Archaeologist Reacts to Graham Hancock's "Ancient Apocalypse" - America's Lost Civilization
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 жов 2024
- Hancock has this archaeology fanfiction show out on the Netflix these days and it's gotten a fair amount of press from all sides. I took a look and share what I think. This episode deals with the Poverty Point site and Serpent Mound.
Instagram: / nfosaaen_archaeology
Several of my previous videos relate to this response, so I'll link those here.
The Younger Dryas with Dr. Chris Moore: • The Younger Dryas Impa...
Poverty Point : • Ancient Monuments and ...
Monuments in the Eastern Woodlands : • Alchemists of Memory: ...
Pinson Mounds Monument : • The Tower and The Risi...
Hunter Gatherers : • The First Society: An ...
The Problem with the "Civilization" concept: • Civilization is Meanin...
I'd also like to point out Stefan Milo's episode-by-episode critique you can find here: • Critiquing every episo...
Instagram: / nfosaaen_archaeology
Hancock is a crackpot pandering to gullible, ignorant suckers. He's not interested in scientifically verified evidence; he's interested in selling sensationalistic TV shows and books.
Its called grifting
I disagree❤
@@chestersabajo5527 the person with ayahuasca in there name says this without understanding the irony of just saying I disagree without substance of any kind is hilarious
Whilst Archaeology might seem "scientific", there's a vast amount of interpretation in there too, and "scientific" isn't a synonym for being correct or accurate. It's just about the methodolgy used. Science is frequently wrong and wildly innaccurate.
So much scientifically verified evidence in this comment
You nailed it. Not just a 19th century idea of hunter-gatherers, but a 19th century idea of archaeology and anthropology in general. Some of what he says we "believe" might have been true a hundred years ago or more.
Thanks for taking the time, Nathanael. Appreciate it.
Nathanael, please answer me this. As I am an amateur archaeologist, I worked with three digs in the past. One of the groups I worked with asked for a grant to dig below the Cloves layer. This grant request was refused, and the statement attached said, "There is no evidence mankind existed prior to the Clovis peoples."
Sounds like the reviewer for that grant has their head up their ass. That IS something that's a problem. Some research isn't going to get funded until a few dinosaurs with political power die off.
@@NathanaelFosaaen Thank you for your reply. I have enjoyed the digs I have worked on. It is so interesting to see how people before us lived and what their culture must have been like.
@@TheCrucifiedClown it’s so weird…I’m watching him and listening to him and the contradictions are obvious…mind you I’m not even a Hancock fan or anything. Because as much as Hancock does not know this blonde haired man does not know as well. No one knows for that matter, but I do agree with Hancock when he says that all “theories” or “possibilities” should be addressed and critically analyzed. To simply dismiss a notion because it does not fall in line with one’s work let’s me know that said person has a primitive mind.
What group was this and when did it occur?
@@rockysexton8720 Masonic group in Utah
I think Graham is talking about archaeologists like zahi hawass who are notorious liars and cheats when it comes to archaeology.
I think Hancock may use him as an example to prove the rule rather than anything else.
Either way Hawass has various problems, but the only significant one is being Egyptian in a world where so much of Egyptian archaeology is still remaining in Britain, France, the US and elsewhere.
If you were patriotic about your country and invested in its ancient history you would be perpetually livid too to find so much of it had been taken elsewhere and proudly put on display like it isn't theft at all.
He's also 75 with old attitudes that implies + born in a country that still has less than flattering attitudes towards women, so he is automatically biased against female academics regardless of nationality.
So to sum up - to be in Hawass's good graces you need to be an Egyptian male archaeologist.....
That does somewhat narrow the field of people in his good graces.
Also the fact that he still holds so much power despite being demoted from the top position at the Antiquities & Tourism Ministry shows that his superiors are just as sick of the rest of the world treating Egypt as their doorstop as Hawass is.
The fact you parrot names like they're villains in a story shows you've been brainwashed
You don't have any of your own ideas, you just repeat what they told you, having done zero fact checking for yourself. The way you go after Hawass as if he's the big boss ring leader is exactly why Hamcock is branded as a White Supremacist
@@uncannyvalley2350 That's a lot of assumptions bud.
@@mnomadvfx didn’t Hawaas get caught stealing artefacts himself a few years back?
Even worse, he was selling them.
Coming to this very late, but I wanted to give my thoughts on AA episode 2 since I do writeups and and work with history/archeology channels on Mesoamerican (Aztec, Maya, etc) topics. My overall impression is that Hancock preys on people's ignorance of Mesoamerica to take mundane findings and blows them out of proportion to act as if they upend the archaeological or historical consensus when they really don't: The most blatant example of this is with Cholula, where he presents the fact that the Pyramid has layers as some sort of unexpected find, the implication being that it calls into question the pyramid's age. But pyramids being built sequentially in layers like a Russian doll is EXTREMELY common in Mesoamerica:, with expansions built as new kings took power or during important cosmological milestones. And the specific layers of the Great Pyramid of Cholula is well studied in particular, due to fact that the structure wasn't destroyed by the Spanish (see below).
Hancock even explicitly says he doesn't even dispute that dating (which makes that whole segment feel pointless and dishonest, since he's clearly still trying to make people skeptical). I also found his framing of it being located over water as something special and then asking "What made these people build it here?" to be sort of absurd: He answers his own question! Pools of water, mirrors, caves, etc were all tied to underworld entrances in Mesoamerican cosmology, with Pyramids at Teotihuacan or Chichen Itza's Temple of Kukulkan also being over pools/caves. He even draws attention to this, bringing up that the Giza Pyramid etc were built over water sources too, so he's simultaneously acting ignorant but also trying to draw a global pattern (but doesn't establish it being a wider pattern in Egypt, SEA, etc). His "all pyramids have connections to death and rebirth" point also falls flat, as Mesoamerican pyramids were primarily temples, not tombs like in Egypt. Now, it SHOULD be noted that there are sometimes buried remains and ceremonial goods in Mesoamerican pyramids, but these were usually ritual caches to consecrate the construction of new phases/layers of the pyramid, not burials the monument itself was dedicated to, though sometimes that was the case as well. Actually, sometimes Pyramids (or Pyramid like outgrowths of some larger acropoli complexes) were even used as administrative buildings or residences!
The show also clearly misrepresents Dr. Mcafferty's statements (something he's since said since in other interviews): At one point, Hancock asks "Is that enough to be confident enough about the full story", and he basically says "No, there's a lot of work to be done to teach us more about Mesoamerica". This is not him saying "Everything we think we know is wrong" (which is what Hancock implies it to be) it's just saying that there's still more excavations to do, as there's always more we can learn. And when Dr. Mcafferty says "Knowing more about Cholula would let us rethink Mesoamerican as a whole": The researcher's point was likely that a better understanding of Cholula would give us a better picture of how social, political and religious trends changed in Mesoamerica over time (since Cholula existed as small village in 1000BC all the way to being a large city with 40k+ denizens as of Spanish contact) and since the city had widespread religious and political influence even in other parts of Mesoamerica (with other kings appealing to Cholula officials for legitimacy or visiting it for coronation), more info on Cholula would likewise yield insights on Mesoamerica as a whole
The 3D Cholula render the episode used is also pretty wrong: It just had buildings evenly spaced around the Pyramid. No roads, city planning, etc: Mesoamerican cities usually had a central urban core with temples, palaces, other elite housing/civic buildings, ball courts, etc, all richly painted and decorated, organized around open plazas for communal activities and ritualistic alignment. And then around that you had suburbs of commoner housing interspersed with agricultural land, etc, with the suburbs gradually decreasing in density the further out you go (in some cases, covering hundreds of square kilometers). Both the core and in some cases the suburbs had roads, aqueducts, etc. The Pyramid in the render was also grey and mossy, in ruins. If this is meant to be at the Pyramid's apex, then it should be painted and adorned with sculptures, reliefs, etc. If it's depicting it as of Spanish contact (which is what the graphics suggest), then it would've been buried in soil: The entire reason it's intact today is the Spanish mistook it as a hill, as after the city got conquered by new populations over time, eventually around 900-1200AD the Great Pyramid was abandoned in favor of a newly constructed Pyramid dedicated to Quetzalcoatl (which doesn't survive today). The show also mislabels some Teotihuacan frescos as being from Cholula; gets some of the dating wrong; and claims the whole pyramid was straw and adobe brick, when the exterior facade of most stages, as well as some of the fill in later phases, were stone.
Moving onto Texcotzinco: Firstly, this is an INCREDIBLE site more people should know about: This was a royal estate/retreat for rulers of Texcoco, the second most powerful Aztec city. It sourced water from 5+ miles of aqueducts (some elevated 150 feet off the ground) which brought the water to a series of pools and channels to control the flow rate on an adjacent hill, then across the gorge between there and Texcotzinco, where it flowed into a circuit around Texcotzinco's summit, into the site's painted shrines, pools, fountains, etc, and then formed artificial waterfalls which watered the botanical gardens at the hill's base, which had different sections to mimic different Mexican biomes. We outright have written sources discussing the site being designed in the 1460s AD by Nezahualcoyotl, Texcoco's most famous king who also designed levee and aqueduct systems at other Aztec cities.
But, in the interest of intellectual honesty, those written accounts which credit Nezahualcoyotl as the site's engineer are written by Fernando Ixtlilxóchitl, a descendent of Texcoca royalty, for the specific purpose of glorifying Texcoco to the Spanish and we do know he twisted details (EX: claiming Nezahualcoyotl worshiped a monotheistic god and rejected sacrifice). There's a whole book on this, "The Allure of Nezahualcoyotl'' and I know another researcher, Dr. Susan Toby Evans has a lot of papers on Texcotzinco, but a lot of her faculty page's links are down. In the papers I do still have access to, it is mentioned that the site probably had some shrines built under earlier Texcoca rulers before Nezahualcoyotl, and they may have been buried there, There IS a paper by her which mentions there is hard dating for Texcotzinco's construction based on archaeological material rather then just those 16th/17th century text sources, which should definitely nail down the construction dates (barring issues with the dating technique or methodology, but sadly the paper doesn't clarify on what that evidence is, exactly.
However, Hancock's points are still unconvincing: The person he brings on to talk about the site (who is not a researcher, just a guy who runs an Atlantis blog) give basically zero scientific analysis or actual criticism of any sort of dating method, just vague commentary about there being a lot of weathering on a random rock, so there's no real evidence to review. Hancock's other point is that there's Tlaloc-style iconography at the site, and uses a pre-Aztec Tlaloc-style sculpture from another site to imply Texcotzinco could be pre Aztec as well... BUT WE ALL ALREADY KNOW THERE ARE PRE-AZTEC TLALOC STYLE RAIN GODS! That Tlaloc and other Mesoamerican, "fanged" or "goggled" rain gods like Chaac or Cocijo originated from Olmec ""were jaguar" (there's some debate of if they're actually meant to be were-jaguars) sculptures is VERY well documented in the literature, there's even giant charts by researchers showing the specific stages of development the iconography of these Rain gods went through at different times in different parts of Mesoamerica! So the presence of Tlaloc-style iconography doesn't inherently suggest any time period, and if anything the Tlaloc depictions at the site are consistent with Aztec period examples. Especially since the royal gardens many Aztec rulers had like Texcotzinco were meant to evoke Tlaloc's heavenly realm Tlalocan, a lush tropical paradise with flowers, fruit trees, waterfalls, streams, springs, etc. Texcotzinco in particular fits this framework even more, since there are ties between Tlalocan and hills/mountains, and one of the hilltops the Texcotzinco aqueducts sourced water from was LITTERALLY named "Mount Tlaloc", thought to be an earthly manifestation of Tlalocan ala Olympus in Greece.
CONTINUED IN A FOLLOW UP REPLY BELOW
CONTINUED FROM THE ABOVE: Moving onto Xochicalco, the same guy without credentials talking about rocks at Texcotzinco identifies a glyph as representing a burning temple (when it doesn't resemble any other depictions of burning temples in Mesoamerican art, and it and similar iconography on that monument is rather consistent with day signs and even have the telltale numerals indicating dates), tying into Hancock's telling of the myth with Quetzalcoatl which similarly, mixes details from different accounts or just gets stuff wrong: The flood he references is from myths detailing the cyclical creation and destruction of the world (and was done by Chalchiuhtlicue, not Tlaloc as the episode claims), wheras Quetzalcoatl sailing on a raft of snakes comes from Aztec accounts about the 10th century Toltec lord Ce Acatl Topiltzin, who is tied to Quetzalcoatl: These are largely separate narrative eons apart. There's many versions of these, and only SOME of the latter involve the raft, and in them, he is LEAVING rather then arriving into Mesoamerica. Even these versions recorded in the early colonial period we know have catholic influences from Friars re-writing them to aid in conversion and to make their rule seem pre-ordained.
Stuff like Cortes being mistaken for Quetzalcoatl (a myth invented for similar reasons, Cortes never claims this, and in fact explicitly mentions an incident where Moctezuma II shows his bare chest to convince Cortes he, LIKE CORTES HIMSELF is human rather than a god or sorcerer as Cortes had heard rumors of) comes from these, too. Hancock's telling is, if anything, closer to even later and more nonsense versions that make Quetzalcoatl white, blond, etc. Some of the earlier versions do have Ce Acatl Topiltzin as bearded, but this isn’t strange, as the Mesoamericans had facial hair! We know it was customary in Aztec society for everyone other than rulers (Moctezuma II had facial hair, as seen in both manuscripts and in conquistador accounts!) or the elderly to shave, and Topiltzin was both. There are NO examples of Prehispanic or even 16th century art depicting or describing Quetzalcoatl as white skinned. (There is a symbolic tie of Quetzalcoatl to the color white in the "4 Tezcatlipocas'' paradigm, but A: that's a symbolic, not a literal connection to the color, and B: the entire concepts of the "4 Tezcatlipocas" is likely a misreading of the Codex Ramirez and isn't a real thing, see Clickypenned's posts on this)
Instead of listening to Hancock for "stuff archaeologists don't want you to know about" people should look up the REAL civilizations most books, classes, etc ignore because Prehispanic history is underappreciated:
- Teotihuacan was a gigantic metropolis in Central Mexico during the time of the Romans that had 100,000+ denizens all living in fancy palace compounds across a gigantic planned urban grid, may have even conquered Maya city-states a thousand kilometers away. (and hey, i'll plug Ancient America's excellent video on Teotihuacan here, which I helped quite a bit with)
- The Moche was a civilization in Northern Peru during the same period that build big, gorgeously decorated adobe ziggurat complexes called Huacas and have insanely lifelike ceramic busts which depict the same figures, likely rulers, across different stages of life, as well as ceramics depicting kinky sex acts and some amazing gold artwork.
- The Mixtec and Zapotec in Oaxaca have a long history stretching back as much of the Maya, with Monte Alban being a major captial for around 1000 years;and then 8 Deer Jaguar Claw having an insane life story, being born a noble in Tilantongo, working as a general for other city-states, founding his own city, taking the throne back in Tilantongo, using his blessings from officials in Cholula to sidestep the Oracles that sectioned political marriages and wars in Mixtec society to then conquer nearly 100 cities in 18 years before ironically dying when the one boy he left alive in his arch-rival's family grew up to assassinate him.
- The Chimu were another civilization in Northern Peru with a massive capital city called Chan Chan, who the Inca had major wars with.
- The Purepecha Empire, the third largest state in the Americas after the Inca and Aztec, who totally crushed attempted Aztec invasions, formed a fortified border in response, and had Mesoamerica's most centralized imperial political system and the largest center of Bronze production in the region.
There's so much more than these too, and I would implore people to look them and all the other things up that are actually REAL but nonetheless still don't get attention from mainstream sources.
Fyi kayleigh brain is absobed into the gault site, accompany chat replies do dish a lot of info and food for thought yum yum.
@@MajoraZ very normal kind of comment on here ......... a 2 hour speech !!!.......... oh hancocks success over outdated "academia" is really driving the old school nuts ....... Hancocks work is getting more views than the tripe dripping out of hollywierd and the outdated 'narrative' cant do a thing about it - these days people are waking up - the majority agree with hancock - even in this video sherman laughs at hancock for proposing an impact grater somewhere in canada / greenland ........ then a year or 2 after this video aired they found said crater - no apology , no confirmation of the man being right , again , just angry outdated old relics that dont like to see their incorrect world history being rejected - tough luck !!
You should do a Hancock reaction video of your own. Would be very interesting. I'm in the UK and my knowledge of North American/ Meso is limited (much like Graham's!)
@@skizereena I may end up doing one with Ancient Americas! I help him out a lot.
Just a historical note: In 1959 as a student in public school in Cincinnati, Ohio my class had a field trip to an excavation to a Mound builders site. I remember that there were copper tools reported as found at the site.
It's probably a middle woodland site, so that tracks.
I live only about 30 mins away from Serpent mound in Ohio, and there are many others in the area, too, hidden in the woods.
You see, a lot of mounds are on private property, so archeological work is never done on them.
@brandonslone8937 I was just going to make mention of Serpent Mound. I grew up only about 2 to 3 hours away from it and our schools around here never went to it or taught about it. But they took us to the concrete jungle in Chicago in several differant grades which was also 2 to 3 hours away in the opposite direction.
I never knew about the southern Ohio Serpend Mound until I was about 50. I'm 53 now and it is on my wish list for my daughter and I to go see it late this summer or early this fall.
It is sickening that our schools never taught us nor showed us pictures of such an amazing ancient structure.
They should have been taking us on field trips there like they took us to many other places back then.
I have strongly desired to go there for about 3 years now.
I need to read up on it more because I don't know much about it yet. I read that it is possible that my early Shawnee ancestors made it and other sources reject that strongly.
IF, and I say only IF the the weird lei line stuff and those Mount triangle things are true, that send out the Lei lines world wide, then I find Mt Piolet and it's Serpent Lei Line to literally hit home and be very interesting.
A neat movie could be made of those things but I'm not into the alien stuff, although I do think that our ancient ancestors around the world were way smarter and way more spiritually gifted than we realize. They didn't need aliens to do amazing things.
The Serpent Lei Line not only goes through Serpend Mound but also I live along it up farther north. My dad was born and raised within the scope of Mt Piolet and so were his paternal ancestors since the 1600s and our Native ancestors for 1000s of years.
That is mainly why that particular area interest me a lot.
Have a great week. Blessings to you and your's. 🙂🌻💜
Thanks for your input. Some archaeologists are lashing out but you actually took the time to do a serious and informative response.
How did you find any of this informative. Just curious
@Ken "Some archaeologists are lashing out but you actually took the time to do a serious and informative response." Could you mention the names of "some of those who are lashing out"? I'd be interested to hear. Thanks. By the way this video is not by far the best Hancock debunk I have seen. Try to watch some of David Miaono's debunking stuff.
@@nwogamesalert David miano is biased and a fraud
Actual scientists have every right to lash out at grifters like Hancock constantly slandering their profession for his own glorification.
More like Hancock shills are lashing out on the real archaeologists..
Great observation about the disconnect between archeology and text books! you make an good pint that the info in the text books should reflect current knowledge as much as is possible.
And the textbooks should not be dry, joyless reads like textbooks seem designed to be. "You better not be enjoying this read!"
I wonder why most of the other fields of expertise are able to get the latest finds and information into text books except archeologists whom he claims haven't
We have been taught SOO MANY LIES. Terrible.
@@John-ed9pm oh now don't be asking questions that make sense!
@@christopherlaskoski189 Have a pint instead. Cheers!
Thank you for treating Hancock with so much respect. This stance does you proud. I am baffled by the comments below full of hatred. We can talk about things with respect without insults and derision and without disrespecting people that have different viewpoints to ours.
A “viewpoint” that runs counter to evidence is worthless babble.
You nailed it: The main problem is, that schoolbooks aren't written by archeologists, 6 Mio years of human/oid history is - if taught at all at schools - reduced to some paragraphs, that are deemed unimportant compared to the last 500 years of more recent regional history. Because it is 'useless knowledge', 'too vague', 'too complicated', 'economically and industrially worthless' and has to step back behind more useful and essential knowledge. And because of that people come up with things like 'The Middle-Ages didn't exist' or 'The Early Middle Age didn't exist' or 'The Roman Empire didn't exist' or even better: 'Aliens / Reptiloids did it'. All these weird claims have in common is 'I found that out, but the specialists call me a moron, so it's a big cover-up'.
No, these specialists only spent the last 50 years discussing the fine-chronology of the layers 18-34 of their site, and how to best match them with layers containing similar finds of other sites. Your 'sensational discovery' is from layer 15, might look more spectacular but is much younger. The true spectacular thing of this site would be the postholes of layer 34 that hit virgin ground. Those would be REALLY old and worth a documentary.
That the sealevel was about 130 lower at the height of the ice-age is no secret. And also no secret is, that there are troubles to do much more but treasure-looting from 20m deep Alexandria or the Adria. Not to talk about the Black-Sea Early Neolithic that is probably some 50m deep. - You want to search the harbour-moles of Atlantis 130m below? Right, ask the Aliens to help you with their technology, we here are buisy trying to save and classify the animal-bones and tools the fishers dragged off the Dogger-Bank with their nets and throw into waste-containers at the harbours. Might be there was the one or other Mammouth-bones-houses and -temples there, but now they are destroyed, desturbed at best, most of the containers go unchecked to some land-fill or industry that burns/uses bones and we will never know.
Is this destruction of our past a conspiracy? Probably. Because it's a Conspiracy of Dumbness of careless, uneducated people that can not tell important from unimportant, and regional governments and industries that give no funding for 'some old bones' that might not give them enough revenue by site-tourism. 'Sht, don't talk to the archeologist, or the industry/construction will be halted, and you'll loose your job', is the first thing any european construction-worker or field-hand heard for decades, when told to ignore a site.
Why did you cut the 2 degree? You explain why there could be one by saying "It isn't surprising" along with going along with it being refurbished over time. You cut out Hancocks explanation which is that it lined exactly if you go back about 12600 years ago. You ignore the date which appears to hold significance due to the younger dryas period.
Clovis and Folsom came after the younger dryas... It kind of goes towards what Hancock is talking about, they were as primitive as they were due to barely surviving the 'ancient apocalypse'. Something that would suggest a 'non cataclysm' would be the culture before Clovis.
Asking if we know if something happened called the younger dryas... Ice cores indicate as such and there are papers on this.
I came hoping for a good debunk but other than saying that you do look at the stars... It looks like you just ignored what he said and if anything... support the notion that archaeology 'experts' enjoy taking swipes at him while not really tackling the issue raised.
His clarity of response and his restraint are admirable.
As if there's a reason for 'restraining' himself in the first place. Graham Hancock isn't as bad as many would have it. Even if he's not right about everything (who is?), does he deserve to be ridiculed just for asking questions? It seems that people with an AGENDA are pushing hard to silence him and that's just sad.
@@gamershub3192 That's what he has told you, for sure. You are easily programmed by fake science.
Thank you! I'm a 3rd year archaeology student from Australia and I also took major issue with the simplification of hunter-gather peoples, its an insult to them, past and present, and it shows his lack of understanding of their cultures and societies.
Didnt the discovery of these sites expand the definition of hunter gatherers? So in essence, they werent in the original sense, they had some sort of civilisation and large scale society if they built these monuments.
I’m Native American.,,, we cared about the planet and tried not to change it…there were millions of us living in peace and harmony happier than the rest of the world men hung out with their friends hunting women hung out with their friends taking care of the village and the elderly taught the children
Name a better way to live
Actually in most of the eastern woodlands indigenous people were actively modifying the landscape with fire to increase productivity and biodiversity. Conflict was common as evidenced by both palisades and direct evidence of violence like cut marks on the scalp and face, embedded projectiles, and blunt force trauma, although the scale was much less than what would be done during colonization. None of that justifies what was done during colonization and manifest destiny, but it wasn't exactly an ecofeminist utopia either.
Why are Native Americans always referred to as hunter gatherers? Many tribes (such as my own) lived in permanent villages and had extensive agriculture, which is not a hunter gatherer civilization.
I often do because the time periods I'm talking about are usually pre-agriculture, but you're right by the time of colonization most had farming economies.
@@NathanaelFosaaen The corn we grew (white flour corn) was of Mayan origin with a 1000-1500 year divergence from the source. Therefore we know we had agriculture for at least 1000-1500 years before present.
@takwaakiwa even before that, the Eastern Agricultural Complex crops like sunflower were being grown from Tennessee to Arkansas over 4000 years ago. Not everybody was participating in that of course, but those are much deeper roots than most are aware of.
@@NathanaelFosaaen and here you are, supporting Hancock’s theory - can you get your position straight? Are the cultures of the Americas more or less advanced than what is commonly known about them?
@@themetrologist you're mixing time periods indescreminantly. 4000-5000 years ago is nowhere near the pleistocene. The EAC has no bearing on Hancock's claims except to demonstrate that native people invented agriculture themselves.
0:28 The video begins with an Appeal to Authority; "we as professionals." Not a good place to start. One has to ask if the professionals have excavated the entirety of human history. Because up until the 1990s, the professionals worked out that human civilization began roughly 6,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent. But the discovery of Gobekli Tepe proved that the professionals were 100% dead wrong. Until archaeologists excavate the entirety of human history, they won't be able to work out anything truly authoritative.
2:33 If archaeologists hadn't thought that for a very long time, and changed their minds based on new evidence a long time ago, then why would they have difficulty accepting the possibility that they're wrong once again?
4:30 I would argue that this is a manifestation of the human condition in general, since indigenous peoples also did these things to one another long before the introduction of the Europeans. Had the levels of technologies been reversed we might be telling a very different story.
5:33 He's talking about an initial assessment before excavation, but its important to note here that early archaeologists were just as colonial and political as the rest of their societal counterparts.
6:42 Unless archaeologists have excavated the entirety of the site, guessing is all they're able to do. Because what archaeologists can never know, is what they have yet to uncover.
11:48 That's a fair point. But likewise, archaeologists might consider to stop telling Hancock what he knows and doesn't know, particularly since Hancock considers information outside of the archaeological bubble and into other sciences. This man has been unfairly maligned repeatedly for nothing more than offering an alternative interpretation, when rational counterpoints were all that was ever warranted.
14:13 You're not arguing against Hancock here. You're repeating what he already said. He didn't say that hunter gatherers are simple. Rather, he states that they're not simply hunger gatherers. He overtly states that they're more complicated and sophisticated than that. Rewatch the clip. Your vibe is outright incorrect here.
16:24 Seems to me that the trickiness in dating sites offers plenty of opportunity for mistakes in working things out.
18:47 So what? Plenty of documentaries have been filmed at Serpent Mound.
25:50 How deeply have you looked at the Younger Dryas data?
26:28 Why do archaeologists find cataclysms so upsetting?
20:50 Many people all over the world may have had to deal with snakes. But why would many people all over the world get the common idea to use snakes as a spiritual symbol in similar fashion to one another?
31:32 Hancock contends that the Younger Dryas had two major cataclysms that began and ended that period, with a peaceful period in between.
32:00 That may be the case, but isn't Hancock entitled to be wrong without being labeled as evil?
33:00 Perhaps Netflix will allow archaeologists to produce a counterpoint series.
This is great! We need this back and forth. 👍
I always get a bit dubious of someone who makes a documentary with to many action shots of themselves and also interview people they already know but act like they have just been introduced and are asking them questions for the first time.
Pretty cool to have the same blood that made some of this stuff in me too. One of my 6th and a 7th great-grandfathers were Muskogee Creek Chiefs. One was murdered by redstick creeks for signing the treaty of Indian springs in 1825.
....i find that story very interesting...thank you for sharing.....
Can you prove these statements?
@@michealallison8756 sure can.
@Micheal Allison the daughter of the 6th married the grandson of the 7th great grandfather and they are both buried 15 minutes away. Look up Chief William McIntosh and his daughter Catherine or Kate.
My ancestors helped your people hunt down Tecumseh, as your tribes were valued friends and allies. After the betrayal which lead to the trail of tears, they married several tribes women so they wouldn’t have to go and helped hide others in deep mountains
Hancock has challenged you guys to a debate and no one come forward. Why is that?
Well here's how that would go:
GH: * makes a claim *
Me: that's interesting. What's your source of information?
GH (hopefully) : this is the reported study.
Me: OK cool, I'll go read that and get back to you.
Science doesn't work in an in-person debate setting at all because the entire enterprise henges on evaluating methodology and the cogency of arguments. It can take hours and even days to construct an adequate rebuttal to a claim if the sources are obscure enough. This is why real scientists hash things out in text and conference format.
@@NathanaelFosaaen so, you're scared. OK. Just say that. Others would accept, and get back to it.
@@BOBANDVEG is this a 5th grade playground to you? Are you going to start clucking like a chicken next?
@@NathanaelFosaaen is that a "no"?
@@BOBANDVEG I was waiting for Spicolli to say " trust the science bro " .
Personally, growing up around “Serpent Whatever-You-Wanna-Call-It Mound, I am grateful Graham had the guts to call out the bozos pushing the current “narrative” about the mound-some of whom are affiliated with some of the same people in that state who taught me and continue to teach kids that our planet is only 6k years old.
Archaeologists really should get involved in text books. The Southern Baptists (and others like them) certainly do.
What's the current narrative?
@@zinknot It would also be interesting to hear names of people pushing the current narrative about Serpent Mound who are affiliated people who are teaching kids that the earth is only 6k years old. If by affiliated they perhaps mean a board member whose mother teaches sunday school?
I could not agree more. Graham is a very good story teller. The science of archeology has been battered incessantly by biblical fundamentalists over the past couple centuries. Further, I submit, it does not help that bullsh*t sci-fi story tellers claim they have the absolute truth from aliens... or what ever. Information increases and theries evolve- that is called SCIENCE.
I don't believe the world is 6000 years old....it's 6500 🤣🤣
@@michaelloud1995 just around the time caucasians were created, coincidence or by design?
The only problem I have with this response is your take on the 2.5 degree misalignment of Serpent Mound. I'm assuming that all of the alignments must be slightly off if there was a shift over thousands of years. If you were to go back to the period that Hancock suggests the mound was built does everything align better or is it still all somewhat shifted based on this center points? If the former then his theory is probably right, if the later then I would be lean more with what you're saying about years of maintenance being the culprit. Unfortunately neither you or the series went into that amount of detail. Maybe this is something you could elaborate on.
It’s the later, from my understanding according to research by Brad Lepper
They take all that in to account when aligning it to the past. In the past it would be off. They aren't saying it's off now because they know how the alignments change. It's all been accounted for In the calculation.
when i heard of this graham hancock doc. coming out, i thought of you, and hoped that you would comment. thank you. If you have time, Id like to hear more of your thoughts on this.
Great vid! As a fellow scientist, although in an engineering field, i really appreciate the work you and other actual scientists are doing on social media debuning this new trend of 'armchair science' as i call it. The world needs more people like you, and they need to understand how science works in order to lose that irrational fear that is being instilled in them. You got a new sub! Keep up the greak work! 💪
I have a friend who's high up in the archeology community in the Southwest. He sent me a letter Dr Daniel Sandweiss, president of the SAA, wrote to Netflix trying to get the show reclassified as science fiction, but went off the deep end in the letter calling the show anti-Semitic and misogynistic and based on white supremacy. Outrageous claims like this are why normal people have a problem with the professionals. I don't say anything wrong with challenging views with new evidence. All great truths begin as blasphemy. Great video Nice to see a level-headed professional explain what is what. Thank you
Are you sure he wasn't an anthropologist? I'm sure denouncing white privilege will soon be mandatory in all anthropology papers.
Nah, some people are just brainwashed by shady social media to switch off the moment someone says something is racist/misogynistic.
It is so telling how people say calling something racist/misogynistic somehow means you are automatically wrong, as if those things don’t exist.
Hamcock is literally a Jesuit shill rehashing Hitler's Thule and Vril Societies
Maybe you should stop huffing your own farts for 5 seconds and ask why you fall for these right wing hacks who only lie to you
Most of my Native American friends think he's pretty racist. It's because the "quiet part" of his story is that he's rehashing a version of the "myth of the moundbuilders" that said that an ancient lost civilization from Europe or the Middle East either built the mounds themselves or instructed Native Americans how to build them, denying the capacity of those native people to do anything complicated on their own. They've been dealing with that kind of thing for generations. GH is talking out of both sides of his mouth in this episode. he pays lip-service to the idea that indigenous Americans could build the mounds themselves, but then argues that they got the idea from the lost civilization. All "lost civilization" stories carry racist baggage.
Hancock myths are based on Nazi Thule society Mythology so the professor is 109% correct.
Thank you for providing good, expert insights to help those of us without knowledge to calibrate how much to accept of these documentaries. I appreciate the service you are providing to us laypeople.
I would characterize this video as amateur hour. The presenter isnt very knowledgeable.
@@0001nika how so? This wasnt an in depth lesson on anything, he was simply addressing various claims made by hancock's documentary
@@0001nika and say Hancock does drugs! If this guy does he should quit, if he doesn’t, maybe he should try, don’t think it will hurt any! Wow !
Sounded like a school yard no you are argument! But did laugh though a good part of it, maybe that is it, it was a comedy?
@@0001nika he is a qualified archaeologist, a lot more credible than graham who is a journalist
@@0001nika the fact you have no arguments and just wave your hands and virtue signal about identity politics says everything
You're a cult
I was sympathetic to your position at first. Yes, Hancock has an obvious axe to grind with "mainstream" archeology. Probably because he has been the target of a massive amount of personal attacks by many of that ilk.
However, your suggestion that the folks at Serpent Mound were justified in their exclusion of Hancock really only confirms his position. He challenges the current paradigm, so he should be excluded from speaking his peace. Even though the history of science and indeed the advancement of science at all is one of people challenging the status quo.
That is how we do it.
I'm 62 years old and have always had an interest in archeology. I know what I was taught in school (university), and indeed most if not all of that has proven to be wrong. Although I had the benefit of a young professor that had recently returned from the field with what was considered outlandish claims, but with tenured profs having no real argument to dissuade considering he had seen the evidence with his own eyes and provided us with photographic evidence along with the paper he had written.
In addition, the fact that you are unaware of the massive climate change and resultant ecological disaster that occurred at the Younger Dryas simply says that you are not paying attention. Where have you been hiding?
You seem like a nice young man, but you really just reinforce Hancock's assessment of academics.
In the end, there is nothing radical about Hancock's ideas. If you read his work and the massive amount of supporting evidence that he includes, you might gain a bit of understanding.
Good luck in your education. You have a lot to learn.
They didn't want to lend their creditability to some uncredentialed conspiracy theorist who might also damage the site with some bullshit experiment while making his next grifter "documentary" that's little better than the ancient aliens fuckery you see on the history channel.
But it's not polite to swear in an official response, so they wrote the letter Hancock reads in the video.
If it was a serious theory he would have articles about it published in actual archaeological journals, be a regular guest lecturer in actual archaeological masters and bachelor's classes, etc. But it's not a serious theory, so instead he titillates the public with sensationalist nonsense while repeatedly saying his silly theory is something that "they" don't want you to know or don't know themselves. His idea requires the viewer to blatantly disregard most of what we know about archaeology in favor of what is effectively a highschooler's half-baked dream of what an argument looks like.
TL;DR: why waste time putting in the actual work necessary to prove an idea when sensationalist nonsense pays much better. Just insinuate that everyone who disagrees is a liar (the public can't tell the difference anyway) and people will mistake that for legitimacy.
It has to be frustrating for archaeologists and those in associated fields to see Hancock claim that they refuse to do things that they have been doing well before Hancock came along. Various topics that he claims are taboo are actually things that were explored a century or more ago and were simply abandoned as no evidence emerged to merit consideration of them.
Preach.
Archaeologists are attaching Graham on here and Twitter. Doing exactly what they've done to him for years. Or anyone else who dares to question them.
Even fellow renowned scientists are bullied for different theories.
Anyone who believes GH is a WS racist, must think the
Aryan Race Theory is also racist.
Dude has literally said in print that his "lost civilization" that allegedly brought agriculture and culture to the rest of humanity were light skinned, and he has no evidence that any such group of people ever existed. That's objectively white supremacist propaganda.
@@NathanaelFosaaen i dont see the point you are trying to make, saying our descendents are white without any proofs is more ignorant then being white suprecamist.
Plus it is a big word to throw around, are you sure you wanna call him a white supremacist🤔 bold of you to assume that without knowing him
@@NathanaelFosaaen Its the same old rehash of the Atlantis Myth with New Age spirituality and drugs thrown in and with a strong dose of conspiracy theory. Admitted to being royally baked pretty much constantly while doing most of his research and writing. Probably where he gets a lot of his paranoia about archaeology and anyone else educated who won't give the right answers when he is "just asking questions." He should be paying a share of his latest book royalties to the descendants of Ignatius Donnelly. But he has managed to polish turds sufficiently that he is laughing all the way to the bank. So there's that.
Seriously it’s most definitely a snake and those are most definitely jaws you can’t fool me into seeing something that’s not there. Hancock is right in my belief and you should look into some of this instead of just talking trash.
Teepees, creating the classic circular marking, were a common structure among various Indigenous peoples in the North America's. Easy to build, maintain, effective, durable. Typically the opening was placed towards the rising sun, presumably to allow light in when conducting morning chores like cooking, donning clothes, equipment, etc. Common family dwellings were around 20' or 6m across. Larger structures for community gatherings were often built. Just a hypothesis, but all those circular areas could easily be construed to be made by villagers for their homes and gathering areas. Regarding 'Serpent Mound' I was immediately struck with its similarity to a game I was fortunate to play with Iroquois people some years ago. They called it 'snow-snake', and remarked that the game went far far back in their history. A mound is made following the shape of a serpent or snake down an incline, many hundreds of feet long. Atop this mound, in the winter, is a carefully shaped steep-ridged ice-trough in the manner of modern bob-sledding tracks. At the 'beginning' of the 'snow snake', atop the hill, a block of ice is placed blocking the channel, with only a small hole in the middle carved in it, about the distance of thumb and index finger in the 'ok' symbol. The sport is to hurl a carefully carved wooden pole 'the snake' at great speed and thread it through the 'ok' symbol hole and, if successful, the 'snake' then travels at ferocious velocity down the track. The sport was obviously just to get it in the hole, and 2nd, to see who could get their snake to travel the farthest--with many various ingenious designs for 'snakes' being made to further their travel.
We’re not Iroquois we are Haudenosaunee ✊🏼🪶💜🤍
This type of content is sorely needed on UA-cam. The amount of... "alternative" views pushed on this platform with little to no push back is kinda sad tbh. Guys like you, Dr. Miano and Stefan Milo are all doing great work, please keep it up!
Gutsick Gibbon here on YT!
So you basically agree with everything graham states with exception to his pot shots at “archaeologists”. Graham is doing for archaeology which it has failed to do for itself, generating interest.
I also don't think there was any cataclysm that humans "barely survived" or any ice age civilization that taught Neolithic farmers how to farm.
@@NathanaelFosaaen and that is why it's hard to take you seriously....it's only depicted in every culture across the globe in their religions and histories.
@Chris Ainsworth we've looked into population densities at the time of the younger dryas and there was definitely a dip, but it wasn't more than ~50% in the most affected regions. That's obviously not *good*, but it's also not bad enough to erase all direct evidence of a "lost civilization".
@@NathanaelFosaaen how do you explain the previous massive continents in earth history shifting into finally what they are now without having a cataclysmic event?
@@mrob51780 through the well-established mechanism of plate tectonics. You *do* know that continents have been shifting since before the Younger Dryas, right?
There is nothing wrong with having a theory, as GH has. He stipulates that he is not an Archeologist. GH's theory is that there was some advanced culture prior to the last ice age, some 10,500 years ago. His theorizes that this advanced culture spread there knowledge around the world. I thought it was pretty funny when you stated that Archeologists were not 100% certain that the figure at "Serpent Mound", was actually a snake. Well, maybe you should tell them to change the name to something else, like WTF mound.
"He stipulates that he is not an Archeologist"
Which is basically like a firearms reseller telling you that they are not a gunsmith, and then proceding to tell you how the gun works despite the manufacturers manual for the gun having clear instructions that contradict the reseller.
"Archeologists were not 100% certain that the figure at "Serpent Mound", was actually a snake. Well, maybe you should tell them to change the name to something else, like WTF mound"
Split hairs much?
There is a Bronze Age site in Britain called the 'Uffington White Horse' - so called simply because it is near a village called Uffington, it resembles a horse and it is made from white chalk.
Minus some written archaeological record to give it another name often the first name given sticks permanently.
I've got a theory too
Space Unicorns made the Moon with Leprechaun Cheese
Don't believe me?
That's because you're mainstream and trying to cancel me
....
@@uncannyvalley2350 No way, bro. It was made with Fumunda Cheese. Fumunda my balls!
How is it that cave wall pictures could be determined as bison, deer or mountains by archeologists? According to this guy, there is no way to determine that. For the record, it couldnt be "sperm mound" as he suggested simply bc you cannot see a sperm with the naked eye, weird rebuttal to GH's interpretation of a "serpant".
@@danteston83 Haha. Good one, buddy. Maybe these ancient bros had microscopes. Graham Hancock says the Egyptians might've had telekinesis machines from Atlantis... It could be a Penis Mound, though. The Cerne Giant was a showoff, walking around naked with a Fear Boner.
I did my anth undergrad in the early '90s and our instructors were discussing pre-Clovis sites in our courses, so even 2008 is not at all recent enough.
The idea of a coastal route for coming down the west coast was also being taught back then too. Now people are calling it "The Kelp Highway" and pretending that it's a new thing, but back then we just called it "The Coastal Route Hypothesis" and it was pretty well fleshed out in the early '90s.
Correct.
A lot of the Mysteries these mystery cults sell are generic things we already understand, like "how did they work granite boulders"
Literally videos on it on UA-cam
I saw a documentary about that about well let's say more than 10 years ago cos I don't keep track of the years when I learn something new. It also said that the trip from Asia to America wasn't over the land bridge but via short boat trips along the edge/coast of the ice bridge
Unless you've taken college classes on archeology, you wouldn't know about "The Kelp Highway."
The ice free land bridge theory is still being repeated as common knowledge.
@@MelissaR784 The topic has been discussed in popularly oriented magazines like Smithsonian Magazine.
I have to admire your tenacity for sitting through the overly melodramatic presentation. When I was in school in the 60s and 70s the schools didn't touch upon the subject at all.
"When I was in school in the 60s and 70s the schools didn't touch upon the subject at all"
Neither did they when I was in school from 1989-2001.
It isn't appropriate to focus on that level of specifics in high/senior school for a subject which gives rise to so few jobs in adult life after graduation.
There is plenty of time to do that in university if that is what interests you - this kind of specialisation is precisely what university is so good at.
Public school for children focuses mostly only basic skills, language and other things that you might find useful as an adult when you leave home - or at least that is what the politicians who set the syllabus probably think about it.
@@mnomadvfx there's still a lot that isn't said. The impression is curated we know everything, and yet there are massive holes in our understanding, and plenty of Mysteries and interpretations that need to be revised based on more recent discoveries.
For example we only found Carthage in 79
That's ridiculously recent in terms of understanding, we know almost nothing about about Phoenicians for example, but their ties to the israel of the Bible are uncanny
The text book problem. If the textbooks we use in K-12 education are out of date, and archaeologists don't consult, doesn't that put part of the problem on you? Shouldn't archaeologists be pushing for updates and consulting positions with textbook publishers? You're either part of the problem or part of the solution, right?
Believe you me fam, I would POUNCE on the opportunity to consult on US history textbooks. But understand most tenure track PhD's (the people they would actually consult with) have to publish peer-reviewed journal articles and teach a buttload of classes to get tenure. Consulting on high-school textbooks doesn't count towards them keeping their jobs. I cannot over-emphasize how overworked and underpaid they already are, and the prospect of having to fight an established nationalist narrative is extremely discouraging. The entire infrastructure is going to have to change to make that kind of thing happen.
I think you are missing an obvious problem.
The middle man.
aka politicians controlling the public education system at several levels from the federal to the local.
From what I understand teachers have enough problems getting funded to properly supply their own students without spending their own wages on it.
To quibble over accuracies in ancient history representation at school level while these financing problems still exist seems misguided at best.
@Mountain Nomad VFX there's also a political motive for keeping prehistory in textbooks to a minimum. Erasure of the indigenous past makes it easier to pretend that colonization and Manifest Destiny didn't really destroy anything important. Easier to not think about it at all for that matter.
Take it up with Texas, and all the Jesuits running America, Jesuits like Hamcock, and Randall, and Rogan
Anthropology (archaeology) classes are rarely if ever offered at the K-12 levels. At best students may take a sociology class that deals with "modern" society or a history class with a text that devotes a paragraph or two to pre-history. K-12 teachers are often under rather strict guidelines for using instructional materials with textbook decisions made at the administrative level. If a teacher with a B.A. in elementary education wants to do a lesson on prehistory then they probably have the latitude to pick a film to show or lecture from materials not assigned in a textbook that they found. Or maybe they bring in an archaeologist for an hour of show and tell. Beyond that archaeologists are pretty much out of the loop in influencing K-12 education. Given how poorly anthropology is represented in higher ed, it is a struggle for anthropologists just to get some representation of the discipline at that level.
Discovering new knowledge and learning is exciting in itself. The more a "documentary" relies on music to generate a feeling of excitement, the less likely I am to pay it any heed.
That's a very superficial evaluation, one should be able to separate style from content, that would be reasonable. You can deliver any information with any kind of style. it's a moot point anyway, don't judge the content by the style. Period.
@@prince-solomon Most of the documentaries that have overly dramatic music all. the. time. are using it to make ridiculous points. Look at how silent large parts of Blue Planet or Green Planet are.
@@prince-solomon EXACTLY. So many snobs commenting.
.....hi am2dan..........i know what you mean.....a discerning intelligent person can see past the tricks.....but can sometimes get annoyed when seeking truthful information....
Finally someone else noticed it! The dramatic music is so annoying! Let the content speak for itself. It’s like I’m watching a reality TV show with the music trying to coerce me to feel a certain way.
So why does the video cut to new seems while the archeologist is talking. It's like they are cutting out something that he said and they cut to something else that sounds like what they want what is being hidden that he says?
Sometimes when you're speaking in the moment you say something that on further reflection you know to be factually incorrect. It's irresponsible not to cut those out.
@@NathanaelFosaaen so what did he say cause it looks alot like it's being hidden from us the way its cut I would have left what he said and had him come back and correct himself but cutting it just gives fuel to Graham and what he thinks is being hidden and the lies just saying that was not a good way.
We live 20 minutes from Etowah, been there often, took the kids several times. That said, I'm a bit of a fan of Hancock because for one, he inspired my wife and I last fall to take a road trip in which we visited Pinson Mounds, Wickliffe Mounds, Cahokia, Serpent and some earth works in Plymouth Ohio. We have become very interested in all the history of North America we had such limited knowledge of. I've followed Graham for 30 plus years on some level and I love how he pushes questions to be asked but he can also be a victim of by imposing an answer where it may not be so clear. I got no problem with What If questions, even the seemingly out there questions cause sometimes it makes you look from another angle and it doesn't answer that question but it does give clarity elsewhere. When we visited the Serpent Mounds, we learned the mounds sat on the edge of a very ancient meteor impact crater. Whoever built the Serpent Mound, did they realize where they were building or was it just pure luck of "this looks like a good spot!" I don't see that answer forth coming either way. Graham also as evidenced in this presentation to straw man his so called opponents and not unlike what his opponents do to him. For the record I found this presentation not to do that, very well done and most welcomed. I do think Graham inspires people to go look for themselves as we did and to be very sad of what we might have destroyed over the last 300 to 500 years that would today answer some of the questions we are left with. Glad your video popped into my feed, well done and thank you for trying to answer questions of the past whether we agree or not!
Thanks for sharing your knowledge. And I really applaud how you stick to the facts without resorting to ad hominems.
Why are the archeological establishment so keen to muddy Hancocks name, going as far to attempt to get his series removed from Netflix. This alone was the reason I watched his series to see what's got them so upset.
They’re a bunch of cry babies
Finally a guy who knows what he’s talking about… I’m a linguistics graduate so not as educated as you or in a field that’s as exciting, but I have seen a few news articles based on someone saying ‘linguists say THIS but actually I’ve discovered this’ and my thought is ‘actually we don’t say that, we say the exact opposite’.
Sorry but this bloke has a rod up his backside for Graham hancock
Love him or hate him look at the attention he has brought to your field.
No he hasn't, he has pocketed millions defaming the field and taken money that could have gone to real archology
This is the worst defense of racists myths.
@@pranays He doesn't Defame anything. He only defends himself from snobs.
He laid out his theory and worms like you attack him.
@@HappyHermitt When he puts words in they mouths, and claims they believe things they don't believe, and says they don't want you to know things, that's defamation in my book.
He's self aggrandizing by besmirching them.
@@ferengiprofiteer9145 works both ways im sure.
"Archaeologist hate this one weird trick to completely empty your bowels every morning"
This is genius !
2:40 This comment is extremely important, because if you're not influencing text books, what other professions aren't influencing what is being taught - all of them?? Some of them?? This is the type of thing that can actually be changed, which is why I stated how incredibly important it is.
Good work Nate, I think your differences with Graham are petty and you are both taking swipes to be fair. To me when you say "we do not know if the serpent mound is a serpent" is interesting. That is like saying Italy is not a boot, it is more likely a high heel or a sneaker. It's a resemblence that's all. Why can't you call it a serpent. C'mon man. When you say you can't see it. It is because you are not looking for it. I am not going to stereotype you archeologists but I have heard both sides many times now, and Graham Hancock and Randal Carlson are dominating the argument. Nate you will never find what you are not looking for.
I watched the cholula episode with my parents and his evidence was so weak but the way he deliberately phrased things to provoke skepticism drove me mad.
I hate music used to emphasize a point or to set a mood...I asked long ago: where is the mood music during my life? Your life? It is a way to make something out of nothing...noise to distract us from what we are hearing or seeing...it's BS, but most people don't even notice it...
@@TheCrucifiedClown what are you trying to say? Makes no sense to me. And an insult, to get over myself? What are you, 10 years old?
i went to a canadian university in the mid 90's and we were taught about pre clovis sites
Hi again Nathanael. I thoroughly enjoyed that! It was good to hear a review that was not a personal attack. Although I have followed and read Hancock for a while, I think he is going on a bit about the attacks, although some of them have been very personal and offensive. Great you didn't stoop to that! I think you may have touched on a part of the problem, there are many of us interested in early and ancient histories, but it seems most archeologists don't want to talk to us! I am 62 years old, and I follow several younger archeologists such as your self who share their knowledge online, and it's an excellent thing, so keep it up. I also agree that he does make some pretty big leaps at times!
I second this comment. Thank you Nathanael!!
Sorry to burst your bubble but Nathanael just tried labeling Graham Hancock as a white supremacist in the comments of the pinned comment in this video by Rocky Sexton. He's definitely stooping to that lol.
@@OxygenC2 Thanks for that. I had a look at that part of the thread, and I see what you mean. In Nathanael's defense, he has been honest enough to share with us what his opinion is, and why he believes that. That is different to simple name calling, and we can continue that conversation without my bubble being burst, or making derogatory claims of 'stooping'. I appreciate you taking the time to share your observation with me, it has helped me gain more understanding, even though we hold differing views, so thanks again.
@@OxygenC2 Nathanael is one of the faux archaeologists that make personal attacks and lies.
@@OxygenC2 The majority of white Americans are white supremacists, in some capacity. That's not even an insult, it's just a fact. Though I'm sure someone like you will take it that way, rather than examining your own biases.
The correlation of ancient structures being built to align with celestial sky-scapes was initially put forth by men outside of the academic establishment. Obviously, you're far too young to have first hand knowledge of this That's not the case with some of us, me included unfortunately. Of course this claim, such as many others was considered preposterous rubbish at the time by the main stream. Perhaps this is the first time you've actually taken the time to read or view for yourself what Hancock presents in his observations instead of attributing to him crazy ideas such as alien connections and so forth of which he's never promoted. I suppose that's the easier route than looking into matters for yourself and doing the work. I've seen this time and time again. How unfortunate as an open mind is the primary attribute a man of science should have. It's so very obvious many of his detractors attacks on him are fueled by the need for the attention Hancock receives and they don't. How very very sad.
I am sorry that you are sad very 😭 sad!
Sensationalism vs Science. His use of dramatic soundtracks pretty much indicates which 'school' Hancock is in.
Versus a major cataclysm never happened?
@@kingchakazulu7762 where does science say major cataclysms haven't happened? You trying to boil such a massive topic into a single silly sentence proves his point
The EPIC School - in a bad way!
@@uncannyvalley2350 The random archaeologist dude who made this video only believes in the same thing as you, yup, that's not random, smh.
@@kingchakazulu7762 you think 40mm per year sea level rise is a major cataclysm? 🤣😂🤡
A friend of mine introduced me to GH and he was quite taken by his claims. I've seen many non-professional experts opine on well studied subjects in my field and other fields of science. I can almost spot them by now in the first few sentences even without knowing much about the field of study because they do not think and talk like the field experts do. They tend to sensationalize and have air of false assurance about them. It's unfortunate that these people simply do not have the educational background to make sensible claims. They simply do not study the field or they think that the science is simply fundamentally flawed. I think they really do not have the mental capacity/training to comprehend the science that archeologists claims sit on. I don't blame them because I know how many years of study is required to reach such level of understanding. This is not something to pick of over a few weeks...
This is such a condescending post from a clearly arrogant human being - seriously, they "lack the mental capacity"? Who the f*ck are you, Einstein? This is exactly the type of attitude that nauseates people.
The way you talk is the mindset that has held science back in the past. Scientists thought people were crazy for saying the earth is not flat or the earth is not the center of the universe. Those people look like fools now, and the people who came up with new ideas not in the textbooks at those times are the pioneers of the time. There is nothing wrong with a good education, but also nothing wrong with new ideas that might gain us understanding. I would think a good education would give us that wisdom, and not just give us the false idea that we know the answers to everything.
@@JoshHermida Those pioneering people you talk about were scientist themselves not the other way around. This process is still happening today. We're talking about two different things. Pioneering science never comes from sub-par scientists. I'm talking about people who fundamentally don't understand the current science not about scientist who think outside the box. You need to understand the science very well to come up with something better.
I see what you're saying and agree with that. Are you saying GH is a subpar scientist though? That was my point. How many times in the past has a scientist been on to something but dismissed or called crazy/subpar by their peers? History repeats itself, and I think the guy deserves a little respect from the mainstream.
@@JoshHermida Well he's not a scientist afaik, meaning he hasn't the education nor the experience of the field scientist. Very few "amateur scientist" can sort of be on par with a field person. As I said earlier I have to discount a lot of things he says because he exhibits lack of understanding of the field. Everyone has speculations even the scientist themselves but their speculations are within the science. They rule out faulty theories and propose potentially new theories because they're still consistent with current knowledge. Unfortunately archaeology has a history of pseudoscience long before youtube...It's fascinating, it's just not science.
I have a few points to make, and here they are.
1) Like others who attempt to discount someone else's work, you feel comfortable in sharing a list of criticism while offering your version of evidence as "that's false we don't think that" or "I'll explain my reason's for disagreeing in "another" video". In other words, without evidence you are actually supporting Mr. Hancock by copying his actions through "here's my theory/opinion. "
2) Hancock shares his own ##criticism about the current mindset and lack of passion of mainstream archaeologists to see the ever changing history of man be to and updated correctly in schools. You call him a liar by stating he doesn't know what archaeologists are thinking/doing on one hand, while AGREEING with him that textbooks have flawed and/or outdated material (all of which is misleading, are nothing more than telling an inaccurate history of man.) on the other. ##
3) Hancock lays out a challenge by asking "we need to figure out who were the people who passed on advanced knowledge in the distant past, as in "specifically" which tribe or group. Your reply sounds like the political run in circles while attempting to entertain the crowd kind of answer. Or you simply misunderstood the challenge, which raises the question: If you are misunderstanding one part of his material, what else have you blindly overlooked while attempting to place doubt on someone who questions your field of expertise?
4) Before you question the names of ancient sites or the history of them, as shared in Hancock videos, expand your world of entertainment and take a look at the vast libraries of other documentaries on those...same...ancient sites. *not to mention the obvious parks sign with the site name on it. If archaeologists had a problem with these names, why don't they say so?
5) You claim that Hancock took a bunch of facts about ancient history and then injected a list of his own fringe theories. This is exactly what archaeologists have been doing, take what we know, what we can prove, then add an opinion.
It's my opinion that neither of you have the answers, however Graham Hancock seems to be the only one that's willing to walk it, talk it, admit it. I watch these videos like yours to see the other side of Hancock's narrative. I do have one recommendation for you: don't add yourself to the videos. Your body language tells a lot about your faith in what you preach. Just saying.
Have an awesome day.
Can someone make a good argument why it’s ok to block Hancock from visiting Serpent mound?
Over the last 30 years he's repeatedly claimed that either native people didn't build those monuments or that they were taught how to by white people. These claims are obviously both bogus and harmful and the stewards of the mound site are under no obligation to give him a platform to disinherit native peoples from their own past.
Also important to note is that Hancock is not personally blocked. His production crew was blocked from setting up and filming.
I’m a fan of Hancock’s work on the nature of human perception with regard to hallucinogenic substances, as well as his popularization of underwater archaeological sites. However, I’ve come to realize that he is prone to the same logical fallacies of anyone who tries to use archaeology to prove theories, rather than to form hypotheses. Like Nathanael Fossaen says, they shoot an arrow out there, and then try to make evidence follow it. It makes me think about painting a target around an arrow that’s already been shot to make it look like the shooter scored a bullseye. I think, considering the show’s melodramatic tone, that Hancock and his showrunner are cashing in on people’s hunger for the idea that “everything we’ve been taught is wrong”. It seeks to undermine the value of hard-won evidence and well-constructed theories so that anyone with a megaphone can capture the public’s attention. Who benefits from this trend? Advertisers. Demagogues. Social media moguls. Investors in the new “universities” popping up all over the WWW to take people’s money without offering accredited degrees.
"...cashing in on...the idea that...everything we've been taught is wrong" and the part about demagogues benefitting are both excellent points.
but to one of your points here, what else is the majority of what the world's common knowledge but a painted target around a fixed arrow hovering about in 3d space? religion is easily defined and dismissed as such. i happen to have travelled into reading Hancock's work (and many others on many other fronts like economics, human health, and public miseducation for instance) since coming to terms that we were lied to about 9/11, OKC, and Waco. once these become clear for anyone, then all else becomes suspect.
@christopherlaskoski189 100%. It's the same question as climate change, covid, ivermectin and even certain middle east situations, where is the funding coming from. Who isn't getting funding is sometimes the better question.
North Texas next to Lake fryer along wolf creek there is a massive archeological site that was called an Indian city. Have u ever heard of it or seen it. There was supposed to be hundreds of people living there and there are a bunch of stone dwellings. The biggest of which was 650sq feet with 12 to 18" poles holding up the roof. Why has there never been any shows or anything besides some story's u can find on Google about it. It's seems verry significant and I only know about it because I grew up near there and had heard about it while camping at lake fryer. Does anyone else know about this place?
Just google lake fryer archaeology and read😊
Hundreds of people lived there? You mean all at the same time? That’s astounding!
Thank you for sharing your view as an archeologist. I think the issue here, is that Graham may be misled, as was I, by assuming history books would have to include archeological input. With that in mind, just replace the word archeologist when he says it with history books. I did it, in my mind, and it works. I'm sure he simply targeted the wrong people.
That's half of it, but his ideas about a cataclysm that "humanity barely survived" is a hypothesis that isn't supported by the data, and he says a lot of things that are demonstrably untrue. Especially that "people suddenly started farming after the Younger Dryas." Agriculture was a process that took centuries. Nothing sudden about it.
He makes up stories and has no proof*
I naively bought one of Hancocks books over 20 years ago because I became fascinated with Archeoastronomy at the time. But the more I became interested in the topic and the deeper I explored peer reviewed research it became clear how much of a crackpot Hancock is, and always has been. I like your style of presenting this material. I was suggested this because I watched Milo on minimituteman UA-cam channel, and his presentations are interesting and well packaged. But I can really appreciate and see the wisdom and experience that you have, being able to deliver the content unedited and in one sitting. Both styles are very interesting, and dig into material I find very interesting, but I’m glad I stumbled on your material, and now able to access an experienced archeologist who studies specifically the first nations culture of North America. I live in northern Canada surrounded by this ancient First Nations culture and I love that it is getting the attention it deserves. It is fascinating and rich in culture. Thanks for posting.
It’s a public place and you don’t own it he should be able to go where ever he wants that’s ridiculous.
Graham Hancock is a fine writer. I enjoy reading his books. It seems that sooner or later Mainstream archeology comes around to affirm Mr Hancock's theory.
What has always bothered me about non-archaeologists is how they criticize archaeologists then use cherry picked information from them to try and prove their point. The first time I read a book on pseudo science was "Chariots of The Gods", which was then debunked by "Crash Go The Chariots". This kindled an interest in archaeology and science that I still pursue today. Belittling scientists and then using their profound experience and knowledge for their own ends, should be against the law! It's one thing to question long held beliefs based on new knowledge and another thing to just make up stuff to impress a non-educated and gullible TV audience. Sites like Nathans are important sources of real scientific information!
Not all citizen archaeologists, refute professional archaeology, there’s a two-sided coin here where in the past in archaeology even very recently has produced some amazing results in professional archaeology (in the news right now, is a amateur archaeologist who decoded the earliest writing system in the form of a calendar on cave art in France.) In the past they have worked together. One of the biggest things I try to promote in the portable rock art community is not bad mouthing the archaeologists however, it does get frustrating sometimes. You may have to find yourself in a situation where a site is threatened, or being destroyed to understand.
Everything should be questioned. Archaeologist, historians, and other experts in their field, are being constantly corrected about their theories. And, many will dismiss other theories that go against their beliefs, because they can't accept that they may have been wrong all this time. So, of course they should be questioned. I am constantly questioned in my field of work. I welcome it. It will either strengthen my present belief or make me look into a different theory more. Either way, my information will improve. We shouldn't just dismiss other people's viewpoints just because it's not ours.
@@petropavlovskkamchatskiy1917 yes, it’s all about forgetting the ego and getting to the truth. That’s what makes a professional.
@@petropavlovskkamchatskiy1917 Even when that person is not just totally wrong but is basing their ideas on fabrications? It's okay to question someone up front, say at a symposium, but to produce a TV program without having just one archaeologist answer or refute just one assertion, is not proper science. Do you also welcome people criticizing you behind your back?
@@FacesintheStone "yes, it’s all about forgetting the ego and getting to the truth. That’s what makes a professional"
No, being paid to do something makes you a professional - ie paid for a profession.
Foregoing ego in the pursuit of truth is simply objective reasoning.
For example Hancock IS a professional author - his sizable fortune brooks no argument about that.
But the writing and conversational style he uses...... I think objective reasoning would not be the first thing that comes to mind in that regard.
First time on your channel. Subscribed before video finished. Thank you.
.....hi helen.....smiles....i did the same thing
The academic community will develop a hypothesis and go full tilt to prove it in order to get the next grant. But that's a shame because they ignore contradictory evidence so they claim that they are right.
There's plenty of evidence that people were here long before the archeologists are willing to admit.
How long do you think archaeologists say people were here?
You're comment show a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method and is pure projection.
Your response was well-measured. More of this in the future if you can!
It's not one single "mound" or pyramid - it's all of them and the insane parallels we find oceans seperated. Baalbek is astonishing. Sacsayhuamán, and Tiawanaku. Pyramid of the sun, and Giza. It's the mythology and the ancient writing, dismissed as "stories" that illustrates a much different picture than what's being told. It's the lie after lie after lie from conventional science, astronomy and history books... and it's the nauseating condescension of those who see things differently. I won't disrespect your profession and schooling, but there are others who have seen, learned and experienced things you don't know about - same goes for me. In my view it's quite obvious there was an advanced civilization in pre-history - perhaps several. The Sumerian and Sanskrit writings are saying some pretty incredible things, yet we ignore them. The natives of Mesoamerica and South America, evn our own indigenous people of United States are telling us what happened from THEIR teachings - we ignore them. What makes our narrative so damn special, and correct?
I have witnessed plasmic lights materialize out of nothing, and disappear. Entire clusters of them, at close range in New Mexico. I've seen them being chased by military helicopters over the mountains. Yet they act as if these things don't happen - yet thousands of people see them. Why should we trust any monolithic authority, when our authorities clearly have no interest in giving us the truth?
So much information is out there - but the key, in my opinion is the writings of the ancients. I try not to focus on the "cover up" side of it, because the question of WHY is subjective, but I do believe there is one. I just know in my heart, when reading the same creation story and mythology from cultures seperated by oceans, and seeing the same type of structures built with blocks hundreds of tons, quarried hundreds of miles away - even entire mountain tops in Paracas decapitated with what appear to be runways on them - there's something else to this.
Read the Mahabaratta and Baghavad Gita (Oppenheimer's favorite), the Enuma Elish and Atrahasis... there's enough there to at least make you wonder. It's no secret anymore what's happening, and what happened- but people are far too quick to assume they are "experts" and their opinion and college degree matters more than the ancients own testimony, or entire indigenous groups whose story has not changed since day one. THEY are the ones we should be listening to.
(In my view)
Pyramids are one of the first steps of architecture. It's one of the first things anyone would make.
Also, the reason we see them still around as opposed to other structures that broke down is because a pyramid doesn't degrade like other structures simply by it's design.
Stacking rocks leads to a pyramid shape. It's that simple. It's step 1.
@@DrSpoculus Yes, that was going to be my reply almost word for word.
The simplest most basic structure there is to build is a pile of stones receding to the top. Why would an advanced civilization build such a simple structure and not something far more complex like we have today?
Give a child a bucket of wooden blocks and ask it to build something, the first recognisable thing it will manage to construct with any height is a pyramid because it is simple and it is built by a child. Ancient civilization is the child that grew up to be today's modern advanced civilization.
@@nigelbrayshaw2709 you nailed it.
@@nigelbrayshaw2709
_"Why would an advanced civilization build such a simple structure and not something far more complex like we have today?"_
So assume for a moment our civilization comes crashing to an abrupt end tomorrow hypothetically: No more TVs, no more cellphones, not even landlines. After 500 years of our absence... what survives? How about 1,000 years into the future? What about 10,000 years?
All the plastic bits get ground to dust, and perhaps more bacteria and fungus learn to break it down of their own accord and so even the particulates are gone. The metals are getting scavenged practically immediately. Our buildings aren't designed to withstand thousands of years of disuse and lack of human intervention to either maintain or rebuild.
... really, the big item that might even denote we were even here at all might just be the Hoover Dam, which, of course, is our civilization's most glorious and esoteric theological site where we perform arcane rituals and make sacrifice to our pagan gods. Where the monarchs of our primitive civilization come to make announcements and have grand ceremonies like coronations and royal weddings.
There is no lie after lie after lie.
It is tedious how Hancock needs to be derisive towards archeologists, their motives, and what they do and do not say. He gaslights a lot.
Definitely.
It's good to always try and see the good in people, but when someone is constantly trying to tear skin off an entire group of people almost as much as he is presenting evidence or other commentary then you need to be wary that his intentions are anything but honest.
1) Thank you for doing this! I could never have been so polite. People like GH do generate a lot of interest in these historically 'obscure' sites, but they spread harmful misinformation more than anything else. People like GH are why so much of the Indigenous community continues to distrust anthropologists and archaeologists--charismatic TV personalities get so much more oxygen than actual hard-working and respectful academics. Deeply appreciate how you work to remind people that Indigenous folx are still here and we still hold the few remaining sites we have sacred, even if sometimes for different reasons than they were probably built for.
2) I wish archaeologists were more involved in school textbooks, but we still have issues with history books needing to meet Daughters of the Confederacy talking points or else it's branded "revisionist" and "biased." Writing a textbook is a political act in this country, absurd as that is, but there are plenty of people with money and power who are scared stiff of what might happen if enough people realize "manifest destiny" and "lebensraum" are synonymous concepts.
3) The way my jaw hit the ground when the folks at Serpent Mound said "absolutely not, get lost loser" and he had the gall to whine about it on screen...that totally proved their point he had no business there. Serpent Mound is still a sacred site to living, breathing cultures! A lot of what GH proposes is deeply dismissive of Indigenous folx and pretty disrespectful (it's somehow not as big a deal for Egyptian pyramids to be a few percents off the obvious intended alignment but when an earthwork with no clear alignment axis, which has been continuously mended over hundreds of generations, is 2% off it has to be because of an ice sheet??)
He listened to Hancock for 30 seconds and acknowledged that the schools were teaching the Beringia land bridge - but that in 2008 IN COLLEGE he learned about the Gault site in Texas (as an eastern site?). Meaning Hancock was right in what he said. Since the Clovis First scam was proven wrong only 9 years before that, Hancock was right.
why didn't you address the part where he claims that the footprints are twenty two thousand years old, instead you chose to skip that part.🤔
He doesn't claim that. Matthew R. Bennett and his colleagues claim that they're 22,000 years old based on AMS dates of embedded seeds. Nothing to address really. It's a good site with a lot of potential for further research. It doesn't really do anything to support his argument though. Just because you have people doesn't mean those people lived in cities or practiced agriculture.
For Graham Hancock to be a journalist, he'd have to do, you know, journalism. What he is is an Historical Science Fiction writer, and not a very good one at that. I find his world building to be deeply inconsistent.
I find him incredibly inconsistent as well, but I did like some of his insights on cannabis and DMT....other than that I think a lot of his ideas come from the realm of imagination.
You should just look at more of grahams work to understand his framing. You can look at his Wikipedia page and see how his name has been slandered by his critics. He obviously wasn’t able to explain everything in 30 minutes. All he is doing is trying to encourage people to use there imagination when looking into these ancient mysteries. He doesn’t claim to know everything. He obviously is banned from the site so he has plenty of reason to talk about how adversarial people have been to him
Hancock slanders entire races and multiple fields of study.
He's a habitual lair and rascist Mythologist. (Yes I know he has a black wife) that's not an Defence for his rascist lies
The real question is why you are lying to defend rascist myths debunked over a hundred years ago?
Stating that someone’s claims are not backed up by reality is not “slandering” them. He is laughed at because he is a pseudoscientific huckster taking advantage of the uninformed. We shouldn’t be “[using our] imagination when looking into ancient mysteries”, we should be using hard facts and evidence - anything else is just science fiction
Take a shot every time he says “something that archaeologists won’t acknowledge” in the series
We’d be in the ER
At the end of his most recent Joe Rogan podcast, they invited anybody in the archeology community to come on the next one to debate him. Do it.
Flint Dibble is apparently already doing that next month.
@@NathanaelFosaaen awesome can't wait to see it
It seems like you already knew where he was going when he said the serpent mound is 2 degrees off.
He didn’t talk about anything about serpent mount except the serpent? He mentioned all the astronomical accuracies with each part of the serpents anatomy and how you draw a straight line from the center of the tail to the intersection of the neck is straight astronomical north! You skipped past all that making it seem like it wasn’t identified, when it was.
How long ago did archyoligists deny pre clovis occupation ? They are guessing about so much
It hasn't been the norm since the mid 90s.
Yet they denighed it for how long ? Carrears were ruined by bad professionals, right ?
denighed?
Adavasio reported pre-clovis dates in the 80's. his career went on uninterrupted.
McAvoy reported pre-clovis dates at Cactus Hill and wasn't silenced.
Dillehay reported pre-clovis dates in chile back in the early 90s at the latest and he teaches at Vanderbilt now.
Al Goodyear reported a 50,000 year old date at Topper (nobody really buys that one, including him.) and he only just retired a couple of years ago.
the "careers ruined" story is extremely overblown and when it does happen it's usually for shitty internal political reasons, not because they're contradicting some alleged "official" narrative.
I had a stroke that affected by ability to spell, oddly enough. But my science is correct. Do not hide behind poor spelling. You know carrears were ruined by arrogant professors !
First Rule of Debate: don't get dragged over onto the other idiots case. If you start acknowledging him you've just VALIDATED him.For seven decades I've been intrigued by all these "ideas" but even as a kid, I knew "entertainment" was the baseline, not REAL investigative work of any kind in ANY field. Or today, "infotainment" or worse.
The older generations are too stuck in their ways. Traditions trumps everything for them making no room for ideas or theories to be explored…it’s quite fascinating how they’ve been operating for the first half of the last century. They are so conditioned to a certain way of life, fact, or thing and it’s scary. Probably why they have issues with us young people but we don’t care because we know that those issues are personal problems for them 🙄
The truth is somewhere in the middle. You seem to be cherry-picking ideas too. It's amazing how humans allow their personal beliefs to affect what they see with their own eyes so heavily.
Correct me if I am wrong, archeologists do the field work, archeology professors say what they believe is the true facts, this is what the schools should teach our adolescent children about the history of knowledge,
or is this the agenda of those professors saying this is the truth? I have a PHD, I am right.?
Great to see archaeologists addressing material like this based on actual training and work in the field. It gets very taxing to hear people from the other side who know next to nothing about archaeology lecturing everyone on what archaeology is and what archaeologists do or don't do. Have you considered pursuing a Ph.D.?
Spot on! Graham Hancock seems to be much more interested in sensationalism than science. Thank you Professor !:-)
"Chef's kiss"
I’ve known about Graham Hancock et al for about 16 years. All these new kids on the block who think they’re on to something make me laugh. My story arc has passed, there’s is just beginning. Luckily I took up reading about science and learning about it in college and my ability to value evidence and parse out nonsense has changed. I feel privileged for that.
The real problem is that people for some reason can’t consider both. They are either completely brain dead and take every single thing Graham says seriously, or they are stuck up internet ‘scholars’ who would never come up with a new idea in their lives because someone didn’t peer review the idea before it came to them. There are 100% things that archeology has gotten wrong and continues to get wrong with absolutely no chance of entertaining other views and that is the heart of grahams point. To say Graham is completely wrong and misinformative is just as bad as saying he’s right about everything.
@@thedopaminestop2355I'll grant Hancock's speculations are intriguing but he's been doing this for 30+ years and has yet to produce any concrete evidence that would move from speculation into theory. Hancock cherry picks evidence to give his assumptions a veneer of potential or he attacks archaeologists who challenge him as being deliberately obtuse. I watched the entirety of Hancock's recent documentary and the sneering anger is evident...he wants his musings to be accepted as plausible. It's entertaining from an imaginative perspective but it isn't scientific.
Thanx for taking the time and having the patience to review this very popular theory. It is, of course, entertainment, designed to promote controversy. He follows the same blueprint as the book " Chariots of the Gods", written in the 70's. Very fun book to read. I loved it. The "Da Vinci Code" is another one, based on a much earlier book chaulked full of historical facts and laced together by... filling in the blanks so to speak. Wonderful entertainment, but not the kind of stuff to take seriously if you're really interested in who we are, where we came from, how we got to where we are today. Those answers are truly mind blowing, but it takes a little work to understand it all. Bit by bit, the public will know the truth!
Thanx again! Never stop learning!
If you spend a decent amount of time on Google Earth, you'll eventually realize that there are signs of ancient human habitation in soooo many places that archaeologists haven't investigated. Equilateral triangles with circles at the points are one key sign to look for. They're almost everywhere, in many different scales, and they describe the math used to triangulate distances, and how to use that over time to figure out the orbits of celestial objects.
@@michaelmolyneaux-swann You could argue that, but you'd be wrong at least some of the time. It's also how many many previously unknown archeological sites are being discovered. By professionals using LIDAR and amateurs simply going to the cool things they see to find out for themselves. This guy does that a lot -www.youtube.com/@TheTrekPlanner
@@michaelmolyneaux-swann How do you suppose they choose the locations to do LIDAR surveys?
@@michaelmolyneaux-swann I guess if you are willing to assume that "High-resolution Satellite Imaging" is recent, and there have not been people with access to classified high res satellite images taken decades ago finding sites this way already...
@@michaelmolyneaux-swann You moved the goalposts. It's very simple to search on UA-cam and you'll find hundreds of videos about people visiting things they found on Google Earth, including ancient ruins.
@@michaelmolyneaux-swann “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
― George Orwell, 1984
Graham Hancock. The man who thinks a thing not being impossible, makes it probable.
Damn... the doom and gloom bit he did on the Younger Dryas is hilarious. Like the change happened overnight instead of 500-1000 years.
Hancock, Carlson and the like have spread so much misinformation on the Younger Dryas and it doesn't help that a bunch of junk science rags with click bait titles push much of the same crappy misinformation.
He’s saying these transitions were brought by a higher civilization that understood things the others did not clearly you experts need to open your mind.
Hancock sells books and sincerity - both paper thin.
Apparently you have not even seen one of his books.
America Before has about 550 pages.
But keep commenting on things you don't know about, that makes you sound smart.
Just imagine you and your hunter-gatherer family rolling up on this site in its prime, it must've felt inspiring. I wonder, from a layman's POV, if those wooden poles had a purely cosmological reason, or if they are tied to seasonal events, like flora and fauna mating/migration patterns?
Thanks for the extensive effort of making these videos Nathaniel!
Stonehenge represents death and Woodhenge represents life is the common interpretation.
American Indians have built lodges since the beginning, and they are built using a circle of poles with woven mats often attached between poles. There are rules for placing these poles according to religious perceptions of the universe and peoples place in relation to these entities. These rules are founded in ideas about the rising and setting sun and the position of the North Pole as well as other star and planet positions, risings and settings. There is a lot of mythology involving star beings and planetary influences. The rules differ slightly between cultures but are very complex.
@@pranays but still assumptions
Excellent analysis. I think the people on the American continents were probably more organized on many levels than some people were willing to give them credit for, but I also recognize that the anthropological community has been open to re-evaluating things as more evidence comes to light, as our ability to analyze finds has become more sophisticated. I missed my BA in Anth by one semester ... yeah, life, the universe and whoever is rolling my dice got in the way. I've watched another analysis of the program as well, and you seem to be in agreement on most of your comments. Cool. I enjoyed this.
Regardless of “right and wrong”, I don’t need the main stream media’s help to know what’s right or wrong.
The only side you are looking at is criticize, banning people from sites is a fallacy and I disagree with your support of censorship.
Hancock was not banned. His film crew was banned. He could still go there if he chose.
All I know is ole Hancock definitely looks outside the box-QUESTIONS are a good thing 😊
He's not asking new questions though. His whole schtick is just a rehash of a bunch of 19th century fringe ideas that were found to be bogus.
Questions are not answers. Graham proposes questions then says he has the answers. His predetermined answers are supported with speclation, poor to no evidence, and downright dishonesty.
Then he claims that "mainstream academia" is trying to silence him.
It a old con man trick that real researchers don't fall for and neither should you.
Watching Ancient Apocalypse completely changed my life. Finally someone is putting quality information out there about human history. Thank you Graham!
I seriously hope this is sarcasm.
I have a lovely bridge for sale...
This guy is the go-to for all archeologists. Who knew!
thankyou you for being fair to hancock and not on the attack 😊 just subscribed!
Thanks for the measured response. It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes about abstract painting. Brice Marden said (and Im paraphrasing) "People complain that abstract art is hard to understand Of Course it is! If it was easy anyone could do it"