6 ms·

Ancient Apocalypse reviewed

46 points by jeffreyrogers 4y ago

Retric 4y ago
It’s amazing how much incorrect crap just gets passed around because people just accept it at face value. Egypt for example only had non destructive flood myths yet they get lumped into the every culture has a flood myth trope. It’s true only in the way basically every culture also has a myth involving rain, dirt, trees, wild animals, death etc. The content of these myths generally have little in common beyond similarly broad categories outside of cultures in some form of contact with each other.
- Cardinal7167 4y ago
  This is a good point. Do you think it is because of how much Egyptian agriculture relied on regular flooding of the Nile to replenish the soil?
  - Retric 4y ago
    That may be part of it but I think the predictable nature and local geology was probably more important. It simply wasn’t killing people the way floods in many areas do.
drbeast 4y ago
Honestly, anything that makes ivory tower alphabet soup credentialed academics seethe is a good thing. I'll make sure to add this one to my watch list.
- over_bridge 4y ago
  What a toxic mindset. As long as it hurts the other team then it's good? You could have appealed to any virtue to celebrate it but instead you went for the most base tribalism of all.
  - luxuryballs 4y ago
    “the other team” lol yeah ok lemme guess who you work for
  - drbeast 4y ago
    Sounds like I triggered an academic. Do us a favor and get the COVID vaccines. It's "safe and effective" like running untested code directly on production.
LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
Incomplete without watching some https://www.youtube.com/@TheRandallCarlson https://www.youtube.com/@TheRandallCarlson and some https://www.youtube.com/@BrightInsight https://www.youtube.com/@BrightInsight and probably some others, which I'm not up to date to, or even unaware of. Anyways, most interesting thing, and more relevant to me because relative 'near' to me, was something found and excavated on a scottish island near the shoreline. Like a cabin/hut made out of stone, but absolutely Out-of-context because way too old for that level of sophistication of the way of building, and also the rest of artefacts found there. Unfortunately I can't find it anymore, because I can't remember those strange names of the Orkney Islands, or the Hebrides. (Where this was, way up north-east from the tip of Scotland) At the time (about 10 years ago now?) I came across it over some branch of the Royal Society, which made it into a virtual museum, excellent web design btw. Spent about 4 hours there, and some more the following days. Crosschecked with other events of the time in that area, like Doggerland, Storegga slide, and so on. The virtual museum explained how they dug it out, how they prepared and reconstructed some artefacts, documented every step photographically, even with *.raw pictures if you wanted to, but without slowing the site down. All very snappy. So called 'experimental archeology'. IIRC the strangest thing was that the building seemed like it has been 'thrown down' there, because a few meters away the ground was different, normal. And it lacked a roof, that was gone, and not found, not even parts of it, like it had been sheered away, with some parts of the building, slightly diagonally from its top. And some materials of the artefacts seemed to come from far away, agean sea, near east, I think. Anyways, according to C14 dating, and other measurements I can't remember anymore, it must have been built 200 to 400 years after the glacier there melted away. At the time I thought just wow, why isn't this in the mainstream media at all? This is sensational! Tried to find it again several times, some years later, to point others to it, but can't find it anymore. GRR!
- akiselev 4y ago
  Are you thinking of the Knap of Howar on the island of Papa Westray [1]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knap_of_Howar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knap_of_Howar
  - LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
thestevesie 4y ago
I honestly don't care if this is correct or not. It's fun to watch even if this guy has negative charisma when compared to Georgio Tsoukawhatever or Randall Carlson. Don't really care for his whole schtick (at least he didn't do his "dude drugs" thing like he always does on Joe Rogan). (I think he's probably not right, but following all these interesting archeological sites is enjoyable).
labster 4y ago
I feel like people are missing the main point of this series, which is that it’s great for speculative fiction writers brainstorming. Like, just imagine cultists of the old gods trying to raise Tlaloc back to life, in order to flood the lands once again. And only the remnants of the Order of the Feathered Messenger, secretly run by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, can stop the rising tide. I’d watch that movie.
herrrk 4y ago
Come on people history is hard enough without fooling ourselves on purpose. Effing this up is a failure of empathy across time
cactusplant7374 4y ago
> There are civilizations in South America which are unknown to official archaeological science. Even I know of one not discovered by archaeologists yet: this despite my having never even visited South America. What is the author referring to? It seems like the author might be full of shit himself.
- herodoturtle 4y ago
  Direct quote from the author: “Archaeology is a wonderful subject, but it has an ideology, and it is presently mostly the kind of thing made to appeal to “Head Girl” IFLS types who memorized all the “correct” answers. Those sorts of people are always a squalid clerisy, and they almost never figure anything new out.” Yeah, I’m inclined to agree with your last point.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    Lile the bit about being right about some things. Easy if you throw enough BS atvthe wall, something is gonna turn out to be correct by pure chance alone. Nothing to be proud of, and totally meaningless without looking at how often peoole were wrong.
hansjorg 4y ago
David Wengrow (archeologist and co-author of The Dawn of Everything with the late David Graeber) wrote a piece on AA and Graham Hancock which was published last week: https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/ancient-apocalypse-graham-hancock/ https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/ancient-apocalypse...
- 6LLvveMx2koXfwn 4y ago
  The Guardian also did a bit of a hatchet job on it a couple of months back: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/nov/23/ancient-apocalypse-is-the-most-dangerous-show-on-netflix https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/nov/23/ancient...
  - richardhod 4y ago
    I like the ending: 'If you don’t like Hancock’s story about the super-intelligent advanced civilisation being wiped off the face of the planet, here’s another that might explain how Netflix gave the greenlight to Ancient Apocalypse: the platform’s senior manager of unscripted originals happens to be Hancock’s son. Honestly, what are the chances?'
015a 4y ago
My biggest take-away from Ancient Apocalypse is: This is out there now. Its popular. Graham makes a really big stink about how monolithic and hostile the archaeological community is, and the archaeological community has done absolutely nothing but prove him right on that every step of the way. This striates both groups further from each other, entrenching them in their beliefs about our history. As the article states: Graham is probably right about some stuff; and every time he's right, its fuel for his theories, and more likely than not he begins sliding even further into incredulity. History has proven one thing: Science doesn't just get to win by being Science. Do you know how much I'd love to watch a Netflix (or Youtube!) series that point-by-point disproves or provides more reasonable explanations for the phenomena Graham proposes, filmed in a similar awesome style? Where is it? Every field of science needs a Neil DeGrasse Tyson, or Bill Nye, or Carl Sagan. You need people who level with non-academics; who make the science fun, who know how to communicate, who are willing to admit when we don't know something but here's how we're trying to change that, and here's why pattern-matching One Grand Explanation into the holes is usually the wrong answer, who genuinely take the science and show, hey, those fantastical conspiracy theories are cool, but reality is WAY cooler, and here's why.
- geijoenr 4y ago
  Seriously? It looks to me that guy is perfectly aware is talking bullshit. And disparaging archaeologists is part of the publicity game. He is just an entertainer trying to make money. Why would any scientist have to descend into the mud to argue? Just let time run his course and wait for Graham to run our of ideas, people will forget about him.
  - namaria 4y ago
    Exactly. There is so much straw man going on. "They don't want you to know this, they say this is fantasy, but..." There is no monolithic 'science'. Science is a big open debate fueled by verifiable evidence. Scientists hostility to speculation and hand waving is too often pointed to as evidence of arrogance.
    - 4y ago

46 points by jeffreyrogers 4y ago

It’s amazing how much incorrect crap just gets passed around because people just accept it at face value. Egypt for example only had non destructive flood myths yet they get lumped into the every culture has a flood myth trope. It’s true only in the way basically every culture also has a myth involving rain, dirt, trees, wild animals, death etc. The content of these myths generally have little in common beyond similarly broad categories outside of cultures in some form of contact with each other.

Cardinal7167 4y ago
This is a good point. Do you think it is because of how much Egyptian agriculture relied on regular flooding of the Nile to replenish the soil?
- Retric 4y ago
  That may be part of it but I think the predictable nature and local geology was probably more important. It simply wasn’t killing people the way floods in many areas do.

drbeast 4y ago

Honestly, anything that makes ivory tower alphabet soup credentialed academics seethe is a good thing. I'll make sure to add this one to my watch list.

over_bridge 4y ago
What a toxic mindset. As long as it hurts the other team then it's good? You could have appealed to any virtue to celebrate it but instead you went for the most base tribalism of all.
- luxuryballs 4y ago
  “the other team” lol yeah ok lemme guess who you work for
- drbeast 4y ago
  Sounds like I triggered an academic. Do us a favor and get the COVID vaccines. It's "safe and effective" like running untested code directly on production.

LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago

Incomplete without watching some https://www.youtube.com/@TheRandallCarlson https://www.youtube.com/@TheRandallCarlson and some https://www.youtube.com/@BrightInsight https://www.youtube.com/@BrightInsight and probably some others, which I'm not up to date to, or even unaware of. Anyways, most interesting thing, and more relevant to me because relative 'near' to me, was something found and excavated on a scottish island near the shoreline. Like a cabin/hut made out of stone, but absolutely Out-of-context because way too old for that level of sophistication of the way of building, and also the rest of artefacts found there. Unfortunately I can't find it anymore, because I can't remember those strange names of the Orkney Islands, or the Hebrides. (Where this was, way up north-east from the tip of Scotland) At the time (about 10 years ago now?) I came across it over some branch of the Royal Society, which made it into a virtual museum, excellent web design btw. Spent about 4 hours there, and some more the following days. Crosschecked with other events of the time in that area, like Doggerland, Storegga slide, and so on. The virtual museum explained how they dug it out, how they prepared and reconstructed some artefacts, documented every step photographically, even with *.raw pictures if you wanted to, but without slowing the site down. All very snappy. So called 'experimental archeology'. IIRC the strangest thing was that the building seemed like it has been 'thrown down' there, because a few meters away the ground was different, normal. And it lacked a roof, that was gone, and not found, not even parts of it, like it had been sheered away, with some parts of the building, slightly diagonally from its top. And some materials of the artefacts seemed to come from far away, agean sea, near east, I think. Anyways, according to C14 dating, and other measurements I can't remember anymore, it must have been built 200 to 400 years after the glacier there melted away. At the time I thought just wow, why isn't this in the mainstream media at all? This is sensational! Tried to find it again several times, some years later, to point others to it, but can't find it anymore. GRR!

akiselev 4y ago
Are you thinking of the Knap of Howar on the island of Papa Westray [1]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knap_of_Howar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knap_of_Howar
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago

thestevesie 4y ago

I honestly don't care if this is correct or not. It's fun to watch even if this guy has negative charisma when compared to Georgio Tsoukawhatever or Randall Carlson. Don't really care for his whole schtick (at least he didn't do his "dude drugs" thing like he always does on Joe Rogan). (I think he's probably not right, but following all these interesting archeological sites is enjoyable).

labster 4y ago

I feel like people are missing the main point of this series, which is that it’s great for speculative fiction writers brainstorming. Like, just imagine cultists of the old gods trying to raise Tlaloc back to life, in order to flood the lands once again. And only the remnants of the Order of the Feathered Messenger, secretly run by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, can stop the rising tide. I’d watch that movie.

herrrk 4y ago

Come on people history is hard enough without fooling ourselves on purpose. Effing this up is a failure of empathy across time

cactusplant7374 4y ago

> There are civilizations in South America which are unknown to official archaeological science. Even I know of one not discovered by archaeologists yet: this despite my having never even visited South America. What is the author referring to? It seems like the author might be full of shit himself.

herodoturtle 4y ago
Direct quote from the author: “Archaeology is a wonderful subject, but it has an ideology, and it is presently mostly the kind of thing made to appeal to “Head Girl” IFLS types who memorized all the “correct” answers. Those sorts of people are always a squalid clerisy, and they almost never figure anything new out.” Yeah, I’m inclined to agree with your last point.
- hef19898 4y ago
  Lile the bit about being right about some things. Easy if you throw enough BS atvthe wall, something is gonna turn out to be correct by pure chance alone. Nothing to be proud of, and totally meaningless without looking at how often peoole were wrong.

hansjorg 4y ago

David Wengrow (archeologist and co-author of The Dawn of Everything with the late David Graeber) wrote a piece on AA and Graham Hancock which was published last week: https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/ancient-apocalypse-graham-hancock/ https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/ancient-apocalypse...

6LLvveMx2koXfwn 4y ago
The Guardian also did a bit of a hatchet job on it a couple of months back: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/nov/23/ancient-apocalypse-is-the-most-dangerous-show-on-netflix https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/nov/23/ancient...
- richardhod 4y ago
  I like the ending: 'If you don’t like Hancock’s story about the super-intelligent advanced civilisation being wiped off the face of the planet, here’s another that might explain how Netflix gave the greenlight to Ancient Apocalypse: the platform’s senior manager of unscripted originals happens to be Hancock’s son. Honestly, what are the chances?'

015a 4y ago

My biggest take-away from Ancient Apocalypse is: This is out there now. Its popular. Graham makes a really big stink about how monolithic and hostile the archaeological community is, and the archaeological community has done absolutely nothing but prove him right on that every step of the way. This striates both groups further from each other, entrenching them in their beliefs about our history. As the article states: Graham is probably right about some stuff; and every time he's right, its fuel for his theories, and more likely than not he begins sliding even further into incredulity. History has proven one thing: Science doesn't just get to win by being Science. Do you know how much I'd love to watch a Netflix (or Youtube!) series that point-by-point disproves or provides more reasonable explanations for the phenomena Graham proposes, filmed in a similar awesome style? Where is it? Every field of science needs a Neil DeGrasse Tyson, or Bill Nye, or Carl Sagan. You need people who level with non-academics; who make the science fun, who know how to communicate, who are willing to admit when we don't know something but here's how we're trying to change that, and here's why pattern-matching One Grand Explanation into the holes is usually the wrong answer, who genuinely take the science and show, hey, those fantastical conspiracy theories are cool, but reality is WAY cooler, and here's why.

geijoenr 4y ago
Seriously? It looks to me that guy is perfectly aware is talking bullshit. And disparaging archaeologists is part of the publicity game. He is just an entertainer trying to make money. Why would any scientist have to descend into the mud to argue? Just let time run his course and wait for Graham to run our of ideas, people will forget about him.
- namaria 4y ago
  Exactly. There is so much straw man going on. "They don't want you to know this, they say this is fantasy, but..." There is no monolithic 'science'. Science is a big open debate fueled by verifiable evidence. Scientists hostility to speculation and hand waving is too often pointed to as evidence of arrogance.
  - 4y ago