Confronting a purveyor of misinformation about the ancient past.
By
Marie-Sklowdowska Curie Research Fellow
Entering the Fray
I agreed with pseudoarchaeologist Graham Hancock on the mega-popular but controversial podcast the Joe Rogan Experience.
has made a fortune writing sensationalized books that claim a 鈥渓ost鈥� ice age civilization once existed鈥攚ithout any direct evidence for this society. I am an archaeologist, a scientist who uses the remains of objects, structures, and other traces of human activity how past peoples lived.
Some Rogan fans will surely dismiss my remarks as symptoms of a 鈥�,鈥� which apparently infects anyone who relies on evidence, experts, and the scientific method to form conclusions. Meanwhile, some colleagues will call me foolish. A pawn playing into the hands of pseudoscientists.
Still, I鈥檓 appearing because Rogan鈥檚 podcast draws an audience in . If scholars want to , we need to stop just talking or to audiences of like-minded people.
But reaching those outside my echo chamber demands more than my archaeological expertise. To approach engagements like the Joe Rogan Experience, I and other scholars must arm ourselves with , which research has shown can in the current . How I present evidence matters as much as what I present.
Platform or Ploy
After the release of Hancock鈥檚 2022 Netflix series , archaeologists contested and condemned his claims through the forums of an , , , , and . Hancock invited . In January 2023, Hancock and I agreed to sit down together on Rogan鈥檚 podcast.
The very next day I got a phone call: My cancer had returned. A PET scan, surgery, and a year of treatment followed. The podcast taping was indefinitely postponed. One popular pseudoarchaeologist, with over a million subscribers on social media, claimed I made up my cancer to avoid the Rogan episode.
Now more than one year later, it is happening. I鈥檝e traveled to Rogan鈥檚 studio in Austin, Texas, to share real, scientific archaeology with a wide audience.
Rogan鈥檚 reach is enormous: According to a , he boasts around 16 million YouTube subscribers, 19 million Instagram followers, and 15 million Spotify followers鈥攖hree times the streaming service鈥檚 next-most popular podcast. Surveys have found these listeners or fans are over , are mostly between the , and lean .
I believe some listeners do have an interest in the past and will come with open minds.
But there are compelling reasons to avoid sharing soundwaves with science deniers. For example, physician and scientist Peter Hotez on Rogan鈥檚 podcast with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a vocal opponent of vaccines and third-party candidate in the 2024 U.S. presidential election. To Hotez, such a debate would seem to legitimize anti-vaccine views. (However, Rogan has interviewed on , 鈥攋ust not at the same time as Kennedy.)
Pseudoarchaeology’s Popularity
I鈥檓 not debating vaccines. I鈥檓 distinguishing archaeology from mythology.
Pseudoarchaeology, or 鈥渁lternative history,鈥� draws major attention and casts itself as legitimate. Hancock鈥檚 books consistently rank as bestsellers on Amazon in the of 鈥渁rchaeology.鈥� Ancient Apocalypse was one of Netflix鈥檚 &苍产蝉辫;鈥渄辞肠耻蝉别谤颈别蝉.鈥�
Beyond Hancock鈥檚 creations, dominates the History Channel. YouTube, TikTok, and other social media abound with archaeology-themed accounts describing , , , , and claims that the .
Many people buy it. Based on a by Chapman University scholars, nearly 50 percent of people in the U.S. believe in lost civilizations or ancient aliens. On Google Books Ngram Viewer, which counts words in English language books (not on social media), the mythical sunken city 鈥淎tlantis鈥� ranks higher than terms related to other conspiracy theories, including 鈥渁strology,鈥� 鈥淯FO,鈥� 鈥淛FK,鈥� 鈥渃reationism,鈥� 鈥渁lpha male,鈥� or 鈥渁ncient aliens.鈥� Atlantis is also mentioned more than the famous archaeological sites 鈥淧ompeii,鈥� the 鈥淪phinx,鈥� and 鈥淪tonehenge,鈥� and ancient historical figures such as 鈥淎lexander the Great.鈥�
Meanwhile, it seems few people know what archaeologists actually do. K鈥�12 schools in the U.S. rarely cover the field. Some universities are defunding and dismantling programs in , , , , , and .
Debating whether to Appear
I鈥檓 compelled to do something, which is why I agreed to go on the podcast. But I don鈥檛 enter Rogan鈥檚 studio naively.
A decade ago, science communicator Bill Nye creationist Ken Ham. Some pundits . Ham used the spectacle to for his Creation Museum.
But in 2020鈥攆or the first time since polls began tracking people鈥檚 views on evolution鈥攁 majority in the U.S. , agreeing with the statement, 鈥淗uman beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.鈥� For Gen Zers and millennials like me, the Nye-Ham debate provided real information in an accessible and entertaining way. I remember watching it and thinking about the power of stratigraphy鈥攁ccumulated layers of soil and rock鈥攆or visualizing Earth鈥檚 deep history.
Now I face a similar dilemma. The podcast will generate buzz for Hancock and Rogan. But unlike Nye 鈥渢he Science Guy,鈥� a celebrity in his own right, the setting is flipped. The two personalities provide massive platforms: Previous Rogan podcast episodes with Hancock have had up to . I鈥檓 a relatively unknown scholar who can share the cultural achievements of past people around the world.
Science-Based Strategies
My challenge: how to deal with the torrent of misinformation Hancock expresses. He purports all human history is explained by , a with advanced technology that was washed away by floodwaters. This single civilization built many ancient monuments around the world, according to Hancock.
Over the past 14 months, through the fog of cancer treatment, I鈥檝e pondered how to argue a negative: the nonexistence of an alleged civilization. It鈥檚 easy to get bogged down in a 鈥攁 barrage of fake 鈥渇acts鈥� and weak arguments hurled by an opponent. Debunking one pseudoscientific point after another, I would lose the chance to present a narrative of actual human achievements.
Recent suggests a better approach, nicknamed a 鈥�.鈥� Don鈥檛 start with a fake claim. Start with the truth. In the middle, you can address some fraudulent points. But top it off with another slice of truth.
Evidencing reality鈥攚hat is known from archaeological and historical research鈥攃ontradicts the lost ice age civilization.
And that evidence for reality comes from millions of sites and billions of archaeological objects. Worldwide, ice age hunter-gatherers did build monuments: ones made from , , and .
Archaeologists can even probe areas that might have flooded tens of thousands of years ago鈥攑otential locations for any drowned civilization. Movements of Earth鈥檚 crust have hoisted some ice age coastlands above the sea, allowing researchers to identify Stone Age sites in places such as and of mainland Canada. Underwater archaeologists also dive, find, and under-sea Stone Age sites.
There鈥檚 no need to debunk every ephemeral 鈥渇ingerprint鈥� of the lost civilization Hancock raises. Instead, it鈥檚 about that truth sandwich. The reality presented from research on millions of sites worldwide leaves no room for a lost ice age civilization.
Beautiful Realities
This spectacle is not about winning an argument.
My goal is to share the magnitude and diversity of human achievement. Pseudoarchaeology of their heritage. Hancock鈥檚 narrative of engineering feats from some 鈥渓ost鈥� civilization includes the Sphinx in Africa, pyramids in Mesoamerica, and an enormous, terraced monument in Indonesia.
Does it include Stonehenge? No, Hancock says ancient British people built that.
Hancock and other pseudoarchaeologists center White Europeans as able creators while chalking up the accomplishments of other peoples to outside influences: the Atlantis civilization, aliens, lizard people, or the 鈥渓ost鈥� empire of . Real archaeology inoculates people against the who take Hancock鈥檚 polished presentation of a mysterious civilization and twist it into .
I don鈥檛 expect to convince Hancock or his die-hard fans. But among the millions who may listen, some may be swayed鈥攏ot by occult mystery but by beautiful realities of our human past.
Originally by , 04.16.2024, under the terms of a license.