STONE TECHNOLOGY

The possible evidence for a civilization preceding any of the known ones comes in two kinds: direct and indirect. Direct evidence consists of clearly datable remains of an earlier civilization. The Yonaguni underwater finds are the best existing example, because the fact that they are underwater can be used to date them.

The indirect evidence is mostly of the kind that its nature excludes an origin in any known civilization. From the Egyptian downwards, most civilizations are more or less known, so any evidence that does not clearly belong to one these has a probability of belonging to an earlier civilization.

The usual way to claim an origin to a pre-Egyptian civilization is to show that the feature to be discussed involves knowledge or technology that predates the level of any known civilization. The best example of unexplainable knowledge is that of the ancient maps, discussed here.

The best example of unexplainable technology is that of the technology of working stone material. It has already been shown that the way the constructions at Sacsayhuaman, Peru, were build seemed to involve ways of working the stone beyond the mere hacking or chipping with a chisel or some other hard tool. But there is more concrete evidence on this matter, from ancient Egypt.

Demonstrating this evidence requires no effort by the author of this website, because all the work has already been done in a way completely in accordance with the scientific approach that is the goal here. The evidence is contained in a number of linked pages, and to show what it is all about, check the pictures below:
 

The left image is of a vase made out of hard stone found in Egypt, that is so perfectly round and symmetrical, that it stands in equilibrium on a small surface on its bottom of only 0.15 inch. It would it be very, very difficult to make the outside surface of such an object with present technology (involving a lathe, see here), if it would be possible at all. For the vase on the right, to make the inside surface would involve cutting around a corner, because of the small diameter of the neck. This is definitely impossible with modern techniques. For another example, look at the bowl below (note the overhanging "ears"). The website starting here shows more examples of this, and analyses the phenomenon.

Having seen these examples, it is impossible to think of any way how these objects could be made, without assuming a level of general technology that would leave many more traces of its abilities. There is at present only one way to make this puzzle slightly easier: to suppose that the makers had a way to make stone soft. Making the stone material softer would make the process of working it almost infinitely more easy. Then there are several ways conceivable to make precisely round vases, techniques that would be conceivable for a lot of civilizations. And since this extra thing: knowledge of how to make stone softer, is a single point of knowledge, it is much more conceivable that this knowledge could have been isolated from other involved technology, and could be lost.

For those who take this as a too improbable solution: the author reached it on the basis of other collected image material. Later, similar explanations were found at other places on the World Wide Web. So this explanation satisfies one of the basic demands of good science: it is inter-subjective, i.e. more than one person gets independently to the same conclusion based on the same data.

Then there still remains the problem of explaining where the knowledge of making stone soft came from. No explanation can be offered for this at the moment. However, besides the already strong point of making the making of the vases possible, similar knowledge would also explain the way the giant stones at Sacsayhuaman could be joined to such amazing precision, such that they almost seem fused together.

So the application of Occam’s razor, i.e. the simplest solution to a combination of problems is the preferable one, leads to the suggestion that somehow the oldest civilizations we know, from Egypt and South America, had knowledge of how to make stone softer. Again applying Occam’s razor, it is probable that this knowledge was common knowledge, i.e. these civilizations had contact with each other, or stem from a common earlier civilization. But the mere existence of such knowledge may be considered as a definition of the existence of an unknown earlier civilization, since our known ones are more or less defined by not having these capabilities.

The evidence of the Egyptian stone vases seems to be harder than that of the ancient maps. The route to the conclusions also seems to leave little possibility for variation. So it would seem the burden of proof lies in the other camp: anyone who wants to doubt the conclusion, is challenged to supply the obvious counter evidence, which is to fabricate a copy of an Egyptian hard stone vase. This should be no real problem, in view of the vast difference in capabilities with our civilization that the regular description of ancient civilization implies, and of some urgency, in view of the far reaching consequences of the conclusion as it stands now.