Graham Hancock Reveals Huge Update On Mysterious Ancient Archaeological Site

Graham Hancock published an update Sunday concerning the ancient archaeological site of Gobekli Tepe in Turkey.

Gobekli Tepe broke history. It’s one of the most ancient man-made sites in the world, consisting of a series of structures that reveal both impeccable feats of engineering and rewrite the Big Archaeology brand of history. Prior to the discovery of Gobekli Tepe, humans were considered to be no more than nomadic hunter gatherers with limited technological capabilities. But the existence and detail around Gobekli Tepe throws this theory on its head — and no mainstream archaeological organization, institution or group can argue against it.

Hancock detailed the myriad complexities of Gobekli Tepe in the fifth episode of his hit series “Ancient Apocalypse.” The site “is reliably dated to around 11,600 years ago,” making it the oldest known megalithic archaeological site on Earth, Hancock writes on his website.

“I’ve spent more than 30 years on a controversial quest for a lost civilization of the Ice Age. You could say it’s my obsession. Perhaps it was because I was so caught up in the search on my first visits to Gobekli Tepe in 2013 and 2014, and so impressed by the genius of its design and its monolithic T-shaped pillars with their intricate carvings, that I didn’t fully appreciate how complicated its inheritance of technology transfer had been,” Hancock writes.

He’s referring to the complex design created by Gobekli Tepe’s inhabitants, which transcends the abilities of any known civilization 11,600 years ago — right at the end of our cold snap, the Younger Dryas. To be able to build Gobekli Tepe, it’s creators must have gone through a “technology transfer,” he adds, which means they learned to build the site from someone else. Someone older.

“The transfer didn’t begin with Gobekli Tepe – which is itself 7,000 years older than Stonehenge. It didn’t even begin in the Neolithic. It began millennia earlier with Late Epipalaeolithic cultures, one of which has, since the 1920s, been referred to as Natufian,” Hancock argues. He points out that we have no idea what the Natufians called themselves, nor whether they were one or multiple cultures.

New data from the Ein Mallaha site in Northern Israel, 600 miles from Gobekli Tepe, suggests early Natufians (14,300 years ago) were capable of developing large structures. Some of the site data suggests humans inhabited and were using technologies some 20,000 years ago.

Emerging data from other experts suggests that the coastlines of the world were vastly different during the Younger Dryas and our last major Ice Age 2.6 million years ago, Hancock continues. While some evidence of ancient structures and human activity have been uncovered in the now-lost landscapes, it’s possible entire chapters of human history were wiped away by these massive global geological and climatological events. (RELATED: A 27,000-Year-Old Pyramid Is Causing Much Debate For Big Archaeology)

I highly recommend reading Hancock’s full analysis to understand the ins-and-outs of what this means to us, the modern day human. Or you can watch his epic series “Ancient Apocalypse” on Netflix.

When mainstream archaeological groups are asked to present evidence debunking Hancock’s claims that humanity has reached levels of technological development throughout our reign on this planet, they refuse, as depicted in the April debate between Hancock and archaeologist Flint Dibble on “The Joe Rogan Experience.” (RELATED: Scream About ‘Ancient Apocalypse’ At Your Own Peril, Illiberal Idiots)

Archeologists and other academics have argued that there is no evidence that advanced societies existed prior to those we have established archeological records for. They have further argued, as in the case of Marc J. Defant, that Hancock’s theory assumes “indigenous peoples were incapable of building the ancient, sophisticated archeological structures and monuments across the globe” and therefore required the knowledge of more advanced civilizations to achieve what they did. However, Hancock’s thesis is supported by peer-reviewed research.

It’s not that Hancock is necessarily completely correct or incorrect in his reportage. It’s that Big Archaeology doesn’t seem to want to accept there might be something to what he and the countless referenced scientific studies in his work are suggesting. Again, ridicule of new ideas seems to be a trend throughout scientific academic history.

I’ve spent several years trying to get someone, anyone, to explain why there is such a distaste for Hancock’s ability to take complex scientific data, analyze it and combine it into a digestible, understandable perspective on our own past in the same way countless academics do with their own proxy data. If you think you have the answers to debunk this data, then please do get in touch.

As Kat Williams always says, don’t worry, I’ll wait.