5 ms·

For what seems like every 100 YouTube channels that speculate on everything from lost civilizations to aliens there are some mundane channels that actually set

For what seems like every 100 YouTube channels that speculate on everything from lost civilizations to aliens there are some mundane channels that actually set out to demonstrate and reproduce technologies and works like the ancients. One of the more well known channels is scientists against myths, here is a link to one of their videos reproducing granite drill holes how the Egyptians might have: https://youtu.be/yyCc4iuMikQ?si=oUkmF122iHIklvuz https://youtu.be/yyCc4iuMikQ?si=oUkmF122iHIklvuz I really like their videos making granite and diorite vases, while the YT algo will tend to take you down the must have been lost technology/lost civilization/alien rabbit hole, sometimes you get lucky and they suggest other channels doing amazing work. The comments are fun too, no matter how well done anything is there’s always someone demanding demanding the small channels recreate the great pyramids at scale.

bjackman 2y ago
I'm getting a bit off topic here but regarding the pseudo-archaeology that's popular on YouTube: Graham Hancock (who had a 10 part Netflix series called Ancient Apocalypse about an advanced global civilization during/before the last glacial maximum) recently appeared on Joe Rogan's podcast alongside Flint Dibble who is an archaeologist that does public communication on YouTube. At least according to my own YouTube bubble it seems we are in a pretty big moment for pseudo-archaeology! Here's an informal discussion about it from Stefan Milo who I highly recommend for anyone intereated in prehistory: https://youtu.be/rWugM4XRPuc?si=EkO5PEAKRAIYYRJD https://youtu.be/rWugM4XRPuc?si=EkO5PEAKRAIYYRJD I have seen another good quality video summarising the debate on the podcast but annoyingly I cannot remember it to share, maybe someone else can share a fun resource (unfortunately the Joe Rogan podcast is way too long for me to actually listen to)!
- throwawaycities 2y ago
  Graham has been appearing on Rogan’s podcast for years now. It’s Grahams exposure from Rogan that actually got Graham his Netflix show not the other way around. In terms of proliferation of “pseudo archeology” - whatever that is - yes, lots of people are realizing they can profit from this, so more content than ever is being created to monetize the attention capture. It’s not unlike flat earth content that people have been able to successfully monetize. It’s not all bad, Graham is no doubt responsible for getting people interested in history, archeology, and even geology. It’s really not societies fault they are ill equipped to exercise independent and critical thinking, much less the not having the skill sets, tools and resources to evaluate the existing archeological record. Though for the people that want to make a career out of it, I’d rather see them obtain formal educations and contribute in meaningful ways in lieu of the majority of the grifting type social media content…most people probably have the capability to become educated about the actual science and they’d also learn pretty quickly there is no vast conspiracy to hide history/prehistory as much of the monetized social media promotes.
fififbaajdjd 2y ago
> lost technology, lost civilization Are you saying there’s not ancient technology or civilization that’s lost to us? That seems extremely unlikely to me. The name “scientists against myths” makes me wary of this channel. They clearly have an agenda, and I as a laymen have no way to identify when they’re letting that agenda cloud their judgment. As a laymen I can at least evaluate the trustworthiness of other humans, and framing the debate as “science vs myth” when history is rife with examples of myths later being explained by science sets off alarm bells.
- ajcp 2y ago
  > The name “scientists against myths” makes me wary of this channel. They clearly have an agenda[...] myth: an unfounded or false notion [0] Given that definition of "myth" I find the name "scientists against myths" to be rather redundant, wouldn't you? In what version of reality is that not the agenda of every scientist? 0. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth
  - ab5tract 2y ago
    The existence of Troy was once considered a myth.
    - throwawaycities 2y ago
      You say Troy was considered a myth as if it were an absolute, it wasn’t, it was debated among scholars. Fact is German archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann was one of those learned people that didn’t think it was a myth, and in fact did locate and excavated a city matching the descriptions. That’s how science works, things generally tend not to exist until there is proof or record of their existence, science doesn’t default to things existing until record of their non-existence emerges.
      - ab5tract 2y ago
        You seem to have missed the point entirely: The scientists who considered it a myth were completely, utterly wrong. I think it is perfectly healthy to have skepticism about scientists who wage war against "myths". See also the long fight against the "myth" of lead poisoning, amongst dozens if not hundreds of other examples.
borgdefense 2y ago
People want to believe in something more when it comes to ancient Egypt even if they know it is not reality. To me, it is obviously linked to the beauty and other worldly feel of the ancient Egyptian iconography and art. If you just had the pyramids in the desert with the entire civilization lost, while impressive there wouldn't be other worldly explanations that sounded palatable. It would obviously just be the engineering of a lost civilization. It is really a testament to the power of ancient Egyptian art that it can still inspire the imagination to such a degree thousands of years later and across cultures.
- TeaBrain 2y ago
  I think for some that it is the opposite. Most people are able to understand that due to the extensive evidence of centuries of advanced civilization, including extensive surviving writings and evidence of mathematics knowledge, the Egyptians were able to coordinate the construction of the pyramids using advanced, but not anachronistic technology. However, due to the disproportionate vastness and majesty of the pyramids and some of the other surviving ancient Egyptian works, many people can still be led to believe that there was something more at work than practical engineering with ancient technology.

bjackman 2y ago

I'm getting a bit off topic here but regarding the pseudo-archaeology that's popular on YouTube: Graham Hancock (who had a 10 part Netflix series called Ancient Apocalypse about an advanced global civilization during/before the last glacial maximum) recently appeared on Joe Rogan's podcast alongside Flint Dibble who is an archaeologist that does public communication on YouTube. At least according to my own YouTube bubble it seems we are in a pretty big moment for pseudo-archaeology! Here's an informal discussion about it from Stefan Milo who I highly recommend for anyone intereated in prehistory: https://youtu.be/rWugM4XRPuc?si=EkO5PEAKRAIYYRJD https://youtu.be/rWugM4XRPuc?si=EkO5PEAKRAIYYRJD I have seen another good quality video summarising the debate on the podcast but annoyingly I cannot remember it to share, maybe someone else can share a fun resource (unfortunately the Joe Rogan podcast is way too long for me to actually listen to)!

throwawaycities 2y ago
Graham has been appearing on Rogan’s podcast for years now. It’s Grahams exposure from Rogan that actually got Graham his Netflix show not the other way around. In terms of proliferation of “pseudo archeology” - whatever that is - yes, lots of people are realizing they can profit from this, so more content than ever is being created to monetize the attention capture. It’s not unlike flat earth content that people have been able to successfully monetize. It’s not all bad, Graham is no doubt responsible for getting people interested in history, archeology, and even geology. It’s really not societies fault they are ill equipped to exercise independent and critical thinking, much less the not having the skill sets, tools and resources to evaluate the existing archeological record. Though for the people that want to make a career out of it, I’d rather see them obtain formal educations and contribute in meaningful ways in lieu of the majority of the grifting type social media content…most people probably have the capability to become educated about the actual science and they’d also learn pretty quickly there is no vast conspiracy to hide history/prehistory as much of the monetized social media promotes.

fififbaajdjd 2y ago

> lost technology, lost civilization Are you saying there’s not ancient technology or civilization that’s lost to us? That seems extremely unlikely to me. The name “scientists against myths” makes me wary of this channel. They clearly have an agenda, and I as a laymen have no way to identify when they’re letting that agenda cloud their judgment. As a laymen I can at least evaluate the trustworthiness of other humans, and framing the debate as “science vs myth” when history is rife with examples of myths later being explained by science sets off alarm bells.

ajcp 2y ago
> The name “scientists against myths” makes me wary of this channel. They clearly have an agenda[...] myth: an unfounded or false notion [0] Given that definition of "myth" I find the name "scientists against myths" to be rather redundant, wouldn't you? In what version of reality is that not the agenda of every scientist? 0. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth
- ab5tract 2y ago
  The existence of Troy was once considered a myth.
  - throwawaycities 2y ago
    You say Troy was considered a myth as if it were an absolute, it wasn’t, it was debated among scholars. Fact is German archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann was one of those learned people that didn’t think it was a myth, and in fact did locate and excavated a city matching the descriptions. That’s how science works, things generally tend not to exist until there is proof or record of their existence, science doesn’t default to things existing until record of their non-existence emerges.
    - ab5tract 2y ago
      You seem to have missed the point entirely: The scientists who considered it a myth were completely, utterly wrong. I think it is perfectly healthy to have skepticism about scientists who wage war against "myths". See also the long fight against the "myth" of lead poisoning, amongst dozens if not hundreds of other examples.

borgdefense 2y ago

People want to believe in something more when it comes to ancient Egypt even if they know it is not reality. To me, it is obviously linked to the beauty and other worldly feel of the ancient Egyptian iconography and art. If you just had the pyramids in the desert with the entire civilization lost, while impressive there wouldn't be other worldly explanations that sounded palatable. It would obviously just be the engineering of a lost civilization. It is really a testament to the power of ancient Egyptian art that it can still inspire the imagination to such a degree thousands of years later and across cultures.

TeaBrain 2y ago
I think for some that it is the opposite. Most people are able to understand that due to the extensive evidence of centuries of advanced civilization, including extensive surviving writings and evidence of mathematics knowledge, the Egyptians were able to coordinate the construction of the pyramids using advanced, but not anachronistic technology. However, due to the disproportionate vastness and majesty of the pyramids and some of the other surviving ancient Egyptian works, many people can still be led to believe that there was something more at work than practical engineering with ancient technology.