Anthropology Graduate REACTS To Ancient Apocalypse | Responding To Graham Hancock's New Netflix Show

In today's video, I will be reacting the new Netflix series Ancient Apocalypse starring Graham Hancock. As an anthropology graduate who has studied archaeology, I was shocked by some of the arguments made in this show...as well as the lacking evidence that came with them. Ancient Apocalypse explores the possibility of an ancient and highly intelligent society that does not appear within the archaeological record. What are your thoughts on the show? Let me know in the comments!

Who am I? My name is Alivia Brown and I am a recent UCLA Anthropology graduate on a mission to find a career that I love. My major does not have a straight forward "path" as many would say and I am not only determined to prove that I can be successful in my major but also demonstrate my ability to find a career that brings me joy. This is my journey to expanding my global and anthropological knowledge. This is my journey to finding the best career I can. This is my journey to finding happiness. This is my journey to success.

UCLA Anthropology:

Want to support me?

CHECK OUT SOME OF MY OTHER ANTHROPOLOGY VIDS:

FOLLOW ME ON GOODREADS!

FOLLOW ME ON INSTAGRAM:

Keywords: UCLA Anthropology Classes, Anthropology Major, UCLA Anthropology Major, Anthropology Major requirements, College Classes, UCLA student, Anthropology student, UCLA Anthropology, biological, archaeology, linguistic, college campus, choosing a major, STEM, Math, biology, history, english, social sciences, college junior, UCLA junior, why anthropology, anthropology major, UCLA Campus, Anthropology Career, Anthropology Job, Anthropology Internship, Anthropology Job Ideas, Psychology

Sources:

If you would like to help me connect with other Anthropology students, I would love it if you would like and subscribe! It goes a long way and I am hoping to create the best possible Anthropology community. Thank you and stay safe out there!

[AliviaBrown]

Did you know I wrote a course on human evolution? 🧬🦍🦧🐒🌱🌳

[mikecollins]

"times in history when we think we know all there is to know".. Like soon after graduation.

[bobbray]

It's probably easy to dismiss some of the artifacts that Hancock presents as from a higher technology, but the totality of all of the megalithic structures is a big red flag that we really don't understand our past. If you try to wrap your head around the precision of some of these, it's really jaw dropping. How can some surfaces "hand made" by our ancestors be flatter than glass? How were those incredibly symmetrical and very thin hard stone vases made, found at Saqqara? Modern masons say it would be hard to do today with our most accurate laser guided diamond tools. How were the incredibly symmetrical Rameses Statues made? Just too many of these artifacts around to dismiss that humans could have been possibly more sophisticated than we are today, at least in working and transporting 100 ton granite pieces, carving and stacking them with enough precision that you can't fit a piece of paper between them. No one can explain how these could have been made with copper and bronze tools or how giant stone pieces can be quarried from one mountaintop and moved to another mountaintop.

Ruins in Peru were roughly repaired by the Incas and it's been written that the Incas said the base stones were not made by them.

It seems that since we can't explain, we ignore. Hancock is not alone in his questioning. There are many others in the science community who also think many of these structures are way older than what has been published. If humans have been in existence for 300k years, why have we only recently become tremendously more technologically advanced than the the previous 299, 800 years?

If the earth gets smashed by a large meteorite tomorrow, solar flare, etc., it'll be rinse/repeat again - assuming we as a species survives.

[stevenpipes]

Doesn't unearthing a 12, 000 year old megalithic site move this theory firmly into the category of fact? If not please explain any theory of Gobekli Tepe that logically describes how Neanderthals created art carved in stone. Also anyone who hasn't at least considered the work of David Talbot, Wall Thornhill, and Anthony Paratt, can in no way have considered all possibilities about ancient civilizations.

[dazpazaz]

What you've seemed to miss is that all of the ancient structures addressed here, across geography and millenia have the same underlying template based in the precessional number system / geometry and astrological alignments.

[mikekeenan]

Literally almost all cultures have a great flood legend. Not just one or two.

[theresearcher]

I thought the most interesting bits in the series were about astronomy and myth. It's easy to forget (living in our light polluted cities), how important the stars / heavens would have been to our ancestors and how much energy they would have put into trying to understand the cosmos and how / why it seemed to shift over time.

[sulai]

2:00 you keep referencing the believed ancient society to be a society of "highly intelligent" people. I think the point is, in hancocks theories, they are thought to be highly *civilized*, as in, they got technical ability to realize amazing structures with unbelievable precision. Some of them even hard to produce with modern day technology. In my mind being intelligent is a trait unrelated to the membership of a society. At least for a large part.

[hglundahl]

9:29 There is one thing with accepting _some_ single feature could culturally converge.

Thor Heyerdahl, well before Hancock, had made lists of items that were just a bit too many between, for instance, South American high cultures and Polynesia, for "convergent evolution" to be a very great explanation.

Add to this the indigenous stories in Polynesia or some ancestor arriving from a direction corresponding to South America. Then Thor Heyerdahl provided proof that the voyage could be made in pre-modern vessels of types which could be realistically theorised in the area.

[douglascain]

Hancock has been studying archeological sights for decades and made it his career. He has collected enormous amounts of information and has thoroughly analyzed it to the best of his ability. Personally, I trust the man to state his beliefs based on the archeological evidence. It's about time that Netflix has given Hancock a platform to express his views. Furthermore, now I believe everything the public education system has taught me about ancient history is wrong. I guess you could say that am happy to jettison my previous confirmation bias.

[theheadshotguys]

Dont forget he ( Hancock)is not a scientist, he is a reporter/journalist and he is reporting on what archaeologists he is communicating with are telling him.

[James-eslu]

Rather than thinking of GH theory as 'complete' from eight 30-min shows, you should think of it as an introduction to the topic. To really understand and learn his theory you need to read his books which as you pointed out are very large. The shows only highlight a very small part of his evidence. In his books he does talk about other possibilities and theories and much more data that could never fit in the 8-part series.

[sarozanu]

I think because of Hancock many ppl now are interested in archeology

[adriangee]

I think you made Graham Hancock's point. Culture A didn't tell culture B there was a great flood, they both experienced it.

[CableAnna]

What I found interesting about the show was that there is a layer of sediment/ground that was found around the globe which included an element that’s not found much on earth and suggested a meteorite and burning or whatever, plus the layers before that had much more mammoth, sabertooth etc. bones but above it not so much.

[Athena]

I have an anthropology degree but it has been awhile since I was in college. I started the netflix show thinking "maybe new stuff has been discovered, obviously there is a lot missing in the time-line". I couldn't get further than half-way through first episode. The drama, the pre determined agenda/confirmation bias, etc. Figured I'd do a little youtube search to see what anthropology thinks and found your video.

[emmakriege]

I really like your empirical approach to Hancock's series! Personally after watching it, my biggest takeaways were regarding his openness to interpreting what we deem as myth/fiction instead as considerable pieces of an anthropological puzzle. Would love to hear your thoughts on this!

[AthenaNKnight]

10:00 about the architecture, the ones with similarities show up worldwide. Now, the logic of just finding the same solution to a problem makes sense on the surface. The problem lies with us not finding that same method. The tech of those structures is still beyond us today. This is from the engineer's perspective.

Dating: The things we know for sure is 4 things
1. The megalithic blocks are the oldest and most durable structures.
2. Simular methods are all over the world.
3. They weren't done with pounding stones and copper chisels.
4. The sites weren't repaired with the same method, indicating reinhabitance.

I've actively looked for evidence to disprove the idea and ended up finding more evidence of support. We need to studdy this more

[benjaminaustin]

Would like to hear a critique that proposes an alternative theory, rather than poking a floors in Hancock's theory. It's a bit cowardly to critique without offering a competing theory, beyond outdated text books, which are just as floored in their own way.

[mcyclonegt]

I have taken a dive into the ancient civilization stuff in the past couple months. The more I dig the more I realize we don't know anything. It's all just fascinating. And we should never put somebody down for exploring and having ideas