Magyars came long after Atilla was dead, buried and decomposed.

[removed]

[removed]

Graham Hancock is an historian or archaeologist in the same sense that Margaret Mitchell is a renowned expert on the US Civil War.

100% write him off, at least any time he diverges into his alt-history.

People like Hancock rely on people not knowing anything and trusting that he must know what he's talking about because look at how confidently he says stuff. But anyone who actually studies history, archaeology, and is even vaguely familiar with the evidence he uses can see right through it. He knows this, and that's why he targets amateurs and why he pretends there's some grand conspiracy against him from academia, that way when people call him out he can go "see, I told you, the academics are just out to get me!" it's very convenient for him.

https://theconversation.com/with-netflixs-ancient-apocalypse-graham-hancock-has-declared-war-on-archaeologists-194881

This bit in particular highlights the problems with him well

>From my perspective as an archaeologist, the show is surprisingly (or perhaps unsurprisingly) lacking in evidence to support Hancock’s theory of an advanced, global ice age civilisation. The only site Hancock visits that actually dates to near the end of the ice age is Göbekli Tepe in modern Turkey.

>Instead, Hancock visits several North American mound sites, pyramids in Mexico, and sites stretching from Malta to Indonesia, which Hancock is convinced all help prove his theory. However, all of these sites have been published on in detail by archaeologists, and a plethora of evidence indicates they date thousands of years after the ice age.

Most people won't know when those sites date to, academics studying them do, but most people listening to Netflix won't, so when Graham uses them all to try and prove his point only those educated will go "hey, wait a second, that dating doesn't even match up with what you're arguing"

Upon which Hancock just pulls out the trustworthy "archaeologists don't know what they're talking about, but you can trust ME" Nothing you can really do about those types of people, they refuse to actually engage in debate or prove their points.

Are there any points of his argument that you actually find plausible, or do you 100% write him off?

One thing you learn from studying history is that it repeats itself constantly… studying Rome is fascinating because there is a large amount of similarities with early USA history.. I’m referring to the republic (509 BC - 27 BC)

His whole premise is flawed, and he makes up evidence whenever he doesn't have any, and whenever there's any evidence that dismisses his points he just says that that evidence is made up by academics trying to cover things up.

It's the laziest hypothesis in the world, anything inconvenient to it is dismissed. There's not a single serious academic that thinks he knows what he's talking about, he's been a laughing stock for decades now but has gotten famous again due to the ease of spreading misinformation online, and him having a son working at Netflix who can give him a show.

Take him as seriously as you would the P.E. Teacher from Ancient Aliens.

[removed]

The point about the Garamantes is that they were not exactly anyone’s “neighbours” in the sense that there was there was widespread cultural exchange, intermingling of populations, or even a profound existential threat to another power in the same geographical area. Their incursions into Roman/Mediterranean power-politics were as half-hearted allies of some much more problematic characters, such as Juba, who did frighten the Romans (briefly). They didn’t make much impression on the Persians or Greeks, who were actually far more interested in “Who exactly was out there” than the Romans were and could be counted on to tell the tale if there was one, or at least make it up. That’s what is fascinating about the Garamantes. A whole civilisation dependent on a particular eco-system, which would be destroyed when it failed and leave not much trace. Note to all of us.

Makes sense why on one podcast the narrator was referring to “look at this artifact” and I was like… how am I supposed to see this?

I gotta watch these now

You rock! Thank you!

[removed]

But it doesn't explain the Hunnic incursion into Europe in general. Attila's people didn't originate from Hungary, they invaded and took the land from Magyars other groups.

[removed]

[removed]

I don't think this inference is that valid the biochemical analysis of the diet is more interesting but selecting for the tree species that are over 1500 years old is a pretty major selection bias.

I hate it when 'journalists' are idiots. They're not portraits of mummies. They're portraits of the PEOPLE WHO WERE LATER MUMMIFIED. There is a difference.

[removed]

Even up to the pre ww2 era, farming was dramatically different than it was after. Things like the dust bowl and great depression completely changed mass farming technology and techniques in the US. Despite what people might think, the greatplains are often horrible places to grow food because the region regularly gets droughts for multiple years in a row along with years of harsh flooding.

My hypothesis is what I call "the ISIS factor". Remember when Bush dismissed the Iraqi military to unemployment while they were being ethnically cleansed? The ex-military guys joined ISIS and suddenly ISIS was a fighting force that took the world's most powerful militaries months to put down.

Now, imagine the drought and disturbances prior to the end of the bronze age. Refugees started, but they were easily put down/enslaved/whatever until the military guys of crumbling nations became refugees themselves and said, "hell with begging, let's switch to taking". They became a desperate but well trained fighting force. As former empires crumbled (refugees disrupted the trade that brought copper and tin together -- the Bronze age very literally ended) there was no "best military" left to fight these now, now militarized roving groups.

[removed]

So I’ve seen a lot of this Graham Hancock guy on different platforms lately, he says some pretty polarizing theories. So my question is anything he’s saying backed by new ideas or tech or do people dismiss his statements?

[removed]

[removed]