7 ms·

Just finished watching "Ancient Apocalypse" on Netflix. They go over this kind of discovery It's quite speculative, but also really fascinating. Even if what t

by nico 2y ago

Just finished watching "Ancient Apocalypse" on Netflix. They go over this kind of discovery It's quite speculative, but also really fascinating. Even if what they claim is not completely right, it definitely shows how the current accepted understanding of the history of the Americas needs an overhaul and a lot more research PS: if you like this stuff, also check out the movie "The Lost City of Z"

e40 2y ago
The Lost City of Z, the book, was fascinating. Highly recommended. Didn’t see the movie.
xdennis 2y ago
I don't know if you're aware, but Ancient Apocalypse is pseudo science.
- vdupras 2y ago
  Yeah, I'm hesitant about this. One the one hand, experts pile up pretty hard on this series and on M. Hancock. Maybe deservedly, I don't know. But I'm still sour about COVID where experts piled up pretty hard on the lab leak theory. When early on, experts were telling us that science said that masks were ineffective. They were adamant. Here, the very insistence of those experts, the aggressive tone of the wikipedia page give me an air of deja vu.
  - whatwhaaaaat 2y ago
    The reality of the modern world cannot be explained by the history we are told.
    - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
      ? How do you figure? The idea of "fully explaining" the modern world seems a ridiculous concept but it's not like we have alternatives to the concept of looking to the past in a methodical manner.
    - vdupras 2y ago
      You mean by the history we are told in the Ancient Apocalypse series? No, probably not. But that's the point! New information such as these discoveries in the Amazon show that the stories told by "mainstream archeology" can't explain the reality of the modern world either! Where does that leave us? I don't know, but curiosity should be encouraged.
    - pwillia7 2y ago
      The slow movingness of Science with its method and peer reviewing definitely fights against new ideas becoming accepted overnight, but we do get there, and glomming onto personalities with unaccepted ideas will hurt your 'correctness' more than help it. I watched some of the first season and was actually already open to all the alt archaeology stuff with the precision arguments people make, but the more I looked the more clear it was just BS. I think the biggest thing about the old world people miss (and thus makes alt archeology so attractive) is the mass use of slaves and general lack of caring about human suffering. I couldn't believe Red Fort was built in 9 years in 1640, until I had that epiphany, for instance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Fort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Fort
      - mmooss 2y ago
        > general lack of caring about human suffering You may need some evidence. For example, someone looking back on us might think that, because we accept the current level of suffering as normal. What is alt-arhaeology?
        pwillia7 2y ago
        All these people that think big archaeology is wrong because of gobekli Teppe and they now have a couple seasons of the Netflix show referenced in this thread
        whatwhaaaaat 2y ago
        I can assure you my comment has nothing to do with any Netflix show. Or any ancient history. We only need to go back 300 years to find the history we’re told isn’t reality. Do we think the Voc went silently into the night? Did the banking families of the 1800s reproduce to such a degree their fortunes are no more? We can keep going.
- nico 2y ago
  I know it has that reputation. But besides people saying stuff like your comment, I haven’t seen any specifics about exactly what’s wrong Would you care to elaborate? Have you seen the show? Could you point to the things that are wrong and why? Genuinely curious and wanting to learn
  - hoerensagen 2y ago
    I think this video is good Ressource on the topic. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-iCIZQX9i1A https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-iCIZQX9i1A Basically Hancock show lots of interesting and fascinating archaeological sites which is great especially since a lot of these are things that most viewers didn't know about before. But sadly he chooses to use these site only to present his theory for which he's doesn't have any actual evidence.
    - nico 2y ago
      Thank you for that video. Unfortunately the guy spends the first part of it just hating on Hancock, which I don’t think is a good way to debunk stuff I was also hoping the guy would find whatever papers or publications were made by the scientists Hancock interviews throughout the series, but he’s mainly just rebutting the concept of an ancient advanced civilization (which yes, is very speculative, and even Hancock says that himself in the series) Clearly the guy has a lot of detractors, his grand theories are speculative and they certainly have many holes But it also seems like even mainstream archaeology is also, to some degree, speculative (we can’t really know exactly what happened in the past). And that some of the research that Hancock is supporting his theories on, might actually be right Anyway, thank you again. I will take Hancock’s most grandiose claims with a grain of salt, but I’m also going to keep an open mind about alternative theories of how the Americas might have been first populated by humans (especially the Amazon)
p_j_w 2y ago
> Even if what they claim is not completely right It seems even this is not the case and that the show is just completely wrong.
- nico 2y ago
  The show seemed very convincing, not in the speculative theories about an ancient precursor civilization necessarily, but definitely in some of the findings they show Do you have any resources you could share that debunk the specific things they show? Like the rock paintings they dated to 10k years ago, or some of the other digs that were dated as 20-25k years old? Are you saying it is all made up? Or just some of it?
  - mmooss 2y ago
    > The show seemed very convincing On a tangent, isn't that a signal of inaccuracy? Accurate people - i.e., committed to be truthful and correct - are very careful and nuanced about what they claim, make weaknesses as clear as strengths, and are careful to not be too convincing, because that can distort their reader's critical thinking. At least, that's the ideal. But why be especially convincing - why be more convincing than your empirical evidence?
  - vdupras 2y ago
    This is precisely what I'm looking for too. All critiques of Hancock I can find with my feeble googling skills seem to be focused on unimportant stuff such as encouraging uses of psychedelics and accusations of racism. But what's far, far more important, is debunking evidences like rock painting dating, geoglyphs dating. That thing on Rapa Nui about statues being more-than-half buried seemed really intriguing. The speculation he makes about why that might be so (spoiler alert: that famous lost civilization being there first) seemed interesting to me. Is there a specific debunking of that somewhere? I'd also be interested in specific debunking of his theory that incas didn't have the capabilities to do some of the rock walls they've made. You know, with heated rocks and all. That seemed interesting too.
    - 2y ago
thinkyfish 2y ago
You should check out the Miniminuteman series on ancient apocalypse, its pretty interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iCIZQX9i1A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iCIZQX9i1A
itronitron 2y ago
"Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James Loewen https://web.archive.org/web/20200329225058/http://sundown.tougaloo.edu/liesmyteachertoldme.php https://web.archive.org/web/20200329225058/http://sundown.to...
sampo 2y ago
> check out the movie "The Lost City of Z" And the 2005 Charles C. Mann book "1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus".
- nico 2y ago
  Thank you. Looks like a fascinating read I remember seeing some discussions about it and related topics here on HN a few years ago
- roughly 2y ago
  That book is really an incredible eye-opening read, I strongly recommend it. Graeber and Wengrow's The Dawn of Everything spends quite a bit of time with complex societies in the Americas as well, and is certainly worth a read as well.
JFingleton 2y ago
Hancock is great at showing civilizations that I would have never heard of if it wasn't for his "journalism" (that's he's self-appointed title). He's a good communicator and I feel like I learn at lot from his Netflix shows. However the whole "forgotten civilization" AKA lost city of Atlantis, just seems too far fetched and forced into the various episodes. That part of it makes for good entertainment at least. In general, I'm a supporter of his work and look forward to further episodes.
- mikhailfranco 2y ago
  He was a journalist for The Economist in his youth.

by nico 2y ago

e40 2y ago

The Lost City of Z, the book, was fascinating. Highly recommended. Didn’t see the movie.

xdennis 2y ago

I don't know if you're aware, but Ancient Apocalypse is pseudo science.

vdupras 2y ago
Yeah, I'm hesitant about this. One the one hand, experts pile up pretty hard on this series and on M. Hancock. Maybe deservedly, I don't know. But I'm still sour about COVID where experts piled up pretty hard on the lab leak theory. When early on, experts were telling us that science said that masks were ineffective. They were adamant. Here, the very insistence of those experts, the aggressive tone of the wikipedia page give me an air of deja vu.
- whatwhaaaaat 2y ago
  The reality of the modern world cannot be explained by the history we are told.
  - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
    ? How do you figure? The idea of "fully explaining" the modern world seems a ridiculous concept but it's not like we have alternatives to the concept of looking to the past in a methodical manner.
  - vdupras 2y ago
    You mean by the history we are told in the Ancient Apocalypse series? No, probably not. But that's the point! New information such as these discoveries in the Amazon show that the stories told by "mainstream archeology" can't explain the reality of the modern world either! Where does that leave us? I don't know, but curiosity should be encouraged.
  - pwillia7 2y ago
    The slow movingness of Science with its method and peer reviewing definitely fights against new ideas becoming accepted overnight, but we do get there, and glomming onto personalities with unaccepted ideas will hurt your 'correctness' more than help it. I watched some of the first season and was actually already open to all the alt archaeology stuff with the precision arguments people make, but the more I looked the more clear it was just BS. I think the biggest thing about the old world people miss (and thus makes alt archeology so attractive) is the mass use of slaves and general lack of caring about human suffering. I couldn't believe Red Fort was built in 9 years in 1640, until I had that epiphany, for instance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Fort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Fort
    - mmooss 2y ago
      > general lack of caring about human suffering You may need some evidence. For example, someone looking back on us might think that, because we accept the current level of suffering as normal. What is alt-arhaeology?
      - pwillia7 2y ago
        All these people that think big archaeology is wrong because of gobekli Teppe and they now have a couple seasons of the Netflix show referenced in this thread
        whatwhaaaaat 2y ago
        I can assure you my comment has nothing to do with any Netflix show. Or any ancient history. We only need to go back 300 years to find the history we’re told isn’t reality. Do we think the Voc went silently into the night? Did the banking families of the 1800s reproduce to such a degree their fortunes are no more? We can keep going.
nico 2y ago
I know it has that reputation. But besides people saying stuff like your comment, I haven’t seen any specifics about exactly what’s wrong Would you care to elaborate? Have you seen the show? Could you point to the things that are wrong and why? Genuinely curious and wanting to learn
- hoerensagen 2y ago
  I think this video is good Ressource on the topic. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-iCIZQX9i1A https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-iCIZQX9i1A Basically Hancock show lots of interesting and fascinating archaeological sites which is great especially since a lot of these are things that most viewers didn't know about before. But sadly he chooses to use these site only to present his theory for which he's doesn't have any actual evidence.
  - nico 2y ago
    Thank you for that video. Unfortunately the guy spends the first part of it just hating on Hancock, which I don’t think is a good way to debunk stuff I was also hoping the guy would find whatever papers or publications were made by the scientists Hancock interviews throughout the series, but he’s mainly just rebutting the concept of an ancient advanced civilization (which yes, is very speculative, and even Hancock says that himself in the series) Clearly the guy has a lot of detractors, his grand theories are speculative and they certainly have many holes But it also seems like even mainstream archaeology is also, to some degree, speculative (we can’t really know exactly what happened in the past). And that some of the research that Hancock is supporting his theories on, might actually be right Anyway, thank you again. I will take Hancock’s most grandiose claims with a grain of salt, but I’m also going to keep an open mind about alternative theories of how the Americas might have been first populated by humans (especially the Amazon)

p_j_w 2y ago

> Even if what they claim is not completely right It seems even this is not the case and that the show is just completely wrong.

nico 2y ago
The show seemed very convincing, not in the speculative theories about an ancient precursor civilization necessarily, but definitely in some of the findings they show Do you have any resources you could share that debunk the specific things they show? Like the rock paintings they dated to 10k years ago, or some of the other digs that were dated as 20-25k years old? Are you saying it is all made up? Or just some of it?
- mmooss 2y ago
  > The show seemed very convincing On a tangent, isn't that a signal of inaccuracy? Accurate people - i.e., committed to be truthful and correct - are very careful and nuanced about what they claim, make weaknesses as clear as strengths, and are careful to not be too convincing, because that can distort their reader's critical thinking. At least, that's the ideal. But why be especially convincing - why be more convincing than your empirical evidence?
- vdupras 2y ago
  This is precisely what I'm looking for too. All critiques of Hancock I can find with my feeble googling skills seem to be focused on unimportant stuff such as encouraging uses of psychedelics and accusations of racism. But what's far, far more important, is debunking evidences like rock painting dating, geoglyphs dating. That thing on Rapa Nui about statues being more-than-half buried seemed really intriguing. The speculation he makes about why that might be so (spoiler alert: that famous lost civilization being there first) seemed interesting to me. Is there a specific debunking of that somewhere? I'd also be interested in specific debunking of his theory that incas didn't have the capabilities to do some of the rock walls they've made. You know, with heated rocks and all. That seemed interesting too.
  - 2y ago

thinkyfish 2y ago

You should check out the Miniminuteman series on ancient apocalypse, its pretty interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iCIZQX9i1A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iCIZQX9i1A

itronitron 2y ago

"Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James Loewen https://web.archive.org/web/20200329225058/http://sundown.tougaloo.edu/liesmyteachertoldme.php https://web.archive.org/web/20200329225058/http://sundown.to...

sampo 2y ago

> check out the movie "The Lost City of Z" And the 2005 Charles C. Mann book "1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus".

nico 2y ago
Thank you. Looks like a fascinating read I remember seeing some discussions about it and related topics here on HN a few years ago
roughly 2y ago
That book is really an incredible eye-opening read, I strongly recommend it. Graeber and Wengrow's The Dawn of Everything spends quite a bit of time with complex societies in the Americas as well, and is certainly worth a read as well.

JFingleton 2y ago

Hancock is great at showing civilizations that I would have never heard of if it wasn't for his "journalism" (that's he's self-appointed title). He's a good communicator and I feel like I learn at lot from his Netflix shows. However the whole "forgotten civilization" AKA lost city of Atlantis, just seems too far fetched and forced into the various episodes. That part of it makes for good entertainment at least. In general, I'm a supporter of his work and look forward to further episodes.

mikhailfranco 2y ago
He was a journalist for The Economist in his youth.