71–80 of 102 posts
http://benedante.blogspot.com/2024/01/kunguints-sangay-and-w...
The previous common-sense belief was that the Amazon was never densely populated and had always been exactly like it is today, a dense forest with primitive tribes scattered hundreds of km apart. Twenty years ago, brazilian researchers who would mention this theory were considered a bit lunatic, at the “elvis isn’t dead” or “the US reads all the world’s email” level of conspiracy theories. So playing down these disco…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know it has that reputation. But besides people saying stuff like your comment, I haven’t seen any specifics about exactly what’s wrong Would you care to elaborate? Have you seen the show? Could you point to the things that are wrong and why? Genuinely curious and wanting to learn
I think this video is good Ressource on the topic. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-iCIZQX9i1A Basically Hancock show lots of interesting and fascinating archaeological sites which is great especially since a lot of these are things that most viewers didn't know about before. But sadly he chooses to use these site only to present his theory for which he's doesn't have any actual evidence.
I was also hoping the guy would find whatever papers or publications were made by the scientists Hancock interviews throughout the series, but he’s mainly just rebutting the concept of an ancient advanced civilization (which yes, is very speculative, and even Hancock says that himself in the series)
Clearly the guy has a lot of detractors, his grand theories are speculative and they certainly have many holes
But it also seems like even mainstream archaeology is also, to some degree, speculative (we can’t really know exactly what happened in the past). And that some of the research that Hancock is supporting his theories on, might actually be right
Anyway, thank you again. I will take Hancock’s most grandiose claims with a grain of salt, but I’m also going to keep an open mind about alternative theories of how the Americas might have been first populated by humans (especially the Amazon)
The Book of Mormon has made this claim for years
There is absolutely nothing being found here that is consistent with the Book of Mormon besides very general things like people lived there.
But I agree believing in a book like the Book of Mormon because of some random article would be a bad idea
The Book of Mormon has made this claim for years
That there were cities on the American continent 2500 years ago? Is this supposed to vindicate the Book of Mormon as somehow being truthful?
But I do find it at least a bit ironic that one of the critiques of the book I have seen most commonly has been "If there were so many people, where were all the cities?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where did you read this? I’ve read in multiple places that the jungle there is quite inhospitable to humans because there is little easily accessible food. The source that comes to mind is the book The Lost City of Z.
There's now a consensus of evidence that large areas of the Amazon were planted and cultivated. Bear in mind this an enormous area, and multiple civilisations would have been active simultaneously over thousands of years. Two thousand years of garden urbanism in the Upper Amazon https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.adi6317 Early Holocene crop cultivation and landscape modification in Amazonia https://www.n…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been on a quest to find out what went wrong with modernity. Looking through the history, I found out the Renaissance was not what I thought it was. The history of the Silk Roads were not what I thought it was. And I haven't revisited the history of the industrial revolution, but it looks so far, that is where the obsession with maximizing productivity, gains, and work all come from. It is very likely when I look…
> treating it as the most probable theory (and then making decisions based upon it) is something I have concluded for myself as folly. Sure, but your tools reasoning about the past are quite limited. Occam's Razor helps us identify where narrative elements are unnecessary for an explanation, and in that it's quite useful. For most of history we must rely on Occam's Razor to even construct any sort of probability mode…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is absolutely nothing being found here that is consistent with the Book of Mormon besides very general things like people lived there.
Correct. But for a long time people claimed no body even lived there. But I agree believing in a book like the Book of Mormon because of some random article would be a bad idea
The main reason the North/Central America geography were abandoned is because significant archaeologic evidence surfaced describing pretty much everything about the native american population that lived there for 1000s of years (spoilers, no correlation with the BoM story). That's why in roughly the 50->80s the church started pivoting to pointing to south america as the geography of the book of mormon.
The church has spent a lot of time burying stories like "Zelph" because of how bad they make JS look.
> But for a long time people claimed no body even lived there.
Show me one reputable person that has claimed there were no ancient inhabitants of south america.
Just finished watching "Ancient Apocalypse" on Netflix. They go over this kind of discovery It's quite speculative, but also really fascinating. Even if what they claim is not completely right, it definitely shows how the current accepted understanding of the history of the Americas needs an overhaul and a lot more research PS: if you like this stuff, also check out the movie "The Lost City of Z"
However the whole "forgotten civilization" AKA lost city of Atlantis, just seems too far fetched and forced into the various episodes. That part of it makes for good entertainment at least.
In general, I'm a supporter of his work and look forward to further episodes.
Needs a date in the title - this was posted a number of times here when it was published.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct. But for a long time people claimed no body even lived there. But I agree believing in a book like the Book of Mormon because of some random article would be a bad idea
The book of mormon makes no claim as to geography. Nobody can point to "Zarahemla" on a map. Joseph Smith was almost certainly thinking of the regions he lived in as the basis for book of mormon geography (north america). You just need to read the story of "Zelph" [1] where he picked up a bone and went on a rant about how it was actually a Lamanite warrior named Zelph that lived there. The main reason the North/Centr…
My original comment was mostly in jest considering most members believe it took place in South America.
And yeah, I apologize I didn’t mean literally nobody. I’ll have to see if I can find anything related online, but in high school I was given an anti-Mormon book that had a section talking about how there was no evidence of major cities and there was never as large a population anywhere in Central or South America as large as is claimed in the Book of Mormon.