Did Ancient Technology Exceed Ours?

Part I
The present view of world history is incomplete at best, and grossly inaccurate at worst.

 

I recently viewed a lengthy video documentary, similar to others I have seen before, which calls into question the accepted historical paradigm.  That paradigm characterizes our present level of technological advancement as being the highest point ever attained.  There is some evidence, albeit tentative, that before recorded history, human society may have exceeded our present-day technology, at least in certain respects.

 

I wish to exclude from this particular discussion all references to possible extraterrestrial visitors.  While such references may or may not be appropriate in other discussions, their removal here is based on the simple fact that the topic does not need them.  All the known ancient technologies of humans can be explained in more ordinary terms, and the topic of ancient aliens unnecessarily complicates the discussion.

 

The discussion here focuses on the possibility, based on widely accepted physical evidence, that human civilizations existed at least ten thousand years ago, which had developed at least some technologies that were lost to present-day knowledge.

 

While this may sound extraordinary, there are ordinary examples in historical times that demonstrate the actual fact of lost technologies.  A literally concrete example of how this is possible exists in ancient Roman technology less than three thousand years old.  Concrete.  The Romans had developed a form of concrete that can set under water.  Many hundreds of years passed before this technology was reinvented, only recently.  It is used today, after having been forgotten for centuries.

 

Another ordinary example is steam power.  In the year 90, in Alexandria Egypt, a working, rudimentary steam turbine engine was invented and put on display.  However, while the invention proved the principle that steam power can be harnessed to do work, no one at the time took the demonstration seriously enough to further develop it into a practical, useful steam engine.  This further development took centuries, and when it did, steam engines powered the Industrial Revolution.  One can only imagine how radically history might have been changed had the ancient engineers recognized the potential of their invention, a potential which today we recognize as obvious. 

 

If these examples exist within recorded history, perhaps there is evidence that before recorded history, these, or other, potentials were recognized and developed to a high degree, higher than we have developed them today—but then lost, just as in the case of the concrete.

 

Before we dismiss this possibility as being unfounded speculation, we should consider that even the most conservative archaeologists admit that the present paradigm needs revision at the least, and perhaps even an overhaul.

 

The dig at Göbekli Tepe is one example.  Before it was explored, the paradigm stated that human civilization began in caves, attested to by the drawings therein.  This culture stagnated through millennia of hunting and gathering.  Then, around 6,000 years ago, came the development of agriculture.  This led to the agricultural revolution, in which humans settled into farming communities.  Only after stable, settled communities had been established, did humans begin their practice of building large stone structures (megaliths), such as Stonehenge and the Pyramids.  At least, that is the paradigm.

That paradigm was strongly shaken, however, because Göbekli Tepe is dated as being around 11,000 years old.  Further evidence shows that the builders were hunter-gatherers, not farmers.  How is this possible?  How could hunter-gatherers build megaliths?  Sociologists struggle to revise their model of how societies formed and advanced.

While all of this may be dismissed as anecdotal curiosity, there are too many more data points to ignore.

 

---1.       When the corpse of the so-called Ice Man was discovered after having been frozen for five thousand years, there was found among his possessions a copper hammer.  The production of such an artifact proved that his society was capable of a degree of technology well in advance of what had previously been considered possible. 

 

---2.       The pyramids in Egypt are a well-known example of ancient engineering that continues to defy explanation.  Modern-day builders cannot duplicate them without extensive use of power tools that are deemed not to have been available in ancient times.  Contrary to popular belief, no human remains have ever been discovered inside the three largest pyramids, making their purpose a matter of controversy.  Indeed, the very age of these three pyramids may be far older than present estimates. 

---3.       The Sphinx also presents well-documented issues that call into question its age.  It has features that indicate extensive erosion caused by heavy rains or floods, conditions which have not existed in Egypt since before the Sphinx is said to have been built.  Its facial features do not conform to the pharaoh that scholars say it represents.

 ---4.       It is also known that the pharaohs of ancient Egypt often reinvented their own history to glorify whichever pharaoh was in power at the time.  Each pharaoh claimed credit for the achievements of others, denigrated former rulers, and embellished accounts of their own exploits.  Therefore, all claims that the pyramids were built by known Pharaohs are subject to doubt and dispute.  It is nothing extraordinary to suggest that the pyramids were built long before any pharaoh came into power.

 

Part II
Replacing the historic paradigm presents its own uncertainties.

 

The megalithic structures such as pyramids could not have been built without extensive infrastructure.  This would have included tools and means of transport.  The evidence for the necessary infrastructure is scant at best.  Other forms of infrastructure would have included record keeping.  The ancient Egyptians seem to have kept meticulous records, but where are the records of tools, of labor, and technique?

 

At https://www.history.com/news/egypts-oldest-papyri-detail-great-pyramid-construction

There is an indication that ancient accounting documents have been discovered which record the construction of one of the three great pyramids.  If the documents do indeed give a detailed analysis that reasonably answers the questions, then this will provide powerful support for the current paradigm, or at least a large portion of it.

 

What would really help is a set of engineering documents, comparable to modern-day blueprints, along with something like flowcharts that show the schedule of steps in construction.  Such documents would permit, at least in principle, a means of constructing a duplicate pyramid using ancient tools and techniques.  It seems inconceivable that a complicated project could be successful without a high level of documentation both before and during the construction.  Such documentation might have existed, and the recent discovery might include them.

 

Even so, there remains the mysteries of technique and tools.  Massive amounts of stone had to be quarried, measured and cut with great precision.  Doing this with copper tools would have required enormous amounts of copper, because copper is soft, and the tools would quickly wear out.  Did the ancients recover the tiny grains of copper that would fall from the tools, or did they simply quarry more copper? 

 

Lifting the stones into place would also have posed significant problems.  How that was done remains unclear.  Were levers and pulleys used?  Block and tackle?  Wood?  Is there evidence, or recordings, that shed light on the tools and methods of construction?

 

Speaking of shedding light, another problem with the pyramids is that there seems to be no evidence of torches or lamps that lit the interior passageways.  Such items should have left soot or other residue.  Were these cleaned up?  Or was some other, as yet unknown method of illumination used?

 

If the latter, then why was the method lost?  Why is there no record of this—or is there?

 

Finally, there is the question, for what function, or expected function, were the pyramids built?  Do the written records specify a function?  Their supposed use as tombs seems to be unsubstantiated by the physical evidence.  No mummies, coffins or other such evidence has been found.  Some of the passageways seem to be at peculiar angles.  Were these design details ceremonial?  Were they based in myth, legend, and superstition?  Did the pyramids serve some purpose as astronomical observatories? 

 

All of these questions should be addressed by ancillary evidence, such as documents, or by implements such as tools, measuring devices or the like.

 

Turning again to the mysteries at Göbekli Tepe, there not only seems to be no formally kept records, it is questionable whether writing had even been invented at the time.  The structures there are far simpler than the pyramids, and it is conceivable that they could have been built without a high degree of infrastructure.  Even so, they did require enormous amounts of time and labor, something which requires constant motivation by large numbers of people for long periods of time.  The mystery here is as much one of human nature as it is of the physics of construction.

Part III

Has human nature evolved significantly in the past 12,000 years?

 

The advent of science and technology has redirected human activity from superstition and symbolism to logic and reason.  In this regard, there have been suggestions that humans think differently now than they did in prehistoric times.  How much differently is unknown, but clearly, in ancient times, superstition and symbolism were much more dominant among the ruling classes than is now the case.

 

People then lived much closer to nature than we do today.  They were intimately familiar with its nuances.  In modern times, by contrast, these nuances escape the notice of city dwellers, who have little or no contact with the wilderness.  Because of this, it has been suggested that some ancient societies were able to exploit principles of nature that we do not understand, and thereby to develop advanced technologies which we have not.

 

If this seems to be too extraordinary to believe, consider, for example, the modern science of quantum physics.  This branch of science allows technologists to produce the components necessary for computers.  Consider also, the physics of general relativity.  This branch of science allows technologists to produce such things as global positioning satellites. 

 

Neither of these sciences is intuitive.  They both require ways of thinking that at first seem illogical, unreasonable, and mysterious.  What is more problematic, is that the quantum and relativistic theories are incompatible with each other.  We have a seeming paradox, in which two scientific bodies must both be correct, while at the same time, they seem to contradict each other.  How can this be?

 

Almost certainly, they do not really contradict each other, but rather, our human ways of thinking need to change in such a way that scientists can resolve the seeming discrepancies.  We probably need new discoveries, but at the same time, we need new methodologies, indeed a new paradigm.

 

This need is beginning to show up in social structures and politics.  Two opposed systems of economics are at the heart of political movements around the world.  Socialism and capitalism are being positioned in a conflict that cannot end well for either side.  Socialism has too often been interlocked with authoritarian regimes that wreck their economies.  Capitalism has succeeded in spreading wealth to billions of people, but has concentrated too much wealth in too few hands, leaving the lowest rungs of society to feel oppressed by debt, and by a system rigged against them.  Whichever system people live under, many are perceiving that their system does not work for them, and in both cases, there is the irony that the grass seems greener on the other side.

 

Our ways of thinking dictate our actions.  They direct our science.  They direct our systems of governance.  They shape our ethics and morality.  The question is, did the ancients have a way of thinking, a way of perceiving reality, that enabled them to detect natural principles that are invisible to us?  Did they apply these principles to technology?

 

If they did, then surely, something catastrophic must have happened to obliterate all, or nearly all, traces of those technologies.  Coincidentally or not, nearly all societies today have legends of precisely such a catastrophe, a worldwide event, before which there is little or no record.

 

In South America, recent satellite images have revealed that a very large civilization once existed, that ended about 6,000 years ago, right about the time when the catastrophe is thought to have occurred.

 

At this point, our discussion must stop, to await further developments.  Speculation can be useful if it is well reasoned, debated, and set aside to await those developments.  Far too many people are selling books based on these speculations.  When they do, they become locked in to one or another paradigm, the details of which are either too sketchy to be informative, or far more detailed than is warranted by the known facts.

For now, it is enough that we recognize our limitations, work diligently to overcome them, and to remain open to the ideas that other people present to us.  The universe is a place of seemingly endless mysteries, and if we cannot solve all of them, we can at least savor and delight in them.

 

Indeed, perhaps doing that is part of the secret of the ancients.