Could Mysteries From Our Past Hold Keys To Our Future?

It doesn't hurt to consider it.

Gobekli Tepe in Turkey.

There are two types of people in this world. No, I’m not talking about “Beatles People” and “Rolling Stones People,” especially since I happen to be both of those people. I am talking about those who like change and those who do not.

This difference seems to extend beyond merely being a preference; there is reason to believe that this is a trait that can be attributed to personality type. To really examine this, we also need to identify what we mean when we say change. An imposed, negative change is probably not desired by anyone. In essence what we are considering is if a person is able to handle changes with ease or if they struggle with them.

There are different characteristics observed between those of us who love change and those who abhor it. Over eighty percent of change-lovers, compared to less than fifty percent of change-abhorrers, actively seek different perspectives from different sources and thus remain mentally flexible. Those who welcome and adapt to change tend to find the process exhilarating.

A characteristic observed in those who do not welcome change is a strong tendency to choose to work and spend time with others who also avoid change, thus their views and patterns are less likely to be challenged. These individuals aren’t interested in frequent job, career, dwelling, relationship or other switches because the uncertainty leaves them stressed, nervous, or cautious. They like the illusion of being in control.

This particular characteristic comes in to play when we look at social organization. Today it is obvious that our society has become very tribal. Politics has broken us into two distinct groups that seem to suck up all the attention; those lost in the middle somewhere are ducking under the crossfire, helplessly observing the warfare. But politics isn’t the only tribal organization we can identify. Throughout history religion has been a classic harbinger of tribal behaviors. Once a tribe becomes comfortable within their structure, they will do almost anything to defend it. They will fight to avoid change.

This urge to defend the status quo has repeatedly manifested itself, namely when we consider the ongoing war between the church and science. More than once Galileo was in the hot seat for refusing to accept church orthodoxy that the Earth was the immovable center of the universe. It was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church to not only hold this belief, but even to think about the possibility. The church has a history of butting heads with thinkers; Darwin, Newton, and Descartes all faced push back against their ideas and theories, many of which are commonly accepted today.

It seems as though, should any institution such as a political party or a religion decree an idea or theory to be false, all those indoctrinated under their umbrella will also agree that the idea or theory is false. It appears that archeology is not immune to this virus of the mind.

Ggantjia on Malta.

Skepticism is healthy, it is what fuels discovery. Quieting ideas rather than discussing and legitimately disproving them is where things take a turn to the dark side. It is one thing to disagree, it is another to censor and attack. It almost seems as though those in power wish to quiet and eliminate thinking itself just to avoid rocking the boat. There can be no questioning the narrative, not even with evidence, logic or rational thinking. By simply questioning the status quo, you’d be labelled a heretic.

Recurring attacks of this nature, waged by archeologists, seem to plague Graham Hancock. From the opening frames of the Netflix series “Ancient Apocalypse” and throughout its eight episodes, Hancock seems somewhat bitter about having been drug through the mud.

In fact, Hancock makes no claim of being an archeologist; he is an investigative journalist. His investigations have led him to explore the world; he has set foot on the sands of archeological sites I can only dream of witnessing in person. Along the way, Hancock has observed things that don’t perfectly align with the version of world history that is currently taught in our institutions. His refusal to allow these discoveries to remain in the dark has resulted in consistent attacks on not only his ideas, but on him personally.

Passing Thoughts and Revelations is pretty much a newsletter that glorifies thinking and encourages curiosity. Seeking new perspectives and reconfiguring our view of the world is what we do here! After having listened to a few podcasts touching on the general subject of the Younger Dryas Impact hypothesis, I was curious to learn more. Hancock’s new Netflix series seemed like a great way to share the evidence that had compelled him to question the current narrative. I was ready to learn in greater detail exactly what had inspired so much criticism.

At no point throughout this eight episode series did I witness Hancock insist his theories are the official story of our past. His goal seems to be in prompting us to question and think about the evidence he’s unearthed. While he has been showered with ridicule and name calling, basically the least relevant arguments against any proposed idea, actual counter evidence has not been presented. Not beyond the “settled science” that dictates the timeline of events and peoples throughout history. Just as the church wanted to silence Galileo, archeologists wish to silence Hancock by casting him aside as a crazy “pseudoscientist.”

I wanted to see for myself exactly how a journalist uncovering and considering evidence and data could be threatening to anyone. There are certainly some things in the series that are truly thought provoking, that raise questions about cornerstones of modern day thinking. It seems that if the evidence would lead any rational person to question the current narrative, archeologists have decided it is better to mock it as insane than to allow exploration, further research or offer a rational counterargument. What might these archaeologists be afraid of?

The Great Pyramid of Cholula in Mexico.

The series guides us through many lesser known archeological sites, such as Gobekli Tepe, Bimini Road and Gunung Padang. We learn about the largest pyramid on Earth, The Great Pyramid of Cholula, which was mistaken for a hill. So much so that Spanish conquistadors actually built a church upon it, symbolic interpretation probably unintended. We uncover neanderthal teeth found in Ghar Duna, which could imply a human presence on Malta during the last ice age, before it was an island, before humans were supposed to have arrived.

We study maps like the Piri Reis map, essentially an amalgam of ancient maps, which indicates early civilizations possessed the means to travel and map the globe, a much more advanced undertaking than hunter gatherers from the time could have achieved. We connect similarities shared by sites strewn across the globe; the local folklore and site imagery all seem to be telling slightly different versions of the same story. We learn about hidden, underground rooms in many of the sites, rooms that may never have been opened. What might we learn about our past from opening them?

Gunung Padang in Indonesia.

It is not Hancock alone who has fallen under the spell of these sites and the questions they impose. At each site, Hancock speaks with an expert who has studied the site extensively. Geologist Danny Hilman Natawidjaja’s investigation of Gunung Padang has indicated that the site was probably built by an advanced civilization 24,000 years ago. Professor Necmi Karul of Istanbul University leads us through Karahan Tepe. It seems to be about 12,000 years old, coinciding with the introduction of agriculture in the area, as though the hunter gathers of the era had suddenly inherited both agricultural and architectural sophistication.

The scientists or guides at the various sites, living daily in the presence of such compelling evidence, seem to be asking the same questions Hancock is.

The series culminates with an episode that ties everything together. You could just watch that episode for a summary of everything that was covered earlier in more detail, but you’d probably end up joining the chorus of programmed nay-sayers. It is important to go on these journeys, to actually see the evidence Hancock is seeing and judge it for yourself.

Derinkuyu in Turkey.

The primary, real world effect of subscribing to Hancock’s suggested version of human history isn’t that controversial. He believes that the similarities between various sites around the world perhaps point to a warning for modern day humans, a warning of the Earth’s passing through a particularly savage portion of the Taurid Meteor Stream. This information is certainly observable and uncontroversial. Only recently N.A.S.A. tested our ability to alter the course of an asteroid. It seems only obvious that we pay attention to the space around us and attempt to avoid a possible collision should we see one coming.

I think it is more likely that the underlying implications that an alternate timeline could suggest is what has gotten archeologists up in arms. If a cataclysmic event had erased an entire civilization from the face of this planet, we’d need to acknowledge that it could happen again. It certainly makes the warnings collected from archeological sites more ominous. It is much more comfortable to believe that things have been quiet and still since the dinosaurs; a somewhat recent global armageddon is not a comforting thought.

If an advanced civilization, or civilizations, had existed during the last ice age, we would also have to face the fact that we are not necessarily at the pinnacle of human development. We would have to question our conclusions, we’d need to erase the idea of “settled science” from our consciousness. This is an upsetting idea for anyone who has built their beliefs or careers upon the foundation of the current model of human history.

The timeline of human history that we were graded on in school has no room for an advanced civilization living during the last ice age.

Those who welcome changes, or who could be attributed with having a Renaissance Personality, often stay calm when things change. They know better than to cling to what they know, than to become attached to ideas that are fluid, for fear they might miss out on something better. These are my people; the “early adopters” of new technology and policies who are always seeking new or better ways of doing things. These are the people who move humanity forward.

For those of us who enjoy change, these potential discoveries about our past are exhilarating. Even though we have only a few clues to cling to, just thinking about them feels wonderful.

It’s easy for me to let go of conventional thinking surrounding human history because I am so disappointed in us. In humanity. It would be inspiring to know that we are capable of more, that we are capable of better. It would inspire hope to believe that we have potential not yet seen in our version of history. The fact that I want to believe is something I try to separate as I continue to investigate. I am open to scenarios which challenge currently accepted beliefs, but I remain always skeptical. I am intrigued by the evidence and remain aware that the stories arising from this evidence are speculative. We’ll perhaps never know the truth.

I share my healthy skepticism with quite a few people, but there are plenty of cynics as well. In reading reviews of the series, I noticed some had concluded its findings were pseudoscience simply based upon the presence of Joe Rogan as a commentator. As someone who has witnessed detailed and nuanced discussions on his podcast, I find this association confusing. Whomever succeeded in convincing the masses that Joe Rogan is solely a purveyor of pseudoscience was quite brilliant; they most certainly have helped shield the status quo and mute open mindedness. I suppose it is not surprising then that those whose views differ from the mainstream narrative have found a home on the JRE podcast.

If you prefer to asses data and information for yourself, you may enjoy this series. If you are open to change, you may enjoy this series. If you are not quick to judge, you may enjoy this series. If you enjoy the process of contemplation, you might enjoy this series. If you enjoy a good mystery, you might find that there is enough here to warrant a closer look.

I believe that a fair and open assessment of the evidence within the series is Hancock’s ultimate goal. Rather than destroying his credibility, perhaps archeologists and citizens alike might be wise to look, to think, and to speculate about the implications of a human history that stretches back further than we ever imagined.