08-14-2024, 03:21 PM
I find this area of public discourse kind of sad... Don't confuse that with a criticism of the discussion, but instead a criticism of the form of discussion...
Most of us are very well aware that archeology (and her cousin, anthropology) are not arcane, hermetic arts. The professionals of the field are not close minded old codgers who refuse to entertain new facts, or ideas... And we also know that the questions which have percolated to the surface are not 'way too complicated to explore' nor 'dependent on nearly hidden facts.'
To my dismay, it seems clear that the interest and focus on the age of the pyramids, is in someway being 'used' to leverage two completely unrelated things... one is the monetization and exploitation of the interest itself (insert depressing verbiage here,) and the other is the 'activist' overt position about how modern academia has failed (or is failing) to answer these questions.
It seems anathema to most to expect Hancock, the iAE, or others to admit... "We just don't know," and enticing or exciting speculation is sooo much more fun! To me, I find the whole thig as a convenient lean-in towards the "Call it: 'dark matter' strategy... you know, "there's something out there we can't see, or detect... so we give it a name and pretend 'we understand it now' even thought we still don't have a clue as to what it is we're actually talking about."
In this case it is not being used by the formally-accepted academics, but their critics.
All the facts that have been gathered only prove one thing: We don't have all the facts. What may have transpired in the creation of the pyramid structures in question could be mundane... which leaves an opening to claim otherwise.
There are of course, no end of problematic aspects to what we know... and some degree of fuzzy precepts are only exacerbated when some "authorities" maintain a role as gatekeepers... meaning there is an element of "you cooked up this 'absolute' theory thus far, now you have to eat it."
After reading that last, I realize I am rambling... apologies.
I have been trying to control that tendency... sigh...
Most of us are very well aware that archeology (and her cousin, anthropology) are not arcane, hermetic arts. The professionals of the field are not close minded old codgers who refuse to entertain new facts, or ideas... And we also know that the questions which have percolated to the surface are not 'way too complicated to explore' nor 'dependent on nearly hidden facts.'
To my dismay, it seems clear that the interest and focus on the age of the pyramids, is in someway being 'used' to leverage two completely unrelated things... one is the monetization and exploitation of the interest itself (insert depressing verbiage here,) and the other is the 'activist' overt position about how modern academia has failed (or is failing) to answer these questions.
It seems anathema to most to expect Hancock, the iAE, or others to admit... "We just don't know," and enticing or exciting speculation is sooo much more fun! To me, I find the whole thig as a convenient lean-in towards the "Call it: 'dark matter' strategy... you know, "there's something out there we can't see, or detect... so we give it a name and pretend 'we understand it now' even thought we still don't have a clue as to what it is we're actually talking about."
In this case it is not being used by the formally-accepted academics, but their critics.
All the facts that have been gathered only prove one thing: We don't have all the facts. What may have transpired in the creation of the pyramid structures in question could be mundane... which leaves an opening to claim otherwise.
There are of course, no end of problematic aspects to what we know... and some degree of fuzzy precepts are only exacerbated when some "authorities" maintain a role as gatekeepers... meaning there is an element of "you cooked up this 'absolute' theory thus far, now you have to eat it."
After reading that last, I realize I am rambling... apologies.
I have been trying to control that tendency... sigh...
