It's kind of sad that some of Hancock's ideas have been wrapped up in ideas of Atlantis. The idea that history is older than what we acknowledge isn't that radical. The problem seems to be Hancock's insistence that there has to be a super advanced society that is responsible for every society after that. When I first heard the first part I was like yeah I can buy that history is older than what we know but as soon as Atlantis and seeding comes up he losses me completely. Also the idea of established historians not wanting to see anything beyond what they have wrote already isn't far fetched either. But then he goes on to say that all the experts are against him. It's the same old all or nothing argument that infects modern society.
I enjoyed Tom’s recounting of Plato’s background and lifetime and thought it was spot on. Except he seemed to be saying the Guardians do not appear until Timaeus. In fact they play a very big role in the Republic.
Pretty sure at this point that beyond the pillars of hercules, is about the same as “long ago in a galaxy far far away” before embarking on a fanciful tale…
“Know, oh prince, that between the years when the oceans drank Atlantis and the gleaming cities, and the years of the rise of the Sons of Aryas, there was an Age undreamed of, when shining kingdoms lay spread across the world like blue mantles beneath the stars.” Robert E. Howard
I think the point about the affect of Thera on Crete is not that it's the source of the Atlantis tale, but that it's a great _true_ story in its own right.
I absolutely adore mythology & folklore. I think the origin stories & creation myths a society tells about itself can be incredibly insightful about that society & tell us a lot about their values, beliefs, social structures & politics. But what it isn't is historical fact. Myths/folklore are not evidence in the same way that genetics, carbon dating, geology, seismology, ground penetrating radar, organic chemistry, etc is. So there's no conspiracy to hide The Truth, just a standard of evidence that has not yet been met.
"He's going on the Joe Rogan show, to debate it with an archaeologist with the splendid name of Flint Dibble". "That's a brilliant case of nominative determinism isn't it?"
Maybe the Atlantis story did not originate from Solon's visit to Egypt where a priest told him of the myth but it came from the Phoenicians and from their colonies in the western Mediterranean which indeed included some of the Atlantic shoreline in north Africa and Spain. The Atlas mountains which are in Morocco gave us the word "Atlantic" and the myth of the titan Atlas holding up the world. If the Romans had not destroyed Carthage and its culture we may have had multiple references as to how this story came about and if it was based on real events.
On the subject of hubris. The guy who's going to debate Hancock is so confident of winning he's changed his name to Flint Dibble to give Graham a head start. However history shows no good often results from cockiness of this magnitude.
I think if anything at all, Atlantis is north and South America before it drifted away from Europe in some more rapid drift than we’ve modeled based on our current observations’ extrapolations
I would love a whole episode specifically devoted to why Graham Hancock is wrong, and more importantly, how often his ridiculous theories start a pipeline for qanon-ers, flat-earthers, and other such nonsense.
Tempting but it often backfires, and doesn't alter the opinion of those who find his work authentic. Jonathan Swift said it best about trying to reason with certain people. It's exciting stuff, there's a market for it. As mentioned in this discussion, lots of kids love monsters, aliens, and ancient mysteries etc. Hancock writes similar books for adults, with the added thrilling element of giving you the secret knowledge that THEY don't want you to know about. It's very difficult or maybe even impossible to prove him wrong, but that shouldn't matter. He's not provided nearly enough evidence for anyone to think he's right.
Obviously Tom wasn't paying attention when he watched the series, or has been caught up in just clips of Hancocks premise. Or more likely, was just looking for spots to show off his snarky British humour. Yes, he tied Atlantis into an episode or two, but anyone paying attention to the show would have realized he was appealing to the allure of the various Atlantean tales. The core of his theory is that when the Earth went through a meteor shower about 11,000BC, that those struck and destroyed a theoretical advanced civilization, using technology that we yet to discover. He posits that remnants from this culture scattered across the globe, bringing new technologies to the savages. (eg. What if something happened to us today, nuclear strikes, another comet, mega-volcano, our electricity would be wiped, within generations our civilizations would be collapsing, but those peripheral tribes, Amazon, North Sentinel Island, etc.....) Yes, Graham gets excited about the "what if's." Just like JFK theorists. But he's always careful to state that he is tying suppositions together. His basic point, the Younger Dryas wrecked an advanced civilization, and then these other places across the world suddenly evolved agriculture and stargazing. How were some of these structures created, and why were they not replicated after a certain point. They're interesting theories, and just as valid as the grassy knoll gunman. /shrug Overall, this two parter was disappointing. At least 30 minutes of just bad, tabloidesqe denigrating of someone's work that has just been skimmed over.
Not saying whether or not GH is correct or not in his theories or that he is or isn't some sort of genius but the scoffing is really sad to listen to and quite immature especially for two grown men. If we didn't have whacky theorists and dreamers to push the boundaries of what we perceive to know to be true, we'd probably still be playing with rocks and sticks when not dragging our knuckles along the ground. We definitely wouldn't have a periodic table and probably still worry that if we travel too far into the horizon, we'd eventually fall all the edge of the world.
I'm a huge Fan and Listener of your Podcast. But! I have a Feeling that you as a Historian, have a bit Bias about the Islamic History and the Role of the "Golden Age" preserving the Greek Philosophy and Ancient Text's.
They seemed reasonable to me, defending him from accusations of bigotry, appreciating that his theory harkens back to the original theme of hubris, and otherwise criticizing his scholarship rather than his person.
![Lethal Company Music Video 🎵 "Follow The Orders" [VERSION A]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QeooZB4Z7RA/mqdefault.jpg)
It's kind of sad that some of Hancock's ideas have been wrapped up in ideas of Atlantis. The idea that history is older than what we acknowledge isn't that radical. The problem seems to be Hancock's insistence that there has to be a super advanced society that is responsible for every society after that. When I first heard the first part I was like yeah I can buy that history is older than what we know but as soon as Atlantis and seeding comes up he losses me completely. Also the idea of established historians not wanting to see anything beyond what they have wrote already isn't far fetched either. But then he goes on to say that all the experts are against him. It's the same old all or nothing argument that infects modern society.
I enjoyed Tom’s recounting of Plato’s background and lifetime and thought it was spot on. Except he seemed to be saying the Guardians do not appear until Timaeus. In fact they play a very big role in the Republic.
Pretty sure at this point that beyond the pillars of hercules, is about the same as “long ago in a galaxy far far away” before embarking on a fanciful tale…
“Know, oh prince, that between the years when the oceans drank Atlantis and the gleaming cities, and the years of the rise of the Sons of Aryas, there was an Age undreamed of, when shining kingdoms lay spread across the world like blue mantles beneath the stars.” Robert E. Howard
I think the point about the affect of Thera on Crete is not that it's the source of the Atlantis tale, but that it's a great _true_ story in its own right.
great video, seen the whole thing already :P
I absolutely adore mythology & folklore. I think the origin stories & creation myths a society tells about itself can be incredibly insightful about that society & tell us a lot about their values, beliefs, social structures & politics. But what it isn't is historical fact. Myths/folklore are not evidence in the same way that genetics, carbon dating, geology, seismology, ground penetrating radar, organic chemistry, etc is. So there's no conspiracy to hide The Truth, just a standard of evidence that has not yet been met.
"He's going on the Joe Rogan show, to debate it with an archaeologist with the splendid name of Flint Dibble".
"That's a brilliant case of nominative determinism isn't it?"
Eighteen minutes in. Waiting for a reference to Donavan.
go home and get your shinebox!!
Ah yes, I saw that episode of Futurama. :)
Maybe the Atlantis story did not originate from Solon's visit to Egypt where a priest told him of the myth but it came from the Phoenicians and from their colonies in the western Mediterranean which indeed included some of the Atlantic shoreline in north Africa and Spain. The Atlas mountains which are in Morocco gave us the word "Atlantic" and the myth of the titan Atlas holding up the world. If the Romans had not destroyed Carthage and its culture we may have had multiple references as to how this story came about and if it was based on real events.
On the subject of hubris.
The guy who's going to debate Hancock is so confident of winning he's changed his name to Flint Dibble to give Graham a head start.
However history shows no good often results from cockiness of this magnitude.
😂😂😂😂
"To my amazement they turned out to be belgian" xD Could you imagine though, what a frightful thought!
Tom's pronunciation of Olof Rudbeck (den äldre - the elder) is weirder than I could even imagine.
"And he proves it, in very learned tone."
Hahahajahaha
I think if anything at all, Atlantis is north and South America before it drifted away from Europe in some more rapid drift than we’ve modeled based on our current observations’ extrapolations
Everything is politics. That's how you get stuff done.
I would love a whole episode specifically devoted to why Graham Hancock is wrong, and more importantly, how often his ridiculous theories start a pipeline for qanon-ers, flat-earthers, and other such nonsense.
Have you been keeping up with your boosters?
@@charlesfrith have you licked Graham hancocks ass today?
Tempting but it often backfires, and doesn't alter the opinion of those who find his work authentic. Jonathan Swift said it best about trying to reason with certain people.
It's exciting stuff, there's a market for it. As mentioned in this discussion, lots of kids love monsters, aliens, and ancient mysteries etc. Hancock writes similar books for adults, with the added thrilling element of giving you the secret knowledge that THEY don't want you to know about.
It's very difficult or maybe even impossible to prove him wrong, but that shouldn't matter. He's not provided nearly enough evidence for anyone to think he's right.
@@jimb9063 I think samuel clemens said something similar about arguing with idiots.
Obviously Tom wasn't paying attention when he watched the series, or has been caught up in just clips of Hancocks premise. Or more likely, was just looking for spots to show off his snarky British humour.
Yes, he tied Atlantis into an episode or two, but anyone paying attention to the show would have realized he was appealing to the allure of the various Atlantean tales.
The core of his theory is that when the Earth went through a meteor shower about 11,000BC, that those struck and destroyed a theoretical advanced civilization, using technology that we yet to discover. He posits that remnants from this culture scattered across the globe, bringing new technologies to the savages. (eg. What if something happened to us today, nuclear strikes, another comet, mega-volcano, our electricity would be wiped, within generations our civilizations would be collapsing, but those peripheral tribes, Amazon, North Sentinel Island, etc.....)
Yes, Graham gets excited about the "what if's." Just like JFK theorists. But he's always careful to state that he is tying suppositions together. His basic point, the Younger Dryas wrecked an advanced civilization, and then these other places across the world suddenly evolved agriculture and stargazing. How were some of these structures created, and why were they not replicated after a certain point.
They're interesting theories, and just as valid as the grassy knoll gunman. /shrug
Overall, this two parter was disappointing. At least 30 minutes of just bad, tabloidesqe denigrating of someone's work that has just been skimmed over.
😂😂😂😂😂 Hancock is a snake oil salesman.
I hope Prof. Dibble managd to hold his own
Not saying whether or not GH is correct or not in his theories or that he is or isn't some sort of genius but the scoffing is really sad to listen to and quite immature especially for two grown men.
If we didn't have whacky theorists and dreamers to push the boundaries of what we perceive to know to be true, we'd probably still be playing with rocks and sticks when not dragging our knuckles along the ground.
We definitely wouldn't have a periodic table and probably still worry that if we travel too far into the horizon, we'd eventually fall all the edge of the world.
😂😂 Hancock is a charlatan.
Thanks, guys, for bringing down Hancock. A fact-free conspiratorialist getting Netflix cred should irritate all material historians.
I'm a huge Fan and Listener of your Podcast.
But!
I have a Feeling that you as a Historian, have a bit Bias about the Islamic History and the Role of the "Golden Age" preserving the Greek Philosophy and Ancient Text's.
There are ways to have a conversation without insulting someone with a differing view. You guys are better than this behavior. Please be kind.
They seemed reasonable to me, defending him from accusations of bigotry, appreciating that his theory harkens back to the original theme of hubris, and otherwise criticizing his scholarship rather than his person.
Academics stick together. What a surprise
Love this podcast guys, but I have to disagree with the Graham Hancock bashing.
The more Graham Hancock bashing, the better.
He's a journalist, not a historian or an archaeologist. He's full of it.
Graham Hancock is a fucking lunatic. Grow up
For God's sake please to not listen to this guy.
Fuck Graham Hancock.
Shut up Graham
More “big dirt” propaganda
this Hancock bashing is as old & predictable as Yoko bashing ... 🥱