Re: Note - Archeological Evidence Pointing More To Ice-Age Super-Civs

I think part of our modern day assumption, that humans back then were
not as sophisticated as they actually were, was due to us looking for
evidence for civilisation where we thought we would find it.  Like
looking for your keys under the street lamp, not because that is where
they last where, because that is where the light was best.  Sea levels
have changed, but it was always easier to excavate on land, where we
found previous artefacts and evidence.
>
Not much survives of the past, and our understanding is based on what we
have been able to uncover, which I think is a fraction of what existed.
Take for example the antikythera mechanism.  There must have been more
than one, or at least, there must have been precursors, a technological
arc that leads to that.  We just haven't found it.
>
But then, look today.  You'll see iPhones and sleek Apple laptops.  Its
very, very difficult to stumble across older computers now.  How many
Millennial's have seen a 1980s microcomputer?  Probably only in a
museum.  These were ubiquitous, and now you can go years without seeing
one.  If they disappear within a couple of decades, surely decades of
civilisation, and centuries after that would have erased so, so much.
Only stone remains.  We see stone and assume that's all there was.
Books is another.  Public libraries in the suburbs have few old books.
>
Methods of social organisation, if not written down AND uncovered, would
also be lost.
>
I think our view of history is therefore way off, because we've
constructed our view based on what survived, which perhaps, isn't enough
to go on after all.