<Debate Over Archaeology: Graham Hancock's Controversial Views>
Written on
Is there an adversary that affirms your beliefs?
Since the 1990s, a narrative alternative to mainstream archaeology has gained traction, much to the dismay of established scholars. Journalist Graham Hancock has spearheaded this movement with a series of publications that challenge conventional historical interpretations.
According to Hancock, contemporary society suffers from a collective amnesia regarding our ancient past. He posits that there once existed a sophisticated civilization that left behind monumental structures worldwide, akin to pyramids, before being obliterated by a global disaster possibly 12,000 years ago.
In 2022, Netflix premiered an eight-part series titled Ancient Apocalypse, showcasing Hancock's theories. Typically, the archaeological community dismisses such content; however, this time, they voiced their objections.
In an open letter to Bela Bajaria, Netflix's Head of Global Television, and Rachel Corp, CEO of ITN, the Society for American Archaeology (SAA), founded in 1934, expressed their discontent with Ancient Apocalypse.
They proclaimed that the series misrepresents archaeology and should be categorized as fiction rather than fact. The SAA criticized Hancock's work, labeling it as pseudo-archaeology.
The SAA outlined three main grievances regarding the series:
- “The series host consistently belittles archaeologists and the field itself with aggressive language, potentially harming our professional reputation.”
- “Netflix markets the series as a ‘docuseries,’ suggesting its content is factual, despite it being rooted in falsehoods about archaeology.”
- “The theory presented has historical ties to racist, white supremacist ideologies, does a disservice to Indigenous communities, and empowers extremists.”
Where to begin?
Does Hancock suggest that the mainstream archaeological narrative might be flawed? Yes. Is he disrespectful in his approach? Not particularly; he merely reflects the dismissive attitude some academics have toward his arguments. He contends that many archaeologists are unwilling to consider evidence that contradicts their established views and resent him for challenging their narratives.
The SAA’s letter corroborates his assertions.
The SAA requests that Netflix refrain from labeling Ancient Apocalypse as a documentary, insisting it be recognized as fictional. Do they engage with Hancock's ideas? No, they consider such engagement beneath them, believing they have no obligation to do so. This despite the stunning visuals and high-definition footage of archaeological sites that lend credence to Hancock's perspective.
As for the third point, if any field has long-standing ties to “racist, white supremacist ideologies,” it is archaeology itself (ever heard of the Ahnenerbe?). Consider how effectively Indigenous peoples have reclaimed their artifacts from museums before making assumptions.
Following the release of Ancient Apocalypse, various media outlets have criticized Hancock's theories. An article in The Guardian titled “Ancient Apocalypse is the most dangerous show on Netflix” succinctly captured the sentiment, noting:
“A show with a truly preposterous theory is one of the streaming giant’s biggest hits — and it seems to exist solely for conspiracy theorists. Why has this been allowed?”
The key term here is “allowed.” As if exploring alternative viewpoints, investigating anomalous evidence, and contemplating potential oversights in academia is somehow forbidden.
> Because the public lacks the capacity to entertain ideas without oversight and endorsement?
The Significance of the Discussion
A narrative is defined not just by events, but by whose interests it serves.
Humanity is currently transitioning from one understanding of reality to another. Welcome to the New Paradigm, which is still unfolding.
Many have observed a significant shift in what is deemed possible. The collective agreement on reality is undergoing a profound transformation, impacting perceptions of both the past and the future.
This evolution has unsettled some individuals.
Concepts previously dismissed as outdated continue to resurface. Intellectual dogma has long sought to suppress these “zombies” of thought, yet they persist. People continue to have experiences and encounter evidence that challenge the narratives propagated by cultural authorities.
Consider, for instance, the concept of time spanning tens of thousands of years.
Most individuals perceive time merely in terms of their daily schedules, often prioritizing immediate needs over distant historical events.
Those who dedicate themselves to exploring what transpired in ancient eras are known as archaeologists. This academic field emerged in the 19th century.
Initially, this European endeavor focused on uncovering physical proof of events described in Judeo-Christian texts. The scholarly works from this period are replete with convoluted interpretations aimed at substantiating biblical narratives, relying on scant evidence and abundant speculation.
This early phase of archaeology is seldom discussed today, yet the underlying mindset endures. The community clings to its established narrative, believing that deeper excavations will yield validation.
While engaging in this pursuit, archaeologists have contributed to the looting of countries for their historical artifacts, engaging in what can often be described as grave robbing. This evolution established a professional discipline, leading to the proliferation of universities, museums, and archives where they can discuss their work among themselves. While public access is granted, the inner workings remain exclusive.
Is this what they call Critical Archaeology Theory? Let’s not go there.
Toward the end of the 19th century, archaeologists began to apply a more rigorous intellectual approach to their methodologies, thanks to figures like Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie (1853–1942). Since then, they have strived to construct a conceptual framework that underpins the human history taught in schools. They now pride themselves on being scientific — as long as it suits their narrative.
At last, something we can agree on. <coy smile>
You are likely familiar with the prevailing narrative: civilization, as traditionally understood, began around 5,000 years ago with the development of writing systems in the Middle East. Events prior to the written record are deemed prehistoric.
Prehistory is a loaded term suggesting that, in the absence of written documentation, interpretations are purely speculative. Archaeological findings are often shaped to fit a series of assumptions that have crystallized into the belief that contemporary society represents the pinnacle of human progress.
We are the ultimate achievement! All prior attempts were mere rehearsals.
This linear thinking overlooks cyclical patterns (it’s worth noting that the Earth and its inhabitants operate in cycles). Older civilizations are seen as less complex, while newer ones are viewed as inherently more advanced. This framework leaves no room for the possibility of a long-lost civilization possessing knowledge and technology comparable to or exceeding our own.
Why is such exploration not “allowed”? Why can’t intriguing and plausible ideas be examined by the public without criticism from the academic elite? While Hancock recognizes their perspective, he respectfully disagrees. The Society for American Archaeology and the establishment they represent do not extend the same courtesy.
Thus, they felt compelled to write a letter objecting to the perceived lack of seriousness with which their ideas were treated.
The takeaway?
> Don’t say it. Don’t say Atlantis! Or else archaeologists will complain that you are infringing on their territory.
Here’s another perspective on how Graham Hancock has shifted the discourse, only to be dismissed for his efforts:
The Greatest Buried Mystery on Earth
If you want to find proof of a lost civilization from deep time, there is a very good place to dig. But who wants to…
medium.com
> For ongoing insights into the UFO/UAP topic, check out Need to Know with Coulthart and Zabel.
