We are kicking off the new year with another misconceptions episode. This time we take a look at Misconceptions on Egypts, and Myths and Legends that may or may not be true. This week on "Well That Aged Well", with "Erlend Hedegart
Most of the "alternative egyptologists" are travel agensies. They advertise by comming with nice videos, strange hypotesies, and an opportunity to go and see.
This kind of "debunking" of myths is something that should be reiterated as widely as possible at present. Apart from the aspects that professor Dodson mentions, I would add that the likes of Hancock/Bauval etc probably do not believe one word of the crap they write but enjoy the money that it makes. Dodson's point about the argumentative nature of historians is especially important. The very idea that egyptologists could present a fallacious consensus for the sake of withholding information is too preposterous for words simply because any one of them would make a name for themselves by presenting such information if they had the evidence to prove it. The plain fact is that "orthodox" egyptology (which, by the way, takes in all the conflicting viewpoints of argumentative historians) is based on actual evidence. The alternative is not.
"Ancient Aliens" is nothing more like Stargate Atlantis f.e. with the difference of the makers of Ancient Aliens not knowing they are talking about fiction. It is very entertaining at best, but accurate absolutely not. It pains to see these kind of people ignore all the info gathered by actual scholars up to date and see people swallowing it like the new gospel. What is also noticable is that they tend to forget/ignore crucial aspects like religion and culture in ancient days like in Ancient Egypt or even during the times of the Mayan/Aztec/Inca. All they do is cherrypicking really and occassionally twisting/manipulating the observations. The subject of slavery is indeed an interesting one. I for one tend to believe that the "slavery" described in the Old Testament f.e. (during the time of Moses), was compulsary labour and not slavery at all. But since we are talking about what I consider a very stubborn group of people, I can see why they would perceive it as slavery. Huge buildingprojects in Ancient Egypt was not just for the high priests and pharaohs, but also a form of national status symbol. Perhaps not everyone wanted to participate at strengthening this belief of pharaohs being "gods",... like the "Israelites".
Believing that Atlanteans helped Egyptians build the pyramids is not racists. Not if you believe that Atlantis was in the Richat structure in northern Africa. I'm open to different hypothesis, but Hancock's theories are not racists or rubbish. You just disagree with him.
True. It is always good to be open minded. It may not be racist but there is no denying that most historians from academia has disputed Hancocs theroies. And while Hancock is not for me, I can see your point of view
I only dissagree with your position that Hancock's theories are not rubbish. His theories in general as a matter a fact are scientifically/historically speaking absolutely rubbish. He - like Childress, Tsoukalos, von Däniken, Sitchen, etc are 100% focussed on pseudo science and neglect and/or ignore the value of actual science sometimes pairing it with changing facts.
Yeah…nah. I think the fundamental error you’re making there is failing to differentiate between “belief” and “knowledge”. One may well “believe” that the Atlanteans helped the Egyptians build the pyramids, just like one may “believe” that the earth is flat. Unfortunately, all evidence-based knowledge garnered to date would suggest that both these “beliefs” are fanciful nonsense. Sure, you can carefully cherry-pick a few “facts” and fudge a few photos and parade those as evidence to prove any crackpot “belief”, as long as you ignore the bulk of genuine, scholarly research. Sadly, it’s much easier for people to digest sensational nonsense than to address themselves to actually learning about something.
