Ancient Apocalypse is a lazy racist mess.

By Courtney John Lawrence

Here are my thoughts on the new Netflix "documentary" series Ancient Apocalypse: it's a problematic mess. I will give the series that it is gorgeously shot and it makes the visited archaeological sites look amazing. But it is a mess in theory and execution.

To start off, using the idea of similarities to assume a connection established by an "advanced global civilization". By Graham Hancock assuming multiple megalithic and pyramid sites are connected because they all required the carving and movement of large stones, and because some of them show similar symbols (i.e. snakes) ignores multiple factors. His assumption ignores the cultural and spiritual differences of these very different populations from various environments and locations. It ignores their own capabilities and is based on racist ideologies, whether or not Hancock is willing to address that factor. Furthermore, it ignores the differences of the structures built and it both ignores and generalizes why they were built. And it ignores that many of the structures with snakes as symbols are in locations which, surprise, have snakes.

Another big issue with Ancient Apocalypse is the problem of sample size. For example, there is a point where Hancock sees two semi-symmetrical giant rocks amidst hundreds of other large rocks in an underwater location and claims megalithic site because of those two items. Another example is when Hancock refers to stone axes recovered nearby that are aligned to the date for his larger theory (while ignoring the many sites in the region where more recently dated stone axes have been recovered). It is then not surprising that Hancock does not mention key details while making some of his claims.

An additional factor is the issue of defensiveness and contradiction. You do not have to go far into the "documentary" series to witness Hancock claiming "mainstream archaeologists ignore" (which is not always the case in reality, for the record) and "mainstream archaeologists claim". This is intended to make his claims appear more valid despite the fact his theories mostly ignore the large body of archaeological, oral and written historical evidence. And there is the issue of contradiction in this defensiveness. As an example, the third episode begins with him claiming cultural evolution is not linear (to legitimize his theory of an "advanced global civilization"), and yet, Hancock constantly asserts that the local Indigenous (usually) hunter-gatherer societies were incapable of building those structures at their then stage of development. Or he claims they may have been capable (in one scenario) but then acts like there was no way the local inhabitants could be the original builders without the influence of this "advanced global civilization".

I will also add on, part of his theory involves Atlantis. It is important to note that the only ancient writer who wrote of Atlantis was Plato, a philosopher not a historian. And the supposed "father of History" in ancient Greece, Herodotus, never mentioned Atlantis, nor did Thucydides. It is important to ask why only Plato mentions Atlantis out of the plethora of ancient writers. Bringing this factor up on my behalf is not to ignore the fact that some bodies of land did end up underwater in the past (i.e. Doggerland). But to make a claim like Atlantis being the location (or one of them) of a supposed "advanced global civilization" does not fit the overwhelming evidence.

In short, this "documentary" series makes a lot of claims but does not provide sufficient evidence to support them. Additionally, Hancock is using lazy tactics to make his claims, while promoting anti-intellectualism with his defensive approach.?The theories promoted in this series are also based in outdated racist ideologies intended to undermine the capabilities of Indigenous populations and people of color. If you decide to watch it, please do so carefully and while applying critical thought regarding what is being shown.