[polishgenius]

QuickTidal, on 17 March 2016 - 03:51 PM, said:

For example, the Piri Reis map (created in the 14th century)...most academics will pretty much swear that the lower portions of it (which APPEAR to map Antarctica, including the definition of the coastline BEFORE it was covered in ice) is actually just a misinterpretation of the coast of South America made by Reis (or the sources he used)...whereas Hancock (based on his own research and others) comes to the idea that Antarctica (discovered in 1818) was possibly mapped thousands of years prior and was in a continental position that allowed it to be less covered in ice at the time (prior to the Drake Passage existing). The idea that sourced maps could exist with the world looking like it was BEFORE we thought things WERE mapped...is an abhorrent conclusion to most scholars. Is it probable? Eh...I just come down on the line that history isn't and never should be "set". It's in flux as we learn and grow and study...and since we learn new things all the time that question our written history.

I'm curious to know what you/he mean by this. I'm not enough of a historian to be at all able to have an opinion on his ideas on those fronts, I'd have to read the books to have even a vague chance, but I understand enough about plate tectonics and geology to know that the claim that Antarctica was, within a human timeline, far enough away from where it is now to have a significantly different climate to be almost as wild as the idea of aliens. Even if such a big move in so short a time were possible, which I'm pretty sure it's not, it would have left evidence in the surrounding area, and it would likely have caused worldwide effects that would have been in the historical record as various strange devastations. Hey, maybe it's what caused worldwide flood myths - but again, that would require some pretty strong evidence before it's anything but a wild theory.
I could buy the idea that the earth was at some point warm enough that Antarctica wasn't completely iced up - I'd have thought it would have been spotted by now by the traces it left too but it's not inconceivable to me that there was something equivalent to the Roman Warm Period at some stage - but joined on to Brazil? Unlikely.

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 17 March 2016 - 05:23 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 17 March 2016 - 03:51 PM, said:

For example, the Piri Reis map (created in the 14th century)...most academics will pretty much swear that the lower portions of it (which APPEAR to map Antarctica, including the definition of the coastline BEFORE it was covered in ice) is actually just a misinterpretation of the coast of South America made by Reis (or the sources he used)...whereas Hancock (based on his own research and others) comes to the idea that Antarctica (discovered in 1818) was possibly mapped thousands of years prior and was in a continental position that allowed it to be less covered in ice at the time (prior to the Drake Passage existing). The idea that sourced maps could exist with the world looking like it was BEFORE we thought things WERE mapped...is an abhorrent conclusion to most scholars. Is it probable? Eh...I just come down on the line that history isn't and never should be "set". It's in flux as we learn and grow and study...and since we learn new things all the time that question our written history.

I'm curious to know what you/he mean by this. I'm not enough of a historian to be at all able to have an opinion on his ideas on those fronts, I'd have to read the books to have even a vague chance, but I understand enough about plate tectonics and geology to know that the claim that Antarctica was, within a human timeline, far enough away from where it is now to have a significantly different climate to be almost as wild as the idea of aliens. Even if such a big move in so short a time were possible, which I'm pretty sure it's not, it would have left evidence in the surrounding area, and it would likely have caused worldwide effects that would have been in the historical record as various strange devastations. Hey, maybe it's what caused worldwide flood myths - but again, that would require some pretty strong evidence before it's anything but a wild theory.
I could buy the idea that the earth was at some point warm enough that Antarctica wasn't completely iced up - I'd have thought it would have been spotted by now by the traces it left too but it's not inconceivable to me that there was something equivalent to the Roman Warm Period at some stage - but joined on to Brazil? Unlikely.

His point is that the "within a human timeline" as we know it could be somewhat mistaken. Flood/disaster myths that line up with recent findings of some kind of cataclysm around 12,800 years ago (this is prior to the known establishment of human civilization in the cradle of Civ). He posits that humans had progressed PRIOR to when we thought we did (12,000 years back)...but upheaval destroyed most of it, leaving only remnants. I don't think the implication is that Antarctica was tropical or anything, just that it was less ice covered in a time when that could have been measured coastline-wise. Further and more accurate studies have proven that the last period of ice-free condition in the Antarctic ended about 6000 years ago. There are still doubts about the beginning of this ice-free period, which has been put by different researchers everything between year 13000 and 9000 BC. Think about how close the northern edge of Greenland (for example) is to the Arctic Circle...and though ice and snow fills a lot of the interior...the coasts are relatively free of it. I think that's the implication. Not a massive difference (AKA not when it would have been covered in forests millions of years ago, just long enough ago that cartographers (from an early civ) might have mapped it while it was in a state where the coast was map-able. Again, it's not rock solid or anything, but I'm happy to entertain it as a possibility. Lastly, there are other maps he presents (latter maps, some of which were made by well known and respected cartographers) which elude to similar things. I should note that this is not something that can be looked at by itself, lots of factors and theories are involved (it's a nearly 500page book), and in singling it out I'm not doing the author any favors.

But as to his lost civilization theory that permeates this book and others...with the discovery of Goblekli Tepi and Gunung Padang (both obviously full-on civilizations of humans...LONG beofre historians say such things could have existed) basically shutting down the LONG held historical belief that during the era they were built humans were hunter gatherer nomads...and yet a decade ago you'd have been laughed out of academia to suggest such a travesty. I just think nothing is out of the realm of possibility.

Final note: If it's all bollocks in the end (and I don't believe it can be dismissed as such), I really don't mind as it's an enthralling book....theories accurate or not.

EDIT: I forgot this part. Apparently, Einstein supported the theory (Back when it was presented by Hapgood) and found it had merit. That's a pretty big feather in the cap if you ask me.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 17 March 2016 - 06:31 PM

[polishgenius]

I might have to read more about the ancient-ancient ruins. The idea of pre-ancient civilisations has always fascinated me.

Eta: I'm not dismissing the theory that civilisations have been around for longer than we think, but I don't think Einstein's support is all that relevant to its credibility. He was brilliant in his field but that doesn't mean he was expert on everything outside of it - and having a quick look at what Hapgood's proposals were, they're another one where there just doesn't appear to be any evidence for what he proposes not in the historical record, but in the scientific.

This appears to be a difference between Hapgood and what you're telling me of Hancock - the latter, from what you say, is looking just at the historical evidence and suggesting it could be interpreted in one way, but Hapgood hamstrung himself by, as a historian, building his whole theory on a scientific hypothesis (extreme polar shifts) that just doesn't stand up to scrutiny by actual scientists. Correct me if I'm misreading that situation.

This post has been edited by polishgenius: 17 March 2016 - 08:02 PM

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 17 March 2016 - 07:44 PM, said:

I might have to read more about the ancient-ancient ruins. The idea of pre-ancient civilisations has always fascinated me.

Eta: I'm not dismissing the theory that civilisations have been around for longer than we think, but I don't think Einstein's support is all that relevant to its credibility. He was brilliant in his field but that doesn't mean he was expert on everything outside of it - and having a quick look at what Hapgood's proposals were, they're another one where there just doesn't appear to be any evidence for what he proposes not in the historical record, but in the scientific.

This appears to be a difference between Hapgood and what you're telling me of Hancock - the latter, from what you say, is looking just at the historical evidence and suggesting it could be interpreted in one way, but Hapgood hamstrung himself by, as a historian, building his whole theory on a scientific hypothesis (extreme polar shifts) that just doesn't stand up to scrutiny by actual scientists. Correct me if I'm misreading that situation.

This is true...and the map portion is about 5 pages long. It was just one aspect of a multi-pronged set of ideas about pre-ancient civilizations that Hancock sets out to hypothesize.

You should know that regular historians and academics not only consider him a bullshit pseudo-historian, but are vehemently hating of him for some reason.

I guess I like to root for the underdog? But aside from all else he explores mysterious global things with an eye towards not aliens or the supernatural...so much as the fact that we don't fully know (and may never know) what our past accurately looked like. Typically historians put together A and C and get B...but Stonehenge (for one example) has proven repeatedly since the 1970's that we don't know shit we thought we knew. I think that site went from being Iron Aged and crafted by Druids, to Bronze Aged and crafted by nomads, to Stone Aged (and part of a non-nomadic settlement that utterly surrounds the henge) in a period of 30 years...It's one excavation that's always proven to me that we should never feel like we know the last word on any site.

This is also true of Gunung Padang in Indonesia...a site that was initially thought to be 6,500 years old and simply a ruined temple on top of a hill...was discovered recently to be a completely man made hill/pyramid that is actually 12,500 years old, and puts a civilization in the area thousands of years before a known one was to have existed there.

But yeah, I totally get what you are saying. I'm just happy to read about it and make up my melon on what I feel is true or not.

[polishgenius]

He sounds like he could be interesting as long as I accept that some of the stuff I'm probably gonna find implausible going in. Having a read on his background, he does appear to also favour the crust slippage theory, but he doesn't seem to present himself as having all the answers (in fact, he doesn't appear to present himself as a historian at all), so he might not enrage me like reading Gavin Menzies did (seriously, fuck Gavin Menzies).

[Andorion]

QuickTidal, on 17 March 2016 - 08:18 PM, said:

polishgenius, on 17 March 2016 - 07:44 PM, said:

I might have to read more about the ancient-ancient ruins. The idea of pre-ancient civilisations has always fascinated me.

Eta: I'm not dismissing the theory that civilisations have been around for longer than we think, but I don't think Einstein's support is all that relevant to its credibility. He was brilliant in his field but that doesn't mean he was expert on everything outside of it - and having a quick look at what Hapgood's proposals were, they're another one where there just doesn't appear to be any evidence for what he proposes not in the historical record, but in the scientific.

This appears to be a difference between Hapgood and what you're telling me of Hancock - the latter, from what you say, is looking just at the historical evidence and suggesting it could be interpreted in one way, but Hapgood hamstrung himself by, as a historian, building his whole theory on a scientific hypothesis (extreme polar shifts) that just doesn't stand up to scrutiny by actual scientists. Correct me if I'm misreading that situation.

This is true...and the map portion is about 5 pages long. It was just one aspect of a multi-pronged set of ideas about pre-ancient civilizations that Hancock sets out to hypothesize.

You should know that regular historians and academics not only consider him a bullshit pseudo-historian, but are vehemently hating of him for some reason.

I guess I like to root for the underdog? But aside from all else he explores mysterious global things with an eye towards not aliens or the supernatural...so much as the fact that we don't fully know (and may never know) what our past accurately looked like. Typically historians put together A and C and get B...but Stonehenge (for one example) has proven repeatedly since the 1970's that we don't know shit we thought we knew. I think that site went from being Iron Aged and crafted by Druids, to Bronze Aged and crafted by nomads, to Stone Aged (and part of a non-nomadic settlement that utterly surrounds the henge) in a period of 30 years...It's one excavation that's always proven to me that we should never feel like we know the last word on any site.

This is also true of Gunung Padang in Indonesia...a site that was initially thought to be 6,500 years old and simply a ruined temple on top of a hill...was discovered recently to be a completely man made hill/pyramid that is actually 12,500 years old, and puts a civilization in the area thousands of years before a known one was to have existed there.

But yeah, I totally get what you are saying. I'm just happy to read about it and make up my melon on what I feel is true or not.

Any legitimate historian should be ready t admit we can never know everything about our past. If the cultural turn did one thing, it was to make this clear.

[Mentalist]

This week has been hell at work in the "my brain is melting"-exhaustion type of way.

so I've been reading.... this thread, mostly. Started from the beginning and up to page 170 in a diff. tab. As I read, I fix up my Goodreads history and expand my TRP. I find it incredibly therapeutic.


In terms of "real" reading, on my commute I'm blasting through Moorcock's collection of Jerry Cornelius stories, Jerry Cornelius: His lives and times Early stories tied in with the themes in the Cornelius Quartet later are becoming ever more contemporary. It's absurd, at times but totally entertaining and just the kind of light read I needed this week. Expecting to finish it tomorrow and move onto the second Corum trilo next week.

At home, I'm also reading "Grace of Kings". It's an interesting, but "not exciting" book. Its overall tone reminds me of those edutainment programs for kids that are 60% narrator voice and the rest are characters blurting out script lines. The story is VERY believable however (because Liu does a good job exposing all sides of the conflict, their backgrounds and motivations-and his world-building is very solid). The "feels like a history textbook" thing may not work for everyone, but I've always been a self-professed history nerd, so I absolutely LOVE that narration style. I'm looking forward to having more time on the weekend to really sink my teeth deeper into it, but so far, it's an entirely plot-driven pursuit for me. Which makes it easy to put down when my body tells me it's ready to shut down for the night.

[Andorion]

Mentalist, on 18 March 2016 - 03:37 AM, said:

This week has been hell at work in the "my brain is melting"-exhaustion type of way.

so I've been reading.... this thread, mostly. Started from the beginning and up to page 170 in a diff. tab. As I read, I fix up my Goodreads history and expand my TRP. I find it incredibly therapeutic.


In terms of "real" reading, on my commute I'm blasting through Moorcock's collection of Jerry Cornelius stories, Jerry Cornelius: His lives and times Early stories tied in with the themes in the Cornelius Quartet later are becoming ever more contemporary. It's absurd, at times but totally entertaining and just the kind of light read I needed this week. Expecting to finish it tomorrow and move onto the second Corum trilo next week.

At home, I'm also reading "Grace of Kings". It's an interesting, but "not exciting" book. Its overall tone reminds me of those edutainment programs for kids that are 60% narrator voice and the rest are characters blurting out script lines. The story is VERY believable however (because Liu does a good job exposing all sides of the conflict, their backgrounds and motivations-and his world-building is very solid). The "feels like a history textbook" thing may not work for everyone, but I've always been a self-professed history nerd, so I absolutely LOVE that narration style. I'm looking forward to having more time on the weekend to really sink my teeth deeper into it, but so far, it's an entirely plot-driven pursuit for me. Which makes it easy to put down when my body tells me it's ready to shut down for the night.

Soooo how big is your TRP now?

[Abyss]

Mentalist, on 18 March 2016 - 03:37 AM, said:

This week has been hell at work in the "my brain is melting"-exhaustion type of way.

so I've been reading.... this thread, mostly. Started from the beginning and up to page 170 in a diff. tab. As I read, I fix up my Goodreads history and expand my TRP. I find it incredibly masochistic.

FTFY.

[worry]

Finished The Fifth Season. Jemisin is just such a great character writer that even the prickly, grim characters this story focuses on are a pleasure to spend time with. The world-building is a bit scant even in comparison to her usual narrow focus, but what you get is very effective. She really manages to make her fantasies feel epic in spite of very small casts (not unlike The Long Price; I may have made that comparison before). And I sense that this is a world with mysteries waiting to be uncovered anyway.

Now onto Dancer Lamont by the Ice-Man himself.

[Mentalist]

Andorion, on 18 March 2016 - 04:03 AM, said:

Mentalist, on 18 March 2016 - 03:37 AM, said:

This week has been hell at work in the "my brain is melting"-exhaustion type of way.

so I've been reading.... this thread, mostly. Started from the beginning and up to page 170 in a diff. tab. As I read, I fix up my Goodreads history and expand my TRP. I find it incredibly therapeutic.


In terms of "real" reading, on my commute I'm blasting through Moorcock's collection of Jerry Cornelius stories, Jerry Cornelius: His lives and times Early stories tied in with the themes in the Cornelius Quartet later are becoming ever more contemporary. It's absurd, at times but totally entertaining and just the kind of light read I needed this week. Expecting to finish it tomorrow and move onto the second Corum trilo next week.

At home, I'm also reading "Grace of Kings". It's an interesting, but "not exciting" book. Its overall tone reminds me of those edutainment programs for kids that are 60% narrator voice and the rest are characters blurting out script lines. The story is VERY believable however (because Liu does a good job exposing all sides of the conflict, their backgrounds and motivations-and his world-building is very solid). The "feels like a history textbook" thing may not work for everyone, but I've always been a self-professed history nerd, so I absolutely LOVE that narration style. I'm looking forward to having more time on the weekend to really sink my teeth deeper into it, but so far, it's an entirely plot-driven pursuit for me. Which makes it easy to put down when my body tells me it's ready to shut down for the night.

Soooo how big is your TRP now?

currently my Goodreads "To Read" has 101 books in it.
Keep in mind that for unread series I only list one book at a time.
Although to be fair, about 15-20 of those are the "Hidden City" books by Vadim Panov which I have in electronic copy.
I think that once I'm done with my Moorcock collection I will seriously consider looking into an e-reader.

[Andorion]

Mentalist, on 18 March 2016 - 04:24 AM, said:

Andorion, on 18 March 2016 - 04:03 AM, said:

Mentalist, on 18 March 2016 - 03:37 AM, said:

This week has been hell at work in the "my brain is melting"-exhaustion type of way.

so I've been reading.... this thread, mostly. Started from the beginning and up to page 170 in a diff. tab. As I read, I fix up my Goodreads history and expand my TRP. I find it incredibly therapeutic.


In terms of "real" reading, on my commute I'm blasting through Moorcock's collection of Jerry Cornelius stories, Jerry Cornelius: His lives and times Early stories tied in with the themes in the Cornelius Quartet later are becoming ever more contemporary. It's absurd, at times but totally entertaining and just the kind of light read I needed this week. Expecting to finish it tomorrow and move onto the second Corum trilo next week.

At home, I'm also reading "Grace of Kings". It's an interesting, but "not exciting" book. Its overall tone reminds me of those edutainment programs for kids that are 60% narrator voice and the rest are characters blurting out script lines. The story is VERY believable however (because Liu does a good job exposing all sides of the conflict, their backgrounds and motivations-and his world-building is very solid). The "feels like a history textbook" thing may not work for everyone, but I've always been a self-professed history nerd, so I absolutely LOVE that narration style. I'm looking forward to having more time on the weekend to really sink my teeth deeper into it, but so far, it's an entirely plot-driven pursuit for me. Which makes it easy to put down when my body tells me it's ready to shut down for the night.

Soooo how big is your TRP now?

currently my Goodreads "To Read" has 101 books in it.
Keep in mind that for unread series I only list one book at a time.
Although to be fair, about 15-20 of those are the "Hidden City" books by Vadim Panov which I have in electronic copy.
I think that once I'm done with my Moorcock collection I will seriously consider looking into an e-reader.

I follow the same policy and I have 180

Am considering a Paperwhite... reading on the phone while outdoors can get tedious, plus shitty battery life

[Andorion]

Finished Altered Carbon. That book really really really ramped up in the end. I am definitely going to be picking up the sequels. But first I think I am going to try the new Daniel Abraham and Jeff Salyards

[Morgoth]

polishgenius, on 17 March 2016 - 09:04 PM, said:

He sounds like he could be interesting as long as I accept that some of the stuff I'm probably gonna find implausible going in. Having a read on his background, he does appear to also favour the crust slippage theory, but he doesn't seem to present himself as having all the answers (in fact, he doesn't appear to present himself as a historian at all), so he might not enrage me like reading Gavin Menzies did (seriously, fuck Gavin Menzies).

The readers of Gavin Menzies must live in some sort of alternative dimension where his claims make any kind of sense. The man genuinely argues that the Chinese treasure fleet arrived in Venice and sparked the reneissance. I don't know how to describe the level of insanity that claim encapsulates.

This post has been edited by Morgoth: 18 March 2016 - 07:25 AM

[worry]

That's the first I've heard of that theory, and I don't plan to ever look up any arguments for or against, but I think it's true.

[amphibian]

Admiral Zheng He started the Milanese fashion industry.

[Maark Abbott]

Zoolanderis Derake, on 18 March 2016 - 08:03 AM, said:

That's the first I've heard of that theory, and I don't plan to ever look up any arguments for or against, but I think it's true.

Stop playing Age of Empires 2, you.

[QuickTidal]

Zoolanderis Derake, on 18 March 2016 - 04:20 AM, said:

Now onto Dancer Lamont by the Ice-Man himself.

Who is Dancer Lamont?

[worry]

That's what I hope to find out.

[QuickTidal]

Zoolanderis Derake, on 18 March 2016 - 09:57 AM, said:

That's what I hope to find out.

I hope he's buddies with "Bruce" Leroy Green, and they solve mysteries and kick ass together. THE LAST DRAGON 2: THE LEGEND OF LAMONT'S GOLD.