[MikeBattaglia]

I'm not sure much of the stuff really needs to be "debunked" at all. Let's look, for instance, at Gobekli Tepe.

Is it really the position of mainstream archaeology that something like Gobekli Tepe was built by nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes who hadn't even invented the wheel? Some of the pillars weigh 22,000 lbs. There are intricate statues carved by people who supposedly didn't have metalworking or any metal tools. The entire thing is part of an even larger complex that has yet to be excavated and it was all planned out and coordinated by people who hadn't even invented writing or math. How plausible is this?

10 years ago, when these discoveries were much newer, mainstream archaeologists were still largely hung up on the idea that these ridiculous massive stone temples must somehow have been built by primitive hunter-gatherers. These days, it seems as though those attitudes have shifted, and that things like Gobekli Tepe call into question if we really have the right picture regarding the timeline of human development at all. It seems increasingly possible - even in mainstream archaeology - that humans 13000 years ago may simply have been further ahead than we thought.

One side effect of this paradigm shift is that people like Graham Hancock get to claim they were right all along. OK! Of course it this doesn't mean everything else he has ever claimed is right, but as far as I care, he can milk the "him vs the establishment" angle all he wants. He has a valid complaint - but more importantly, what institution is supposed to be able "debunk" him at a time when legitimate new discoveries are currently upending everything we thought we knew? You need to figure out what is actually going on first before you can hope to be Real Scientists "debunking" anything. Until you do, the notion that perhaps Gobekli Tepe was really built by people with a comparatively advanced level of civilizational development, rather than primitive hunter-gatherer cavemen, seems as decent a hypothesis to entertain as anything else. And if I were a betting man, I'd bet this really is the right hypothesis, in my view!

[Retric]

Wheels aren’t useful for primitive societies moving 10 ton stone pillars. Assuming you define them as large round objects with an axle between them. Placing various objects beneath them to reduce friction is, but it’s not actually needed either if you have enough manpower.

Metal tools would have been helpful but aren’t needed. We have many examples of actual stone tools used to shape similar objects. Ex: https://www.archaeology.org/news/6891-180813-easter-island-t...

Suggesting that hunter gathers can get together and do large works together is perfectly reasonable. Some Native Americans on the east coast did massive scale forestry without setting down in one place. This effort was rewarded because they would cycle through areas repeatedly. It wasn’t agriculture but something of an in between activity and was viable as other nearby cultures did practice farming.

Hunter gathering is migratory because they use up local resources faster than they replenish. But the rate this happens depends on natural abundance. It’s similar to why Texas cattle farmers need a lot more land to support a herd than east coast farmers assuming neither are supplementing their diets with feed.