What's Wrong with "Ancient Apocalypse"?

Graham Hancock's new Netflix series is, unfortunately, deeply problematic.

Discovered in the 1960s, Gobleki Tepe in Turkey is the oldest-known human settlement, dating from 12,000 years ago. More info here.

In “Ancient Apocalypse,” his new Netflix series, Graham Hancock develops his thesis of a lost “high” civilization. As he proposed in his bestseller The Fingerprints of the Gods (1995) and subsequent works, this advanced, global civilization was located on what is now Antartica, apparently completely wiped away by massive floods, “earth crust displacement” and an Ice Age, over 12,000 years ago. A few survivors of this civilization then went around the world at the end of the Ice Age, bringing aspects of their knowledge system to more primitive hunter-gatherers. In past works, Graham identified this lost civilization as Atlantis, the lost city-state mentioned by Plato.

“Ancient Apocalypse,” is a monster hit right now. Many of my friends love the series, raving about it on Instagram and Facebook. 

Hancock taps into a deep intuition shared by many of us that the “official story” of our species history is incomplete and that something very important – even the most crucial thing – has been hidden from us. He stridently propounds the unsubstantiated thesis that what has been hidden is a literal lost civilization annihilated 12,000 year ago, leaving no trace. In my work, I propose, instead, that what we have lost is not a physical civilization we can find and excavate, but a different kind of consciousness, knowledge, or state of being that is outside time, space, and history, as we currently know and conceive it. 

This is why I remain fascinated with thinkers such as Rudolf Steiner (who I will write about again soon) and Jean Gebser: They help us define this past condition, point to our potential of accessing and reintegrating this lost consciousness, which might take us beyond what was attained in the past. Many ancient sites reveal aspects of this other consciousness to us. They help us understand how these past cultures approached the deepest metaphysical and phenomenological questions. 

Part of what makes me sad about “Ancient Apocalypse” is that Hancock’s focus on an idea that seems ultimately misguided makes it impossible for him to explore what is magnificent and still deeply mysterious about many of these ancient sites. To take an example, a site like Teotihuacán in Mexico is an unbelievable achievement, constructed with mathematical precision, for reasons we simply do not understand as of yet. Perhaps, as a side benefit, “Ancient Apocalypse” will spark more interest in our ancient legacy.

Graham and I have been friends for many years. He has been helpful and kind to me in the past. Years ago, we collaborated on a few retreats together in Utah. For the last few weeks, I have been contemplating how best to respond to the series. Generally, I feel a responsibility to the truth as I understand it, even when this truth is unpopular or causes me hardship. I am also not perfect, make mistakes, and try to admit to them when they are revealed. I still appreciate Graham very much, and do not mean this to be a personal attack.

I am not pretending to know the ultimate answers here. Like Graham, I am not an archaeologist. I have never dug up an artifact, learned surveying, nor made some paradigm-shifting discovery on an ancient site.

Having stated all of that, I admit I find Graham’s approach in the series – and the mass approval of it – to be troubling. Watching the series has forced me to review some of his past books as well. It has opened up many questions for me.