Earth’s lost ancient advanced civilization? I don’t know about all that. The real value I got from this book was learning about the ancient history of the first nations peoples spread out along two continents we now call Turtle Island. This isn’t the relatively recent history that I’ve been reading about the past few years. It’s a delve into thousands of years of the past. I think Graham Hancock delivers in presenting some of the latest archeological evidence and scientific disputes, while weaving in his admittedly interesting narrative of an ancient advanced and lost civilization that was located in North America.
While his theory is not definitively proven by the end of the book, there are some very interesting curiosities. Specifically, the uncanny similarities regarding conceptions of the soul and the afterlife journey along the Milky Way, amongst not only dozens of Eastern Woodland tribes (Mohegan, Iroquois, Ojibwa, Algonquin, etc) but also the Plains tribes (Osage, Lakota, Mandan, Pawnee, Hidatsa, Crow, Arapaho, etc). These various tribes have different languages, different customs, and live in vastly different geographical areas, yet they all have very similar afterlife beliefs. Hancock goes on to show how the ancient city of Cahokia along the Mississippi also showed signs of similar beliefs. “What the evidence suggests is the former existence of an ancient North American international religion…a common ethnoastronomy, and a common mythology”.
He takes it a step further by using his vast knowledge of Ancient Egyptian culture to compare their beliefs of the afterlife with the beliefs of the “Native Americans”. He goes in detail and I must say, some similarities seem like more than just coincidence, given how specific some beliefs are. Very interesting stuff.
I loved Hancock’s discussion about the dearth of archeological evidence available because of the sustained violence and ethnocide by the Spanish and British… together called ‘The Conquest’. I learned about two astonishing events of historical erasure. In November 1530, Bishop Juan de Zumarraga burned an Aztec man at the stake in the city of Texcoco, and then proceeded to build a pyramid of thousands of documents, Aztec history, paintings, manuscripts and hieroglyphic writings, “all of which we committed to flames while the natives cried and prayed” (page 445). Over thirty years later, in July 1562 in the city of Mani, Bishop Diego de Landa burned thousands of Mayan codices. He said that these were inhibiting the people from accepting Christianity;
“He noted that the Maya ‘used certain characters or letters, which they wrote in their books about the antiquities and their sciences’, and he informs us ‘we found a great number of books in these letters, and since they contained nothing but superstitions and falsehoods of the devil we burned them all, which they took most grievously and which gave them great pain’” (page 446).
Just imagine all that was lost! While these sections I listed above cover the post-Conquest period, it only comprises about 50 pages of this book. The vast majority of this book goes back much further in time, to investigate some of that lost history.
My biggest interest in picking up this book was learning about the mystery of the “first Americans”. Who were they? When did they arrive? How did they arrive? Ever since a 1964 study published in the journal Science, the consensus has been that the first peoples (the ‘Clovis’ people) arrived 13,600 years ago through the Beringia land bridge and ice free corridor. This was the story I believed to be true (not sure when I first heard it), but then in the November 2011 issue of Scientific American, I read about new evidence of a pre-Clovis site at Buttermilk Creek dated between 18,000 to 15,000 years ago…thousands of years earlier than previously thought. Furthermore, the Beringia land bridge may not have even been used by the first peoples. There is a hypothesis that the first peoples arrived by boat, along the west coast of the continent (Coastal Route theory).
Then I came across a 28 page article in the December 2000 issue of National Geographic that reported a site in central Texas that was dated about 19,000 years ago. But if the ice sheets were at their max level between 22,000 and 19,000 years ago, how did the first peoples get to the continent? There would have been no ice-free corridor at this time. Could this be explained by the Coastal Route theory?
I recently watched the NOVA episode titled ‘Ancient Builders of the Amazon’ on PBS (season 50, episode 3), which presented new evidence of human settlements in the Amazon 50,000 years ago!
And now, with this book, Graham Hancock writes about the 2013 discovery of a 50,000 year old site in the coastal plains of South Carolina. Then he writes about a recent 2017 finding near San Diego published in the scientific journal Nature, of a possible human presence 130,000 years ago! The picture gets murkier and murkier, and while many archaeologists reject the conclusions of those findings, this does raise interesting possibilities.
We know that the earth has been through a series of glacial cycles (or Ice Ages). The previous glacial period would be the PGP, which began about 194,000 years ago and ended 135,000 years ago. At this time, there would have been another ice-free corridor present. Could it be that humans traveled to ‘North America’ way back then? And what are the potential consequences of humans being here that much longer than previously thought? It’s Hancock’s contention that this would have given enough time for an advanced civilization to take root and flourish for millenia. He presents strong scientific evidence that a global cataclysm (a comet debris stream hitting primarily North America but affecting most of the globe) 12,800 years ago, did indeed occur, and that it would have destroyed most of North America, including all the megafauna which we know disappeared around this time (mastodons, saber tooth tigers, giant sloths, cave bears, wooly mammoths, american horse, etc). The sections where he goes into detail describing the horror that would befall North America, and how many of the landmarks we see today that were created by those impacts, was great stuff. After this horrific event, everything in North America would have had to almost start from scratch.
Regarding the first people to arrive, the debate is far from resolved, so I’ll keep reading what I can…even the wackier theories like those of Gavin Menzies. I’m open to all of it!
It was also interesting to learn about the amazing diversity of languages in the Americas. With 42% of the global languages, more than almost anywhere in the world (except strangely in New Guinea), many linguists have argued that it would have been impossible for that amount of languages to have been created in just 13,000 years (as the long standing scientific consensus of the peopling of the ‘Americas’ held). Hancock notes that Papuans had 50,000 years to develop their language diversity, so it never made sense that the extraordinary diversity of languages in the ‘Americas’ would emerge after only 13,000 years. The Amazon region of South America holds the most language diversity in the ‘Americas’ and I enjoyed learning a bit about these Amazonian tribes (the Manchineri, the Apurina, the Aruak, the Choco, the Tukano, the Pano, the Araona, the Munduruku, the Surui, the Karitiana, the Xavante, the Piapoco, the Arawete, the Jivaro, the Mehinaku, the Barasana and the Cashinahua).
Learning about the Amazonian Terra Preta was fascinating. Also called ‘black earth’ or Amazonian Dark Earth (ADE), it is a magnificent indigenous creation to terra form the Amazon with rich soils to be used for generations, without losing any fertility! It really is a miracle soil and is completely human made. Also seen in the NOVA documentary Ancient Builders of the Amazon, this amazing substance is viewed by Hancock as “the product of deliberate, ingenious, organized, focused, scientific activity.” (page 166)
Another interesting nugget was learning about our beliefs concerning how early humans began to travel the seas. Hancock notes how it is believed that the early polynesians began seafaring 3,500 years ago to arrive at their remote islands. In the Scientific American article I noted above, I read how it was estimated that the first humans to island-hop from Asia to Australia likely did so around 45,000 years ago. But only recently have we realized that this seafaring tradition is much older than we previously thought, and even predates homosapiens! Hancock references published articles indicating that ancient rock-art found in the island of Crete, 600 miles off the coast of Greece, was made by Neanderthals.
This leads me to all the various archaeological dating processes. It was a pleasure to learn how they are done (tree ring vs ice core sampling vs radiocarbon dating vs accelerator mass spectrometry C-14 dating vs optically stimulated luminescence dating). While I read in the National Geographic article that Carbon dating is now a fairly accurate science (with a limit of 50,000 years), I’m somewhat doubtful about the accuracy of some of these methods. I suppose I don’t know enough of the nitty-gritty science, but when I read that in 1986, rock art in the Brazilian state of Piaui was dated to be 17,000 years old, then in 2003, more archaeologists dated the rock art to be 36,000 years old, I get a bit skeptical. So who was right? How were they off-the-mark by 19,000 years? How solid can that science be? Could they be off by another 19,000 years? Hell, could that rock art have been made in the 1600s, or last week? If you can be off the mark 19,000 years, then I’m not so sure I can be confident in that dating technique (Carbon 14 dating).
Which leads me to a few critiques. Since Hancock has devoted so much of his life to proving his thesis, I get the feeling he presents things in a way that seems a bit more dramatic, or conclusive, than they really are. For example, in page 403, he notes that “in September 2013, Yingzhe Wu, Mukul Sharma et al. drew attention to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada, where a submerged impact crater with a diameter of 4 kilometers - the Corossol Crater - has been dated to the Younger Dryas Boundary.” This would add to the evidence of a comet strike in North America, wiping out the advanced ancient civilization 12,800 years ago. As I read this, I excitedly went online to view this crater from satellite imagery. And after a few minutes of reading the Wikipedia page, I learned that the dating technique used in the 2013 study referenced by Hancock has since been brought into question, and that scientists now say that the Corossol Crater is in fact tens of millions of years old. So who is right? I don’t expect Hancock to know, but this opposing evidence was not even mentioned in the book. And although it doesn’t disprove his theory of a cosmic cataclysm 12,800 years ago (due to much more reliable ice core evidence), I would have liked to have been made aware of the disputed findings.
Another example is when Hancock is presenting DNA evidence that calls into question some of the ancestry of certain Amazonian tribes. He goes on to write “genetics, unlike archaeology, is a hard science where the pronouncements of experts are based on facts, measurements, and replicable experimentation rather than inferences or preconceived opinions”. He at least concedes that “mistakes are made by geneticists, of course, but it will streamline matters greatly here if we trust the conclusions of specialists working with the latest high-tech tools at the cutting edge of analysis of ancient DNA.” (page 113). I’m glad he added that caveat, because from the light research I’ve done in the past, DNA science is not hard science at all! Where do I start? There’s the example of twin sisters getting their DNA analyzed to find out their ancestral heritage, and coming up with different data for each sister. Then they sent their DNA to another lab, where Middle Eastern ancestry came back (but the sisters didn’t receive any Middle Eastern ancestry in their first set of lab results). Or there’s the example of a Korean man who had his DNA analyzed and found out he was 40% Japanese, and how he had to come to terms with that…his whole identity shaken (because of Japan’s horrendous colonial history in Korea), only to find out that the lab made a subsequent update months later and removed all traces of Japanese ancestry from his file. Talk about an emotional rollercoaster! There’s more stories like that, and when I read the articles, I saw how even the scientists admitted that it was a bit of an art, at least as much as a science. That doesn’t sound like ‘hard science’ to me.
Although I enjoyed this book, I can’t give it more than 3 stars, because some parts did get a bit tedious. I feel there is some fat that could have been trimmed (much like this overly long review) from this 600 page book. At least 100 pages of fat in my estimation. There must be about 10 to 15 pages alone of Hancock railing on the ‘stubborn, overly dogmatic archaeology discipline’. And reading 100 pages on burial mounds and all the possible celestial alignments (from solstitial equinox, to minimum southern moonset, to maximum northern standstill, to summer solstice sunrise and on and on and on), it was getting to a point where I feel he was just drawing lines and making any connections he could with the mounds and the stars/moon/sun.
Anyways, the book is generally well sourced, with many studies and scientific journal publications…although some sources are website articles (which isn’t that great in my opinion), some of which I couldn’t even access when I tried to enter in the URLs.
Overall there is a lot to learn here if you’re looking for information about the deep past of indigenous history. The book is well presented in terms of relatively short chapters and alot of images and diagrams. Just don’t read this looking to be convinced of an ancient lost civilization. You won’t be. Hancock’s previous books are likely to do a better job at that.
And on a somewhat personal note, I just like the guy. Thank you Graham, for dedicating a lot of your time to investigating the ancient first nation peoples! He’s obviously passionate about what he does, and as a bonus, he’s against patriotism as an idea, so he seems like one of the good guys in my book.
I’ll end this review with the words of the German born Peruvian archaeologist and mathematician Maria Reiche, who’s comments to Graham regarding the significance of ancient geoglyphs in South America neatly summarize the ethos of this book:
“They teach us that our whole idea of the peoples of antiquity is wrong - that here in Peru was a civilization that was advanced, that had an advanced understanding of mathematics and astronomy, and that was a civilization of artists expressing something unique about the human spirit for future generations to comprehend” (page 184).