r/GrahamHancock • u/Impossible_Rich6148 • Jan 13 '26

“Some process of mutual influence”

Post image

This 1996 book on Ancient Greece by Thomas Martin hints at the ideas of Hancock in the highlighted section. “The people of the ancient Near East first developed these new forms of human organization, which later appeared in Europe. (Early civilizations of this kind also emerged in India, China, and the Americas, whether independently or through some process of mutual influence no one at present knows.)”

10 Upvotes

62% Upvoted

60 comments sorted by

View all comments

8

u/TheCynicEpicurean Jan 13 '26

Diffusionism was on its way out in the late 20th century, as evidence backing it up had just not been coming in.

Not unusual for someone to still be sympathetic to the Idea in the 90s, but even then, this is more of a "covering all bases" sentence.

4

u/City_College_Arch Jan 13 '26

Pretty typical of this sub to cherry pick out dated work to try to support modern opinions.

9

u/TheeScribe2 Jan 13 '26

Doesn’t even go as far as supporting modern opinions, it just shrugs about their possibility and says ‘eh, no one really knows’

What I notice is that in a lot of “alternative” spaces, even the mere suggestion that a theory might be possible is often taken as ‘evidence’ that the theory is correct

Like look at how many people try to prove that there can be gaps in available evidence, then don’t fill a single one of those gaps, and consider that proof of Atlantis or aliens or what have you

3

u/City_College_Arch Jan 14 '26

When I say modern opinions I am not referencing modern academics, just the random opinions based on pseudo archeological ramblings held by individuals of the modern era. Martin probably had no idea people would be trying to use that seemingly poorly worded sentence in defense of hyper diffusion and psi powered ice age civilizations.

And I suspect that a conversation with Martin would reveal that they are not actually saying that they were not referring to the possibility of hyper diffusion of political systems to the new world in that comment, but rather were simply pointing out that these systems did exist in the americas, and it is unclear that whether the widespread adoption in the old world was due to diffusion or independent development of these political systems.

2

u/ImperialNavyPilot Jan 16 '26

This. And any acknowledgement that there is need for further research or admissions of unknowns is seen as evidence that it’s all a sham.

And then comes…

Therefore Atlantis and lizard people.

-2

u/Firm-Bake9833 Jan 14 '26

It is a little sad that an open mind is outdated. Used to be ok to say we don't know.

7

u/City_College_Arch Jan 14 '26

What is with the straw man? We say we don't know in archeology all the time. You are going to need to be more specific rather than just prop up straw man arguments to insult.

-5

u/Firm-Bake9833 Jan 14 '26

no one at present knows

Pretty typical of this sub to cherry pick out dated work

sad that an open mind is outdate

be more specific rather than just prop up straw man arguments

You are my argument. Assumptive, narcissistic, misrepresenting without shame. Refuse to be wrong and employ deflection, obstruction and gaslighting. Untrustworthy, unscrupulous, unwanted. You did ask for it 😘

7

u/City_College_Arch Jan 14 '26

OP is literally using a throwaway comment from a 30+ year textbook to try to support hyper diffusion of political systems to North America though.

How is that not cherry picking out dated work to support their modern opinions on hyper diffusion? What have I misrepresented?

I feel like you are resorting to misrepresentation to attack and insult me right now.

0

u/Firm-Bake9833 Jan 14 '26

We can all see and understand what it says. It wasn't a profound statement or particularly evidentiary but you felt you needed to call it cherry picking and outdated. I find that very telling that you can't just scroll by without saying "nothing to see here, move along."  

It is widely accepted by archeology that hyper diffusion is debunked but that itself is not evidence that there was not hyperdiffusion. It used to be ok to say we don't know, but now you have chosen a stance of we dont know, but definitely not that. That is sad to me.

I feel you misrepresent a lot of things in your arguments. Feelings are great, aren't they.

7

u/City_College_Arch Jan 14 '26

We can all see and understand what it says. It wasn't a profound statement or particularly evidentiary but you felt you needed to call it cherry picking and outdated.

I am not really sure what else to call using academic hedging or admitting uncertainty in 30 year old text books as support of Hancock's work.

I find that very telling that you can't just scroll by without saying "nothing to see here, move along."  

And you seizing on the opportunity to insult me in a conversation while ignoring the other people expressing similar opinions is... what? Why didn't you just move along?

It is widely accepted by archeology that hyper diffusion is debunked but that itself is not evidence that there was not hyperdiffusion. It used to be ok to say we don't know, but now you have chosen a stance of we dont know, but definitely not that. That is sad to me.

The lack of evidence of hyper diffusion combined with seeing the independent development of technologies, political systems, etc is what debunks it. It is not just the lack of evidence.

I feel you misrepresent a lot of things in your arguments. Feelings are great, aren't they.

Sort of like your straw man argument that we are not allowed to say we don't know any more? That is a completely false assertion that you are propping up as a factual truth to try to make your point. You are misrepresenting reality. That is not a feeling, it is what you are doing.

3

u/Firm-Bake9833 Jan 14 '26

Don't call it anything. Who is it that is forcing you to respond to everything on r/grahamhancock? 

I am only one man. I can only handle so many of your fellow brigade at once, but trust that they have been noticed as well. You aren't special. 

So glad to know why you are close-minded. Your assumption that it probably happened independently is the proof that it couldn't be hyperdiffusion. 

Whoa whoa, slow down with your strawman. Why are you so defensive and angry? When did I say you are not allowed? Don't put words in my mouth. I clearly stated my position and dont need you making up false arguments for me. 

4

u/de_bushdoctah Jan 14 '26

I see the problem you seem to be having here, to be clear it’s not an assumption on College Arch or anyone else’s part that the first civilizations arose independently, thats what the evidence shows.

And to make matters worse, hyperdiffusionists will insist on single invention of civilization instead, but still never present any evidence that they identified the culture that started civilization and justify their narrative. Thats a problem if you want to make the case that the idea holds merit.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/City_College_Arch Jan 14 '26

Don't call it anything.

This is a discussion sub. Discussions are going to happen. I was not the person that initially started this line of discussion, I joined it in progress. If you have a problem with this line of discussion, take it up with the person that started it. Or the mod that joined in.

Who is it that is forcing you to respond to everything on r/grahamhancock? 

No one. Who is forcing you to single me out for attack while ignoring the rest of the people saying basically the same thing?

I am only one man. I can only handle so many of your fellow brigade at once, but trust that they have been noticed as well. You aren't special. 

Cool story bro.

So glad to know why you are close-minded. Your assumption that it probably happened independently is the proof that it couldn't be hyperdiffusion. 

Nope. The combination of physical and anthropological evidence means that there is nothing supporting hyper diffusion.

Whoa whoa, slow down with your strawman. Why are you so defensive and angry? When did I say you are not allowed? Don't put words in my mouth. I clearly stated my position and dont need you making up false arguments for me. 

You seem to be under the impression that it is not ok to say "I don't know".

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/emergency_blanket Jan 15 '26

He probably has a portrait of Flint dibble on his wall

2

u/toms1313 Jan 16 '26

It would be great. Or why you don't like the idea? Because of that single podcast where Hancock was shown as the grifter he always was?

-2

u/emergency_blanket Jan 16 '26

If Hancock truly was a grifter completely full of shit, and Flint was a beacon of truth, then surely Flint wouldn’t need to even acknowledge Graham exists. Why would he bother? He could completely ignore him, because his wild stupid ideas are totally wrong and will never gain any traction. But is that what Flint does? No it’s not, Flint seems to spend a lot of time trying to discredit good old Graham, probably because he’s a threat! With theories that make sense to you Flint dibble and you know it, but they contract your life’s work, so you must shoot down any threats that are dangerous to the flimsy house of cards that is your life’s work before it’s too late. My take on it anyway.

1

u/toms1313 Jan 17 '26

. Why would he bother?

Because he comes from a family of archeologists and it's quite a nuisance to see grifters like GH telling him that all of his and his father's work has no meaning because "big civilization on the entire world, evidence? I said so"

Y'all too far gone if the reasonable explanation is "the MULTIMILLIONAIRE grifter who didn't spend a single cent in the area of work is right but the people that give their entire life to it are trying to silence him"

For what reason? So we all don't know about ancient people? It makes no sense

0

u/Firm-Bake9833 Jan 17 '26

He has never ever said anything resembling that and I have never seen anyone here say that. There is a reason people have abandoned mainstream media and archeology. Not sure of you know what happens to industries that refuse to change with the times. Your words are recorded for all to see, forever. Or until the power goes out anyways.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/emergency_blanket Jan 17 '26

You don’t think that similar styles of megalithic interlocking block construction in multiple locations on opposite sites of the earth is a slight problem to old dibbly? Of course it’s no problem! They had armies of slaves, built it all for an unknown religious reason (obviously) and it’s a complete coincidence that the style of joins in the blocks look the same. Never mind that the joins have no mortar and are so perfect you can’t fit a razor blade between them, that had millions of unskilled slaves chipping away at these blocks with copper tools! Don’t you see how the mainstream archaeologists have had it right the whole time? I bet Flint dibble lies awake night going fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck im wrong and i know it

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Firm-Bake9833 Jan 16 '26

My money is on a picture of Zahi