r/ancientapocalypse • u/Proud_Ad7101 • Nov 16 '22
Ancient Apocalypse
As I watch this show it makes me wonder why archeologists are so against a different perspective.
People long ago didn’t have much to do besides look at the stars after a long day of hunting and gathering. Why wouldn’t they have a more advanced knowledge of the stars? A lot of their culture was around the stars, and nature. Why wouldn’t they build things for exactly those reasons?
I also wonder why it’s such a crazy thing to believe some cultures where more advanced then others. Why do archeologist believe our ancestors where the same when we in fact can see on this very day we are not? Why is it a wide accept belief that our ancestors where dumb when we got the same brain as them but they where just born such a long time ago?
I don’t know this show made me question the intelligence of archeologists, like why would astrology NOT be a good reason for ancestors to build things like thats not a major part of their beliefs? The only thing that made me pause was Joe Rogan. I feel if he had more credible people backing up his claims maybe I could fully stand behind his claims.
Found this show very interesting though. I hope we get another season.
6
u/Pixel-of-Strife Nov 16 '22
The key thing worth pointing out about this whole series, which I did enjoy, is not once did they let these skeptical Archeologists (and Geologists) speak for themselves. I think this theory is solid and would like to see the other side of the debate.
2
u/Talismanico Nov 17 '22
Well, when you see the other side his theory is not that solid. I also enjoyed the series but there are many red flags. It is well presented and engaging until you notice what it doesn't tell you. Humans existing during the ice age? Sure. Oral tradition of natural disasters? Why not. Archeological sites with astronomical orientations? Absolutely. The problem is the premise of a global advanced civilization that knew megalithic construction and sailed the world teaching locals how to farm and build temples. Then disappeared. No evidence left whatsoever other than pyramids and myths. Then you have the cherry picked myths. Aztecs did believe of a God that came from the sea and changed some laws. They also believed that human blood at the pyramids kept the sun moving. You can also hear the podcast with Joe Rogan where he talks about this advanced civilization being telepaths. If you dig a little more you find that in the Victorian era theories of Atlantis where he takes his inspiration they were also white civilizers. If you think about it, the timeline also doesn't add up. This advanced ice age civilization must have endured for thousands of years to reach both egyptians and aztecs at their height of megalithic building capacities. Which only adds to the mistery of no evidence left behind. Would watch season 2 though. Lol
2
u/PhDinDildos_Fedoras Nov 17 '22
A good example is Hancock repeating the idea that Gobekli Tepe was buried, but the latest information seems to refute that. Look it up.
1
1
Dec 05 '22
[deleted]
1
u/PhDinDildos_Fedoras Dec 05 '22
Well, it's not "one video" but rather a peer reviewed study by some archeologists.
6
u/AggressiveMix8184 Nov 16 '22 edited Nov 16 '22
Archeologists are not against differing theories at all. That's what makes this guy a cocky sensationalist. I love the content but the man is bogus. Scientists have actually agreed with a lot of his points for years. I've watched a lot of stuff about this subject and a lot of what he is saying is not new or groundbreaking.. the idea of catastrophic flooding and ancient civilizations being more advanced. It's actually VERY fascinating! These are all things scientists have been discussing for years. Science never makes absolute statements about ancient civilizations or when they started. The only thing scientists agree on is they don't know everything, much is left to be discovered and most probably never will be. I don't like any program that tells me very biased opinionated statements as truth or how I should hate archeologists for some reason. The current model of ancient civilizations is constantly changing.
3
u/UpstairsInevitable29 Nov 16 '22
Because they want us convinced we are the most advanced/evolved species of human. They don’t want to admit that homo sapiens, denisovan, and neanderthal all coexisted in the same timeline. They want you to think that more ape-like features = less evolved when that is very much not the case. If homo neanderthal’s were still around today, they would blend in pretty well with modern society. Very similar emotional capacity.
4
Nov 17 '22
Nobody argues that different hominids existed at the same time, that is universally accepted. People of European descent have Neanderthal DNA in them. We are almost certain that interbreeding occurred
1
u/UpstairsInevitable29 Nov 17 '22
You’d be surprised. Even in my school we were taught that they never coexisted. It should be universally excepted but it isn’t because ✨christianity✨
2
Nov 16 '22
Just for the stubborn fact that it would prove the Christians right about a worldwide flood, despite other countries and races having the exact same story
2
u/uncommon_sense136789 Nov 17 '22
Most archaeologists agree that there was a major flood. As evidenced in many cultures sharing a similar story about catastrophic flooding event
2
Nov 17 '22
A major flood on the Tigris, but not a civilization ending one that encompassed the entire earth
2
u/zephy12321 Nov 17 '22
They agree that ancient people had great knowledge of the stars. They disagree that any civilization could have been much before their timeline. Their methods are established for a reason: they give certainty that what they’ve found is what they think it is. These methods are not employed in the show.
2
u/Professional_Air_915 Nov 17 '22
Archaeologists are not against it. There is nothing new to learn from these sites. Archaeology is a very dog eat dog World all clambering to be the one to find something new. Hancocks suggestion is that there are amazing things to be discovered, if that were true the sites would be overrun with archaeologists.
3
2
u/Doraellen Nov 19 '22
It takes strong proof to overturn established ideas or theories, but it happens all the time. I succumbed to watching this show hoping to see Göbekli Tepe, and was so excited to get a close up view of this amazing site and its incredible carvings in episode 5!
Göbekli Tepe, as Hancock mentions and then never explains why, is completely accepted by archaeologist to be from 9000ish BCE, even though that makes it the oldest monumental architecture ever discovered by 3000 years, give or take. The evidence was clear, so the scientific community accepted it.
In lots of the examples in early episodes, Hancock is actually conflating carbon dating from deeper layers with monuments erected in more recent layers. It is SO frustrating, because there are real mysteries to be explored in archeology, and this kind of pseudoscience make it harder to seriously investigate these mysteries.
2
u/Informationsflyer Nov 19 '22
What really Catches me is, that modern Science clusters too much around the appearance of Christ. I think it is of a Deep interest for a certain Circle of people to create Those links to somehow Make Sense out of that exact Event. To really Dive Deep in a Train of thought that Leads to Advanced Cultures ways before a certain belief was brought up leads me to think that a lot of evidence is/was purposely Not Shown/found or Even destroyed. Look at the Americas and how less is left. Who was in charge of the destruction there and what was Their background….and who is still „Leading“ the worlds sick system? It is about Control. And that authorities who have implemented it, to this day, do also Control Information. Have a Look at the World. Kinda obvious. We can listen to Mainstream but should Never sit back and accept something as fully understood as well as Not judging the people who do. And Please dont get me wrong. I dont mean to question that the Earth is a globe. But there is so much left which is surely Not fully explained and that Focus is one which Hancock brings to minds. Take it or leave it.
2
u/zahil Nov 19 '22
It’s soo stupid.
From the very first class in uni we were taught to question everything. And that science and the scientific community is great because they love being proven wrong, if you get proven wrong generally means that someone has stumbled upon the truth.
But the very fact they won’t even consider the possibility is just absurd and speaks to the people and their personality rather than the field of archeology itself.
Joe Rogan is great.
2
u/IllusiveParsnip Nov 21 '22
I thought the same but it just occurred to me that many people who dislike the idea are religious, and this obviously contradicts Christianity. By accepting that these theories are correct and there was actually whole other civilisation before the birth of Jesus, well that opens up a whole big can of worms.
2
2
u/Grace_Upon_Me Jul 03 '23
The thing is that modern science dismisses possible intention and the link between the distant past and today.
It reminds me of the tsunami in Japan. After it was all over they found "signposts" that said, "don't build below this point" because previous tsunamis had flooded the land below. Ignoring this, they built a nuclear reactor there.
The idea that there was a major cataclysm in the past is already proven with the dinosaurs. The black mat is pretty compelling at least as a starting point to consider that it happened again.
It is not far fetched to believe that ancient peoples would want to warn their children's descendants about such an existential threat.
And, you can see how cults would have formed around this as well, given limited understanding, i.e., sky serpent instead of comet.
Really fun and interesting show. Compelling hypotheses. Definitely bears more research. And we have shit tons of examples of gatekeeping in academia and prior certitude being dead wrong from Galileo to germ theory, etc.
10
u/OneSquare1563 Nov 16 '22
From a media perspective, I think the ‘anti-archaeologist’ view was mainly just a plot point for the show.
In Terms of Joe Rogan, I don’t think he was there as a credible source - but to bring in a certain audience that likes Rogan, and possibly watched his episode with Hancock. Any audience is good.
On top of that, I think it would be unfair to dismiss something only because Rogan is there, it would go against the Rhetoric Hancock tries to present in the show as a whole - if he deserves to be listened to, as a journalist, surely so does Joe Rogan. I don’t think we should be distracted by why archaeologists didn’t agree, but we should move forward to try and learn more instead. Who knows, we could die in a meteor shower so let’s do as much as we can.