I'm not an archaeologist but as someone trained in linguistic anthropology (MA), I can say that different disciplines definitely need to communicate more. I don't have training in geology or archaeology, but if an archaeology expert told me that the homeland of the Proto-Indo-Europeans (wherever that actually is) had none of a certain type of animal or tree, etc, that the majority of Indo-European languages have a commonly derived word for, then I would tell them that the PIE homeland probably isn't where that archaeologist thinks it is. And then when they found out that I was a linguist and not an archaeologist, they would probably call me a pseudo-archaeologist and tell me to stick to my field. That attitude is the antithesis of the scientific method.
Brett Weistein and Heather Heying recently went over this on the Dark Horse podcast in regards to biological disciplines. Every single discipline has its own jargon, and so interdisciplinary communication is functionally impossible unless you're a generalist in evolutionary biology. Academe, in its current state, disincentivizes any sort of generalism because it doesn't immediately lead to weird specialist projects and therefore grants. This is a long-term problem, because inter-disciplinary communication would lead to necessary reanalysis of findings and more cross-discipline projects (which are necessary).
"And then when they found out that I was a linguist and not an archaeologist, they would probably call me a pseudo-archaeologist and tell me to stick to my field." There's interdisciplinary study, and then there's amateur know-nothings trying to tell the professionals that they're doing everything wrong. Like an anti-vaxer patiently explaining to an experienced doctor why vaccines don't work. It's annoying, it's insulting, and it's not at all helpful to anyone. I know people like this, who feel they can lecture experts on their own areas of expertise. It's Dunning-Kruger. And when these people go to book publishers and History Channel executives they get put right on because saying "the experts are wrong about everything" actually sells those products with people who don't know any better. Many people feel alienated by academia anyway and are primed to reject everything academia does whenever it's convenient for them. Being a linguist, you're not on the same level as that. If you're talking about a specific point that you understand in a different way due to being in a different discipline then that can be very valuable. Listening to Uncle Bob tell us all about how the Egyptians definitely didn't build the pyramids though, and therefore that extraterrestrials must have done it, monopolizing the Thanksgiving table, NO THANKS on that. I'll give a hard no. I am always quick to correct people that go onto these kinds of topics and I don't care that I'm a Debbie Downer. I have to tell them "those ideas are all unproven and amateur, put forward by people with no training in the fields in which they are speculating, and they want us to throw out everything discovered by people who actually study that subject and are experts because that's what they study, and these crackpot ideas, most of which are false or misleading, are supported by publishers and TV channels because mystery mongering makes money, and they don't mind at all that they're misleading their audience -- you know, you." Yeah, I'm a real hit at the family reunions. 😆
@@brucecapua9840 Problem is that a few years ago "interdisciplinary" was a term that was academically fashionable. Administrators hired a bunch of people with "interdisciplinary" in their resumes purely because it looked good. Since they didn't actually care, a bunch of those people turned out to be poorly qualified.
You nailed it, Matt. Balance is the key. "At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes--an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense." -Carl Sagan
What folks who write drivel like 'Ancient Aliens' or 'Ancient Apocalypse' do is cater to the uninformed, mystery mongering for money. That's all that is. There's nothing honest or genuine about it, those people aren't trying to get at truth or teach facts to their audience, they are mystery mongering -- that's all. I used to be really into content like that, until I read more actual history and realized that most modern docudramas are lying to us to get our attention. They cast doubt on academia while not reviewing what academia actually thinks on the topic and inserting their own fantasy version that cherry picks from those experts. We should not act as if these are honest attempts to clarify anything or answer any questions, it's most certainly designed to ask questions and NOT answer them. It's kind of the exact opposite of education.
Yeah, the problem with amateur historians who get taken in by Hancock is that they start with the assumption that his argument HAS to be right, so they defend his claims by only being skeptical of the establishment ideas, not the radical, literally-would-change-everything-we-know-if-it-were-true ideas, which is weird, because those are the ones that usually require the most scrutiny, to be discerned from...frauds.
@@Thobeian Also Sagan: "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
One example I really love: The hairdresser, who showed, that when Romans wrote about "sewing" hair, they meant exactly that: Using the same needles and thread to build a hairstyle that you would use to sew a tunika. She proved it by making all that hairstyles that you can see on the coins, the statues, etc. No "normal" historian - wo was not a hairdresser- could have done that.
Similar things happen when archeologists talk to anyone who has practical, real-life experience in a subject. There was some recent example where a mysterious unknown artifact was immediately identified by a leather worker as a simple burnisher, and he pulled out an identical device that he uses every day. The artifact was 3k years old, iirc, and had been mislabeled as a totem of some sort. I suspect the modern fields of science have become too insular for their own good; in the past scientists were well studied in a wide range of fields, giving them a broad area of knowledge to pull from, but today they're so highly specialized they can't recognize what is obvious to a common worker. It's why when you see an Egyptologist talking about cutting hard stone or lifting a pickaxe, you realize they've never actually quarried stone in their lives. Or why random schoolkids looking at maps of the Earth figured out the theory of continental drift a century ahead of the "experts".
Would that be Janet Stephens, whose work on this was published in 2008 in the Journal for Roman Archaeology? She looked carefully at evidence, made hypotheses, used experimental archaeology to expand and test them, and saw her work accepted, peer reviewed, validated and published. Mate - she's a historian! In what possible way does her career of insightful and evidentially supported findings justify the half-baked, badly-plagiarised entertainments of Graham Hancock?
@@berserkasaurusrex4233 where did computers come from? "Experts" said they were made, but i dont believe them. we all really know that ANCIENT ALIENS left Macs and PCs on earth! right? you cant disagree with me, cuz you arent a philosopher or scientist
@@beepboop204 Don't know where you're getting this computer diatribe from, but you seem very insecure about people not putting "experts" on a pedestal.
Totally agree. I can give you a prime example. Way back in 2016,I was asked to come in and discuss working with a Particular city Museum for the 2017 East Riding City of Culture. When it came to the Civil war Display .I was informed it wasn't a priority as it wasn't a pivotal point in the City's History. Having rather vocally contradicted this particular member of the museum team. I eventually received an email saying that the cities museum's could nolonger afford our services.( We were giving our services for free.).
Ex archaeologist here too - i dropped it as i got fed up with people blowing their extremely routine work out of all proportion to gain unreasonable amounts of funding. To the point that some really deranged rubbish was hypothesised and funded. Hancock is clearly a hobbyist, but he recieved some unnecessary backlash for some of what he says. Some of it is undeserved, but not all. In my book though, he is welcome to crack on and i stand ready to be convinced by either side. As a final point, we've known about astronomical procession for a long time, and the fact that ancient monuments line up with stars at certain points in history is not an accident. It just isnt statistically possible that dozens if not hundreds of monuments line up with stars at certain dates. There are some monuments that are unquestionably older than originally believed, but uow much more is up for study.
He's deffs caught some unfair judgement on clovis first being wrong like others have in the past. But that's slowly changing. Some of his other theories he pushes are rather dangerous, though, and silly. But I'd have to agree.
Sounds like you worked with some incompetent people. None of which takes away from the fact that Graham Hancock is a charlatan. They are distinct and separate points. Hancock makes unfounded claims, whilst he denigrates the authentic work of archaeologists who have not falsified their findings and have made reasonable conclusions. Did he, at some point, make hypotheses that ancient monuments had some relationship with the stars, you say? Why goodness, what an insightful man! Why didn't anyone else think of this before? Of course, we discover that they had indeed - and Hancock was riding on the back of their research known to a few in their field in order to build an exaggerated - and thus unsustainable - theory to gain popularity, fame and sales. David Irving also once rode on the coattails of a few minor insights in order to gain a reputation he could leverage for his other utterly false and disturbing claims. There are plenty of other, better archaeologists and historians coming from 'outside' the typical channels who are more worthy of acknowledgement - and are given such - than Mr Hancock - John Romer, Shelby Foote and Howard Zinn to name just a few. But no: too many of the public would rather and over their money to be entertained by a fraud who' witters on about ancient alien civilizations - not because they admire some fabled ability to impartially assess actual extant evidence and formulate conclusions from it, but because they love a good pile-on against 'the experts', no matter how suspect and disingenuous the person doing it. He will indeed leave his mark on history - as a talented grifter.
@MinesAGuinness you have a point but, Hancock has also defended some real serious archeologists who were belittled by the scientific community due to some endoctranated theories. He is rather harmful in some regards and rather disingenuous or rather woefully undereducated and not done enough research(I'm thinking more so biased for sales) But if we're being objective, then you gotta give him credit for certain things.
Could you explain exactly what his arguments are? I'm an archaeology student and from what I've read and heard it isn't that controversial to say that Stonehenge was built with astronomy in mind but I can't believe anyone thinks there was an Antarctic civilisation. That sounds like utter conspiracy theory rubbish.
Too bad he questions the validity of the most basic stratigraphical observations. Tools dated X found below Ggantja? This cannot mean that that's the date of the stratum, anyone can drop tools anywhere at any point! That's the most basic concept in archaeology. As for the way the Ggantja temples all align with the different positions of Sitius, I'm not convinced it's true. The chapter about Bimini Road was especially bad, a whole lot of nothing sustented on the claims of two guys and some cases of blatant manipulaton ("Piri Reis doesn't draw mountains like that!", yes he does, I can see these mountains down there in Brasil, Graham! I can see them right now!!!").
It's worse than that - I was taught that an expert is anyone who has a briefcase and is a long way from home.! Add a title, doesn't matter much which one and they will be ready to put you on a pedestal.
There was a story in the press last week about an amateur researcher who came up with a theory about some tally-like marks found in Ice-age cave art. He had determined that they might represent a type of lunar calendar relating to the reproductive cycles of animals. Did the professional archaeologists in the field shut him down, like Graham Hancock says they've done to him? No. They looked at his theory, thought it sounded plausible, encouraged him to do more research and helped him write and publish a scientific paper about it that is now being taken seriously and discussed and debated by experts in the field. These are some of the EXACT same people (experts on human prehistory and the Ice Ages) who Graham Hancock says are all a closed-minded clique. Good scientists and historians are open to new evidence, even from outsiders. Academics aren't interested in Graham Hancock's theories because they're new or different, but because they're utter nonsense that only seems plausible to people who don't know much about the subjects he discusses. He's also completely lying when he says that they're repressing his research- he's got a far bigger platform and far more money than pretty much any serious archaeologist has- making up ridiculous BS about Atlantis has given him a lot more success than years of study and hard work have given serious academics and researchers.
Thank goodness someone else is saying this! The unwarranted 'benefit of the doubt' given to such individuals by the credulous, even by some people with professional historical training and backgrounds who should know better, is shocking - and makes me think I'd have a much more lucrative career giving up teaching history and selling NFTs, crypto or some other snake oil!
For every example of academics actually listening to someone, you have a "Clovis First" exception that refutes you. Academics are absolutely an insular, close-minded clique, they just tend to be the most close-minded about things that directly effect their own work. Come up with a theory that doesn't effect their own published writings, and they might just listen to you. Tell them a theory running counter to their own, and they'll run to the media to character assassinate you as fast as they can, then claim you've been "debunked" if anyone asks them about your ideas. Hell, spend some time talking to Art History professors, they've all got horror stories of how close-minded to new ideas modern "experts" really are.
To be fair, in the past, professional archaeologists in the field would have shut him down. Well, shut him out. The world has modernized its classist attitudes somewhat, and so are more open to the "citizen science" contributions as long as they're done in good faith.
People who claim to be skeptics but are only subjecting the theories they don't cheerlead to skepticism, while being utterly credulous to claims from their own preferred theories, are a waste of everyone's time.
Pity that said theory is a crock as recognized by those who have seriously look at it. As for Hancock, he & his tinfoil hat garbage need to be ignored.
Hey everyone and thanks Matt for your content! As someone who studied Celtic Studies I am 100% behind the idea of more interdisciplinary work and better communication between sciences. Whenever you examine any culture (of the past or present), you need more than one discipline - and this just one example I can speak of... Scientist of all fields unite!
You studied Celtic content? Wait I’m sorry that’s it. Do you know how many times Grant Hancock has visited the sphinx been part of excavations and visited pyramids all over the world what about the maps from 1500 that show an article had periods as well that they wiped from all US history, books, and Mabs, and education? You need to go be a host on Joe Rogan so that you can equally counterpoint everything he sang.
I love it when you make Videos that go a bit beyond the normal topic of this chanel. It's impressive to watch your expertize on many topics and you have a very nice way to explain your opinion without stating that you must have everything right.
This needed to be said and must be said more often. We must rely on each other in the advancement of knowledge. We must present and try to uncover more evidence with public discourse between experts interpreting the evidence freely without fear of careers ending or being damaged.
Narrow viewpoints vs. Broad viewpoints. Interdisciplinary perspectives are difficult to come by. A team of experts with a couple broad-perspective enthusiasts, in my opinion, have a better chance of thinking outside the box, thus finding new leads, while also keeping methodologies and fact-checking tight.
I agree with what you are saying, especially about pooling knowledge. Myself and a few others set up a fiori group in Cornwall some years ago. It was three people, one of whom was a martial artist, one who was a reenactor and experimental historian and one who was a living history practitioner. On our own, we had three entirely different perspectives of how to follow the different parts of fiori's pictures but together we could pool our knowledge and expertise and much better understand the source material.
As an epistemologist with a history background, I am going to say that the best to do is to state clearly and opening when one does not know something, and knowledge (as the very subject of epistemology) must be clearly itself defined. Thus, as opposed to scientism, it would be better to include at the top of the list what cannot be explained by archeologists and we can move forward together from there. Equally, it would be good to have at the top of archeologists' contribution to the community at large, when they have gotten something majorly wrong. Archeology is not a modern science as experimentation is not a major component, as it also is with epistemology; as a result, interpretation is a main feature of archeology aside from the uncovering of artifacts. However, interpretation as hermeneutics cannot be done in a vacuum - thus all interpretation must be coherent across all of human history, otherwise such explanations are at best ad hoc and at worst incoherent. Best of luck and fixing the problems.
as an autistic dude with a grad degree in philosophy, i feel an epistemic duty to myself to only hold justifiably true beliefs. allists do not hold themselves to this standard.
An epistemologist _would_ say some $hit like that. LoL Anyway, the problem is generally that these amateur 'experts' who write books about how the experts are all wrong are generally so ignorant of what academia is aware of that this is a non-starter. If you say "let's start with what cannot be explained by archaeologists" and they'll say "okay, that's everything." Even though they're building the foundation of their arguments on what they accept as facts provided by archaeologists. I guess it just goes to show that they lack understanding in both archaeology and epistemology. Hopeless.
@@johnsmithe4656 just because they can arrange a bunch of sentences together into a story and call it "the untold history", doesnt mean that they should, or that there is any inherent value in it just because "what if". people get too hung up on "what if"
The thing about this whole 'controversy' that baffles me is that academic archeologists would be completely *thrilled* for someone to demonstrate verifiable evidence of a pre-Sumerian/global civilization! It would be the find of the century and would open up an entirely novel field of research for academics to sink their teeth into. It would be as much an opportunity for academic archeologists as it would be a threat to established theories. The fact is he can't produce such evidence, his arguments are full of logical leaps, and he doesn't seriously engage with alternative interpretations of his facts and findings, so he isn't and shouldn't be taken seriously.
I agree. The idea that a 'traditional archaeologist' (if such a thing exists) would not LOVE the chance to prove something radical is frankly bizarre. Most archaeologists literally dream their whole lives about getting their name into the history books with evidence. The idea that there is some sort of archaeological illuminati hiding evidence is frankly hilarious. Like they are boxers or footballers being secretly paid millions to lose a match....
I dont think Graham Hancock has the goal of producing such evidence, thats not who he is. He wants to shred light on the holes in the knowledge we already have and throw up theories about how the past could have played out. Then its the archeologists job to go into the field and find the evidence that proves or disproves those theories. Have them go to Gobekli Tepe and explain how people 12000 years ago could build something like that. Hancock used to work as a journalist. His job is to write and throw up ideas based on the holes in our knowledge. Now someone have to go into the field and find the evidence.
@@scholagladiatoria Yes, the person who found the "first / oldest/largest x" would immediately get tenure for life. Actual archeologists/historians slowing down the recognition of things by status is a real thing. The Maya language issue is the most immediate that comes to mind to me, but that was actually a genuinely hard issue because of the burning of the contemporary books with the language and that decrypting a language is actually really hard. Even with transitional texts and a discontinuous living tradition. but a whole big honking city 20k years ago, especially a non agricultural one, would make everyone super happy.
@@_AnanasIEgenJuice_if that's the case, then why should we take Hancock seriously if he can pose only questions but not answers?? I mean nothing he is asking is new......and he is not genuinely looking for solutions himself but belittling people who risked and devoted their entire lives to these searches........also we are talking about a person who believes in psychics here
@@joshyaks If you follow the science about Corona or Klima change you are end in a political system like china ! Corona warn ap is a surveillance system ,the covid green passport is a social credit system! The German 3 G rules are the same! By clima science the Bavaria Eco Token is a kind of surveillance and social credit system!
I obviously agree it's a good message; the problem is, who disagrees with it...? I can see Hancock saying the exact same thing, for example. In fact I can't think of anyone who knows what ignorance, knowledge and science is who wouldn't agree with it - yet I can definitely think of a lot of people with wildly conflicting ideas and opinions
@@joshyaks Unless you come from parents that were born in sub-saharan africa, you too, are very likely to be 1% to 2% neanderthal. Other than that one geographical area, almost everyone is.
I had initially trained to be a historian but ended up going to grad school in something else. So I hear the archaeologists/historians are experts" argument and totally agree. Yet I also hear the criticisms. For example, I've spent a lot of time studying board games and how traditional games are played. Yet I see articles on board games found in digs saying things like "We'll never know!" without more exploration when only a very small number of playable options exist.
Absolutely loved this video, so sensible and well balanced, the academic equivalent of knocking some heads together! I am so looking forward to a video about the great migration period.
I have had some of the most fundamental disagreements of my later years/academic years as an archaeologist on site. Whether a hole is a beam slot or a pit… this is the kind of discussion that takes place on a regular day in the academic profession. Regarding Hancocks love to hate archaeologists, there are many superficial elements which have nothing to do with an academic discussion. I liked your analogy of a sales pitch, it sums this up well. An archaeological perspective is an academic notion poorly portrayed outside of the academic community, the essence of archaeological dissemination. While we can never place our selves in the past, our interactions with it give us great insight. Landscape is my specific passion and it influences my archaeological interpretations more than most. A simple result of this is that archaeological situation and context must reflect the landscape they inhabit. The further back in time we go, the more this is the case. We are not only informed by artefactual and landscape context, we are influenced by it. Archaeology is the study of ‘culture’ and human decision, while science gives us unlimited information on date, function, design and purpose, the ‘heritage’ of an object or place is a result of human decision. Most of the points used against Hancock are interpretations borne through this academic approach, scientific analysis of dna in hominids and fauna and flora all suggest that the mainstream understanding of the civilisation of archaic humans is correct. This is a challenging notion to debate for the most esteemed academic. When applied to Hancock’s ‘stories’, It can be argued that this approach has been at least considered, but it has failed to coalesce ALL of the available data. And this is where your video sums up perfectly. There are very few experts who have the ability or time to approach all academic questions their work may spring and unfortunately they feel the right to draw assumptions on the perhaps little information they have. In archaeology, this is a problem definitely. It must be stated though, many experts working in specific fields are vastly knowledgeable people in that field. Cross communication works when there is a medium for it to be discussed.
Most of Hancocks criticism of archeology is largely true of the older ones, perhaps back when he started he was faced with alot of close minded skepticism. But he himself is often guilty of the very things he acuses archeologists of; he sticks too much to his own specific theory and uses just the facts that support his theory. There's nothing against there being a civilization/people who existed pre-end of ice age time. But he is so intent on proving this that fundamentals go out the window.
This is actually a very good point that I did not cover in my video. While Hancock criticizes academia for being unwilling to consider new theories (which is categorically untrue), his own theories and arguments don't really seem to have changed or evolved in the last 30 years. I don't ever recall him giving an example of where new evidence has led to him modifying his theories accordingly.
@@scholagladiatoria Alot of the younger academia is alot more open minded, in my experience. And perhaps he'd have more luck publishing a book today, but as long as he sticks to this counter-culture "me vs them" mindset and filters evidence to suit only what HE is saying, he's going to forever be in the peuesdo category.
by definition, the world as a totality of facts will be smaller than the totality of possible ways the world can be. thats why its a waste of time to explore the "merely possible" when we have concrete facts before us.
@@scholagladiatoria There have been a few things that changed his theories. I highly suggest you try to contact graham and have a conversation with him about these things. I've also written a rather large comment here I hope you could read. ( Hope that's not a problem)
I got one thing to say to you. "Clovis First!" with a degree in anthro and 9 hours from a masters in archeology. We were indoctnated into this. In grad school my advisor recommended that if I ever find anything under the layer where you find clovis cultural layer in the ground. Just leave it be. Careers were destroyed in the attempt to publish this. This is one of the main reasons I left the field. Whether he is right or wrong he has gotten some to start looking and asking uncomfrotable questions in the field. You seem to forget that there is no viscous infighting where only prestige is on the line. One thing you dont talk about is that finds can be interpreted as to what they mean. At least back in the 80s carbon 14 dating can vary widely between labs that do the testing. By the way it was the 80s when I was studying the feild.
@@azchris1979 so you want to discount all myths because you view them as "Toxic". How short sighted of you. PC is wishing reality was not as it is. What happened to brave investigation in scientific thought and research. So ignorance is the sheild of the right thinking. How 1984 of you.
You're probably familiar with Jacques Cinq-Mars work at Bluefish Caves in the Yukon, proposing humans were around thousands of years before Clovis peoples were. The archaeological community shut him down hard. And now we know Clovis First is untrue.
@@johnalanwalker bro...take a puff. Chill. This isnt abt me. I love myths. I am saying there is a general feeling that if u say "flood" people will think of Noah and not take u seriously.
@@azchris1979 no need of a puff. I am just pissed at my undergrad prof assuring that with an MA in Archeology I could make a living. This turned out false when talking to my advisor he told me there would be no way to pay off the loans I took out for my degree and graduate degree. Plus it was an open secret dont dig below clovis level or my career would be destroyed. I am just pissed at my stupid degree and a number of lies told to me by tenured professors. Myths all have some seed of truth. Whether we can discover that truth is one thing. To publish it and survive is another.
The only thing that all archaeologists agree on is that it was probably ritualistic. 😇😇 Sorry to hear you were under the weather Matt, hope your family is doing well. Happy New Year.
Seriously, the idea that all archeologists are somehow in a big Cabbal to keep people out, implies that archeologists can actually agree on a fact without it being categorically explained to them why they're wrong in ten-page essays.
I totally agree with the criticism about historians not consulting enough experts. I listen to a lot of history podcasts where I listen to conversations with historians, and not a small number have acknowledged this tendency in the field for historians to write books as a solo operation "squirreling away in the archive." Most of these historians are aiming for more interdisciplinary and cooperative projects to achieve greater understanding of history, and I'm totally for it. As someone with endless interests, it always seemed funny that interdisciplinary projects weren't more the norm.
My only counterpoint here would be Matt's is that the experts talk across disciplines... no, they don't. Maybe in some schools, maybe in some fields, but certainly not everywhere. When I was a young college lad, one of my best friends was a history major, and a fellow dorm mate on his floor was an anthropology major. They used to get into fascinating discussions on our porch with a Greek gentleman who had been an archeologist in his schooling back home. Most of their conversations would distill down pretty quickly to one moment or feature of human achievement then comparing what each discipline ignored that the other was teaching. Eventually, our anthropologist friend switched majors to geology, and has excavated caves locally, is still in the process of unearthing a triceratops in South Dakota, and runs our local natural history museum. He's got a very rare multi disciplinary approach that a ton of his peers don't understand or appreciate, I know this because we're still friends and I still hear, constantly, about his interactions with other people in his sphere. Now, I agree that Graham has an odd way of expressing that he didn't trust the academic community, but then goes to some professional or another to get his "controversial" data. Most of his sources are indeed credentialed and respected in their field, they just aren't representing the majority view... but the ones with real merit get there. Graham was one of the first guys talking publicly about Gobekli Tepe and its pushing back the date of accepted civilization. At the time he first reported on it, yes, within academia, credentialed and respected teachers called him a pseudo archaeologist... and since then, yeah, lots of other evidence was found, more of Gobekli Tepe was unearthed, and no one refutes the dating anymore. It got accepted by the larger academic sphere that he talks against because EVIDENCE accumulated, the exact process he says doesn't happen. In that, he's just blanketly wrong.
Archaeology particularly among the sciences has the advantage that there is a large base of evidence already dug up for professional and amateur alike to work with, so amateur work has on occasion produced novel theories that brought in academic interest and later support. If you propose amateur theories, assuming you meet the threshold of actually making a serious effort, most archaeologists will just say 'I'm not persuaded, but keep going and see if you find anything more solid'. And when on occasion people have found something solid, like the famous examples of the polyhedrons that were for crocheting or the 'what did Romans mean by 'sewing' hair' that turned out to be literally sewing hair, when amateur archaeologists with other professional skills demonstrated good evidence like using the polyhedrons to crochet or making well-known Roman hairstyles by literally sewing, the Archaeologists didn't fight them, they took it as an opportunity to re-assess other unsolved problems.
Graham does talk about this. In the Russell Brand interview, for example, he addresses your final point exactly, lol. He mentions how stubborn and rigid some academics are even when new evidence surfaces and most academics change to support him. Those in power and in the status quo in all institutions are always stubborn rigid morons in their field. Just look at medicine and how many doctors are embarrassing themselves going against "drugs" even though they have no solution that even comes close to curing addiction or PTSD so rapidly. Just look at the insane COVID nonsense that we had to live through for years before the truth came to light (evidence proving people wrong or admission of never even doing the research needed for their claim). Hell in the USA Fauci alone was schizophrenic on whether or not masks were useful when every other country in the world already knew they worked, especially asian countries where they were normalized for everyday use especially during flareups and flu seasons. "Experts" in power are often not even Experts. And those in power are always corrupt, power hungry, stubborn, out dated and thus incompetent, or just plain incompetent period. It isnt a surprise someone like him would have no respect for archaelogists when so many of those representing the field publicly in positions of authority are so bad at science.
@@UnreasonableOpinions Good archaeogists, like good scientists in any field, supported amateur theory and encouraged new research. Bad archeologists, like bad "scientists" in any field, attack new theories, mock and insult, belittle, and go as far as attempting to discredit and defund new research. It's even worse in fields with big money, like pharmaceuticals or energy. But we know human nature and we know Graham's stance is likely more accurate simply for the fact the majority of people in any field, at any level in said field, are pretty damn incompetent. Mechanic or Doctor, Archeologist or Game Developer. Most successful people are no brighter than you or I, but just have more education but are a much dimmer bulb when using said education. This is why "savants" or "inventors" or "prodigies" / "rising stars" in a field are so common. When young people are competent, even without the experience and knowledge they are already leaps and bounds above 90% in their field (including 90% of those in top positions). That's bc there's a very low chance you get a talented person in any context. They start with a deficit of less than 50 years of experience being only in their 20-30's but quickly rise bc those high position "experts" are just experienced, not competent. Quickly those young people make a name for themselves bc they gain experience and retain competence. That's usually when breakthroughs occur. I mean just look at Scholagladiatoria. Among him are a handful of popular youtubers, and even more popular ones who know so much less and are so cringe in many ways (Shadiversity, who I love but is a Homer Simpson compared to Matt Easton on history and HEMA.) But for every Matt, there are 99 other instructors/historians/youtubers who dont even have a channel bc no one would listen to their low quality videos. But even if we did, it's a very low chance they can hold a candle to Matt. But even the surgeon doing your surgery or the mechanic working on your car is a roll of the dice. 1d100 and you could get The Butcher (10% best) but most likely the average who can do it successfully bc the >1% best and society made sure to catalogue repeatable, trainable methods that even a bad surgeon cant mess up easily. Graham is criticizing the catalogue of knowledge (status quo beliefs) called archeologists, not the actual people that are archeologists. Which means he is both attacking ALL archeologists AND none. TLDR: most people are incompetent in their field and Graham is right to attack them as a group as much as he wants bc like all humans in their field, theyre arrogant, pretentious, stubborn, corrupt, and only competent thanks to the collective knowledge of actual competent people (essentially theyre just incompetent but educated)
@@nowayjosedaniel Oh dear.... the fact that you cite surgeons and mechanics only underscores you don't know how actual research and academic self-control works. No, "Graham" is not criticing "the catalogue of knowledge", he's criticising the very foundation of academic generation of knowledge because it doesn't produce the results he'd like it to. He also refuses to comply with the pertinent standards and procedures to have the validity of his conclusions assessed by others in the field. And your belief in "savants" being common just underscores you don't know how much of a team effort research is.
The archeologists he refers to are the more elderly and highly in charge ones like Zahi Hawass who he’s been dealing with for decades and not the younger and less in charge ones. Because I’ve heard him say that he’s met young archeologists who are inspired by his work however they have to keep it secret for now and go along with the mainstream or they could lose their career.
Seems to me this fast babbling former archeology student is just grifting on TH-cam. As if people can't think for themselves without his either or misrepresentations.
Unless things have changed drastically in the 4 years since I retired from academics (anthropology) even the young less in charge archaeologists think that Hancock is full of shit. Moving back the timeline on when humans settled particular areas or when we see first evidence of the emergence of civilization is a way to advance ones career. Archaeologists were doing work like that, for example, pre-Clovis research and work at Jericho long before Hancock came along and claimed that doing work like that would be career ending.
In support of your summing up, I think channels like this and others like Tod's are great. You both welcome comments which in turn prompts more thought and challenges to that which is understood. These comments sections promote discussions on subjects from people that would never normally meet, but it provides a forum for experts and amateurs to improve the knowledge pool. Thank you for the content. (An enthusiastic amateur)
I love this, couldn't agree more. I hadn't even heard the guy's name, but I think he provided a wonderful vehicle for you to discuss scientific and scholarly rigor, and how people that *should* care about truth can and should strive towards it. Don't worry about being 'off topic', I think this is perfectly inkeeping with the ethos of the channel and very few subscribers would be turned off by a discussion of topics like these.
You are spot on about the need for better communication between archaeology and history. As a graduate student, I was dumbfounded to learn that schism exists. It seems so obvious that of course they should be informing each other! I give credit to my advisor, David Bachrach, for bucking this trend; he built a section of an earthen fortification in his back yard before he wrote about it so he could speak from experience. There are some historians that do fully appreciate the importance of the interdisciplinary approach. The greatest sin of historians, however, is over-reliance on historiography and unquestioning convention. The foundations of almost all of what we believe we know about the Middle Ages were laid by the Victorians and each subsequent generation has inherited their "wisdom" unquestioningly, despite all of us also collectively knowing how dead fucking wrong they were most of the time! We need more historians who are willing to reassess even some of the most basic evidence and upset these old paradigms. Hancock is right about one thing - no question should be off-limits to historians and archaeologists. But if you present an answer, you damn well better have the evidence for it. He does not.
Hancock presents no evidence for his claims. He fails to get published in any peer reviewed journal of history or archeology. He imagines himself to fight against some establishment while he only fails to provide evidence.
I don't disagree with your overall point about archaeologists, but you certainly chose odd analogies to support it. Almost everyone who uses bows, cars, or rifles learned - quite successfully - from parents, uncles, etc. rather than "experts" in the sense Hancock means.
Very interesting take on the subject and i agree with everything you said, trained experts are more and more being throw out to the sides and ignored while people keep on going based on guessing, common knowledge and their own private biased opinions about a subject. I'm a Sociologist by training and focused on Political Science, it is outrageous the ammount of people i see on daily basis spitting utterly nonsense out there as if it is absolute truths, and if you try and correct them, you are in for a long painfull session of ad hominem fallacy. As you said, the big Ego fights are not only around historians and archologists, it's everywhere.
It's especially annoying these days, when we see this artificially created Americanized ' left versus right' division creeping into every corner of society. Suddenly academia and the scientific community in general has become 'the enemy' . Kids that started out believing in Covid conspiracies are following social media pundits that also promote people like Hancock, and often even Holocaust deniers. . Many academics are not used to interact with people outside their field of expertise , and don't really know how to deal with the rise of Dunning-Kruger infused social media grifters .
I've always had questions/concerns about Graham Hancock's conclusions but have never taken the time to look myself. So seeing Matt post about it - I've never clicked on something so fast
Theories where he says "I could very likely be be wrong. I just want people to think outside the rigid box of academia." are not really conclusions. They're just guesses. Same guesses everyone else has.
@El Bearsidente simply not true at all. Problem is he can say that but doesn't actually investigate why archaeology reaches its conclusions. Easy for him to say "idk it could be this" without any backing and then say "oh archaeology is too rigid" like yeah it's because we rely on methodology and science not just pure guessing.
@@NMahon Ehh, honestly a lot of archaeology really is just based on whatever trend is popular at the time. Like how when the feminist movement kicked off you suddenly saw a lot of archaeologists claiming to find "earth goddesses" and "matriarchal" cultures all over the place, to the point of actually faking feminine artifacts (like pretty much everything Minoan) to get more interest in their dig sites. It can effect how artifacts get interpreted or what sort of research gets funding, or where excavations occur. Archaeology is ultimately about making money, same as every field in science. Maybe not for the individual archaeologists (though many of them did become quite wealthy due to laws giving them ownership over artifacts), but the people actually funding the research definitely want something that will boost their national prestige, gain them a knighthood, or increase their museum's visitor count. That all means money or status, and usually both. Archaeology follows popular cultural trends pretty closely. A certain King Tut fellow gets global attention, suddenly everyone is funding digs in Egypt.
I can relate to what Matt is saying here because I have had the same experience myself - reading a book by a "Famous History Author" who makes statements that I know for a fact are false. (because I have studied the subject for decades and he just decided to write a book about it one day).
Anthropology, Egyptologists and archaeology are fields that are fundamentally dishonest and nefarious. They are hiding truths from the public. They straight up make up stories that are lies and sell them as truth to the public. Don't believe? As a rational human being go and look up the evidence used to ascertain the age and the builder of anyone of the great pyramids. Yep, they made it all up being the only rational realisation. Still not convinced? The equivalent to say the tale of Khufu and the Pyramid of Giza is to walk past the Louvre, find a coke can with the name harry on it and proceed to announce that Harry was the painter behind the mona lisa. No im not being facetious, im being as scientific as so called Egyptologists are.
The difference here is that Hancock has been traveling the world doing research for over three decades and writes books about it.....he didn't just "decide to write a book one day"
@@TheBelrick isn't it also ironic how the so-called "experts" immediately resorted to schoolyard name calling rather than offering proof that Graham Hancock is positively incorrect......and yet, not even a civil debate with compelling evidence has been offered.
1. I got my Windlass 1796 Light Cavalry Sabre just yesterday and I freaking LOVE it- I ordered it after your recent video! Thanks for the recommendation! 2. Some additional thoughts and critiques about experts and the "mainstream" science/knowledge (playing devil's advocate): The obvious catch-22 with experts is that they cross a threshold in which they can use their expertise alone to make assertions- they don't have to show their work anymore. If, for example, Toby Capwell were to say authoritatively that English arrows at Agincourt could pierce French plate with lethal effect and any of these backyard scientists and yahoos who think otherwise are wrong- that expert opinion would not only hold weight but it would concur with "mainstream" knowledge (to clarify- Toby is awesome and I know he hasn't said anything unnuanced or authoritative based on speculation like that- I am just making an example). The fact is that nobody can tell the difference between an expert who is just wielding an opinion behind a long list of credentials from one that is making informed statements based on knowledge and evidence- UNLESS they show their work (which means we aren't just relying on the expert at that point, but the expert alongside supporting evidence). That being said, a good expert WILL show their work and will usually be more nuanced and careful in what they state authoritatively, but just as many do not do this. In fact, in my experience (in my own little slice of the world that I could claim expertise in), the individuals who speak most authoritatively and the loudest make the most blunders/errors. Experts, after all, are just fellow human beings (with emotions, bias, and egos). So while I would never want to argue that we need LESS experts, I think the answer is that we need to rely more on GOOD experts- and therein lies the problem because how the hell do you separate the good from the bad? Maybe I am being pedantic, but I don't want to rely more on experts but rather on primary sources, supporting evidence, facts, and critical thinking- but I want experts who spend their time and passion curating these things in that given field to help us make sense of it, and shape it into a cohesive idea/theory/etc. which can be consumed and passed on as knowledge. In a similar vein regarding "monolithic" thought, I do agree that it is foolish and painting with too broad a brush to say archaeology is the enemy or that they are a "monolith". However, I do understand the type of issue he is talking about- let me explain. Our universities and academic institutions function in a way which naturally rewards and encourages what you might call "brick in the wall" contributions. In other words, if you are a fledgling undergrad in a new field, you quickly learn from your "betters" what part of the jigsaw puzzle is already on the table and which pieces are missing. As far as the places experts disagree openly, it is typically in those places where a jigsaw piece is missing (some think it should look like this, others think it should look like that, etc.), and the next generation in that field is trained to go forth and fill in more of the puzzle (i.e. "another brick in the wall"). To be clear, this is not a bad thing, and we need people to do this because we want to keep building on these foundations. However, if you dare to come along and point out that the bricks at the base might be wrong, or if you dare to propose that maybe this missing jigsaw piece is not what they thought it was and they might have that whole quadrant wrong, you will meet with significant resistance. To be clear, I am not just referring to the significant resistance of existing evidence and arguments one must overcome to challenge a foundation or "well establish brick" (that is to be expected and even encouraged)- I am talking about self-interested, institutional resistance that protects reputations and egos. As much as we like to think that facts and evidence will reign supreme, those who laid the brick wall before you have an incentive to keep that in place for their own reasons (reputation, funding/grants, etc.) and they are in the authoritative position to act as a gatekeeper if they so choose. You might think that this would be avoided by a good old fashioned "science" fight- with open and transparent exchange of facts in scientific publications where the best evidence will come out on top, but we are dealing with human beings and that isn't what will happen. If you color inside the lines and stay withe status quo, then all will be well but if you have anything revolutionary or upsetting to this then it becomes difficult to get this accepted by traditional academic means (just ask the guy who first proposed germ theory to medical science). This, I believe, is what Graham is referring to with the "monolithic" thinking- the stubborn denial to consider anything that doesn't put another "brick in the wall" as they understand it. Now we can argue that Graham is getting this pushback strictly on the grounds of evidence, and what he perceives as close-mindedness is careful weighing of evidence and dismissal of his theories, but what is undeniably true of our current academic environment is that this pushback also comes just as much from self-interest and ego- and the two are indistinguishable to the layman and most of society who won't bother to go peek behind the curtain on each side and see who is showing their work and making the better argument. I do love your quote though about running towards knowledge rather than ignorance- I completely agree. I hope we as humans have the wisdom to distinguish which one we are doing, because the worst we can do is run towards ignorance whilst enthusiastically proclaiming we are running towards knowledge (all the while, reinforcing our decision and making us run even faster in that direction). Perhaps more inter-disciplinary communication (as you said) would help us be more self-aware of this and act as a check-and-balance (unique perspectives and all that).
thanks for the words you have provided so eloquently in your comment. I'm just going to add my perception here as well....because it's scary out there...... I believe Graham has always intended to get the discussion and the dif disciplines to theorize and question and work together cohesively rather than sit down in their facts independent of each other which are also really theories in many ways/cases.
What you describe here is also my experience within the university system, in particular the history departments. Matt briefly mentioned that politics, among other things, may influence theories within history disciplines. My latest experience is that politics and personal ideology is predominantly what influences thought in this area within the university system (with a few exceptions). Even to the point of ignoring key evidence. This wasn't the case about 15 years ago, but is certainly the case now (in my personal experience). It has been quite upsetting to see the discipline go down this path. I have personally observed instances of academics punishing thinking that moves away from particular narratives despite the evidence. So, I can understand Graham Hancock's skepticism and even suspicion of various departments at some of the universities. On another note, I would be very interested to hear Matt's objections to Hancock's arguments and to see where he may have gone wrong in his thinking/evidence.
The British Medical Journal published a great piece last year about a similar topic, "The Illusion of Evidence Based Medicine", discussing the corrupting motivations in the sciences and the fundamental conflicts that differing philosophies of science can lead to. It's worrying to think that science has become insular and beyond the critique of the common man, because it also seems that institutions are inherently systemically corruptible. Without oversight and transparency it seems inevitable that more bad will be done than good eventually.
In archeology when I was in school we once looked at 6 different interpretations for a particular site made as technology advanced and the areas of disagreement and agreement were fascinating. Particularly the areas of agreement, some facts were just physical facts that decades of changes in archeology didn't shift at all. Everyone who dug there concluded some of the exact same things.
Fingerprints of the Gods Hancock literally says all the evidence points away from a fact but says but what if. And then theorizes a bunch of random stuff with no evidence. Then wonders why archeologists hate him.
@@AlexG-xl1cc Scientists should never hate anyone just for hypothesizing "what if..." That's anti-science by nature to be so dogmatic and closed minded and arrogantly self-assured.
Very much agree that experts need to consult with other experts more. One example of this going well is Daniel Riday's collaboration with archeologist Dr. Aaron Deter-Wolf. Riday is a tattoo artist specializing in hand-poke tattoos using methods from prehistoric Europe. He collaborates with Deter-Wolf and helps archeologists better understand prehistoric tattooing techniques. I heard about this on episode 135 of the podcast "A Life in Ruins" They interview Daniel Riday and it's fascinating.
This was great. Many thanks. One of the things I've picked up from watching archaeology channels (mostly @UnchartedX) is the need for great minds from different fields to collaborate. For example, the massive granite boxes in/under various Egyptian pyramids cannot be appreciated without an engineer's and stone mason's perspectives. Those perspectives reveal the effort and advanced knowledge required to make these boxes, which in turn makes you challenge the traditional views about these boxes' function.
Hancock is basically uncritical in his selection of "mysteries." One laugh I had was discovering is account of "Tertiary man" in California, where he mentions the Tuolumne Tunnel, a drift mine run back into Tertiary river gravels under a dacite cap that is the remains of a lava flow that ran down a river channel, capping the gravel. The gravel is loaded with alluvial gold and attracted any Gold Rush miners, but it takes money and skills to drift in under a massive lava cap to exploit essentially unconsolidated gravels. Back in the "days of gold" a company sought to do this, hiring an engineer to design and maintain the tunnel. What Hancock fails to mention is that the engineer was an avid believer in "Tertiary man." After one blasting session he walked into the drift to examine the results and "found" large bifacial spear or dart tips. In great excitement he reported his discovery. There is a lot here that goes begging in the historical record. But, as an archaeologist, I was hired to do some survey work around the base of Table Mountain, under which the drift above was run (it really isn't a tunnel properly, but the difference is mainly important to mining engineers and geologists). In conducting that work the company I worked for found numerous prehistoric sites around the base of "table" structure located to take advantage of seasonal springs that rise at the intersection between the dacite cap and the gravels. Rain water percolates downward through crevices, cracks, and even crevasses in the dacite cap. The gravels are saturated and water runs out from them. The "gotcha" is that the spear points that our intrepid engineer discovered are identical to artifacts in use around 2,000 years ago. And they are abundant around the mountain. The engineer insisted he was the first to enter the tunnel, which means little. For instance, he could demand that in order to enter the tunnel and walk out with "Tertiary" artifacts he found around the mountain. Or, miners often being jokers, and also being aware of the intense interest the engineer had in "Tertiary man," ignored orders, entered the tunnel and salted it with artifacts they found around the mountain. OR, the artifacts might have followed rainwater down cracks and crevices to lodge where they were found. I prefer the "joke" view, but given there are numerous alternate ways that genuine prehistoric artifacts might have "arrived" where they were "found," there is no certain explanation. Hancock ignored all of this in his book on "forbidden" archaeology. When taking my degree it was repeatedly made clear that archaeology is an interdisciplinary practice. It has unique views, but they must be informed with information from various other discipline including soils science, geology, fracture mechanics, ecology, ...
When I was writing my papers on the hundred years wars at my university, I've included my own experiences with arms and armour as I was a reenactor for years at that time, as well Ive included some of yours and Lyndies videos as reference on plates for example. My own prof scored it low, as it is garbage since it didn't come from the library. Another prof who commented on the papers, approved it on the other hand, as it was mostly my own, first hand experience.
Similar experience on my MSc. You show evidence of points you've set out to prove, but when most of the Dr's and Prof's are involved and receive funding from the international bodies you dismantle, the proof becomes a low pass complexity.
I don't normally comment on things I have no real expertise in, but I feel I should say I think you miss Hancock's point. It's not that he doesn't acknowledge the expertise of archeologists in excavating a particular site, it's that he disagrees with their subsequent stubborn interpretation of what they have found. As a non expert but a reasonably sentient being, I can see there is a potential problem with the assertion that groups of hunter gatherers suddenly stopped hunter-gathering, and formed a large group which constructed massive stone sites for no disernable reason.I also find it a little difficult to believe that-to take some rather random dates-it took 62,000 years for Homo Sapiens to develop some form of agriculture, which is what most historians and most archeologists seem to be saying. As Hancock says, he is not talking about some sort of super-civilisation which created mobile phones, flew to the moon and was able to do what we do to day, but did appear to have more knowledge of mathematics and astronomy than they 'should' have had. I enjoyed the video, and will be watching more of what you have produced so I'm not having a pop at you, but I can't help thinking you rather prove his point-most experts in their respective fields tend to have firm ideas, and simply refuse to entertain any alternative interpretations.
Way back in 1998 or 1999 one of my thesis papers was on the DNA and cranial studies that proved that Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens interbred. My professor was one of the people that wrote the original book on the topic.
I completely agree with your conclusion; 'interdisciplinary' collaboration is vital for contextualising findings and observations, and its success relies on the expertise of the participants.
I am a fan of Grahame and have for many years and I appreciate your insight! At the risk of picking a corner I think Grahame had had some very unpleasant interactions from mainstream Archeologists attacking him rather than his work. I don’t think the situation is as difficult as it used to be for alternative points of view. I know he has has a program he made edited it to make him look foolish took them to court and they had to show it in its original state and his ted talk was never shown which all goes to give the impression his voice has been quieted
This. He was publicly humiliated in Egypt before there was any beef on his side. They ostracized him and ridiculed him, "where is evidence from 10,000 years ago? It is impossible?" Where were the apologies after Gobekli Tepe was discovered by better archeologists? If Graham is such a jerk, why does he get along swimmingly with the Germans excavating that site?"
@@azchris1979 If he does get along with some archeologists why does he then present them as one monolithic enemy? The answer is it pays his bills to play the underdog while he constantly uses archeological studied when it suits him.
i could be wrong but i never got the sense that Graham treats "archaeologists" as the enemy, but rather Egyptologists in particular - especially Zahi Hawass and his goons, and others who treat archaeology like Zawass, like they are the ultimate authority as if they were there themselves at the time, and nothing can be proposed outside of them
Your diatribe on the need for archaeologists to work more with experts reminded me of something I've read from an association of massons specialized in the restauration of dry stone walls. They helped French archaeologists near Montpellier, France, who worked on what they were told were chalcolithic pastoral enclosures. The massons took one look to the stone works and said: "Wait, you really think those 3 meters thick stone walls next to a cliff were used as a sheep pen? This is a fort!" Apparently, they're still at odds to this day, because the general consensus in archaeology is that you're not supposed to find military architecture that old in the area. The site is L’éperon barré du Rocher du Causse, Claret, Hérault (6th to 5th C. BC.)
It makes sense though. There were impressive stone builders both in northern Scotland and in Sardinia way back in the bronze age and before. It would make sense others close to these different cultures would make similar structures just more rarely and less impressively.
@@megathicc6367 It is not a matter of disputing the competence of those ancient builders. Unlike the archaeologists, the massons are rural people from the area. They know you just don't build a sheep pen right next to a cliff, because you always run the risk of pushing your flock to their death. Civilizations evolve, but sheep still have the same instinct!
The problem, as I see it - as someone who has studied STEM field sciences (a range as I have pursued Environmental Sciences which combines a range of physics, chemistry, biology etc to different - albiet lower - levels than the pure studies) is the level of absolute CERTAINTY within the arts when it comes to foundational knowledge. Much of which is treated as a LAW of the field of study, when it is not. It is often simply a widely agreed upon interpretation - one which limits the field from exploration of other theories and hypothesis which may also be correct. Much of this is from the application of post-modern philosophies and theories (critical theory being one case in point) which often become myopic and regressive when applied through journals and academic culture. And example in my own field is the catastrophism in Climate Change science. How much study do you think is applied to in-depth investigation and modelling of positive impacts of global warming - or for the cost analysis of those benefits? Near zero is how much. Quite simply, the senior academics and the institutional powers do not WANT to know.
Grahams most hated enemy is definitely the egyptologist. I wouldn't say that Graham ever paints every archaeologist as the enemy but rather the mainstream archaeologists who have been mocking him for over two decades in the media. This is where the problem starts because when someone is writing an article about Graham they're not going to quote, "Yeah i'm open to the idea if more evidence is found," they're going to quote the professors who says, "Graham is a total crackpot and this is all nonsense and he should be banned from every archaeology site in the world." It's not that controversial to say that higher ups in any profession can get set in their ways which is why Graham often talks about progress only being made when the older generation of experts die off. A lot of people are considered experts (or at least presented as such by the media) for only regurgitating established facts after all which is stagnation. TIKHistory has a lot of videos criticising widely accepted WW2 history talking about how a fair bit of it is based on incorrect foundations from biased memoirs/historians/political theorists decades ago. The sole thing that most does my head in about Graham Hancock is when he starts talking about spiritual nonsense and drugs but I do enjoy his content, it's fun to think about.
Today's "Egyptologists" are so full of 💩 and lies. Their bias and agenda is not even hidden. So I would be on Hancock's side in this respect. The original dynastic kingdom Egyptians, we have the bodies, we have the DNA now, were white Europeans. Yet we have an entire foreign race and people presiding over this history and warping it into their own history....kind of infuriating.
Good stuff Matt. I would be really interested in more archaeology and history especially around the migration era, Byzantium and the Eastern Roman Empire.
I studied military history for my first degree and I have to say that I agree with your assessment that while archaeology as a discipline is active in experiential learning, history as a discipline is less so and it's been like that for ages-- Sir Charles Oman's landmark works on the British Army during the Napoleonic Wars contain glaring oversights that are readily apparent to anyone that has ever fired an infantry musket, for instance, and those were published a century ago. Several of my professors very strongly encouraged their students to seek out other academic disciplines and also subject matter experts outside of academia to better understand what they would be working on rather than simply working exclusively out of a library so I do think that this is something that is gradually starting to shift.
I really love Omans work, I do think he could lay off Napier a bit tho, Napiers work although obviously biased in some aspects is also a great work admittedly flawed in a number of areas.
One historian comes to mind: Victor Hanson. He wrote about Ancient Greek warfare based on classical text but with his own interpretation. For example, the "pushing and shoving" war of Greek Hoplite, which made such battles "short, bloody, and decisive". Experimental archaelogist have found that the front ranks in such phalanxes could not have survived the push of their comrades from behind, even without the chaos and confusion of such confrontations!
Re: your point at 9:30, I did my masters project on historiography of the Ottoman Empire in the West, and your description of historians is sadly still commonplace, especially when there is a language barrier. It's gotten better now but it was very common for entire books to be written about Middle Eastern history with no historians from the region contributing.
@@stiannobelisto573 That isn't true at all. They have been writing their own history for as long as they have existed, but we don't see it in the West because our scholars haven't cared to translate and study their work. For a long time, basically until the 1990s, most successful Western historians were content to theorize on primary sources while having little to no knowledge of what they were studying. There's been tremendous progress in connecting the work of Middle Eastern scholars with the West on both sides, but there's a lot of work to do.
I would love to see more content outside of arms and armour. It would be cool to see you thoughts on Guedolon castle or when you work with others on big projects for example.
I read Hancock's books in then 90's, took part in his boards in the noughties. I did have a friend who studied arecheology at Oxford in the 80's but left because it was everything Graham sort of says. The books certainly are good fun, and I've also read many others in the same vein by other authors. I think the Hancock/Archaeology loggerhead situation comes from decades of interaction though. It may have gone on for too long for that to change. Nice vid!
I'm confused by the attitude of mainstream archaeologists toward Hancock. Why is it that what he's proposing is so abhorrent to them, to the point where they try and remove his Netflix documentary and label him a fringe pseudo scientist, but they give a free pass to people who theorise that it was extra terrestrial Aliens who came down to us in their space ships with their amazing advanced technology, and built these amazing structures. No one freaks out about that and they even get their own prime time TV show called ancient alien's, which has never been challenged by mainstream archaeology. That double standard is just weird to me and hoists up a huge red flag
I've read his book "fingerprints of the Gods" and found it interesting and he do have good points. But the main issue I have with him is that he makes claims from what you would call patterns. Just because something looks a certain way does not mean it is what the brain might interpret to be. Just because you can draw a line between point a to point b does not mean it has a connection. But rather your mind trying to find some sort of intention and importance in the pattern. He does this all the time.
The real problem isn't spotting the patterns, is that he starts with an idea of the pattern (which you get by "squinting" at the data, which means, you know little and some of the points you know look like they form a line) and then disregards everything else. Flood myths in the Mediterranean, Mesoamerica and Indonesia? There must have been a common worldwide flood (nevermind that many other mythologies do not contain any flood myths, they're just distracting details). The Piri Reis map shows the ancient coastline of the Bahamas as they were 20,000 years ago because there's a vertical shape that cannot be Cuba? Graham, just look at some more 1500-1600 mapd and you'll see that Cuba is time and time again shown vertical, insteaf of horizontal, but Graham doesn't know that, because he doesn't really care to look. He is the epitome of the knowledgeable fool. He knows a lot of stuff, but he doesn't know any of the fields he's researching deeply. He isn't a scholar of comparative mythology (a field with, in itself, isn't as appreciated as it once was, and in my opinion, rightfully so), but he will categorically affirm that there are unmistakeable common trends among all myths, and interpret some elements literally (visitor gods, civilization heroes who teach agriculture, celestial wars and floods and fires) but not others (was Osiris really a king of Egypt whose brother killed and cut to pieces etc etc?) with no real valid reason or method behind his choices. He thinks it's not reasonable to suggest that pyramids were invented independentently in different continents, but why wouldn't they be, if they're the simplest way to build tall? His leaps of logic and contrived contradictions are glaring cases of confirmation bias.
I learned at a young age that humans love finding patterns in everything. I would've gone insane by now if I delved into every single coincidence I observed.
You have correctly identified why Graham Hancock is not the inspired genius and 'disruptor' of archaeology he claims to be. What he cannot prove, he simply claims to be true based on a hunch - and he doesn't return to build the supporting evidence required to turn them into valid theories. You, on the other hand, do what he refuses to do - you challenge you own hypotheses and consider whether they hold up to scrutiny or not. I would trust you to examine evidence and make hypotheses concerning history long before him.
@@Ennio444 I love how he saw some carvings in different cultures of people holding bags, and immediately jumped to the conclusion that those cultures were in contact with each other and that's the only possible explanation of how they all used bags. Like, bags are such a unique and difficult thing to create that there's absolutely no way people could think "hey, I need to carry stuff a lot and it's a pain that my hands are so small but if there was somehow a larger container with handles to hold that would be awesome." Honestly, bags are the simplest thing in the world to invent so why wouldn't they be found all over the planet in various different cultures.
You did point out the main problem indeed. Which I think it is the traditional historical and archeological methods are outdated in our age and they have and must use broader research tools or techniques or particular experts lich constructors, stone masons, linguists and so on. When they came in the picture, Graham Hancock's theories look in a lot different way.
I never understood the drama, most likely there were civilisations that were forgotten. Göbekli Tepe is just the tip. But barely anything remains. First time I saw this guy in Rogan I immediately knew what he was all about. Tons of guys like this in the 60s did money with this.
I am a little surprised. As an archaeologist I regularly work with Historians, geologists, osteologists, geomorphologists, hydrologists, ecologists, GIS specialists, conservators, architects, engineers, iilustrators, IT specialists ...
I think the part you mentioned about bias due to education (or rather the conviction of one's teachers) is what Graham objects to, where many archeologists who make decisions practically, act as gatekeepers. As they already have the answers, they don't see any reason to look for evidence which according to their biases "can't exist". As archeology is very limited on resources. there's also going to be a lot of gate keeping, as nobody wants to lose their support for whatever thing they want to focus on.
The problem with that idea is that you make your name and money partly by overturning old ideas. They are constantly looking for things that "cant exist" because those are the biggest discoveries.
6:00 yes.. 1: Historians look at what is written about the topic before them and copy/paste - check 2: Nope too much work 3: Same as 2 6:32 "U shoudnt realy on experts" was used in regard to historions and archeologists, not about your example experts in fields of practical use of some skill
I would like to add that there are certain archaeologists and historians on various sites and chat rooms (particularly with pseudonyms) who are extremely rude and nasty and cruel to anyone wanting to talk about a topic or indeed seek advice. And there are certain sites and chat rooms with a history section I don't want to ask or consult them on because of the way they speak to people for doing so.I don't think an archaeologist is an expert on every profession people did in the past but there are those online in communities that believe they are and it disturbs me the person on the other side speaking to me like a 12year old playing call duty has a degree. I can imagine this elitism certainly fuels people like Graham Hancock into an us vs them concept. I think I will just stick to books for sources since books can't be rude to me :(
No, that's not an excuse for Hancock conducting incompetent research, and defrauding publishers and the public into believing them to be reasonable and proven.
There may be rude experts in every field, but usually I think rudeness is a sign of a fake expert or someone who has so little knowledge, that he/she fears to show it. Knowledgeable and confident people don't need to make a fuss about questions.
@@MinesAGuinness Publishers only care about sales mate. Honesty and morality is very much a secondary point for them as long as the author doesn't go saying something really stupid and then linking the publisher to support for said stupid thing.
For anyone looking for more thoughts on Hancock, I really like the channel Ancient Architects: www.youtube.com/@AncientArchitects - the reality is that Hancock will make a statement definitively, while ignoring some blatant contradictions that other people have to come along and point out later, and often these are really damning contradictions. For example, Gobekli Tepe might have some patterns that indicate it was built over the course of thousands of years, but there's evidence contradicting that, for example the builders used the same art style consistently for that thousand years. There's no other societies that do that, not ancient Egypt or Greece or China or anywhere. In reality, even traditional, conservative, authoritarian societies see changes in art over the course of 100-500 years, so really we'd see 2, 3, 4, or more distinct art styles over 1,000 years. To the point that most historians can simply look at a piece of Egyptian art and tell precisely when it came from. So it's extremely unlikely that Gobekli Tepe's builders was one of the only societies in all of human history which used the same art style consistently for one thousand years. Also, there's very little chance Gobekli Tepe was built to worship a star that was barely visible on the horizon - oh yeah, Hancock just glossed over that fact, his thesis that the builders of Gobekli Tepe worshiped a star is so unlikely given that at the time period they could barely see the star, yet Hancock falsely claims it was their brightest star in the sky. It simply wasn't.
Which star is that? I have not watched any of his material, although I know that some ancient monuments were almost certainly aligned to a star that was apparently deemed significant.
Ancient Architects is a good example of someone who's tried to listen to experts and improve what he's put out. Some of his older videos strayed into Graham Hancock territory because he wasn't selective enough about his sources. He got criticised for this, and instead of just ignoring the criticism or doubling down on the nonsense like a lot of similar creators have done, he actually engaged with critics, did more reading and improved the accuracy of his content.
@@chrisball3778 Yeah ngl I'm hugely impressed by the turnaround in Ancient Architects. His speaking style/accent is very odd to me as a fellow Brit but he is both earnest, keen to learn and pretty sharp about the research and collaborating with others who have material he does not. I had sort of strayed away from him for a while until I noticed some of his newer output and I'm glad he's still going.
@@nevisysbryd7450 Hancock suggests that Gobekli Tepe was built to worship Sirius, the Dog Star. Ancient Architects has a video on it here: th-cam.com/video/XsWcq19bEo4/w-d-xo.html - the problem is that 10,000+ years ago the star didn't appear very high in the horizon (unlike today where it's the brightest star). So it's either profoundly amazing evidence of people worshiping a seemingly trivial star that's not particularly notable, or they were not worshiping this star in 9,000 BC at all.
Cant get enough shiting on hancock. Thare was a guy named E.O. Willson who was dean of entomology at Harvard for something like 50 years who predicted goblekli tepe a long ass time ago.
I don‘t get your point about him drawing on archeological findings. He isn‘t denying that, e.g. celebrating Klaus Schmidt‘s work in Göbekli Tepe. I am not onboard with his somewhat esoteric tendencies, but I think he offers some fair criticism about the field of archeology. To me there are 2 major points 1) Archeology is rather jealously ringfencing it’s area of studies, although it is (just like Business Administration) not a real science. Depending on what topic is coming up you need biologists, geologists etc.., Archeologists should be case managers drawing on expertise for complex matters. I am sure some are doing that, but certainly not to the extent required across the board. 2) Career Archeologists - the field seems to have quite an issue with the scientific method in that it is not very open open to accept new findings and adjust long held believes. Careers are made, book revenues generated on the risk averse incremental repetition of established common believes. The resulting group think is impeding us gaining further insights into our past and leads to the kind of repelling reflex the field is showing towards him - all this shows is weakness and insecurity. What we can summize from his documentary ist that the history of human civilization has started way earlier than we long believed, earth has undergone dramatic shifts in climate conditions in the last 50k years making pure gradualism a nonsensical proposition, and that career and Hobby archeologists need to come to terms with the fact that there is just a lot we simply don‘t know
I think you've misunderstood what archaeologists are and what they do. They are a collection of specialists. Many are field archaeologists and they basically just dig and record. For things like pottery dating or bone identification they DO use dedicated specialists. For scientific analysis things get sent off to labs. They don't hand it to a field archaeologist and ask them for things they can't possibly know. An 'archaeologist' is just a very loose description for someone who works in the sector, not a specific job description.
@@scholagladiatoria thx for the feedback. I think you are overly idealistic in your assessment of the community. And just to be clear, I don’t agree with Hancock‘s demonization of trained archeologists. His stance might be understandable after decades of personal attacks, still it is not warranted and productive. Plus I don’t blame, individuals, as we are all part of incentive structures. Your example on the schools of thought on changes in population structure shows this nicely. Even if you disagreed with the predominant opinion at your university, you would have been irrational to state that and risk a bad grade. Incentives do work 😁. And again, in „fields of study“ that predominantly are an aggregator of knowledge created by other sciences, like Business Administration, there is sometimes a strong incentive not draw on experts in other fields sharing laurels or creating a delay when a paper just needs to be finished. And again, your example of the wrong info on arrow heads makes that very clear
He sounds like every "experts don't want you to know about this" scam ad on TH-cam. Also the only thing uniform about archeologists is their wearing of broad brimmed hats and shorts, and their love of beer.
I don't think Hancock believes or paints formal archeology or archeologists as the enemy, persay, but rather their closed minds & inability to accept or even analyze new ideas & theories supported by the evidence at hand. Unfortunately, his personal experiences dealing with the mainstream archeologists have taught him that he himself becomes their enemy for his inability to accept everything they say as the end-all-be-all when a lot of evidence may describe something very different than what's generally accepted as fact. In doing so, however, archeologists have usually labeled him as a quack or liar to quickly & easily dismiss him & his theories instead of going thru his evidence & demonstrating how he is incorrect using actual scientific data as opposed to insults like he's generally used to them doing. So I don't think he believes mainstream archeology as the enemy, so much that he'd like to see it use more lateral thinking to support the mainstream or dismiss his own ideas, rather than the linear thinking that's the norm & says "this is right because it's always been that way since first posited, and anyone who thinks otherwise is either stupid, crazy, a liar , or incompetent because they won't go along with what we, the experts, say is right. So him or anyone like him can kick rocks because we know better than them!"
See, I'm a big fan of Matt's channel, but I also find some of Hancock's ideas intriguing. I do have to say, though, that I don't appreciate the way that Hancock disparages archaeologists and the general fields of Academia. I'm finishing a master's degree in History, so I may have a bias. But I feel like a lot of Hancock's statements disparage the hard-working and well intentioned people in the Historical/Anthropological fields.
And all of the evidence he draws on comes from those very people. He wouldn't have any ancient archaeological sites or Renaissance maps to use without those people. He isn't an archaeologist or scientist himself, he relies on data from experts, which he then puts together and interprets in ways that suit his argument.
@@scholagladiatoria Agreed. And while he has a lot of interesting theories, as you mentioned, about Ice Age peoples, the Melt Water II event, and the possibility that certain artifacts and features are older than conventional humanities suggest, he connects them to a lot of pseudo-science phenomena with little or no evidence. Interesting video, Matt. I appreciate the nuance of your position, and your willingness to explore ideas without a rigid ideology. It's refreshing to see that in a academic public figure. Been a fan for a long time, keep up the great work!
This is an excellent discussion. I have done quite a bit of experimental work to show the effectiveness of military flintlock muskets within 150 yards, and it drives me nuts to have some historians write about how in accurate they are.
There's definitely an element of Chinese whispers where somebody said it once, it got published widely and now it's "common knowledge" that is very difficult to push back on. I tend to groan when I hear historians talking about weapons now, because it's often clear they're parroting what they've been told, but can't back it up or say how they know it. To be fair, there's a lot of common knowledge like this in other fields. Most Psychologists couldn't explain why IQ works. Unless they specialise in using it, it's probably not something they know a huge amount about.
It is strange how quick some archaeologists are to dismiss Hancock. Schliemann was an amateur archaeologist when everyone was writing off Troy as a myth, wasn’t he? I cannot dismiss Hancock because one of the most foundational ideas about human pre-history, that the Indian Aryans and the Europeans stem from a single progenitor population, was originally theorized by a Welsh jurist in India. He was not a professional archaeologist or historian and the theory was controversial and based on comparisons of Indian and European languages and mythologies. It was only decades later that genetic studies confirmed these theories to be true. So who knows if Hancock’s wild, amateur ideas based on mythological comparisons will bear fruit?
@@rodchallis8031 Schliemann didn’t just discover Troy. He also excavated Mycenae. He was right about a lot. What kind of broken clock is that? And William Jones accurately described centuries of pre-history based on language analysis and comparative mythology… in the 18th century. Only for 20th century science to confirm his theories.
@@Roberthomas Schliemann used dynamite at "Troy" , inadvertently blowing up the layer that, if it is Troy, was the most likely layer. I'd pick a better poster boy for your points, if you can find one.
The problem is financing, and when you cant access sites to further research and archaeologists dont just report what they find, they interpret to an audience of benefactors, how can we trust whats said? He has an interpretation which is mocked and to further his point has limited access. Historians interpret but when certain aspects are completely ignlred by archaeologists, how can we allow the same amount of dis respect towards hancocks work whilst believing what is reported through ‘paid’ archaeologists or historians work. A man once said, when your paid to tell a story, fantasy is what you get, when you put your work on the line for a wage, direction is what follows…
I always find that attempts to censor legitimate alternative theories and defame/insult their advocates generally have the exact opposite of the intended result. Reasoned debate without needlessly provacative language goes much farther. I've had talks with serious Flat Earthers where it would have been very satisfying to call them idiots and morons, but it wouldn't have accomplished anything beyond the temporary satisfaction of stroking my own ego. Anyway, "edgy and dubious" theories have quite often been proven true, and accepted theories debunked, after the science has advanced enough to prove or disprove them.
I'm an historian, and have dabbled with archeology, but by no means consider myself an expert. From my perspective, frankly, archeologists seem to often be their own worst enemies- no 2 ever want to agree and they constantly shred each other to gain preeminence and funding. Add in the early attempts at the field in the 18th and 19th centuries that were hamhanded and just... terrible... and the whole scene ends up feeling a bit rough and it becomes difficult to identify verified information separate from heavily "interpreted" information.
@@nobodyspecial4702 I mean I feel like he isn't 100% wrong. Politics and funding and sacred calves sometimes converge to muddy up a dig, or result in pieces of evidence getting dismissed or buried by important voices and/or historical communities as a whole- but there definitely isn't some monolithic conspiracy as he seems to subscribe to.
Thanks a lot for this commentary. It provides a lot of background to great debunking videos such as by Miniminuteman - and of course to a general understanding of history. Your points about historians often not relying enough on outside experts are very valid and I think your examples illustrate that very well.
Despite what you open up with, Hancock actually acknowledges in the series his debt to professional archaeology. But he also goes beyond that, and casts a critical eye on the discipline where he considers it is needed. Many archaeologists do the exact same thing i.e., take the next step based on findings to date. Science has always been 'fact' and interpretation. As a result, a lot of what Hancock and his ilk say is often shown, down the track, to be true, or becomes generally accepted, whilst a lot falls by the wayside. That is why he is so popular, and has been for a long time. As a journalist, he also does a great job in promoting archaeology. The so-called 'battle' or 'war' between him and the profession is therefore just part of the media beat up. C'est la vie...
Have you watched the Netflix series? It's not a media beat-up, he spends every other sentence hating on archaeologists and the establishment. It's very annoying.
@@ninjafruitchilled Yes, I have watched it. I do not agree with your statement. That is not what I saw when I watched it. He spent the vast majority of his time presenting his argument. It was, of course, based on the rejection of that argument by so-called mainstream archaeology, but that was not the focus of the story.
I would like to hear more general history on this channel to the extent it interests you to delve into such topics from time to time. Graham Hancock I also remember from my teenage years, and he was fun, but always a little too out there to be trusted as a source.
As an experimental archaeologist I can confirm that there is a great reluctance in the discipline to use experimental data and experimental archaeologists are rarely considered experts except in exceptional cases such as Ronnie Tylecote, but it comes out of a sense of caution which has prevailed ever since archaeological science began to overturn the big synthetic theories in the mid-20th century. There is also the experiential problem of modern biases which is difficult to overturn as the only data considered worthwhile has to be produced using a scientific methodology, which itself was of course not applied in historic/prehistoric times. Greater reliance on experts, and greater recognition of expertise in each respective field would definitely improve the discipline and is a great point made by yourself.
I've stumbled across Hancock in the past, and one of the things that I think stood out to me is that he strikes me as a man who's been burnt and hasn't learnt to deal with it very well. I suspect he has come across some savage and possibly unfair treatment from those that might be considered part of the "archaeological establishment" and he's then smouldered away for decades; to his own detriment, I think.
More accurate he sees the anti-science crowd for what they are: careerists, anti-science, stubborn and dogmatic, and almost religious in their definitive beliefs which remain stalwart even when new evidence surfaces. It would be impossible to respect these dogmatic religious anti-science types, especially when they pretend to fly the banner of science and evidence. And although not impossible, it would be hard to not loathe them for their (as described) gross attitudes and pretentious attacks.
Or it could be that he thought up his theories while stoned on hallucinogenics and is bitter that to the rest of the world they sound pretty ridiculous.
"and he's then smouldered away for decades; to his own detriment, I think" His bank account disagrees. He's rich mate - it's all fluff to engineer a false martyr act to gain sympathy/support sales. He was already rich by the end of the 90s, and he's only continued to build that fortune since.
@@mnomadvfx Well you make a good point in the sense that perhaps the very thing I'm "criticising" may have actually given him a tremendous amount of success. I mean people do like outrage and drama, and there's a demographic that automatically sides with anyone that claims to be "fighting the man". I suppose I'm trying to not be *too* cynical lol. I don't think Hancock is cynically playing that game tbf
I've seen him debunked to his face on TV. Instead of pulling out yet more evidence in support of what he claims he just becomes irrational and surly, fuming that he won't have his theory ruined by nitpickers. When he is pressed to it he is unable to adequately justify the things he claims.
I'm getting tired of trying to talk to people about anything out of the mainstream. I want to learn from a conversation, but I run into people that just want to insult me. If you really look into some of the "long established" things, sometimes it's just one guy that wrote about it 150 years ago. Watch the Graham Hancock and Michael Shermer on Joe Rogan. Shermer wrote a straight out insult and Graham called him out on it. Shermer just whined about not meaning to publish it and being scared people would get the wrong information.
When we go about talking archeology: My older sister has a degree in archeology, i believe her focus in college was pre-contact pacific islands or something similar it was a long time ago... she wasn't particularly happy with a lot of what archeologists and historians she met were on about "constant bickering" never wound up pursuing it as a career sticking with powerlifting
IMHO I've read into the actual work demands on archaeologists and they are far from easy, I could see many people getting into it having seen Indiana Jones, Tomb Raider or Ancient Aliens and realising very quickly that it was not for them even without the internal political problems of the field and the institutions who employ them.
Great video Matt, not what I expected. I recently watched the documentary, it was very enjoyable. Initially I didn’t pick up on the blanket blame of archaeologist (I assumed he meant the general consensus - but that’s probably because I am increasingly involved in that space) but my partner did, this is something I hope can change. History in general is a passionate subject, those involved often love their work to the point of obsession. Sometimes it is hard for us as emotional creatures to let go of what we know and be open to change. So your conclusion to this video is so on point. Many of us, need to work together more, experiment and be open to new data and ideas. As to Graham’s theory and series, I really enjoyed it. Am I 100% in agreement? no, at the moment there is not enough evidence and a lot of speculation but, I hope he carries on his search for the truth, like we all should and if given the opportunity I’d be open to exploring some of the areas and theories mentioned.
I was given one of his books, (Fingrprints of the Gods probably) in the mid-late 90s as an archaeology student by someone well meaning. I don't think I've ever liked a book less and I once attempted to read a Dan Brown novel. So there we are.
Have to admit I read Fingerprints Of The Gods in the 90s and was captivated. It was only when I read to the end of the follow-up book in which Hancock claimed with a straight face that Atlantis was really Antarctica, and that that entire continent had shifted to the South Pole in only a few thousand years, that I actually realised just how cracked this bloke is . . .
You'd don't have to agree or believe hos hypothesis, but to dislike a book because it makes you think too much outside the box? That is just sad. You can't reek more of anti-intellectualism to hate something that challenges the status quo. Dislike all his theories? Good. Dislike him bc he has theories you dislike? Slot off.
@@nobbynoris Do you not realize the fallacy in your thinking? You read one book, and decide based on 1000 ideas that could be wrong, and the author is stereotyped as smart and good. Then you read the second and based on 2 of 1000 ideas you disagree with, you then stereotype him as crazy and bad. How about you just take people for what they are, especially when they tell you to your face "all of this could be wrong, but I want you to think about more than just the status quo." You zoomers are so silly! You like someone for 1000 things they say but the moment they say 1 thing you dislike, they are canceled for all 1000. It happens every day. Dont feel bad bc you are the norm. Almost everyone these days has this insane idea that you must agree with someone 110% or else UNSUBSCRIBE! BLOCKED! CANCELED! Jfc people are allowed to disagree with you without you insulting them and saying theyre crazy/stupid/whatever bc you disliked 1 or 2 of 1000 things they believe MIGHT be true. I guarantee you believe some really dumb and insane things yourself out of the 1000000 things you believe. Should we exile you to Australia to live alongside Shadiversity and all those other mormons just for those few weird things you believe? Oh yea you are a crazy bloke! /s
yes, actually historians usually abstract all details and write about the most interesting events that had a global or regional effect the specialists/experts will fill the gapes, or actually shed lights about some obscure part of those past events
I for one would love to see a video or three on weapon and armor evolution during the Migration Period. You've pointed out many times that the design of both lat oeast party depend on who you're fighting and how you're fighting, so with so many cultures bouncing off each other, splintering and merging while wandering all over the place, we should be able to point to specific features of them appearing at various times and places depending on whether foot or horse was more popular with which people's (and where cavalry was even possible), details like that. Hancock gets a lot of deserved grief for his more extreme stuff, but he is correct that orthodox archaeologists and historians are monolithic... in their dismissal of him. Dependence on experts has the built in hazard that experts can get it wrong too. Look at the paleontologists who decided that all neanderthal were short and bent over because they mistook extreme arthritis for default skeletal anatomy. And extending what you said about biases, experts in *any* field can have their biases so it's best to seek multiple opinions.
Nice one! Wasn't really interested to watch it, but I might give it a try now. Very well thought through points about experts, multidisciplinary studies and the need to "run towards knowledge, not towards ignorance".
Before I even watch this video I'm so excited that one of my favorite historical weapons masters is doing a response to one of my all time favorite alternative archeologists!!!! regardless of the outcome I know this video will be an honest and mature analysis of his work!!!! Which is all he's ever asked!!!! For people to listen with an open mind and then decide for themselves!!!!! Great stuff!!!!
Great video, not quite the angle I was expecting but some very solid criticism, I dont believe that any one person has all the answers and it is very important to gather all the knowledge we can on a chosen subject before making an kind of proposals!!! In the defence of Graham Hancock he does consult with a whole host of experts in archeology, geology, stone masonary etc... And these are not his theories alone, but a whole host of researchers who for half a century or more have been proposing alternative timelines, I think what he is so frustrated about is the lack of effort to even entertain an alternative narrative, and the almost violent dimissal of some frackly quite intriguing possibilities!!! I guess we're all kinda hungry for more mystery in life, and no one should be afraid to think outside the box!!!! A great mind once said.. "It is the mark of a wise mind to entertain an idea without etirely accepting it!!!" (or something like that...hahaha)
Welp, to put it mildly, it was the archeologists who've held back human learning for over 150 years. Its safe to say that they've largely held us all in ignorance due to their gatekeeping.
I've followed Graham Hancock for a number of years after accidentally picking up the Sign & The Seal. Whilst he presents some very interesting and intriguing questions, I do feel that he has become part of the problem that he believes that he is fighting against. Polarisation of ideas and opinion has become common in pretty much every area where a debate can be had, and it has left very little space for middle ground. This leads to you said this, and you said that, and is not conducive to constructive conversation. I think that ego plays a huge part in this, and the stronger the egos on both sides are, the harder it becomes. It's like putting two magnets together at the same pole and expecting them not to repel each other. I met Graham many years ago, and I can say for certain that his ego is strong, but that said this does not make him a bad or unkind person. He's just got lost in fighting a war that doesn't need to be fought in a combative way. Anyway, really enjoyed this video. Something different but familiar in a good way.
I have been watching a number of pseudo archeology videos of late but it was the first time I saw someone bring up the point that Graham Hancock would not be where he is now if it wasn't for those same archeologists he is attacking. After hearing that, I felt I had to leave a compliment because that was a fantastic point.
![[DRIP] ‘Really Like You’ PREVIEW](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/6KYxQ-Udrj0/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm not an archaeologist but as someone trained in linguistic anthropology (MA), I can say that different disciplines definitely need to communicate more. I don't have training in geology or archaeology, but if an archaeology expert told me that the homeland of the Proto-Indo-Europeans (wherever that actually is) had none of a certain type of animal or tree, etc, that the majority of Indo-European languages have a commonly derived word for, then I would tell them that the PIE homeland probably isn't where that archaeologist thinks it is. And then when they found out that I was a linguist and not an archaeologist, they would probably call me a pseudo-archaeologist and tell me to stick to my field. That attitude is the antithesis of the scientific method.
Ukraine or Kazakhstan are my contendors.
Brett Weistein and Heather Heying recently went over this on the Dark Horse podcast in regards to biological disciplines. Every single discipline has its own jargon, and so interdisciplinary communication is functionally impossible unless you're a generalist in evolutionary biology. Academe, in its current state, disincentivizes any sort of generalism because it doesn't immediately lead to weird specialist projects and therefore grants. This is a long-term problem, because inter-disciplinary communication would lead to necessary reanalysis of findings and more cross-discipline projects (which are necessary).
Probably need a discipline devoted to interdisciplinary studies.
"And then when they found out that I was a linguist and not an archaeologist, they would probably call me a pseudo-archaeologist and tell me to stick to my field."
There's interdisciplinary study, and then there's amateur know-nothings trying to tell the professionals that they're doing everything wrong. Like an anti-vaxer patiently explaining to an experienced doctor why vaccines don't work. It's annoying, it's insulting, and it's not at all helpful to anyone. I know people like this, who feel they can lecture experts on their own areas of expertise. It's Dunning-Kruger. And when these people go to book publishers and History Channel executives they get put right on because saying "the experts are wrong about everything" actually sells those products with people who don't know any better. Many people feel alienated by academia anyway and are primed to reject everything academia does whenever it's convenient for them.
Being a linguist, you're not on the same level as that. If you're talking about a specific point that you understand in a different way due to being in a different discipline then that can be very valuable. Listening to Uncle Bob tell us all about how the Egyptians definitely didn't build the pyramids though, and therefore that extraterrestrials must have done it, monopolizing the Thanksgiving table, NO THANKS on that. I'll give a hard no. I am always quick to correct people that go onto these kinds of topics and I don't care that I'm a Debbie Downer. I have to tell them "those ideas are all unproven and amateur, put forward by people with no training in the fields in which they are speculating, and they want us to throw out everything discovered by people who actually study that subject and are experts because that's what they study, and these crackpot ideas, most of which are false or misleading, are supported by publishers and TV channels because mystery mongering makes money, and they don't mind at all that they're misleading their audience -- you know, you." Yeah, I'm a real hit at the family reunions. 😆
@@brucecapua9840 Problem is that a few years ago "interdisciplinary" was a term that was academically fashionable. Administrators hired a bunch of people with "interdisciplinary" in their resumes purely because it looked good. Since they didn't actually care, a bunch of those people turned out to be poorly qualified.
You nailed it, Matt. Balance is the key.
"At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes--an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense." -Carl Sagan
What folks who write drivel like 'Ancient Aliens' or 'Ancient Apocalypse' do is cater to the uninformed, mystery mongering for money. That's all that is. There's nothing honest or genuine about it, those people aren't trying to get at truth or teach facts to their audience, they are mystery mongering -- that's all. I used to be really into content like that, until I read more actual history and realized that most modern docudramas are lying to us to get our attention. They cast doubt on academia while not reviewing what academia actually thinks on the topic and inserting their own fantasy version that cherry picks from those experts. We should not act as if these are honest attempts to clarify anything or answer any questions, it's most certainly designed to ask questions and NOT answer them. It's kind of the exact opposite of education.
Yeah, the problem with amateur historians who get taken in by Hancock is that they start with the assumption that his argument HAS to be right, so they defend his claims by only being skeptical of the establishment ideas, not the radical, literally-would-change-everything-we-know-if-it-were-true ideas, which is weird, because those are the ones that usually require the most scrutiny, to be discerned from...frauds.
@@Thobeian Also Sagan: "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
"It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan
@@jellekastelein7316 sadly that is happening a lot these days.
One example I really love: The hairdresser, who showed, that when Romans wrote about "sewing" hair, they meant exactly that: Using the same needles and thread to build a hairstyle that you would use to sew a tunika. She proved it by making all that hairstyles that you can see on the coins, the statues, etc. No "normal" historian - wo was not a hairdresser- could have done that.
Similar things happen when archeologists talk to anyone who has practical, real-life experience in a subject. There was some recent example where a mysterious unknown artifact was immediately identified by a leather worker as a simple burnisher, and he pulled out an identical device that he uses every day. The artifact was 3k years old, iirc, and had been mislabeled as a totem of some sort. I suspect the modern fields of science have become too insular for their own good; in the past scientists were well studied in a wide range of fields, giving them a broad area of knowledge to pull from, but today they're so highly specialized they can't recognize what is obvious to a common worker.
It's why when you see an Egyptologist talking about cutting hard stone or lifting a pickaxe, you realize they've never actually quarried stone in their lives. Or why random schoolkids looking at maps of the Earth figured out the theory of continental drift a century ahead of the "experts".
Would that be Janet Stephens, whose work on this was published in 2008 in the Journal for Roman Archaeology? She looked carefully at evidence, made hypotheses, used experimental archaeology to expand and test them, and saw her work accepted, peer reviewed, validated and published. Mate - she's a historian! In what possible way does her career of insightful and evidentially supported findings justify the half-baked, badly-plagiarised entertainments of Graham Hancock?
experimental archeology is the best, can really flip perspectives
@@berserkasaurusrex4233 where did computers come from? "Experts" said they were made, but i dont believe them. we all really know that ANCIENT ALIENS left Macs and PCs on earth! right? you cant disagree with me, cuz you arent a philosopher or scientist
@@beepboop204 Don't know where you're getting this computer diatribe from, but you seem very insecure about people not putting "experts" on a pedestal.
Totally agree. I can give you a prime example. Way back in 2016,I was asked to come in and discuss working with a Particular city Museum for the 2017 East Riding City of Culture. When it came to the Civil war Display .I was informed it wasn't a priority as it wasn't a pivotal point in the City's History.
Having rather vocally contradicted this particular member of the museum team. I eventually received an email saying that the cities museum's could nolonger afford our services.( We were giving our services for free.).
Was this Hull, where I live? The Civil war in that city was Pivotal!
Ex archaeologist here too - i dropped it as i got fed up with people blowing their extremely routine work out of all proportion to gain unreasonable amounts of funding. To the point that some really deranged rubbish was hypothesised and funded. Hancock is clearly a hobbyist, but he recieved some unnecessary backlash for some of what he says. Some of it is undeserved, but not all. In my book though, he is welcome to crack on and i stand ready to be convinced by either side. As a final point, we've known about astronomical procession for a long time, and the fact that ancient monuments line up with stars at certain points in history is not an accident. It just isnt statistically possible that dozens if not hundreds of monuments line up with stars at certain dates. There are some monuments that are unquestionably older than originally believed, but uow much more is up for study.
He's deffs caught some unfair judgement on clovis first being wrong like others have in the past. But that's slowly changing.
Some of his other theories he pushes are rather dangerous, though, and silly. But I'd have to agree.
Sounds like you worked with some incompetent people. None of which takes away from the fact that Graham Hancock is a charlatan. They are distinct and separate points. Hancock makes unfounded claims, whilst he denigrates the authentic work of archaeologists who have not falsified their findings and have made reasonable conclusions. Did he, at some point, make hypotheses that ancient monuments had some relationship with the stars, you say? Why goodness, what an insightful man! Why didn't anyone else think of this before? Of course, we discover that they had indeed - and Hancock was riding on the back of their research known to a few in their field in order to build an exaggerated - and thus unsustainable - theory to gain popularity, fame and sales. David Irving also once rode on the coattails of a few minor insights in order to gain a reputation he could leverage for his other utterly false and disturbing claims. There are plenty of other, better archaeologists and historians coming from 'outside' the typical channels who are more worthy of acknowledgement - and are given such - than Mr Hancock - John Romer, Shelby Foote and Howard Zinn to name just a few. But no: too many of the public would rather and over their money to be entertained by a fraud who' witters on about ancient alien civilizations - not because they admire some fabled ability to impartially assess actual extant evidence and formulate conclusions from it, but because they love a good pile-on against 'the experts', no matter how suspect and disingenuous the person doing it. He will indeed leave his mark on history - as a talented grifter.
@MinesAGuinness you have a point but, Hancock has also defended some real serious archeologists who were belittled by the scientific community due to some endoctranated theories.
He is rather harmful in some regards and rather disingenuous or rather woefully undereducated and not done enough research(I'm thinking more so biased for sales)
But if we're being objective, then you gotta give him credit for certain things.
Could you explain exactly what his arguments are? I'm an archaeology student and from what I've read and heard it isn't that controversial to say that Stonehenge was built with astronomy in mind but I can't believe anyone thinks there was an Antarctic civilisation. That sounds like utter conspiracy theory rubbish.
Too bad he questions the validity of the most basic stratigraphical observations. Tools dated X found below Ggantja? This cannot mean that that's the date of the stratum, anyone can drop tools anywhere at any point! That's the most basic concept in archaeology.
As for the way the Ggantja temples all align with the different positions of Sitius, I'm not convinced it's true. The chapter about Bimini Road was especially bad, a whole lot of nothing sustented on the claims of two guys and some cases of blatant manipulaton ("Piri Reis doesn't draw mountains like that!", yes he does, I can see these mountains down there in Brasil, Graham! I can see them right now!!!").
I'm a retired electronics engineer. We used to class an expert as the person who was one page ahead of the rest in the book.
In my team, it's the idiot who got stuck dealing with X first, becomes the expert in X
This is like the reverse of the idea that an ignorant person is someone who doesn't know what you just found out 😄👍
It's worse than that - I was taught that an expert is anyone who has a briefcase and is a long way from home.! Add a title, doesn't matter much which one and they will be ready to put you on a pedestal.
And “ex” is a has been and a “spurt” is a drip under pressure.
There was a story in the press last week about an amateur researcher who came up with a theory about some tally-like marks found in Ice-age cave art. He had determined that they might represent a type of lunar calendar relating to the reproductive cycles of animals. Did the professional archaeologists in the field shut him down, like Graham Hancock says they've done to him? No. They looked at his theory, thought it sounded plausible, encouraged him to do more research and helped him write and publish a scientific paper about it that is now being taken seriously and discussed and debated by experts in the field. These are some of the EXACT same people (experts on human prehistory and the Ice Ages) who Graham Hancock says are all a closed-minded clique.
Good scientists and historians are open to new evidence, even from outsiders. Academics aren't interested in Graham Hancock's theories because they're new or different, but because they're utter nonsense that only seems plausible to people who don't know much about the subjects he discusses. He's also completely lying when he says that they're repressing his research- he's got a far bigger platform and far more money than pretty much any serious archaeologist has- making up ridiculous BS about Atlantis has given him a lot more success than years of study and hard work have given serious academics and researchers.
Thank goodness someone else is saying this! The unwarranted 'benefit of the doubt' given to such individuals by the credulous, even by some people with professional historical training and backgrounds who should know better, is shocking - and makes me think I'd have a much more lucrative career giving up teaching history and selling NFTs, crypto or some other snake oil!
For every example of academics actually listening to someone, you have a "Clovis First" exception that refutes you. Academics are absolutely an insular, close-minded clique, they just tend to be the most close-minded about things that directly effect their own work. Come up with a theory that doesn't effect their own published writings, and they might just listen to you. Tell them a theory running counter to their own, and they'll run to the media to character assassinate you as fast as they can, then claim you've been "debunked" if anyone asks them about your ideas.
Hell, spend some time talking to Art History professors, they've all got horror stories of how close-minded to new ideas modern "experts" really are.
To be fair, in the past, professional archaeologists in the field would have shut him down. Well, shut him out.
The world has modernized its classist attitudes somewhat, and so are more open to the "citizen science" contributions as long as they're done in good faith.
People who claim to be skeptics but are only subjecting the theories they don't cheerlead to skepticism, while being utterly credulous to claims from their own preferred theories, are a waste of everyone's time.
Pity that said theory is a crock as recognized by those who have seriously look at it.
As for Hancock, he & his tinfoil hat garbage need to be ignored.
Scholagladiatoria is an archeologist? He's literally Indiana Jones with a sword.
Except I don't think he's ever fought aliens or dealt with the supernatural. lol
No, but he has had many battles with water bottles.
@@Blokewood3 Alien eggs that look like water bottles.
@@The_Gallowglass That we know of.
@Gallowglass - that very much depends on how you define an 'alien' or the supernatural.
Hey everyone and thanks Matt for your content! As someone who studied Celtic Studies I am 100% behind the idea of more interdisciplinary work and better communication between sciences. Whenever you examine any culture (of the past or present), you need more than one discipline - and this just one example I can speak of...
Scientist of all fields unite!
You studied Celtic content? Wait I’m sorry that’s it. Do you know how many times Grant Hancock has visited the sphinx been part of excavations and visited pyramids all over the world what about the maps from 1500 that show an article had periods as well that they wiped from all US history, books, and Mabs, and education? You need to go be a host on Joe Rogan so that you can equally counterpoint everything he sang.
@@skobuffsGrammar and periods. Please learn how these work, so you may state your point in a manner that can be clearly understood.
I love it when you make Videos that go a bit beyond the normal topic of this chanel. It's impressive to watch your expertize on many topics and you have a very nice way to explain your opinion without stating that you must have everything right.
This needed to be said and must be said more often. We must rely on each other in the advancement of knowledge. We must present and try to uncover more evidence with public discourse between experts interpreting the evidence freely without fear of careers ending or being damaged.
Narrow viewpoints vs. Broad viewpoints. Interdisciplinary perspectives are difficult to come by. A team of experts with a couple broad-perspective enthusiasts, in my opinion, have a better chance of thinking outside the box, thus finding new leads, while also keeping methodologies and fact-checking tight.
I agree with what you are saying, especially about pooling knowledge. Myself and a few others set up a fiori group in Cornwall some years ago. It was three people, one of whom was a martial artist, one who was a reenactor and experimental historian and one who was a living history practitioner. On our own, we had three entirely different perspectives of how to follow the different parts of fiori's pictures but together we could pool our knowledge and expertise and much better understand the source material.
As an epistemologist with a history background, I am going to say that the best to do is to state clearly and opening when one does not know something, and knowledge (as the very subject of epistemology) must be clearly itself defined. Thus, as opposed to scientism, it would be better to include at the top of the list what cannot be explained by archeologists and we can move forward together from there. Equally, it would be good to have at the top of archeologists' contribution to the community at large, when they have gotten something majorly wrong.
Archeology is not a modern science as experimentation is not a major component, as it also is with epistemology; as a result, interpretation is a main feature of archeology aside from the uncovering of artifacts. However, interpretation as hermeneutics cannot be done in a vacuum - thus all interpretation must be coherent across all of human history, otherwise such explanations are at best ad hoc and at worst incoherent.
Best of luck and fixing the problems.
as an autistic dude with a grad degree in philosophy, i feel an epistemic duty to myself to only hold justifiably true beliefs. allists do not hold themselves to this standard.
Today I learned that experimental epistemology exists. I can't wait to Google that!
>epistemologist with a redpill yt channel
An epistemologist _would_ say some $hit like that. LoL
Anyway, the problem is generally that these amateur 'experts' who write books about how the experts are all wrong are generally so ignorant of what academia is aware of that this is a non-starter. If you say "let's start with what cannot be explained by archaeologists" and they'll say "okay, that's everything." Even though they're building the foundation of their arguments on what they accept as facts provided by archaeologists. I guess it just goes to show that they lack understanding in both archaeology and epistemology. Hopeless.
@@johnsmithe4656 just because they can arrange a bunch of sentences together into a story and call it "the untold history", doesnt mean that they should, or that there is any inherent value in it just because "what if". people get too hung up on "what if"
The thing about this whole 'controversy' that baffles me is that academic archeologists would be completely *thrilled* for someone to demonstrate verifiable evidence of a pre-Sumerian/global civilization! It would be the find of the century and would open up an entirely novel field of research for academics to sink their teeth into. It would be as much an opportunity for academic archeologists as it would be a threat to established theories.
The fact is he can't produce such evidence, his arguments are full of logical leaps, and he doesn't seriously engage with alternative interpretations of his facts and findings, so he isn't and shouldn't be taken seriously.
I agree. The idea that a 'traditional archaeologist' (if such a thing exists) would not LOVE the chance to prove something radical is frankly bizarre. Most archaeologists literally dream their whole lives about getting their name into the history books with evidence. The idea that there is some sort of archaeological illuminati hiding evidence is frankly hilarious. Like they are boxers or footballers being secretly paid millions to lose a match....
I dont think Graham Hancock has the goal of producing such evidence, thats not who he is. He wants to shred light on the holes in the knowledge we already have and throw up theories about how the past could have played out. Then its the archeologists job to go into the field and find the evidence that proves or disproves those theories. Have them go to Gobekli Tepe and explain how people 12000 years ago could build something like that. Hancock used to work as a journalist. His job is to write and throw up ideas based on the holes in our knowledge. Now someone have to go into the field and find the evidence.
@@scholagladiatoria Yes, the person who found the "first / oldest/largest x" would immediately get tenure for life.
Actual archeologists/historians slowing down the recognition of things by status is a real thing. The Maya language issue is the most immediate that comes to mind to me, but that was actually a genuinely hard issue because of the burning of the contemporary books with the language and that decrypting a language is actually really hard. Even with transitional texts and a discontinuous living tradition.
but a whole big honking city 20k years ago, especially a non agricultural one, would make everyone super happy.
@@_AnanasIEgenJuice_if that's the case, then why should we take Hancock seriously if he can pose only questions but not answers?? I mean nothing he is asking is new......and he is not genuinely looking for solutions himself but belittling people who risked and devoted their entire lives to these searches........also we are talking about a person who believes in psychics here
"Don't run towards ignorance; run towards knowledge and science." -Matt Easton (Great quote!)
If you follw the science to much you are landing in a politically system like china!
@@killerkraut9179 OMG, it's a real-life Neanderthal! Somebody get the archeologists in here to study this guy! :D
@@joshyaks If you follow the science about Corona or Klima change you are end in a political system like china !
Corona warn ap is a surveillance system ,the covid green passport is a social credit system!
The German 3 G rules are the same!
By clima science the Bavaria Eco Token is a kind of surveillance and social credit system!
I obviously agree it's a good message; the problem is, who disagrees with it...? I can see Hancock saying the exact same thing, for example. In fact I can't think of anyone who knows what ignorance, knowledge and science is who wouldn't agree with it - yet I can definitely think of a lot of people with wildly conflicting ideas and opinions
@@joshyaks Unless you come from parents that were born in sub-saharan africa, you too, are very likely to be 1% to 2% neanderthal. Other than that one geographical area, almost everyone is.
I had initially trained to be a historian but ended up going to grad school in something else. So I hear the archaeologists/historians are experts" argument and totally agree. Yet I also hear the criticisms. For example, I've spent a lot of time studying board games and how traditional games are played. Yet I see articles on board games found in digs saying things like "We'll never know!" without more exploration when only a very small number of playable options exist.
Absolutely loved this video, so sensible and well balanced, the academic equivalent of knocking some heads together! I am so looking forward to a video about the great migration period.
I have had some of the most fundamental disagreements of my later years/academic years as an archaeologist on site. Whether a hole is a beam slot or a pit… this is the kind of discussion that takes place on a regular day in the academic profession. Regarding Hancocks love to hate archaeologists, there are many superficial elements which have nothing to do with an academic discussion. I liked your analogy of a sales pitch, it sums this up well. An archaeological perspective is an academic notion poorly portrayed outside of the academic community, the essence of archaeological dissemination. While we can never place our selves in the past, our interactions with it give us great insight. Landscape is my specific passion and it influences my archaeological interpretations more than most. A simple result of this is that archaeological situation and context must reflect the landscape they inhabit. The further back in time we go, the more this is the case. We are not only informed by artefactual and landscape context, we are influenced by it. Archaeology is the study of ‘culture’ and human decision, while science gives us unlimited information on date, function, design and purpose, the ‘heritage’ of an object or place is a result of human decision. Most of the points used against Hancock are interpretations borne through this academic approach, scientific analysis of dna in hominids and fauna and flora all suggest that the mainstream understanding of the civilisation of archaic humans is correct. This is a challenging notion to debate for the most esteemed academic.
When applied to Hancock’s ‘stories’, It can be argued that this approach has been at least considered, but it has failed to coalesce ALL of the available data. And this is where your video sums up perfectly. There are very few experts who have the ability or time to approach all academic questions their work may spring and unfortunately they feel the right to draw assumptions on the perhaps little information they have. In archaeology, this is a problem definitely. It must be stated though, many experts working in specific fields are vastly knowledgeable people in that field. Cross communication works when there is a medium for it to be discussed.
Happy new year to you!
Most of Hancocks criticism of archeology is largely true of the older ones, perhaps back when he started he was faced with alot of close minded skepticism. But he himself is often guilty of the very things he acuses archeologists of; he sticks too much to his own specific theory and uses just the facts that support his theory.
There's nothing against there being a civilization/people who existed pre-end of ice age time. But he is so intent on proving this that fundamentals go out the window.
This is actually a very good point that I did not cover in my video. While Hancock criticizes academia for being unwilling to consider new theories (which is categorically untrue), his own theories and arguments don't really seem to have changed or evolved in the last 30 years. I don't ever recall him giving an example of where new evidence has led to him modifying his theories accordingly.
@@scholagladiatoria Alot of the younger academia is alot more open minded, in my experience. And perhaps he'd have more luck publishing a book today, but as long as he sticks to this counter-culture "me vs them" mindset and filters evidence to suit only what HE is saying, he's going to forever be in the peuesdo category.
by definition, the world as a totality of facts will be smaller than the totality of possible ways the world can be. thats why its a waste of time to explore the "merely possible" when we have concrete facts before us.
@@scholagladiatoria The Sith only deals with absolutes.
@@scholagladiatoria There have been a few things that changed his theories. I highly suggest you try to contact graham and have a conversation with him about these things. I've also written a rather large comment here I hope you could read. ( Hope that's not a problem)
Putting the H in HEMA.
I got one thing to say to you. "Clovis First!" with a degree in anthro and 9 hours from a masters in archeology. We were indoctnated into this. In grad school my advisor recommended that if I ever find anything under the layer where you find clovis cultural layer in the ground. Just leave it be. Careers were destroyed in the attempt to publish this. This is one of the main reasons I left the field. Whether he is right or wrong he has gotten some to start looking and asking uncomfrotable questions in the field. You seem to forget that there is no viscous infighting where only prestige is on the line. One thing you dont talk about is that finds can be interpreted as to what they mean. At least back in the 80s carbon 14 dating can vary widely between labs that do the testing. By the way it was the 80s when I was studying the feild.
Was religious ideology involved? I fear the Noah's Ark story will make any "catastrophic flood" talk toxic to get into for a long time.
@@azchris1979 so you want to discount all myths because you view them as "Toxic". How short sighted of you. PC is wishing reality was not as it is. What happened to brave investigation in scientific thought and research. So ignorance is the sheild of the right thinking. How 1984 of you.
You're probably familiar with Jacques Cinq-Mars work at Bluefish Caves in the Yukon, proposing humans were around thousands of years before Clovis peoples were. The archaeological community shut him down hard. And now we know Clovis First is untrue.
@@johnalanwalker bro...take a puff. Chill. This isnt abt me. I love myths. I am saying there is a general feeling that if u say "flood" people will think of Noah and not take u seriously.
@@azchris1979 no need of a puff. I am just pissed at my undergrad prof assuring that with an MA in Archeology I could make a living. This turned out false when talking to my advisor he told me there would be no way to pay off the loans I took out for my degree and graduate degree. Plus it was an open secret dont dig below clovis level or my career would be destroyed. I am just pissed at my stupid degree and a number of lies told to me by tenured professors. Myths all have some seed of truth. Whether we can discover that truth is one thing. To publish it and survive is another.
The only thing that all archaeologists agree on is that it was probably ritualistic. 😇😇
Sorry to hear you were under the weather Matt, hope your family is doing well. Happy New Year.
Seriously, the idea that all archeologists are somehow in a big Cabbal to keep people out, implies that archeologists can actually agree on a fact without it being categorically explained to them why they're wrong in ten-page essays.
@@Thobeian True. Nobody argues like a bunch of academics.
@@danieltaylor5231 I mean, ttrpg rules lawyers, and legal court lawyers?
@@nevisysbryd7450 Haha, this comment blends two of my favorite things as an archaeologist and ttrp gamer!
And this is so true!
Oh, the irony: we all agree that if we don't know what something is…
It was a ritual item.
Cheers!
I totally agree with the criticism about historians not consulting enough experts. I listen to a lot of history podcasts where I listen to conversations with historians, and not a small number have acknowledged this tendency in the field for historians to write books as a solo operation "squirreling away in the archive." Most of these historians are aiming for more interdisciplinary and cooperative projects to achieve greater understanding of history, and I'm totally for it. As someone with endless interests, it always seemed funny that interdisciplinary projects weren't more the norm.
My only counterpoint here would be Matt's is that the experts talk across disciplines... no, they don't. Maybe in some schools, maybe in some fields, but certainly not everywhere. When I was a young college lad, one of my best friends was a history major, and a fellow dorm mate on his floor was an anthropology major. They used to get into fascinating discussions on our porch with a Greek gentleman who had been an archeologist in his schooling back home. Most of their conversations would distill down pretty quickly to one moment or feature of human achievement then comparing what each discipline ignored that the other was teaching. Eventually, our anthropologist friend switched majors to geology, and has excavated caves locally, is still in the process of unearthing a triceratops in South Dakota, and runs our local natural history museum. He's got a very rare multi disciplinary approach that a ton of his peers don't understand or appreciate, I know this because we're still friends and I still hear, constantly, about his interactions with other people in his sphere.
Now, I agree that Graham has an odd way of expressing that he didn't trust the academic community, but then goes to some professional or another to get his "controversial" data. Most of his sources are indeed credentialed and respected in their field, they just aren't representing the majority view... but the ones with real merit get there. Graham was one of the first guys talking publicly about Gobekli Tepe and its pushing back the date of accepted civilization. At the time he first reported on it, yes, within academia, credentialed and respected teachers called him a pseudo archaeologist... and since then, yeah, lots of other evidence was found, more of Gobekli Tepe was unearthed, and no one refutes the dating anymore. It got accepted by the larger academic sphere that he talks against because EVIDENCE accumulated, the exact process he says doesn't happen. In that, he's just blanketly wrong.
Archaeology particularly among the sciences has the advantage that there is a large base of evidence already dug up for professional and amateur alike to work with, so amateur work has on occasion produced novel theories that brought in academic interest and later support. If you propose amateur theories, assuming you meet the threshold of actually making a serious effort, most archaeologists will just say 'I'm not persuaded, but keep going and see if you find anything more solid'. And when on occasion people have found something solid, like the famous examples of the polyhedrons that were for crocheting or the 'what did Romans mean by 'sewing' hair' that turned out to be literally sewing hair, when amateur archaeologists with other professional skills demonstrated good evidence like using the polyhedrons to crochet or making well-known Roman hairstyles by literally sewing, the Archaeologists didn't fight them, they took it as an opportunity to re-assess other unsolved problems.
Graham does talk about this.
In the Russell Brand interview, for example, he addresses your final point exactly, lol.
He mentions how stubborn and rigid some academics are even when new evidence surfaces and most academics change to support him.
Those in power and in the status quo in all institutions are always stubborn rigid morons in their field. Just look at medicine and how many doctors are embarrassing themselves going against "drugs" even though they have no solution that even comes close to curing addiction or PTSD so rapidly. Just look at the insane COVID nonsense that we had to live through for years before the truth came to light (evidence proving people wrong or admission of never even doing the research needed for their claim). Hell in the USA Fauci alone was schizophrenic on whether or not masks were useful when every other country in the world already knew they worked, especially asian countries where they were normalized for everyday use especially during flareups and flu seasons.
"Experts" in power are often not even Experts. And those in power are always corrupt, power hungry, stubborn, out dated and thus incompetent, or just plain incompetent period.
It isnt a surprise someone like him would have no respect for archaelogists when so many of those representing the field publicly in positions of authority are so bad at science.
@@UnreasonableOpinions Good archaeogists, like good scientists in any field, supported amateur theory and encouraged new research.
Bad archeologists, like bad "scientists" in any field, attack new theories, mock and insult, belittle, and go as far as attempting to discredit and defund new research.
It's even worse in fields with big money, like pharmaceuticals or energy.
But we know human nature and we know Graham's stance is likely more accurate simply for the fact the majority of people in any field, at any level in said field, are pretty damn incompetent. Mechanic or Doctor, Archeologist or Game Developer. Most successful people are no brighter than you or I, but just have more education but are a much dimmer bulb when using said education.
This is why "savants" or "inventors" or "prodigies" / "rising stars" in a field are so common. When young people are competent, even without the experience and knowledge they are already leaps and bounds above 90% in their field (including 90% of those in top positions). That's bc there's a very low chance you get a talented person in any context.
They start with a deficit of less than 50 years of experience being only in their 20-30's but quickly rise bc those high position "experts" are just experienced, not competent. Quickly those young people make a name for themselves bc they gain experience and retain competence. That's usually when breakthroughs occur.
I mean just look at Scholagladiatoria. Among him are a handful of popular youtubers, and even more popular ones who know so much less and are so cringe in many ways (Shadiversity, who I love but is a Homer Simpson compared to Matt Easton on history and HEMA.)
But for every Matt, there are 99 other instructors/historians/youtubers who dont even have a channel bc no one would listen to their low quality videos. But even if we did, it's a very low chance they can hold a candle to Matt.
But even the surgeon doing your surgery or the mechanic working on your car is a roll of the dice. 1d100 and you could get The Butcher (10% best) but most likely the average who can do it successfully bc the >1% best and society made sure to catalogue repeatable, trainable methods that even a bad surgeon cant mess up easily.
Graham is criticizing the catalogue of knowledge (status quo beliefs) called archeologists, not the actual people that are archeologists. Which means he is both attacking ALL archeologists AND none.
TLDR: most people are incompetent in their field and Graham is right to attack them as a group as much as he wants bc like all humans in their field, theyre arrogant, pretentious, stubborn, corrupt, and only competent thanks to the collective knowledge of actual competent people (essentially theyre just incompetent but educated)
@@nowayjosedaniel Oh dear.... the fact that you cite surgeons and mechanics only underscores you don't know how actual research and academic self-control works.
No, "Graham" is not criticing "the catalogue of knowledge", he's criticising the very foundation of academic generation of knowledge because it doesn't produce the results he'd like it to. He also refuses to comply with the pertinent standards and procedures to have the validity of his conclusions assessed by others in the field.
And your belief in "savants" being common just underscores you don't know how much of a team effort research is.
@@ohauss Well, you just proved him right. So good job, I guess.
The archeologists he refers to are the more elderly and highly in charge ones like Zahi Hawass who he’s been dealing with for decades and not the younger and less in charge ones. Because I’ve heard him say that he’s met young archeologists who are inspired by his work however they have to keep it secret for now and go along with the mainstream or they could lose their career.
Exactly
Yes, one should understand the context and actual meaning.
Seems to me this fast babbling former archeology student is just grifting on TH-cam.
As if people can't think for themselves without his either or misrepresentations.
You don't just lose your career. This is a common myth spread by folks like Graham in order to erode the trust of "mainstream" institutions.
Unless things have changed drastically in the 4 years since I retired from academics (anthropology) even the young less in charge archaeologists think that Hancock is full of shit. Moving back the timeline on when humans settled particular areas or when we see first evidence of the emergence of civilization is a way to advance ones career. Archaeologists were doing work like that, for example, pre-Clovis research and work at Jericho long before Hancock came along and claimed that doing work like that would be career ending.
In support of your summing up, I think channels like this and others like Tod's are great. You both welcome comments which in turn prompts more thought and challenges to that which is understood. These comments sections promote discussions on subjects from people that would never normally meet, but it provides a forum for experts and amateurs to improve the knowledge pool.
Thank you for the content.
(An enthusiastic amateur)
I love this, couldn't agree more. I hadn't even heard the guy's name, but I think he provided a wonderful vehicle for you to discuss scientific and scholarly rigor, and how people that *should* care about truth can and should strive towards it.
Don't worry about being 'off topic', I think this is perfectly inkeeping with the ethos of the channel and very few subscribers would be turned off by a discussion of topics like these.
Look into grahamhancock
Please respond to the points in the video
You are spot on about the need for better communication between archaeology and history. As a graduate student, I was dumbfounded to learn that schism exists. It seems so obvious that of course they should be informing each other! I give credit to my advisor, David Bachrach, for bucking this trend; he built a section of an earthen fortification in his back yard before he wrote about it so he could speak from experience. There are some historians that do fully appreciate the importance of the interdisciplinary approach. The greatest sin of historians, however, is over-reliance on historiography and unquestioning convention. The foundations of almost all of what we believe we know about the Middle Ages were laid by the Victorians and each subsequent generation has inherited their "wisdom" unquestioningly, despite all of us also collectively knowing how dead fucking wrong they were most of the time! We need more historians who are willing to reassess even some of the most basic evidence and upset these old paradigms. Hancock is right about one thing - no question should be off-limits to historians and archaeologists. But if you present an answer, you damn well better have the evidence for it. He does not.
He doesn't present many answers but poses many questions.
Hancock presents no evidence for his claims. He fails to get published in any peer reviewed journal of history or archeology. He imagines himself to fight against some establishment while he only fails to provide evidence.
I don't disagree with your overall point about archaeologists, but you certainly chose odd analogies to support it. Almost everyone who uses bows, cars, or rifles learned - quite successfully - from parents, uncles, etc. rather than "experts" in the sense Hancock means.
Very interesting take on the subject and i agree with everything you said, trained experts are more and more being throw out to the sides and ignored while people keep on going based on guessing, common knowledge and their own private biased opinions about a subject. I'm a Sociologist by training and focused on Political Science, it is outrageous the ammount of people i see on daily basis spitting utterly nonsense out there as if it is absolute truths, and if you try and correct them, you are in for a long painfull session of ad hominem fallacy. As you said, the big Ego fights are not only around historians and archologists, it's everywhere.
It's especially annoying these days, when we see this artificially created Americanized ' left versus right' division creeping into every corner of society. Suddenly academia and the scientific community in general has become 'the enemy' . Kids that started out believing in Covid conspiracies are following social media pundits that also promote people like Hancock, and often even Holocaust deniers. . Many academics are not used to interact with people outside their field of expertise , and don't really know how to deal with the rise of Dunning-Kruger infused social media grifters .
I've always had questions/concerns about Graham Hancock's conclusions but have never taken the time to look myself. So seeing Matt post about it - I've never clicked on something so fast
Theories where he says "I could very likely be be wrong. I just want people to think outside the rigid box of academia." are not really conclusions. They're just guesses. Same guesses everyone else has.
@El Bearsidente simply not true at all. Problem is he can say that but doesn't actually investigate why archaeology reaches its conclusions. Easy for him to say "idk it could be this" without any backing and then say "oh archaeology is too rigid" like yeah it's because we rely on methodology and science not just pure guessing.
@@nowayjosedaniel guesses archaeology make are conclusions based off of a lot of work. Not just blind fantasies. There's a big difference
@@NMahon Ehh, honestly a lot of archaeology really is just based on whatever trend is popular at the time. Like how when the feminist movement kicked off you suddenly saw a lot of archaeologists claiming to find "earth goddesses" and "matriarchal" cultures all over the place, to the point of actually faking feminine artifacts (like pretty much everything Minoan) to get more interest in their dig sites. It can effect how artifacts get interpreted or what sort of research gets funding, or where excavations occur.
Archaeology is ultimately about making money, same as every field in science. Maybe not for the individual archaeologists (though many of them did become quite wealthy due to laws giving them ownership over artifacts), but the people actually funding the research definitely want something that will boost their national prestige, gain them a knighthood, or increase their museum's visitor count. That all means money or status, and usually both. Archaeology follows popular cultural trends pretty closely. A certain King Tut fellow gets global attention, suddenly everyone is funding digs in Egypt.
@@NMahon I have never heard or seen of an archeology site 120 meters underwater.
That is the problem.
I can relate to what Matt is saying here because I have had the same experience myself - reading a book by a "Famous History Author" who makes statements that I know for a fact are false. (because I have studied the subject for decades and he just decided to write a book about it one day).
Anthropology, Egyptologists and archaeology are fields that are fundamentally dishonest and nefarious. They are hiding truths from the public. They straight up make up stories that are lies and sell them as truth to the public.
Don't believe? As a rational human being go and look up the evidence used to ascertain the age and the builder of anyone of the great pyramids. Yep, they made it all up being the only rational realisation.
Still not convinced? The equivalent to say the tale of Khufu and the Pyramid of Giza is to walk past the Louvre, find a coke can with the name harry on it and proceed to announce that Harry was the painter behind the mona lisa. No im not being facetious, im being as scientific as so called Egyptologists are.
How do you know what the author says is false?
The difference here is that Hancock has been traveling the world doing research for over three decades and writes books about it.....he didn't just "decide to write a book one day"
@@TheWingnut58 besides, appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Ideas stand on their own merits through presented evidence.
@@TheBelrick isn't it also ironic how the so-called "experts" immediately resorted to schoolyard name calling rather than offering proof that Graham Hancock is positively incorrect......and yet, not even a civil debate with compelling evidence has been offered.
1. I got my Windlass 1796 Light Cavalry Sabre just yesterday and I freaking LOVE it- I ordered it after your recent video! Thanks for the recommendation!
2. Some additional thoughts and critiques about experts and the "mainstream" science/knowledge (playing devil's advocate):
The obvious catch-22 with experts is that they cross a threshold in which they can use their expertise alone to make assertions- they don't have to show their work anymore. If, for example, Toby Capwell were to say authoritatively that English arrows at Agincourt could pierce French plate with lethal effect and any of these backyard scientists and yahoos who think otherwise are wrong- that expert opinion would not only hold weight but it would concur with "mainstream" knowledge (to clarify- Toby is awesome and I know he hasn't said anything unnuanced or authoritative based on speculation like that- I am just making an example). The fact is that nobody can tell the difference between an expert who is just wielding an opinion behind a long list of credentials from one that is making informed statements based on knowledge and evidence- UNLESS they show their work (which means we aren't just relying on the expert at that point, but the expert alongside supporting evidence). That being said, a good expert WILL show their work and will usually be more nuanced and careful in what they state authoritatively, but just as many do not do this. In fact, in my experience (in my own little slice of the world that I could claim expertise in), the individuals who speak most authoritatively and the loudest make the most blunders/errors. Experts, after all, are just fellow human beings (with emotions, bias, and egos). So while I would never want to argue that we need LESS experts, I think the answer is that we need to rely more on GOOD experts- and therein lies the problem because how the hell do you separate the good from the bad? Maybe I am being pedantic, but I don't want to rely more on experts but rather on primary sources, supporting evidence, facts, and critical thinking- but I want experts who spend their time and passion curating these things in that given field to help us make sense of it, and shape it into a cohesive idea/theory/etc. which can be consumed and passed on as knowledge.
In a similar vein regarding "monolithic" thought, I do agree that it is foolish and painting with too broad a brush to say archaeology is the enemy or that they are a "monolith". However, I do understand the type of issue he is talking about- let me explain. Our universities and academic institutions function in a way which naturally rewards and encourages what you might call "brick in the wall" contributions. In other words, if you are a fledgling undergrad in a new field, you quickly learn from your "betters" what part of the jigsaw puzzle is already on the table and which pieces are missing. As far as the places experts disagree openly, it is typically in those places where a jigsaw piece is missing (some think it should look like this, others think it should look like that, etc.), and the next generation in that field is trained to go forth and fill in more of the puzzle (i.e. "another brick in the wall"). To be clear, this is not a bad thing, and we need people to do this because we want to keep building on these foundations. However, if you dare to come along and point out that the bricks at the base might be wrong, or if you dare to propose that maybe this missing jigsaw piece is not what they thought it was and they might have that whole quadrant wrong, you will meet with significant resistance. To be clear, I am not just referring to the significant resistance of existing evidence and arguments one must overcome to challenge a foundation or "well establish brick" (that is to be expected and even encouraged)- I am talking about self-interested, institutional resistance that protects reputations and egos. As much as we like to think that facts and evidence will reign supreme, those who laid the brick wall before you have an incentive to keep that in place for their own reasons (reputation, funding/grants, etc.) and they are in the authoritative position to act as a gatekeeper if they so choose. You might think that this would be avoided by a good old fashioned "science" fight- with open and transparent exchange of facts in scientific publications where the best evidence will come out on top, but we are dealing with human beings and that isn't what will happen. If you color inside the lines and stay withe status quo, then all will be well but if you have anything revolutionary or upsetting to this then it becomes difficult to get this accepted by traditional academic means (just ask the guy who first proposed germ theory to medical science). This, I believe, is what Graham is referring to with the "monolithic" thinking- the stubborn denial to consider anything that doesn't put another "brick in the wall" as they understand it. Now we can argue that Graham is getting this pushback strictly on the grounds of evidence, and what he perceives as close-mindedness is careful weighing of evidence and dismissal of his theories, but what is undeniably true of our current academic environment is that this pushback also comes just as much from self-interest and ego- and the two are indistinguishable to the layman and most of society who won't bother to go peek behind the curtain on each side and see who is showing their work and making the better argument.
I do love your quote though about running towards knowledge rather than ignorance- I completely agree. I hope we as humans have the wisdom to distinguish which one we are doing, because the worst we can do is run towards ignorance whilst enthusiastically proclaiming we are running towards knowledge (all the while, reinforcing our decision and making us run even faster in that direction). Perhaps more inter-disciplinary communication (as you said) would help us be more self-aware of this and act as a check-and-balance (unique perspectives and all that).
thanks for the words you have provided so eloquently in your comment. I'm just going to add my perception here as well....because it's scary out there...... I believe Graham has always intended to get the discussion and the dif disciplines to theorize and question and work together cohesively rather than sit down in their facts independent of each other which are also really theories in many ways/cases.
Interesting. More paragraphs next time please :)
What you describe here is also my experience within the university system, in particular the history departments. Matt briefly mentioned that politics, among other things, may influence theories within history disciplines. My latest experience is that politics and personal ideology is predominantly what influences thought in this area within the university system (with a few exceptions). Even to the point of ignoring key evidence. This wasn't the case about 15 years ago, but is certainly the case now (in my personal experience). It has been quite upsetting to see the discipline go down this path.
I have personally observed instances of academics punishing thinking that moves away from particular narratives despite the evidence. So, I can understand Graham Hancock's skepticism and even suspicion of various departments at some of the universities.
On another note, I would be very interested to hear Matt's objections to Hancock's arguments and to see where he may have gone wrong in his thinking/evidence.
hell yeah bro
The British Medical Journal published a great piece last year about a similar topic, "The Illusion of Evidence Based Medicine", discussing the corrupting motivations in the sciences and the fundamental conflicts that differing philosophies of science can lead to.
It's worrying to think that science has become insular and beyond the critique of the common man, because it also seems that institutions are inherently systemically corruptible. Without oversight and transparency it seems inevitable that more bad will be done than good eventually.
In archeology when I was in school we once looked at 6 different interpretations for a particular site made as technology advanced and the areas of disagreement and agreement were fascinating. Particularly the areas of agreement, some facts were just physical facts that decades of changes in archeology didn't shift at all. Everyone who dug there concluded some of the exact same things.
Would love to hear more content like this, but less about Hancock and more about the experts who are doing the work that isn't being recognized
Stephen Milo! Pete Kelly! Ancient Sites Girl! World of Antiquity! they are out there
Fingerprints of the Gods Hancock literally says all the evidence points away from a fact but says but what if. And then theorizes a bunch of random stuff with no evidence. Then wonders why archeologists hate him.
@@AlexG-xl1cc Scientists should never hate anyone just for hypothesizing "what if..." That's anti-science by nature to be so dogmatic and closed minded and arrogantly self-assured.
Tell us about Hancock*s theories. Expose or endorse him.
Time Team youtube catalogue is huuuuge
Very much agree that experts need to consult with other experts more.
One example of this going well is Daniel Riday's collaboration with archeologist Dr. Aaron Deter-Wolf. Riday is a tattoo artist specializing in hand-poke tattoos using methods from prehistoric Europe. He collaborates with Deter-Wolf and helps archeologists better understand prehistoric tattooing techniques.
I heard about this on episode 135 of the podcast "A Life in Ruins" They interview Daniel Riday and it's fascinating.
This was great. Many thanks. One of the things I've picked up from watching archaeology channels (mostly @UnchartedX) is the need for great minds from different fields to collaborate. For example, the massive granite boxes in/under various Egyptian pyramids cannot be appreciated without an engineer's and stone mason's perspectives. Those perspectives reveal the effort and advanced knowledge required to make these boxes, which in turn makes you challenge the traditional views about these boxes' function.
Hancock is basically uncritical in his selection of "mysteries." One laugh I had was discovering is account of "Tertiary man" in California, where he mentions the Tuolumne Tunnel, a drift mine run back into Tertiary river gravels under a dacite cap that is the remains of a lava flow that ran down a river channel, capping the gravel. The gravel is loaded with alluvial gold and attracted any Gold Rush miners, but it takes money and skills to drift in under a massive lava cap to exploit essentially unconsolidated gravels. Back in the "days of gold" a company sought to do this, hiring an engineer to design and maintain the tunnel. What Hancock fails to mention is that the engineer was an avid believer in "Tertiary man." After one blasting session he walked into the drift to examine the results and "found" large bifacial spear or dart tips. In great excitement he reported his discovery. There is a lot here that goes begging in the historical record.
But, as an archaeologist, I was hired to do some survey work around the base of Table Mountain, under which the drift above was run (it really isn't a tunnel properly, but the difference is mainly important to mining engineers and geologists). In conducting that work the company I worked for found numerous prehistoric sites around the base of "table" structure located to take advantage of seasonal springs that rise at the intersection between the dacite cap and the gravels. Rain water percolates downward through crevices, cracks, and even crevasses in the dacite cap. The gravels are saturated and water runs out from them.
The "gotcha" is that the spear points that our intrepid engineer discovered are identical to artifacts in use around 2,000 years ago. And they are abundant around the mountain. The engineer insisted he was the first to enter the tunnel, which means little. For instance, he could demand that in order to enter the tunnel and walk out with "Tertiary" artifacts he found around the mountain. Or, miners often being jokers, and also being aware of the intense interest the engineer had in "Tertiary man," ignored orders, entered the tunnel and salted it with artifacts they found around the mountain. OR, the artifacts might have followed rainwater down cracks and crevices to lodge where they were found. I prefer the "joke" view, but given there are numerous alternate ways that genuine prehistoric artifacts might have "arrived" where they were "found," there is no certain explanation. Hancock ignored all of this in his book on "forbidden" archaeology.
When taking my degree it was repeatedly made clear that archaeology is an interdisciplinary practice. It has unique views, but they must be informed with information from various other discipline including soils science, geology, fracture mechanics, ecology, ...
When I was writing my papers on the hundred years wars at my university, I've included my own experiences with arms and armour as I was a reenactor for years at that time, as well Ive included some of yours and Lyndies videos as reference on plates for example. My own prof scored it low, as it is garbage since it didn't come from the library.
Another prof who commented on the papers, approved it on the other hand, as it was mostly my own, first hand experience.
Similar experience on my MSc. You show evidence of points you've set out to prove, but when most of the Dr's and Prof's are involved and receive funding from the international bodies you dismantle, the proof becomes a low pass complexity.
Gabor Next time use published material from experimental archeologists. I used myself these about the Roman legion.
I don't normally comment on things I have no real expertise in, but I feel I should say I think you miss Hancock's point. It's not that he doesn't acknowledge the expertise of archeologists in excavating a particular site, it's that he disagrees with their subsequent stubborn interpretation of what they have found. As a non expert but a reasonably sentient being, I can see there is a potential problem with the assertion that groups of hunter gatherers suddenly stopped hunter-gathering, and formed a large group which constructed massive stone sites for no disernable reason.I also find it a little difficult to believe that-to take some rather random dates-it took 62,000 years for Homo Sapiens to develop some form of agriculture, which is what most historians and most archeologists seem to be saying. As Hancock says, he is not talking about some sort of super-civilisation which created mobile phones, flew to the moon and was able to do what we do to day, but did appear to have more knowledge of mathematics and astronomy than they 'should' have had. I enjoyed the video, and will be watching more of what you have produced so I'm not having a pop at you, but I can't help thinking you rather prove his point-most experts in their respective fields tend to have firm ideas, and simply refuse to entertain any alternative interpretations.
Way back in 1998 or 1999 one of my thesis papers was on the DNA and cranial studies that proved that Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens interbred. My professor was one of the people that wrote the original book on the topic.
I completely agree with your conclusion; 'interdisciplinary' collaboration is vital for contextualising findings and observations, and its success relies on the expertise of the participants.
I am a fan of Grahame and have for many years and I appreciate your insight! At the risk of picking a corner I think Grahame had had some very unpleasant interactions from mainstream Archeologists attacking him rather than his work. I don’t think the situation is as difficult as it used to be for alternative points of view. I know he has has a program he made edited it to make him look foolish took them to court and they had to show it in its original state and his ted talk was never shown which all goes to give the impression his voice has been quieted
This.
He was publicly humiliated in Egypt before there was any beef on his side. They ostracized him and ridiculed him, "where is evidence from 10,000 years ago? It is impossible?" Where were the apologies after Gobekli Tepe was discovered by better archeologists? If Graham is such a jerk, why does he get along swimmingly with the Germans excavating that site?"
@@azchris1979 are thsoe Germans working at the site not archaeologists?
@@darthchingaso3613 Yes. I thought that was clear. He gets along with the German archeologist, so it might not be him that is the problem.
@@azchris1979 so it's not archaeologists as a whole that are the problem...
@@azchris1979 If he does get along with some archeologists why does he then present them as one monolithic enemy? The answer is it pays his bills to play the underdog while he constantly uses archeological studied when it suits him.
i could be wrong but i never got the sense that Graham treats "archaeologists" as the enemy, but rather Egyptologists in particular - especially Zahi Hawass and his goons, and others who treat archaeology like Zawass, like they are the ultimate authority as if they were there themselves at the time, and nothing can be proposed outside of them
Your diatribe on the need for archaeologists to work more with experts reminded me of something I've read from an association of massons specialized in the restauration of dry stone walls.
They helped French archaeologists near Montpellier, France, who worked on what they were told were chalcolithic pastoral enclosures.
The massons took one look to the stone works and said: "Wait, you really think those 3 meters thick stone walls next to a cliff were used as a sheep pen? This is a fort!"
Apparently, they're still at odds to this day, because the general consensus in archaeology is that you're not supposed to find military architecture that old in the area.
The site is L’éperon barré du Rocher du Causse, Claret, Hérault (6th to 5th C. BC.)
It makes sense though. There were impressive stone builders both in northern Scotland and in Sardinia way back in the bronze age and before. It would make sense others close to these different cultures would make similar structures just more rarely and less impressively.
@@megathicc6367 It is not a matter of disputing the competence of those ancient builders. Unlike the archaeologists, the massons are rural people from the area. They know you just don't build a sheep pen right next to a cliff, because you always run the risk of pushing your flock to their death. Civilizations evolve, but sheep still have the same instinct!
The problem, as I see it - as someone who has studied STEM field sciences (a range as I have pursued Environmental Sciences which combines a range of physics, chemistry, biology etc to different - albiet lower - levels than the pure studies) is the level of absolute CERTAINTY within the arts when it comes to foundational knowledge.
Much of which is treated as a LAW of the field of study, when it is not. It is often simply a widely agreed upon interpretation - one which limits the field from exploration of other theories and hypothesis which may also be correct.
Much of this is from the application of post-modern philosophies and theories (critical theory being one case in point) which often become myopic and regressive when applied through journals and academic culture.
And example in my own field is the catastrophism in Climate Change science.
How much study do you think is applied to in-depth investigation and modelling of positive impacts of global warming - or for the cost analysis of those benefits?
Near zero is how much. Quite simply, the senior academics and the institutional powers do not WANT to know.
Grahams most hated enemy is definitely the egyptologist.
I wouldn't say that Graham ever paints every archaeologist as the enemy but rather the mainstream archaeologists who have been mocking him for over two decades in the media. This is where the problem starts because when someone is writing an article about Graham they're not going to quote, "Yeah i'm open to the idea if more evidence is found," they're going to quote the professors who says, "Graham is a total crackpot and this is all nonsense and he should be banned from every archaeology site in the world."
It's not that controversial to say that higher ups in any profession can get set in their ways which is why Graham often talks about progress only being made when the older generation of experts die off. A lot of people are considered experts (or at least presented as such by the media) for only regurgitating established facts after all which is stagnation. TIKHistory has a lot of videos criticising widely accepted WW2 history talking about how a fair bit of it is based on incorrect foundations from biased memoirs/historians/political theorists decades ago.
The sole thing that most does my head in about Graham Hancock is when he starts talking about spiritual nonsense and drugs but I do enjoy his content, it's fun to think about.
Today's "Egyptologists" are so full of 💩 and lies. Their bias and agenda is not even hidden. So I would be on Hancock's side in this respect.
The original dynastic kingdom Egyptians, we have the bodies, we have the DNA now, were white Europeans. Yet we have an entire foreign race and people presiding over this history and warping it into their own history....kind of infuriating.
It's utter bollocks.
@@skepticalbadger What is?
Good stuff Matt. I would be really interested in more archaeology and history especially around the migration era, Byzantium and the Eastern Roman Empire.
The Avar-Sassanid siege of Constantinople for example.
The SLAVS please PLEASE the slavs
I studied military history for my first degree and I have to say that I agree with your assessment that while archaeology as a discipline is active in experiential learning, history as a discipline is less so and it's been like that for ages-- Sir Charles Oman's landmark works on the British Army during the Napoleonic Wars contain glaring oversights that are readily apparent to anyone that has ever fired an infantry musket, for instance, and those were published a century ago. Several of my professors very strongly encouraged their students to seek out other academic disciplines and also subject matter experts outside of academia to better understand what they would be working on rather than simply working exclusively out of a library so I do think that this is something that is gradually starting to shift.
I really love Omans work, I do think he could lay off Napier a bit tho, Napiers work although obviously biased in some aspects is also a great work admittedly flawed in a number of areas.
This was interesting. More that kind of content, please.
One historian comes to mind: Victor Hanson. He wrote about Ancient Greek warfare based on classical text but with his own interpretation. For example, the "pushing and shoving" war of Greek Hoplite, which made such battles "short, bloody, and decisive". Experimental archaelogist have found that the front ranks in such phalanxes could not have survived the push of their comrades from behind, even without the chaos and confusion of such confrontations!
Re: your point at 9:30, I did my masters project on historiography of the Ottoman Empire in the West, and your description of historians is sadly still commonplace, especially when there is a language barrier. It's gotten better now but it was very common for entire books to be written about Middle Eastern history with no historians from the region contributing.
Unfortunately it is only recently that people from that region started to care about their history
@@stiannobelisto573 That isn't true at all. They have been writing their own history for as long as they have existed, but we don't see it in the West because our scholars haven't cared to translate and study their work. For a long time, basically until the 1990s, most successful Western historians were content to theorize on primary sources while having little to no knowledge of what they were studying.
There's been tremendous progress in connecting the work of Middle Eastern scholars with the West on both sides, but there's a lot of work to do.
I love a general archaeology vid- you're a great communicator.
I would love to see more content outside of arms and armour. It would be cool to see you thoughts on Guedolon castle or when you work with others on big projects for example.
One of the greatest videos of the last years! Thank you very much my good sir!
Couldn't agree more, Matt! Great video, and I hope you've got over whatever bug had you in its clutches over Christmas.
I read Hancock's books in then 90's, took part in his boards in the noughties. I did have a friend who studied arecheology at Oxford in the 80's but left because it was everything Graham sort of says. The books certainly are good fun, and I've also read many others in the same vein by other authors.
I think the Hancock/Archaeology loggerhead situation comes from decades of interaction though. It may have gone on for too long for that to change.
Nice vid!
I'm confused by the attitude of mainstream archaeologists toward Hancock. Why is it that what he's proposing is so abhorrent to them, to the point where they try and remove his Netflix documentary and label him a fringe pseudo scientist, but they give a free pass to people who theorise that it was extra terrestrial Aliens who came down to us in their space ships with their amazing advanced technology, and built these amazing structures. No one freaks out about that and they even get their own prime time TV show called ancient alien's, which has never been challenged by mainstream archaeology. That double standard is just weird to me and hoists up a huge red flag
I've read his book "fingerprints of the Gods" and found it interesting and he do have good points. But the main issue I have with him is that he makes claims from what you would call patterns. Just because something looks a certain way does not mean it is what the brain might interpret to be. Just because you can draw a line between point a to point b does not mean it has a connection. But rather your mind trying to find some sort of intention and importance in the pattern. He does this all the time.
The real problem isn't spotting the patterns, is that he starts with an idea of the pattern (which you get by "squinting" at the data, which means, you know little and some of the points you know look like they form a line) and then disregards everything else. Flood myths in the Mediterranean, Mesoamerica and Indonesia? There must have been a common worldwide flood (nevermind that many other mythologies do not contain any flood myths, they're just distracting details). The Piri Reis map shows the ancient coastline of the Bahamas as they were 20,000 years ago because there's a vertical shape that cannot be Cuba? Graham, just look at some more 1500-1600 mapd and you'll see that Cuba is time and time again shown vertical, insteaf of horizontal, but Graham doesn't know that, because he doesn't really care to look.
He is the epitome of the knowledgeable fool. He knows a lot of stuff, but he doesn't know any of the fields he's researching deeply. He isn't a scholar of comparative mythology (a field with, in itself, isn't as appreciated as it once was, and in my opinion, rightfully so), but he will categorically affirm that there are unmistakeable common trends among all myths, and interpret some elements literally (visitor gods, civilization heroes who teach agriculture, celestial wars and floods and fires) but not others (was Osiris really a king of Egypt whose brother killed and cut to pieces etc etc?) with no real valid reason or method behind his choices. He thinks it's not reasonable to suggest that pyramids were invented independentently in different continents, but why wouldn't they be, if they're the simplest way to build tall?
His leaps of logic and contrived contradictions are glaring cases of confirmation bias.
@@Ennio444 good add on 👍
I learned at a young age that humans love finding patterns in everything. I would've gone insane by now if I delved into every single coincidence I observed.
You have correctly identified why Graham Hancock is not the inspired genius and 'disruptor' of archaeology he claims to be. What he cannot prove, he simply claims to be true based on a hunch - and he doesn't return to build the supporting evidence required to turn them into valid theories. You, on the other hand, do what he refuses to do - you challenge you own hypotheses and consider whether they hold up to scrutiny or not. I would trust you to examine evidence and make hypotheses concerning history long before him.
@@Ennio444 I love how he saw some carvings in different cultures of people holding bags, and immediately jumped to the conclusion that those cultures were in contact with each other and that's the only possible explanation of how they all used bags. Like, bags are such a unique and difficult thing to create that there's absolutely no way people could think "hey, I need to carry stuff a lot and it's a pain that my hands are so small but if there was somehow a larger container with handles to hold that would be awesome." Honestly, bags are the simplest thing in the world to invent so why wouldn't they be found all over the planet in various different cultures.
You did point out the main problem indeed. Which I think it is the traditional historical and archeological methods are outdated in our age and they have and must use broader research tools or techniques or particular experts lich constructors, stone masons, linguists and so on. When they came in the picture, Graham Hancock's theories look in a lot different way.
I never understood the drama, most likely there were civilisations that were forgotten. Göbekli Tepe is just the tip. But barely anything remains. First time I saw this guy in Rogan I immediately knew what he was all about. Tons of guys like this in the 60s did money with this.
I am a little surprised. As an archaeologist I regularly work with Historians, geologists, osteologists, geomorphologists, hydrologists, ecologists, GIS specialists, conservators, architects, engineers, iilustrators, IT specialists ...
Depends on the subject area.
I think the part you mentioned about bias due to education (or rather the conviction of one's teachers) is what Graham objects to, where many archeologists who make decisions practically, act as gatekeepers. As they already have the answers, they don't see any reason to look for evidence which according to their biases "can't exist". As archeology is very limited on resources. there's also going to be a lot of gate keeping, as nobody wants to lose their support for whatever thing they want to focus on.
It felt to me like he was just tapping into the BS around skepticism of "experts" peddled by alt-right types on the internet especially around Brexit.
yes, i am biased against lies, pseudoscience, and metamethodologically flaw research methods.
The gatekeepers tend to show themselves when questioned.
@@beepboop204 Please dont be dishonest.
The problem with that idea is that you make your name and money partly by overturning old ideas. They are constantly looking for things that "cant exist" because those are the biggest discoveries.
6:00 yes.. 1: Historians look at what is written about the topic before them and copy/paste - check 2: Nope too much work 3: Same as 2 6:32 "U shoudnt realy on experts" was used in regard to historions and archeologists, not about your example experts in fields of practical use of some skill
Thank you. I really quite appreciate your insights on this.
I would like to add that there are certain archaeologists and historians on various sites and chat rooms (particularly with pseudonyms) who are extremely rude and nasty and cruel to anyone wanting to talk about a topic or indeed seek advice. And there are certain sites and chat rooms with a history section I don't want to ask or consult them on because of the way they speak to people for doing so.I don't think an archaeologist is an expert on every profession people did in the past but there are those online in communities that believe they are and it disturbs me the person on the other side speaking to me like a 12year old playing call duty has a degree. I can imagine this elitism certainly fuels people like Graham Hancock into an us vs them concept. I think I will just stick to books for sources since books can't be rude to me :(
No, that's not an excuse for Hancock conducting incompetent research, and defrauding publishers and the public into believing them to be reasonable and proven.
@@MinesAGuinness nobody says it was but it makes it easier for him.
There may be rude experts in every field, but usually I think rudeness is a sign of a fake expert or someone who has so little knowledge, that he/she fears to show it. Knowledgeable and confident people don't need to make a fuss about questions.
@@MinesAGuinness Publishers only care about sales mate.
Honesty and morality is very much a secondary point for them as long as the author doesn't go saying something really stupid and then linking the publisher to support for said stupid thing.
@@mikaluostarinen4858 Yeah rude people in chatrooms using pseudonyms are probably not the real experts out there writing papers etc.
For anyone looking for more thoughts on Hancock, I really like the channel Ancient Architects: www.youtube.com/@AncientArchitects - the reality is that Hancock will make a statement definitively, while ignoring some blatant contradictions that other people have to come along and point out later, and often these are really damning contradictions. For example, Gobekli Tepe might have some patterns that indicate it was built over the course of thousands of years, but there's evidence contradicting that, for example the builders used the same art style consistently for that thousand years. There's no other societies that do that, not ancient Egypt or Greece or China or anywhere. In reality, even traditional, conservative, authoritarian societies see changes in art over the course of 100-500 years, so really we'd see 2, 3, 4, or more distinct art styles over 1,000 years. To the point that most historians can simply look at a piece of Egyptian art and tell precisely when it came from. So it's extremely unlikely that Gobekli Tepe's builders was one of the only societies in all of human history which used the same art style consistently for one thousand years. Also, there's very little chance Gobekli Tepe was built to worship a star that was barely visible on the horizon - oh yeah, Hancock just glossed over that fact, his thesis that the builders of Gobekli Tepe worshiped a star is so unlikely given that at the time period they could barely see the star, yet Hancock falsely claims it was their brightest star in the sky. It simply wasn't.
Which star is that? I have not watched any of his material, although I know that some ancient monuments were almost certainly aligned to a star that was apparently deemed significant.
pseudo science. its pseudoscience.
Ancient Architects is a good example of someone who's tried to listen to experts and improve what he's put out. Some of his older videos strayed into Graham Hancock territory because he wasn't selective enough about his sources. He got criticised for this, and instead of just ignoring the criticism or doubling down on the nonsense like a lot of similar creators have done, he actually engaged with critics, did more reading and improved the accuracy of his content.
@@chrisball3778 Yeah ngl I'm hugely impressed by the turnaround in Ancient Architects.
His speaking style/accent is very odd to me as a fellow Brit but he is both earnest, keen to learn and pretty sharp about the research and collaborating with others who have material he does not.
I had sort of strayed away from him for a while until I noticed some of his newer output and I'm glad he's still going.
@@nevisysbryd7450 Hancock suggests that Gobekli Tepe was built to worship Sirius, the Dog Star. Ancient Architects has a video on it here: th-cam.com/video/XsWcq19bEo4/w-d-xo.html - the problem is that 10,000+ years ago the star didn't appear very high in the horizon (unlike today where it's the brightest star). So it's either profoundly amazing evidence of people worshiping a seemingly trivial star that's not particularly notable, or they were not worshiping this star in 9,000 BC at all.
Also watch Stefan Milo's debunking / exposing of Hancock, it's long but well worth it.
Cant get enough shiting on hancock.
Thare was a guy named E.O. Willson who was dean of entomology at Harvard for something like 50 years who predicted goblekli tepe a long ass time ago.
I don‘t get your point about him drawing on archeological findings. He isn‘t denying that, e.g. celebrating Klaus Schmidt‘s work in Göbekli Tepe.
I am not onboard with his somewhat esoteric tendencies, but I think he offers some fair criticism about the field of archeology.
To me there are 2 major points
1) Archeology is rather jealously ringfencing it’s area of studies, although it is (just like Business Administration) not a real science. Depending on what topic is coming up you need biologists, geologists etc.., Archeologists should be case managers drawing on expertise for complex matters. I am sure some are doing that, but certainly not to the extent required across the board.
2) Career Archeologists - the field seems to have quite an issue with the scientific method in that it is not very open open to accept new findings and adjust long held believes. Careers are made, book revenues generated on the risk averse incremental repetition of established common believes. The resulting group think is impeding us gaining further insights into our past and leads to the kind of repelling reflex the field is showing towards him - all this shows is weakness and insecurity.
What we can summize from his documentary ist that the history of human civilization has started way earlier than we long believed, earth has undergone dramatic shifts in climate conditions in the last 50k years making pure gradualism a nonsensical proposition, and that career and Hobby archeologists need to come to terms with the fact that there is just a lot we simply don‘t know
I think you've misunderstood what archaeologists are and what they do. They are a collection of specialists. Many are field archaeologists and they basically just dig and record. For things like pottery dating or bone identification they DO use dedicated specialists. For scientific analysis things get sent off to labs. They don't hand it to a field archaeologist and ask them for things they can't possibly know. An 'archaeologist' is just a very loose description for someone who works in the sector, not a specific job description.
@@scholagladiatoria thx for the feedback. I think you are overly idealistic in your assessment of the community.
And just to be clear, I don’t agree with Hancock‘s demonization of trained archeologists. His stance might be understandable after decades of personal attacks, still it is not warranted and productive.
Plus I don’t blame, individuals, as we are all part of incentive structures. Your example on the schools of thought on changes in population structure shows this nicely. Even if you disagreed with the predominant opinion at your university, you would have been irrational to state that and risk a bad grade. Incentives do work 😁.
And again, in „fields of study“ that predominantly are an aggregator of knowledge created by other sciences, like Business Administration, there is sometimes a strong incentive not draw on experts in other fields sharing laurels or creating a delay when a paper just needs to be finished. And again, your example of the wrong info on arrow heads makes that very clear
He sounds like every "experts don't want you to know about this" scam ad on TH-cam.
Also the only thing uniform about archeologists is their wearing of broad brimmed hats and shorts, and their love of beer.
I don't think Hancock believes or paints formal archeology or archeologists as the enemy, persay, but rather their closed minds & inability to accept or even analyze new ideas & theories supported by the evidence at hand. Unfortunately, his personal experiences dealing with the mainstream archeologists have taught him that he himself becomes their enemy for his inability to accept everything they say as the end-all-be-all when a lot of evidence may describe something very different than what's generally accepted as fact. In doing so, however, archeologists have usually labeled him as a quack or liar to quickly & easily dismiss him & his theories instead of going thru his evidence & demonstrating how he is incorrect using actual scientific data as opposed to insults like he's generally used to them doing. So I don't think he believes mainstream archeology as the enemy, so much that he'd like to see it use more lateral thinking to support the mainstream or dismiss his own ideas, rather than the linear thinking that's the norm & says "this is right because it's always been that way since first posited, and anyone who thinks otherwise is either stupid, crazy, a liar , or incompetent because they won't go along with what we, the experts, say is right. So him or anyone like him can kick rocks because we know better than them!"
See, I'm a big fan of Matt's channel, but I also find some of Hancock's ideas intriguing. I do have to say, though, that I don't appreciate the way that Hancock disparages archaeologists and the general fields of Academia. I'm finishing a master's degree in History, so I may have a bias. But I feel like a lot of Hancock's statements disparage the hard-working and well intentioned people in the Historical/Anthropological fields.
And all of the evidence he draws on comes from those very people. He wouldn't have any ancient archaeological sites or Renaissance maps to use without those people. He isn't an archaeologist or scientist himself, he relies on data from experts, which he then puts together and interprets in ways that suit his argument.
What's intriguing about a guy with no credentials just coming up with whack ideas?
interesting has nothing to do with being true
@@scholagladiatoria Agreed. And while he has a lot of interesting theories, as you mentioned, about Ice Age peoples, the Melt Water II event, and the possibility that certain artifacts and features are older than conventional humanities suggest, he connects them to a lot of pseudo-science phenomena with little or no evidence.
Interesting video, Matt. I appreciate the nuance of your position, and your willingness to explore ideas without a rigid ideology. It's refreshing to see that in a academic public figure. Been a fan for a long time, keep up the great work!
This is an excellent discussion. I have done quite a bit of experimental work to show the effectiveness of military flintlock muskets within 150 yards, and it drives me nuts to have some historians write about how in accurate they are.
There's definitely an element of Chinese whispers where somebody said it once, it got published widely and now it's "common knowledge" that is very difficult to push back on.
I tend to groan when I hear historians talking about weapons now, because it's often clear they're parroting what they've been told, but can't back it up or say how they know it.
To be fair, there's a lot of common knowledge like this in other fields. Most Psychologists couldn't explain why IQ works. Unless they specialise in using it, it's probably not something they know a huge amount about.
It is strange how quick some archaeologists are to dismiss Hancock. Schliemann was an amateur archaeologist when everyone was writing off Troy as a myth, wasn’t he?
I cannot dismiss Hancock because one of the most foundational ideas about human pre-history, that the Indian Aryans and the Europeans stem from a single progenitor population, was originally theorized by a Welsh jurist in India. He was not a professional archaeologist or historian and the theory was controversial and based on comparisons of Indian and European languages and mythologies. It was only decades later that genetic studies confirmed these theories to be true.
So who knows if Hancock’s wild, amateur ideas based on mythological comparisons will bear fruit?
A broken clock is right twice a day.
@@rodchallis8031 Schliemann didn’t just discover Troy. He also excavated Mycenae. He was right about a lot. What kind of broken clock is that?
And William Jones accurately described centuries of pre-history based on language analysis and comparative mythology… in the 18th century. Only for 20th century science to confirm his theories.
@@Roberthomas Schliemann used dynamite at "Troy" , inadvertently blowing up the layer that, if it is Troy, was the most likely layer. I'd pick a better poster boy for your points, if you can find one.
@@rodchallis8031 oh boy this petty complaint. Get real.
If not for Schliemann, Troy would not have been discovered in the first place.
@@Roberthomas Blowing up the target of his search. Petty.
The problem is financing, and when you cant access sites to further research and archaeologists dont just report what they find, they interpret to an audience of benefactors, how can we trust whats said? He has an interpretation which is mocked and to further his point has limited access. Historians interpret but when certain aspects are completely ignlred by archaeologists, how can we allow the same amount of dis respect towards hancocks work whilst believing what is reported through ‘paid’ archaeologists or historians work. A man once said, when your paid to tell a story, fantasy is what you get, when you put your work on the line for a wage, direction is what follows…
I always find that attempts to censor legitimate alternative theories and defame/insult their advocates generally have the exact opposite of the intended result. Reasoned debate without needlessly provacative language goes much farther. I've had talks with serious Flat Earthers where it would have been very satisfying to call them idiots and morons, but it wouldn't have accomplished anything beyond the temporary satisfaction of stroking my own ego. Anyway, "edgy and dubious" theories have quite often been proven true, and accepted theories debunked, after the science has advanced enough to prove or disprove them.
The fact that Netflix gave hanCock air time is really disgusting.
I'm an historian, and have dabbled with archeology, but by no means consider myself an expert. From my perspective, frankly, archeologists seem to often be their own worst enemies- no 2 ever want to agree and they constantly shred each other to gain preeminence and funding. Add in the early attempts at the field in the 18th and 19th centuries that were hamhanded and just... terrible... and the whole scene ends up feeling a bit rough and it becomes difficult to identify verified information separate from heavily "interpreted" information.
That's exactly why you know when Hancock says mainstream research represses the truth, you know he's full of shit.
@@nobodyspecial4702 I mean I feel like he isn't 100% wrong. Politics and funding and sacred calves sometimes converge to muddy up a dig, or result in pieces of evidence getting dismissed or buried by important voices and/or historical communities as a whole- but there definitely isn't some monolithic conspiracy as he seems to subscribe to.
Thanks a lot for this commentary. It provides a lot of background to great debunking videos such as by Miniminuteman - and of course to a general understanding of history.
Your points about historians often not relying enough on outside experts are very valid and I think your examples illustrate that very well.
Despite what you open up with, Hancock actually acknowledges in the series his debt to professional archaeology. But he also goes beyond that, and casts a critical eye on the discipline where he considers it is needed. Many archaeologists do the exact same thing i.e., take the next step based on findings to date. Science has always been 'fact' and interpretation. As a result, a lot of what Hancock and his ilk say is often shown, down the track, to be true, or becomes generally accepted, whilst a lot falls by the wayside. That is why he is so popular, and has been for a long time. As a journalist, he also does a great job in promoting archaeology. The so-called 'battle' or 'war' between him and the profession is therefore just part of the media beat up. C'est la vie...
Have you watched the Netflix series? It's not a media beat-up, he spends every other sentence hating on archaeologists and the establishment. It's very annoying.
@@ninjafruitchilled Yes, I have watched it. I do not agree with your statement. That is not what I saw when I watched it. He spent the vast majority of his time presenting his argument. It was, of course, based on the rejection of that argument by so-called mainstream archaeology, but that was not the focus of the story.
I would like to hear more general history on this channel to the extent it interests you to delve into such topics from time to time. Graham Hancock I also remember from my teenage years, and he was fun, but always a little too out there to be trusted as a source.
I'd love to hear to more about the migration period and how things changed from the classical world to the medieval world. Sounds super interesting!
As an experimental archaeologist I can confirm that there is a great reluctance in the discipline to use experimental data and experimental archaeologists are rarely considered experts except in exceptional cases such as Ronnie Tylecote, but it comes out of a sense of caution which has prevailed ever since archaeological science began to overturn the big synthetic theories in the mid-20th century. There is also the experiential problem of modern biases which is difficult to overturn as the only data considered worthwhile has to be produced using a scientific methodology, which itself was of course not applied in historic/prehistoric times. Greater reliance on experts, and greater recognition of expertise in each respective field would definitely improve the discipline and is a great point made by yourself.
I've stumbled across Hancock in the past, and one of the things that I think stood out to me is that he strikes me as a man who's been burnt and hasn't learnt to deal with it very well. I suspect he has come across some savage and possibly unfair treatment from those that might be considered part of the "archaeological establishment" and he's then smouldered away for decades; to his own detriment, I think.
More accurate he sees the anti-science crowd for what they are: careerists, anti-science, stubborn and dogmatic, and almost religious in their definitive beliefs which remain stalwart even when new evidence surfaces.
It would be impossible to respect these dogmatic religious anti-science types, especially when they pretend to fly the banner of science and evidence. And although not impossible, it would be hard to not loathe them for their (as described) gross attitudes and pretentious attacks.
Or it could be that he thought up his theories while stoned on hallucinogenics and is bitter that to the rest of the world they sound pretty ridiculous.
"and he's then smouldered away for decades; to his own detriment, I think"
His bank account disagrees.
He's rich mate - it's all fluff to engineer a false martyr act to gain sympathy/support sales.
He was already rich by the end of the 90s, and he's only continued to build that fortune since.
@@mnomadvfx Well you make a good point in the sense that perhaps the very thing I'm "criticising" may have actually given him a tremendous amount of success. I mean people do like outrage and drama, and there's a demographic that automatically sides with anyone that claims to be "fighting the man". I suppose I'm trying to not be *too* cynical lol. I don't think Hancock is cynically playing that game tbf
I've seen him debunked to his face on TV. Instead of pulling out yet more evidence in support of what he claims he just becomes irrational and surly, fuming that he won't have his theory ruined by nitpickers. When he is pressed to it he is unable to adequately justify the things he claims.
I'm getting tired of trying to talk to people about anything out of the mainstream. I want to learn from a conversation, but I run into people that just want to insult me. If you really look into some of the "long established" things, sometimes it's just one guy that wrote about it 150 years ago.
Watch the Graham Hancock and Michael Shermer on Joe Rogan. Shermer wrote a straight out insult and Graham called him out on it. Shermer just whined about not meaning to publish it and being scared people would get the wrong information.
When we go about talking archeology: My older sister has a degree in archeology, i believe her focus in college was pre-contact pacific islands or something similar it was a long time ago... she wasn't particularly happy with a lot of what archeologists and historians she met were on about "constant bickering" never wound up pursuing it as a career sticking with powerlifting
IMHO I've read into the actual work demands on archaeologists and they are far from easy, I could see many people getting into it having seen Indiana Jones, Tomb Raider or Ancient Aliens and realising very quickly that it was not for them even without the internal political problems of the field and the institutions who employ them.
You are a bot. Your sister confirms that.
Great video Matt, not what I expected.
I recently watched the documentary, it was very enjoyable.
Initially I didn’t pick up on the blanket blame of archaeologist (I assumed he meant the general consensus - but that’s probably because I am increasingly involved in that space) but my partner did, this is something I hope can change.
History in general is a passionate subject, those involved often love their work to the point of obsession. Sometimes it is hard for us as emotional creatures to let go of what we know and be open to change.
So your conclusion to this video is so on point.
Many of us, need to work together more, experiment and be open to new data and ideas.
As to Graham’s theory and series, I really enjoyed it.
Am I 100% in agreement? no, at the moment there is not enough evidence and a lot of speculation but, I hope he carries on his search for the truth, like we all should and if given the opportunity I’d be open to exploring some of the areas and theories mentioned.
I was given one of his books, (Fingrprints of the Gods probably) in the mid-late 90s as an archaeology student by someone well meaning. I don't think I've ever liked a book less and I once attempted to read a Dan Brown novel. So there we are.
Have to admit I read Fingerprints Of The Gods in the 90s and was captivated. It was only when I read to the end of the follow-up book in which Hancock claimed with a straight face that Atlantis was really Antarctica, and that that entire continent had shifted to the South Pole in only a few thousand years, that I actually realised just how cracked this bloke is . . .
You'd don't have to agree or believe hos hypothesis, but to dislike a book because it makes you think too much outside the box? That is just sad. You can't reek more of anti-intellectualism to hate something that challenges the status quo.
Dislike all his theories? Good.
Dislike him bc he has theories you dislike? Slot off.
@@nobbynoris Do you not realize the fallacy in your thinking? You read one book, and decide based on 1000 ideas that could be wrong, and the author is stereotyped as smart and good. Then you read the second and based on 2 of 1000 ideas you disagree with, you then stereotype him as crazy and bad.
How about you just take people for what they are, especially when they tell you to your face "all of this could be wrong, but I want you to think about more than just the status quo."
You zoomers are so silly! You like someone for 1000 things they say but the moment they say 1 thing you dislike, they are canceled for all 1000.
It happens every day. Dont feel bad bc you are the norm. Almost everyone these days has this insane idea that you must agree with someone 110% or else UNSUBSCRIBE! BLOCKED! CANCELED!
Jfc people are allowed to disagree with you without you insulting them and saying theyre crazy/stupid/whatever bc you disliked 1 or 2 of 1000 things they believe MIGHT be true.
I guarantee you believe some really dumb and insane things yourself out of the 1000000 things you believe. Should we exile you to Australia to live alongside Shadiversity and all those other mormons just for those few weird things you believe? Oh yea you are a crazy bloke! /s
I don't really like Hancock while agreeing with the advanced Ice Age Civilization theory
yes, actually historians usually abstract all details and write about the most interesting events that had a global or regional effect
the specialists/experts will fill the gapes, or actually shed lights about some obscure part of those past events
I for one would love to see a video or three on weapon and armor evolution during the Migration Period. You've pointed out many times that the design of both lat oeast party depend on who you're fighting and how you're fighting, so with so many cultures bouncing off each other, splintering and merging while wandering all over the place, we should be able to point to specific features of them appearing at various times and places depending on whether foot or horse was more popular with which people's (and where cavalry was even possible), details like that.
Hancock gets a lot of deserved grief for his more extreme stuff, but he is correct that orthodox archaeologists and historians are monolithic... in their dismissal of him.
Dependence on experts has the built in hazard that experts can get it wrong too. Look at the paleontologists who decided that all neanderthal were short and bent over because they mistook extreme arthritis for default skeletal anatomy. And extending what you said about biases, experts in *any* field can have their biases so it's best to seek multiple opinions.
Brilliant! Just brilliant! As a former scientist I couldn’t agree more! In all pursuits of knowledge, rely on experts. Thanks Matt!
Love Graham Hancock...almost everything he predicted so far has come true.
Nice one! Wasn't really interested to watch it, but I might give it a try now. Very well thought through points about experts, multidisciplinary studies and the need to "run towards knowledge, not towards ignorance".
Before I even watch this video I'm so excited that one of my favorite historical weapons masters is doing a response to one of my all time favorite alternative archeologists!!!!
regardless of the outcome I know this video will be an honest and mature analysis of his work!!!! Which is all he's ever asked!!!!
For people to listen with an open mind and then decide for themselves!!!!!
Great stuff!!!!
Great video, not quite the angle I was expecting but some very solid criticism,
I dont believe that any one person has all the answers and it is very important to gather all the knowledge we can on a chosen subject before making an kind of proposals!!!
In the defence of Graham Hancock he does consult with a whole host of experts in archeology, geology, stone masonary etc...
And these are not his theories alone, but a whole host of researchers who for half a century or more have been proposing alternative timelines,
I think what he is so frustrated about is the lack of effort to even entertain an alternative narrative, and the almost violent dimissal of some frackly quite intriguing possibilities!!!
I guess we're all kinda hungry for more mystery in life, and no one should be afraid to think outside the box!!!!
A great mind once said.. "It is the mark of a wise mind to entertain an idea without etirely accepting it!!!" (or something like that...hahaha)
Welp, to put it mildly, it was the archeologists who've held back human learning for over 150 years. Its safe to say that they've largely held us all in ignorance due to their gatekeeping.
I've followed Graham Hancock for a number of years after accidentally picking up the Sign & The Seal. Whilst he presents some very interesting and intriguing questions, I do feel that he has become part of the problem that he believes that he is fighting against.
Polarisation of ideas and opinion has become common in pretty much every area where a debate can be had, and it has left very little space for middle ground. This leads to you said this, and you said that, and is not conducive to constructive conversation.
I think that ego plays a huge part in this, and the stronger the egos on both sides are, the harder it becomes. It's like putting two magnets together at the same pole and expecting them not to repel each other. I met Graham many years ago, and I can say for certain that his ego is strong, but that said this does not make him a bad or unkind person. He's just got lost in fighting a war that doesn't need to be fought in a combative way.
Anyway, really enjoyed this video. Something different but familiar in a good way.
I have been watching a number of pseudo archeology videos of late but it was the first time I saw someone bring up the point that Graham Hancock would not be where he is now if it wasn't for those same archeologists he is attacking. After hearing that, I felt I had to leave a compliment because that was a fantastic point.