4 ms·

Graham Hancock will be pleased.

Terretta 3y ago
Right, as noted in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38186510 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38186510, this is not news. This writeup is covering activity from 2011 - 2015... “The integrated surveys at Gunung Padang were conducted for 3 years, from November 2011 to October 2014...” ... completed so long ago it served as an episode in last year's Netflix documentary “Ancient Apocalypse”, aka “the most dangerous show on Netflix”: 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...
- waihtis 3y ago
  Hilarious. Why is it the most dangerous show on Netflix? I clump it together with light entertainment shows like Ancient Astronauts or whatever it was called. Surely not dangerous by any means.
  - mcguire 3y ago
    It spent, what, eight episodes attacking archaeology for not taking Hancock seriously. (And really, why not? Who doesn't believe there was a global civilization roughly like the Victorians built on telepathy and sonic vibration technology about 20,000 years ago?) It's dangerous because it represents the popularization of anti-intellectualism in the modern world.
  - fragmede 3y ago
    except for the people who watch the show and seriously believe the stuff, and then go out and live their lives and the rest of us have to live with them spouting that nonsense
  - jcranmer 3y ago
    I'd be hard-pressed to call it the most dangerous show, but the reasons why it's problematic are as follows: 1. It's fundamentally anti-intellectual. A lot of the show is ultimately based on attacking archaeology as a field on the basis that it rejects his ideas, without ever attempting to interact with the (well-grounded) reasons his ideas are being rejected. Quite frankly, takes like "the most dangerous show on Netflix" help Hancock more than hurt him, which is one of the reasons I'd never call it that. 2. The ideology is... uncomfortable. His underlying thesis amounts to "white people built every interesting archaeological structure we find in the world before suddenly disappearing without leaving any other trace," although the "white" has been removed from overt mentions in more recent year. Yet you can still guess that it's still covertly there by observing that European constructions never seem to undergo this process. 3. Bad archaeology and pseudoarchaeology can fuel modern arguments for screwing indigenous peoples out of their land or culture, etc. 4. Poor archaeological practices can ruin the ability to do good archaeology on the site in the future. Note the excavation we're talking about here is an example of such poor achaeological--the site has been greatly disturbed by the excavation, which could well foreclose the ability to properly date the site in the future. On a related note, this can also fuel the general public to visit a site and, well, loot it. 5. A final note is that the demand for ancient aliens-style shows crowds out any attempt by archaeologists to actually put together shows about real, interesting archaeological discovers. Producers don't want a show about Çatalhöyük or Göbekli Tepe or Norte Chico that produce interesting questions that challenge what people likely learned in school about the history of civilization. No, you have to attack it with an ancient aliens or whatever conspiracy theory to be able to actually make the documentary. Mainstream archaeology is considered "boring" even when it is absolutely the opposite.
- 7thaccount 3y ago
  I think conspiracy stuff is fine on Netflix if presented as entertainment, but I wish they would label it as such in some manner. I'm not sure how one best goes about doing that though outside of hiring some actual anthropologists and archaeologists to do an episode at the end of the series that points out what I assume to be a lengthy list of flaws and assumptions (probably too expensive). I once watched one of the Ancient Aliens episodes for fun (it was entertaining) and found some pretty poor logic being used to try to fit their conclusions (no surprise there). It is a little sad that a certain portion of the population eats it up though. I will say the title of the linked article is also jumping pretty hard when asking "how has this been allowed".
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    > but I wish they would label it as such in some manner. That might have the opposite effect. If the label is perceived as "being cool", or "presenting stuff they don't want you to know", then some will be more intrigued, more likely to believe it.

Right, as noted in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38186510 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38186510, this is not news. This writeup is covering activity from 2011 - 2015... “The integrated surveys at Gunung Padang were conducted for 3 years, from November 2011 to October 2014...” ... completed so long ago it served as an episode in last year's Netflix documentary “Ancient Apocalypse”, aka “the most dangerous show on Netflix”: 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...

waihtis 3y ago
Hilarious. Why is it the most dangerous show on Netflix? I clump it together with light entertainment shows like Ancient Astronauts or whatever it was called. Surely not dangerous by any means.
- mcguire 3y ago
  It spent, what, eight episodes attacking archaeology for not taking Hancock seriously. (And really, why not? Who doesn't believe there was a global civilization roughly like the Victorians built on telepathy and sonic vibration technology about 20,000 years ago?) It's dangerous because it represents the popularization of anti-intellectualism in the modern world.
- fragmede 3y ago
  except for the people who watch the show and seriously believe the stuff, and then go out and live their lives and the rest of us have to live with them spouting that nonsense
- jcranmer 3y ago
  I'd be hard-pressed to call it the most dangerous show, but the reasons why it's problematic are as follows: 1. It's fundamentally anti-intellectual. A lot of the show is ultimately based on attacking archaeology as a field on the basis that it rejects his ideas, without ever attempting to interact with the (well-grounded) reasons his ideas are being rejected. Quite frankly, takes like "the most dangerous show on Netflix" help Hancock more than hurt him, which is one of the reasons I'd never call it that. 2. The ideology is... uncomfortable. His underlying thesis amounts to "white people built every interesting archaeological structure we find in the world before suddenly disappearing without leaving any other trace," although the "white" has been removed from overt mentions in more recent year. Yet you can still guess that it's still covertly there by observing that European constructions never seem to undergo this process. 3. Bad archaeology and pseudoarchaeology can fuel modern arguments for screwing indigenous peoples out of their land or culture, etc. 4. Poor archaeological practices can ruin the ability to do good archaeology on the site in the future. Note the excavation we're talking about here is an example of such poor achaeological--the site has been greatly disturbed by the excavation, which could well foreclose the ability to properly date the site in the future. On a related note, this can also fuel the general public to visit a site and, well, loot it. 5. A final note is that the demand for ancient aliens-style shows crowds out any attempt by archaeologists to actually put together shows about real, interesting archaeological discovers. Producers don't want a show about Çatalhöyük or Göbekli Tepe or Norte Chico that produce interesting questions that challenge what people likely learned in school about the history of civilization. No, you have to attack it with an ancient aliens or whatever conspiracy theory to be able to actually make the documentary. Mainstream archaeology is considered "boring" even when it is absolutely the opposite.
7thaccount 3y ago
I think conspiracy stuff is fine on Netflix if presented as entertainment, but I wish they would label it as such in some manner. I'm not sure how one best goes about doing that though outside of hiring some actual anthropologists and archaeologists to do an episode at the end of the series that points out what I assume to be a lengthy list of flaws and assumptions (probably too expensive). I once watched one of the Ancient Aliens episodes for fun (it was entertaining) and found some pretty poor logic being used to try to fit their conclusions (no surprise there). It is a little sad that a certain portion of the population eats it up though. I will say the title of the linked article is also jumping pretty hard when asking "how has this been allowed".
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  > but I wish they would label it as such in some manner. That might have the opposite effect. If the label is perceived as "being cool", or "presenting stuff they don't want you to know", then some will be more intrigued, more likely to believe it.