Hi. Hello and välkommen to Digging Up Ancient Aliens.

This is the podcast which usually examines the T.V. show Ancient Aliens.

But this time we are going for something a little bit different.

The new Netflix series Cunk on Earth.

What do you mean?

We're not doing Cunk on Earth?

Yeah, it's far more accurate and better made

and funny on purpose.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

As it turns out, we're still looking into Graham Hancock's

Ancient Apocalypse. Do the claims hold water to an archaeologist

or are there better explanations out there?

I'm your host, Fredrik, and this is episode 32.

This time, we will focus on the episodes America's Lost

Civilizations and a Fatal Winter.

So we will look at the sites as Poverty Point, Serpent Mound

and the underground city of Derinkuyu.

We have visited two of these sites in the past,

but with an extraterrestrial hypothesis.

So it might be interesting to see what is the same

and the difference between these two sites.

We are also joined by Dr.

Andrew Kinkella, later in the episode.

Now, remember that you can find sources, resources and further

reading suggestions on our website digging up ancient aliens dot com.

They will also find contact info to me if you notice any mistakes

or have any suggestions.

And if you'll like the podcast, I would really appreciate it if you left one of those

fancy five-star review that I heard so much about.

Now, when we're finished with the preparations, let's dig in

to the episode.

Let's start our expedition to the Americas.

Graham Hancock gives us a whole episode centered on North America

based on his book America Before.

And this episode starts out with Hankcock complaining about Clovis

First. Claiming that this idea was taught until 2010.

But as we learn from Dr.

Bill Farley's insight in Episode 31, this cannot be further from the truth.

In fact, the debate over the earliest human inhabitants of America

had already been primarily settled in the 1990s.

But after finishing lamenting about Clovis were taken to a site

called Poverty Point, the site that unfolds

before us is truly awe-inspiring.

Six prominent religious arranged in a manner that almost resembles

a Greek amphitheater, dominate the landscape.

Along with these striking formations, we can see five original mounds

and a vast plaza with several post circles.

And these are impressive structures built between

1700 to 1100 BCE.

Bear witness to true sophistication

and scale of the people inhabiting this land.

The ridges, which boast a diameter of approximately 700 meters

or 2100 feet, measures ten kilometers, six miles.

Among these

remarkable structures, we find mound A which, despite this, maybe

a lackluster name, stands tall behind the central square of the earthworks.

And this mound rise to an incredible 22 meters,

affording us an unparalleled view

in the area over the main plaza.

Though the precise function of this impressive structure remains shrouded

in mystery, it's clear that it played a vital role within the complex

and the community that once called this place home.

Although the people who constructed the poverty point had already

domesticated crops like squash and sunflower,

the way of life remained predominantly that of hunter-fisher-gatherers.

The archaeological record provides ample evidence,

including the discovery of stone artifacts

like wights for fishing nets and atlatls, a type of spear thrower

and these findings suggest that the builders of Poverty Point

were not yet reliant on farming. The concept that a non-

agrarian society could construct such large and complex monuments

was once considered a far fetched idea by many archaeologists.

However, as more sites with reliable dating

has been uncovered, this notion has been more widely accepted.

It is believed that more complex political structures

capable of organizing and executing

such impressive feats have existed without relying on agriculture.

But it's worth noting, however, while Poverty Point

have evidence of some sort of political system, there is no real evidence

of a social stratification

within the society that built it.

But note that an outside force isn't

necessary really, to explain these monuments.

Now, there are a few things that we can rule out about Poverty Point.

No burial has been found on the site, not not even in the mounds.

There are also no signs of permanent settlement at the site,

which suggests that people who came to poverty point,

if not were entirely nomadic, likely other settlements elsewhere.

While there is evidence of extensive long distance trade at the site,

it's unlikely that trade was the primary function of poverty point,

as there is no evidence of exchange of nonverbal items.

If you go and listen to Graham Hancock, he believes the site

will have some sort of astronomical function

in contradiction to Hancock's idea that he alone would think this.

There's actually some archaeologists that would agree with him.

While Kidders and other others

argue that it's unlikely that migratory hunter-

gatherers would require stationary solstitial observatory.

Other researchers have taken a more moderate stance, acknowledging that,

well, it's possible that the mounds have an astronomical alignment,

but that our current understanding is not sufficient enough to confirm this.

See, Graham if you get down from that high horse and approach the material

more honestly, we could actually have a meaningful conversation.

Now, the issue with celestial alignments

is that they are rather subjective, and depending on the site,

they can line up with several different things. At Poverty Point,

we don't have any clear markers, really.

In these cases, we would look for important stars

or planets within the mythology.

Unfortunately, there are no surviving mythic accounts

from the archaic period when most of the site was built.

We also know that the site was reused in later

periods, Mound D was created by a later

culture around 700 C.E.

And you could ask if the site has been changed to maybe fit their religion

and important alignments compared to the original creators.

But there are other things that the side could align to

or represent other than astronomical.

Some suggest it has a connection to the landscape and a good case

could be made that the radius between Mount C and D

referenced the river nearby.

Hancock is also leaving out a potential acoustic enhancement

that could have been part of the reason for the site's construction.

And to have a chance to figure things out

we need to do a more objective research and excavations.

Speculations are well, well and fine, but we need more than someone's opinion.

Why Hancock has chosen to bring up Poverty Point over the Watson Brake?

Could be because Poverty Point l ooks better on camera.

Now, Watson Brake is a side that is much, much older,

going back possibly to 4000 BCE,

where the first mound constructed just 500 years after the first settlement.

And that's, well, much older than Poverty Point.

It might not be as impressive in size,

but in age it's definitely takes the cake term.

Original creators at the Watson Break were hunter-fisher-gatherers too.

We know this due to the seeds found in the earliest layer.

None of them show signs of domestication.

As mentioned, we see a temporary site occupation shown

for about 500 years before the first mound was constructed.

Hancock spends a whole chapter on Watson breaking this novel, America

Before.

So it's clear we're familiar with the site.

And he repeats the same theory that the mounds must be aligned

with the solstices.

And he proves this by drawing lines through the mounds

that's arranged in a circular shape, claiming that they line up.

I mean, the items in the circle could align with several different things.

Hancock also agrees that a nomadic culture might not have much use

for a stationary solstice mound, but argues that they must have some

advanced civilization and come in and teach them this, adding

that the evidence adds up to towards

that they worshiped a sky-ground-deity.

He does not claim it's a snake.

He's just implying that it's a flying snake.

And when we're talking about snakes. We're no strangers to Serpent Mound

on the show, if you'll recall, in episode 21, Aliens in the Old West we delved

into the ancient alien proponents of theories surrounding the site.

However, it appears that Hancock has a personal

stake in the Mather surrounding Serpent Mound as he claims

to have been banned from setting a single foot on the site.

Now, Hancock believes that the administration

decided to shut him out motivated by personal

and ideological reasons as they seek to censor his views.

Now, I discovered some interesting details when I contacted the Ohio

History Connection

for more information on the Graham Hancock's visit to the Serpent Mound.

Hancock initially requested four days

of commercial filming at the site,

which would have required, well, some accommodation

of a significant number of people and given the request scope.

It's not, unsurprisingly, that the Ohio

history connection declined.

Additionally, they confirmed that Hancock was never actually banned from the site.

Contrary to what have been suggestions in some reports.

"The commercial filming application by I.T.N. was the only inquiry.

declined by the Ohio History Connection.

Mr. Hancock was not prohibited from visiting the site as a member of the public."

They were not allowed to film on-site.

Just as the note that he read out in the show loud, stated

And this stance from Ohio history connection is not surprising if we look back

on previous productions like Ancient Aliens

and America on Earth behaviors.

Add to this that the Shawnee Tribe's acknowledge

Serpent Mound as a holy site and that there have been incidents before.

And Chief Ben Barnes said

in a speech, quote, "consider it to be a sacred site,

and we ask you to treat this remarkable place as you would

any cathedral, synagogue or mosque." With all these things in mind.

The decision from Ohio history is reasonable

and to any other person quite understandable.

But Graham is not interested in hearing any of this here.

He instead decided to dox a staff member

or dox the staff member who answered his request

by posting their contact details on his Twitter account.

Graham Hancock seems to believe that he was banned from the Serpent mound

by because the Ohio history connection is afraid that he will expose

the truth about the Mount's alignment towards the sun.

According to Hancock, Trees has been planted to conceal this fact.

However, the claim is quite far fetched as there's

actually, signs marking the sun's positions during the solstices

as Carl Faegan can attest to.

He would probably have learned his information if Hancock

had simply refrained from filming and just visited the park.

Instead, he has acted petulantly and unprofessionally, behaving more like a

spoild child and a respected researcher. When it comes to dating the Serpent Mound.

There's quite a bit of a debate.

Graham Hancock, however, seems unaware about this.

In 2011, E.W. Hermann led

a research project that took C-14 dates from

core drillings that seems to suggest that the mound was from the Adena culture

dating back to 500 BCE to 200 B.C.E.

and these datings align with the theory

put forward by Putnam in 1890

based on the nearby burial mountains.

However, the current dating places the mound in the Fort

Ancient Culture date in 1000 C.E.

to 1750 C.E.

and that's based on in situ C-14

dating by Fletcher and others back in 1996.

We could also add iconography to the evidence for a later date.

While we know the Adena culture did build mounds,

we don't see any serpents represented in the art.

The exception would be the Adena effigy pipe.

Maybe, but it's quite a leap from no snake

to build a sizable snake-based monument.

I also want to stress that the new data is from

core drillings, something we discussed previously.

It could be prone to contamination.

Herman and others also mentioned

buried A-horizon.

The issue here is that Putman in 1890,

noted that the A-horizon had been,

or the old A-horizon, had been removed from the site.

And to clarify, the A-horizon in archaeology refers to the top layer of soil

that has undergone a significant and biological activity

containing organic matter and nutrients that support plant growth.

And depending on the specific context, this layer is typically found

about 5 to 20 centimeters below the surface.

And conversely, the O-horizon refers to the surface

layer of organic debris such as the leaves and twigs.

That's not yet too decomposed.

And we should note that what we see today is a reconstruction,

mainly based on the drawings from E. Squire

and E. Davis in 1846.

But they were not the only ones documenting the site.

In 1884, John McClean created the illustrations showing the monument

with one addition on top of the serpent and the egg or vulva.

We also see a frog.

Yeah, a frog.

Is this type of representation may be found somewhere else.

As a matter of fact, we find a similar depiction

over at Picture Cave in Warren County, Missouri.

I might mention here that the W.H.

Holmes did another illustration in 1886 showing an additional figure.

It's maybe a bit of a Rorschach test, but

you can decide if it's a frog or not.

And these three icons are standard within the Mississippian iconography,

a culture we know had exchanges with the Fort Ancient culture.

The icons we have been de-coded with the help of the traditions

from the Dhegihan Sioux to be representations

of the Great Serpent, the serpent mouth, or the vulvoid.

And lastly, a representation of the first woman or old-woman-who-never-dies.

And these ideas are present in the Shawnee tradition.

While the depiction of these themes are slightly different than the Picture

Cave, for example, they are undeniably similar.

The Mississippian culture has more representation of the first woman

and snakes themes that we really don't see in their Adena culture.

A sandstone pipe with this motif has also been found in

Ohio, placing this idea again with Fort

Ancient and Mississippian culture exchange.

The question regarding Serpent Mound is far from settled. While Lepper

and other present a strong case for the Fort

Ancient date, Romain and Hermann has some compelling arguments for their side.

And as all of these authors note in the public discussion,

they agree that while ideas have been exchanged that improve

the hypothesizes we need more studies of the site.

Our current understanding is insufficient,

and this is quite an excellent example on how science work.

We need this discussion in journals to test ideas

and get new knowledge. And Hancock could actually learn something from this.

And on that bombshell, we will leave the Americas for now and

head east and underground.

Welcome to Cappadocia,

Turkey. A region famous for its unique geology,

breathtaking hot air balloon rides and mysterious underground cities.

These cities, with their elaborate tunnel system

carved deep into the ground and mountainsides, have captured

the attention of archeologists and tourists alike.

With more than 200 underground cities identified,

their origin and purpose have been subject to much speculation.

In episode 12, we discussed the Ancient Alien theories

about the region with Bill Farley. They suggested that these sites

were created as massive bunkers to save humans from an alien war.

On the other hand, Hancock replaced aliens with natural disaster

to explain the underground cities. Dating these sites is not uncomplicated

or impossible, but harder, mainly

due to the lack of organic material to date.

Hancock statement that we can't date stone is both right and wrong.

Dating stone itself would be pointless since its,

you know, would be millions of years old.

Now we could try to date the quartz within the sediment

with Optically Stimulated Luminescence testing, for example.

But that would only work if it had been in sunlight and then buried.

So in these cases we would look at non-organic artifacts,

similar sites and ancient sources.

Let's take a moment to explore the date associated with Derinkuyu,

one of many underground cities in Cappadocia.

The earliest date we can find related to Derinkuyu might be a Hittite tool

and authors speculate that the site could have started during the Hittite era.

It could be argued that the tool

have been moved or maybe arrived later since it's a single find.

But the earliest possible date for Derinkuyu

might be between 1600 B.C.E.

and 1100 B.C.E.

The theory is not improbable.

The site of Gökçetoprak has a possible Hittite temple carved into the rock.

Unfortunately, we don't find any Hittite glyph or typical architecture

that could help support the idea even more.

While the Hittite date is plausible.

Archeologists need more evidence to obtain a more precise date. As we

delve deeper into the history of Cappadocia underground

cities we discover the accounts from ancient writers

that provides us a bit of further insight into their use.

Xenophon, a Greek historian and general,

was in the region in 401 BCE,

leading the mercenary army called the "10 000".

They were hired to help Cyrus the Younger

to take the Persian throne from Cyrus brother.

Xenophon wrote about the underground houses

that had a mouth like a well.

This indicates that the practice of constructing underground cities

was already in use then at least. Then we also have Vitruvius,

a Roman architect who wrote about the Phrygians who succeeded the Hittites.

And according to Vitruvius, they dug shelters due to a lack of wood.

So we have evidence that places the construction of some of these

underground cities in the B.C.E. era.

However, most of the underground cities we see

today were constructed between 600 C.E.

and 1100 C.E.

and many already existing cities

was also expanded during this later era.

Now, these cities, as you understand, was not built once and then used once.

They were reused throughout the centuries to escape different enemies.

And they were not actually abandoned until quite recently.

We are sure that these were known and used at least in 1909,

during the beginning of the Armenian genocide in Turkey. Derinkuyu

and other locales were probably not entirely abandoned until 1926.

And it was not until that point

most of them become forgotten

by the people who were left behind.

So we know a great deal about the age and use of these sites.

But how Hancock could get the 10,000 BCE is quite beyond me.

He offers no evidence supporting the earlier date except for stone axes.

That was created

around 10,000 BCE was found within the vicinity.

Cappadocia has a lot of Tuff, a kind of volcanic rock,

formed from the ashes after the eruption.

It's usually quite soft and easy to work with.

While it's possible to shape this rock with stone tools we don't see any

signs tying these cities to an earlier era, there's no population really

large enough to do this type of excavation with stone tools in the regions.

Surely not to create the numbers of the city

that at least Hancock described was created 10,000 BCE.

Now, Graham Hancock also agrees with Ancient Aliens

that the site is unusable for defense.

The explanation Hancock presents is if the enemies were to find the entrance

that could smash the soft, tuff door.

Now tuff.

It's not so brittle that it could be done within a few minutes.

That's probably why they also had a couple of these round doors after each other.

If the enemy breached that gate, the population would still have

a better chance of defense in the narrow tunnels, than

you know, up on the surface.

And we could apply the same kind of idea to a walled city.

The walls can be climbed, the gates can be broken.

The stuff means that the city wall must have a different purpose.

Probably not, or while they do have in some cases.

But if you listen to Hancock

Derinkuyu was built for protection not from people or enemies,

but from nature. He claims that the surface became too cold to live on

due to the meteoric impact and the floods that was going on due to this.

Therefore, the people dug into the rock where there's always

a stable temperature like in a root cellar.

Now I rented a place in Spain that was dug out in the mountainside

and it really did have a pleasant

indoor climate, even if it was scorching outside.

No A.C. or other things, you need to just close the door properly.

Like a root cellar.

You must isolate the entrance properly

for this to work, though these sites have a lot of ventilation

shafts though. And Derinkuyu temperatures have been monitored.

The seventh floor within the complex

may reach to -11 Celsius

and usually stay between 3 to 15 degrees cooler than the ground floor

quite far from, you know, Hancock's comfortable temperatures.

So the material evidence for Hancock's idea is missing.

But we know that there are not only material culture he looks at,

there's also myths and legends.

And in this episode we hear a fantastic

tale of from the Zoroastrian religion.

Graham tells about the ancient King Yima,

who is instructed to build an underground shelter before a long

lasting winter, that a snake in the sky will tell when the time is near.

As you might expect, this is not the story written down in the Zoroastrian texts.

The story is only possible if you mix and match from stories

and text such as Avesta and then Pahlavi texts.

the God Ahura Mazda, indeed

tell Yima that the winter is coming and that he needs to build a shelter.

The word he used is Vara, which is translated chiefly

to a type of enclosure of stone or a barn.

Yima later asked how to build this Vara and Ahura Mazda answer as follows:

"O fair Yima,

son of Vîvanghat! Crush the earth with a stamp of thy heel and then

knead it with thy hands, as the potter does when kneading the potter's clay."

So he instructs him to build with bricks

basically, And the snake appears in the later texts of Pahlavi concerning demons.

Nothing in these tellings refer to Yima

or the story in Avesta, and it's more of a description

of the Demons movement than being actual snake shape.

While Hancock's created an amazing

story is not something we can really use as evidence, right?

We can't really change the source material to fit our preferred idea.

Let's close the door to Derinkuyu for this time, but let's

welcome our guest for this episode.

So I want to welcome our next guest to the show, Dr.

Andrew Kinkella, who is a professor at Moore University

and the author, the host of the Pseudo Archeology podcast.

And you also do a YouTube series called

Kinkella teaches archeology, if I'm correct?

That is right, yeah. So

as you said, earlier, it's great to be here, Fredrik.

I always enjoy meeting your brother in arms and talking about both of us.

I'm sure I have so many similar experiences having to deal in

sort of the the media world of archeology, which I think is so very important.

And I wish more archeologists like you or I, you know, did this kind of thing.

So, yes, that's me.

I'm a professor of archeology, like you said

it more part college in Southern California.

My specialty is the ancient Maya,

where I worked for years in the Belizean jungle.

I worked in Belize primarily on the cenotes.

So those are little, holes.

Like mini lakes, pools of water deep in the jungle.

And I talked about how the cenotes relate to the pyramids.

So that's

my main research focus in in archeology.

And at this point in my career, I've also done

a decent amount of local archeology here in Southern California, my students.

So that's my kind of

academic archeology side.

But then I have, as you talked about, my kind of media side, where I have

my podcast, I'm actually part of two podcasts,

one called the CRM Archeology Podcast, which is very focused

on sort of the business side of archeology in Southern California

or in the United States, I should say.

And then I have the Pseudo archeology podcast,

which is near and dear to my heart, and then I have my my YouTube channel

where I do short videos on just anything people are wondering about,

about sort of basic archeology concepts and that kind of thing.

I've also written a textbook and

I I'm on television shows once in a long

while, like for the Science Channel or that kind of stuff.

I'm sort of a I'm a talking head, right?

I'm a yeah, I'm an expert that they might interview from time to time.

That's very rare, but that happens too.

So there you go. That's that's me.

But also, you are really a real expert if you haven't been on the ancient

Alien L or. I know, I know.

I don't count.

I can't believe you would bring that up this early in the interview, Fredrik.

He just tear me down.

I have not been on ancient aliens, but, you know, funny enough, and I'm

sure we'll get into this.

If they reached out,

I wouldn't necessarily say no, because I wouldn't

mind being the academic nerd that they say is wrong.

You know,

I would never say something like there's an Atlantis or anything like that.

But it's it's an odd rope

that we walk in archeology in terms of how do we get our voice out.

Like if we're never a part of any of this kind of stuff that nobody hears.

So maybe it's worth it sometimes to go into the lion's

den and be interviewed by somebody like Ancient aliens.

It's just as long as you don't say anything foolish or unscientific.

I don't know. It's tough call.

But you think there's a line to walk through

because other things skills among this show can be quite severe.

We had this example from the Maltese archaeologist

they bring up in the show who later came out and talked about, oh,

she was quote-mined out of context to fit Hancock's narrative.

Yeah, I don't.

See a danger in that.

Oh, there is there is a danger in that.

You're absolutely right.

And, you know, we're we've all of a sudden just jumped into talking about extremes

like, you know, would you, as a professional archeologist,

go on a show like Ancient Aliens and it's. Hmm.

Oh, it's a roll of the dice, you know, But it's not for me.

It wouldn't be an outright no.

It would be sort of like,

let me see what you're talking about.

If if I can state things

in a logical manner and be the other voice, you know?

Yeah.

And there is a point where I don't even care

if they say, Oh, well, that other voice is wrong.

It's it is an opportunity to get out

to the general public, you know, and love it or hate it.

Something like ancient aliens has huge reach, you know, that the more

grounded scientific shows, unfortunately, will never have.

So it's it's you know, this is the kind of stuff that we think keep us up nights.

You know, again, it's never happened to me.

I've never had to I've never had to make that terrible choice.

It's But yeah, I can see it, you know.

Yeah. Yes.

Come to think about it Didn't go all too well for, for example, Brad Lepper,

he was on the ancient aliens with the Serpent Mound episode

and kind of the calls on why they weren't allowed to film into the pocalypse.

Yeah, Yeah.

Because they remember

what happened back with ancient aliens when they will come and interview you.

And then I think is has one line in that episode from

I think you had a full hour interview and they just took one line

and then filmed the mound and then said it was built by aliens

and I think Ohio State never wanted really to get people back.

But right now.

There's a danger that it can backfire to appear quite severe.

I am not disagreeing.

You know, there is there is a total danger.

But again, we're getting into right here some of the hardest questions

in reaching out for archeology to the public.

You know, do you

do you attempt that

big reach, even if even if you come off looking like a fool?

Is all media appearances, good media appearances, meaning, you know,

even if you look poorly, maybe they come to your website,

maybe they recognize your name, and then you can tell them the correct stuff.

You know, it's it is a terrible, terrible deal with the devil.

So some of that stuff.

But I do find in my experience and again, it's very difficult, but I find that

most academics are way too, way too conservative, you know,

and they won't they won't even go on shows for the Science Channel or something.

They just think it's somehow below them or somehow it's dirty, you know,

And we just can't do that because what's going to happen is as

what's already happened, let's face it, the general public believes

all the stupid ancient aliens ancient apocalypse crap.

And not only do they believe it, they actively hate people like you and me

who tell the truth.

I'm sure you've gotten so much hate mail and stuff because I know I have.

And I can't be alone.

You Know just when you show that other side.

So it is a constant battle.

We do try our best and I would

gingerly angle towards attempting

some of those bigger shows, like I don't fault the people who you listed.

You know, they, they I'm sure they were trying exact what I was saying.

You know, it's yeah, it's very, very difficult.

Yeah, it's a tough road to talk.

But let's go back to ancient apocalypse and you watch the full series.

I think I remember from your.

Yes, I sat and dealt with all of it.

How did you feel it compare to other similar show?

I think have seen one or two episodes of Ancient Aliens and others.

Oh, I have. How did it compare to.

Okay, so one thing about ancient Alien where

where you can almost defend it in a weird way is it's so over-the-top

that most people are a huge percentage watching it. No.

Oh, that is absolute silliness, you know, because it's so far out there

and people will watch it just for sort of basic entertainment.

And again, they know that they're like, yeah, I know there's no

such thing as aliens in Atlantis, but did the show is fun.

And I got to say again, to weirdly

defend ancient

aliens, that show has a really good production value.

They it looks good.

It's a good looking professionally run show.

You know, I mean, they're saying absolute crap, but it's the editing, the

the sort of movement of the show.

They they do a really, really good job.

And sometimes in the more scientific real archeology show,

sometimes they don't compete in that manner and they need to. So

you know, ancient aliens in that sense, it's it's

so out there that a lot of people understand the kind of get the joke.

But what's worse, I think about ancient apocalypse

is that it seems real ish.

Like for somebody who doesn't know any better, they can be pulled in

and it seems like there's some sort of truth to it or some sort of science to it.

And so in that way, I think ancient apocalypses were worse because it

it feels real ish, you know, And it's just not it's a.

Very well edited and down then professionally, you know laid out

and you know if the drone shots are a bit 2010 it's still good.

A good look on I loved the drone shots actually because

you know even though everything they say is just an absolute fabrication

and Graham Hancock is a total charlatan, I mean, it's

he has an absolute utter like textbook

fraud, you know, and he's been saying the same thing for 30 years.

That's the other thing.

It's like, dude, he is he has retreaded these same stupid stories ever since the

and and the general public

doesn't know that they have a very short attention span and a very short memory.

So they don't remember.

And the other five times he did this in 1995 and 2000, 2005, 2010,

you know, you hear it again and again and again and

it's again Netflix.

Netflix knows how to make a show, you know.

So, yeah, even back to something like the drone shots, I know they're kind of 2010.

I know maybe they're a little you know not the most current but

they look a hell of a lot better than most other archeology shows

some of those shots of like Great Serpent Mound and, you know,

some of those others.

Poverty Point, which is a great site.

The look from that show is great.

Unfortunately, it's just full of just absolute

false, magical thinking made up narrative.

But if we continue on the made up narrative,

what what they do have the most issue with in the show

that's they're on Blockbuster.

I'm going to have to cherry pick my own data

because there's so many possibilities here.

I think I think the stuff I talked about this

a little on my podcast, I think the stuff that truly made me

and I actually did this like actually say, oh,

oh, you know, like actually made me react in a negative manner.

Like, oh good Lord was

I thought the worst one was the Bimini Road,

which is the Stones of Atlantis, which is in, I think is it Bermuda?

It's in the Caribbean.

And it's these stones that are very shallow,

but they're underwater like, you know, whether they 25 feet deep or something.

They are geological formations.

We have known this for decades. Upon decades.

This has been disproven 1001 times.

And when Graham Hancock brought up the stupid, stupid

Bimini Road B.S., I was like, You have got to be kidding me.

This is just the dumbest, most ignorant, although he's a charlatan and it worked.

So yeah, whatever.

But in terms of any kind of science, there is no other side to that.

It has nothing to do with humans.

And that one is something I've got push back

a ton on my YouTube channel, you know, because actually I did

I did a little like five minute YouTube video where I make fun of them

and I got so much hate, but it was so fun.

But that was one of the

things you deny the then you explain the Bimini Road.

Sounds like geological, their geological, geological.

But those people, it's like a religious movement.

You can't reason them out of it.

And that's one of the true sadnesses.

You know, you can't just show them the overwhelming data

they believe, whatever Graham Hancock says.

And unfortunately, Graham Hancock controls the narrative on.

This because he set it up.

That's what a good charlatan does.

That's why the first 5 minutes of ancient apocalypse is all about

how Graham Hancock has been treated so poorly

because that's the way he has to be the victim.

Yeah, you he has to have the victim narrative.

And then so he has that from the beginning.

First 5 minutes of the show. That's what it's about.

It's not about archeology, is about victimization of Graham Hancock.

And then he controls that narrative.

So whenever you or I say anything against him, we're just victimizing him.

We're not telling the truth. We're not using facts.

We're just we're bullies who are victimizing him.

And we have closed minds.

Fredrik, you and I are so close minded.

We just don't talk about it.

We are the Bimini Road.

We don't see that that was actually made by people.

And they walked around in Bermuda or whatever.

It's so stupid.

But that's the deal.

Yeah.

Something that's fun to do, especially with a bimini road,

because I find it so boring is to flip it.

So the origin or one of the origins for the idea is from

either Edgar Casey, you know, the sleeping prophet.

He spoke about Bimini Road and how it was part of Atlantis,

part of his 700 lifetime, all of that, you know, always off.

And he also went to treasure hunt.

The forces became. The.

Curse, find treasure in Bimini Road.

And when he got there, he made,

you know, the Joseph Smith.

You should dig there to find the gold type of things,

But you can't find that if you want to find it.

If you're doing it for good.

You know. In my gold,

I mean, you tell death extremely rare believers, they

shut up and walk away and then they call you close because,

yes, this is part of the story since they sent the by Hancock,

the esoteric sleeping prophet side of.

You know, if I have a stroke during this interview, it's your fault.

Fredrick. Okay?

This I know this stupid, stupid, ignorant crap.

It's like you're like, Come on, guys, can we Does

this all just kind of take a breath, you know?

But again, like I said, it's there's a religious movement

vibe to it, like where it has nothing to do with data

or good sense or common sense, you know, none of that.

Again, it's and it's funny to experience that.

Like I just the amount of attacks I've got and I can laugh it off.

And for the most part it's funny, but I wonder if you experienced too, like

when you get the sheer volume of attacks, it does kind of weigh on you a tiny bit.

You know, like when if you have like a thousand people who hate you, you're like,

man, you know, And it's and I notice they try and make it political, too.

They try and put me in like a political realm,

like, like a certain folder politically.

And I'm like, it's nothing to do with politics, you know?

But they do.

And I don't know.

It's just it's a it's an odd life.

We lived doing this. Yeah.

Luckily I haven't gotten too much.

I get the occasional all caps letter,

but so far I might be a bit spared.

But then I, you know, open I live in this social hellscape

called Sweden where we have health care and stuff like that.

So, yeah, you know, it's.

You know, I'm I'm tired of your communist attitude.

Second, I know it's it's

silly, but, you know, since you're doing stuff on ancient apocalypse,

I never got the level of hate I got until I did the ancient apocalypse thing.

Yeah. So, hey, you might. You might be joining me soon, my friend.

We'll see.

We'll see.

The first videos are up on YouTube now with the Jeb card and Brian Dunn thing.

So we'll see how it is.

But beware.

Hands out

when it comes to dealing with these

fringe theories, you describe it as a cult.

Do you think we have to approach them in a bit different way

than just present the facts and hope that they will buy it?

Or do you feel that we have to kind of convert them in the sense.

I think there's no converting.

Again, it's a religious movement, you know, so it doesn't

what I've found, I found a bunch of stuff like this,

a bunch of stuff I can talk about her first.

I always like to act in good faith.

So even if somebody comes to me and says some really, like, wild stuff,

I will explain it in a data centric approach

one time, you know, and I'll be really kind and really open up

like, Hey, look, actually,

you know, modern archeology says this, this and this.

There you go.

But 95% of the time

they come back with like, you're a fraud.

You know, like I had one today.

That's what they were saying.

You know, And I've gotten it so many times that.

So I will act in good faith one time.

But it's the old, you know, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me

kind of thing.

Well, I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole and argue them back and forth, back

and forth.

I might make fun of you

if you call me a fraud or something, because that's cruel.

You're nuts. You don't get to just call me a fraud.

If you call me a fraud, then it's open season on you.

And I'm not.

I won't be cruel, but I'm going to make fun of you, you know, because that's.

Sorry, man.

You don't get to be ignorant and just vomit your ignorance on the world.

That's what you're going to get.

So there's that.

I find the one honest approach time

because I'm not here to make people feel bad, you know?

I'm here to make people want to like archeology.

I'm here to be honest. I'm here to be open.

I'm here

to reach out to the public and be like, Hey, there's this fascinating story.

That's why I'm always torn about like when we started talking about actually

being on ancient aliens or something like that, I'm like, Oh, that's a tough one.

But in terms of other ways

of dealing with this, the the whole debate thing has come up a lot.

You know should you debate should you debate Graham Hancock.

And I would say that the short answer is no,

but the

longer answer is more varied, like I would never

or I don't think professional archeologists in general

should ever debate him in a debate style manner,

meaning where there's podiums and you have like a point counterpoint,

because as soon as you do

that, you've lost because you've made it seem like it's 5050, it's not.

It's 100% zero. We're right.

They're wrong.

There's no 10%.

There's no 8%. It's 100 zero. Right.

So if you come in again with the podiums, with the Nixon versus

Kennedy debate of 1960, you can't do that.

And also Graham Hancock does all these like group shows.

It's a cash grab for him.

So all you're doing is enabling him to sell his show that much more.

Again, he's a total charlatan and fraud.

So I would also say if for some reason that came up, I'd be like,

okay, I get whatever he's getting because there's a money approach to, okay,

if you're if you're dumping 30 K on his head, you dump 30 K on my head.

I don't do this for 600 bucks and a free hotel room, you know, like it.

Let's, let's be even then. I'm not.

I'm not here to make Graham Hancock money.

But so with that said I'm I'm against that kind of format.

If it's more of a Joe Rogan podcast that comes up a lot, you know,

or more of a sort of relaxed discussion

of sort of two individuals where it's just free form, I would be more into that.

I think if somebody does that, I don't think that's the end of the world. But

the and this is where academics can do poorly.

They need to know how they cast.

And so if you go on the Graham hey sorry the Joe Rogan pocket they cram

and if you go on that

and you're an archeologist who casts

very cliche and academic

and nerdy, you might come off terrible

because Graham Hancock knows how to run the media.

You know, So Graham Hancock will come out and then if you're like, well,

you see actually America ology, you don't understand because my Excel

spreadsheet says that the Carbon 14 date, the audience will be against you.

You know, you'll you you're cooked before you start.

So you need to be somebody who's a dynamic public speaker, somebody

you can talk to off the top of their head, somebody you can kind of

stick to the narrative, somebody who doesn't get flustered, right?

It has to be an archeology type person who can deal in a media environment.

That's all I would say on that.

So if it's somebody like that and they're chilling out on, you know,

sort of a one on one just discussion, I think that is probably worthwhile.

But it's that's it's a tough stuff.

CALL Do you have any names that you would like to see in that case?

Not as throw anybody on the tour bus but.

Besides the great Dr.

Andrew can call it? No,

you know, what's funny is I can't

I can't no singular names come to mind like this guy.

You know this person.

Oh, call her.

She kicks ass.

You know, it's

it. It just sort of depends.

It's funny.

I think quite a few of us and not very few of us

could do it at the same time.

I don't know.

You know.

Tough call.

What about yourself?

What would you think? You know.

I'm a bit torn as you were saying.

Go up against Graham Hancock on your Rogan is to set you up

to look bad because Rogan in his body

they are they know each other they hang out good time and Hancock.

Is Yep.

That's you have made a point of in the past he doesn't need truth to speak

if he feels threatened and rebellious move into an area

where I'm not sure all this might do mine might, you know, not do as well.

He will move to terrorism and look through the mess from a philosophy

kind of way or move to geology that he's an expert on this with everything else.

Yeah, I know that it would have to be just him.

None of his other cronies, none of the other.

What's his name? Randall Carlson or whatever.

He doesn't get to have three people.

And then you're just by yourself there.

You know, that's not that's not fair.

One on one,

you know, and just and just a chill, just sort of talk.

I don't find anything necessarily wrong with that, but it's it's

I guess, a tough call because Graham Hancock is can basically

in some ways Graham Hancock can only win and the archeologists can only lose. So.

Mm hmm.

But see, on the flip side,

you also need public outreach, you know, and it's a great way

for real archeologists to get public outreach again.

You know, is is any public outreach good public outreach?

Maybe it is.

It's it's tough call and the academic field

has got to be cool with whoever goes up.

They can't disown them in 2 seconds, you know?

Oh, my God. Did you hear Ken Keller went up there.

He didn't say the right thing.

So we disown him.

You know, academics have a terrible penchant

for eating their own, you know, So they would have to

just stand tall and be like, no he went out there, he tried his best.

We didn't do it. He did. So that's cool.

You know, I don't know. Yeah.

Could open up way up for more archeology in

broadcasting, in a sense.

Hopefully something positive, something for it.

Yeah, something like that would be excellent.

It's that road, as I'm sure you know, is is a very tough road

getting out there to really touch the public as an archeologist, not say you do

not just rewrite your dissertation again and be like, oh, that's public outreach.

No, it's not that.

You got to go, you know, YouTube, podcasts,

television appearances, whatever, and and how.

Many people are basically and absolutely adapt to the new content.

We can't just longform pull the course fun to do as I tend to do

but we can't forget that Tik Tok and all the new media

that's getting out there in a shorter attention span, there's a few that to.

What degree.

Content, but we're far in between on that side.

I'm also starting to come up in the age where I really I don't understand

take or talk.

I can't really get through on it, but.

Oh yeah, I know, yeah.

And we can't do everything, you know, like I think about that for myself.

It's like I have a YouTube channel,

you know, and I enjoy doing it, but what I want to do Tik tok.

Oh, God, I got your hand.

You know, you sort of have to choose one or two or three, and you can't do.

Ten different social media outlets all the time

now takes take some takes a little effort there.

So yeah, it's

it's it's a difficult position

you know with where we find ourselves in with kind of a push pull on both sides.

You have the the crazy Graham Hancock world that you have to deal with.

But then if you go deal with it, you worry

that the academic side will be like, Oh, he's not a real academic anymore.

Let us shun him.

Yeah, we need to be more open towards our own and well,

many of us do public outreach, for example, here, as we do many excavation

have public days for the public, come and visit the sites and talk.

And there's a lot of that going on.

I'm not sure how you do it in America.

Do you have this type of public archeology where you can go

and visit the site and get to talk with archeology sometimes?

FIELD Yeah, sometimes it depends.

Sometimes that's kind of in the United States.

Sometimes that's a national parks thing

where they have sort of an archeology aspect.

Sometimes in the United States, some of the archeology sites

have to be kept a bit secret because of looting and that kind of stuff.

So it's a it's a tough

it's a very tough balance.

You have like the indigenous communities in the United States.

So you have to kind of keep in the loop, you know, to make sure you're not doing

anything untoward for for those guys, you know.

So it's a again, you're walking the tightrope yet again,

you know, with this kind of thing.

But you want to have public outreach.

And we have things there's local stuff like Archeology Day.

We had one of those a couple of months ago,

which, which I thought it it went pretty well.

But getting the word out for that kind of stuff needs to happen, too.

Sometimes we'll have like an archeology day

at the maybe at the university or at the local state park or whatever,

which will be great, but maybe not enough people know it is happening, you know?

So yeah.

So I just need to step. Out the. Trial and

social media and promotion and all of that.

Yeah.

And, and say yes to like I've given talks

that are, that aren't in archeology groups like there was a

astronomy group that that wanted me to talk

there was a geology group that wanted me to talk and so that's

you know it's, it's again outside the comfort zone. It's a different group.

I love doing stuff like that, you know, because because you're you're go

you're going into the lion's den into where it's not comfortable.

It's something different.

And that can be really fun.

Yeah, definitely something to keep in mind when they talk with each other.

But Andrew, I will let you go here in a moment,

but what would you like to see in season

two of Ancient Apocalypse?

Oh, man.

Season two of ancient Apocalypse.

Oh, I know what I would

I Here's what I wanted to see in season two of ancient Apocalypse.

All right?

I want it to be like season two, The Revenge.

Where all of

all of the estates

of of the all pseudo archeologists from like 100 years ago,

they all sued Graham in court for libel because he's stolen all their ideas.

Right. So that's what I want.

I want season two of ancient Apocalypse to be in the courtroom.

That's what I want.

There you go. That's my dream. That sounds amazing.

Courtroom drama with the Donnellys.

Yeah. Blah. Vaccinations. Definitely.

That's one of my faves.

We're the Estate of Ignatius Donnelly Sues

Graham Hancock for Plagiarism.

Oh, I would watch that.

Definitely.

And Law and Order style, everything is a big array and.

The same production value that they used on the Netflix show

with the with the music, you know, like bom bom bom.

So Mr.

Hancock, you know, like, that's it writes itself, man.

They're definitely do definitely do.

I need to go and write a script for that and pitch to Netflix.

Yeah.

Okay. Andrew thank you very much.

And if people want to hear more of you

and see more of your where should I head out to?

The top two places would be simply

the Pseudo Archeology podcast, which comes out once every two weeks.

I believe it comes out on every other Wednesday.

That's part of the

the Upon the Archeology podcast network.

And then I also have my YouTube channel.

King Keller teaches archeology where I upload videos.

So once a week at most, sometimes

I get a little lazy and it's once every three weeks depending, you know.

But but it is current and and so those are the two great places you can always

write in the comments in, in those worlds and I can get back to you in that manner.

Great.

Thank you very much for your time and have a great.

Hey, same to you, Fredrik. It's been great.

Thank you so much for asking me on.

Thank you again, Dr.

Kinkella. You'll find this Pseudoarchaeology with Dr. Kinkella

and this YouTube channel.

Kinkella teaching archeology in the shownotes.

Next time we will close to Hancock's saga.

We will look at Göbekli Tepe, Bimini Road, and the Scablands.

We are also have a special guest, of course,

nonetheless than Jens Notroff

so make sure to tune in for the finale of this journey.

But till then, remember to leave a positive review anywhere

you can, such as iTunes, Spotify or to your friends.

That's even better actually.

I would also recommend visiting digging up ancient aliens dot

com where you find more info about me and the podcast.

You can also find me on most social media sites

and if you have comments, corrections, suggestions

or just itching to WRITE THAT EMAIL IN ALL CAPS!

I know you do. I know you do.

You can find my contact info on the website

and you'll find all the sources and resources

used to create this podcast on the same website.

You also often find further reading suggestions

if you want to learn even more about the subjects that we bring up here.

Sandra Marteleur created the intro music and our outro is from the amazing band

called Trallskruv, who just released a new EP,

who sings their song Tinfoil hat. Links

to both of these artists can be found in the show notes down below here.

Until next time, keep shoveling that science.