you realize there are dark periods of no written history of many 10's of thousands of years right? These monoliths clearly come from a culture that is prehistory as it is recorded in writing, that doesnt mean we cant figure out date for them that fit into the current understanding on anthropological history.

It seems like you're suggesting that these monoliths come from some previously unknown culture from a time era that we previously didnt place human cultures in, which is silly. There is enough dark area of human history to place these inside of the known scope of human cultures.

I wasn't specifying about the topic at hand. There are many finds around the world that predate the common understandings, that humans existed in that era. And ofc we can prove the dates and so forth, but accepting that it's true, a fact that others are wrong and the new findings are right... that's what I meant.

Get it?

I didnt mean to come off as offensive if i did, reading it now it seems a bit more snappy than intended.

Im curious which finds you are referring to that predate out common understanding of the "human era".

I feel like you may be referring to instances where anthropologists identify artifacts or sites that predate what our previous dates suggested, such as a cave man found with weapons that carbon dates to earlier than we previously dated humans carrying tools at, or in an area that we previously hadnt found human remains in from that time period.

I know one of the concepts i was unfamiliar with before taking anthro classes was the flexible dates. Anthropologists in general only hold a date until something can be verified as earlier, granted they will argue until they are blue in the face about whether a new find classifies as predating the already known artifacts, so its not as flexible as one may think. However anthropologists are not scared by the idea of unknown ancient civilizations but rather skeptical. That skepticism hinders progress at times, but the pseudo science of the late 17th century and early 18th century anthropologists was too much progress (like tearing into crypts and only caring for certain artifacts rather than seeing the architecture as important inherantly)

None taken. Dont worry about it.

I'm not pointing to one thing in particular. As you also stated, they're skeptical and have a hard time agreeing that; "due to this new finding, your previous statement(s) must be changed".

I believe, not 100% sure.
In Turkey, ~ 2010, a farmer was farming, and he struck a rock on his land. After digging he realized it was the roof of a house or something similar. Archeologists ofc got involved, they scanned, and found that beneath a vaste area of land, there was a city made of stone. According to their findings, which is ongoing, cause it's taking years to excavate, it predates any and all other city like findings. But ofc, no proof found of human, just houses, "city halls", and so forth, for now.

I'm just a person who evolves with time. And feel bad for such scholars, who cannot seem to do the same. But I understand why.
Example: if I found something and proved it was in fact to be the 1st human city, I wouldn't say it was the 1st, I'd say; currently. Because we havn't searched or found everything left from our "ancestors", I find it naive to say; my finding is the right one, and the rest, aren't. Instead I'd say; hopefully we find more so we can put them all together to comprehend more from our past, to guide us into the future.

Really hate it when people attribute Aliens to anything they don't understand, mostly because there's is absolutely no proof Aliens ever built anything.

I just think were only told what a version of the truth and we really know very little about our history.

I was just watching America Unearthed on History and they did a whole show about how North America was "discovered" by the Chinese in 1300 along with Marco Polo and that he was actually a spy for the Pope and Vatican. They even had maps that dated back to 1300, and there's a 50 mile wall in California thats a lot like parts of the Great Wall in China. I have also heard about the Vineland map which says the Vikings traveled the entire St Lawrence seaway in 1000 ad. Of course along with the Pope's funding. Then there also the theory that the Philistines travelled to NA in BC times and that explains the 100s of ancient copper mines in the Great Lakes, along with very Similar architecture.

There's lots of stuff out there if you just start looking and don't close your mind to the possibilities the truth is usually stranger than whatever it is you were taught.

Ya the great lakes had billions of tons of copper mined and almost none of it has been found. Its amazing that that doesnt get more attention because i find it to be one of the greatest archaeological mysteries ive heard of. Copper is limited in use, so there is only so many places it could be. Personally i think that the lack of copper found in the areas that experienced the bronze age is a dead ringer.

i think they can prove that some of the great lakes copper was used in Roman weapons because of newly discovered molecular identification. I haven't heard that the amount of copper was in the billions - more like the 1000s of tons. Who did it is still debatable, but i understand why whoever it was, wouldn't want to tell everyone what they were doing. Information is really the most valuable commodity in the world, and it was as true back then as much as it is today.

correct i misspoke. billions of pounds not tons lol.

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf090/sf090a01.htm

short wrap up in case anyone is unfamiliar with the case.

Giant Megaliths in Russia

All these things about Russia have me thinking that evidence of past cultures was destroyed in either the Tsarist regime or Soviet regime. Tsar's makes more sense to me, being divinely given power and such, ancient cultures would dispel some of that. From watching those two videos it just seems like too much physical evidence is at hand to discount.