You're listening to the Archaeology Podcast Network.

Welcome to Digging Up Ancient Aliens.

This is the podcast where we examine alternative history and ancient alien narratives in popular media.

Do these ideas hold water when examined by an archaeologist, or are there better explanations out there?

We are now on episode 80 and I am Frederic, your guest guide into the world of pseudoarchaeology.

This time we are back again to tackle Ancient Apocalypse with Graham Hancock.

Has he mellowed out recently or will things go off the rails sooner rather than later?

I won't linger too long here because, well, we're in for a few new sites to visit, such as the White Sands and the Amazon Rainforest.

I want to thank all of you who support the show.

You are really helping to produce this content and I'm humbled and grateful for your support to help out.

I will tell you how to do that while getting some bonus stuff at the end of the episode.

And remember that you can find all sources, resources and reading suggestions on our website diggingupancientaliens.com there.

You can also find contact info if you notice any mistakes or have any suggestions.

And if you like the podcast, I would appreciate if you left one of those fancy five star reviews that I heard so much about.

Now that we have finished our preparations, let's dig into the episode.

We are auspicious with amnesia.

Or at least that's what we are according to Graham Hancock.

I really wish that this was accurate and that I could wipe away my memory after yet again watching Ancient Apocalypse.

Watching this series and looking at the claims is like being Frodo carrying the one ring with all of you as my sandwags, a burden I'm taking on so others maybe won't have to.

Unlike Frodo though, there is no glorious ending or peace to the Shire.

There is just a slight relief that the show is over for now.

The keys click clack whilst I look for answers.

Me thinking that not even Kerouac levels of whiskey will bring me to the amnesia.

Hancock Mansions so what are we dealing with in season two of Ancient Apocalypse?

Was not everything said in season one?

Well, according to us elitist archaeologist, I would say it definitely was, but apparently those in charge of Netflix programming thought otherwise.

Netflix cancelled great shows like they have a personal vendetta against joy and character development.

Still, for some reason Netflix keeps Dish show on.

For some reason.

Hey, even the goop lab only ran for one season.

In Ancient Apocalypse Season 2, we now have a overall theme the Americas.

A reason I see behind it is that it allows Hancock to reuse Ideas from the previous season to spin a tale with a more specific narrative.

And as Penelope we need now to unravel this weave and look at the facts Hancock presents and how it fits into the historical tapestry.

So let's dive into the tangled narratives and step into one of nature's most striking creations.

Enter White Sands, a place where the story isn't written with an agenda, but with gypsum.

We now look out over the vast, captivating New Mexico desert landscape.

The name really says it all.

We see dunes that stretch for some 750 square kilometers and are gleamingly white.

The color comes from the composition of the sand gypsum.

To make a quick overview of the area's formation during the Permian era, starting around 298.9 million years ago, this area was well underwater.

But when the water retreated, it left behind a calcium sulfate rich area.

Tectonic activities would later form mountains today named Sacramento and the Zen Andreas.

Fast forward and rain and other water pulled the gypsum out of these peaks, pouring out in what today is known as the Tularosa Basin.

Once a large lake, this later dried out, leaving crystallized gypsum or selenite behind.

Some water would travel further to the Hueco Basin, leaving leftover gypsum that would form into the Akali Flat.

However, the sand we see in the dunes come from Lake Lucero.

That dries up each year and vin erodes the Acali flat crystals found here, creating the fine sand that we today see in the dunes.

So from a geological perspective, the site is very well understood and the American National Park Service has a lot of material available to the public.

This is not the reason why we are here, really.

No.

The real reason is that Hancock thinks that this is an excellent example of where archaeology is wrong.

He will use archaeology and geology to demonstrate this.

Hancock claims that a secret has been found here that will overturn the accepted history of the Americas.

But something that Hancock leaves out of the series is that the accepted history has already changed.

To be frank, Graham is a bit late on the ball here.

What's hinted at is that mainstream archaeology thought that there was no earlier entry into the Americas than around 13,500 BCE.

We have a slight hint at the Clovis theory that he mentions in the first season and well, also in his books.

Things have changed during the last 30 years as more and more evidence exists for people settling earlier in the Americas.

The earliest settlement found so far in North America is the Bluefish Caves in the Yukon Territories.

At this location, thousands of animal Bones were found with butcher marks and the oldest bone that's been dated goes as far back as 24,000 years BP the study was published in 2017 and the authors, Lorianne Bergon, Arianne Burke and Thomas Higham suggest a small standstill population lived in the area during the last glacial maximus.

They estimate that the female population would have been around 1,000 to 2,000 people and probably never extended to more than 10,000 peoples.

As the glacier melted around 13,000 BCE, those living at the Bluefish Cave started to move down.

While it's among the oldest confirmed dates, many more sites exist dating from 16,000 to 13,000 BCE.

A site that is controversial in a sense is Toca da Tierra Pea, a rock shelter in Brazil.

Stone tools have been found at this site.

Unfortunately, there has not been any hearth or other objects found to date that can be C14 dated.

A team led by Cristel La Haye performed thermal luminescent dating on the stone found in the third layer at the site, indicating a date around 22,000 BP before present.

As we have discussed previously in this show, thermal luminescence dating is a very valuable tool.

But sometimes dates that's been uncovered with this method can be unreliable.

Without other dating methods, such as carbon dating, there will remain question marks regarding this initial date by Lahaya's team.

But as always, more data will hopefully show whether this initial date is correct or is not.

This particular study was published in 2013.

Even further south in South America, we have dates at a site called Monteverde, which has secure dates that goes back to around 14,800 BCE.

But why Graham Hancock is at White Sands is due to a rather fantastic find.

Footprints of humans and megafauna are preserved in the gypsum at White Sands.

For thousands of years, this area has witness the footsteps of people walking, running, hunting, leaving behind a rich tapestry of human history.

The paths they trod are etched into the landscape, telling stories of survival, exploration and a connection to the land.

A story that might go as far back as 23,000 years before our time.

In 2022, Matthew Bennett et al.

Published an article in Nature arguing that some footsteps preserved in the gypsum dated back to 23,000 before present.

This data is based on the surrounding animal tracks and radiocarbon dating of macroscopic seeds from the aquatic Rupia quirosa.

These seeds were found in Ceuto within the track, suggesting they had been there since the creation of these footsteps.

It's also here in this episode, I start to sense a shift in Hancock's demeanor.

He seems to be softening to a sense compared to the aggressive Persona we encountered in the show's inaugural series.

He tries to sow the idea that there is this significant attempt to dismiss the find.

We get a quote.

The carbon dating of the seeds were challenged, but the team confirmed the results using other samples of pollen and sediment, quieting their critics.

Now, what Hancock describes here is the scientific process.

You publish something and others will look at it and start to ask a lot of questions.

In this case, the team behind the original study returned and completed more tests which could provide even better support for their initial claim.

Criticism isn't always bad.

Sometimes people do find flaws in your study.

But if your theory is sound and you have proper evidence, you can use these criticisms to build an even better case for the theory.

Hancock, however, isn't used to the scientific process.

Instead of looking at the Christicism, he takes it as a personal insult.

Instead of addressing the flaws of his arguments, the archaeology mafia is just out there to get him.

It sounds odd, but to some extent science is about disproving your theory.

We don't aim to do that out of maleficence, but to test if the theories and the methods that you use are sound.

If you only seek to idea is easy to miss things and get sort of a tunnel vision.

By trying to disprove your theory, you will end up with a stronger argument for your case if it holds up.

That's why a hypothesis scientists ask need to be stated in a way that it can be either confirmed or dismissed.

White Sands may be an important site since it shows that some managed to get past the glacial maximus up north and walk down south.

They were not part of this standstill population at Bluefield Fish Cave.

A question I have that later got an answer is why Hancock chose White sand of all places.

As I mentioned, we have an earlier date up in Bluefish Cave.

A boon for Hancock would also be that Xhoqesi King Mars was one of those who worked at the site.

And King Mars was one of those who early on started to question Clovis first theory and got, to put it mildly, a lot of flak for it.

The objections to his work were sometimes posed harsh and unfair.

And he was only proven right about his theory that the cave predates Clovis after his death.

Unfortunately, I mean from Hancock's perspective, this should be a gold mine.

He could go to town on the toxic Clovis first proponents.

That set an unreasonable high bar of the burden of proof.

But why didn't Graham bite this?

Well, the site can't be connected to his Younger Dryas impact theory.

Evidence also suggests that species the community here at the Bluefish Cave relied on were hunted to extinction.

A point that will become more important in just a moment.

Why?

Why's the end is the example is that it's older than the previous versions of the Behringer Strait theory.

As I mentioned, it's now fairly accepted that people came to the Americas pre 13,000 BCE.

It also contains extinct megafauna.

We are presented with the fact that those large animals hunted by this land's early inhabitants, according to Hancock, went extinct within a very narrow time frame.

Such a brief period that it could be only attributed to a meteoric impact, drastically changing the environment and wiping the animals out.

As you might know, Hancock is one of those who suggest that a comet hit Earth some 12,000 years ago and this impact caused, according to the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, the Younger Dryas cooling of the Northern hemisphere.

This caused an enormous catastrophe and destroyed the extensive advanced civilization.

Some remnants of this lost bygone society then traveled the world spreading warnings and knowledge wherever they went.

Hancock seems to argue that white sand in this case is evidence of this meteoric impact.

The issue here is that while there is no credible evidence of this event even taking place or this civilization existing, the extinction of animals to place over a quite long time here, some species died out before this hypothetical impact took place and others linger around until much well after the impact would have taken place.

And it's worth noting that the extinction of megafaunas does not look the same across the world.

Here in Europe, for example, we have a extensive timeline for the cessation of megafaunas living here.

If we look closely at how the megafauna start to go extinct, we see that it was not simultaneously.

Now we see that each species has a unique pattern.

Some survive while others don't.

As Stewart put it in a 2015 paper.

The reasons for the different extinctions are hard to map and differs depending on what region you're looking at.

There are a few different suggestions to why different animals went extinct.

Like the overkill hypothesis that humans hunted the animals to extinction.

Or the environmental change hypothesis that ecological changes took place changing the animal's environment to an extent they could no longer thrive and survive.

Both of these different hypotheses has their pros and cons and none can really explain to a satisfactory level the extinction that took place place alone.

A hybrid hypothesis could be a more adequate explanation that environmental changes put a strain on the different animal populations and humans basically killed off these smaller weaker groups.

This could explain why pockets of these animals lived through the Paleolithic up to the Mytholithic era.

Then we have a few more far out ideas such as the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, but it's been at this point fairly disproven.

I recommend reading Vance Holidays et al's paper titled Comprehensive Refutation of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis for a more detailed explanation.

I'm also quite sure that we will return to this subject for a deep dive into the argument at a later point.

We also have the hyper disease hypothesis.

Diseases.

The main issue being that no known disease would only affect large animals as far as we know today.

Another problem is how would it spread globally at this point in history and only spreading through a certain type of animal.

We also have the solar flare hypothesis.

It's similar to the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis in that a catastrophic event took place causing this mass extinction and it suffered from the same problem as the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis.

The extinction patterns we see are staggered.

This was not an event taking place at one point in time.

And another issue is why megafaunas like giant ground slots are affected and mammoths are affected, but not polar bears, bears, rhinos, humans.

As you can see, the extinction of large animals roaming the Earth is more nuanced than Hancock's explanation in the program.

Hancock also brings up the overkill hypothesis as the only alternative cause for what might have happened here.

In an attempt to disarm that argument, Hancock simply notes that humans won't hunt animals to extinction.

While there are much better arguments against that it was over hunting as the sole reason for the extinction, this comet is just plain wrong.

A tempting example would be the classical dodo.

Still, the demise of this flightless bird previously found in the Mauritius is.

Well, it's a bit more complicated.

While human hunting of the bird most likely didn't help, the actual death of this species was at the tusks of feral pigs introduced by humans in the 1600s.

As argued by Sheket and Paris in a 2020 paper, the feral pigs known to eat eggs from turtles and would most likely have feasted on the ground bound birds of offspring too.

Combine these three elements we have on the Mauritius new agriculture, taking away habitats, human hunting the birds and a new invasive species eating their eggs.

Altogether, it would have been a miracle that the dodo survived.

Note also how humans are the underlying cause for all these three threats to the dodo.

A better example of when humans hunt an animal to extinction might be found in the case of the Subur, or in English the European bison.

The bison went extinct In Britain around 1100 CE, and in France it was gone by 1300 CE.

The animal population survived in enclaves in other parts of Europe until later in history.

But around 1800 CE these population had disappeared almost everywhere, from Germany to Transylvania.

The only enclave left could be found in the Biaowie forest on the border of Poland and Belarus.

And the reason for the extinction were growing farmlands and hunting.

By 1857, some 1900 bisons were roaming the Biaowesa, a number that would quickly shrink with the start of the First World War.

While there seems to be a bit of discussion if the last Subur was shot in 1919 or in 1921, in Poland we know the hunter was a man called Bartwomje Spakovic.

Again, while hunting was a huge factor, other human activities such as farming contribute to the extinction.

Another example would be Steller's sea cow or Hydrodramalis gigas, and it was discovered in 1741 and was gone by 1768, which is less than 30 years after the initial discovery.

White Sands is a fantastic place and an important archaeological site.

It gives us a better understanding of the past.

The issue here is that it does not support Hancock's idea.

As we can see, it's does not support the idea of a global cataclysm.

The only reason to bring this site up for Hancock is to argue against outdated ideas and try to connect it to this cataclysm that he believes took place.

The dates for the first people in the America has been moved back and this site is only one piece that fits in a much larger puzzle that will give us the true date of when people start to settle the Americas.

I hate to say, but this would have been a brilliant segment if Hancock only had focused on the site itself and left out this wide eyed nonsense.

This is why if I have to read Hancock or another pseudo history author, I actually do prefer Hancock.

However, this little positive comment does not take away anything from all the misinformation we got in this part.

For now we will leave the White Sands and go further south, down into the Amazon.

Graham Hancock takes us from the US down to Acre, a province in modern Brazil that shares a border with both Peru and Bolivia.

And we're told that archaeologists has long refuted the idea of a complex society living in the Amazon.

And to a point that is correct.

As Charles mann in a 2008 article in Science points out, it was thought to be barren of civilization.

And I would prefer to use the term complex society instead of civilization.

Both terms are not great, but the former is a bit less loaded.

Now, people have lived in the Amazon for millennias, but what has been found is not a culture similar to the Inca or other South American cultures that built monuments and structure in stones, etc.

We are here though because there seems to be a culture creating mounds and geoglyphs that have quite recently been discovered due to the logging in this region.

And some of these structures were found in 1977 by Alco Ranse, a paleontologist today as part of a survey.

The discovery was not announced until almost a decade later by the National Program for Archaeological Research sponsored by the Smithsonian Institute.

But the announcement gained very little attention and traction and not much happened until the early 2000s.

Today, thanks to a team including Dr.

Marty Peresinen from Helsinki University, Alku Ransei and Dr.

Denise Shah, we know a lot more about these earthworks.

Some 450 of these sites have been identified so far in the state of Acre.

All these earthworks can be linked by a similar ceramic culture that seems to be influenced, according to Persinen, by Western Amazonian formative style.

The earthworks come in several different shapes and according to Kaloila et al.

The most common are trapezoids, rectangle, square, oval and circular.

Then there are the geoglyphs that are ditches inside embarkments and we have about 500 of them.

The earliest of these date back to around 500 BCE or year zero.

Some of those constructed later during the first millennium seems to have been in use until around 1300 CE.

One ceram shard in one of the earthwork has been dated to about 1211 to 942 calibrated BCE.

Still, the authors, Denise Shawn et al.

Are not sure if this piece of ceramic is really connected to the construction itself.

The other pottery found in the enclosure dates to around 2000bp so around year zero.

The earlier pottery found within the earthwork are not strange.

We know the sites have been reused over time.

As Patterson points out in a 2021 paper, there is a contact issue with these ceramics regarding these earlier dates.

They are not found within the embankment walls where most of these pottery that's dated to around year zero can be found.

They are often found at other locations that do not seem to be connected with the constructions of these rampart like monuments.

Again, the site is interesting and deserve more attention.

But why is Graham Hancock here?

Well, it's a good question to be honest.

The section is framed around that the site was first ignored.

And that's a somewhat accurate statement.

Remember, Hancock loves to use old ideas to show that archaeology does not approve of new discoveries.

We try to silence everything to keep the status quo.

Something that frankly is untrue about both of these locations.

While the actual work on these geoglyphs and earthworks didn't start until early 2000, it's out there now with the benefits of archaeologists being able to look at this structure with the tools and knowledge we have today.

For the first time, we can discover even more of these with LiDAR and other digital equipment.

Then we can apply modern standards to the excavation and get the data people in 191877 could only dream of.

In a sense, the longer a site is left untouched, the more data we can actually pull out of it.

And it's important to remember that as soon as these early 1800 excavation, early 1900 or even up to 1950, they did not really have the same methods and equipment and understanding we have today.

So when the sites are excavated, they are to extent destroyed because go back we can maybe find something they missed if we're lucky.

But for the most part, the longer the site is left where it is, nobody touch it, the better it is for science and archaeology as a whole.

And the second part is that Hancock sees a connection to Greece at the site.

And recently there might be evidence that this site has been in use since 10,000 before present.

And this ancient date comes from a paper by again Dr.

Pattisonen that's also a peer himself in the episode.

And it was published in 2020 and suggests that there might be evidence of slash and burn agriculture in Acre.

Patterson then points out that this potential agriculture practice is not associated with the mounds themselves.

They are separated by thousands of years.

But the site has been been reused and occupied for a very long time.

The difficult here is to prove was it a controlled swaddling of the area or was it just a run of the mill forest fire?

And it can be tricky, but it could be done by showing it's in a very confined area.

But even then it could be argued it was a local wildfire.

However, there are attempts at developing techniques that can show if the fire is done by swaddling or if they're natural occurrence.

Du Sol et al published a paper trying to establish a slash and burn baseline back in 2021.

In 2022, Heidgrae N et al published a paper showing that agrarian fires were used in Germany around 9,500 BP and that paper relied on pollen and charcoal analysis among other Things that could show that small but frequent fires occurred in the area, indicating that the Palatians used fire to prepare their fields.

While Persinen's paper that could show agricultural practice in the area dates back to 10,000 BC is very interesting.

I have to agree with what Persinen wrote in the conclusion.

We are aware that the evidence presented here is not yet conclusive and that we require more archaeological data and additional radiocarbon and carbon isotope 13 measurements from the Western Amazonia.

And as I mentioned before, Hancock is trying to connect these sites that we find in Acre with Greece, Greece here in Europe.

Now, he does not claim that the people of the West Amazon had contact with the ancient Greeks.

Now, Hancock is not silly.

He claims that they got their patterns and ideas of geometry from the same source.

The traveling sages of the lost civilization.

Hancock tries to make the claim that historians think that the Greeks were among the first to create geometry.

It's a strange claim, since geometry was used in Babylon, the Indus Valley and Ancient Egypt thousands of years before the Greeks.

It's also an attempt to connect the pottery at the sites in Acre to the geometric period in Greece.

An issue here is that the geometric period starts around 1025 BCE and you can clearly see that it's heavy, heavily influenced by the Mycenaean pottery.

If you put Mycenaean pottery and the geometric period pottery together, you can clearly see that these are the same culture that creates them.

And Hancock attempts to draw a connection between the ceramics from the Eco region and the Greek pottery by positioning them side by side.

Yet an examination reveals that they bear little resemblance to one another.

Even when scrutinized closely, their difference stands out starkly.

While both pottery styles showcase captivating geometric pattern, the influences that inspire them are strikingly divergent, reflecting the unique cultural narratives and artistic tradition from which they originate.

Hancock also mentioned polychromatic pottery or pottery decorated with more than two colors as evidence of these wandering sages.

From the episode, it almost seems as if these styles suddenly appear in the area when the earth works geoglyphs were constructed.

In reality, polychromatic pottery begins in Guyana, Venezuela and upper Madeira around 1500 BCE.

So about 1500 years before this earthwork is starting to be constructed.

And the early formative period lasts until 300 BCE and it was not until around 50 BCE we got certain proof of polychromatic pottery in the Acre region, with the possibility of an earlier date of 350 BCE.

Still within this 2000 years ago narrative that is supported by the earthworks and the carbon dating that's been done on these.

However, this is not based on color by itself.

The earlier date is based on the shape of a vessel rather than presence of color.

Note here that the the technology didn't suddenly appear out of nowhere.

It developed and spread over thousand years.

Or maybe Hanka postulated the wise sages liked the people in Guiana enough to teach them how they could use more than two colors on pottery, but not enough to build earth wall in geometric shapes.

I'm not sure what he hinting at here.

The site is an incredible discovery and it was will be interesting to see what comes next.

As for evidence for a supposed lost civilization traveling the globe, it's yeah, it's really a miss.

Don't get me wrong, the earthworks are impressive, but they are in a sense easy to construct.

The layout can be quite simply created with just ropes and sticks, like how the Nazca lines were created.

Experimental archaeology shows that two people with a string, stick and and a bit of time could easily recreate the geoglyphs that we find on the Nazca Plateau.

A circular earthwork can be made with a stick, string and then a short walk around in a circle.

Hancock's theory brings forth a compelling inquiry regarding the original civilization, which he himself conceded lacks substantial supporting evidence.

As he acknowledged during his discussion on the Jorogen podcast, it is it's intriguing to ponder why this ancient civilization would distribute technology in such an erratic manner.

For instance, some groups receive remarkable expertise to construct this monumental structure, like the imposing pyramids, the elegant Parthenon, intricate metalwork and astonishing megalithic structure.

And in stark contrast, others were provided with more basic tools, such as vibrantly colored ceramics and rudimentary instruction for building earthen walls.

While the simplicity of these creations does not undermine the remarkable achievements of these people inhabiting acor, it does cast a shadow of curiosity over Hancock's narrative, raising critical questions that he neither explore nor addresses.

And on that note, we will close out this episode and we will return to Ancient Apocalypse later and look at the other chapters in this series.

But until then, please spread the word by leaving a positive reviews on platforms like itunes, Spotify, or even better, recommend it to your friends, share episode you like with them.

And for more information about me and my podcast, check out digging up ancient aliens.com and you will find the complete list of sources and resources.

If you want to, well, check my work or expand your knowledge on the subject matter, you find this on the episode page that you find on the website now.

If you want to support the show like the amazing supporters that's already there.

You can head over to Patreon Support or if you want another option on Patreon, well, you can sign up at the members portal@ diggingupancientaliens.com support.

Signing up there will give you on both places will give you early episodes that are of course ad free and you also get bonus content and extended episodes.

And if you want to contact me, it can be done through most social media sites.

And if you have comments, corrections, suggestions or hankering to write that email in all caps, you find my contact info at the website.

This show is created with the support of the Archaeology Podcast Network.

You can find a lot of other great shows like the CRM Podcast and my Travel on their website archaeologypodcastnetwork.com producer of the show is Ashley Airey and I, Frederik Trusoham wrote, recorded and mastered the episode you'll listen to.

The script was edited by the amazing Michelle Franklin.

Sandra Martinor created the intro music and are outraged by the band called Thraldskru who sings their song Tinfoil Hat or Foliat.

Links to both of these artists can be found in the show notes.

Until next time, keep shoveling that silence.

Holy.