Graham Hancock (Netflix Ancient Apocalypse) VS ARCHAEOLOGISTS: A British ex-archaeologist RESPONDS

Graham Hancock's recent series on Netflix, Ancient Apocalypse, has attracted a lot of attention, including negative attention by traditional archaeologists. Graham Hancock is widely described as a pseudo-archaeologist, which is a title that he denies. Here is my look, as a former-archaeologist and current historian, at some fundamental problems with how Graham Hancock treats and speaks about archaeologists, as well as some criticisms of traditional archaeology and history.

3 extra videos each month on Patreon, which hugely helps support this channel:

Facebook & Twitter updates, info and fun:

Schola Gladiatoria HEMA - sword fighting classes in the UK:

Matt Easton's website & Pinterest:

Easton Antique Arms:

[MasterPoucksBestMan]

I'm not an archaeologist but as someone trained in linguistic anthropology (MA), I can say that different disciplines definitely need to communicate more. I don't have training in geology or archaeology, but if an archaeology expert told me that the homeland of the Proto-Indo-Europeans (wherever that actually is) had none of a certain type of animal or tree, etc, that the majority of Indo-European languages have a commonly derived word for, then I would tell them that the PIE homeland probably isn't where that archaeologist thinks it is. And then when they found out that I was a linguist and not an archaeologist, they would probably call me a pseudo-archaeologist and tell me to stick to my field. That attitude is the antithesis of the scientific method.

[TheZinmo]

One example I really love: The hairdresser, who showed, that when Romans wrote about "sewing" hair, they meant exactly that: Using the same needles and thread to build a hairstyle that you would use to sew a tunika. She proved it by making all that hairstyles that you can see on the coins, the statues, etc. No "normal" historian - wo was not a hairdresser- could have done that.

[thechroniclesofthegnostic]

You nailed it, Matt. Balance is the key.

"At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes--an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense." -Carl Sagan

[terminusest]

Ex archaeologist here too - i dropped it as i got fed up with people blowing their extremely routine work out of all proportion to gain unreasonable amounts of funding. To the point that some really deranged rubbish was hypothesised and funded. Hancock is clearly a hobbyist, but he recieved some unnecessary backlash for some of what he says. Some of it is undeserved, but not all. In my book though, he is welcome to crack on and i stand ready to be convinced by either side. As a final point, we've known about astronomical procession for a long time, and the fact that ancient monuments line up with stars at certain points in history is not an accident. It just isnt statistically possible that dozens if not hundreds of monuments line up with stars at certain dates. There are some monuments that are unquestionably older than originally believed, but uow much more is up for study.

[tinshedgames]

Totally agree. I can give you a prime example. Way back in 2016, I was asked to come in and discuss working with a Particular city Museum for the 2017 East Riding City of Culture. When it came to the Civil war Display .I was informed it wasn't a priority as it wasn't a pivotal point in the City's History.
Having rather vocally contradicted this particular member of the museum team. I eventually received an email saying that the cities museum's could nolonger afford our services.( We were giving our services for free.).

[diktatoralexander]

Most of Hancocks criticism of archeology is largely true of the older ones, perhaps back when he started he was faced with alot of close minded skepticism. But he himself is often guilty of the very things he acuses archeologists of; he sticks too much to his own specific theory and uses just the facts that support his theory.

There's nothing against there being a civilization/people who existed pre-end of ice age time. But he is so intent on proving this that fundamentals go out the window.

[queery]

I love it when you make Videos that go a bit beyond the normal topic of this chanel. It's impressive to watch your expertize on many topics and you have a very nice way to explain your opinion without stating that you must have everything right.

[michaelsmith]

Scholagladiatoria is an archeologist? He's literally Indiana Jones with a sword.

[chadherbert]

Narrow viewpoints vs. Broad viewpoints. Interdisciplinary perspectives are difficult to come by. A team of experts with a couple broad-perspective enthusiasts, in my opinion, have a better chance of thinking outside the box, thus finding new leads, while also keeping methodologies and fact-checking tight.

[chrisball]

There was a story in the press last week about an amateur researcher who came up with a theory about some tally-like marks found in Ice-age cave art. He had determined that they might represent a type of lunar calendar relating to the reproductive cycles of animals. Did the professional archaeologists in the field shut him down, like Graham Hancock says they've done to him? No. They looked at his theory, thought it sounded plausible, encouraged him to do more research and helped him write and publish a scientific paper about it that is now being taken seriously and discussed and debated by experts in the field. These are some of the EXACT same people (experts on human prehistory and the Ice Ages) who Graham Hancock says are all a closed-minded clique.

Good scientists and historians are open to new evidence, even from outsiders. Academics aren't interested in Graham Hancock's theories because they're new or different, but because they're utter nonsense that only seems plausible to people who don't know much about the subjects he discusses. He's also completely lying when he says that they're repressing his research- he's got a far bigger platform and far more money than pretty much any serious archaeologist has- making up ridiculous BS about Atlantis has given him a lot more success than years of study and hard work have given serious academics and researchers.

[almac]

I'm a retired electronics engineer. We used to class an expert as the person who was one page ahead of the rest in the book.

[mgtowvalues]

As an epistemologist with a history background, I am going to say that the best to do is to state clearly and opening when one does not know something, and knowledge (as the very subject of epistemology) must be clearly itself defined. Thus, as opposed to scientism, it would be better to include at the top of the list what cannot be explained by archeologists and we can move forward together from there. Equally, it would be good to have at the top of archeologists' contribution to the community at large, when they have gotten something majorly wrong.

Archeology is not a modern science as experimentation is not a major component, as it also is with epistemology; as a result, interpretation is a main feature of archeology aside from the uncovering of artifacts. However, interpretation as hermeneutics cannot be done in a vacuum - thus all interpretation must be coherent across all of human history, otherwise such explanations are at best ad hoc and at worst incoherent.

Best of luck and fixing the problems.

[samuelheol]

Hey everyone and thanks Matt for your content! As someone who studied Celtic Studies I am 100% behind the idea of more interdisciplinary work and better communication between sciences. Whenever you examine any culture (of the past or present), you need more than one discipline - and this just one example I can speak of...
Scientist of all fields unite!

[DidMyGrandfatherMakeThis]

I agree with what you are saying, especially about pooling knowledge. Myself and a few others set up a fiori group in Cornwall some years ago. It was three people, one of whom was a martial artist, one who was a reenactor and experimental historian and one who was a living history practitioner. On our own, we had three entirely different perspectives of how to follow the different parts of fiori's pictures but together we could pool our knowledge and expertise and much better understand the source material.

[Tubespoet]

Absolutely loved this video, so sensible and well balanced, the academic equivalent of knocking some heads together! I am so looking forward to a video about the great migration period.

[epyjacek]

This needed to be said and must be said more often. We must rely on each other in the advancement of knowledge. We must present and try to uncover more evidence with public discourse between experts interpreting the evidence freely without fear of careers ending or being damaged.

[joshyaks]

"Don't run towards ignorance; run towards knowledge and science." -Matt Easton (Great quote!)

[jakeaseva]

I have had some of the most fundamental disagreements of my later years/academic years as an archaeologist on site. Whether a hole is a beam slot or a pit… this is the kind of discussion that takes place on a regular day in the academic profession. Regarding Hancocks love to hate archaeologists, there are many superficial elements which have nothing to do with an academic discussion. I liked your analogy of a sales pitch, it sums this up well. An archaeological perspective is an academic notion poorly portrayed outside of the academic community, the essence of archaeological dissemination. While we can never place our selves in the past, our interactions with it give us great insight. Landscape is my specific passion and it influences my archaeological interpretations more than most. A simple result of this is that archaeological situation and context must reflect the landscape they inhabit. The further back in time we go, the more this is the case. We are not only informed by artefactual and landscape context, we are influenced by it. Archaeology is the study of ‘culture’ and human decision, while science gives us unlimited information on date, function, design and purpose, the ‘heritage’ of an object or place is a result of human decision. Most of the points used against Hancock are interpretations borne through this academic approach, scientific analysis of dna in hominids and fauna and flora all suggest that the mainstream understanding of the civilisation of archaic humans is correct. This is a challenging notion to debate for the most esteemed academic.

When applied to Hancock’s ‘stories’, It can be argued that this approach has been at least considered, but it has failed to coalesce ALL of the available data. And this is where your video sums up perfectly. There are very few experts who have the ability or time to approach all academic questions their work may spring and unfortunately they feel the right to draw assumptions on the perhaps little information they have. In archaeology, this is a problem definitely. It must be stated though, many experts working in specific fields are vastly knowledgeable people in that field. Cross communication works when there is a medium for it to be discussed.

[Justice-ian]

I don't disagree with your overall point about archaeologists, but you certainly chose odd analogies to support it. Almost everyone who uses bows, cars, or rifles learned - quite successfully - from parents, uncles, etc. rather than "experts" in the sense Hancock means.

[daniel__clark]

In support of your summing up, I think channels like this and others like Tod's are great. You both welcome comments which in turn prompts more thought and challenges to that which is understood. These comments sections promote discussions on subjects from people that would never normally meet, but it provides a forum for experts and amateurs to improve the knowledge pool.
Thank you for the content.
(An enthusiastic amateur)