- A reaction to the first episode of Ancient Apocalypse
I’m on my sofa, several weeks after ‘Ancient Apocalypse’ debuted on Netflix - classified as a docuseries. Just after the two minute mark Hancock says “that automatically makes me enemy number one to archaeologists”. That might be one of the few truths of this, clearly science fiction, show.
It has even gone so far that the Society of American Archaeology published an open letter to Netflix and the tv production house ITN. With this letter they want Netflix to re-classify Hancock’s series as a science fiction series rather than a docuseries.
Not only is he extremely aggressive towards archaeologists, people who have spent the majority of their lives studying different theories to know how to apply them, by saying
“Perhaps there’s been a forgotten episode in human history. But perhaps the extremely defensive, arrogant and patronising attitude of mainstream academia is stopping us from considering that possibility.”
The thing is, he is not presenting any proof whatsoever and without this proof what he is saying is just an unfound theory - pure speculation. There is no proof, or even indication, for an advanced society prior to the Ice Age. We know this, because we actually looked!
In the first episode, “once there was a flood” he starts off by claiming archaeologists think the first civilisation was 6000 years ago. We know for a fact that this is not true, the Pre/Pottery Neolithic (PPN) in the Middle East is a great example of a civilisation prior to 6000 BCE (you can read our summary on the PPN site Tell Qaramel here). Hancock proceeds by saying that the site of Gunung Padang in Indonesia was thought to be “just another hill” until recently - what he fails to mention is that the first scientist visited the site in 1890 which is not recent, in fact, that’s around the time when archaeology as a science truly begins. About half a century ago, a scientist presented the theory that the hill was mainly man made, this was however disproven when a geologist performed some analyses on the hill and discovered that it is actually a dead volcano not a man made pyramid. What we see as a hill, or pyramidal shape, is actually the neck of the dead volcano. Whether the terraces are man-made can be debated, and it is probably safe to say that we do not know - however the cone shaped hill it stands on itself is natural and the argument that the stones that make up the terraces would never occur diagonally is factually wrong.
In the episode they are fascinated by a void deep in the hill found by ground penetrating radar, claiming it is something extraordinary. They are fascinated as it looks almost rectangular, but what they fail to mention is that old lava tunnels are often slightly rectangular in its shape after the lava has drained out and it has cooled down - but hey! Why would they consider presenting facts that do not support their theory when they have not even excavated this void? Moreover, even if we entertain the idea that the voids found in the hill are man-made, we know that people dug down into the ground to create burial chambers under structures long ago (just look at the tombs in Egypt!).
I’ve spoken to a volcanologist, who has explained that the columnar jointing, which is how several igneous rocks are formed, can be horizontal as well as vertical - and this is the kind of stones that make up the terraces But even if it is man-made, it is very unlikely if not impossible that the whole hill which the megalithic structure stands on is man-made. After taking earth cores from around 15 metres into the hill, Hancock explains that the columns were laid ca 9800 BCE. Now it is important to remember that when the columns are carbon dated, it is actually the organic material under the flowing lava that is dated. He proceeds by coring even further down, to ca 30 metres, where they say they found a structure that could date to 20,000 years ago. Key word being could. Hancock then proceeds by saying that the cores pulled out datable organic material. But do we know when this volcano erupted last, could that impact this or are the dates just wrong?
Now, rocks and geological sediments cannot be carbon dated, and without knowing what in the cement they dated we can definitely not know the validity of it. Without going into too much detail on carbon dating, it is important to point out that carbon dating needs to be calibrated and one should always take more than one sample. They claim there are two cultural layers at the site, the first one dating to 500 BCE and the second one 5,200 BCE, but yet again will not tell us anything else about them. The first of these dates seem to be accepted in the archaeological community, but anything older is questioned. Adding the dates they claim to have got from the earth core and we reach 9,800 BCE and ca 22,000 BCE. The problems with throwing out sentences like “we carbon dated this to 20,000 years ago” are 1) the general public do not know how carbon dating works and 2) if you tell them convincingly enough they will believe it. Hancock is not an archaeologist, and it is doubtful that he knows the ins and outs of carbon dating - not even all archaeologists know it to 100%!
A number of Indonesian archaeologists question the analysis and motives of the research Hancock bases this episode on - it has often been described as pseudoarchaeology. Even if we try to accept these conclusions, they go about it the wrong way. Archaeology finds traces of humans like artefacts first, then it is dated and the artefact is researched to see if it fits into any known material culture of a civilisation. Here, they found “something”, dated it and created a whole civilisation around it. Hancock is so obsessed with his theory he is fabricating and twisting evidence to explain it.
What is important to point out is that the results the archaeologist Hancock is interviewing has come under a lot of criticism for irregularities and errors, both for practical application and theoretical interpretation of the data. Because of this, we might want to proceed with caution when it comes to believing these outlandish claims.
Graham Hancock can look for his pre-Ice Age advanced society until he finds it, but there is no evidence for it and he should not pretend there is. It is all his theory. Nothing more than that. And just stop saying “new” evidence is not being accepted in archaeology when you do not present ANY evidence at all.
Netflix, re-classify this. This is not a docuseries - it is science fiction.
Ignoring sound science, making up your own interpretations without any evidence, and using a platform most archaeologists can only dream of to spread falsehoods most definitely makes you an enemy to archaeologists and academia who devote their lives to uncovering the past and finding the truth.
As Hancock said “that automatically makes me enemy number one to archaeologists”, and that we can agree on.
Text: Anna Sunneborn Gudnadottir. MENAM Archaeology. Copyright 2022.
Further reading:
And if you want scientific sources for the episode:
On when Gunung Padang was visited:
Rogier Diederik Marius Verbeek, Oudheden van Java: lijst der voornaamste overblijfselen uit den Hindoetijd op Java, met eene oudheidkundige kaart (Batavia: Landsdrukkerij, 1891), p. 43.
On the geology of Gunung Padan: Bronto, Sutikno; Langi, Billy B (2017). "Geologi Gunung Padang dan Sekitarnya, Kabupaten Cianjur–Jawa Barat" [Geology of Mount Padang and its Surroundings, Cianjur Regency–West Java]. Jurnal Geologi Dan Sumberdaya Mineral. 17 (1): 37–49.
For an overview of conspiracy theories regarding Gunung Padang and outlandish claims that have been disproven by science:
García, L.C.P., 2017. Gunung Padang y el megalitismo indo-malayo: Arqueología y pseudoarqueología. Arqueoweb: Revista sobre Arqueología en Internet, 18(1), pp.62-104.
Images:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Situs_Megalitikum_Gunung_Padang_Cianjur.jpg
コメント