Okay? The prehistory of humanity begins at Sumer, by definition. Dunno what that has to do with studying history in Europe but okay.

[deleted]

I've got quite a lot of exposure to academia although I'm not in it and there an element of truth to what he's saying, even though it's not like a deliberate conspiracy.

For instance you talk about PhDs wanting to disprove things, or scientists as a whole.

Any research would have to be signed off by a HOD. The HOD definitely didn't get there by their research into alternative views, more than likely has extensive papers in the current model. So they have a reason to decline research into these alternatives as they think it's a waste of time as theyre invested in the standing theory. The professor probably didn't get to where they are in papers in alternative views as their H score will be a lot higher from being cited with views inline with the consensus. Plus a professor wouldn't want their name attached to a paper that might be considered 'alternative' because 9 times out of 10 it would be shown to be wrong and there's a reputational cost to that.

Then of course all the other ways to get funding to do research goes to committees and boards which again, often are staffed by people who have heavy investment in the accepted views.

These things combined with limited resources in research funding does lead to a very narrow research field.

It would be extremely difficult to actually get funding or the support to study things that goes against what is accepted.

Yeah, this show is one half step away from Ancient Aliens as far as credibility and reputation are concerned. In the past he has had a few insights about South America that sounded valid, but after this show I can’t take anything that comes out of his mouth seriously anymore.

He’s also just arguing something really stupid and reductive. Archeologists aren’t the only people examine the past. If there was an ancient super civilization geologists would be finding a layer of heavy metals and manufacturing byproducts from that civilization’s manufacturing. Astrophysicists would be picking up echoes of their radio chatter. Geneticists would be finding widespread anomalies in the human genome.

The ancient aliens “theory” hinges on the idea that ancient aliens were really good at cleaning up their tracks… but still left the pyramids and Olmec heads heads around? That doesn’t make any sense. That’s like discovering the Las Vegas but none the litter or ecological damage to the Colorado river.

My point is history isn’t a monolith. There are tons of different scientific and academic fields that contribute and not one of them has found anything of note. The real conspiracy is this dude’s publicist. Despite his nonsense I’ve been hearing about him forever.

the development of writing in sumer is irrelevant to someone studying the history of europe

But this established academics fight tooth and nail to defend their and their peers work from new hypothesis’ if it goes against theirs

He's never claimed to be a scholar. He claims to be a journalist. The problem is though, he also draws an analogy with a lawyer 'defebding his case'. He explicitly said he starts with a theory and then collects evidence to support it. He then makes the strongest case possible. He said this in his blog. It is terrible scholarship and for that reason would never get published.

Then he claims everyone else has 'blinkers'.

[removed]

Bingo. These days everyone gets to have their own pet version of reality and no one ever, ever has to admit they’re wrong — and to be contrarian is somehow proof of insight. So sad how the word “mainstream” has become a pejorative to so many armchair geniuses.

[removed]

This article does a great job of explaining the motivations of the "they don't want you to know the real truth" crowd.

http://www.criticalenquiry.org/burrowscave/burrows.shtml

It's worse than most would imagine (and blatantly apparent when you read the hoax-promoting article): https://www.wvgenweb.org/calhoun/russ.htm

Where the author of this article really looses me is when they refer to the danger of pseudo archaeology and Hancock. He’s a goof ball who’s found some plausible evidence for civilisation being older than thought and cooked up some goofy explanations as a nice cherry on top. The fact that experts flip their lid and point at right wing bogey men when questioned by gen pop only lends the crazies credibility.

Honestly, the mental gymnastics you would get from academics in art history are so implausible that it is akin to listening to Yoga class participants elucidate you about biology through nutraceuticals. There was a time before Watson & Crick where Biology was full of suppositions, I think some of this turmoil is due in other academic disciplines.

I've hardly ever seen someone actually take on his questions.

[deleted]

Which part would you say was he the most wrong about?

The government calls them UAPs (unidentified aerial phenomena). While the government admitted they "exist" they have never confirmed any connection to extraterrestrials. They've listed that most of the sightings can be attributed to airborne clutter (in radar), atmospheric phenomena, US developmental systems, and foreign adversary systems.

Quoting John Hoopes, “So, if it seems like, in watching the show, his perspective has been influenced by drugs, it’s because it has.”

Mmmmmmmmm. That sweet sweet rebuttal that I've been craving for. Thank you for posting this.

for the last 30 years Hancock has been going against academia and the scientific community saying his work has been blacklisted. but in that time span, he could have gotten a masters and phd and published. if he had something valid, it would be valued by academia. but he doesn't and prefers his fringe identity and spotlight that comes with it

[removed]

[removed]

Uh, yes you do. Academia requires growth, it's a fundamental factor. There's not one area of History or Archaeology that there is 100% agreement on.

Every book I've ever been a part of (peer reviewed works) require a section at the start called a historiography. In this, I'm required to discuss the history of how different historians have approached and talked about the topic I'm writing on. This shows right away all the different arguments, all the different theories, and even the occassional academic fist fight. I then have to say "here's where this has brought us, here's what's right, and here's what everyone else is missing/got wrong... my work will now fill that gap by showing..." and then argue my point with my take on the evidence.

Grants, prizes, awards, are given to those that are the most groundbreaking. We regularly have books that shake up the entire system, it's part of the reason we do it, and we all want to be that person that does shake it up. It's a requirement of a PhD to complete original research that no one has done before. To do that you have to step on the toes of a lot of academics, living and dead.

Look at any academic journal, read through a couple of articles, you'll quickly see this to be the case.

[removed]