People who grew up in a world where precision craftsmanship requires high tech machines assume anything "ancient" that they can't comprehend could be made without such high tech must therefore have come from aliens/giants/Atlantians/etc.
Anyone who lived in or visited a third world country and watched people produce works of astounding precision and perfect finish with their bare hands will understand that in the 1st world we are just not very capable with our hands since the industrial revolution.
We do not learn how to make physical stuff any more as part of our curriculum growing up. And everything we use daily is produced by machines.
But the conclusion that thusly anything that you can't imagine creating with your two hands couldn't have been created by someone else's is a fallacy.
I really like e.g. this youtube channel[1] since the creator uses mostly techniques that where available since hundreds of years and you see the results looking often like they came out of a CNC.
Stones that fit together perfectly, so that no even a knife's blade fits in-between them, do not require modern tech to make.
The pictures and locations are fascinating, and all new to me.
The accompanying text is BS from beginning to end, solely excepting the complaint that modern historians wish we would stop asking them about these things.
There is no cover-up going on here, it's just that we know very little about preroman and especially preetruscan populations of Italy.
There is a wikipedia page[1] concerning megalithic architecture in Lazio (the region of Italy in which Rome is), which unfortunately is only available in Italian but contains some information about the estimated age of most of the structures from the linked submission, as well as attempted explanations. For example archeologists suppose that some of the most advanced walls where built by local populations helped by wandering Greek builders based on similarities with the temple of Delphi and Greek acropolises. Wikipedia also has individual pages for some of the ruins[2][3] (also not available in English) where other theories are suggested, for example the acropolis of Alatri could have been built by the Hernici[4].
[1] https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architettura_megalitica_del_...
[2] https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acropoli_di_Arpino
At first I read the article straight, then became suspicious it was wrong on some points, then kept in mind some fallacies so I could discuss them here, then as they mounted, I gave up and just let myself be entertained.
This sentence, for instance:
> "Today’s archaeologists and anthropologists don’t express nearly as much interest as you would think in these 18th, 19th and even 20th century descriptions of giant skeletal finds, in part because there is no evidence left to examine. Amazingly, all evidence of these giant bones somehow disappeared..."
Hysterical!
How fun! There are people who genuinely believe Atlantean giants actually existed and wandered around looking inward with a third eye!
Big and beautiful rocks but smaller than Giza pyramids which are from 2500 BC. But of course the cover up failed there. Everybody knows that aliens built them /s
If you want to see some really impressive and wild, even stunning Cyclopean ruins check out Sacsayhuamán:
> The complex was built by the Inca in the 15th century, particularly under Pachacuti and successors.[6] They built dry stone walls constructed of huge stones. The workers carefully cut the boulders to fit them together tightly without mortar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacsayhuam%C3%A1n
- - - -
For my money, the mystery of how huge monoliths were manipulated and moved around was solved by Wally Wallington, who has used the methods he discovered to build "a concrete Stonehenge-like structure using only materials and techniques that do not rely on any modern machine-powered technology."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wally_Wallington
Wonderfully, just as the legends say, the stones walk... :D
One reason for the seeming obscurity is that science now calls this megalithic masonry.
But fascinating nonetheless.
[1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=mega...
Whoever built them, it's clear it wasn't one people at one time. The architecture diverges quite a bit, the same way nearly all cultures' architecture evolved. Some walls are rough and patched together, some are uniform, some have right angles, some have no right angles, some have gaps, some have no gaps, the sizes and materials vary. You see the same thing from the Mycenaeans and other prehistoric peoples (who also built massive temples and cities out of variously constructed boulders) as their building methods changed.
> Despite this vast evidence of (a) “Cyclopean” ruins
"vast evidence"?!
Surely this is some kind of satire that's simply so good I can't be sure?!
How Lovecraftian. ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
conspiracy theorists sometimes seem like reasonable and knowledgeable people, but then they come out with this ridiculous stuff and i never know what to do at that point
This is pure crackpot drivel. Cyclopean ruins were covered in my high-school Art History textbook, there's certainly no cover-up. The lack of discussion is simply because we know nothing about the culture that created them - yet there are countless historical cultures we know even less about, because they didn't leave any impressive stone buildings behind.