Wednesday, 30 April 2025

Dunning Kruger in Action


                               

David Miano released a video in the 'World of Antiquity' series responding to a "debunking" video by Dan Richards addressing some comments he'd earlier made on archaeological dating. The trouble is, as the video " Artifact Jacker Tries to School Me in Archaeology (Scientists Weep)" [ 47,888 views Apr 29, 2025] demonstrates, Mr Richards has not the foggiest idea about what the terms he uses with gay abandon actually mean ("his pompous swagger is unwarrented").
Another day, another confident critic who thinks he has science all figured out. In this video, I react to one of the most spectacular misunderstandings of archaeological dating methods you'll ever see. Bring popcorn.
I was interested in the response of a third party posted on X (Twitter) that made some interesting points worth publicising:

Giovanni's BTC_POWER_LAW ( @Giovann35084111)
That individual [Richards- PMB] strikes me as a psychopath, exhibiting traits I encountered frequently during my years as a physics professor.

There’s a peculiar pattern where people from unrelated fields—car mechanics, electricians, car salespeople—reach a point in their lives where they become fixated on disproving established scientific theories, like Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. They’re convinced they’ve cracked the code and are destined to reveal to the world why a century of physics is fundamentally flawed.

This wasn’t just my experience; many of my colleagues shared similar stories. We’d receive dozens of manuscripts annually—some handwritten, others typed on ancient typewriters—or emails boldly proclaiming a “Theory of Everything.” These submissions rarely came from trained scientists or even competent amateurs.

Most of these self-proclaimed theorists lacked a grasp of basic mathematics and showed little understanding of fundamental physics principles. Yet, they felt an unshakable urge to overhaul the entire discipline. Their persistence was relentless, sometimes bordering on obsessive.

Some would show up unannounced at university offices, clutching their manuscripts like sacred texts. Others went further, attending academic conferences, cornering professors, and, in a few cases, practically stalking them.

I recall colleagues being hounded by these individuals, who seemed undeterred by rejection or polite dismissal. It’s hard to see this behavior as anything other than a manifestation of some undiagnosed mental condition—perhaps a mix of delusion and an inflated sense of intellectual destiny.

This phenomenon likely extends beyond physics. I suspect archaeology faces similar challenges, possibly even more intensely, given the field’s overlap with popular imagination and fringe theories about ancient civilizations.
 

Monday, 21 April 2025

After party in Sedona post conference

         Voltron - Rainbow Warriors         
Wandering Wolf Productions @WWolfProd
After party in Sedona post conference - We formed like Voltron! (@BrightInsight6, @Nerdrotics, @DeDunkingPast, @WWolfProd, @LivingExtraord1, @ill_Scholar) I can’t promise that no evil plans were hatched 🐣 but I can promise, you haven’t seen the last of this group together 😎  Thank you @Graham__Hancock  for bringing so many solid people together 🙏

Saturday, 19 April 2025

YouTube Pseudoarchaeologists: Who is Their Audience?

 

Jimmy Corsetti (@BrightInsight6 Apr 16) jubilantly reports "One year ago today, Graham Hancock won the debate vs Flint Dibble on Joe Rogan’s podcast. [under the podcast] There are an astonishing 73,000 comments, well over 60k of those are negative towards Flint. The people have spoken".

I decided to have a look at some of the threads on his own X-account. Starting with that one but looking at a few other longer ones, taking blocks of tweets from each (some 630 posts in the end) and asking Twitter's "Grok" AI to analyse them and then to amalgamate the results. The results were pretty enlightening.   

Introduction

An attempt was made to use AI to analyse groups of random comments The combined analysis of comments from samples of X posts in several selected threads on the Jimmy Corsetti (@BrightInsight6) account discussing the Joe Rogan Experience (JRE) debate between populist pseudoarchaeological author Graham Hancock and archaeologist Flint Dibble reveals a polarized online discourse surrounding the topic matter. The dataset indicates that the bulk of the posts made did not discuss the topic at all but instead were hate-posting, exhibiting significant hostility toward Dibble and mainstream archaeology. The conversation reflects emotional investment in Hancock’s narrative and the anti-establishment sentiment and distrust of institutional science that it embodies. These threads highlight the nature of the cultural tensions between pseudoscience and academic authority.

Part One: Statistics

Of the comments, only 29% are neutral and another 9% are in some way supportive of mainstream archaeology. Both groups focus on scientific scepticism,  prioritizing evidence-based arguments over narrative, call for collaboration, or critique both sides. Examples include support for Dibble’s arguments: “Dibble eviscerated Graham Hancock”, “Flint kicked Hancock’s ass”, “Dibble refuted him on several things”,); neutral assessments: “evidence is what will win over the community”, “no ‘winner’… silly high school squabble” “Graham came off as petulant”; and appreciation for the debate: “one of the best podcasts… opened a lot of peoples’ eyes”, “I loved the debate between them”, “keep the debate healthy”. These voices, though overshadowed by hostile rhetoric, indicate a minority interest in constructive dialogue.   

As many as 62% of the texts (the range in threads varied from 72% to 43%) however were assessed by AI as hate-posts, aggressively pro-Hancock and hostile towards mainstream archaeology, but more disturbingly hostile towards Dr Flint Dibble as single-handedly representing the entire discipline. These were defined as containing insults, demeaning remarks, or accusations of dishonesty or dogmatism without constructive critique. Hostility rates vary across samples (from 72% to 43%), reflecting a pervasive negative atmosphere in these threads. 

The hostile and disrespectful ad hominem attacks hosted by Jimmy Corsetti regarding Dr Dibble’s contribution to the debate by engaging with Hancock’s thories by targeting him with personal insults (such as “dipshit”, “cringe sad little piece of shit”, “Dollar Tree Indiana Jones”), mocking his appearance (“tiny hands”, “short Temu Indiana Jones”), attacks on his integrity (“swindling Dibble”), demeanour (“condescending tone”, “miserable cranky little man”), or credibility (“irrelevant scientist”, “history grifter”, “intellectually inept”, “did more to damage the reputation of academia”). These attacks included more toxic outliers engaging in harmful rhetoric, such as an antisemitic remark and a false paedophilia claim (“Flint likes little boys”) as well as a “joking” racism smear. Such posts highlight the risks of polarized online spaces, with the use of extreme tactics to dehumanise holders of opposing views. Mainstream archaeology is dismissed as dogmatic or suppressive (“dogmatic and closed off field”, a “dogmatic scam”, accused of “archaeological arrogance”), labelled a discipline allegedly filled with “corrupt clowns”, or incompetence (“Academics need to get there [sic] act together”), said to be encumbered by “establishment narrative”, furthermore accused of “suppression of knowledge”. This aligns with Hancock’s narrative of academics gatekeeping alternative ideas, reinforced by accusations of “covered up” history. 

Part Two: Characteristics of the Debate

The threads reveal a stark division within Corsetti’s audience, composed as it seems mostly of Hancock’s supporters. This is exhibited by the majority of hate-posters, and the contributions of the smaller group of neutral observers and archaeology defenders. 

The discussion is dominated by anti-establishment rhetoric and emotional loyalty to Hancock, who is celebrated in these threads as a charismatic “truth-seeker”, praised for his wisdom, credibility, and resilience, being a “warm and kind human”, “vital voice”. Such comments reflect a cult-of-personality dynamic, Supporters admire his alternative theories, and repeat the author’s own narrative that frames him as a “victim” of a rigid academic system and character assassination. Even when noting his weaker debate performance (“Graham came off as petulant”), many remain loyal, prioritizing narrative over evidence.    

Part Three: Group Dynamics and Characteristics

The X posts reveal a polarized, hostile discourse dominated by people that are using these threads as a vehicle for expressing hatred of an opposing “Other” composed of all those who they see as opponents with views that differ from their own. This is the primary purpose of these online discussion groups, rather than actually exploring issues and potentially reaching new conclusions through reasoned discussion. 

Corsetti’s audience identify themselves closely with membership of the tribe of alternative history enthusiasts and populist sceptics who distrust institutional science and embrace anti-expert rhetoric. Here, emotional and conspiratorial rhetoric dominates, with users favouring attractive but ungrounded populistic narratives over scientific rigour. Members of this online community are distinguished by the intrepid search for unresolved Mysteries to grapple with and fantasise over. They are excited by the thought that they are challenging “dogma” and the internet gives them the possibility to make their voice herd, whatever they have to say. Fuelled by victimhood narratives (of “suppression of knowledge”, “covered up” history) and attractive speculative claims, they represent themselves as enlightened truth-seekers. The internet’s networked subcultures, amplified by YouTube and X’s anonymity, foster bold attacks, ad hominem insults, and allow tribalists to create echo chambers dismissing dissent, aligning with broader conspiratorial circles. 

This dynamic highlights the challenge of fostering constructive dialogue in online spaces where anti-establishment sentiment and emotional loyalty to tribal group-speak prevail, reflecting tensions between populism and institutional authority.



Monuments Sites and all that Bollocks

 

>
I tend not to watch videos about ancient sites produced by the guy calling himself "Wandering Wolf" from Texas USA (Mike Collins - 61.2K subscribers). The guy is a bit of an idiot and in his search for sensation to attract viewer clicks, apparently cannot tell the difference between cut stones and natursal jointing, so he'll travel to exotic places to some American "megalithic site" that is nothing of the kind. Like the so-called "Megalitos de Capuli" in northern Peru (columnar jointing) and the "Sage Wall" and other "Montana Megaliths" and again and again and again (eroded igneous intrusive dyke with jointing) and others. What a waste of time, but the punters like it (68k and 10k, 472k, 56k, 171k, views respectively), so they are just as confused/misled as he is.

But as a byproduct of his hostile muckraking trip to Turkey in March 2025 with Corsetti and another blogger, he has made a video attacking imaginary "archaeologists" that requires a response.
44K views published on YouTube 4 days ago
The blurb reads:
"I've traveled to hundreds of ancient sites around the world and what I've found after 10 years of documenting is shocking and disappointing. From Gobekli Tepe's tree controversy, Angkor Wats cutting up of modern stones, the complete covering of Teotihuacan in concrete, encasing the Sphinx in modern stone or the amount of fake plaster and concrete recreations found everywhere, there is a lot going on with archaeology that no longer lines up. Archaeologists are either complicit or ignorant. Either way, it may be past time to take things back down to the studs and rebuild all over again.
Once again one wonders where these people get their idea about "archaeologists" from. Archaeologists study the past from the material remains using a particular range of methodologies, tools and techniques. It is not they that take over the conservation, restoration and management of ancient monuments. That's conservators. An site, such as an ancient monument (ruin, earthwork, standing stones etc.) may be one of the places of their work (the other being the place where they write up, archive and prepare their work for publication). This is what is going on after they have left the site. 

The site could be built on (roads, sewage farms, houses, factories supermarkets etc) if the excavation was - and the majority of them are - a rescue dig, salvaging the information prior to a site being destroyed by planned development (as many unavoidably are, Mr Collins - in the USA too). After a research excavation, the site may be backfilled and restored to the original state - like a meadow, or car park, or a site in parkland or woodland (or desert). Or it may be a field under cultivation, ploughed each year (yes, kick up a fuss about that Mr Collins, that IS damaging, but it is the farmer's land and livelihood). Again, that's what happens to the most of the sites excavated for research, part of the interior of a hillfort, or settlement, the agger of a Roman road segment, an industrial complex. A barrow or section of a boundary dyke will be restored after excavation (and its form will have been carefully documented to allow that).

To be honest, I REALLY do not see this guy's point. Some places for various reasons are tourist destinations, an old mill by a roaring mill-leat, a church with the grave of a famous poet, a rich family's stately home that now is open to the public and you can see the owner's vintage car collection in a converted barn, or a zoo in the park. Hadrian's Wall has a path along most of it that is a popular hiking destination, Mount Rushmore is visited by patriots and gawpers alike, Niagara Falls is another tourist destination, no?. What is the problem? Tourism has existed since the Grand Tour and Cook's Trips to Egypt. English towns once were infested by loud American tourists shouting their mouths off about how "cute" it all was, rudely making fun of the lifeguards outside Buckingham Palace and taking loads of photos.

I do not see why the fact that some of the places tourists go are archaeological sites or monuments is a problem for Mr Collins. In the UK alone, we have many such places, like Wroxeter Roman City, St Albans, Silchester, Housesteads Fort, Stonehenge, Avebury, West Kennet, The Yorvik Centre, Sutton Hoo) or museums both on site and off containing finds and informative displays about those and other sites in the region. I see that as a positive thing. Not only because "archaeology/history"...., but yes they DO create jobs in the areas, especially in rural areas. People travelling to these sites need shops nearby (they've run out of fags, the kids are moaning they want an ice cream, wife needs an emergency sanitary pad, there's no cat food when we get home, I need a newspaper). A restaurant or two fairly near would be a good thing - at least a chippie and a pub. Somewhere like that, a vegetarian or posh slow food restaurant might find custom. Some Bed and Breakfast accommodation or a motel nearby would be good. A petrol station would be welcome. Then there are people needed to run the ticket office. /bookstall, maybe a site museum, to collect the fees for commercial photo permits, Mr Collins. People are employed to cut the grass and keep bushes trimmed and paint the fences, if that's not outsourced. A security guard at night maybe. Why on earth Mr Collins would see these real world considerations as some kind of evil archaeological plot beats me.
"opened my eyes to an unsettling truth "
"I've realized archaeology as we know it is not what it seems" (eh?)
"the discovery and preservation of ancient sites are being sold to us piece by piece" (what?) "and it leaves me wondering, is archaeology truly about the pursuit of knowledge, or has it shifted focus towards spectacle, narratives and profits?" (huh?)
"has this field of study sold its soul and become part of a greater worldwide system focused on profitability through tourism?" (excuse me?)
I wonder how Mr Collins thinks his imagined "Archaeology" would function in a real-world country like "austerity Britain" and "DOGE-America" without funds. Or where he thinks unlimited funds would come from. He seems to share Corsetti's "You should Dig till you Drop" model, and that no research project should be considered finished until the site is EMPTIED.

Below is a list of the archaeological sites mentioned in the text, their respective countries, and a brief summary of the problems reported by the author at each site:

  • Teotihuacán - Mexico
    • Problems: Extensive use of concrete to recreate structures, altering the site's authenticity. The author questions how much concrete has been used and highlights the focus on tourism-driven reconstruction over genuine preservation.
  • Baalbek - Lebanon
    • Problems: Ancient stones are cut and manipulated to fit into reconstructed walls, with concrete bags shoved into spaces to brace them. The author notes uncertainty about which stones remain in their original positions, indicating a loss of authenticity due to profit-driven reconstruction.
  • Angkor Wat - Cambodia
    • Problems: Ancient blocks are cut to force them into walls, and the site is reconstructed with modern materials like concrete, plaster, and steel. The author emphasizes that these alterations prioritize tourism revenue over historical accuracy.
  • Caracol - Belize
    • Problems: Only 5-10% of over 3,000 structures have been excavated, leaving 95% untouched. The author suggests this limited excavation is sufficient to turn the site into a profitable tourist attraction, with reconstruction overshadowing further research.
  • Machu Picchu - Peru
    • Problems: Reconstructed with modern materials such as concrete, plaster, steel beams, and rebar, which obscures the site's original state. The author criticizes these changes as marketing for tourism rather than preservation.
  • Stonehenge - United Kingdom
    • Problems: Reconstructed with concrete and other modern materials, hiding the site's true condition. The author suggests that these alterations are designed to enhance its appeal as a tourist destination.
  • Chichén Itzá - Mexico
    • Problems: Reconstructed with concrete, plaster, and steel, with infrastructure like a restaurant, parking lots, and souvenir shops built on-site. The author highlights the high entry fees and complex ticketing system, emphasizing the site's commercialization for tourism profit.
  • Chaco Canyon - United States
    • Problems: Reconstructed with concrete, altering its original state. The author notes that these changes are part of a broader pattern of prioritizing tourism revenue over authentic preservation.
  • Göbekli Tepe - Turkey
    • Problems: Installation of a roofing system supported on steel beams that reach bedrock in some areas of the tell. Collins criticizes the focus on tourism infrastructure, including a visitor centre and shops, "over archaeological integrity".
  • Karahan Tepe - Turkey
    • Problems: Construction of a roofing system with supports dug into the site. Collins sees this as a major construction project prioritizing tourism over preservation.
  • Sacsayhuamán - Peru
    • Problems: While the author praises its authenticity as a megalithic site that remains untouched, the broader context suggests that even such sites are at risk of future manipulation if subjected to tourism-driven reconstruction.
  • Easter Island (Rapa Nui) - Chile
    • Problems: Noted as an authentic megalithic site, but the author implies that it could face similar issues as other sites if subjected to modern reconstruction practices for tourism.
  • Yangshan Quarry - China
    • Problems: Mentioned as an authentic megalithic site, but the author’s concern about the global trend of reconstructing sites for profit suggests potential future risks of alteration.
  • Malta (likely referring to sites like Ġgantija or Ħaġar Qim) - Malta
    • Problems: Praised for its megalithic authenticity, but the author’s broader critique implies that even these sites could be compromised if tourism-driven reconstruction occurs.
  • Pyramids in Egypt (e.g., Giza) - Egypt
    • Problems: Reconstructed with modern materials like concrete and steel, obscuring their original state. The author specifically mentions the Great Sphinx being encased in modern stone, suggesting that this artificial preservation prioritizes tourism revenue over historical value.
  • Longyou Caves - China
    • Problems: Modern images carved into the walls, which the author questions as unnecessary and detrimental to the site’s historical integrity, likely done to enhance its appeal for tourists.
  • Chinese Pyramids (unspecified, possibly Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor or similar) - China
    • Problems: Trees planted on pyramids and parts covered up, despite being uncovered decades ago. The author questions why these sites are hidden, suggesting a deliberate effort to control access or presentation for tourism or other motives.
  • Great Sphinx - Egypt
    • Problems: Encased in modern stone, described as a “mask of artificial preservation.” The author argues this indicates a belief that the site has no further historical value beyond generating tourism revenue.

It would take a lot of time to address each of these comments in the case of each of these sites. First we notice that there is only one site here from the USA (Chaco Canyon). Secndly Mr Collins clearly has not domne ANY reading on this topic. He does not show any familiarity with the terms used (anastylosis would be a good one)or techniques employed (both now and historically - Stonehenge), or present his own altenartive vision based in the realitiies of each site (merely giving a moany Karen-negative picture of what was 'not done"). Thirdly, and most tellingly, he does not know that "archaeologists" are not the people doing ANY of this work!

He seems to be unaware that some of this work is done to preserve the site, if there was not modern stonework on the Sphinx, salts dissolved in groundwater wicking up would continue to crystallise on the place where the original stone comes in contact with the air and the damage would continue. Now the spalling is of the face of the modern stonework, which can be and parts of it recently have been replaced. Some of the stones of Stonehenge were re-erected and their bases reinforced as they were in danger of falling which was a danger (at that time the interior was accessible to viewers).

I do not see why Collins thinks it is some problem making the remains of a site more legible for visitors (for example anastylosis of some of the fallen Stonehenge orthostats after full study and recording). Collins does not mention the Parthenon - or indeed what was sone to teh Acropolis. He's not been to our Malbork Castle (recommended) or Gdańsk and Elbląg, two different approaches - which would he prefer?

To my mnd, there is a right way and a wrong way to use modern materials (concrete, plaster, glass and steel) to reconstruct sites. We can all see examples of both (except Mr Collins who seems to be a purist not wanting to see any at all). In some cases, it is necessary to replace missing prarts of a structure (Malbork, ?Mr Collinsd) to give other extant parts structural integrity, or support, or to keep the weather out - for example if there are wall paintings or fragile floor surfaces. There is no place for (woefully underinformed) dogmastism from non-experts.

As for the alleged "prioritization of tourism profit over authentic preservation", it is difficult to see what is meant. Since it is applied to Gobekli Tepe, I do not think there is ANYTHING wrong with making the site accessible to viewers - at least having a walkway and roof prevents entitled foreign thrill-seekers from BREAKING INTO an excavation site not open to the public and trampling all over it. In what way is Gobekli Tepe "not" "authentically preserved"? I doubt Mr Collins could formulate a proper definition of that.

The claim about "limited excavation (often only 20% or less)" and "the removal of valuable artifacts to museums", I wonder whether Collins has the foggiest idea about this. Does he want the "Valuable artefacts" to be left lying loose all over the site where people can tramp over to them and pick them up? What is wrong with material going into museumns to be properly looked after,m researched, made accessible and perhaps diisplayed in a way that helps understand the region's past? It'd be great if the museum was on -site, but then that limits what can be done with them (thinking: British Museum here).

As for excavation... it seems not to have occurred to Collins that maybe the archaeologists cannot excavate the other 80% of the site - where would the money come from? Who would pay for the post-excavtion study conservation, archiving and storage of the additional mass of excavated material? The archaeologists have excavated enough of the site to answer the research questions they have. Excavating more with the same reseach aims is an exercise in deiminishing returns. If in 300 years time the area of an average Nebraska township was going to be quarried away and had to be excavated, would every single house, backyard and every inch of teh roadways and trenchess holding the sewage pipes need to be excavated to understand "everything" about that site? Or would in be enogh=ght to dig what is hoped to be a representative sample of it because the data would start to get repetative (" the complicity of archaeologists in prioritizing revenue over historical truth"?).

Easter With Graham Hancock, "The Fight for the Past": Sedona April 19-20, 2025 (Part one)



There will be no family Easter celebrations for the pseudoarchaeologists this year, Graham Hancock is holding an event precisely in the Great Week holiday.

  Easter Saturday, April 19-20, 2025 Graham Hancock, “Fight for the Past”: Sedona Performing Arts Centre AZ 86336

The commercial event's blurb says:

Humanity’s past is the birthright of us all. So why are archaeologists determined to control the narrative, to convince us that their interpretation of prehistory is the only legitimate one, and to mock and smear the work of those who suggest alternative perspectives? Is it just pride and arrogance on the part of the self-styled experts? Or is something more sinister going on? Over the two days of 19th-20th April 2025, Graham Hancock will give a series of presentations drilling down into this issue and will present the latest evidence for a lost civilization of the Ice Age destroyed in the apocalypse that brought the Ice Age to an end.[...] 

This is just so much self-absorbed bullshit and special pleading. Like so much from this milieu, "critique" is based on unreflexive repetition of a set series of second-hand mantras, revealing a fundamental misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of the discipline. The claim that archaeologists are "determined to control the narrative" and suppress alternative perspectives is simply a misrepresentation of the field’s principles and practices, and indeed what is constantly ongoing within it.  As a discipline, archaeology is grounded in the scientific method, relying on empirical evidence, rigorous analysis, and peer review to construct interpretations of the past. The discipline is not a monolithic entity but a collaborative, self-correcting process where competing hypotheses are tested against data from excavations, material culture, and other sources like paleoenvironmental records or ancient texts.

The accusation of pride or arrogance overlooks the iterative nature of archaeological inquiry. Interpretations are rarely deemed "the only legitimate ones" but are the best-supported explanations based on available evidence. For example, the development of agriculture or monumental architecture is traced through well-documented sites like Çatalhöyük or Göbekli Tepe, dated via radiocarbon methods to specific periods (e.g., ~9600–7000 BCE for Göbekli Tepe). These timelines are not dogmatic but built on reproducible data. When new evidence emerges—such as older structures at Göbekli Tepe challenging prior assumptions about hunter-gatherer capabilities—it is integrated, often reshaping the field, as seen in debates about the rise of neolithic lifeways.

Regarding alternative perspectives, like Graham Hancock’s hypothesis of a lost Ice Age civilization, academic archaeologists critique them when they lack substantiation. Hancock’s ideas, while engaging, often rely on speculative connections between disparate myths, astronomical alignments, or geological events like the Younger Dryas (~12,900–11,700 years ago). These are scrutinized, quite simply, because no archaeological record—tools, settlements, or infrastructure—consistently supports an advanced, global civilization from that era. The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, which the Hancockians tie to a cataclysm, remains debated, with no conclusive evidence of a civilization-destroying event. Sites Hancock cites, like the Pyramids or Nan Madol, are securely dated to later periods (e.g., Old Kingdom Egypt, ~2700–2500 BCE; Nan Madol, ~1200–1800 CE), undermining speculative claims of Ice Age origins.

The charge of "mocking and smearing" alternative voices reflects a misunderstanding of scholarly critique. Archaeologists challenge Hancock’s work not out of malice but because it often (deliberately or through intellectual carelessness) bypasses falsifiable evidence, cherry-picks data, or dismisses cultural achievements of known societies (e.g., attributing monuments to a hypothetical civilization rather than Indigenous builders). This can inadvertently diminish the legacies of ancient peoples, a concern raised by archaeologists working with descendant communities. These models are deeply rooted in colonial and eurocentric models often with racist overtones, and because of this, care is needed in handling hypotheses such as diffusionism, migration and influence.

As for "something more sinister" (sic), there really is no evidence of a conspiracy to hide truths. Archaeology is a public endeavour, with findings shared in journals, museums, and open-access databases. The discipline evolves through debate, not suppression—consider how Clovis-First models for the Americas were overturned by open debate on pre-Clovis sites like Monte Verde (~14,500 years ago) once the evidence from them was shown to be reliable.   

In short, archaeology doesn’t claim ownership of humanity’s past—it seeks to uncover it methodically, inviting scrutiny and revision. Alternative ideas are valuable when they withstand testing; otherwise, they risk becoming compelling fictions rather than history.

The programme is no revelation, one wonders just how much "new evidence" participants will be getting for their money...

Programme:

April 19th Saturday 1-9pm Day & Evening.

1-2:15pm  - Graham Hancock A subversive tour of the Great Pyramid, the Great Sphinx and the Hidden Realms of Ancient Egypt. (Part 1)

30 min Break

2:30-4pm - Graham Hancock A subversive tour of the Great Pyramid, the Great Sphinx and the Hidden Realms of Ancient Egypt. (Part 2)

4-6pm 2 hours for dinner food trucks on site and concession stand

6-7:30pm Ancient Apocalypse: What happened to the world between 12,800 and 11,600 years ago and why we should care. An on-stage discussion with Dr Allen West, a leading member of the Comet Research Group, the team of scientists behind the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis, will follow Graham Hancock's presentation. Dr West will speak to the challenges, underhand tactics, and harassment that he and his colleagues have faced because they have dared to think outside the box about the cataclysmic ending of the last Ice Age.

30 min Break

8-9:30pm Debunking the Debunking Industry Presentation by Graham Hancock followed by on-stage discussion with Dan Richards: (“Dedunking the Past”: youtube.com/@DeDunking).

9:30 -11:00pm Book signing in the Auditorium.

9:30 -11:30pm Social hour DJ Gabriel BE  in the Lobby

Rather disappointingly, lots of breaks. The "evidence' for "something going on before the catastrophe" is restricted to one bit of the ancient world, Egypt, and it looks like just one bit of it, the monuments on the Giza plateau of the Fourth Dynasty. Why that place, why that dynasty? Who knows. Hancock will do his usual party trick of proposing that the Pyramids (here) and the Great Sphinx were built by or influenced by a lost, advanced civilization predating the Old Kingdom.  The term “subversive” suggests he will critique established chronologies and purposes for these structures, possibly arguing they are far older than accepted (e.g., tying the Sphinx to a pre-12,000 BCE era based on controversial geological claims like water erosion) or connected to esoteric knowledge. The “Hidden Realms” component may delve into mystical or unverified aspects—astronomical alignments, lost technologies, or mythological links to a global Ice Age culture, themes Hancock explores in his older works. Expect a visually engaging presentation, heavy on speculation, light on falsifiable evidence, appealing to those skeptical of mainstream narratives. But we've heard this all before. 

Then the Younger Dryas bit. They promise "What happened to the world between 12,800 and 11,600 years ago and why we should care". The dates given align with the Younger Dryas (ca. 12,900–11,700 years ago) a climatic event marking a sudden return to cold, glacial conditions  in the northern hemisphere  during the transition from the Pleistocene to the Holocene. Archaeologically we see the Natufian culture (ca. 14,500–11,500 years ago), sites like Tell Abu Hureyra (Syria) , in Europe: Magdalenian hunter-gatherers (ca. 17,000–12,000 years ago) persisted, hunting reindeer and bison in colder conditions. Sites like Gönnersdorf (Germany) reveal art and temporary camps. In the Americas: Clovis culture (ca. 13,300–12,800 years ago). In the southern hemisphere, this period was actually a warm one not cold, so in Africa microlithic cultures emerge and the material culture evolves accordingly. So it is unclear why this whole exciting and varied period would be represented just by "an on-stage discussion with Dr Allen West, a leading member of the Comet Research Group", moreover that he apparently intends to speak mainly of "the challenges, underhand tactics, and harassment that he and his colleagues have faced because they have dared to think outside the box about the cataclysmic ending of the last Ice Age". Boring. We've heard them playing the victim so many times. The reason this is here is to boost Hancock's vision of a "forbidden/ repressed knowledge". The Younger Dryas lasted ć.1200 years, yet all Sedona has to offer is some bloke moaning because the academic community is not 100% welcoming to his ideas about how it began. Note there is nobody invited from the other side so participants can hear what the problems are with the proxy evidence cited. 

The next section is predicated on the premise that there is some kind of organized "Debunking Industry" (sic) dedicated to tackling ("debunking") "alternative views". Of course there is no such thing. Many archaeologists ignore "crackpot amateurish theories", others attempt to engage to inform public opinion. It is the latter Hancock and Richards have issues with. Richards is likely to critique what they perceive as dismissive or overly rigid responses from academic archaeologists to speculative theories. He sometimes highlights valid points, like oversights in specific academic arguments, but his defenses of Hancock often rely on rhetorical flourish over primary data. For instance, challenging an archaeologist’s claim about domesticated plants reverting to wild forms (a real phenomenon in some cases, like rice) doesn’t prove an Ice Age civilization.

The next day has no surprises either:

Easter Sunday, April 20th 10am-6pm 

10 am-11:30am Gobekli Tepe. Why it matters. Presentation by Graham Hancock 

this will be followed by on-stage discussion with Jimmy Corsetti (“Bright Insight: youtube.com/@BrightInsight ) and Mike Collins (Wandering Wolf: https://www.youtube.com/@WanderingWolf ) who’ve recently returned from Turkey with disturbing new evidence of how archaeologists are betraying the past at Gobekli Tepe.

11:30 am-1:30pm Lunch food trucks on site and concession stand

1:30 - 3:30pm: A catastrophic history of the world: the elephant in the room that archaeology ignores. Graham and renegade scholar Randall Carlson engage in a 90-minute conversation followed by a 30-minute audience Q&A.

30 minute break

4-6pm Why the past isn’t safe in the hands of archaeologists. Humanity’s past is our shared inheritance. Archaeologists have no right to claim a monopoly over it, to seek to control what is said about it, to demand that their interpretation of prehistory be accepted as the only legitimate one, or to mock and smear the work of those who suggest alternative perspectives.

In his closing presentation Graham will argue that we can never truly know the past if we insist – as most archaeologists do – that our route to the unknown can only be through what’s known already, if we limit our attention, as most archaeologists do, to “tools and trash”, and if our primary career goal isn’t to challenge the status quo – a risky move for any archaeologist – but to seek out evidence that reinforces it. Expert guest Manu Seyfzadeh will join Graham on-stage at a relevant point during the presentation to say a few words on the connections, hotly resisted by archaeologists, that are now being confirmed between the mysterious Edfu Building Texts and Plato’s story of Atlantis.

6pm-8pm Book signing in the Auditorium. Dinner food trucks on-site and a concession stand. Farewell Social hour DJ Gabriel BE  in the Lobby

Yawn... This fixation with Gobekli Tepe is difficult to understand. It is just one of a series of sites in the region, on present knowledge it is not the oldest of them, neither is it unique among them. Focussing on this one site obscures the others and what they tell (as a group) abut the socio-cultural processes going on in this region on the fringe of the Fertile Crescent. But of course (no matter what they say), this is not what interests the pseudoarchaeologists, they are interested almost exclusively in the PICTURES AND CARVINGS ON THE STELAE. Nothing else. They are incensed that not all of them have been excavated from the stratified layers that surround them. 

YouTube creators Jimmy Corsetti ("Bright Insight") and Mike Collins ("Wandering Wolf") are claiming that excavations at Göbekli Tepe are insufficient or deliberately stalled, citing issues like tree planting or construction near the site as evidence of neglect or a cover-up.  Their "disturbing new evidence"   alleges Turkish  mismanagement, destruction, or suppression of findings at Göbekli Tepe. Corsetti has criticized the pace of excavations, suggesting archaeologists are complicit in obscuring the past (he means the pillars).

The two hour session on 1:30 - 3:30pm: :"A catastrophic history of the world: the elephant in the room that archaeology ignores" is puzzling. It's not clear what catastrophes they mean (mudflood?) It should in any case be retitled "A catastrophic history of the world: the general model that archaeology abandoned for lack of evidence" - Catastrophism was popular in the nineteenth century. Yet it is not often noted how frequently there is a catastrophist context to pseudoarchaeology in general, and the Hancockian brand of it in particular. This is the messaghge that the whole sequence of presentations wants to present:

Golden Age (progress, harmony, advanced technologically, minimum footprint on environment) 

-> CATASTROPHE that we were powerless to stop (so why should we fight to improve things now as the future is out of our hands?) 

-> "Sinister forces" are conspiring to keep people unaware of the "Truth" (but only WE, an elite and chosen group of seekers of the hidden and forbidden Truth, know the real answer).