Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

teddylumpskins t1_ix6l1a1 wrote

His rants against “mainstream” (whatever that means) academia always irritate me.

I’m not an academic, but I did get an MA in history so I have some understanding of how academia works. Hancock’s “dogmatic” academics are like his boogeymen or something. When he says things like “they don’t want to accept this because it destroys their narrative.” I always chuckle because any historian or academic would KILL for a credible discovery that would literally rewrite the records.

You know who else would love for more ancient discoveries and shit to be made? The textbook industry. Those guys look for literally ANY REASON to print new editions. Credible discoveries would mean a printing press of money for the academic and textbook industry.

He also never actually engages with academics and chalks their stances as nonchalance or close minded. Baffling.

1,827

MeatballDom OP t1_ix6luoz wrote

>When he says things like “they don’t want to accept this because it destroys their narrative.”

It always amuses me when people not working or experienced with academia say stuff like that. Like you say, all it takes is one look in any peer-reviewed journal to see that academia is people constantly trying to prove other academics wrong.

It's literally a requirement for PhDs in History and Archaeology (and some MAs depending on the programme) to create original research that hasn't been done before. Like you say, a huge new discovery of an ancient civilisation would be an academic's dream. I've gotten articles and several conference presentations out of analysing single words from obscure ancient texts. Just one artifact from some mysterious peoples would be career changing, let alone evidence of some massive ancient transglobal society.

585

drunkinmidget t1_ix77f6c wrote

PhD in History here.

It's sadly not quite that simple. There are often paradigms that are difficult to shift. Disproving one theory/interpretation or showing how something was different than we previously understood can be fantastic for one Historians career, but st the same time it is detrimental to (typically) numerous Historians whose work has revolved around what is being "discredited." Thus, people can get very defensive over a given interpretation of the past.

Even in fields covering more recent history, such as mine, where it is widely understood that our understanding of the past will change repeatedly as new information is retrieved (personal papers being accessiblr after people die, old folks not caring anymore and spilling the beans, government document declassification, etc.), you still get some very... aggressive defense of one's work from people.

So, if you are looking at a peer reviewed journal, for example, you won't see this conflict from just taking a look from the outside. But if your article is going against the tide of the field's accepted interpretation of an event, behind the scenes you may have trouble. Your article is going to be sent out to two of the field's leading Historians to review. When they read your article basically saying that their past work is wrong, they will review your article poorly and tell the editor not to print it. The editors go off the reviewers, then you don't get printed.

On the outside, you only see articles being printed with new stuff in it, but you would never know that all those articles are bringing in new stuff that doesn't go drastically against the grain of leading Historians who are reviewing those articles.

This is the same process with university published books. It's really hard to get a high quality publication in general if you are going radically against the accepted narrative for these reasons, and thus, you don't get paradigm shifts often. It can sometimes take scholars retiring and a new generation who is less attached and defensive to become the new batch of senior scholars doing reviews.

Tldr - He isn't making that outlandish of a claim. Particularly in a field that has little hard evidence to go by, it's very difficult to shift the accepted interpretation of the past.

1,715

maluminse t1_ix7bp4l wrote

🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆

If I knew how to give a Reddit award I would. Thanks for saying this I experienced this quite a bit.

252

Mind-Individual t1_ix7b5rj wrote

>Tldr - He isn't making that outlandish of a claim. Particularly in a field that has little hard evidence to go by, it's very difficult to shift the accepted interpretation of the past.

Yes! I watched the show, and it's not the outlandish claims, it the lack of evidence. Like dude, just find evidence for your theories. It honestly reminded me of astrology, which I'm a fan of, but know so well the billion theories astrologers have and claim their opinion is evidence....like bye.

187

piazza t1_ix7c6ty wrote

This. He's like "and then they found a layer that was even older, going back to 24,000 years ago!"

<drone shot, another shot of him walking, moving to a new location>

Me: but you never explained how they arrived at 24,000 years! How? Carbon dating, or what?

156

Mind-Individual t1_ix7cgud wrote

The carbon dating!....That's all I kept think about! It would literally destroy every theory he has.

Also found out that his son is the Senior Manager of Unscripted Originals at Netflix.

126

thejoosep12 t1_ix79yy7 wrote

While there is some pushback against new thought in history and archaeology, Hancock uses it as an excuse for why his batshit insane and evidence free theories aren't being considered by academics. He is a journalist, not a historian or archaeologist and has no real idea on how any of this works.

48

RealFullBlownRetard t1_ix7bzv9 wrote

A PhD just told you you were wrong...

−36

Belzedar136 t1_ix7ce7n wrote

I mean he says he's he's phd, but we have no evidence of this. Same as Hancock...... wait a second...

30

thejoosep12 t1_ix7c3z0 wrote

And you don't believe PhDs can't be wrong or disagreed with because...?

24

InfiniteBarnacle2020 t1_ix72rrr wrote

I've got quite a lot of exposure to academia although I'm not in it and there an element of truth to what he's saying, even though it's not like a deliberate conspiracy.

For instance you talk about PhDs wanting to disprove things, or scientists as a whole.

Any research would have to be signed off by a HOD. The HOD definitely didn't get there by their research into alternative views, more than likely has extensive papers in the current model. So they have a reason to decline research into these alternatives as they think it's a waste of time as theyre invested in the standing theory. The professor probably didn't get to where they are in papers in alternative views as their H score will be a lot higher from being cited with views inline with the consensus. Plus a professor wouldn't want their name attached to a paper that might be considered 'alternative' because 9 times out of 10 it would be shown to be wrong and there's a reputational cost to that.

Then of course all the other ways to get funding to do research goes to committees and boards which again, often are staffed by people who have heavy investment in the accepted views.

These things combined with limited resources in research funding does lead to a very narrow research field.

It would be extremely difficult to actually get funding or the support to study things that goes against what is accepted.

90

MeatballDom OP t1_ix73g24 wrote

This is why reviewers of PhD theses (and sometimes MAs, it depends) are people outside of the department, outside of the university, and often anonymous. It's also why it's highly discouraged that people work at the same universities that they got their degrees at (although it's not unheard of). We don't care if you can make your supervisor happy. We don't care if you can repeat what your department head likes. We need to show that you can work with the wider academia, and that you can tread water in groups outside of your safety net.

My supervisors and I regularly disagreed on things. But it was my work, and they only stepped in to strongly discourage if they knew for a fact that I was wrong -- and could show it. If I had the evidence to back up my points that's what mattered in the long run.

There is no grand conspiracy to keep people all thinking the same way, it's just a fundamental misunderstanding of how academia works. If your idea has no basis in reality then yes, it's going to get shot down, but that doesn't mean that the department isn't open to new ideas, it's just that that idea sucks.

39

InfiniteBarnacle2020 t1_ix751bl wrote

I actually don't know how History or Arts etc are taught or where you are but here, it's the supervisors that pick the topic for the student (99% of the time anyway). It would often be in the field that the professor is studying usually supporting their work. Maybe in a highly resourced university there may be some blue sky research but as far as I'm aware here, they're all funded to support the work of the professor with topics chosen or suggested by them.

I realise it may vary from country to country and field to field though.

30

MeatballDom OP t1_ix75qp2 wrote

Yeah I've never heard of anyone having a topic for a PhD in History chosen for them. If someone has ended up in that situation they really didn't try hard to find a supervisor.

Typically how this works is you recognise an area where there is a gap, this is typically something that comes up during your MA research, or otherwise something you've been thinking of for a bit before then. You build up a good base knowledge of the historiography surrounding that topic, and then reach out to those working on or around that topic and see if they would be interested in supervising.

Sometimes it's an outright "sorry, no" for a variety of reasons, and usually there is some discussion and debate about how the project will go, "have you thought of this, have you read this, this has already been done but if you approach it from this angle then..." etc. but not outright "you do this project instead".

There are research projects that professors may be looking for help in that are specific, but that's not PhD level. I.e. "I need a summer researcher to go through these coins and look for x, y, z; build a database that filters a, b, c" or whatever. But that's a different area completely.

24

thatsandwizard t1_ix75shg wrote

Curious what field you study, as my understanding of PhD research is that it is highly personal and interest driven. Now, I do know people who chose their research based on grants (oh hey, saw-whet owls are getting extra funding, I can eat more than ramen while doing my thesis and similar stories exist) but it’s still a choice/topic of interest in the end

14

InfiniteBarnacle2020 t1_ix76kxh wrote

My experience is with Earth Science and often they put out adverts for students to study specific topics. They actually have to apply for funding with the topics before even looking for a student.

If you had a topic in mind you would have to convince a professor or supervisor to then pitch that in a funding round. Often they have their own topics they want studied so it would have to be a convincing topic.

12

poridgepants t1_ix724b7 wrote

But this established academics fight tooth and nail to defend their and their peers work from new hypothesis’ if it goes against theirs

−15

MeatballDom OP t1_ix72zcc wrote

But they have to actually defend it, with evidence, through peer-reviewed works. They can't just say "ain't it slightly suspicious that.... therefore advanced race of early humans is obvious".

Two sides, usually more, are constantly arguing one way or the other, and as time goes on there are shifts, sometimes definitive ones. That's academia in a nutshell. It's fluid, it's constantly changing, but it has strict baseline requirements for evidence.

One that is commonly used for undergrads is: tell me when and where the trireme was invented. The ancient sources don't seem to agree, and the one that really comes out swinging is written long after the others. The archaeological evidence is a bit clearer, but still hard to say as ships don't tend to preserve well in the long-run. So throughout the 19th and 20th centuries historians were looking all the evidence they had and arguing one way or the other, all with some fantastic points of view and interpretations -- academia ENCOURAGES this. This is what we do.

But you do need evidence to back up your interpretation.

47

CaptainChats t1_ix72ff5 wrote

He’s also just arguing something really stupid and reductive. Archeologists aren’t the only people examine the past. If there was an ancient super civilization geologists would be finding a layer of heavy metals and manufacturing byproducts from that civilization’s manufacturing. Astrophysicists would be picking up echoes of their radio chatter. Geneticists would be finding widespread anomalies in the human genome.

The ancient aliens “theory” hinges on the idea that ancient aliens were really good at cleaning up their tracks… but still left the pyramids and Olmec heads heads around? That doesn’t make any sense. That’s like discovering the Las Vegas but none the litter or ecological damage to the Colorado river.

My point is history isn’t a monolith. There are tons of different scientific and academic fields that contribute and not one of them has found anything of note. The real conspiracy is this dude’s publicist. Despite his nonsense I’ve been hearing about him forever.

90

David-Gross t1_ix76n2q wrote

I think if you dig deeper into his tomfoolery, graham believes that the ancient super civilization's technology was spiritual. If there's magic in play, there's even less evidence that we can find.

29

77096 t1_ix750ni wrote

Yeah, I understand having a beef with anthropologists and their hyper-narratives, but anthropologists are not the only people looking back at the past, as you said.

It's easy to mock the subset of cultural anthro's who think every ancient site or artifact was tied to a "fertility ritual" at the "dawn of agriculture," but they don't speak for everyone.

24

blackest_francis t1_ix77fbb wrote

Anytime someone tries to tell me that aliens built whatever ancient megastructure, I ask them where the cement is.

16

W61_51XD_Goose t1_ix7b8z7 wrote

And why does it have to be aliens. Out forbears thousands of years ago were just as intelligent, clever and resourceful as we are today. And they had an intimate understanding of their surroundings and how to utilize what was available built over centuries that we can't even begin to match when we parachute in for a bit to get some video for our latest Netflix show.

"Must be aliens!"

46

chacotoday t1_ix70ksw wrote

for the last 30 years Hancock has been going against academia and the scientific community saying his work has been blacklisted. but in that time span, he could have gotten a masters and phd and published. if he had something valid, it would be valued by academia. but he doesn't and prefers his fringe identity and spotlight that comes with it

73

Wretched_Brittunculi t1_ix71ywb wrote

He's never claimed to be a scholar. He claims to be a journalist. The problem is though, he also draws an analogy with a lawyer 'defebding his case'. He explicitly said he starts with a theory and then collects evidence to support it. He then makes the strongest case possible. He said this in his blog. It is terrible scholarship and for that reason would never get published.

Then he claims everyone else has 'blinkers'.

81

77096 t1_ix74me8 wrote

He's also much better-known and much more profitable than most academic researchers ever will be, so the martyr complex is just a marketing tool.

26

oldmasterluke t1_ix72jt2 wrote

Yeah, this show is one half step away from Ancient Aliens as far as credibility and reputation are concerned. In the past he has had a few insights about South America that sounded valid, but after this show I can’t take anything that comes out of his mouth seriously anymore.

13

Why_Did_Bodie_Die t1_ix6w0pa wrote

It's the same thing in UFO circles. They think different scientists just simply refuse to admit there are UFOs because it would hurt their egos and prove them wrong and "completely destroy their worldview". Neil degrasse tyson is a big one. They think NDT has to much vested interest in NOT thinking UFOs are real that he won't admit the evidence shows that they are. They completely skip over the fact that all the evidence they have is circumstantial and there actually really isn't any hard evidence and just assume it's because NDT lacks whatever enlightened reasoning they have. I would bet a years worth of salary that NDT would LOVE for UFOs to be real. He would be one of the first people in the world to write a book and do a TV show about them plus whatever personal interests he might have in intelligent beings figuring out how to travel many light years across the galaxy to come fuck with us.

35

[deleted] t1_ix6xgtz wrote

[removed]

−18

[deleted] t1_ix6xx22 wrote

It’s obvious he meant UFO’s as in from outer space and not simply UFO’s from foreign nations

15

_doppler_ganger_ t1_ix71099 wrote

The government calls them UAPs (unidentified aerial phenomena). While the government admitted they "exist" they have never confirmed any connection to extraterrestrials. They've listed that most of the sightings can be attributed to airborne clutter (in radar), atmospheric phenomena, US developmental systems, and foreign adversary systems.

11

thys123 t1_ix78jbu wrote

You seem a little dramatic

−22

lunex t1_ix6h6c2 wrote

How can we be sure Graham Hancock isn’t 12,000 years old and an immortal descendant of this ice age civilization? Why won’t he submit to DNA testing to verify his real age? Many are saying it’s because he is much, much older than he claims to be! Ancient Hancock theory is quickly gaining steam and calls for him to verify his blood contains ancient DNA will only grow louder.

635

Luke_zuke t1_ix6kpbo wrote

This stuff is incredibly fun to think about. You can really dive in and find tons of material, and read a lot of actual earth science along the way. But it should be treated with the same regard as Ancient Aliens or any other such info-tainment. It’s designed to draw your interest, not to advance archeology. At worst, it is insidious.

271

xKYLx t1_ix6ny7a wrote

Learning more about the end of the ice age, Younger Dryas Impact theory, it can really teach you a lot about how North American features were formed, a lot about geomorphology and glacial science. At least that's something

124

woahwoahwoahthere t1_ix74axk wrote

I wish there was a little PSA that says “it’s fun but also not fact. Enjoy at own risk”. I really enjoyed the series mainly for the rabbit holes I get reading into established academia. I like the imagination in these theories just for thought experiments but would never actually believe them without some more balance and peer review. Interesting stuff tho. Wish there were more funding in the sites he does ask about, especially gobleke tepe and more sub saharan sites.

26

Zauberer-IMDB t1_ix74bqz wrote

I hate how it's presented. It insults one's intelligence. There's a lot of interesting archaeological and geological features but instead of focusing on that, they're having this guy jetset to vacation spots, look at some shit that vaguely resembles a road or whatever, and jump to a conclusion that "it must be manmade." Why? What is his evidence? Because it's obvious, just look at it.

33

Vanrainy1 t1_ix6t195 wrote

Absolutely, his assertations make for tantalizing day dreams but they sorely lack the evidence to back them up. Hey, the guy has sold more books than I have lolol.

28

thejoosep12 t1_ix7ag40 wrote

Because he's a professional writer meaning he knows how to captivate the general audience with his bs no matter how true it actually is

−5

PartyPorpoise t1_ix7a2ok wrote

A lot of these concepts would be really fun for a work of fiction.

7

Grinderiny t1_ix73ota wrote

This is how I approach both. I called Ancient Apocalypse "Hancock's Batshit Crazy" because while entertaining and fun brain fodder, it's crap. But it was cool seeing local geography when he was in the scablands.

−10

77096 t1_ix7594o wrote

I want to watch it for the site visits, but it's so hard to listen to him drone on about himself.

6

Clyde_Frog_Spawn t1_ix7bdbh wrote

I’m taking this show with a grain of salt, but I don’t see a rebuttal of the evidence presented in the show by this article.

Perhaps it wasn’t the articles purpose but the title implies it was.

215

apestuff t1_ix7ba6s wrote

what an incredible article. i love how it’s able to say so much while saying nothing at all.

151

rainyvr t1_ix6fo2x wrote

It’s just an episode Ancient Aliens gussied up with endless drone shots and an obnoxious dun-dun-DAH! soundtrack. Same old “could it be possible? Some say… yes!” bs. Sucks that any cherry-picked pile of conspiratorial crap can be labeled a “documentary.”

130

pickinscabs t1_ix6jc2p wrote

Yeah, I don't like that shit. "Could it be possible?" Of course it could be possible! Now, fucking prove it!

53

ionhorsemtb t1_ix6lr62 wrote

His son is involved at netflix now as well, iirc. Probably helped get this garbage green lit. Or son in law? Not sure.

−15

Mevoa_volver t1_ix6ninj wrote

While I think it might be a stretch to believe everything he says, me just being a history enthusiast, I have always found the “clovis first” aproach to the peopleing of the americas to be the sort of thing “mainstream” archeologists have a bias for.

102

Isord t1_ix794rt wrote

Clovis First started getting challenged in the last decade or so and is now considered totally outdated.

88

Grand_Cookie t1_ix6jlp5 wrote

When I first saw the card I thought it was about the Bronze Age collapse and got excited and then once I actually clicked it to see that it was graham “it’s entirely possible” Hancock I subjected my wife to a 25 minute rambling rant about how he’s a quack and it’s just ancient aliens.

80

Bentresh t1_ix6ui52 wrote

It'd be very difficult to do a proper, well-researched documentary on the collapses at the end of the Late Bronze Age, I think. Most lectures and documentaries on the topic are far less nuanced than they ought to be.

There was not a singular collapse that affected all regions to the same degree; the end of the Late Bronze Age affected different regions in different ways over slightly different periods of time. Some cities and kingdoms were destroyed and never regained their prominence (e.g. Ugarit and Emar), some simply moved locations (e.g. Enkomi to Salamis, Alalakh to Tell Tayinat), and others were scarcely affected by the end of the Bronze Age at all (e.g. Carchemish, Byblos, Paphos). It has become increasingly clear that we must look not at the overall picture – the entirety of the eastern Mediterranean and Near East did not experience collapse – but rather specific places at specific times to understand how each of the great powers (and especially each of the regions within them) collapsed, survived, or even thrived from 1150-950 BCE. Unfortunately, this sort of nuanced analysis does not lend itself well to a documentary format.

To take the Hittite empire as an example, some of the southern parts of the empire like Tarḫuntašša and Malatya (Išuwa in the Bronze Age) essentially split off and became de facto independent states toward the end of the Bronze Age. These kingdoms preserved aspects of Hittite culture until the Neo-Assyrian conquests of the 8th/7th centuries BCE – religious beliefs and practices, Luwian and the Anatolian hieroglyphic writing system, architectural and artistic styles, administrative titles, Hittite royal names like Šuppiluliuma and Ḫattušili, etc.

The collapse of the Hittite heartland in central Anatolia was due partly to the loss of these outlying regions (the Hittite imperial core was always short on manpower and grain), but also from pressures unique to the Hittite empire, such as raids from the Kaška who lived in northern Anatolia. I discussed this more in How did the civilizations fall in the end of the Bronze Age? and When and how did we learn that the bronze age had really collapsed and was a thing and not just an imaginary folk idea like Atlantis?

48

Rocketlucco t1_ix6w1b5 wrote

As someone who loves ancient history and is slowing making my way through textbook level books on all the ancient Levant civs, your links to your other comments were amazing reads. I’d don’t even realize we knew that much about the Hittites. If I want to get the best overview I can on their civilization, Can you recommend 1-2 books to read about them?

22

Bentresh t1_ix73eaf wrote

Yeah, we know quite a bit about the Hittites; they’re by far the best attested of the Late Bronze Age powers after Egypt, though the distribution of sources is decidedly uneven in terms of location, date, and contents. I discussed Hittite archives in this post.

I recommend starting with Warriors of Anatolia: A Concise History of the Hittites by Trevor Bryce, essentially a greatly condensed combination of his earlier books (The Kingdom of the Hittites and Life and Society in the Hittite World). The Hittites and Their World by Billie Jean Collins is also a pretty good introductory overview, especially the chapter on Hittite religion.

18

Grombrindal18 t1_ix78g2c wrote

What I really appreciate about that show was that Hancock made it very clear in the first few minutes of episode one that he was absolutely not credible, so I didn't have to waste any more of my time.

19

msnplanner t1_ix6s9dc wrote

I made the mistake of reading the comments at the end of this article. Very depressing. The Enlightenment is dead.

18

sevksytime t1_ix6wot4 wrote

Wow, I did the same and…wow. Apparently this article “proves that handcock is right because it doesn’t provide a rebuttal. Did they not see the links to the sources provided? Also the main rebuttal is that…the sites are not that old. That’s all you can say.

22

turnophrasetk421 t1_ix6ew9q wrote

My favorite is the map of the ancient coastline and what looks like a fort of some type due east of the place they were looking at.

Would be worth throwing a expedition to scan that general area

17

NotBeSuck t1_ix6ic7t wrote

Here’s a great takedown of known crackpot Graham Hancock by one of my favorite archaeology YouTubers, Stefan Milo.

16

senorhung1 t1_ix6y2l8 wrote

How is this a takedown? He says at the beginning that he is not debunking hancock, And that its up to hancock to prove his ideas.... ok just like everything else in history is fact? Please, thats like starting on the other side of every arguement. Unless whats history is fact(somehow)..then what tf am i proving?

48

MeatballDom OP t1_ix6ypnw wrote

You misunderstood him. He's saying he's not out to disprove Hancock because Hancock hasn't proved anything, you can't disprove evidence which isn't there. E.g. prove to me that unicorns never existed.

Instead, what he's done is gone through and discussed what's wrong with the logic that Hancock is using to come to his conclusions. i.e. here's what science have found, and none of it points to unicorns. When you thought A, you were forgetting B. When you said C, you were ignoring D.

It's a rational way to approach an irrational argument.

79

Mem2atl t1_ix6pnt7 wrote

That’s a great YouTube channel, just watched his Life & Death at the Height of the Ice Age episode. Good stuff. Any suggestions for other channels like his?

1

5aur1an t1_ix6azom wrote

Donnelly: “I’m not an archaeologist, but I play one on Netflix.”

also Donnelly, “I believe in alternate facts.”

11

paulthesane-wpg t1_ix6b5cy wrote

I tried an episode of that show, it was soooo bad.

Worse, i could see how many people would see it as good by not seeing through Hancock’s weasel arguments- encouraging viewers to assume that the structures we actually see are far older than they really are and making up anything he wants in the spaces where there is no evidence.

Hancock is a dishonest, sleazy, turd.

10

Vreas t1_ix6h2ji wrote

It looked interesting at first glance. Then when the opening scenes was essentially a montage of clickbait media saying “the entire academic and research community condemns me but I’m here to tell the truth” I lost interest.

36

scarabbrian t1_ix6qmau wrote

As soon as he had Joe Rogan pop up to lend him credibility we turned it off. I’d never heard of this guy before, but the Rogan clip was an immediate no.

16

igorpk t1_ix74jyx wrote

First strike was 'I'm not an archaologist or a scientist, I'm a journalist'

Second and third strike was Rogan.

1

anjovis150 t1_ix719kh wrote

Which part would you say was he the most wrong about?

11

GolgiApparatus1 t1_ix78jyh wrote

I got about 5 minutes in before going 'yeah this dude is a nutjob'

2

dekacube t1_ix78x3g wrote

Yeah, I started to watch this and stopped after 15 or so minutes, he never even mentions the possibility that the ruins were built by the later group to inhabit the site, it's the worst logic I've ever seen.

2

SirAzalot t1_ix71keo wrote

Where the author of this article really looses me is when they refer to the danger of pseudo archaeology and Hancock. He’s a goof ball who’s found some plausible evidence for civilisation being older than thought and cooked up some goofy explanations as a nice cherry on top. The fact that experts flip their lid and point at right wing bogey men when questioned by gen pop only lends the crazies credibility.

10

I_I_O_I_I t1_ix7954b wrote

Nah, he’s a crackpot with flawed methodology who keeps spreading ideas rooted in anti-intellectualism while repeating the same theories that already has a century-old connection to nazis and white supremacy. He’s not as outlandish as the ancient alien nutjobs, or as racist as the German nazi regime that bought into Atlantis theories because they convinced themselves that the superior, advanced Atlantians were the ancestors of the aryan race who taught the ”inferior” cultures how shit is done; but he sure as hell keeps fueling the anti-intellectual, conspiracy-theory-obsessed fire while chipping away at the public’s critical thinking skills one missleading argument at a time. People like him is why more and more people are convinced that the earth is flat, vaccines are micro-chipped, and that Q soon will reveal himself as JFK reincarnated. He’s not the diagnosis, but he’s absolutely a symptom. Watch any long-form interview with the guy (like many people who find the Netflix show fascinating most likely will) and he’ll spend just as much time fearmongering about mainstream academia being a homogenic, dogmatic institution out to brainwash the public as he will making his insane arguments

At the end of the day, his hypothesis just doesn’t hold up to even the most basic scrutiny, which has been shown again and again and again. And each time he’ll just brush off any legitimate criticism from experts as ”personal attacks” or ”censorship”. The guy’s a grifter who knows that it’s in his best interest to undermine the public’s trust in actual research. We can joke about shows like Ancient Aliens all day long, but they truly have done real damage not only to people’s understanding of history and their trust of scientists and academia, but to their critical thinking skills as a whole.

−6

Juicy_pompoms t1_ix6gqq2 wrote

He seems to have something against archaeologists and uses a lot of time to tell so on this so called documentary.

I could only watch 1,5 episodes before giving up. It's crap.

9

STFUandRTFM t1_ix6s18a wrote

i watched all 8 and found it fascinating. that video series had some great camera angles, stunning shots, and in all honesty i didn't know some of those places existed. that series sent me on a wikipedia reading expedition.

from episode one i suspected this would be conspiracy theory fodder much like "The Pyramid Code" but it gave me an opportunity to really learn about some places around the world i was unaware of once i started reading about these places.

all i had to do was put up with his narrative for a few hours. lol

53

degotoga t1_ix6swl8 wrote

it's really just a shame that they gave him a platform instead of finding an actual archeologist or historian

it's not like his narrative is what makes those places interesting

16

STFUandRTFM t1_ix6tw3m wrote

that's so true. i would have much preferred an actual documentary. but then again i watched and enjoyed the Weird Al Yankovich movie as well ..... so that tells alot about me i suppose....

5

whatsmyphageagain t1_ix771vq wrote

I thought the narrative was great. Then again I love yelling invective at trashy TV personalities to make me feel smart

−9

0-Give-a-fucks t1_ix70tam wrote

Quoting John Hoopes, “So, if it seems like, in watching the show, his perspective has been influenced by drugs, it’s because it has.”

4

MarcusXL t1_ix6sl5c wrote

People want to believe shite. It's ni different than conspiracy theories like QAnon. It makes them feel smart and special without challenging their intellect at all.

The specific reason that they single out "mainstream" academia is that if you actually research the archeology, you see how Hancock's claims are ridiculous. The "mainstream narrative" is actually based on thousand of pieces of independent evidence, hard science.

I'm not dogmatic about it. For example the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis is perfectly debatable and has some evidence for it that merits further study. But Hancock is selling a fantasy story as if it's science, and he knows it's bullshit.

2

rainyvr t1_ix71vnc wrote

Bingo. These days everyone gets to have their own pet version of reality and no one ever, ever has to admit they’re wrong — and to be contrarian is somehow proof of insight. So sad how the word “mainstream” has become a pejorative to so many armchair geniuses.

3

Sphlonker t1_ix70mkf wrote

Mmmmmmmmm. That sweet sweet rebuttal that I've been craving for. Thank you for posting this.

−2

wraithcraze t1_ix73ons wrote

After watching the show in a complete suspension of disbelief, I have concluded from the evidence that ancient snake men taught people how to farm and build. See what happens when you take scattered evidence and draw a false parallel?

−4

AzothTreaty t1_ix7bnsk wrote

Thought thag was a good show but after his third “mainstream”, im out. Reeks too much of QAnon bs.

Anybody who cares more about what a certain group of people thinks rather than simply presenting the facts isn’t worth listening to.

−8

vatoman78 t1_ix6dar9 wrote

I thought about it for one second, but now pseudoscience dribble. It's sad that people actually watch this crap and fall right into it. Then, have the audacity to bring it up in conversation. Oh well....

−9

ScoutWrangler05 t1_ix77v05 wrote

Out of morbid curiosity I watched episode one and my jaw hit the floor. The death of expertise is wrapped in petty Netflix packaging, ready to be consumed by the masses.

−9

desexmachina t1_ix71fmh wrote

Honestly, the mental gymnastics you would get from academics in art history are so implausible that it is akin to listening to Yoga class participants elucidate you about biology through nutraceuticals. There was a time before Watson & Crick where Biology was full of suppositions, I think some of this turmoil is due in other academic disciplines.

−12

BIGMIKE6888 t1_ix6z04w wrote

This is all part of the end of expertise. But there will be push back. Academia will not be treated as folly. Do the work, get the degree and then start the challenge. This is a feather to a gun fight.

−14

tfks t1_ix7c50f wrote

I wouldn't be so sure. Academic institutions have been commercialized and they're going to do what gets them money, not what maintains or increases intellectual rigour. The best STEM university in the region I live is slowly turning into a party school and the university administration is doing little to nothing about it because goddamnit those hooligans are paying customers. Universities, and therefore academia as it is, are complicit.

13

thegooddoktorjones t1_ix7ayoi wrote

Same junk, different day (and channel). The heart and soul of the Ancient Aliens pseudoscience has allways been the same: racism. Brown people could not possibly have built huge megastructures while my ancestors were still working out bronze smelting! So it must have been aliens!

−18

Conscious_stardust t1_ix6ywxz wrote

You don’t get grant money going against the narrative.

−21

MeatballDom OP t1_ix7075x wrote

Uh, yes you do. Academia requires growth, it's a fundamental factor. There's not one area of History or Archaeology that there is 100% agreement on.

Every book I've ever been a part of (peer reviewed works) require a section at the start called a historiography. In this, I'm required to discuss the history of how different historians have approached and talked about the topic I'm writing on. This shows right away all the different arguments, all the different theories, and even the occassional academic fist fight. I then have to say "here's where this has brought us, here's what's right, and here's what everyone else is missing/got wrong... my work will now fill that gap by showing..." and then argue my point with my take on the evidence.

Grants, prizes, awards, are given to those that are the most groundbreaking. We regularly have books that shake up the entire system, it's part of the reason we do it, and we all want to be that person that does shake it up. It's a requirement of a PhD to complete original research that no one has done before. To do that you have to step on the toes of a lot of academics, living and dead.

Look at any academic journal, read through a couple of articles, you'll quickly see this to be the case.

26

Svenskensmat t1_ix745h9 wrote

You do not get Netflix money by going with the narrative.

6

mandianansi t1_ix6muac wrote

The thing that he kept saying that made me cringe was his repeated use of pre-history. Wtf does that even mean.

−45

LateInTheAfternoon t1_ix6nuq2 wrote

Prehistory is an accepted term and quite harmless as well. It just means the time before we have written sources (which can vary for different places). Why he would need to repeat it often is weird but as with so many cranks it might be just to pad the run time; when there's not much substance to a theory (and there never is with conspiracy theories) there is always a need for repetition, redundancy and futile exercises in pedantry.

43

mandianansi t1_ix6ocyy wrote

Nice answer. Yeah he just said it like 5 times per episode. I got through grad school, not a history major, but took my fair share of history classes and never heard the term before. Just sounded weird.

−15

LateInTheAfternoon t1_ix6ozqz wrote

If that's the case, then it seems a bit off and I can see how it can come across as cringe-y. Kinda suggests to me that he's using it as a crutch.

−4

Kaminosai t1_ix6qahq wrote

Technically it means "before we started writing things down", but it's usually meant as "before ancient greece". Often ignoring that people in other places wrote a lot of things down before that, or that other cultures oral histories go back much further.

In this context, it just leans much harder on the racism as these guys always say non-European people are too ignorant or innocent to know what their own stories mean. And obviously this renegade historian knows the REAL truth where they couldn't.

5

rookieseaman t1_ix6s7kb wrote

I’d argue it means before Sumer personally since that’s when written records can first be established.

11

degotoga t1_ix6t1aq wrote

it's generally accepted to be a regional term. prehistory in mesopotamia is not the same as prehistory in europe

5

rookieseaman t1_ix6u4er wrote

Meh. Prehistory is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as the period of time before the use of writing. There was no writing before ancient Sumer, thus, anything before ancient Sumer is prehistory, regardless of where you are.

1

degotoga t1_ix72cdj wrote

the development of writing in sumer is irrelevant to someone studying the history of europe

4

rookieseaman t1_ix72z56 wrote

Okay? The prehistory of humanity begins at Sumer, by definition. Dunno what that has to do with studying history in Europe but okay.

−9