Review: Graham Hancock’s Netflix Series Ancient Apocalypse– Deeply Flawed but Worth Watching

Hancock asks viewers to consider his ideas with an open mind.  So, let’s do that.  I watched the entire 8-part series with my 10-year-old son while researching the sites Hancock visited.  I am not an expert on ancient history but have read and taught this subject and have written about ancient history on this site.  After watching the series, I also reviewed Hancock’s previous books watching some of his YouTube presentations including the recent podcast with Joe Rogan.  Finally, I read and listened to criticisms from archaeologists.  My conclusion is that Ancient Apocalypse is entertaining and informative to a degree.  However, Hancock’s theory of a lost Ice Age civilization that seeded its knowledge in later cultures is unfounded.    

That said, I do believe this series is worth watching which I will explain in the Conclusion. For those interested in why I concluded Hancock’s theories are wrong, I will lay out the reasons below.  There are plenty of experts who have gone through the series pointing out factual errors and omissions.  Instead, I will focus on specific and fatal problems with the logic of Ancient Apocalypse.  

Neolithic Revolution Theory 

To understand the issues raised in Ancient Apocalypse, it is helpful to have some background of the emergence of civilization in the Neolithic Era.  Over the years, archaeologists have developed a timeline of events and innovation known as the Neolithic Revolution, sometimes also referred to as the Agricultural Revolution.  For the sake of brevity, I offer a simplified summary.  After the last Ice Age ended, rising temperatures increased the availability of edible grains, fruits and vegetables leading to larger animal herds.  The new abundance of edible vegetation and wild herds allowed neolithic hunter gatherers around the world to flourish.  These Neolithic people gradually recognized they could rely on wild grains and other plants exchanging their nomadic existence for a more sedentary agrarian lifestyle.   

This change occurred at different times around the world but is believed to have first started in and around the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, a region known as the Fertile Crescent in about 10,000 BC.   As agriculture took hold, towns and walls began growing around fields.  Farming led to more sophisticated tools (including metals), domestication of animals, and other innovations which produced food surpluses.  With excess food, some began specializing in manufacturing tools, pottery, baskets and other products which led to the development of a bartering economy.  Towns grew into cities as social hierarchy and organized religion matured.  Neolithic merchants developed a written form of numbers to record economic transactions which ultimately led to a written language.  The ability to write down thoughts, events, laws, religious beliefs, stories, etc. heralded a new era: recorded history, which can be considered the final element of what we call civilization. 

In oversimplifying this theory, I should add that there was never a single unified agreement about the timeline.  Debates continued over important issues such as when domestication of animals began and whether farming fostered the development of towns or whether settlements led to farming.  Prevailing ideas about the Neolithic Revolution have recently been thrown into doubt, however, by the discovery of Gobekli Tepe in the northern region of the Fertile Crescent (modern Turkey) which will be covered in more depth below.   

Ancient Apocalypse: Theory and Analysis

Hancock is offering a radically new theory on how the Neolithic Revolution began.  Over the course of 7 of the 8 episodes, he visits different ancient sites, sometimes speaking with archaeologists or others he presents as experts. Each site is filmed with HD cameras along with computerized simulations of these sites as they appeared when inhabited.  That part is great and very interesting.  However, what follows is more controversial.  

Hancock asserts that the cultures that built these sites around the world did not do so independently.  Instead, he claims cataclysmic flooding and prolonged comet showers destroyed a previously unknown, advanced civilization by 11,600 BC.  Survivors dispersed around the globe sharing their knowledge with hunter gatherers in the Middle East, Asia and Africa.  

An obvious question arises here.  Where is the evidence of this Ice Age civilization?  Hancock’s answer is that unprecedented flooding and comet impacts during the Younger Dryas (12,900 BC to 11,600BC) destroyed all direct evidence.  

The first major problem can be summed up in the phrase argumentum ad ignorantiam (translated as “appeal to ignorance”) or restated as “the lack of evidence is not evidence.”  Archaeologists have uncovered plenty of animal bones, stone tools, artifacts, and Neolithic human remains from the recent Younger Dryas era.  So why is there nothing remaining from a more advanced civilization that built megaliths and was technologically sophisticated enough to engage in trans-oceanic travel?  Did they not build their own towns and cities or make metal and/or stone tools?  There is absolutely no direct evidence of an advanced Ice Age civilization whatsoever.

Asserting that the lack of evidence supports a conclusion is a logical fallacy.  With no proof, Hancock’s fundamental theory is fatally flawed.  It cannot be proven or disproven because there is nothing to support or refute it.  An unprovable theory is nothing more than that, unproven.   Offering a theory is not problematic by itself but if one is attempting to radically alter the understanding of ancient history, the burden lies with the proponent.  To do that Hancock needs to make a strong case, which cannot be done when there is no supporting evidence.   

Hancock does attempt to demonstrate that there is indirect evidence at every site, but those assertions are either contradicted by available evidence or are unprovable.  I won’t attempt to refute every one here.  Others with much more expertise have done so.  Instead, I offer one illustrative example.  Hancock traveled to a fascinating underground city in Turkey called Derinkuyu in Episode 7.  

Though archaeologists have theorized the first work on the city dates back to 800 BC, Hancock notes that part of the site was chiseled by stone axes which he suggests could have been cut thousands of years earlier.  Chisel marks cannot be dated so he could be correct.  But what Hancock leaves out is that these marks could be from 800 BC, or 100 years earlier– they could be more recent. 

Additionally, the chisel cuts are only in one small area which does not support the conclusion that the entire site is as old as the rest or that these marks were made for the purpose Hancock claims. This analysis and reliance on conjecture reveals the flaw in Hancock’s theory, it cannot be proven or disproven.  However, there is a separate and larger flaw.  

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Hancock fails to note extensive archaeological work in the Derinkuyu region has not uncovered any trace of human habitation prior to 800 BC.  That omission tends to support the established timeline contradicting Hancock’s assertion that the site could be thousands of years older.  Hancock uses the same flawed methodology at every site.  Netflix describes Ancient Apocalypse as a “docuseries” implying it is objective.  The description is misleading.  Ancient Apocalypse is an argument, not a balanced presentation of facts.  Claiming objectivity while only presenting one side is nowhere close to being persuasive enough to overturn the archaeological consensus.  

I also take issue with the overall tone of Ancient Apocalypse.  To the extent Hancock discusses alternative possibilities, he does so only to dismiss them as incorrect, often claiming “mainstream” archaeology is inflexibly refusing to consider “new” evidence.  He argues elitist archaeologists are stubbornly clinging to a narrative they created to maintain a monopoly on their reputations and interpretations of history.  

The personal animus against “mainstream” archaeology often appears more important to Hancock than his overall theory.  He discounts those who disagree with him as engaging in an academic conspiracy.  Resorting to ad hominem attacks damages his credibility.  Hancock seems more interested in pursuing a vendetta against his critics which is distracting.  His presentation is argumentative not objective and ultimately is not convincing.  

Archaeology is an empirical discipline based in the scientific method.  Hypotheses are developed on existing evidence and then modified as more information becomes available. The “mainstream” theories are based on decades of painstaking excavation, study and research of ruins and artifacts.  Archaeologists write reports of their findings which are shared and debated allowing for more broad conclusions to be drawn.  The research and theorizing never ends.  It changes in small ways as new sites and artifacts are discovered which gradually leads to new theories and consensus.  Hancock skips the arduous long-term evidence-based process in favor of his conclusory speculation relying on future discoveries to confirm his theory.  

Gobekli Tepe: Modifying the Neolithic Revolution to Civilization Theory

Hancock highlights Gobekli Tepe, in Episode 5.  The site defies previous theories about the capabilities of hunter gatherers.  The megaliths at Gobekli Tepe are huge, complex and feature detailed carved imagery of animals and human figures.  Moving and placing megaliths weighing up to 20 tons required a lot of human muscle (there is no evidence our ancestors had developed the wheel or domesticated beasts of burden).  The intricate and diverse number of carved animals and human figures required skilled stonecutters who would have needed a lot of time to finish their work.  These figures, their placement, and the orientation of the buildings probably had great significance to the people who created this work implying sophisticated spiritual beliefs.  The necessary organized labor and skilled craftsmen needed to build this site had not previously been thought possible for hunter gatherers.

This episode serves as a prime example of how Hancock misstates the archaeological consensus on Neolithic Revolution Theory.  Contrary to Hancock’s frequent assertions throughout the series, “mainstream” archaeologists were never inflexibly locked into a single, unalterable hypothesis.  Neolithic Revolution Theory developed over decades altered and refined as new sites and artifacts were unearthed.  With the discovery of Gobekli Tepe, archaeologists have acknowledged that there will be fundamental changes.   

Klaus Schmidt did the initial work at Gobekli Tepe (he died in 2014 after working on the site for 18 years).  Schmidt echoed the views of many when stating:  “Gobekli Tepe upends our view of human history.  We always thought that agriculture came first, then civilisation: farming, pottery, social hierarchies.  But here it is reversed, it seems the ritual centre came first, then when enough hunter gathering people collected to worship – or so I believe – they realised they had to feed people.  Which means farming.”  (Most-read 2022: Is an unknown, extraordinarily ancient civilisation buried under eastern Turkey? | The Spectator)

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Gobekli Tepe is such an interesting find.  This discovery has already caused an ongoing rewrite of the prevailing theories on the development of civilization.  However, the changes will be slow as a new timeline gradually emerges with new discoveries.  Currently, 95% of the Gobekli Tepe site is still unexcavated.  Additionally, similar sites have been discovered nearby that contain similar structures and artifacts.  

Hancock denies that these skills and beliefs could have developed overnight by nomadic peoples and therefore the source must have been a much older and more advanced society.  Maybe he is correct, but there are two problems.  First, as previously mentioned, there is no evidence of an older civilization– no tools, ruins, graves, etc.  Second, many of the skills present at Gobekli Tepe were not new.  Humans had been making stone tools and figures of animals and humans for thousands of years before Gobekli Tepe. Even the megaliths are not unique.  Other T shaped megaliths and stone carved animals have been discovered in nearby sites– some are older than Gobekli Tepe. (see Karahan Tepe: Is an unknown, extraordinarily ancient civilisation buried under eastern Turkey? | The Spectator).  There is clear evidence hunter gatherers in the area were developing skills, beliefs and sophistication to build Gobekli Tepe without outside assistance.  

Graham Hancock’s Prior Works 

In assessing the credibility of current claims, it is useful to examine Hancock’s prior writings which date back to the mid-1990s.  Hancock has been pursuing the lost civilization theory for a long time and has made assertions that are unorthodox to say the least.  There are too many to describe in detail here, but two are illustrative.  The Mars Mystery (1999) postulates that an advanced civilization existed on Mars that influenced ancient human culture.  Hancock also wrote a book in 1995 called Fingerprints of the Gods contending that 10,000 years ago an ice-free Antarctica was home to an advanced civilization he referred to as Atlantis.  

In both books, Hancock claimed that there was growing evidence for his alternative theories that “mainstream” experts refused to consider.  In The Mars Mystery, Hancock claimed features on the surface of Mars resembled prehistoric human sites whereby there could only be one conclusion, there was a Martian civilization that influenced societies on Earth.  Since publication of that book, robotic probes and satellites have conclusively demonstrated that no such civilization was possible.  It is well established that Antarctica has been covered in ice continuously for hundreds of thousands of years).

These theories have been exposed as impossible.  Instead of acknowledging error, Hancock simply creates a new source.  Ancient Apocalypse claims the Amazon basin as the home of his advanced culture.  This is an important detail which undermines Hancock’s credibility.  While arguing that “mainstream” archaeology is too conservative and lacking imagination, Hancock takes the opposite tack.  His theories are pure flights of fancy.  If he can be so radically wrong about the origins of this alleged lost civilization, it’s not hard to conclude he is equally off-base on current claims– for which by his own admission he cannot support with actual evidence.  

It is here that we can understand why Hancock is not taken seriously by many archaeologists.  First off, he has offered some truly wacky theories.  Because of these wild assertions, Hancock is frequently accused, with good reason, of engaging in pseudoscience.  Citing Martian cultures and Atlantean civilizations certainly qualifies as pseudoscientific, so it is no surprise he is dismissed as unserious.  Many archaeologists actually agree with Hancock that there is likely a previously unknown process by which civilization developed.  However, they recognize better understanding of a new culture requires decades of work turning up evidence, not speculating via unsupported conclusions.  

So, I think it is fair to say that hypothesis of a lost Ice Age culture advanced in Ancient Apocalypse is unproven. Most importantly, there is no supporting evidence.  Not only is the tone of the presentation one sided, a little research debunks much of what is claimed.  Hancock’s tone also undermines his theories. His continual attack on “mainstream” archaeology comes across as far too personal, overly broad and inaccurate.  Finally, Hancock has undermined his credibility by throwing out numerous unfounded and debunked theories.  

Conclusion

I laid out the reasons this series should not be considered as a worthy alternative interpretation of ancient history above but that does not mean Ancient Apocalypse is without merit. 

The series has really high production values.  It is filmed in HD which makes for very interesting viewing of some truly fascinating historical sites not otherwise readily available.  Ancient Apocalypse provides high quality reconstructions of how the sites appeared while still inhabited which helps one understand the Neolithic landscape.  

Elements of Ancient Apocalypse are educational even if one disagrees with Hancock’s main argument about a lost Ice Age civilization.. He provides good summaries of the sites and is very good at highlighting mysteries and unanswered questions.  The unexplained makes the sites far more intriguing.  The development of civilization before recorded history is a “hot” topic these days and new discoveries seemingly come to light every month.  It’s a really interesting subject worth following.  

My 10-year-old son watched every episode and asked a lot of questions.  His interest carried over to the research we did on the individual sites as well.  Keeping a 10-year old’s attention in ancient civilizations for 8+ hours is no small feat.  Many Americans, especially the young, do not take much interest in history and this series definitely raised my son’s interest.  To the extent Ancient Apocalypse brings these subjects to a wider audience, I am all for it.  

So in conclusion, my recommendation would be to watch Ancient Apocalypse and look up the sites Hancock presents as you go.  Learn about them, they are fascinating.  Weigh what Hancock says against what archaeologists theorize and decide what you think is correct with the proviso that you follow up over time as new discoveries come to light and remain open minded. 

A final postscript:  It has been alleged by a number of critics that Graham Hancock and/or his theories are racist/white supremacist.  I find this criticism ludicrous and unfair.  I listened to hours of Hancock in Ancient Apocalypse and from other sources and there is not even a hint of racism.  As a society, we have to get past demonizing those we disagree with via character assassination.  Claims of racism are sometimes calculated to muzzle ideas and speakers who have different views.  It is wrong and frequently lazy.  We should be debating theories with facts and reason, not name calling.  Living in a free society means we have to allow advocacy of all sorts of ideas, including bad ones.  Theories without merit will fall by the wayside.  Even if Hancock’s ideas are totally wrong, they are worth hearing and considering.  There is value in wrong answers.  They help eliminate false paths, making the truth more clear.  Sometimes, the wrong theory can cause us to think about things a different way that may lead to enlightenment.