2 ms·

> There is only so much that can be gleaned from found evidence. The customs and assumptions of our time also affect the way we reconstruct these stories and ci

> There is only so much that can be gleaned from found evidence. The customs and assumptions of our time also affect the way we reconstruct these stories and civilizations. This is partially true. However, modern anthropologists and historians are very aware of this, and spend a lot of time trying to make sure they do not push bounds of what evidence can suggest. Popular anthropologists and historians generally do not share the same care, and pseudoanthropology dives into extrapolation with abandon. > Even when closely examining large structures like the Great Pyramid, there's evidence of engineering that far surpasses our own[3][4]. Uh... no. There is a tendency to simultaneously underestimate the precision achievable with low technology tools while overestimating the precision of important megalithic architecture. This is what produces hyperbolic claims such as "evidence of engineering that far surpasses our own." The best theories are the ones that can marshal several different kinds of evidence, including experimental archaeology, recovery of artifacts with detailed microstructure analysis, as well as any available cultural evidence. In the case of the pyramids, how they were built is not a mystery, for we have recovered the tools used to build it from the quarries that sourced the stone, and we also have the pictures they painted to depict themselves building it. To ignore all of that evidence in favor of advanced machinery (of which no remains exist) to serve a purpose never hinted at in any literature is lunacy. > Uncanny coincidences that do not make sense[5] Well, the coincidence of hexagonal structure can easily be explained by there existing only three regular polygons that can tile a plane, one of which is a hexagon. Try a random Voronoi diagram (e.g., https://cfbrasz.github.io/Voronoi.html)--things https://cfbrasz.github.io/Voronoi.html)--things tend to end up looking very hexagonal very quickly. Of course, when you get to the claim that trees were 10 miles high...

precompute 4y ago
Thanks for the reply. > However, modern anthropologists and historians are very aware of this, and spend a lot of time trying to make sure they do not push bounds of what evidence can suggest. Popular anthropologists and historians generally do not share the same care And yet, what is popular dictates what is available for research for the most part. And anyway, what I meant was that these are biases / assumptions that are considered "common sense" and / or occamian (is that a word?). One wouldn't hypothesize, for example, that the ancient egyptians used two headed camels, or cow-camel hybrids. Maybe they were killed, and nothing of them has yet been found, and our picture of the past is hence woefully incomplete / incorrect. > Uh... no. There is a tendency to simultaneously underestimate the precision achievable with low technology tools while overestimating the precision of important megalithic architecture. This is what produces hyperbolic claims such as "evidence of engineering that far surpasses our own." Sure. But just because someone can get a very great result with a primitive method does not mean they had required skilled labor in large numbers that could slog away for days or months on end. Trying to justify that leads to more assumptions... and in the end we end up concentrating the entire work force of the ancient world on a vanity project (apparently). Is it really so outlandish to consider that someone might have been able to make a drill, instead of slogging tens of thousands of man hours on polishing / cutting rock to exact dimensions with primitive techniques? > Of course, when you get to the claim that trees were 10 miles high... Well, having a tall, raised structure with almost perpendicular walls is also pretty weird. Would you rather they were ancient engineering?
- jcranmer 4y ago
  > And yet, what is popular dictates what is available for research for the most part. Actually, it doesn't. There's a pretty big disconnect between academic research and popular publication. Partially, this is because popular outreach wins you no plaudits in the academic, but this is also partially because people like media producers are surprisingly unwilling to actually produce shows along the lines of "cool new discoveries in archaeology" and would rather produce tripe that amounts to "ALL ARCHAEOLOGISTS ARE WRONG AND THIS IS WHY IT'S REALLY ANCIENT ALIENS". > in the end we end up concentrating the entire work force of the ancient world on a vanity project (apparently). You do understand that Ancient Egypt had a corvée labor system (i.e., you paid your taxes in labor), and had an environment which meant that most of the inhabited lands were uninhabitable for a while each year (I think it was a month or so, but I don't know the scale of Nile floods for certain)? And we have actual letters from the Old Kingdom of Egypt that talks about managing the corvée labor? > Is it really so outlandish to consider that someone might have been able to make a drill, instead of slogging tens of thousands of man hours on polishing / cutting rock to exact dimensions with primitive techniques? When there is lots of evidence for the feasibility of the latter, and there is not only no evidence of the former, there is also a conspicuous lack of evidence for precursor technological steps, yes, it is outlandish. It's suggesting that comparatively advanced technology shows up out of nowhere, is used for one specific thing and nothing else, and vanishes without a trace; it should be unsurprising that proponents of these theories are also big fans of proposing that it was instead done by aliens (or Atlanteans).

precompute 4y ago

Thanks for the reply. > However, modern anthropologists and historians are very aware of this, and spend a lot of time trying to make sure they do not push bounds of what evidence can suggest. Popular anthropologists and historians generally do not share the same care And yet, what is popular dictates what is available for research for the most part. And anyway, what I meant was that these are biases / assumptions that are considered "common sense" and / or occamian (is that a word?). One wouldn't hypothesize, for example, that the ancient egyptians used two headed camels, or cow-camel hybrids. Maybe they were killed, and nothing of them has yet been found, and our picture of the past is hence woefully incomplete / incorrect. > Uh... no. There is a tendency to simultaneously underestimate the precision achievable with low technology tools while overestimating the precision of important megalithic architecture. This is what produces hyperbolic claims such as "evidence of engineering that far surpasses our own." Sure. But just because someone can get a very great result with a primitive method does not mean they had required skilled labor in large numbers that could slog away for days or months on end. Trying to justify that leads to more assumptions... and in the end we end up concentrating the entire work force of the ancient world on a vanity project (apparently). Is it really so outlandish to consider that someone might have been able to make a drill, instead of slogging tens of thousands of man hours on polishing / cutting rock to exact dimensions with primitive techniques? > Of course, when you get to the claim that trees were 10 miles high... Well, having a tall, raised structure with almost perpendicular walls is also pretty weird. Would you rather they were ancient engineering?

jcranmer 4y ago
> And yet, what is popular dictates what is available for research for the most part. Actually, it doesn't. There's a pretty big disconnect between academic research and popular publication. Partially, this is because popular outreach wins you no plaudits in the academic, but this is also partially because people like media producers are surprisingly unwilling to actually produce shows along the lines of "cool new discoveries in archaeology" and would rather produce tripe that amounts to "ALL ARCHAEOLOGISTS ARE WRONG AND THIS IS WHY IT'S REALLY ANCIENT ALIENS". > in the end we end up concentrating the entire work force of the ancient world on a vanity project (apparently). You do understand that Ancient Egypt had a corvée labor system (i.e., you paid your taxes in labor), and had an environment which meant that most of the inhabited lands were uninhabitable for a while each year (I think it was a month or so, but I don't know the scale of Nile floods for certain)? And we have actual letters from the Old Kingdom of Egypt that talks about managing the corvée labor? > Is it really so outlandish to consider that someone might have been able to make a drill, instead of slogging tens of thousands of man hours on polishing / cutting rock to exact dimensions with primitive techniques? When there is lots of evidence for the feasibility of the latter, and there is not only no evidence of the former, there is also a conspicuous lack of evidence for precursor technological steps, yes, it is outlandish. It's suggesting that comparatively advanced technology shows up out of nowhere, is used for one specific thing and nothing else, and vanishes without a trace; it should be unsurprising that proponents of these theories are also big fans of proposing that it was instead done by aliens (or Atlanteans).