Graham Hancock has been one of my favorite writers for the last thirteen years or so, ever since I picked up his book, Fingerprints of the Gods, published in 1995. He has written a few novels, but most of his work is nonfiction, and takes as its premise that civilization began much earlier than we now believe, that there was a worldwide civilization much earlier than we believe, and that its science and technology was at least as high as our own, and sometimes higher. His new book, America Before, continues to examine evidence for that premise.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson has famously said, “Science doesn’t care what you think.” Ideally, this is so, but individual scientists often do, and this seems to be particularly true in the discipline of archaeology, which tends to practice less rigorous science than other branches of the discipline, and to become invested in particular views of the timeline of human development in particular.
The official view is that civilization developed first in Sumeria, the part of ancient India which is now Pakistan, and Egypt, more or less simultaneously, but there are problems with this view. One is the Sumerian cities and the Indian civilization centered around Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro seem to have a comparatively high civilization from the earliest archaeological sites so far found, suggesting that evidence of earlier stages of their civilizations haven’t yet been found.
And in Egypt especially we find gigantic and highly sophisticated monuments being built with little extant evidence of the developments leading up to them. One writer and researcher compares this to humans having, when the technology was sufficiently advanced, had immediately begun to build cars with all the technology of today’s cars without the necessity of a development period. It’s like the building of cars began with the most sophisticated contemporary model of Rolls Royce. Suddenly the Egyptians became capable of building the Great Pyramid (only one example) with almost no previous development period.
Some writers believe this indicates a prior civilization from which the Egyptians inherited knowledge and ideas, and that this is true of other civilizations as well.
In America Before Hancock addresses mysteries about the original settlement of the Americas and, having done that, begins presenting evidence of high-level scientific enterprise from a very early date.
The dominant view of settlement of the Americas has been that people who became the Native Americans came here via the land bridge that existed between eastern Asia and Alaska across what is now the Bering Strait. This route may well have contributed to settlement, but it no longer seems to have been the only one.
Complicating the picture now is DNA analysis of contemporary Native American peoples compared with DNA extracted from ancient skeletons. The dominant view among archaeologists studying American settlement was that the so-called Clovis people (who produced particularly distinctive stone arrowheads and other tools) arrived in the Americas no earlier than about 13,000 BC. The body of a young boy buried in Montana has confused the picture.
He seems to have been one of the Clovis people, but his DNA relates him to the South American Clovis people much more than the North Americans. If the theory of the land bridge is correct, why wasn’t his DNA more North American, and why was someone with South American DNA found so far north? Montana was about as far north as one could go at that time before running into the glacier that covered practically all of what is now Canada.
Besides that, there’s another DNA anomaly: tribes in the Amazon region have DNA which is predominantly Australasian and Melanesian. And they seem (so far) to have left no DNA markers outside that region, which seems highly unlikely if they came via the land bridge. How is this to be explained?
More recent mysteries surround the civilization of the Amazon region, as recorded by a monk who traveled with a Spanish expedition from Peru into the Amazon region and down the river. The monk kept a journal in which he reported civilizations the Spaniards passed which seemed comparably sophisticated with Europeans, which seemed to also be comparably populous with Europe, and in which there was very successful agriculture.
This, however, was before the diseases Europeans brought with them almost totally wiped out the native peoples in both North and South America. Estimates suggest that as many as 99% of the population died in some places, and weren’t much lower in others. Smallpox was probably the worst culprit, but measles, flu, and other European diseases took a heavy toll too. Native Americans didn’t have immunity to European diseases. With such a heavy loss of population, skilled workers in all kinds of disciplines were lost too, and with them much of the culture. By the 19th century the population of both Americas was drastically diminished, and archaeologists found it difficult to believe the natives had ever had a high culture and that the observations of the monk who traveled down the Amazon could possibly be true.
In the last few decades evidence has shown that the Clovis peoples were far from the first peoples in the Americas, and that settlement goes back to at least 130,000 years. It’s interesting that an archaeological faction was, for some decades, very dogmatic about the Clovis peoples being the first settlers, and dismissing any claims to the contrary. Overwhelming evidence has caused them to back down since, but why they became so invested in that view in the first place is difficult to understand. That’s not the way science is supposed to work.
It is, however, the way institutionalized religion has worked for much of the past 2,000 years, when people were persecuted by torture, imprisonment, and death, for holding the wrong beliefs. This worked as a control mechanism to keep the power-hungry in power, though it didn’t work as a way to keep human civilization healthy.
There’s a myth in many traditions that there was once a Golden Age In remote human history. It’s probably an exaggeration to suggest that lions literally lay down with lambs, but maybe humans had, at one time, evolved ways to keep peace between diverse populations.
Perhaps an anecdote might illustrate. One of my high school teachers told me the Hopi Indians very long ago decided to live in one of the least hospitable areas of North America because they thought in such a place they would be unable to forget their need for God. No doubt their lives were sometimes miserable, but were they more miserable than those of the European-descended settlers in California, an immensely more hospitable place than the land of the Hopis? The novels of Ross Macdonald, among other things, suggest that the natural wealth of California led to corruption as much as anything else.
That seems in line with what Jesus taught about wealth, saying, “You cannot serve God and Mammon.” Not that he was probably opposed to money, but rather opposed to the obsession with it, which characterized the European colonization of the Americas and other regions of the world. I think it would be fair to say that the colonizations were destructive not only to the colonized people, but to the colonizers, who were desperately seeking something which, I suggest, they didn’t find. Which returns us to the words of Jesus, who exhorted his followers to pile up riches in heaven rather than on earth.
Be that as it may, while we know very little about any civilization that might have existed during the last Ice Age, we do know that ancient people constructed many megalithic monuments that puzzle us today because they’re beyond our ability to build. The Great Pyramid is only the most famous of these. Stonehenge, Baalbek, and Machu Picchu are others, but there are many more, and it has become apparent that many others have been either destroyed or simply not noticed because those who encountered them either didn’t know or didn’t care (maybe both) what they were. Had they been interested, they might have found clues to a whole different way of looking at things which might have been much more satisfactory to humans as a whole.
America Before is about the mysteries of the Americas before the arrival of the Europeans, and there are many of them.
One is the earthworks built in North America: a great many in Ohio, and in the Mississippi valley, many of which have been destroyed to make way for farmland and industry. Some of these are huge, and most are oriented to the movements of the sun, aligning with solstices and equinoxes, though some are oriented to the moon. Graham Hancock sees these monuments as being a sort of marriage between earth and sky, and these were very important not only to Native Americans but to the inhabitants of England who built Stonehenge and other such monuments, to the Egyptians, the Central Americans, South Americans, and the Cambodians.
That so many different peoples in so many parts of the world distant from each other held such similar religious ideas argues that first, the ideas must have been deeply meaningful to them, and second, that they must have been powerful enough to motivate them to build such difficult monuments, many of the stones of which weigh hundreds of tons and are placed with extreme precision.
This argues not only a culture much differently oriented than ours, but one with a technology based on different principles, and at least as high as ours. Maybe this is one reason why the idea of golden ages and lost civilizations has often met with scorn in the last two centuries. On some level we know our own civilization is sick, and don’t care to be reminded.
Up until at least the 18th century few people doubted that the Bible’s story about a universal flood was true. But people at that time looking through the lens of science began to doubt many Biblical stories, along with the Greek myths and other ancient traditions. Even the discovery of the city of Troy, previously thought to be only a story, did little to dissuade them, as did the discovery of the ruins of the advanced civilization of ancient Crete.
Not every old story is true, especially not literally true, but many have at least some truth to them. More and more evidence shows that the earth suffered a cataclysm at the end of the last Ice Age, one severe enough to have destroyed most remains of an advanced civilization. Evidence has emerged to show why most of the large animals of the Americas died at about the end of the Ice Age too.
At that time what is now Canada was still covered with ice more than a mile thick down approximately to the current border with the USA, and in some cases further south. I don’t think the details of what happened are entirely clear yet, but Graham Hancock believes that at some time prior to the catastrophe a very large comet entered the solar system and began coming apart. He believes the Taurid meteor stream, which intersects earth’s orbit twice a year, is the remains of that comet, and that at least one very large piece of it hit the ice field in what Is now Canada with terrifying consequences.
The energy unleashed from that impact produced a great deal of heat, setting some 9% of the world’s biomass (trees and other vegetation) on fire, producing a great deal of CO2. It also melted a large amount of the glaciation, sending lots of cold water into the ocean, which shut down the current which sends warm water from the tropics to the coast of Europe. This set off what is now called the Younger Dryas period, which sent temperatures tumbling to the ranges common in the Ice Age, where they stayed for about 1200 years.
The catastrophe killed off the majority of the Clovis people; we find almost no trace of them after the time of the strike, about 11,800 years ago. It also killed off most of the large animals of the Americas, especially North America.
The conventional theory had been that the Clovis people had driven all of them into extinction. Of course they had hunted many of the large animals, but it’s very questionable that they were numerous enough to make that much of dent, and it seems highly unlikely that they had the sort of technology to kill animals, especially large animals, in numbers large enough to make them extinct. A sudden extreme environmental change seems a lot more plausible, especially if, as Hancock believes, North America in particular (as well as other parts of the world) continued to be bombarded by large pieces of comet for about twenty more years.
There’s a great deal more to be said about Hancock’s theories, which I will address later.