4 ms·

I'm not familiar with Hancock, but he seems like some kind of pseudoacheologist? What did he get right compared to actual historians and archeologist?

by goto11 6y ago

ncmncm 6y ago
He is journalist who gets around. He has wacky ideas but keeps his eyes open, so sees things, and isn't afraid to say what he sees. "Pseudo" is just namecalling. There is only correct and wrong. "Real" archaeologists are, also, often wrong, often because they are afraid to say what is right in front of them.
- darkhorse13 6y ago
  Thank you for articulating this comment. As I said before, I am really not a fan of some of Graham's out-there ideas, but actual archaeologists have been wrong time after time, and most people don't realize that it is not a hard science. This crowd of scientists (and their supporters) like to hand wave people like Graham away by labeling them with the "pseudo" moniker, as if nothing he says has any value. Throwing the baby with the bath water.
  - goto11 6y ago
    > actual archaeologists have been wrong time after time Of course, that is the nature of science and research. My question is, what is it Graham has been right about where archeologist have been wrong?
    - ncmncm 6y ago
      Any honest historian will admit Göbekli Tepe is the most astonishing find in a century. Hancock has been talking for decades about an expectation to find constructions exactly that old, i.e. coincident with major sea level rise. Similarly, major early civilization in the Americas. Similarly, a continental-scale catastrophe in the Americas in near pre-history. Similarly, miles of construction under 60+ ft of water off India. His methods are not respected and the ideas are often not, initially, his own ("journalist", remember), but he does get around, and his "pseudo-science" has an uncanny way of becoming ordinary science. His ideas (sudden pole shifts, comets synchronized to earth's rotational precession) are often very, very wrong, but science is equipped to handle wrong.
      - goto11 6y ago
        Göbekli Tepe was discovered by actual archeologists as far as I know.
        ncmncm 6y ago
        It was discovered by locals, dug up by archaeologists, and predicted by literally no one but Hancock.
        goto11 6y ago
        He predicted Göbekli Tepe would be there before it was found? That is amazing.
        ncmncm 6y ago
        He predicted megalithic construction dating to the Holocene boundary. He didn't say where. Revisionism insisting that GT was not absolutely astonishing to historians and archaeoligists is properly met with derision. Of course, we don't know where else it will turn up, although India or Pakistan would be a good bet, and northwestern South America, by his expectations.
- goto11 6y ago
  > they are afraid to say what is right in front of them. So what is it the archeologist see which they don't dare say?
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    Anywhere it would start a turf war, where the other side is well dug in. An example is Egyptian early history, where disagreeing with the head of antiquities in Egypt could interfere with your access to sites. Thus, although the evidence for who did what and when, in the case of the oldest constructions, is very, very thin, it is risky to suggest alternative scenarios. Notably, surface luminance testing has been done to a very limited degree, suggesting the big pyramids might be 500 years older than is assumed, but tests have not since been followed up. Similarly, early Chinese history, where there is an official government timeline that differs from evidence, and being seen to disagree could even interfere with crossing the border, which would make it hard to remain a sinologist. Probably any young archaeologist could identify a dozen other examples. People like to pat themselves on the back when somebody is finally vindicated decades after their career has been blighted, but for each such case there have to be several that die with their evidence just forgotten.
  - darkhorse13 6y ago
    The other commenter has given better examples than I could have. If you are genuinely curious about these things, I recommend watching this video with an open mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLrTCYMFUbg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLrTCYMFUbg

I'm not familiar with Hancock, but he seems like some kind of pseudoacheologist? What did he get right compared to actual historians and archeologist?

by goto11 6y ago

I'm not familiar with Hancock, but he seems like some kind of pseudoacheologist? What did he get right compared to actual historians and archeologist?

ncmncm 6y ago

He is journalist who gets around. He has wacky ideas but keeps his eyes open, so sees things, and isn't afraid to say what he sees. "Pseudo" is just namecalling. There is only correct and wrong. "Real" archaeologists are, also, often wrong, often because they are afraid to say what is right in front of them.

darkhorse13 6y ago
Thank you for articulating this comment. As I said before, I am really not a fan of some of Graham's out-there ideas, but actual archaeologists have been wrong time after time, and most people don't realize that it is not a hard science. This crowd of scientists (and their supporters) like to hand wave people like Graham away by labeling them with the "pseudo" moniker, as if nothing he says has any value. Throwing the baby with the bath water.
- goto11 6y ago
  > actual archaeologists have been wrong time after time Of course, that is the nature of science and research. My question is, what is it Graham has been right about where archeologist have been wrong?
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    Any honest historian will admit Göbekli Tepe is the most astonishing find in a century. Hancock has been talking for decades about an expectation to find constructions exactly that old, i.e. coincident with major sea level rise. Similarly, major early civilization in the Americas. Similarly, a continental-scale catastrophe in the Americas in near pre-history. Similarly, miles of construction under 60+ ft of water off India. His methods are not respected and the ideas are often not, initially, his own ("journalist", remember), but he does get around, and his "pseudo-science" has an uncanny way of becoming ordinary science. His ideas (sudden pole shifts, comets synchronized to earth's rotational precession) are often very, very wrong, but science is equipped to handle wrong.
    - goto11 6y ago
      Göbekli Tepe was discovered by actual archeologists as far as I know.
      - ncmncm 6y ago
        It was discovered by locals, dug up by archaeologists, and predicted by literally no one but Hancock.
        goto11 6y ago
        He predicted Göbekli Tepe would be there before it was found? That is amazing.
        ncmncm 6y ago
        He predicted megalithic construction dating to the Holocene boundary. He didn't say where. Revisionism insisting that GT was not absolutely astonishing to historians and archaeoligists is properly met with derision. Of course, we don't know where else it will turn up, although India or Pakistan would be a good bet, and northwestern South America, by his expectations.
goto11 6y ago
> they are afraid to say what is right in front of them. So what is it the archeologist see which they don't dare say?
- ncmncm 6y ago
  Anywhere it would start a turf war, where the other side is well dug in. An example is Egyptian early history, where disagreeing with the head of antiquities in Egypt could interfere with your access to sites. Thus, although the evidence for who did what and when, in the case of the oldest constructions, is very, very thin, it is risky to suggest alternative scenarios. Notably, surface luminance testing has been done to a very limited degree, suggesting the big pyramids might be 500 years older than is assumed, but tests have not since been followed up. Similarly, early Chinese history, where there is an official government timeline that differs from evidence, and being seen to disagree could even interfere with crossing the border, which would make it hard to remain a sinologist. Probably any young archaeologist could identify a dozen other examples. People like to pat themselves on the back when somebody is finally vindicated decades after their career has been blighted, but for each such case there have to be several that die with their evidence just forgotten.
- darkhorse13 6y ago
  The other commenter has given better examples than I could have. If you are genuinely curious about these things, I recommend watching this video with an open mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLrTCYMFUbg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLrTCYMFUbg