Link to Netflix, Ancient Apocalypse: https://www.netflix.com/title/81211003
Link to SAA open letter: https://documents.saa.org/container/docs/default-source/doc-governmentaffairs/saa-letter-ancient-apocalypse.pdf
Click thumbnails below to enlarge:
SAA: This series publicly disparages archaeologists and devalues the archaeological profession on the basis of false claims and disinformation.
GH: What false claims? What disinformation? Even archaeologists make occasional factual errors in their papers, and I can’t exclude the possibility, here or there across nearly 30 years of output on this subject, that I may have made some honest factual errors. But I have never knowingly made “false claims” or deliberately spread “disinformation” and would never do so. I have been outspoken about the many failings of archaeology as an institution, but at no point in Ancient Apocalypse is any individual archaeologist disparaged. With its 30th November 2022 open letter, however, the SAA seeks to disparage me as an individual, to defame my reputation for honest reporting and to do harm to me personally. In such a case it is not enough simply to state, without substantiation, that I have made false claims and spread disinformation about archaeologists. Yet the open letter presents no facts and no substantiation only the opinion of the SAA – the honesty and “authority” of which, the SAA seems to assume, must be accepted without question or quibble.
SAA: I write to encourage you to… provide disclaimers about the unfounded suppositions in the show…
GH: What unfounded suppositions? A statement of authority is in no way substantiation for such a slur.
SAA: The effects of this show run directly counter to the purpose, mission, goals, and vision of the SAA.
GH: So, a television series should not have been made because the SAA doesn’t like its content? And the tens of millions of viewers who have engaged with the series should never have been allowed to see it or make up their own minds about its content? Is it the “mission” of the SAA to control the narrative about the human past, to exclude alternative narratives, and to deny viewers the right to make informed choices?
SAA: We have three principal concerns with regard to Ancient Apocalypse: (1) the host of the series repeatedly and vigorously dismisses archaeologists and the practice of archaeology with aggressive rhetoric, willfully seeking to cause harm to our membership and our profession in the public eye…
GH: Since the late 1990’s I, Graham Hancock, the host of the series, have been insultingly dismissed and repeatedly attacked by archaeologists using aggressive rhetoric and seeking intentionally to do harm to my reputation, my family and my work. The SAA’s open letter is just one of the more recent examples of this ongoing highly personalised vendetta.
SAA: (2) Netflix identifies and advertises the series as a “docuseries,” a genre that implies its content is grounded in fact when the content of the show is based on false claims about archaeologists and archaeology.
GH: What false claims? In what ways exactly is the content of the Ancient Apocalypse docuseries not “grounded in fact”? And what false claims about archaeologists and archaeology is its content based on? The open letter offers no substantiation for these grave defamations, nor any proof that the SAA’s own claims about the series are true and grounded in fact.
SAA: (3) the theory it presents has a long-standing association with racist, white supremacist ideologies; does injustice to Indigenous peoples; and emboldens extremists.
GH: This is a spurious attempt to smear by association. My own theory of a lost civilization of the Ice Age, and the evidence upon which that theory is based, presented in Ancient Apocalypse in 2022 and in eight books over the previous 27 years, is what I take responsibility for. It is nonsensical to blame me for the hypotheses of others, either now or in the past, or for how others have reacted to those hypotheses.
SAA: Popular television series such as Ancient Aliens on the History Channel have promoted false claims about the ancient past for many years. These claims frequently rob Indigenous peoples of credit for their cultural heritage. However, Ancient Apocalypse is more harmful than Ancient Aliens. It not only disparages the cultures of Indigenous peoples but also carries the harm a step further by disparaging archaeologists. The combative tone of Graham Hancock damages the public’s perception of archaeology.
GH: Ancient Apocalypse does not in any way “disparage the cultures of Indigenous peoples”; it does, however, claim that the relatively simple technologies that archaeologists attribute to all humans in prehistory are insufficient to explain some key anomalies that prehistory presents us with – including but not limited to ancient, highly sophisticated knowledge of an obscure astronomical phenomenon known as the precession of the equinoxes, knowledge of how to calculate longitude thousands of years before our own civilization could do so, knowledge of the correct dating – to around 11,600 years ago – of the global sea-level rise that modern geologists call Meltwater Pulse 1B, and the chronological implications of the precipitation-induced erosion seen on the Great Sphinx of Giza. I have already addressed the claim that “Graham Hancock damages the public’s perception of archaeology” – a claim rooted in the notion that archaeology, unlike other professions, is somehow above challenge, and that “the public’s perception of archaeology” should be kept in conformity with the perception of archaeology favoured by the SAA. One again it seems that the SAA’s primary motive is to control and monopolise the narrative about the human past.
SAA: After more than a century of professional archaeological investigations, we find no archaeological evidence to support the existence of an “advanced, global Ice Age civilization” of the kind Hancock suggests. Archaeologists have investigated hundreds of Ice Age sites and published the results in rigorously reviewed journals. The assertion that Ancient Apocalypse is a factual “docuseries” or “documentary” rather than entertainment with ideological goals is preposterous. If there were any credible evidence for a “global Ice Age civilization” of the kind Hancock suggests, archaeologists would investigate it and report their findings with rigor according to the scientific methods, practices, and theories of our discipline. If the evidence warranted scientific peer-review, we would acquire funding to test it, publish our results, and promote it in our own outreach materials.
GH: That archaeologists have not found material evidence that would convince them of the existence of a lost civilization of the Ice Age, is not by any means compelling evidence that no such civilization could have existed. The axiom is old but true that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” – especially so in the case of archaeology when only limited areas of the Earth’s surface have ever been subject to archaeological survey at all.
The 27 million sq. kms. of prime coastal lands that were submerged by rising sea-levels at the end of the Ice Age, and that are now under as much as 120 meters of water, have hardly been surveyed at all, with the bulk of marine archaeology focussed on shipwrecks from the historical period and only very recently an interest in the submerged continental shelves inhabited during the Ice Age. The 9 million sq. kms. of the Sahara desert, green and fertile for long periods during the Ice Age, have received only very limited archaeological attention. The roughly 6 million sq. kms. of the Amazon that are still hidden under dense canopy rainforest have likewise received minimal archaeological attention until very recently. The massive Ice Age Sunda Shelf, of which the Indonesian islands and the Malaysian peninsula are the surviving remnants after sea-level rise at the end of the Ice Age, has never benefitted from a comprehensive marine-archaeological survey. Moreover, as the reaction of the SAA to Ancient Apocalypse makes clear, archaeologists have already convinced themselves that the very notion of a lost civilization of the Ice Age is preposterous – with the result that no effort is made to mount a targeted search for such a thing, while those outside the profession who have the temerity to mount searches of their own are labelled as pseudoscientists and frauds.
As to the SAA’s reference to what it claims are the “ideological goals” of the series, what are these alleged “ideological goals”? Absent any clarification – and none is provided in the open letter – this is merely another spurious, unsubstantiated slur.
SAA: Contrary to Hancock’s claims, archaeology does not willfully ignore credible evidence nor does it seek to suppress it in a conspiratorial fashion.
GH: I do not claim that archaeology wilfully ignores credible evidence, only that it appoints itself the sole authority on what is or is not “credible” and therefore rules out certain evidence that I and others regard as both credible and significant – such as the geology of the Sphinx, or the fact that Plato’s date for the submergence of Atlantis (9,000 years before Solon’s visit to Egypt, i.e. approximately 9,600 BC, i.e. approximately 11,600 years ago) coincides so closely with the date of Meltwater Pulse 1B as established by modern geologists.
Neither do I claim that archaeology seeks to suppress credible evidence. My claim is that the problem is one of perception within archaeology where, without any “conspiracy” involved, unexamined preconceptions and received wisdom about the origins of civilization inevitably bias judgements about the possibility of a lost civilization of the Ice Age.
SAA: Archaeologists devote their careers and lives to researching and sharing knowledge about the past with the public. When Hancock refers to professionals as “so-called experts” and accuses them of being “patronizing” or “arrogant,” this disparages our public reputation.
GH: I also have devoted my career and life to sharing knowledge about the past with the public. When archaeologists label me as a “pseudoscientist”, a “liar”, a “racist” and a “fraud” they directly disparage my personal reputation. And as I have already stated, no individual archaeologist was disparaged in the series; my critique is focussed on the profession in general, on its paradigm of the origins of civilization – which by definition excludes a lost civilization of the Ice Age – and on its potent, near monopolistic influence, through the education system and through the media, on public perceptions of the past.
SAA: Our archaeological community is not monolithic but extremely diverse. Our membership represents a wide range of nationalities, ethnicities, genders, and beliefs.
GH: Is American archaeology a shining example of ethnic diversity and inclusiveness? Detailed census data for 2010-2019 (‘Archaeology Demographics and Statistics in the US’), suggest otherwise:
Of particular note in Figure 1 is the revelation that only 1.2 per cent of American archaeologists are of indigenous, Native American origin. How can a predominantly white profession claim inclusivity and objectivity in its studies of Native American prehistory and its comprehension of Native American knowledge when Native Americans constitute such a tiny percentage of the total number of researchers?
Turning to the SAA itself, the latest year for which I have full data on membership to hand (from the SAA’s own Census and Needs Assessment Surveys) is 2015 when 77.7 per cent of SAA members who responded were white (non-Hispanic), 6.7% were Hispanic or Latino, 2.5% were multiracial, 2.4% were of another race, 1.9% were Asian or Pacific Islander, 0.8% were Native American or Alaskan Native, 0.3% were Black or African American, and 7.7% chose not to answer the question (Laura Heath Stout & Elizabeth Hannigan, ‘Affording Archaeology: How Field School Costs Promote Exclusivity’, in Advances in Archaeological Practices 8 (2) 2020, p. 124.)
Writing in 2021, as part of a document on their ‘Historically Underrepresented Groups Scholarships Fund’ (HUGS) the SAA warns that:
Absent significant new recruitment, 10 years from now, the membership of the Society will probably still be predominantly white, with even higher proportions of this ethnic group among its senior leadership. Viewed in the context of the 2010 demographic profile for U.S K12 students, the disparity between SAA membership and societal composition may become more pronounced in two decades. (Dianne Gifford-Gonzalez & Anna S. Agbe-Davies, The SAA’s Historically Underrepresented Groups Scholarships Fund: A New Opportunity and Challenge, November 2021, p. 12. Emphasis added by the SAA author.)
Each year, the SAA offers up to four scholarships to ‘underrepresented groups’ via HUGS and up to eight scholarships to Native Americans via the Native American Scholarships Fund. As the SAA sees it:
Scholarship outreach to students of underrepresented groups signals that we as a profession have invited them to join our ranks and to carry out the Society’s mission. (Dianne Gifford-Gonzalez & Anna S. Agbe-Davies, November 2021, p. 15.)
However, in an article directly critiquing scholarships and the expense of education in archaeology, Laura Heath-Stout and Elizabeth Hannigan argue that “the creation of additional scholarships… is a means of altering the perception of the archaeological community without substantially changing demographics…” Consequently:
any attempt at acknowledging pervasive issues in archaeological academia is used by institutions as evidence that they have already succeeded. If the organization is pressured to implement additional approaches to promoting diversity, they can refer back to their scholarship program as a successful example of diversity work and refrain from broadening their efforts. (Laura Heath Stout & Elizabeth Hannigan, ‘Affording Archaeology: How Field School Costs Promote Exclusivity’, in Advances in Archaeological Practices 8 (2) 2020, p. 130.)
It’s the view of archaeologist Bill White that, structural racism is baked into American Archaeology. (Bill White, ‘The 2020 Race Uprisings and Archaeology’s Response’, June 17 2020
Here is an abstract for a recent presentation at the SAA 2021 Annual General Meeting:
Regrettably, after multiple complaints of archaeological disrespect towards indigenous human remains in this presentation, Deborah Nichols, then President of the SAA replied:
“submissions might be flagged if they analyze looted artifacts, report doing work without the appropriate permits, or promote pseudoarchaeology…” No one flagged Weiss’s and Springer’s abstract, Nichols says, though she called their argument “dated.”(Lizzie Wade, ‘An archaeology society hosted a talk against returning Indigenous remains. Some want a new society, April 19 2021
It is surely a telling comment on the character of the SAA that alarms can be set off by anything perceived as “pseudoarchaeology” but that racist disrespect of Native American remains is permitted and is criticised, if at all, only as “dated”. Science magazine, journalist Lizzie Wade cites indigenous archaeologist Dr Kisha Supernant:
Supernant was shocked to hear such arguments presented at an important archaeology conference. “There are Indigenous members of the SAA, myself included, and there’s so little care given to how a paper like that might have harmed us,” she says. “It was a very difficult experience to sit through that paper … when your very humanity and human rights are being questioned…”
For Supernant, it is too little, too late. She’s leaving SAA and hopes to build a new professional organization, tentatively called the Society for Engaged Archaeology. When she tweeted about her idea… she received a flood of interest and support. “This was the last straw that galvanized a number of us to seriously start doing that planning,” she says. “I understand that institutions are slow to change. But I don’t feel confident that the SAA actually wants to.” (Lizzie Wade, April 19 2021
SAA: Netflix and ITN Productions are actively assaulting our expert knowledge, fostering distrust of our scientific community, diminishing the credibility of our members in the public eye, and undermining our extensive and ongoing efforts at outreach and public education.
GH: I repeat that no individual archaeologist was disparaged in the series. There should be no sacred cows, however, when it comes to the criticism of institutions. My critique of archaeology as an institution is no different from any critique of any large, powerful and influential bureaucracy – such as the United Nations, or a major police force, or a multinational company – and when I see failings I have the right as a human being with free speech to call those failings out, just as I called out the failings of the international aid business in my 1989 book Lords of Poverty. Moreover, the influence of my perception of archaeology as an institution, even on a platform with the massive outreach of Netflix, is minimal by comparison with the all-pervading influence of archaeology through the education system and through the media on public understanding of “the facts” of the past. In short Ancient Apocalypse is an attempt to restore some balance to what has, hitherto, been a very one-sided debate.
SAA: The assertions Hancock makes have a history of promoting dangerous racist thinking. His claim for an advanced, global civilization that existed during the Ice Age and was destroyed by comets is not new. This theory has been presented, debated, and refuted for at least 140 years. It dates to the publication of Atlantis: The Antediluvian World (1882) and Ragnarok: The Age of Ice and Gravel (1883) by Minnesota congressman Ignatius Donnelly. This theory steals credit for Indigenous accomplishments from Indigenous peoples and reinforces white supremacy.
From Donnelly to Hancock, proponents of this theory have suggested that white survivors of this advanced civilization were responsible for the cultural heritage of Indigenous peoples in the Americas and around the world. However, the narratives on which claims of “white saviors” are based have been demonstrated to be ones modified by Spanish conquistadors and colonial authorities for their own benefit. These were subsequently used to promote violent white supremacy. Hancock’s narrative emboldens extreme voices that misrepresent archaeological knowledge in order to spread false historical narratives that are overtly misogynistic, chauvinistic, racist, and anti-Semitic.
GH: There have indeed been suggestions in the past that a comet impact may have been the agency that destroyed a lost civilization of the Ice Age. But neither in Ancient Apocalypse, nor in my books, do I draw upon these prior hypotheses. My work on this matter – in Magicians of the Gods (2015), America Before (2019), and Ancient Apocalypse (2022) – is entirely based on the findings of around 100 scientists published in major peer-reviewed journals since 2006 concerning the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis, which remains the subject of extremely active and ongoing research, publication, discussion and scientific debate. (https://cosmictusk.com/ydi-bibliography/).
As to the allegations made in the open letter that my work promotes racism and white supremacism – as well as misogyny, chauvinism and anti-Semitism! – it must, presumably, be an inconvenient fact for the SAA that there is not a hint of misogyny, chauvinism or anti-Semitism in Ancient Apocalypse and that neither race nor white skin are mentioned in any episode of the series. The SAA is therefore reduced once again to smearing by association and to making thinly-veiled accusations that my interest in the possibility of a lost civilization of the Ice Age, most recently explored in Ancient Apocalypse, is in some way inherently racist and white supremacist. Although there is much more to say in refutation, it is sufficient to note here that, since I began work on this subject more than 30 years ago, the locations I have considered as a possible homeland for a hypothetical lost civilization of the Ice Age do not include any part of “white” Europe but do include the ancient Americas, the ancient Sunda Shelf (submerged lands around Indonesia), ancient Antarctica, and ancient India.
So if not from Ancient Apocalypse, where do the SAA’s accusations of racism and white supremacism originate?
The answer is spin around some of the contents of some of my previous books, in particular my 1995 book Fingerprints of the Gods, now 28 years old, where I reference several indigenous Native American myths in which white-skinned bearded gods are portrayed as the bringers of culture and civilization, very often after some great global cataclysm.
Since the SAA is accusing me of empowering racism and white supremacism by citing these myths, the issue of whether or not they were tampered with by the Spaniards becomes central. In its open letter the SAA presents it as an established fact that the myths were indeed tampered with in Spanish interests – and it’s true that growing numbers of archaeologists do believe that. It is not a fact, however. Rather it is a body of opinion and conjecture which even today is subject to dispute and disagreement and which, in the early and mid-1990’s when I researched and wrote Fingerprints of the Gods, was not a prominent view on the subject. Certainly some authorities – for example – Inga Clendinnen in 1991 (Inga Clendinnen, “Fierce and Unnatural Cruelty”: Cortés and the Conquest of Mexico, Representations, University of California Press, Winter, 1991) were very much in the “tampered with” camp. But in stark contrast a great many more equally well-qualified scholars had no doubt that the myths collected by early Spanish visitors to Mexico in the decades after the Conquest were authentic and untampered with.
So when I reported these as authentic indigenous myths in Fingerprints of the Gods in 1995 I not only did so in good faith but also found myself in the good company of, amongst many others, Jacques LaFaye, then Professor of Latin American History at the Sorbonne (Quetzalcoatl and Guadeloupe, 1987), Michael D. Coe, then Professor of Anthropology and Curator in the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale University (Mexico, 1988); Mexicanist John Biershorst (The Mythology of Mexico and Central America, 1990); renowned Mexican anthropologist and historian Miguel Leon-Portilla, then at the Instituto Indigenista, Interamericano, Mexico City (The Broken Spears: Expanded and Updated Edition, 1992); David Carrasco, Director of the Moses Mesoamerican Archive at Harvard University’s Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology (Quetzalcoatl and the Irony of Empire, 1992); and historian Hugh Thomas (Conquest: Montezuma, Cortes and the Fall of Old Mexico, 1993).
None of these works, or the use within them of myths of returning “white saviors” – as the SAA typecasts these complex and varied accounts – attracted the least outcry of racism or white supremacism at the time they were published. Nor do they do so now. Neither have there been accusations of racism and white supremacy made against other authorities who have subsequently drawn upon the same corpus of Quetzalcoatl myths that I drew on in Fingerprints of the Gods in 1995. These authorities include Neil Baldwin (Legends of the Plumed Serpent: Biography of a Mexican God, 1998); John Pohl, Aztecs and Conquistadors: The Spanish Invasion and the Collapse of the Aztec Empire, 2005); and Michael Wood (Conquistadors, 2010).
Of the greatest significance to the ongoing debate over the authenticity of indigenous Mesoamerican myths about a returning “white savior” (again, “white savior” is the SAA’s phrase, not mine) have been two studies in particular. These are the revised edition (2000), with an important new chapter added, of David Carrasco’s Quetzalcoatl And the Irony of Empire, and H.B. Nicholson’s magisterial Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl: The Once and Future King of the Toltecs (2001, reprinted in 2008 and again in 2015).
Although based on his 1957 PhD thesis, which I did not have the opportunity to examine when I was researching Fingerprints of the Gods, Nicholson’s Toplitzin Quetzlcoatl strongly reinforces the authenticity and legitimacy of the same indigenous Mexican myths, collected by Spaniards in the decades after the Conquest, that I drew upon. Yet far from there being any outcry about it, the book has been twice reprinted since 2001 and widely lauded by scholars. As David Carrasco puts it: “No one has been able to organise the existing primary sources or interpret them as deeply and clearly as he has. No one has surpassed Nicholson, and no one will.”
It’s not necessary to multiply examples here. To state matters briefly, my response to the SAA’s accusations of racism and white supremacism is that they are not based on a representative analysis of the content of my work, or of my general outlook and behaviour, but solely on the fact that I cited certain indigenous myths from the Americas that certain scholars think were tampered with by Spaniards. In Fingerprints of the Gods, I concluded responsibly, in line with consensus of many authorities at the time, that the myths are authentic and I reported them accordingly.
There is a further point that needs to be driven home, however. If the myths were not tampered with by the Spaniards, if they are genuinely indigenous as I believed in 1995, and as I still believe today, then even the elastic logic of the SAA cannot stretch to attaching a racist or white-supremacist burden to them. On the contrary, it seems to me that if any party is guilty of racism and white supremacism here it is SAA itself with its predominantly-white membership and its claim to possess superior knowledge of the truth about indigenous myths – knowledge superior even to that of the indigenous inhabitants of Mexico in the 16th century who shared those myths in the first place.
I will close with comments by David Carrasco on anthropologist Inga Clendinnen’s attempts to dismiss (on the grounds that it is a “splendidly implausible” web of Spanish fictions) the notion, central to the myths, that the Aztecs believed Cortes and the white-skinned, bearded Spaniards “were the returning Quetzalcoatl” — and the parallel notion that this belief greatly weakened Moctezuma, making him hopelessly indecisive and ultimately leading him to abdicate. These myths primarily come down to us through the 16th century Florentine Codex of Fray Bernardino de Sahagun who was fluent in Nahuatl (the Aztec language), who worked assiduously with teams of indigenous knowledge-keepers to prepare the twelve books of the Codex, and who was undoubtedly the most thorough and principled of all the Spanish collectors and compilers of the indigenous myths, traditions and histories of Mexico. Clendinnen, however, wants to claim that the myths of the returning Quetzalcoatl have no indigenous origin, were entirely concocted by Cortes himself in a 1520 letter to the King of Spain and were later picked up second-hand by Sahagun.
“I have no doubt”, writes Carrasco,
that Cortes was striving to impress the royal mind with his extraordinary management skills, or that his literary craft was elegant and profoundly political… What is challenging to me is Clendinnen’s claim that this Spanish political fiction of both Quetzalcoatl returning and Moctezuma’s vacillation and collapse was picked up by Sahagun, who ‘powerfully reinforced’ it, erroneously thinking it was an Indian belief when in fact the ruler’s gesture of abdication was a ‘very late-dawning story, making its first appearance thirty and more years after the Conquest.’ The stunning implication is that this Spanish fiction – the story of Moctezuma’s paralysis – parades down the years through the literature and scholarship and is internalized by commentators less wary than Clendinnen, all the way to Leon-Portilla, who falls unconsciously under Cortes’ charismatic pen along with the rest of us. This means Leon-Portilla’s extensive Nahuatl training and sense of the Aztec ethos (not to mention Sahagun’s profound familiarity with Spanish-Native exchanges) contribute no effective critical stance in relation to the Spanish literary craft… which later Spaniards were not aware of and which a number of Indians internalized as their own…
Carrasco concludes that the work of Clendinnen and others carries “a bloated sense, a transcendent sense, that the Spaniards, led by the incomparable Cortes, made up the facts of the story while the Indians merely repeated them, unknowingly…”
The same sense of superior knowledge – of claiming insights that the indigenous inhabitants themselves supposedly did not share — applies to the spin put by the SAA on the myths of Quetzalcoatl’s return that I reported in Fingerprints of the Gods. Far from seeking to promote racism and white supremacism, my purpose in that book, and in all my subsequent work – very much including Ancient Apocalypse – has been to honour indigenous voices and perspectives in ways that the SAA, despite much virtue-signalling, does not.
120 thoughts on “Response by Graham Hancock (GH) to the open letter to Netflix dated 30th November 2022 from the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) concerning the eight-part docuseries Ancient Apocalypse presented by Graham Hancock”
I’m flabbergasted by this effort to try to have Netflix label a thought-provoking viewpoint with clear mileage (where the journey is nowhere near its end) as fiction.
Netflix should clearly not do what is requested.
It’s amusing that the requested “science fiction” re-labelling has been put forward. What was once science fiction can sometimes now be seen as science fact. All it takes is a discovery, which is precisely what you are saying.
You have caused people to think. There is no harm in that, but there is harm in attempts to discredit thought and opinion because it conflicts with thought and opinion, in this case, with a staid 19th Century theory that moots the impossibility of cataclysmic events. The difference is that you appear to argue calmly and thoroughly, with reasons supporting your opinions but that is sadly not returned as it should be.
A cataclysmic event happened at around the time non hunter-gatherers we’re building advanced structures. The proof of all that is there to be seen. This builders didn’t just build. There was likely a history that was indeed wiped or which remains to be discovered outside of 19th Century convention.
Thus, already, you have shown that civilisation was more advanced, further back in time, than mainstream archaeological theory seems to dictate.
I cannot therefore see the problem.
Hopefully, your talk with a speaker for all archaeologists, apparently blind to the possibilities you moot, on the Joe Rogan Experience this October, will give more people, including with a fair wind some objective archaeologists, a huge table of food for thought – which I’m sure is all you ask anyway.
Good luck with that.
It seems that this group of archeologists feel threatened by Mr Hancock. He has masterfully brought together facts from different disciplines, something that these academics who represent oil companies and prestigious institutions cannot do. They specialize in their own work and ignore information from other disciplines, and;therefore,they cannot see the forest for the trees. They represent a narrative that is paid for by textbook companies, testing companies, government agencies, the Smithsonian, and the list goes on. And they will defend it even if they have to childishly resort to name calling and the manufacturing of false assertions as they have clearly done in this letter. The author representing this group has shown his unbridled emotions and has embarrassed the archeologists he represents. If they are not embarrassed then they don’t mind being represented by lies. Mr Hancock asks honestly repeatedly Where were these assertions made in this film and in my work?
The most horrible thing that was said is the charge of racism.
Drop the mic, a total beatdown response, what a fucking pitiful letter from the SAA, embarrassing beyond belief. This response is the reason you are such a dangerous adversary to them, wow.
Amen my bro!
Stay the course. You have opened the hearts and minds of millions of citizens of this planet, who have simply said. Why can’t we question the science, that’s what science is all about?
First of all…thank you for sticking your neck out and work so hard to get the right details – especially those details that seems faulty. Loved your research of the demographics of SAA (people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones). What I’ve wondered through this debacle is: How can someone be banned from a public place that is a world inheritance. Do you not belong to this world and therefore entitled to gain access as everybody else? The argument seemed to be that you had your own ideas (not a sheep)and somehow not allowed to freedom of speech? I have followed you for eight years now and read most of your non-fiction books and I have always been amazed of how meticulous you are when you do your research. Also, I am impressed of the way you synthesize data from different fields. You have fired up my mind in a way no-one have before and I respect you for that. Keep up the good work!/Leonard
Very well said Mr. Wolf
Thank you so much Emily!
Well sed. Its time to realy to archaeology.
Fancy trying to discredit Graham by pretending some of his followers are uneducated dumb asses. It’s almost as embarrasing as resorting to pretending Graham’s theories are racist & then getting torn a new asshole in response as the SAA has here lol.
So well put Neil!
Graham we met briefly at the end of a very long book signing queue after your outstanding presentation hosted at the Royal Geographical Society last week and I have followed your research since the early 90’s, as you have with honesty and integrity worked tirelessly to promote open dialogue about the most important of subjects-what happened in the past, what can we learn from it and how can we improve the future of humankind. Never have I found your work self serving or ego driven-only ever driven by a clear passion and desire to know the truth-something that it is clear a rapidly expanding body of people share with you. Thanks is what you and Santha deserve and certainly gratitude is what many of us have for your tireless efforts (200 dives?!) in bringing this subject into the public domain with such an authentic motive. You deserve the plaudits in your lifetime that you richly deserve.
“The important thing is not to stop questioning-curiosity has its own reason for existing”.
I appreciate the fact that you stand in your truth always. thank you. true power comes from truth, from falsity comes force. power vs force David R Hawkins. though this is not a direct quote it does express how i feel about the SAA.
Thank you Mr. Graham! That entire letter is total absurdity. Unbelievable. They aren’t fooling anyone.
Brilliant response. Bet they won’t debate you on stage unedited, either.
The SAA is upset that you are putting the evidence/pieces together long before they even had a clue.
You ask great questions regardless of your theories. Regards.
“There you go man
Keep as cool as you can.
It rules them to believe that you perceive the
web they weave.
Keep on thinking free.”
The Moody Blues
Graham, I stand behind your theory. It simply makes sense. MSM Archology has missed the boat, much like MSM Medicine has with our pandemic. -JP Saleeby, MD
It absolutely makes sense, and so much of history, of ancient myths and even of old religious stories make much more sense when viewed through this lens. As the ‘brothers of the serpernt’ would say, it’s all “Quant Suf”.
The SAA claims and accusations are false and contrived with no basis in fact.
The SAA shamefully do not constrain their criticism to Graham Hancock’s work and perspective, but make attempts to disparage Graham Hancock personally by associating him with socially reprehensible behaviour such as misogyny and racism, also mocking him and labelling him as a pseudoscientist.
Graham is a thorough investigative journalist who puts across a persuasive alternative point of view which questions and challenges orthodox dogma. There is something morally wrong with an organisation which seeks to silence free speech and cancel anyone who challenges their own perspective by conducting a campaign of personal disparagement, insults and false association with socially reprehensible behaviour.
As always Graham’s response rises above such attacks, calmly and politely defending himself with intelligent, logical reason, presenting facts and data to validate his response to accusations which present no such facts or data to justify their origination.
According to Wikipedia, the “[SAA] is a twelve-step program founded in 1977 for people who want to stop their addictive sexual behavior. There also exists a group known as COSA, for those who have been impacted by others’ sexual addiction.” I think it’s brave that the members of this group recognize that there’s something wrong with their previous behavior and they realize that they no longer want to live the way they have in the past. Meaning, SAA membership is the first step to accepting ownership and outgrowing fallacious denial. To acknowledge that trauma is real is the right step; by suppressing growth and understanding by ignoring the trauma and pretending everything is okay for that brief moment of what is the delusional and fleeting moment of “personal freedom,” trauma repeatedly remains submerged and pained, like an iceberg that’s impossible to ignore. The individuals that have the self-awareness and maturity to endeavor to develop positively in this uncharted territory, for them, deserve respect and praise for their ability to invest in the one area of life they surely realize they need the most: will. They are heroes in the making. The other SAA (The Society for American Archaeologists) could learn so much from modeling their behavior. One SSA is actually doing noble work while the other is out of touch. I think you know which one that is.
Wtiting for the Onion does have its benefits.
You have obviously touched a nerve. You like others who have ventured into these waters will feel the full power of the SAAs venom for putting their work on notice. You asked questions they are not allowed to ask. You put up hypotheses they are not allowed to even posture. You ventured into the land of taboo. Mainstream archaeology might even have several who agree with you. But they are not allowed to even think these things. They must live in the dogma they inhabit and drink from its fountains as if they are true believers. I wouldn’t expect anything different from the SAA. Change is always slow and those who are the first to posit these questions will be deemed heretics to the profession and dealt with strong brutality of verse. This attempt to change the characterization of your Docuseries signifies nothing more than total literary victory on your part. And should be revered in private as such. You understand the world the love in. And they are probably envious of the world you operate in. They have to put up a spurious completely ridiculous attempt because you had such a big response from Ancient Apocalypse. Don’t look at this as another kick in the butt. Look at it for what it truly is. You finally made a seismic wave that is reverberating through academia and will cause some change even if it is only a ripple. All I can say is please don’t stop. Keep it up. You are the change I want to see in this world. Even if you would be proved wrong, we need people like you asking these questions. But time will prove some of your ideas to have merit. I can’t wait until that day comes.
I am in possession of a Spanish translation and analysis of a Mayan document that survived the Spanish Catholic document burnings. It is called “The Title of the Lords of Totonicapán”. It is effectively a deed describing the history of and lands possessed by the Quiché people at the time of the Spanish Conquest. It was transmitted orally by two Mayan priests to a Spanish monk/historian.
The ”Title” directly states that the origin of at least part of, if not all of, the Quiché-Maya people stemmed from a migration of, and I quote, “Israelites” who crossed the sea and settled in modern-day Guatemala.
When I have brought this to the attention of scholars, or have read mainstream analyses of this supposed anomaly, universally the answer comes out as it being a fabrication by Spaniards and/or an attempt by the Mayan oral historians to curry some kind of favor with Spanish Conquistadors.
I, and most importantly a lot of Mayan people, find this Eurocentric, elitist position to be a form of white supremacy. To refuse to take the word of Mayan oral historians at the time they transmitted their stories is essentially the exact same thing Hancock is accused of doing.
Out of curiosity, what has Netflix said in response? Are they considering the change? Maybe they should just send back a response saying, “Taking comments under advisement”. It’s not like the SAA is open to changing their mindset. Why should Netflix change theirs. What is the official or unofficial position for Netflix on this situation?
A few low quality, dullard trolls have been commenting on your work on your facebook page.
Poes Law comes to mind trying to read their asinine garbage..
In my hometown in 1878, it is a fact that 2000 giant skeletons were uncovered while land was being cleared for a new cemetery, yet at The Ohio State University in my 1970 classes in Physical Anthropology, no mention was made of this or any other of the thousands of giant skeletons found globally, even though the photographic and contemporary media coverage of them is unquestioned
For this reason and others I am open to Graham Hancock’s wonderful and well thought out theories and find nothing but suspicious institutionalized idiocy in this attack on his work. Netflix – please give us more Graham Hancock unfettered by these unfounded criticisms. It turns out freedom and highly plausible theories are popular !
It really is time that the 19th and 20th century boys clubs were put in thier place. I am sixty two years old a product of the public school system and even I believe these so called proffesional bodies have outlived thier usefullness. THE saa seem to be a little boys club clamouring for the aproval of thier Victorian mothers while trying to hold on to tenuous budgets. I have read much on this subject and as I have walked nearly all of my native Scotland and observed first hand the contradictions in the landscape to the beliefs of the mainstream may I say to Graham that I hope history will record his genious and the patheticness of those such as the saa
Dear Mr Hancock,
What a marvelous response.
Regardless of whether or not the theories and hypotheses that you present hold water, the manner in which you have been addressed by the SAA is condescending, obtuse, vindictive, and tyrannical. Hats off to you for sticking to the facts, calmly addressing and refuting each and every point they have made against you, remonstrating in such an eloquent and elegant manner, and basically taking the high road by remaining respectful and civil in the face of baseless ridicule, scorn and public defamation of your personal and professional integrity. That, dear Sir, i find truly inspiring!! In the words of George Washington: “Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.” Thank you for all your efforts and shining your light brightly and clearly! All the very best to you and your family, respectfully, Quinten Rutgers
Yep – accuse the other side of what you’re doing. Anyone else smell a rat? This is straight out of the playbook.
The irrational, aggressive offensive and legally fraudulent tone and content of this letter by the Agency behind it (surely, no true Society would let such tripe pass with their branding, so we can only assume the AAS is Controlled) and the malicious tone of the smear campaign which sprung up like mushrooms after rain, seems to be the “race to the bottom” sadly typical of our times where it is so easy to use presumed official authority and connections to spread a lie, and do deliberate damage to the underdog individual doing honest work keeping them honest, irrespective of inevitable later retraction after legalities have done their job of distracting time, attention, morale and energy of all concerned.
An innocent victim in their position would have presented a professional, even courteous, critique, effortlessly demonstrating the apparent omniscience and authority being fraudulently claimed by the academics whose mistakes have been articulated by Graham in great detail, with rigorous referencing, in all of his books, all of which everybody should buy now. Unlike many academic texts, his books, although replete with hard data, expert opinions consulted and breathtakingly wide-ranging thinking all coherently and accessibly presented, appear to be written by a balanced human being who thinks with his whole apparatus.
In particular, this quote is eerily similar to the frankly surreal, utterly bizarre headlines after the Netflix show appeared which stated the following slur, which must be prosecuted as clear defamation, and as a deliberate, malicious attempt to degrade [anyone who exposes lies or mistakes by Establishment institutions or their agents] and to place him as a professional author and journalist, and his work into intended disrepute – along with anything that does not toe The Party Line these days, by the new, millennial version of Godwin’s Law : by arbitrarily and irrationally dragging in utterly fictive, malicious, straw-man associations with You Know Who! Yep! Apparently, although somehow I missed it after 30 years of study, I somehow missed that actually GRAHAM IS HITLER. Yep – Graham. Not them. Not the institutions, “Societies”, etc. who hounded the many -later vindicated- academics and researchers to their deaths, destroying their lives, reputations, and careers. Somehow, saying “Gobekli tepe is – according to even the most reluctant troglodyte – at least five times as old as academics and archaeologists told us any civilization could be for the past century” equates to being Hitler. Point taken. In a nutshell, Graham, your work has done its job, exposing our mistakes, and being unable to fight you in the ring, in a debate, in a professional critique of your critique of us, we will just call you Hitler and and and a terrorist and anything else within reach, after legal counsel of course.
This statement is fraudulent, malicious, and criminal:
“SAA: (3) the theory it presents has a long-standing association with racist, white supremacist ideologies; does injustice to Indigenous peoples; and emboldens extremists. ”
No such theory exists;
no such theory is ever alluded to or mentioned by Graham anywhere, ever;
Graham includes, and does not exclude, points of reference (cultural, physical, etc) at all times;
Graham’s work does far more justice to all peoples whether indigenous or colonial as we all have ancestors we know nothing about thanks to archaeologists’ frankly shabby self-serving century-long shitshow and it is high time white academic liberals stopped pretending they know First Nations better than people who are in fact their family;
The only “extremists” emboldened by his work are normal – as in, why the show is more popular than, say, anything ever made by an archaeologist – normal mainstream people (irrespective of race, creed, or other attribute) who like good, honest writing containing rigorously scientific, open-minded, logical, reasonable, resonant, wonderful, non-racist, non-white-supremacist, indeed non-political, investigative journalism that has not only stood the test of decades but has been vindicated by subsequent “hard” discoveries proving his “theory” absolutely beyond any possibility of refutation, which is more than any archaelogical academic can say.
I have read all of Graham’s work for nearly 30 years. The above quote from the ASS letter is a vexatious, malicious criminal attack upon his reputation and character having absolutely no basis in any single statement, or possible construal of any combination of statements, either by him or quoted by him, anywhere in his work.
Not one single aspect of any of his writings, ever, has any thing whatsoever to do with notions of any kind of racial supremacy by any race or any colour or any culture at any time whatsoever!
The people he raves the most about are Egyptians (Semites); Olmecs (ditto – and distinctly negroid in appearance if the stone heads are a guide); Amazon indians (ditto); hunter-gatherers in general (i.e., Indigenous peoples !!! hello did you even bother to look at his actual work) and the ancestors of Polynesians (ditto).
Moreover, he is married and has a family with a Tamil lady with skin as dark as his is white. Really? They’re gonna go THERE? Is this angle a precise attack intended to disrupt his family relationships somehow by dragging into Graham’s spotlight (that is better placed on the mistakes we have paid archaeologists to make for a century) his private relationships? How low can they go? How is this professional behaviour?
Despite diving with Indian and Japanese scientists and academics (and archaeologists – who aren’t the vapid white neoliberal shills represented by the SAA, apparently) for his previous TV series, somehow, simply by demonstrating the objective errors of archaeologists and academics for the past century (IN PARTICULAR, OF WHITE ONES, as it just so happens), by directly referencing established geology, astronomy, and other sciences (like archaeology, that proved itself wrong with Gobekli Tepe, lol), and never once mentioning anything any audience could once interpret as somehow racist – nope – whatever you do, do NOT engage with Graham’s logic, his evidence, his theories, his references, his speculations – just cancel him hard by calling him Hitler! Quick!!! Yes we know it is ridiculous but it works for the object of the exercise, and that’s all we care about.
If I have somehow missed this take-away from Graham’s work, please enlighten me – and all of us – by pointing out where it is, (page, book; or episode please – and yes, legally, I think it is required) and how to get from these the twisted and obviously decoy meaning: “the theory it presents [the only theory it presents is that academic archaeologists have varied in quality in the past century, often suffer from procrustean institutional blinkers; has a long-standing association with racist, white supremacist ideologies; does injustice to Indigenous peoples; and emboldens extremists” from a documentary simply visiting half a dozen sites around the world, asking questions about anomalies in the academic discourse (namely, where they diverge from reality as proven by subsequent discoveries, like Gobekli Tepe, and the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis), somehow equates, almost mystically, with him being just another easily dismissed old white male oppressor. Yeah, he’s just another racist old white guy – see, here’s a photo. See how racist he is with our text, headlines and google ranking around it? See how privileged and racist he is?
Academics were never privileged, racist, or incompetent, or corrupt – academics are perfect angels doing God’s work at all times, despite being probably atheists… Associations of academics are likewise the go-to for who is and isn’t Hitler in a given year. as plebs cannot be trusted to think for themselves, especially when they notice, and mention, mistakes.
I wonder if John Cleese is interested in a Fawlty-Towers-like series about an arrogant, corrupt, incompetent, bad-tempered, childish, but well-connected, armchair academic archaeologist. The script is writing itself.
obviously the Olmecs weren’t Semitic. Accidentally left that “ditto” in when rearranging the sentence. Please ignore that one. And the length of the rant – I got up to point 3 reading the letter and was triggered. Having calmed down and finally read the rest of Graham’s response to the letter, it reads like an Alsace Grand Cru. Clear, elegant, great body and structure, long, lingering bouquet of honey and roses. A fine product to make of manure. I hope Netflix tears AAS several new arseholes for their attempt to interfere with the natural order of things.
Also on the false claim of white supremacy, they are taking one story out of thousands of source stories that Graham cites from ancient traditions. One of the other more common descriptions of the civilization bringers is that they wear fish scales or fish heads. According to their logic, that means Graham is also a fish head supremacist, fighting for the glorious day when the fish head people take their rightful place at the top of the world hierarchy.
Mark, you’ve nailed it! I never suspected, but –
No wonder the sea levels rose. “Fuck em! Flood it all! We’ll steal their coastlines and best stuff! Haha umad air breathers? and then we can just swim everywhere, tell survivors enough to set em off on the wrong track with all that left-brain bullshit and leave em so dazzled they are nonetheless ruled by people in pointy hats trying to look like us but clueless how it ever came to that! Beards and bags and beanies lol okay”
Them swivel-eyed amphishgenous hipsters done everyfing
Fishism is wrong, the alarm must be raised before this menace and its human allies strike again. Lovecraft tried to warn us about people like Graham. Not that he has anything like the Innsmouth Look. But why let that fact get in the way. It is a cooler way of persecuting him than this letter from SAA.
Trout for tea. No prisoners.
[font=comic sans ms]Legen-Wait for it-dary, Funny that they don’t/can’t reply on your responses. they are stating things without explanation or information.
Imagine publishing a paper where you state things without giving the information on how you come upon these conclusions.
So we should really make the SAA to respond to Graham, from where do they draw upon there conclusions? why is nearly everyone white at the SAA? what “Facts” did Graham state that are not true? how can they factualize there theories and opinions while stating Graham’s theories are fiction? or both are fiction or both are not. In my opinion most theories are just theories and should never be stated as facts. 1+1=2 is a fact. but that egyptians builded the pyramids is a theorie, we can never know for sure that they did as we were not there. they could falsely have claimed to have builded it, so this could never become a fact but instead be a theorie of what we think has happend.[/font]
I am dutch so if there are any typos, please refer them in the comments so I can change them.
Much love the Netherlands to Graham and the community! <3
I’ll come back to this post in 10 years when everyone has realized that Graham is absolutely right here. Anyone who has watched the documentary knows that with all the arguments and proof Graham gives us, the chance of him being completely wrong about this is zero to none. I’m also pretty sure these so called ‘experts’ are just jealous that only a few hundred/thousand people read their papers, and most of them don’t even read the whole thing, while millions of people have watched Grahams amazing documentary. Netflix should absolutely NOT do what they are told!
EPIC beat-down. WOW…
That was a glorious read. It’s clear as day that the SAA is doing containment. Kudos to you, Graham, and thank you for all that you do.
i’ve read several but not all of graham’s books and seen earlier documentaries and heard interviews.while i do not agree with every detail he’s proposed i do favor one or more cataclysms in the last 10-15,000 years and the possiblity oflost centers of civilization over 5000years ago. i believe in greater premodern contacts as well. but those are not limited to whites ‘teaching’ others. as others have noted race is not cited for prospective culture bearers by graham.so, claiming his work to be racist is a smear.argueing technical details of his worki evidently was not achieving enough response so dragging in the emotive subject of racism was deemed necessary.it is true that many diffusionist theories have strayed into overt or potential racism.but that’s guilt by association.it’s also true that catastrophism of any stripehas long been anathema to conventional academia. migration/invasion theories within historical times are equally unpopular. [hyksos in egypt. arrival of the celts and english in the british isles, ‘aryans’ in india….]hence any influence of one culture on another is either denied or downplayed due to modern biases.[the past must be kept politicly correct.]most of all we have the current political climate where no single standard of ‘truth’ is universally accepted and each side calls it’s opponents liars with ill intent.this is now extended to archaeology more firmly than ever before because dissenting voices dare not be permitted.the main proble where archaeology is concerned is the use of the [theoretical] past to bolster modern policy or claims.isolationist/antidiffusionism makes it easier to study each culture as seperate in sealed little boxes. there is no need to know about the other ‘cultural boxses’ because they cannot have any bearing on each other.that is convenient for specialist scholars.it is why they dislike interdiciplanary researchers.they likewise excoriate non professional theorists as unqualified interlopers unworthy of being heard because they are not indoctrinated into the dogmas of the various fields.this attitude has always been there but modern politics has turned it more virulent.
Great reply. Thanks for your work.
Utterly fantastic response – please do continue keep your head with these types of responses to your work – it must be very stressful.
You are an excellent story teller, with the ability to galvanize the world.
Please continue working on the show – you have a lot of support. I will be eagerly waiting to see what you come up next.
By the way, this response is beautifully written. You just carved them a new one, with class.
Graham, your response here was as much a pleasure to read as any of your writing. You report what you see, research relentlessly and respect the evidence wherever it leads you and I respect you for that.
When the very president of SAA states, “After more than a century of professional archaeological investigations, we find no archaeological evidence to support the existence of an “advanced, global Ice Age civilization”” it worries me deeply.
My first response is flippant, stating well they obviously haven’t looked very hard. However, I believe what is more important then, are the questions of what exactly all these “professional archaeological investigations” cost? Who funded them for apparently zero ROI? How can a national level association be allowed to stagnate as badly as they themselves admit? Who are they to dictate fundamental changes to the scientific method, which by definition MUST be constantly questioned?
It is a real shame, that to cover their own pathetic ineptitude and laziness, they choose character assassination with feeble trigger words as opposed to using all that funding, investigating what you and others present and building an actual case based on fact. Instead choosing to ignore giant monuments and anything they may represent. Clinging feebly to a crumbling, dogmatic and outright racist paradigm, that is often based on far more threadbare conclusions, which are in turn, based on circumstantial evidence at best.
The official narrative need not change, it is not wrong, it is simply the history of the world as we have understood it. Everything that is can grow. The old narrative is still relevant, but Graham Hancock adds to it in my eyes.
Mr. Hancock, you mention the Egyptian pyramid being aligned to try north, the one in Mexico aligned towards the setting sun of “the summer solstice “? I think. When you compare the directions of their facing views on a map do they intersect anywhere? Maybe this is a stupid, poorly asked question. But could they all be facing a common point? Again, perhaps a stupid, ill formed question.
After many days of calculation, ritual shamanism and finally using a Computer that was under the influence of DMT, an experiment was carried out and I was able to determine that, rather unexpectedly and miraculously perhaps, almost as if by some occult design, not just the pyramids you mention but indeed any building on Earth, if you draw lines along the Earth’s surface continuously to form a complete circumference using that building as a starting point, and then do the same with another building, of any shape at all – any shape you can imagine, pointing in any direction at all! Or even in no direction! Even “dry North”! In fact, it could be a pavlova or a fried egg, not even a proper building – the two circles will almost magically meet at least once. You can work it out using a tennis ball, or perhaps a cricket ball, and some string. And that does not depend upon the Age, mental or otherwise, of the circles, the googies, or the observer. So yes, to answer your primary question, which came last: yes, it is a stupid, ill-formed question. But a fittingly dry joke for these chaféd times.
Dear Mr Hancock, archeologists and everyone else,
Aboriginal culture has an agreed continuous lifespan of at least 60,000 years in Australia. Why is that single common fact overlooked by David Hancock, archeologists and everyone else?
Who the fuck is David Hancock?
If you mean Graham, then, it is not overlooked – he actually mentions Australian aborigines repeatedly in his (Graham, not David)’s various books, which I doubt you have bothered to read. The show doesn’t mention them because I suppose it focuses on megalithic buildings, which Australian Aboriginal culture, or at least what remains above the 400-foot sea level increase after last ice age, does not exemplify in the same magnitude as the places he does look at. But yes, it is worth exploring, for example, the Australian aboriginal DNA signature in inner Amazonian tribes in a future episode, that would be very interesting, as well as exploring Maori lore (suppressed by academia) about pre-Maori peoples in New Zealand. But based on your timing I must say: Stop being manipulated by the anti-Australia-Day propaganda. I am no lover of colonial invasions but there is a globalist agenda afoot that is using indigenous issues as camoflage, and if you think the national culture today oppressive, the globalist dystopia planned and being accelerated is a thousand times worse and oppresses indiscriminately. I’d be picking my teams based on a bit more than other people’s algorithms at this stage.
Dear Mr Hancock, archeologists and everyone else,
How racist is this, Mr Hancock, archeologists and everyone else, overlook the single common fact that Aboriginal culture has an agreed continuous lifespan of at least 60,000 years in Australia.
I have to say I find this letter from the Association of American Archaeologists to be very disappointing. How can supposed intellectual people behave in such a manor?. To attack and demonise someone in such a way when the evidence is clear for everybody to see. We obviously do not have all the answers to our past and we as a people have the right to know and understand our true history. We deserve better from the people who’s sole responsibility is to inform and educate us on what came before us , such an important responsibility but what do we get instead? Closed mined, dogmatic, obtuse opinions. And then to slander someone as having racist views in such a weak, flimsy and transparently flawed way is just the icing on the cake. But, at least we get to clearly see how these people’s minds operate and it ain’t pretty. Keep up the good work Graham and keep fighting for our truth 🙏
Some straw men (projected assumptions) on both sides of this argument, Pop Anthropology Author versus Archaeology Body. Hancock paints archaeology as a school (true), of conspiracists (but only in the subconscious sense), protecting their consensus (true), based on race (untrue), by smearing opposing views (but by fair comment).
The Arch body paints Hancock as provocative (but mild compared to the ancient ‘aliens’ crowd), and a ‘racist’ (untrue).
In all this posturing, the core issue is obfuscated. Was there a ‘lost Ice Age civilisation’?
The problem lies in the assumpitons and methods shared by science and pop science (not in their differences, which arise from their shared paradigm).
Both use their subjects (cultural practitioners) as informants, as if healers, mythographers, artists, and builders knew why they did cultural /non-practical things.
Both assume that culture is ‘invented, developed, diffused, from simple and incomprehending to complex and conscious’.
Hancock says his evidence is under water, but the dating is uncertain.
Archaeology bodies excel at ‘elastic logic’ (as their letter reveals). They do not excel at theory or anthropology, which itself has a lot of theoretical disintegration to answer for. The organised human sciences (confirmed by the existence of the bodies, and the functions of the education system) practice politics, not science. They have not coherent framework of knowledge for the study of the cultural record.
There were not enough people in the Ice Age to mutate culture into civilisation. But all people at all times had, and have, the capacity and innate instinct and physical and economic need for civilisation (administrate, divide, and seek to exploit and rule).
There was and is no ‘cultural evolution’ (only tech mutates at exponential scales).
Anthropology should become a science, and leave behind its craftic politics (as I discuss in my paper Blueprint).
Anthropology, and the diggers that feed it with with artefacts, flawed dating, and hypotheses based on a flawed paradigm, should grow up into the science it says it is.
Graham is ‘worse than Ancient Aliens’? How could that be? Elastic logic indeed. Graham had the courage to denounce the populist nonsense of Zechariah Sitchen, at the risk of losing readers (on which I had congratulated him).
Anthropology (the parent discipline of archaeology), until a century ago was commodification of treasure hunting, and organised racism, and mis-application of biological and linguistic mechanisms, makes a paradigmatic range of assumptions. Which is easily accepted in the education system because of its common or garden ‘logic’. The human sciences are decades behind physics, where common logic has been abandoned in favour of science, and where the humanistic (egotistic) obstruction of conscious logic has been revealed (Eddington, Schroedinger, Bohr, etc).
Archaeology bodies should peer review their public statements, they do not speak for all practitioners. They expose their ‘profession’ to shame with their posturing, and their lack of theory. They cannot even see that Graham and others, and media content producers like Ancient Whatever, have made an entertainment industry from the theoretical vacuum in the human ‘sciences’ (which remain crafts, such as ‘History’ with its ‘panarchical discourse (Gunderson & Hollilng), actually cans of worms. Art ‘History’ with its ‘Renaissance’, actually organised religious (civilised) esoterica. Arcaheology with its careful avoidance of theory, and anthropology with its ‘evolutionary’ paradigm and careful avoidance of esoterica, are avoiding their core functions and core data.The sciences of culture are so ignorant of culture, that they do not recognise culture even when bitten by culture.
Honestly, too compressed or not enough,to be of use here. Seems to ad hoc. Adroit none the less, but not very readible without extensive background, context, data or experience. Would appreciate an exposition.
Both parties in this debate base their world view on common or garden assumptions and logic, which do not apply to the subject of anthropology.
Holy Mother of God! They’re utterly paranoid. Talk about digging an archaeological hole for themselves –
Edmond, upon rereading a third time, the web reveals itself. Still would greatly appreciaye an exposition with references though. This belaboured topic tires of abbreviation and carefull avoidance of hurt feelings, our society needs to have all the plasters ripped off so the foetid puss of institutional misanthropy can be drained and the wounds cleansed by the full sunlight of open examination.
Here is my article about a field where science and pop science overlaps most, with some context and references: https://stoneprintjournal.wordpress.com/2017/07/11/what-is-archaeo-astronomy/
Well done Graham. Your responses are a superlative example of your investigative mind and the dedication to finding and sharing nothing but the facts. I am gobsmacked by some of the acusations against you and also the atempt to muscle in on Netflix. It seems to show how low they will stoop to try and keep their egos on a pedestal. Don’t give up my man you have a huge following behind you.
Their responses were apologetic at best, the irony of the open letter, the backfire. They are trying to squish any ideas other than their white written and inspired one. It’s ironic,this argument “you are stealing their glory and giving it to other beings” no we are they literally write it in their literature that none of this was of their doing from the sumerians through the Mayan through ancient India. The problem is archeology -vs Geology and their heavy funders
Kudos to you!
One thing I enjoy, from your work, Is that you follow the evidence rather than only what you expect. As well check if there exists any further evidence that can be proved by the ‘scientific method’. (The science we were taught in school) Such as ‘theory first’ then test that theory. Theorizing in advance of data is just wishful thinking. Only AUTHORITY makes claims of no error. Ever! I sometimes wish I were so perfect.
the conflict between all these scholars is truly fascinating
The archaeology body pretends to recognise its own information bubble in its magazine edition on pop science. But some of the articles raise more ironies, than confidence in their supposed soul-searching.
• Pop science ‘needs ancient aliens’.
But Carl Sagan, Frank Drake, Seth Shostak, and the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI), is big science, hugely funded, and more influential in science and culture than the archaeologists acknowledge, even in an edition themed on pop science (SAA Archaeological Record. 2019. Pseudoarchaeology, scholarship, and popular interests in the past and in the present. Nov edition). Hoopes has an apologetic sentence about science using some of the fruits of culture, but does not mention the failures of ‘outreach’. If astronomy were outside the influence of archaeology, then science lacks the integration that pop science seeks.
• Pop science ‘promotes spiritual beliefs in a New Age’.
But human sciences promote siolent assumptions such as ‘cultural evolution’. Hoopes abuses that concept by even applying it to the last century of cult. Supposedly like science also ‘evolves’.
* Pop science seeks ‘hyperdiffusion’ (Whitesides 2019), ‘common source, perennialism.’
But human sciences is built on a paradigm of diffusion (Witzel 2012), inventions, origins, sustained by cultures (plural). Wits University Archaeology department, for example, run their outreach in an ‘Origins Centre’.
* Pop sciences believe in ‘revelatory, metaphysical access to primal, universal truths, not restricted by material methods in time or space.’
But culture is universal (Frazer 1800s etc), primal, metaphysical, across time and space (diachronic). This is no longer contested in anthropology. But no human science has agreed on the causes, not even the effects. The big question for the human sciences, Who and what we are (as Schroedinger posed it), have not been answered. Despite all the self-criticism of Post-Structuralism and Post-Whatever. I discuss this issue in my paper Blueprint, where I demonstrate the role of archetype in cultural media, and thus in perception. Pop science does not currently recognise archetype, because it had ‘evolved’ along with the human sciences, where archtype is ‘stigmatised, forgotten, repressed’. It smacks of cult. Except that Plato in all seriousness (apart from his other jobs as a mythographer and politician), and Heidegger, and Kant, and Jung, worked out part of its philosophy, and Levi-Strauss worked out part of its mechanism. But anthropology had returned to Animism, another ironic fad. Human ‘sciences’ maintain many beliefs (silent assumptions), and are still mainly crafts (which they should study). Despite the advances of cognitive sciences (defence mechanisms known since Freud, and at least eight perceptional Biases known since Wason and others). Psychology had returned to psychiatry (pills), which is better funded, easier, and more popular with patients.
• Western pop sciences follow (Card 2018) ‘the Western esoteric tradition.’
But Renaissance esoterica had some Chinese sources. Victorian esoterica used some Indian sources. Myths in south Pacific cultures follow the same patterns as in civilisations worldwide.
• Esoterica is ‘now in religious studies’ (Goodrick-Clark 2008. Hanegraaff 2005).
But human sciences compartmentalise. Archaeology is mainly ignorant of Divinity. Hoopes (2019) acknowledges that ‘few archaeologists have formal exposure to it.’ Curriculum problem. I wrote three articles on Oracles of the Dead through the ages, as counter-cult to religion (www.stoneprintjournal.wordpress.con)
• Pop sciences have ‘religious implications, not yet studied much.’
But sciences have much greater ‘religious’ (cultural) implications.
* Pop sciences use certain methods (Faivre 1994): ‘Correspondences; Monistic interconnection between realms of nature and humans [culture]; Animate cosmos; Imagination; Mediations (spirits, aliens); Transmutation from mundane to divine.
But these are Bases (as in Rhetoric, a branch of philosophy), and thus instinctive in argument (formalised in legal practice). These bases are subconscious, not a conscious conspiracy (which itself expresses an innate need for cult and identity, as revealed in group studies, cultural epidemiology, corporate studies, sociology).
Correspondenc is also stock in trade of archaeology, for example characterisation of the Early, Mid, and Late Stone Ages by way of the relative sizes of tools (despite use of large, mid, and micro tools in all ages, and into the Iron Age, for example in the Orkney Islands).
Interconnection is confirmed by behaviour patterns relative to ecology and economy (Zipf laws etc).
Animate cosmos is confirmed by constants and laws, which mirror perception (Eddington etc).
Mediation (spirits) were part of science while churches ran universities, and artificially purged and repudicated in the Communist era, which is an inevitable stage of civilisation (Toynbee etc). Archaeology is not competent to study spirituality, and most other aspects of behaviour (culture). Perhaps it should define and study technology (which it still confuses with culture). Challenge anthropology for a theoretical framework of technology.
Transmutation (magic) is the Confirmation Bias (wishful thinking) that symbolic behaviour could influence the environment. The reverse is much more certain: enviro, ecology, economy, mutate beaviour. But archaeology and anthropology are not competent to study ‘evolution’. They believe (literally) that we are still evolving, despite having been static by any definition since we speciated, and mutating in very narrow ranges. Lactase persistence or non-persistence is mutation, not ‘evolution’.
• Pop sciences seek ‘original’ theological truth, maintained by adepts.
But human sciences sponsor the search for ‘origins’ and ‘invention’ genius.
* Pop sciences seek ‘encompassing gnosis, material and metaphysical inseparable’.
But physics confirms that proton components are partly physical, partly energetic, partly in and out of time and place. Archaeology seeks dissected knowledge and thus kills its subject.
• Pop sciences challenge science’s ‘inability to synthesize metaphysics and science’.
But neither half of culture (cult v science, both eternal) could, or would, integrate. Astrology soceities do not need much astronomy, and take little interest in telescopes. Astronomy societies do not need astrology, and take little interest in myth. I discuss this eternal divide in my book Stoneprint (2016).
• Pop sciences have ‘ideas’ that ‘evolve’.
But all cults, in all ages, use the same core content. Which human sciences mistake for ‘ideas’, or perhaps they use that term loosely. Platonism, Gnosticism, Hermeticism, alchemy, astrology, magic, are all eternal.
* Pop sciences use mass media, movies and TV.
But human sciences have failed to do so effectively. Entertainment does a much better job of period dramas than History does. Both bubbles have their gurus (Schliemann, Carter, etc). Cultic elements in science were revealed by Arthur C Clarke (SETI).
* Sciences ‘mainstreamed after 500 years since the Renaissance.’
But the Renaissance was as esoteric as ever in all the arts and sciences. Science glorifies itself with an ‘origin’ and ‘heritage’, skewing history and art history. Vide Grunewald, etc.
• Pop sciences draw on the Hermetic corpus.
But culture, in all ages, had all the media, cults, and counter-cults. No polity or place or time ever lacked language, art, myth, ritual, emblems, spirituality, leadership; or their civilised (administrated, dense population) versions. See San Bushmen myth for example. The ‘idea’ of ‘renaissance’ by way of access to certain texts, is sponsored by science. And part of an honest but misleading and unscientific paradigm. Not Popperian.
• Pop sciences ‘allege deep antiquity, pre-Flood.’
But archaeology had pushed the Stonehenge date further and further back. And the Gobekli Tepe date further back (BC 12 000s) than the already dated precedents (BC 7000s). Use of myth in science has a long tradition in ‘Bible archaeology’, continuing today in the schizophrenia of archaeologists in Palestine. One told me ‘We all know what the tourist groups want to see, while we all know it is not true.’
* Pop sciences ‘whitewash’ history.
But the SAA cite Kepler, Bacon, Newton (Quinn 1997). Newton who sought a Bible code. They are not big on Al Beruni, Indian Vedas with its very vast literature, Chinese sources, and the recently deciphered Mexican records.
* Archaeology ‘became a science’.
But in a very limited sense. Collecting data. Sub-discipline of anthropology (which is not yet a science).
• ‘Professionalism created pop’ (Card 2018, in Hoopes 2019), supposedly by raising barriers to the unschooled, and by ‘stigmatising [certain] knowledge.’
But the ‘forgotten, superseded, ignored, rejected, suppressed’ information that pop sciences seek out, or rather re-invent, and use in cultic ways, also describes academia. Certain philosophers, Jung, Levi-Strauss, and all former fads, are routinely forgotten, superseded, ignored, rejected, suppressed, and ‘schools’ use new ‘scientific’ fads in cultic ways. The academic Replication crisis is real, partly due to frowning on citing ‘outdated’ sources. And partly due to new authorities (gurus) re-forming schools (cults).
• Silent ommissions. The Archaeologists dabble in anthropology and social (contemporary) anthropology.
But they do not mention the theoretical disintegration in anthropology. They should leave anthropology to anthropologists. Shut up, dig, and date.
* Pop sciences accuse ‘materialist science [of] ignor[ing] valuable, meaningful, invisible realms of knowledge of supernatural and paranormal.’
But the human sciences concentrate on tech, and do ignore most human behaviour. Hoopses (2019) cites a very small number of studies that directly engage with the core content of cult and culture.
• Pop science ‘reveals little of its own history.’
But human sciences to the same. The embarrassing racism and treasure hunting of the recent past is supposedly purged and repudiated.
Hoopes, J.W. 2019. Mysterious origins of fringe. SAA Archaeological Record, Nov
SAA should be ashamed of sending such a letter
Mr Hancock does not just make this stuff up. He researches thoroughly the work of SERIOUS scientists, archaeologists, pre-historians, anthropologists, geneticists, astronomers and more, most of whom have risked their academic careers to publish studies that go against the grain of the existing paradigm, where the very universities that employ them are funded by organisations, governments and religious bodies who have a financial or other agenda to preserve the current paradigm and prevent dissemination of any knowledge or information that offers an alternative narrative of human history. Mr Hancock reviews himself, first hand, all of the evidence he presents. He visits every site he writes about personally. He consults the true inheritors of ancient indigenous knowledge wherever he goes, correlating the scientific data with written and oral traditions of ancient cultures from all around the world in order to come to and present a view that simply makes sense, so much so that in the end everything he says seems blaringly obvious to anyone with an open mind and a bit of sense.
Thank you for everything you do Sir, greetings from Lebanon. I learned recently that you visited the megalithic temples of Baalbak back in 2014, I hope you enjoyed the hospitality of my country. I even wish that Baalbak would have had made it to such a series like the ancient apocalypse.
Today I’m writing you this comment after the devastating earthquake that hit Turkey and Syria, and I need to mention that I even appreciate your work even more since you have mentioned in the series the part were you talk about underground cities, and those cities were used to help people hide during such chatastrophic events, which is really inspiring as we are in much need of such a technology now a days. On the other hand, is what is happening today only the beginning of what the ancients knew and described in their drawings on the stones such as the ones at Gobekli Tepe knowing that scientists are predicting that the current earthquake will last for a week from now as it appears on their devices, as this earthquake feels different than any other earthquake that happened before or am I being caught in such emotions because of the region has passed through from wars, and chaos, I guess only time will tell?!
I have been receiving the magazine ” Ancient America ” for many years now and their positions are mostly being proven to be true also. One article they had was about a Human site I believe in Arizona dated by three different ways to 180 to 220 thousand years old and this Professor was fired for Her work. This is why these archeologists are so afraid.
Keep up the work Graham and Im looking for your next Netflex show..
Wow, Graham! Reading the SAA’s letter reminded me of the rhetoric used by the prosecutors in the Moscow show trials of the 1930’s. I am surprised they didn’t also accuse you of “wrecking”. Keep up the good work. Talk about “cut and paste” manufactured hysteria! Sir, I have read all you books and followed your efforts since the early 90’s. I am extremely glad that my time on Earth coincided with yours!
This is what academia should truly be about, having these monoliths show humility is of course not in their interest but this work you do is necessary. Hopefully more people see the lack of diversity fact you pointed out, quite hypocritical of the SAA to pull the racist card when they’re 75%+ Caucasian.
I cannot tell if Graham is communicating with a person or a parrot. This SAA rep’s talking points are identical to the verbiage social extremists make to destabilize an individual or company if they deem it appropriate. Though I find debates to be a great nexus for intellectual exchange, unfortunately, G.H. has shown the SAA their disgrace which will only push them farther into the corner – essentially making them less predictable and more dangerous. Ironically for a ‘diverse,’ ‘progressive,’ and ‘free-thinking’ institution, they’re credibly bankrupt and intellectually dishonest.
If the archeologists want indisputable ‘objective’ proof of the existence of advanced civilizations during the Ice Age, let them examine this data: https://www.mariobuildreps.com/
Why the Orientation of Pyramids Correlates with Ice Ages
Orientation patterns of 1,200 important ancient pyramids and temples, randomly spread around the world, appear to correlate one on one with the temperature changes of the last series of glaciation cycles. Ancient sites left an astounding mathematical fingerprint of Homo sapiens’ building activities. The foundations of ancient monuments are originally hundreds of thousands of years old, and some are as old as early Homo sapiens itself – more than 400,000 years. Later renovations were done on top of the much older foundations, leaving some of the original orientations intact. Our research is groundbreaking. You are about to enter a new paradigm.
Updated With New Data: 05 January 2023
Mr Hancock. I was introduced to Fingerprints of The Gods by my daughter when she was studying archaeology at university. Hooked, I have subsequently read much of your work. It was a real pleasure also to see your very informative Netflix programmes. The complaint against you by SAA is frankly appalling. Poorly argued and presumably drafted by persons relying on their closed minds and probably having never read your stuff beyond the dust cover. Your response can only be described as masterful and a great insight for a layman such as I. Most recently I have read of your discoveries and speculations about Gobekli Tepe. The gentleman from Lebanon who writes above mentions the current Turkish earthquake. My view is GT was built (and then buried) to withstand earthquakes by placing those columns on small feet to enable the ground to shift a bit without shattering them. and then burying them amongst stones (instead of normal solid earth)which would hold them upright but likewise provide some flexing in case of need. And of course high enough to avoid another great flood. Incidentally, I think GT is almost (not exact) on the same longitude as the Great Pyramid. Probably irrelevant but the builders were very, very clever people and clearly have left us a story to decipher. Best Wishes Sir, and thank you for some brilliant research
Congratulations on an excellent response Graham. The inability of the AAS to engage in debate without resorting to name calling does a disservice to their own profession while your open mindedness shines through. Keep up the good work.
I’m a fan of ancient and modern history, I think you do a very serious detective work, I hope your latest book will be translated into Italian a greeting.
Hi Graham, I binge watched your series, Ancient Apocalypse- it was both excellent and fascinating. I was surprised at the ongoing backlash against the series and you on Youtube by what you call “mainstream academia.” It spurred me on to start my own channel, It’s Real and mention you in my first video, “Graham Hancock: Beware of Geeks bearing Pitchforks” (not that you are not capable of defending yourself, as your response shows) After reading your book, Fingerprints of the Gods, I was inspired to write a novel, When the Gods Play, that goes way further than you do regarding how technologically advanced ancient civilisations were. As I took up a position in government, I was not able to promote it. Any assistance you are able to provide in getting my channel, It’s Real, to a wider audience would be much appreciated. Marketing is not my strong suit.
Ya gotta love this. First off, the people who read Mr. Hancock’s books and see his media presentations are not exactly stupid. On the contrary. To begin with they can read and do read. The patronizing assumption from SAA that we need to be rescued from our own naive uncritical ignorance is adorable. Do I really need a warning label from the SAA. It’s not like they’re cardiologists and I have heart disease. I know this about Mr. Hancock’s work. It is well-presented, mind-opening, great fodder for the imagination and speculation and brings to light places and events that have had a second or third tier of attention in the mass media. As I am very unlikely to be called from retirement to address the United Nations on matters of prehistory and pottery shards, what the hell difference does it make to SAA when there is no harm and no foul. Impugning their profession?! Archeaology is not a science. Physics is a science. Chemistry is a science. They proceed from observation to hypothesis to empirical and mathematical experiments to see if the predicted results match the proposed results. There is a null hypothesis. The results are repeatable. There is a recognition that the history of science demonstrates that new and more complete paradigms will supersede their predecessors by accounting for phenomenon previously unexplained. Archeology is not based on experimental results. Archeology is based on a consensus as in a Medieval Guild about the optimal way to create a barrel. Archeology goes from orthodoxy to orthodoxy in a priestly manner whether they were previously incorrect or not. It is not a scientific process. The process takes place within the Sociology of Knowledge. Archaeology, as a profession, is very uniform in its opinion of what isn’t canon and very amorphous about what is. When you are talking about 4000 BC, you don’t know shit other than how you would explain this in 21st century reality tunnels. How can one be scientifically certain of the context of an inscription. It’s an educated guess at which only the educated can guess. Are these assertions fact? To a very large extent they cannot be determined to have a truth value much beyond tautology or socially improved induction. What results is reporting on ancient life and objects that is premised in ‘if they were just like us, this is what this would be.’ That’s not the scientific method. That’s arrogance.
Correct. Archaeology is the data collection arm of anthropology. Which is not a science yet. Though some archaeologists cum ‘anthropologists’ pretend to have a theoretical framework (as in the transparently misleading paper about cultural evolution in the same edition of the journal of the reactionary article that I criticise above.
So many brilliant comments quite on top of what Graham has already said so politely. No reader, of any mental age, could feel similarly about the AAS letter. It is a tour-de-farce of asinine wishfulness. A pseudo letter, from a pseudo association of pseudo academic pseudo (and often armchair) intellectuals. Wankers, we used to call them.
History and its matrix in pre-history do matter today, and not just to academics, and not just to us. It also matters to “them” (not the AAS, necessarily, but perhaps another caste with their own quiet reasons for suppressing this, promoting that). It is all about Full Spectrum Dominance, and truth is an enemy as it empowers the ignorant. Information has become weaponised, and those who wield it are considered assets or liabilities, and promoted or neutralised accordingly. At least, that’s the plan. Sometimes, monsters choke to death on their victims. And evolution continues.
“While we can all push for particular things we believe in, we all have a particular brand of politics.
But I say it’s actually all bankrupt.
And the reason it’s ALL bankrupt, and all current political theories are bankrupt, is because we don’t actually know what the hell is going on.
And until we know the basic structures of our institutions, how they operate in practice, these titanic organisations, how they behave inside, not just through stories, but through vast amounts of internal documentation, until we know that, how can we possibly make a diagnosis?
How can we set the direction to go, until we know where we are? We don’t even have a map of where we are.
So our first task is to build up sort of the intellectual heritage that describes where we are.
And once we know where we are, then we have a hope of setting course for a different direction.
Until then, I think all political theories, to greater and lesser extents of course, are bankrupt.”
– Julian Assange
(a few years before his -ongoing!- pre-trial detention and militarised smear campaign of over a decade, and, according to the UN’s special rapporteur on torture, torture, in England, not China Arabia or Stalin’s Russia, not Nazi Germany, not pre-1989 Iron Curtain, but 21st century England, for committing the crime of journalism.)
Dark Academia? Don’t rule it out, it wouldn’t be the first time. And not always consciously so, but perhaps as an artefact of the structure.
Keep the truth coming. Especially the truth about professional liars and all their works.
Assange is/was not a journalist. one of the movies about the saga makes that very clear.
Politics do not have theories (despite the supposed ‘science’).
Theories have politics (and to which extend they are unscientific).
Dark esoterica is more common than dark academia. Recall, for example, the Theosophy v science campaigns, in which Houdini played a political role.
Pop science, as in the pop anthro of ‘documentaries’ discussed here, are too lightweight to be dark.
Assange has won more international journalism awards than you have had hot dinners, mate. Sorry, but you are just parrotting mainstream media junk. Duh. The Economist New Media Award (2008)
The Amnesty New Media Award (2009)
TIME Magazine Person of the Year, People’s Choice (highest global vote) (2010)
The Sam Adams Award for Integrity (2010)
The National Union of Journalists Journalist of the Year (Hrafnsson) (2011)
The Sydney Peace Foundation Gold Medal (2011)
The Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism (2011)
The Blanquerna Award for Best Communicator (2011)
The Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism (2011)
The Voltaire Award for Free Speech (2011)
The International Piero Passetti Journalism Prize of the National Union of Italian Journalists (2011)
The Jose Couso Press Freedom Award (2011)
The Privacy International Hero of Privacy (2012)
The Global Exchange Human Rights People’s Choice Award (2013)
The Yoko Ono Lennon Courage Award for the Arts (2013)
The Brazillian Press Association Human Rights Award (2013)
The Kazakstan Union of Journalists Top Prize (2014)
As well as nominations for the UN Mandela Prize (2015) and nominations in six consecutive years for the Nobel Peace Prize (2010-2015)
There are more but yeah. I guess you’re fucking wrong, mate. Don’t worry, you have clearly been misled. Can happen to anyone, without real journalism.
Your epistemology is “movies about the saga”. Good luck with that one, mate. You’re really going to learn the truth about one of the most smeared individuals in history who enables whistleblowers to fight institutional corruption and abuse. Movies are entertainment, fiction, artifice and propaganda. It is idiotic to take a movie – a piece of fictive entertainment or propaganda often made by utterly clueless shills or opportunistic vultures or even bad actors, in either sense, – as indicative of anything beyond opportunism on the part of its makers. A movie for chrissakes, how embarrassing. Wake up to yourself mate. The world is not a movie and you just learned something. Wakey wakey. Hands off snakey.
Dumping caches of recent electronic communications and clips into websites, is not journalism. Dumps do not turn data into information. We live in the information age. Leaving it up to ‘the people’ to sort through the heap and pick out titbits, cherry-picking, does not become information. Until journalists place the ranking cherries in some context. The net result is still factionalism, two camps, information bubbles, but closer to information than dumps.
Marshall McLuhan famously said ‘the medium is the message’. If your medium is dumping, your message is garbage.
By your definition of journalism, if applied to science, archaeologists would dump all their data on websites. The ‘people’ would simply look for the oldest dates, the thickest walls, etc. That would not be science.
Anonymity often hides bad deeds, seldom good deeds. Citizen ‘journalism’ and much of the internet is an invitation to apparent anonymity, and often invites bad deeds. Big leaks could temporarily take some pressure off journalists, but the unaccountable simply hide their deeds deeper.
Good journalism, with good outcomes, never use anonymous sources. No media, no legal system, and no state, could guarantee anonymity. We know that too well in South Africa where a whistleblower was killed. I never went ‘off the record’ in my news career.
Now I work in science, where anonymity is never an option. And where data dumping is less than the sum of the parts.
Dumping now serve the ends of fake news, since most ‘data’ is artificial.
One of the policy discussion themes in artificial intelligence (AI) is how to avoid the inherent bias in averaged data. Zipf laws should be part of that discussion. Eddington’s conclusions about universal constants as functions of perception, should be part of that discussion.
The basics of news is to find people willing to talk on the record, and to enable the climate for whistleblowers to hold the powerful to account.
The brief period of the imperfect role of ‘anonymous’ in communication is over.
Anonymous now consists of fake people, literally. There is even a site with fake faces and names, where (anonymous) AI practitioners find characters to become ‘sources’.
The multiple issues involved have already been dramatised in SciFi novels for half a century. That future is now. Wakey?
There were no “dumps”, there were leaks which were painstakingly verified, vetted, and exhaustively redacted before publication. Your remarks are ignorant and evasive as they are pompous and narcissistic. Your posts across this website are flatulent in their contrived, pretentious posturing. You clearly do not understand the principle nor the technique of public interest leaks as the catalyst for just reform, and are simply parrotting what the targets of the leaks have pushed out via their drones in the establishment media, for uncritical consumption by the time-poor and brand-addicted. You quote a fictional movie as a reason for your position, and ignore the ton of refutation I just presented. You do not decide who is or is not a journalist. Other journalists do. That has occurred. Learn. Or keep embarrassing yourself. Up to you.
Ben, “No dumps”? Really? And Wikileaks were “painstakingly verified, vetted, and exhaustively redacted before publication”? Really? Or just in terms of which mainframe database it came from? Dump and be damned, or rather dump and blame any fallout on the sources. Some parts of the initial dump were actually published by newspapers (not tabloids of course). As a journalist, I know what these words mean. What “reform” did Wikileaks enforce? Except for officials using the risk of random leaks as an excuse for clamming up and becoming less accountable. “Uncritical consumption” indeed. Speaking of “brand addicted”, I am in this string to explore how information bubbles may or may not harden or soften. The human ‘sciences’ is an academic bubble with intimate ties to cultural bubbles. Pop anthro is a cultic bubble. Bubbles are a central problem in journalism, from broadsides to tabloids, TV, and Internet. Not blamable on politics or religion, bubbles are just as strong in the USA of the brave and free, as in regimes using dictators and religions as pretext. Confirmation bias is active in science. Perhaps humour is part of the answer, as in the picture book Ship of Fools, that one of my forebears in Basle had published. Scientific humour seems to be as taboo as religious humour, since science abandoned the rigorous rules of philosophical rhetoric, for the ‘facts speak for themselves’ style. The problem is in the term ‘fact’. Pop science also takes itself too seriously, ever since Van Daniken demonstrated the ‘open minded challenge’ style, and discovered that the massive, half-familiar and half ‘exotic’ data of archaeology was ripe for populist assumptions. Post-modern is thankfully over in architecture, but still rules in the human sciences.
Thank you Mr Hancock, for your intruiging research.
Today I watched the final episode of the Ancient Apocalyps series. Reading the above correspondence and comments, I followed the impulse to look for my copy of “Mysteries of Ancient South America” by Harold T. Wilkins, originally published in 1946. In the first few pages of chapter 1, titled ‘Our Earth’s great disaster’ you may find a condensed account of the hypothesis put forward in the series. But also… the culturally inherited racism so illustrative of the time – even just after WWII! Wilkins’ book combines the bold spirit of research that Graham too embodies, with the ethnic bias which proves to be so hard to eradicate. Demonstration that the two can go hand in hand.
Wasn’t the same criticism, that of racist and unscientific pseudohistory, expressed somewhat a century ago, and more recently, against all whoever associated with the ridiculed mother of all pseudohistory: Helena Blavatsky? Actually, I got the feeling from the above letter that the SAA implicitly associates Graham’s hypothesis with the theosophical contents of Blavatsky’s “The Secret Doctrine”. The book is stigmatized for its influence on the nazi ideology. But then again, Einstein too purportedly kept the book for ‘nighttime reading’, a claim challenged by a representative of the Albert Einstein Archives at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. However.
I thank you, Mr Graham, for allowing me to reflect on my own beliefs and hypotheses. It has helped me to embrace that I am, despite a reluctance to philosophically or religiously label myself, after all a Theosophist: someone who dares uphold the believe that our so called civilisation is neither the first nor the last to be carried on our Earth’s back, that this view is supported by the powerhouse of myth and architectural-geographical traces still left. But also that this view at present time is hard to uphold scientifically. Nevertheless, it does not keep me from conducting research myself, by the highest standards which I can bolster. The love for history goes deep. And something conducted from that radiating feeling cannot tolerate a base violence of our own senses and of historical evidence.
The Americas are bad places to look for lost ancient civilisations. A few shipwrecks and incurable explorers, but mostly sterile before the rise of civilisations in the Mideast, Egypt, India, and Europe. And massive population and thus civilisation growth, with the usual industrial scale wars, since about BC 500. The last being since the Spanish and colonial invasions, and still continuing. Now at the scale of draining the water table at a rate that it could never recover. Except of course if another Ice Age caps north America, and suddenly melts at the scale of carving the Grand Canyon again.
I have often wondered if ‘anthropological’ catastrophism is perhaps a euphemism, and defence mechanism, against recognising our inevitable complicity in ecological degradation. Why do most people not read books about the current catastrophe? Too close for comfort? Rather see a movie about comfortably ancient or future disasters?
To avoid pseudo-history and novelistic spiritual ‘anthropology’ of the Blavatsky kind (escapism from the recent World Wars), rather look in the Old World. Well documented, to be used with the usual pinch of salt (use the data, not the supposedly ‘theoretical’ paradigm).
Blavatsky died in 1891. I believe the world wars occurred in the following century. So I doubt she and those inspired by her work were escaping those, but rather were simply doing their best at the time in which they lived to address Mysteries which Authority (academic, governmental, clerical or other) was impotent to deal with. Escapism? fuck you. It is called imagination and it is how we construct reality, and how we deal with unknowns – scientific and otherwise. And what you say about America is nonsense as proved by the incredible plethora of pre-Clovis legacy in both North and South America, the surface of which was scratched by America Before (even if the itch was merely aggravated) and is abundantly demonstrated by proper research.
And it is not “us” causing ecological catastrophe today (still nothing on the scale Mother Nature provides regularly without our input at all) but “them” – the few psychopaths running conglomerate multinationals, who fund academia, and lobby governments, of which the consumers are today as much the victims of both the game and the – comparatively modest – catastrophe. Can’t read books about it? Maybe they are shit books written by clueless shills who can’t write but are propped up by the WEF and the UN and the other globalist freaks steering us into a monolithic centralised dystopia that uses genuine issues as camoflage for their own bullshit that is obvious as fuck to anyone with more than half a brain cell and five minutes to spare? What good will that do? We aren’t the ones who need to read them. Those who should do so, don’t care, because it is their profit that drives it along with our health problems (which they mysteriously also profess to cure, funny that, what a nice little earner that must be). Stupid comment. Blavatsky was a genius who walked a hell of a lot more of the walk than most modern academics, writing at a time very different from our own, with extraordinary insight and far more experience of the world, particularly the world in remote places, and its esoteria, than all of us put together.
Mick, the Theosophical movement blossomed between the two world wars. Authorities are always impotent before correspondence ‘theory’, a kind of escapism (confirmation bias). Imagination is also used by authorities. We consume human reality, and imagine that we ‘construct’ it. America’s cultural record is sparse before what is labelled Clovis, but that label is elastic, and not very old. Are you not taking any blame for ecological degradation? Not part of “them”? Do you have a pension fund? Do you buy goods? A modest catastrophe? That is denialist and escapist. If the UN are ‘globalist freaks’ in trying to stop some vested interests from burning more forest to raise more cattle to feed the likes of you and me, “what good will [would] that do?” But you say “We aren’t the ones who need to read them.” It’s “them’? You argue that Blavatsky is out of date, but similar nonsense about ‘ancient’ and ‘alien’ entities is all over the Internet. What is your solution to your “modest” catastrophe? I trust that those corporate laboratories that you swear at, will find and nurture protein. Perhaps game species. My contribution is to offer some conscious perspective on our defence mechanisms. One of my heroes is Freud. The very opposite of Blavatsky.
Absolutely brilliant factual response, hats off to you Graham, keep going, there are so many, many people behind you. Your series is an example of truly excellent reporting, and if I wasn’t already deeply entrenched in a different career, contrary to the SAA’s accusation, you would have inspired me to follow a route in archeology. You are inspiring young people all over the world. The truth, and honour, are on your side. As are we. Thank you for all you are doing. Big hugs, Tania
“Hancock’s narrative emboldens extreme voices that misrepresent archaeological knowledge in order to spread false historical narratives that are overtly misogynistic, chauvinistic, racist, and anti-Semitic”
Wow, they are really grasping at straws here to try and paint you as some kind of demon.
I’ve been watching and reading a lot of your material lately, and the most concerning thing to me is this vendetta the archaeologists have for you.
Why are they trying to suppress you so badly, if they are so confident in their work, they should be able to welcome your opposing viewpoint with open arms and explain to you why you are wrong and they are right. Yet they can’t, they just send letters to the people who host your show and try to have it removed or at the least labelled as science fiction.
Your material is very thought provoking and I have had a keen interest in space and the pyramids for a while now, it has inspired me to want to learn more. Keep up the good work.
Wow, that quote is unbelievable. Such clear and baseless defamation.
Where, in the many thousands of pages and hours of film Graham has made, is there a single instance of any one of these attributes? What desperate troglodytes the AAS are to push something out like that with their name on it.
Excellent response Graham Hancock! Thank you for your always well supported arguments and fair play. It is not always wrong to break the cake of custom with reasonable force: where would we all be if this did not occur from time to time? I have never known you to make personal or racial attacks and any suggestion that you have stopped to such is clearly wrong. Go well and best wishes, Pete.
Brilliant i got your back in any way i can you opened my eyes shame so many remain closed
Since Universities are Infested with Marxists, it is clear the SAA and their members are part of that club.
Why can’t SAA refute anyone’s statements with FACTS…that is what SAA is sadly lacking. As far as I’m concerned, any opinion expressed by Marxists are Nasty Lies to further their power! PROVE I’M WRONG!
Thank you Graham for your diligence in actually investigating the issues and coming to a SCIENCE BASED Opinion…too bad the SAA and membership are more interested in their POWER, NOT the TRUTH!
Australia a vast continent with a 60,000 year old living culture and ancestry tracing back to Eurasia. No evidence of any non-Australian aboriginal ancient civilisation or megaliths here! Bit of anomaly to Mr Hancocks theories as well as mainstream theories about human civilisation and evolution. Would welcome some rational explanation alternative to an ingrained racism?
Speaking of “rational explanations as opposed to ingrained racism”, quite aside from obviously indulging in reactionary weaponised 21st century bullshit internet identity politics, and getting people’s name wrong before accusing them of racism, this is worth unpacking right here.
Are there Australian megaliths that you know of or suspect? If so, please share them so we can check them out. I am Aussie and hate racism, and have been an activist for decades, so am very curious about this. If there are some you know, please share them. If not, why should it be part of a show about megaliths? But all this is worth looking at, actually.
Given the fact that Tonga, NZ, Indonesia, Noumea and many other Pacific islands surrounding Oz actually do have obviously man made megaliths that do not appear to be well explained by anyone, and I know some anomalous structures have indeed been found in Australia, which do seem a bit like some of those (i.e. the little round stone huts in Noumea, similar ones are found in NZ and even in Victoria, but under-reported, which bring to mind ancient Irish structures used for shamanism also or maybe even just a kind of sauna or perhaps some kind of ice age shelter? – or perhaps this is itself all drawing from a common source as Graham suggests? Or – and this is a valid criticism about Graham’s theory too, which incidentally none of his detractors have bothered with so busy are they with personally smearing him as some kind of new antichrist hitler arsehole – perhaps function determines form regardless of who and where? Perhaps all boats are boat-shaped not because they all learned it from Atlanteans but because that’s just the thing that floats best with people in it and all the rest sunk? So perhaps these huts had a function (they were not lived in, too small), perhaps fumigation of plants (maybe DMT containing ones), other shamanic purposes now lost, we don’t know. But they are not six million tons imported from over a mountain range aligned to true North and shaped with impossibly perfect geometry that defies tools assumed to have been available at the time of assembly, so yeah, they did not make it in. It is only season one, give it time.
That said, Australia – the landmass – is an enigma, totally aside from the peoples inhabiting it, and from the region.
There are regions in the Kimberleys and Arnhem land where rock art exists that the local natives state categorically is not theirs, they know nothing of it, that it was done by other people, not them. Ignoring their opinion would be racist. And ignoring the evidence of one’s senses, when seeing how clearly different it is from any art claimed by aborigines, would be irrational.
And remember, “Australia” as we know it today is a modern continent, not an ancient one: The ocean level rose so much 10,500 years ago that millions of square miles is now under the sea. The enormous landmasses now under water (today called Zealandia, Sundaland and Sahul), of which New Zealand, Indonesia/PNG and Australia, along with the thousands of smaller islands, much of Asia, Sri Lanka, India, which were in many places joined, today all just remaining highland fragments separated by the deluge, no doubt contained or still possibly contain megalithic structures that have never been explored which might provide more insight into the origins of all the “races” and cultures in the area. So yes, by all means, do put pressure on archaeologists to do more diving, on the scale Graham has done himself all over the world. He was and is at it for decades, but the world is a big place, and he’s been waiting for others to help him, not just sit in an armchair calling him a cunt on the internets, as seems to be the new intellectual mode of our age.
But I was piqued by this repeated accusation so I had a look at just Graham’s first book, which you should read before posting actually, Fingerprints Of The Gods (1995), and in it Graham actually does discuss aboriginal culture. He says, on page 191,
” Several aboriginal Australian peoples, especially those whose traditional homelands are along the tropical northern coast, ascribe their origins to a great flood which swept away the previous landscape and society. Meanwhile, in the origin myths of a number of other tribes, the cosmic serpent Yurlunggur (associated with the rainbow) is held responsible for the deluge.” and he provides a written source for this statement.
Again, you should also read Magicians of the Gods, and America Before, as it appears there is an Australian aboriginal DNA signal in Amazonian tribes that are only just now being contacted. This is unexplained by academia, archaeology, anthropology, as well as native lore. But then so was the Denisovan DNA signal when it appeared. And Gobekli Tepe. And all the other anomalies. By all means, make a contribution if you have found stuff others have missed, but one would gently and politely suggest refraining from indulgence in weaponised 21st century identity politics along the way, especially with people you have misnamed.
So, Selene, over to you. We are keen as. Show us the megaliths, or other Australian lore or cultural materials that might be relevant to Graham’s theory. But he positively supports the notion that both technically advanced cultures as well as hunter-gatherers existed side by side back then as they do even today (in Brazil, and Sentinel Island, and many other places as well).
My only gripe with Graham is that he is still in denial about giants. But who can blame him, you gotta pick your battles. But yeah – not mentioning an absence of megaliths is not racism. Tokenism is.
What if archeologists are correct and you are correct at the same time.
Could it be a different species of humans that created these monolithic sites?
Graham, If you are receiving flak it means you are over the target…bombs away
I studied Geography and History at the University some 3 years ago. I wanted to be a teacher or may be an investigator, but a bank crossed my life and I stayed working for these people for long enough to forget about education and work for private companies for 25 years.
Now I am unemployed and studying for being a teacher.
I have read all Graham Hancock’s books and always found his ideas and overall personal appearance to be legit, transparent, sincere. The face and facts of someone who firmly believes what is saying.
I cannot do the same with the people on the other side.
Mixing racism in this situation os the typical action to get feelings in a scientific discussion, trying to move people’s opinions by adding drama.
For my experience working with archaeologists during my time at the university, I cannot say many good things. They tend to work with stablished, archaic, beneficial-just-to-some ideas and evidence can be moved, changed, reinterpreted in such ways as to get it to fit into the pre-established theories and even deleted (destroyed) if necessary. I have seen teachers repeatedly throwing away pieces of ancient ceramic objects, coins or other objects because they did not belong in the strata we were working in.
Scholars and Ph. D or Cathedratics were revered as they were kings and their theories were irrefutable.
Such is then the situation with so many dilemmas that evidence tell us were not as they tell us they were. It is obvious that the Pyramids of the 4th Dinasty are not the famous ones of Ghiza, Mikerinos and Kheops, for example. It is clear that some of the dates provided for ancient places around the planet are not the correct ones. It is obvious they either lied to us or were so wrong that it would be shameful to admit now how things really are.
There was a flood, there was another civilization before us and so called scientific proof is the work of a few that are controlled by other few with the dark interest of keeping us ignorant of our past.
Everyday becomes clearer why they want us to be ignorant, as the people trying to control society have direct links to all that.
Narrative will fall. Everything is related. They do not want Humankind to progress, spiritually.
They always said there is no such thing called the System. It has become evident it is something we can call the system. System want to control us. Making human history a fake is one of the reasons to keep us blind.
Polidori, I agree that academia is cultic. Since you studied History, and worked on dig sites, I am genuinely interested in your educated views on the conspiracist issues that you raise here:
If the Great Pyramid is not 4th Dynasty, who built it?
Which famous sites dates are known to be wrong?
Where was this “another civilization before”?
How would “Humankind progress spiritually” from archaeology data?
How is “human history” fake? (in more or less documented ages, from Sumeria and Egypt onward).
Is European History also fake?
I have been reading and following Graham Hancock for more than 20 years.
It is the first time I heard of these guys in the SAA. That proves something.
Archeologists all over the World are the same than doctors, engineers, etc. They are corporative people that many times want their positions secured by what they are, the association they belong to and the name they keep, but not by the work they do.
Sir, I so admire and celebrate your persistence in piercing the dull white bread wall that is modern academia, but here’s to me your crowning achievement: my 80 year old mama, a devout Christian person, binge watched your masterpiece Ancient Apocolypse with me, which led lead to several days of healing conversations about how not everyone gets away with questioning the presumed narratives of their time. She’s a devout Lutheran! I delighted in her ability to draw legitimate parallels for herself between your way of scouring the earth for evidence against a mean spirited tide of opposition from jealous academics, and Martin Luther’s blessed clarity of ethical resistance against the concept of Catholic indulgences. Just look at the passion mainstream archeology musters in its efforts to defame you: truth is you must have inspired them too: you reach a more engaged, grateful, and larger audience all by yourself!
My condolences on the passing of your mother and all those before her in your family. Next time you contemplate whether you’ve adequately repaid the gift of your life, please let yourself marinate in the joy she was given, as she was surrounded by the bounty of your surviving family, for from an oblique perspective, they too will “keep getting older” but first they were born to tie a future to your past.
PS I practice law now but will have you know I dropped out of grad school in archeology out of frustration at how dogmatic and frankly lacking in empirical rigor and diversity of thought they were. Lastly, I adore you for your courage and senses of adventure and wonder! Love, Alicia, White Mountains, Arizona & Seattle, Washington.
Excellent retort Graham – what an utterly ridiculous and libellous commentary by the SAA – born out of what? Fear of loss of their power and control over the minds of the world, dare I say. They certainly don’t have our hearts. Truth and logic seemed to be lost in their open letter. We see this everywhere – the existing powers and controllers of orthodoxy (‘authordoxy’ those wanting to be the authors of truth) – trying to silence, defame, ridicule, undermine, the new ideas and ‘heresies’.
I watched Ancient Apocalypse when it came out, again about three times (all episodes) in the subsequent weeks, and again, yesterday, watched the whole series – it is easy, as each episode is only half an hour long.
The only mentions of indigenous cultures are literally 100% of the time made in reverence, respect and indeed awe at their virtues and skills, and sympathy for the injustices and genocide and cultural destruction imposed upon them by modern colonial dominator cultures, and extolling the virtues of hunter-gatherer cultures and their ability to persist through changes that erase other cultures.
It is obvious that Graham sides with indigenous cultures against racist colonial dominator cultures (and the academic institutions which represent them today in colonising our minds). This is obvious not only in every single episode of this series and every other film he has ever made, every interview he has ever done, but also in print in every single article or book he has ever put his name to.
Just watch the first ten minutes of episode 6 on America’s Lost Civilisation. This is the episode involving a site he was banned from accessing for the show, as he questions the nonsensical academic (not indigenous!) narrative. They are the racist ones, insisting the mound was made only recently, when all the evidence shows it (and the culture that produced this work of cosmic genius) is much older.
To stoop to such a level as this attack letter by SAA is unmitigated libel, baseless, false and malicious, clearly a sign of the game being up at their end.
How is it racist to suggest Egyptian culture may have had to re-start several times due to cosmic events that destroyed the world? Events which are robustly referenced in scientific and cultural literature? Actually suggesting that the origins of this (and other) human culture are in fact much more venerable than academics say?
The only emphasis on race is entirely a result of these smear campaigns using this obviously irrelevant issue as a weapon against a legitimate critic without a shred of basis – hence the total absence of a single reference in their appalling attack letter published above. No doubt they wanted this letter suppressed and kept secret – cowards always prefer skulking in the corners, and bullies are always cowards. Hence Hoopes’ reluctance to face his victim in public; hence the request for censorship rather than open and transparent and accountable critique.
I and no doubt many millions worldwide (of all skin colours, races, and beliefs) look forward greatly and hungrily to the next dozen and more seasons of Ancient Apocalypse, if not on Netflix, then wherever it appears. Why bother with fantasy when you can explore the real thing?
Oh wait! We forgot to accuse him of being a racist.
Heh, heh, heh.
If Graham is racist, then I want to compliment his wife on the beautiful tan She’s sporting.
Wow, she must have had to be working on that tan every day of her life. 😉
Seriously though, Graham, you’ve brought out a lot of good information to a lot of people. Your
work I’ve always found very interesting, & I thank you.
In another post further up, someone mentioned pyramids. You gotta check out the following… .
I think it’s from the early or mid ’70s.
GRAHAM – in the appendix of the following book is some energy work that you might be interested in to stop the defamation and slander attacks. I’ve been using it for a while, and it works for me, but the concepts in this book are excellent also.
Oh, and pyramid dude, look into the Russian pyramids. They should be built w/ a base to side
angle of 76.345 degrees.
I’ve been experimenting w/ these for some time now, just cardboard & ductape mock-ups with
a peak termination of a quartz / tourmaline crystal, or obsidian (protection).
Here’s the link: https://archive.org/details/shape-power-dan-adavidson
The key point w/ pyramids is the alignment.
Graham; My blessings to you & your family, and once again, thank you for everything
you’ve put out to the public.
I am very confused. It is hard to comprehend how the SAA can claim that the process of archaeology is discredited when no process has been applied to much of the hypothesis presented by Graham. Rather what is happening is the the ideological timeline is being ‘defended’, ideology being an inherently unscientific belief system. If the belief system is in fact based on science then the appropriate response would be to investigate the hypothesis using scientific methods, in this case archaeological excavations. What shocked me was the volume of known and yet un-excavated sites, especially those in Turkey and a lack of desire it seems to do so. Who knows what the hell else is down there at Göbekli Tepe? The same goes for other major sites around the world that remain only very partially investigated and whilst this has much to do with available funds, one would think archaeologists would use new hypothesis as a lever to gain increased funding. Perhaps Richard Branson, Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk might be persuaded to find a few spare dollars and fund some thorough excavations especially if Graham’s conclusion is right and we are headed for a bit of a tangle with some rocks from space? These boys are a bit interested in space and it might give them the leverage to get a proper Planetary Defence System up and operating. After all it is rated as one of the highest known risks to the planet!
Graham also points out quietly that the technology to create these monuments or carvings on them cannot have been spontaneously generated (which would be the ‘aliens landed’ option) and therefore had some development period. This is echoed by other inconvenient relics like the Antikythera mechanism or the baghdad battery that do not fit the concept of gradual ascension to our current supposed pinnacle of supreme development.
Graham should take solace that he treads in the footsteps of many others like Galileo, Andreas Versalius and more recently Robert Bakker without whom we would still be being told the sun rotates the earth, that human anatomy is the same as a pigs and that dinosaurs were all cold blooded lizards.
Please keep up the good work.
It may also be of interest to those visiting these pages to read Premature rejection in science: The case of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00368504211064272
The SAA is right. The show is nothing but a giant heap of pseudoarchaeology and cherry-picked data, bundled into an epic story that makes no logical or factual sense.
Nah, you’re a troll mate. Who sent you?
Yeah. Gobekli Tepe existing is a “cherry-picked fact” the establishment would like us to ignore because they fucking missed it for 10,500 years. LOL.
The actual archaeologists who assisted Graham (i.e. in Gunang Padang) were “cherry-picked” because they have actually bothered looking at the evidence along with him instead of clinging to books written decades ago by armchair academics who never left their College, either mentally or physically.
The DNA results indicating all sorts of amazing new fields involving hobbits (floriensis) and giant Denisovans were “cherry picked” because they exist and once more, were missed by academics.
Not a single academic prediction has been vindicated! Graham’s predictions – that we would find increasing evidence of lost chapters in human story – has been time and again.
Replace “the show” with “mainstream academic (pseudo!) archaeology” and you’ve got a coherent sentence that actually matches reality as utterly confirmed by hard sciences like geology and astronomy and dna studies. As “the show” demonstrates.
I almost said, “replace ‘the show’ with “the SAA letter” but, as they do not even have cherry-picked facts, but merely an utter absence of facts, with lashings of confected fantasy personal libels and smears that have not just zero but an actively negative basis in reality, clearly designed to do maximum personal harm to Graham at zero public benefit, it did not really work as a quip. But this one does.
If you only have half an hour for each episode and you are trying to demonstrate a global event tens of thousands of years ago, you must necessarily select the salient points – and the points raised are indisputable, peer-reviewed, scientifically established, but new. This is not cherry-picking. It is science: open, critical inquiry that ignores dogma and preconceived beliefs, and simply presents measurements along with possible interpretations of this evidence.
Not that you, nor, based on their letter, the SAA, would have a clue what that actually involves.
> “Not a single academic prediction has been vindicated! Graham’s predictions – that we would find increasing evidence of lost chapters in human story – has been time and again.”
I can’t say I actually know of any academic predictions, though, successful or otherwise. Hardly indicative of a confident and robust actual science. What kind of science can’t accurately predict? Pseudoscience, that’s what.
I know this is perhaps asking for trouble, but it simply must be said: even Tolkien was closer than the archaeologists.
J.R.R. fucken Tolkien mate. Floriensis had actual hobbit feet, way biger than ours ay. Look it up. Proportionally. So not just mini ppl, but also, crucially, bigger feet. Hobbits. Not dwarves, not elves, not orcs. Not us. Hobbits. Tolkien predicted Floriensis’ (re)discovery. Tolkien was right, and we are living in Middle-Earth. What else did he predict? How did he do it? Like Cayce and other non-scientists (according to the mainstream definition)? Reverie?
How did Tolkien do it? How did he get it right where centuries of academic archaeologists have got oh, I don’t know, everything totally wrong? Gobekli Tepe hello? More than doubling “civilization”‘s officially recognised age? Meaning everything, ever, in human history, that amount is now proven to have existed as well as the bit we know we know about but even mostly guess at. Mystic misty myths of times of dreams of before, is how. Tolkien had studied European myth, as well as being a practicing Roman Catholic, and so was full of lore of ancient memories of mankind. Irrational, because that is what experience is. Primary.
Denisovans – four times human sized, going from the molar. Other extreme. And that is just what we know.
So, that includes their version of tall, which would be say five or six times human sized (if a normal Denisovan was merely four times), therefore could easily be thirty-six feet tall. Or, if they were mysteriously uniform in their size and not subject to the normal range of variation in height as normal humans, let’s conservatively estimate a mere four time human sized, as the molar, which we have, the Denisovan molar, is four times as large as an adult human’s. Four. So, if a human is six feet, this is someone’s tooth who was twenty-four feet tall. Pretty sure that is a giant, a troll, a balrog, a dark lord, a maia, a god, a demon, etc. etc. – and yeah, they would be strong af.
The ancients, in particular Floriensis and the Denisovans, were clearly not academics. They did not leave signs saying “Hey, call us “The Denisovans” after a cave named after a monk from a religion hundreds of thousands of years in the future’. As we do not know what they were called nor what they called themselves, what they did, ate, looked like, anything is possible.
Physical, concrete, physically dateable, actual tooth from a Denisovan four times human sized
and physical, concrete, physically dateable, actual Gobekli Tepe and
physical, concrete, physically dateable, actual Floriensis actual HOBBIT with actual physical concrete physically dateable actual oversized feet just like Tolkien’s “fictitious” hobbits.
Co-incidence? Why should there have actually been a tribe of halflings who just happen to have had enormous feet just like hobbits and we know this, because there are now quite a few skeletons and they have ridiculously oversized feet?
What else did he nail?
But also, is this not itself testimony, in cold, concrete, literal form, not of pseudoscience, but of prescience? I mean this literally and seriously.
What academic (including biologists, not only archaeologists) came close to predicting something that specific? And that categorically ground-breaking?
Perhaps human mentation, cognition, perception, intelligence, etc. has a richer, wider, unknown range of experience across realms and modulations of possibility as a process inherent in time, that is naturally expressed as experienced by certain individuals, or may be developed or taught or found or encountered one way or another?
Crick, Einstein, Tesla, Descartes, Newton – for all the rationalism, were all driven by the Mystery. Not the ego in front of it. Not the career path, the clique, the golf club or church or lodge. Just the Mystery itself. Grasping at straws, in pipe dreams of one kind or another (a shamanic state), for all smoked a pipe of some kind, they made genuine discoveries. As did Tolkien, Cayce, Hancock. Epic, world-shattering discoveries that double and extend our range and knowledge of humanity’s true biological and cultural past, as is now known, through the hardest kind of hard evidence that it is possible to have: bone, tooth, and rock.
And some stories. “Pre-science”, we can call these. In both senses 😉
I asked Randall Carlson for me to help. I’ll dig for free. I am hands on. [email protected] I don’t want pay. Maybe food
I have huge interest
SAA is white people.
Oannes, I have met and heard lectures by black archaeologists at a conference in Africa, and have tried to read some of their papers. They are as full of outdated politics, and as protective of their careers, and as unscientific, and as lacking in theory, and as caught up in a replication crisis, and as much in an information bubble (a different one), and as intolerant of criticism, as the brave and free USA academics who presumably agree with the unfortunate SAA letter. The follies that academia allow, do not stop at skin colour. The problem is in academia, not in race.
You just can’t help yourself, can you. I was almost about to make fun of the fact you missed the point being made, which is to do with the racial makeup of the SAA (mostly white) and the hypocrisy of acting as some kind of racial guardian by calling Graham racist when its own makeup is unrepresentative of indigenous or non-white people, but then I realised you are not only wrong in your reading of the comment, but also in saying the issue is not race.
It is race actually. If the books had been published under Santha’s name, accusations of racism would not have occurred, because she is not white. Graham is. He is therefore a “white boomer” and fair game for the insecure and dishonest cretins out there smearing his good name and character with this appallingly racist letter.
The issue is most certainly one of race. The SAA made that their central platform. That fact, and its irrelevance to Graham’s work, is the subject we are discussing.
What is at stake is the master narrative of our so-called human history from its origins, multiple and polymorphous. Graham Hancock, like the best writers establishes an architecture and armature that produces compelling and cogent argumention that extends our knowledge of our origins in a rigorous and intriguing manner. Professional archeologists have methods and procedures for concocting their truth claims that is self-regulating and logico-deductive. This does not necessarily place their claims beyond the reach of hard work and the finesse of a disciplined and focussed approach, which is how I would describe the impressive body of knowledge developed by G.H. As a non-academic writer and thinker, Hancock does not rely of the always already true truth widgets of the professional academics. Graham Hancock establishes his truth claims through careful, well-documented argumentation. His patience with the mean-spirited and weak-minded cult of university archeologists that insult, harangue and assault him verbally show their utter lack of sophistication and expectation of automatic acceptance that is older than the monoliths they go on about. This is a wonderful case of the democratization of knowledge bears fruit and exceeds the explanatory power of the pros. He is a better writer and thinkers and quite frankly,a better man, more compassionate and open-minded soul. I fully expect that rabble to launch their Make Archeology Great Again campaign. Humour them. Don’t read them. Degrees and careers and awards do not and must not replace the labour and love of the topics in archeology that the pros have lost along the way. Their authority is an archeo-auyhority that is out of step with the our evolving digital research. Bravo, G.H.
Rod, I agree with your anti-archaeology sentiment, probably for different reasons. But I am curious about some of your views.
How could a documentary movie be “rigorous”?
Do you accept the ‘trance dance’ hypothesis of culture, that Graham’s book Supernature was based on?
Where is the “careful, well-documented argumentation” in Supernature? Or in Magicians of the gods?
Which theory of culture do you follow?
What is “democratisation of knowledge” in the 2020s?
When was archeology “great”?
What is “digital research”?
How is research evolving?
I Have only this to add – FUCK NETFLIX !