3 ms·
> I think it's more that he doesn't have any actual archaeological evidence of note to support the theory of relatively advanced ice-age civilizations I guess
by kcplate 4y ago
> I think it's more that he doesn't have any actual archaeological evidence of note to support the theory of relatively advanced ice-age civilizations
I guess for me it’s strange that what should be a passive dismissal of a fringe idea seems to have a much more active campaign of labeling it misinformation.
Are his ideas really that dangerous to warrant such concern? Pretty sure society is not going to change just because Graham Hancock convinced a hundred, thousand, or even a million people that maybe there was some groups that had astronomical and stone building capabilities prior to the ice age. I seriously doubt that manic mobs are going to raid the local archeologist’s houses, carry them out on a rail, and burn them at stake at the edge of town for daring to suggest that hunter gathers probably weren’t that advanced.
- spaceman_2020 4y agoI don’t understand the resistance to his ideas honestly, or how it really impacts us as modern humans. Physiologically, humans 20,000 years ago were not any different than human beings 5,000 years ago. If they could figure out how to create structures in ancient Egypt, they could have very well figured how to create structures 15,000 years ago - the human brain was largely the same. Regardless, it does little to change how I view myself or my history as a human today.
- kcplate 4y agoI find the concept of a pre-ice age civilization with a degree of astronomical and stone working knowledge pretty fascinating and as I said above—plausible, perhaps even likely. But, I think Hancock gets a little more speculative and sure of himself than I think some of his evidence warrants. Some evidence seems plausible and compelling and some requires some big leaps of faith, but he for sure paints an interesting picture and I believe “what if..” is a powerful thing that shouldn’t be suppressed.