I really think that scientists should engage with him and you might be right that it would be more productive if he tried to publish in an academic journal. He seems to have the comparative breadth but I believe his incredible conclusion won't hold up to limited data. Plus, you are right, the conspiracy sells books! If only there's an equivalent book contradicting his views.
I just finished the Netflix series. I found it interesting and compelling but I also think we need to be cautious when it comes to these “documentaries.” To my knowledge there was no fact checking. Perhaps it might be better to call it an op-ed in film not backed up by a lot of evidence. It’s compelling in the sense that he’s trying to suggest a forgotten history. But without the aid of science and evidence, I’m afraid it’s just one guy’s speculation and livelihood. I worry he might be cherry picking what evidence he does shows. Contrast this with a US based science series such as Nova or any BBC documentary. One of the things he does is cast himself as an irritant to scholars. And for this reason I think Joe Rogan finds him interesting (critiques of whom you may have run across). In fact at the end it felt as if each was using the other: Rogan has a reputation of rejecting experts; Hancock can expand his readership through Rogan.
Anyhow, back to your point about complex to complex. It seems, as a layperson in this field, that anthropology tries more and more to understand and deconstruct one’s own assumptions when addressing a question. And the one essential assumption the Davids are addressing is simple to complex vs complex to complex. It makes a lot of sense to critique the former. Esp given its service to imperialism and colonization.
You also spoke of snapshots in history. Perhaps in this post or the one on Chapters 3/4. This makes me think of the dynamism of any period and how a narrow snapshot thereof can lead to erroneous generalizations. I think it was in Chas Mann’s 1491 (which Graeber and Wengrow gently critique) the notion that Americans after their first encounters with Europeans would go on to suffer a kind centuries long holocaust (please check out The English on Amazon if you have not), you could be forgiven for thinking of them as primitive, simple. I think he wrote imagine a Martian going to a Nazi death camp and concluding Jewish people had no history or culture.
The Netflix series was useful in a way to showcase some visual representation. He takes it too far by assuming that all of culture and technology stems from one great mother source (is he saying aliens?!). In any case, we know for sure what we miss when we think of culture as simple > complex, rather than from complex > complexity. I did enjoy The English on Amazon. Quite heartbreaking but really great piece of storytelling!
I do agree that snapshots could indeed lead to erroneous generalisations. I think this is why a comparative approach helps when you have so little to go on especially with archaeological data. I've never really done the comparative approach to human history and it is amazing how given the numerous possibilities, we humans seem to congregate around similar possibilities (monarchy, etc.) Looking forward to more of your observations. I did miss out on Chas Man's 1491 (or it went over my head), I have problems with the book's writing style.
Sorry one last point about Hancock. The derision he’s earned from experts is frankly the scientific process. If he has evidence and is able to publish in a peer reviewed academic journal, and other scientists agree, he may succeed in overturning the present paradigm as western scientists have done for generations. That’s how it works.
Of course, making it seem like a conspiracy against him sells books. That’s unfortunate.
I really think that scientists should engage with him and you might be right that it would be more productive if he tried to publish in an academic journal. He seems to have the comparative breadth but I believe his incredible conclusion won't hold up to limited data. Plus, you are right, the conspiracy sells books! If only there's an equivalent book contradicting his views.
I just finished the Netflix series. I found it interesting and compelling but I also think we need to be cautious when it comes to these “documentaries.” To my knowledge there was no fact checking. Perhaps it might be better to call it an op-ed in film not backed up by a lot of evidence. It’s compelling in the sense that he’s trying to suggest a forgotten history. But without the aid of science and evidence, I’m afraid it’s just one guy’s speculation and livelihood. I worry he might be cherry picking what evidence he does shows. Contrast this with a US based science series such as Nova or any BBC documentary. One of the things he does is cast himself as an irritant to scholars. And for this reason I think Joe Rogan finds him interesting (critiques of whom you may have run across). In fact at the end it felt as if each was using the other: Rogan has a reputation of rejecting experts; Hancock can expand his readership through Rogan.
I’ll have rewatch the ep on Malta: https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/maltese-archaeologists-push-back-netflix-show-s-temple-claims.995910
Anyhow, back to your point about complex to complex. It seems, as a layperson in this field, that anthropology tries more and more to understand and deconstruct one’s own assumptions when addressing a question. And the one essential assumption the Davids are addressing is simple to complex vs complex to complex. It makes a lot of sense to critique the former. Esp given its service to imperialism and colonization.
You also spoke of snapshots in history. Perhaps in this post or the one on Chapters 3/4. This makes me think of the dynamism of any period and how a narrow snapshot thereof can lead to erroneous generalizations. I think it was in Chas Mann’s 1491 (which Graeber and Wengrow gently critique) the notion that Americans after their first encounters with Europeans would go on to suffer a kind centuries long holocaust (please check out The English on Amazon if you have not), you could be forgiven for thinking of them as primitive, simple. I think he wrote imagine a Martian going to a Nazi death camp and concluding Jewish people had no history or culture.
Enjoying all this very much. Thank you.
The Netflix series was useful in a way to showcase some visual representation. He takes it too far by assuming that all of culture and technology stems from one great mother source (is he saying aliens?!). In any case, we know for sure what we miss when we think of culture as simple > complex, rather than from complex > complexity. I did enjoy The English on Amazon. Quite heartbreaking but really great piece of storytelling!
I do agree that snapshots could indeed lead to erroneous generalisations. I think this is why a comparative approach helps when you have so little to go on especially with archaeological data. I've never really done the comparative approach to human history and it is amazing how given the numerous possibilities, we humans seem to congregate around similar possibilities (monarchy, etc.) Looking forward to more of your observations. I did miss out on Chas Man's 1491 (or it went over my head), I have problems with the book's writing style.
Sorry one last point about Hancock. The derision he’s earned from experts is frankly the scientific process. If he has evidence and is able to publish in a peer reviewed academic journal, and other scientists agree, he may succeed in overturning the present paradigm as western scientists have done for generations. That’s how it works.
Of course, making it seem like a conspiracy against him sells books. That’s unfortunate.