When I was in my early teens, I got really into this kind of thing. I was an avid reader of Fortean Times, got really into UFOs and ghosts and mysticism, etc. So I know what you mean when you say that it is fun. There is so much that we simply don’t know, and wondering about the mysteries of the universe is an intrinsic part of human nature.
But at the end of the day, it is the stuff of fantasy and fiction, and it has to be recognized as such. Because if we do not recognize it as such, then it starts to get in the way of our understanding of the precious few things that we do know for sure.
These kinds of ideas were all the rage during the 19th century, when new discoveries about the world were being made and communicated faster than ever before thanks to advances in technology. But these ideas were very much colored by the colonial attitudes of that era, which included the idea that white people had some kind of civic duty to bring “civilization” to people whom they saw as “savages.” And that kind of thinking has cost humanity too much already.
It’s tedious and distracts an underfunded field from doing more worthwhile work. If you ask me, I’d much rather invest money and time into a structured sampling of northern European clay deposits and dated kiln sites for ICP-MS analysis. That is actually something that would help me and many others answer specific questions we have. It’s also not the sort of thing that gets you invited to speak at conventions around the world and which sells books and gets Netflix series commissioned.
You are supposing we aren’t doing that. We’re always open to new theories. But a theory needs evidence and extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.
Just know that everybody who presented such a theory would be attacked, even if they were an established archaeologist. The difference is that an archaeologist would only publish the theory once they had enough evidence to expect to survive the attacks and defend their point of view.
@anon65652885 has already answered this, but, oh, look, previously on this very blog!
I guess that depends on whether you support his stance or not
ETA:
Oh, one more thing before I leave this alone:
Yes, absolutely. He would probably have a bigger one. I doubt a significant proportion of his Netflix audience even know that he is controversial. Our voices are basically not present in the public debate because we don’t have sons that are commissioning editors of major streaming services
i said i would refrain from further comment until i had contact with DB again (with regard to this very discussion). in an email response from him, i have this to share from Dear Brother, currently on site at Nimrud, in northern Iraq:
"Interesting to hear about the discussion on your BBS. Flint Dibble is the son of a former professor at Penn that I knew fairly well (he’s dead now). He mainly did Neolithic Europe and his name was Harold Dibble. Because he did stone tools, he named his children Flint and Chip. That might be going a bit far in your academic field to do that, but he did.
Graham Hancock is an idiot, charlatan, snake-oil salesman and it’s obvious to anyone with half a brain. Milo did a whole series of videos debunking him and did a pretty good job. You don’t need an advanced degree to do that and I like Milo. Joe Rogan, however, is much like Hancock. Big audience for some reason, but way too into conspiracy theories."
so there’s that, i suppose, from inside the “Big Archaeology” cartel. he still wouldn’t tell me where they are hiding all the alien artifacts!
I also think he’s boring. I kinda love pseudoarchaeology and related bullshit but I prefer when it’s high end weirdness or hoaxes.
People like James Shelby Downard (King-Kill/33°), Richard Sharpe Shaver (The Shaver Mystery), Joseph Smith (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), Milton William “Bill” Cooper (Behold a Pale Horse), Edgar Cayce (The Sleeping Prophet), Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (Theosophical Society) etc. it’s much more fun to trace where they got their ideas from then where Graham copied his.
More Ong’s Hat kinda thing. But yeah that sort of a thing.
I view the hoaxes as fiction and true believers as kinda outsider art. A lot of them are mentally ill so I am not sure if that’s ok but there is a massive amounts of creavity in their fantasies.
Everybody has a need to create things.
Hancock on the other hand seems like copy machine more then a remixer.
It’s all the same thing. From everybody living in Laurel Canyon in the 60s were in the CIA to root races to jews going to Americas in submarines to mud floods.
)
