And hid their eyes and wept; and some did rest
Their chins upon their clenched hands, and smil'd;
And others hurried to and fro, and fed
Their funeral piles with fuel, and look'd up
With mad disquietude on the dull sky, The pall of a past world [1]
That is a cherry picked qoute from Byron's Darkness, it would be very easy given a few centuries, the fact that it is a poem, the loss of historical context, several changes to linguistics followed by selective editing to interpret Byron was talking about the ancient astronaut nuke of 1816 and not the eruption of Mount Tambora. [2]
In fact there is only a single instance of the word volcano in the entire poem, drop that and it reads like fallout because basically it was.
[1] https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43825/darkness-56d222...
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkness_(poem)
Edit: formatting & typo, duplicate link
I guess the appeal of the show is that is raises more questions than it answers. I’m sure there are scientific explanations about most stuff they attribute to aliens, but just asking “how did they build those pyramids?” or “what really happened in that part of the world?” are interesting to think about.
Because of this I like to imagine the "Ancient Astronauts" being either Protoss or Xel'naga.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Burns,_a_Post-Electric_Pla...
These artifacts exist. The academic experts have unanswered questions and cannot rule anything out. Could it be that our theory explains it? Ancient astronaut theorists say, yes.
It's propaganda for a sci-fi ideology, and it's one of my favourite shows to watch because it's so calming and stupid. I think what bothers people is that as a critical theory of archeology, it's just as rigorous and consistent as every other critical theory people use to explain history, and some people find that a bit close to home. You can apply AAT logic to anything, and the relief it brings is that it's like watching a satire of how some critical academics actually reason. Next on "Ancient Struggles..."
Not according to the original writings, as asserted in the article itself which it appears you did not read.
To quote (the article quoting the Ganguli translation of the Mahabharata)
The fact was duly reported to the king. In great distress of mind, the king (Ugrasena) caused that iron bolt to be reduced into fine powder.
Note that the supposed “bomb” is actually a bolt (like a scepter), that the king feared the bolt, and the king destroyed it before it could be used.Theres a reason the iron age comes after the bronze age, afterall...
On to your second point, there is a world of difference between plausible, possible and confirmed by multiple independent sources. It is the reason we say Atlantis is a myth.
I like how none of the followup commenters understood that this statement is the logical form of the entire inquiry that AAT uses and that they apply to literally everything. That's The Joke.
The follow on would be, "Given the evident uncertainty about something so important, are we morally obligated to investigate further? Do the only ones who would object have illigitimate status to preserve and something to hide?"
Maybe I'm the only one who finds their folksy harmlessness funny, but I think it's brilliant.