages" was just a 3-century period in the end of the second and the beginning of the first milenia. Where's the connection between those?

Also, the greek dark ages was not put by modern archeologists to fill any kind of gap, it was there from the beginning. The ancient Greeks talked about them, the lack of material evidence that pointed out to a discontinuity from the Mycenean culture to the pre-classical one talked about them, and lots of other things talked about them.


The general part about chronology...well, there are problems. Rather huge ones, I'd say. But until we can have some fault-proof system, we should go with what we've got at hand, not with wild leaps of imagination.

The part you put in bold is entirely incorrect. Aside from linguistic evidence done by linguistic archaelogists, Bob Ballard located settlement sites off the Black Sea coast of Turkey. Those settlement sites are the tell-tale mounds of human settlement building on previous human settlement. They have also located stone and brick structures. The problem is that it's too deep to dive, and not amenable to the tried and true (and often hidebound) dry land archaeology methods. And in 2002, they've located a delta which flowed into the Bosporus from what was the Black Sea Lake, which had fossil evidence of fresh water shellfish.

1. Linguistic archeology is the worst form of bad science available. Starting from the 19th century (funny thing: all the theories you support are 19th century theories, the "bad science area" you point out all the time ) the purely Linguistic construct of the Indoeuropean people theory, has bound archeology for 1.5 century. Millions of hourse of worky by intelligent people has been wasted to prove a theory that is ridiculous in every account. You should know by now that 99 out of 100, the material evidence is contradictive to linguistic archeology, like it or not. Not only regarding the (now proven false in all accounts) IE theory, but in most other cases.

2. There are some (how many? 1? 1.5? 2, maybe?) sites under water, not researched, not dated and you call that, "Evidence"? For what I know, those sites could be 12th century AD ones, that sank in the massive earthquakes of the next centuries.

[Aenlic]

Ah, my friend Aenlic, most or your post is just "believer's stuff". Since you are talking about "bad science", let me tell you what I consider "bad science": Creating a theory based on intuition, wishfull thinking, nationalistic aims, prejudices, baseless assumptions etc. and then proceeding to find evidence to support that theory. That's "bad science". The even worst scenario is when your "evidence" does not fit into the picture so you either discard it, or "modify" it in order to actually prove your theory.

You are arguing from emotion, which is not a good thing. It seems I pushed one of your buttons. I'll try to deal with this in a more reasoned way.

You seem stuck in that blind spot behind the panoply of "false egyptian dating"... well, I think you are wrong. All available dating methods (do you have any better to suggest? one that has not been used and may prove otherwise? do you have dating to provide that suggests otherwise?) have been used and the many inconsistencies regarding the particular dynasties and other technicalities, have been pointed out by gazillions of researchers but do not change the basic assumptions as to the main timeline of the egyptian culture.

I gave you several new chronologies to investigate. You can do so or not.

The inconsistencies do indeed change the basic assumptions. All the way back to our dating of Sumer. All of it. It is all based on demonstrably false assumptions.

It all began with Champollion. The wonderful mind which solved the Rosetta Stone. Unfortunately, within just a few years, while reading hieroglyphs was still virtually brand new, he made an error. While studying a mural depicting the military successes of Shoshenq I, founder of the 22nd dynasty, Champollion translated a section of hieroglyphs as "Judah the Kingdom" and decided, based on that one translation alone, that Shoshenq I must then be the Shishak, King of Egypt, who is mentioned in the Bible as conquering lands in Judah in Kings and Chronicles. All, and I mean this quite literally, ALL Egyptian chronology is based on matching Shoshenq I to Shishak and then matching up Pharaohs with the Biblical record, as it was known at the time. From that point, the dating of Pharaonic dynasties was done. All the way back to the old kingdom. All of it. All to match one translation that created an assumption of a match with the Bible.

We don't have exact dates in the hieroglyphic record. The Egyptians didn't use dates. Everything is based on our understanding of dynasties. Everything depends on our guesses as to how long Pharaohs ruled. Those guesses are all dependent on matching the Dynasties to the Biblical record, and the Biblical dating done by the religious in the early 19th century. And that matching of Egyptian to Biblical depends solely on Champllion's assumption that Shoshenq=Shishak. There's a problem, however. About 50 years later, the translation was reviewed and changed to "Monument of Kings" instead of the Judah association. In fact, without that one reference to Judah, there is no reference to Judah at all in the Shoshenq I military record. The newer translation is now accepted as the correct one. And yet, thanks to 150 years of fiddling with the record to make it match, the accepted chronologies are all still based on it! That's insane. And it's bad science.

It gets worse. All of our archaeology in the Middle East since Champollion has been based on that Egyptian chronology. A chronology which was based on a faulty translation of a mural and then stretching and twisting and tweaking the dynasties to match them to the Bible! The Bible. And yet, all of the dating of strata is made to match that chronology. In order to force the evidence to fit the "facts" of the chronology, anything found in the strata which doesn't match up was just tossed out. Instead of changing the chronology to fit the evidence, we changed to evidence to fit the chronology. We fiddled with the numbers for everything t make it match the Egyptian Chronology. Then, to make it worse, we "adjusted" dating of other cultures to fit that chronology, everything from Israel all the way back to Sumer. That is the definition of bad science. Tossing out data to make the results fit the hypothesis.

you completely lost me here... what has Sesklon (a neolithic, 6th-5th milenia B.C. site) has to do with the "unsupported assumption of a Greek Dark Ages"? This takes more than just a leap of imagination, to connect those two together. Sesklon dating was based mostly on strata dating and Carbon dating, anyway. And the "dark ages" was just a 3-century period in the end of the second and the beginning of the first milenia. Where's the connection between those?

First it was 400 years not 300. The period of the Greek Dark Ages, between the Mycenaen and Ancient Greek periods, is assumed to be from 1200-800 BCE. That time is artificially stretched to make a match between the Hittite chronologies and the Mycenaean dating. But the Hittite chronologies are based on the faulty Egyptian and Biblical matching, from Champollion. A Dorian invasion is proposed to explain the time line. But there is no archaeological evidence of Dorians prior to 1000 BCE. That's a 200 year difference. Half of the entire Dark Ages period! Interestingly, some of the new chronologies for Egyptian dynasties suggest reducing them by 200 years. They would then match the archaelogical evidence in Greece! But no, instead we'll just play with the numbers and insert unsupported "dark ages" periods to make the numbers match. Again, throwing out the evidence, the archaeology, to fit the hypothesis is bas science.

Also, the greek dark ages was not put by modern archeologists to fill any kind of gap, it was there from the beginning. The ancient Greeks talked about them, the lack of material evidence that pointed out to a discontinuity from the Mycenean culture to the pre-classical one talked about them, and lots of other things talked about them. What exactly do you not understand about that?

The ancient Greeks talked about a period. They don't say how long that period was. The ancient Greeks were also Dorians. It was quite simply a case of the new masters trying to tie themselves to the history of the old masters. Talk about wishful thinking and nationalistic aims! There's an example for you. It's the ancient equivalent of the Nazis and Aryans or the Masons and the Templars. And yet, you accuse me of being the one indulging in nationalistic fantasy? There is no archaeological evidence to support making the Greek Dark Ages 400 years long. It was done in the mid-19th century to, again, make the numbers fit the hypothesis.

The general part about chronology...well, there are problems. Rather huge ones, I'd say. But until we can have some fault-proof system, we should go with what we've got at hand, not with wild leaps of imagination.

Let me tell you a little story. My father was a geologist and geophysicist. He got his degrees in the 1950's. This was right on the cusp of a massive paradigm shift in geology. It changed everything. By the end of the 1960's, a new concept - plate tectonics - was almost uniformly accepted and had entirely reformed everything we thought we knew about geology. And those who were trained in geology prior to the 1950's had to be dragged kicking and screaming and hissing like angry cats into the new paradigm. I put almost in bold above, because even as late as the 1980's there were still old guard geologists insisting that plate tectonics were too new fangled to be acceptable. Plate tectonics required a massive change in their basic assumptions about how the world worked. They couldn't accept it. It's always that way with paradigms. You stick with what you know, even after what you know has been proven to be wrong.

1. Linguistic archeology is the worst form of bad science available. Starting from the 19th century (funny thing: all the theories you support are 19th century theories, the "bad science area" you point out all the time ) the purely Linguistic construct of the Indoeuropean people theory, has bound archeology for 1.5 century. Millions of hourse of worky by intelligent people has been wasted to prove a theory that is ridiculous in every account. You should know by now that 99 out of 100, the material evidence is contradictive to linguistic archeology, like it or not. Not only regarding the (now proven false in all accounts) IE theory, but in most other cases.

You have an apparently limited understanding of linguistic archaeology, it seems. Did something they've found upset your dearly held world-view? Put a dent in some nationalistic and fervently held dogma? You're reaction seems rather vitriolic to be explained in any other way.

The material evidence does not contradict the linguistic theories. In fact, the evidence supports the theories. The Kurgan hypothesis, and similar theories which suggest a proto-IndoEuropean language commonality, is gaining more and more credibility as more finds are made, especially things like the Yamna, Sredny-Stog and Samara cultures. Added to that is the advent of genetics which further supports the hypothesis. All of the genetic studies of the SNP markers supports the Kurgan hypothesis.

The people taking great exception to the hypothesis are exactly the nationalistic types which you rail against up in your first paragraph. That makes me wonder if perhaps your interpretations might be based on such, as well. Your reaction seems overly emotional, under the circumstances.

2. There are some (how many? 1? 1.5? 2, maybe?) sites under water, not researched, not dated and you call that, "Evidence"? For what I know, those sites could be 12th century AD ones, that sank in the massive earthquakes of the next centuries.

"For what you know" should be corrected by actually looking at the evidence. Not dismissing it out of hand because it doesn't match your dearly held views. Remember, bad science dismisses facts in favor of hypothesis. Good science takes new facts and forms new hypotheses.

I think you just like fairy tales. On the one side we have an enormous corpus of evidence, on the other the baseless assumption of a couple of archeologists and linguists with no hard evidence whatsoever... and we should take the revision route, just because you like it? Oh, dear.

Your mischaracterization of this as just "a couple of archeologists and linguists with no hard evidence" is interesting considering that you dismiss the linguistic evidence of Indo-European language origins, even though that is now the overwhelmingly accepted view. It isn't a few linguists. It's almost all of them. And the archaeological evidence and genetic evidence agrees. It is the generally accepted view now. A paradigm shift. You got left behind. You are among "the few" in this instance.

As for it being just a few archaeologists in the case of chronologies, it is true that the majority still favor the old method. Even though they paradoxically admit that the flawed translation at the heart of the old chronology was the wrong translation. They cling to the old paradigm. But more and more archaeologists are jumping to the new paradigm. It is a period of change.

I understand how clinging to old beliefs and the old paradigm can be painful and upsetting; so I'll forgive the acid tone of your commentary. I refer you again to my story of the geologists. Don't be one of those sad old gentlemen in the 1980's still insisting that plate tectonics are just a new fangled theory.