"It looks like.." ...So... (635)

 Today's second example is by Jay Anderson  @TheProjectUnity:

"It looks like.." ...So... (634)

 Courtesy of C. Elmon Meade  @GenMeadesPen:

Cooking the Granite

Marcell Fóti @FoMaHun ("Ancient Mysteries’ Researcher 🗿 Inventor of The Natron Theory 🧂 Solved the artificial granite problem 🪨 with caveman materials only... 295 Following 16.2K Followers) reckons he knows " How to soften the (indestructible) granite?":

There’s a vivid legend among South American indigenous peoples that their ancestors could soften stones. And – watching my video, me softening red granite in a pot – you might be inclined to agree.

But it wasn’t done with plant sap; instead, they used another liquid. And they did not soften stone althought it looks exactly like that. More on that later.

So, what is this mysterious liquid? If I told you, everyone would slap their foreheads and say, “No way, it can’t be that simple.” But yes, it really is that simple.

How can I keep you guessing a little longer before I spill the secret? Let’s talk about the cast stone walls of Peru first. The walls of Sacsayhuamán…

No, no. Let’s cut to the chase. Here’s the secret: the liquid that seemingly "softens" granite isn’t plant sap, but the juice of burned plants—wood ash lye, a.k.a. potassium hydroxide.

And that’s it.

THAT’S IT!!!!

Potassium hydroxide has a melting point of 360°C. When heated beyond that, it starts to slowly, then increasingly rapidly, "consume" the granite – or more precisely, the quartz that forms the backbone of granite.

(So, you don’t even need natron or temperatures of 851°C to "soften" stones.) Here’s what actually happens: the molten potassium hydroxide reacts with quartz (SiO₂) to form potassium silicate (K₂SiO₃), which, after purification, becomes a transparent, slippery industrial adhesive—perfect for making geopolymer, aka synthetic stone.

The reaction looks like this:
KOH + SiO₂ → K₂SiO₃ + H₂O

So, the question isn’t how hard this is to do, because any fool can manage it with an electric stove, a pot, and some potassium hydroxide. If you don’t have any, just soak wood ash for 24 hours, filter it, and boil down the liquid.

The real question is: how the heck does nobody know about this? How is it possible that something this simple is utterly unknown?

Sure, dogmatic beliefs can paralyze curiosity—like the blind faith in the "indestructibility" of granite. “Oh, it’s impossible; no point in even trying!”

Right. But here’s the thing: if someone lights a fire on top of a rock, rainwater soaks the ash, then they light another fire, this phenomenon would occur on its own.

No research and invention necessary—just observation.

How could no one in our civilization notice this? And not just in the West—the indigenous peoples of South America, Indians, Japanese, and everyone else in the 21st century seem oblivious too.

How is that possible?

Were we all zapped by some red light?

@BrianRoemmele; @Graham__Hancock; @joeroganhq' @BrightInsight6.

How they Maybe Did It: Hancock's View

21st Century Dumbdown: Empty Vessels Make Most Noise

             Old man stubbornly but lucratively           
                    fighting reason with ignorance                  

Graham Hancock again has a go at (all) archaeologists for not recognising the "possibility" of an ancient lost civilization, but it is worth noting (as Justine Warren does) that:

Graham Hancock has yet to make a single archaeological discovery, contribute to any genuine understanding of ancient human behavior, or substantiate any of his theories, but continues to use the actual discoveries, and data of archaeologists while straw-manning the discipline for profit

I'd add that despite years of opposing archaeologists and denigrating their efforts, through the content of his writing over that period Hancock evidences precious little evidence he has made any kind of effort to understand the methodology behind the interpretations he so glibly challenges. 

The Diffusion of Archaeological Content on Social Media

 
                                           "Looks like"                                
 

Comfort from Nature:
Bonacchi, C., Krzyzanska, M. and Acerbi, A. Positive sentiment and expertise predict the diffusion of archaeological content on social media. Sci Rep 15, 2031 (2025).  

Abstract
This study investigates the dissemination of archaeological information on Twitter/X through the lens of cultural evolution. By analysing 132,230 tweets containing the hashtag #archaeology from 2021 to 2023, we examine how content and context-related factors influence retweeting behaviour. Our findings reveal that tweets with positive sentiment and non-threatening language are more likely to be shared, contrasting with the common negativity bias observed on social media. Additionally, content authored by experts, particularly those with archaeological or historical expertise, is more frequently retweeted than content from popular figures lacking domain-specific expertise. The study also challenges the notion that pseudoarchaeology spreads rapidly and caution against overestimating its impact. Our results align with other studies on the spread of misinformation and “toxic” behaviour on social media, showing that the sharing of negative and hostile content by a vocal minority of users is mediated by other factors pertaining to the context of the communication. These insights underscore the nuanced dynamics of archaeology communication, emphasizing the importance of expert-led and positively charged narratives in engaging the public on social media.

There is a problem of the methodology here, only texts actually written to contain the hashtag #archaeology were considered. But the majority of discussion on social media has no such defining feature included by the author (it is not assigned by the application automatically when it senses that archaeology is being discussed). It cannot therefore be used to assess the entirety of the social media discussion with reference to the discipline, nor the interpretation of archaeological evidence. In particular, in the case of tweets in "English", a substantial portion of the archaeology content on social media will also be generated by artefact hunters and collectors (UK and USA - where both are common, socially acceptable and in the case of the UK, government supported). Yet in few cases will they be marked by an #archaeology hashtag. This would skew the authors' figures for the "professional" aspect (and dealers in archaeological artefacts?). I was puzzled by this: 

Our findings [...] challenge the notion that pseudoarchaeology spreads rapidly and caution against overestimating its impact".

Whoah. Is trhat really so? The conclusions need more vigorous testing using other labels ("Gobekli Tepe", "Giza", "Maltese Temples", "Megalithic", "ancient", "Clovis" [and "pre-Clovis"], "Younger Dryas", "Easter Island" for example)

Our results align with other studies on the spread of misinformation and “toxic” behaviour on social media, showing that the sharing of negative and hostile content by a vocal minority of users is mediated by other factors pertaining to the context of the communication.

The issue is that any mediation (really?) takes place OUTSIDE the echo-chambers that propagate and disseminate the negative and hostile content about "where archaeologists have got it wrong/are misleading the world/covering up the secrets", where there is little to no penetration. The authors seem not to have taken the context of discussions properly into account.

These insights{..] emphasiz[e] the importance of expert-led and positively charged narratives in engaging the public on social media.

So, this is where we get the main genres of archaeological outreach to the public through the media:

1) The ubiquitous posts: "look at this gorgeous... [glass bead, brooch, bit of coloured woollen fabric, etc...] / funny [phallic amulet or figure [tee hee], whimsical bronze mouse figurine, etc.].../ mysterious [Roman bronze dodecahedron, bâton de commandement/ percé, strange symbol in a graffito etc....]/ touching moment in time [fingerprints in ceramic vessel base, cat prints on a roman tile etc..], etc . [object-centric].

2) The infamous OTD ones beloved of Britain's Portable Antiquities Scheme, "on this day the emperor Squantius Maximus and his troops crossed the river at Rheims... here is a coin of Squantius Maximus". These embody a mixture of dumbdown as well as assumed superiority of the gatekeeper - exhibiting the artefact and (under the guise of benign educator) issuing some crumbs of ex cathedra wisdom for the forelock-tugging hoi polloi who did not have a classical education "like wot I did". [object-centric].


3) Then the trophy hunter, discoverer of this, the "biggest", "oldest", "best-preserved", most valuable/richly-decorated [= desirable] ones of these ever found... ["yeah, other museums have dodecahedrons, but OURS is the...."]. [object-centric].

4) continuing the "Discoverer" theme, we've cleverly/luckily found ("stumbled across") one of these [Roman villa, Hillfort, site with celtic metalwork/Slavic pottery etc] where nobody has ever found anything like that before or would never believe could be found here.

5) The spooky past wuuuuu [good Halloween story link] - "vampire grave", "were they buried alive?", a "witch bottle", "traces of mysterious rites".

6) Celebrity value. King Henry VIII's second cousin's personal seal matrix found in a field ("how did it get here? Perhaps [insert romantic speculation]") [often object-centric, and used to illustrate a history known from the written records].

7) An example of ... a thousand and one types of objects mentioned in the written records, and here, is an actual example of a [hawker's bell, Roman strigil, gaming dice, sherd with a gladiatorial scene, gem showing armour of the Homeric period, wadjet eye amulet etc etc...] [often object-centric, and used to illustrate a history known from the written records].

There are several more. The point is that NONE of them actually enlighten the reader on the nature of archaeology and its methodology(ies). The latter surely is the fundamental purpose of publoic education about archaeology - NOT simply lazily presenting it as merely digging up and making publicity/stories out of old things found. No matter how "positive". 

An Analogy to Pseudoarchaeology

IntegralAnswers (X - @IntegralAnswers) " An integrally-informed and pathologically curious healthcare professional. Combatting disinfo in public health sphere. Passionate amateur photographer" has a great analogy to the way pseudoarchaeologists talk:

@IntegralAnswers · Jan 15

Layperson: “I’ve figured out how to make airplanes faster, lighter, and way more fuel-efficient. I don’t need a degree or experience—I just see what others ignore. Wanna hear it?”

Engineer: “Sure. I’ve been an aerospace engineer for 20 years. Let’s hear your breakthrough.”

Layperson: “First, scrap the wings. They’re heavy and unnecessary. Planes should just use jet engines and glide without them. Simpler and way lighter.”

Engineer: “Wings are essential for lift. Without them, a plane can’t stay in the air. It’s basic aerodynamics.”

Layperson: “Sounds like propaganda from Big Wing.”


Layperson: “And get rid of fuel tanks. Use magnets instead to pull the plane forward. Fuel is just a scam to make airlines rich.”

Engineer: “Magnets don’t create energy; they can’t replace jet fuel. Aviation fuel has the energy density necessary for sustained flight.”

Layperson: “You’re brainwashed. Think outside the box!”


Layperson: “Also, planes should have square shapes. All these curves are just aesthetic nonsense.”

Engineer: “Curves reduce drag and improve aerodynamics, making planes faster and more efficient.”

Layperson: “That’s just what the textbooks want you to believe.”


Engineer: “Have you studied aerodynamics, propulsion, or structural engineering?”

Layperson: “No, but I’ve read some blogs and watched videos. Plus, my ideas are common sense. Your fancy math overcomplicates everything.”

Engineer: “Years of research back the math. Physics doesn’t care about opinions.”

Layperson: “You’re just defending your industry. If you admitted my ideas work, you’d lose your job.”

Engineer: “My job is to make planes safer and more efficient. If your ideas worked, I’d use them.”

Layperson: “Classic gatekeeping.”


Engineer: “So, you think every aerospace engineer is lying or incompetent?”

Layperson: “Most are, yeah. They just repeat what Big Aerospace teaches them.”

Engineer: “What’s your actual evidence?”

Layperson: “I just know it makes sense.”

Layperson: “Mark my words: one day my designs will revolutionize aviation.”

Engineer: “Without evidence or testing, it’s just speculation. Planes don’t fly on intuition.”

Layperson: “You’re too close-minded to see the future.”


Parallel: Anti-vaxxers approach vaccine science the same way:

•Reject foundational knowledge.

•Claim common sense beats expertise.

•Believe in grand conspiracies.

But science, like aerodynamics, isn’t optional—it’s how reality works.

Trusting experts doesn’t mean blind faith—it means respecting evidence, experience, and hard work. If you wouldn’t trust a layperson to design a plane, why trust one to rewrite vaccine science?

The same goes for the pseudo-archaeoplogists' attack on the discipline.

Dr Dibble Working on a Book

 

                               Grok                            

I am glad to hear that after the Joe Rogan podcast presentation in April last year and the subsequent hate-fest that he (and archaeology in general) was subjected to by the Yahoos that support Hancock's surmises and speculations about the past, Cardiff's Dr Flint Dibble is working on a book to set out the foundations of archaeology that hancock sweeps aside. It will be a welcome addition to the material in the public domanin to offset what Jimmy Corsetti, the "perfect stone vase guys" and all the metal detectorists with their spades are doing. I hope Dr Dibble will dissect the fluff over the "Ice Age Civilization - why not? You-ain't-excavated-everywhere model", examining the evidence without their cherry-picking. I hope it will lay out in clear terms using this aberrant alternatiuve model as a case study how we know what we know. I hope it the author will show what, in what we do (the methodologies of our research), equates to the scientific method - and how far that takes us; what in what the pseudies unreflexively do does not. Fingers crossed.

Clovis First Among Collectors?

I think this https://projectilepoints.net/ webpage is an excellent and thought-provoking resource about arrowhead collection (my project for 2025). I find its presentation of the typology very enlightening, and am particularly taken with the coverage of raw materials.* I have a question.

If one is an "arrowhead" hunter/ collector in the USA, what are the type names given to the "paleo" points that are pre-Clovis?

On US collectors' websites like this, am I mistaken in seeing that points of the 'Clovis 'cluster' seems to be the earliest types listed?

 If so, is this a persistence of the "Clovis First" model here? Do not US collectors aspire to be "independent thinkers trying to make sense of the past" like the British "metal detectorists" (laughably) claim to be? Is there any literature on this? (I mean the US, not the Brits)  

*The site is unattributed to a group of authors/moderators/creators - does anyone know who's behind it? 

Dumbdown

Carl Sagan warned us about dumbing-down 30 years ago: 

Apparently, today, the average adult American reads at the 7th- to 8th-grade level, according to The Literacy Project. For the rest of us, US 7th grade: 12-13 years old. 8th grade: 13-14 years old. Wow.

Hapgood's Earth Crust Displacement Theory

Charles Hapgood's Earth Crust Displacement Theory

.

Posted on You Tube by See the Pattern@SeethePattern Oct 11, 2021

.

Hyperdiffusionism in its Context

@lukecaverns  @lukecaverns 1 day ago: Yeah the accusations of Graham's theories being racially driven is ridiculous.

Why not actually address what has ACTUALLY been written (it is written, so if you don't understand it the first time, you can re-read it until you do) instead of what you "think" was said? Then.... when you have familiarised yourself with the actual argument.... you can say WHY you think it is not true. Any hyperdiffusionist interpretation is predicated on the idea that one culture "had to be shown by somebody outside" how to do something. If Hancock's "theories" (which are nothing of the kind in fact) fit into that category, then they incorporate ideas of cultural superiority like all the rest. Prove he's not been employing hyperdiffusionism (present in his writing about a lost civilization FROM THE BEGINNING) before glibly saying his critics have somehow got it "ridiculously" wrong.

 

PseudoArchaeology: Views from Down-Under

Member of the US-based Comet Research Group Marc Young ( @Marc_Young_90) from Flinders University in Adeleide holds the view that "archaeologists are not scientists, and in fact, the discipline of archaeology is profoundly pseudoscientific". He justifies why in a text here: "This is 100% true, and i'll explain why"

This may be compared with his earlier essay 'Spiritual and Intellectual Colonialism: The Crusade Against Pseudoarchaeology', published 10th July 2020 on the Graham Hancock (sic) website).* In the eaerlier text he fails to define the topic, omitting iun what way archaeology differs from its imitation (clue: in the accepted methodology[ies] employed) merely noting superficially:

"...the only correct definition, based in etymology: pseudo is defined as ‘having the appearance of, false, fake, not genuine’. Thus, pseudoarchaeology is herein defined as something that is not archaeology but is masquerading as archaeology. "

I do not know how archaeology is taught in Flinders University, and which textbooks they use, but the second essay of their recent graduate is equally disappointing and lacking substance.

Basically if you read it carefully, his argument boils down (only) to "archaeology is pseudarchaeology, because archaeology is pseudoarchaeology". He can only quote basic literature from the 1980s(!) and has not grasped the essence of British post-processual argument.

He even misuses this, making a pastiche of two separate quotes by Hodder, omitting the qualifying arguments between them (he cites it as "Hodder (1984:467–468)", but the actual reference is Hodder (1984: and 30).** Apart from his cut-and-paste cherry-picking of statements made by yesterday's "authorities", he also harks on about the hoary old standby (non)argument about some unseemly US ruckus about "Clovis first". His only other argument is in fact from physical anthropology and ethics of handling of human remains, a subject that is indeed controversial everywhere.

I think the author of these texts is seeking validation and finds it among the guffawing lads of the "alternative-history" YouTuber crowd and is playing to their  gallery. Above all though, because I do not doubt his sincerity, he fails to step back (probably through lack of experience) from a focus on narrow issues involving methodology-free "Atlantist-catastrophist" ("alternative") models of the past to see the wider panorama of the discipline as a while before reaching his "conclusions".

* ...written, as he says, "in my History of Archaeological Thought class [in his undergraduate university course at Flinders PMB] with Former President of the World Archaeological Congress, and editor of the Encyclopedia of World Archaeology, Claire Smith, who graded it with a High Distinction". I would have marked it down for an excessive use of colloquialisms for a piece of academic writing.

** I think what he actually means is the same phrases reused by Hodder in another work of his (Theory and Practice in Archaeology 1992) where these separate phrases appear on pages  110 and 114 - but since these page numbers dont match up either, perhaps Young is citing yet another cut-and-paste fragments taken from yet another work by Hodder...

The work cited by Young: Hodder, I. 1984 Archaeology in 1984. Antiquity 58(222):25–32.

PseudoArchaeology and Human Remains

Pseudoarchaeologists and their concern (or lack of it) on ethical issues connected with the handling of human remains:

Fredrik Trusohamn,
'How Pseudoscience Exploits Human Remains for Alien Theories'
Digging up Aliens January 9, 2025 by