This year Netflix will present the second season of the wildly popular Ancient Apocalypse series, featuring the work of British author and researcher, Graham Hancock. I am very excited about this year’s season as it will be exploring evidence of lost civilizations in the Americas, and from what I can see from the trailer, Sacsayhuaman, a place I know quite well, will feature prominently in the series.
The trailer and write ups also confirm that actor Keanu Reeves will also be joining Hancock as they explore the ancient mysteries in North, Central and South America. I found it interesting that Keanu was asked to be a co-host with Hancock as almost everyone knows him as the Neo character from the movie The Matrix, and I feel that his selection is probably not be by accident by the producers.
If you don’t know the Matrix movies (there are 4 of them) it is about a dystopian world where most of humanity is living in an artificial reality designed by a mysterious Demiurge (creator of the world) and policed by his dark angels (agents) in order to keep humans from knowing another reality, especially one that might set them free. Neo (Reeves) is the leader of an awakened humanity that is trying to break the control Matrix in order to set humanity on a new course of understanding and freedom.
How fitting that Keanu was picked to be the cohost for this series that has been heavily attacked by gatekeepers who seemingly want to keep the knowledge of our past as a monopoly only of the institutional elites. Will Reeves and Graham take humanity out of the dark ages of this tightly controlled narrative about our past, and present the evidence to viewers that there once was a very advanced civilization, one that was much older than most historians and archaeologists would dare to suggest?
I remember the pushback that Hancock and Netflix received after the airing of season 1 of Ancient Apocalypse, which I thought very strange, as I believed Hancock was being quite conservative in his estimation of a time when he believed an ancient lost civilization existed (sometime just before the Younger Dryas, which started around 12900 years ago). And, even more bizarre was the attack on Netflix, which was hammered by the many critics of the series for giving Hancock a platform to expound his “crazy” and “harmful” theories.
Why were the critics where so worried about people trying to find answers to ancient mysteries — even ones that even mainstream archaeologists couldn’t explain — and why did they feel this series was harmful to the general public? Was some group purposely trying to occult our past? If this is the case, we might ask, what are they afraid of? Is there something in humanity’s past that could fundamentally rewrite history?
Of course, if there is evidence of an ancient lost civilization, or civilizations for that matter, with advanced technology this could account for the hostility many academics have about programs like Ancient Apocalypse. Unfortunately, still, the archaeological establishment has a vested interest in their particular narrative of human history, one that they have been promoting for decades, if not centuries, and that is that humans evolved from an apelike ancestor, and by way of a linear progression in human intelligence, lived as hunter gatherers, and then in smaller tribal communities and then developed the first advanced civilization sometime around 6,000 years ago.
Although this linear progression theory is beginning to be questioned by some historians and archaeologists based on recent findings, like Gobekli Tepe and Karahan Tepe, places that are pushing back the timeline further in the past. However, for the majority of archaeologists evidence of an advanced lost ancient civilization or civilizations before the Younger Dryas is just beyond the pale of what is acceptable.
Even now as I write this, there are attacks against Hancock and Netflix for producing a second season of the show called, “Ancient Apocalypse: The Americas,” due to come out Oct 16. One vocal critic of the show is archaeologist, Flint Dibble, who seems to be quite horrified that Keanu Reeves is a co-host of the series. I guess he believes that Reeve’s star power as a Hollywood A-list actor will attract more people to view the series (aghast!), so he was asking people to contact Reeves (by doxing him) to persuade him of the error in his ways. Seriously, Dibble has not even seen the show and he is already attacking it. I find this really strange behavior, not only if you care about history, but also if you care about free speech!
As many people have said before, human history, and science in general, should never be a closed book. As new evidence comes along that disproves an old theory, we should be open to reevaluating our positions and our beliefs.
I say this because I live in Peru, very near some of the most amazing archaeology sites in the world, and as I have mentioned in my book Sorcerers of Stones: Architect of the Three Ages, there is a problem in that the conventional narratives told about these sites from archaeologists and official guides, don’t seem to mesh with the reality I am witnessing on the ground.
For instance, when I am walking around Sacsayhuaman and observing the Hanan Pacha monoliths, I can see that they show evidence of being molded. I can see the signs of fingerprints lifting the plasticine-like material to make canals, basins, ledges and rectilinear forms. In other areas, I can see scoop marks and pressed impressions in the rock that simply could not be done with copper tools and pounding rocks, which is the conventional explanation. Also, you can see repair work done on rocks that have a different color to the main stone, yet both are as hard as any solid stone.
Unfortunately, most archeologists and geologists still heavily resist the topic of geopolymers being used at archaeology sites. If you don’t know what a geopolymer is it is a reconstituted rock made from both natural and, today, synthetic, sources. It is used to form plasticine-like structures which dry very hard and are very durable, unlike modern concretes or clays. Today, geopolymers are used in many industries, including building and construction and the arts. However, to mention their use in an archaeological context is considered just too exotic for the majority of archaeologists and geologists, with many detractors calling this “alien tech” or “beyond the capabilities of early man.”
Of course, there is one’s opinion, and then there is hard science, and when it comes to the so-called experts it is the dance of choosing what science you wish to promote, and, almost unfailingly, they chose to pick the science that promotes the dominant point of view of their peers — peers that have tenure at universities and thesis papers from the institutions which they serve.
However, exceptions to peer pressure does occur, especially when one is an outsider to the cultural norms the power structures within a foreign country, and that is maybe why the Russian scientists who came to examine Sacsayhuaman back in 2012, at the behest of the National Institute of Culture of Peru, felt they could safely say in a presentation to that body that they thought that the colossal stone walls at the citadel, and in the Hanan Pacha structures found around that structure, were geopolymers. And their conclusions, of course, were based on the most modern tools of the day, like SEM microscopy and XRF (x-ray fluorescence) analysis.
Even though the scope of the Russian scientific mission was to analyze the archaeological grounds to find out what was causing sections of the wall to give way, as well as to give recommendations as to how to repair the grounds, part of their research included rock analysis, and this is where they discovered that the rock from the quarry did not match the stones composing the citadel walls under optical microscopy analysis. The latter rock had a uniform microcrystalline structure and no fossils, unlike the quarry rock, indicating that the rock was reconstituted.
The Russians followed up their presentation by saying that more analysis should be taken by the authorities to verify their conclusions. However, to my understanding, that did not happen, nor did the Ministry publish these findings. This might be because there was significant resistance to the idea of geopolymers being used to build the walls of Sacsayhuaman by some of the scientists in the room. One man said: “Seemingly the facts presented here today do not fit in to our perceptions of reality.”
Well, one might ask, do perceptions get to trump the facts?
Such resistance to the idea of more “exotic” technologies like geopolymers being used to build such sites as Sacsayhuaman were on display earlier this year when there was a presentation held in Cusco, Peru, titled, “la Falacias de los Geopolimeros en las Construcciones Pre-Columbinas” (The Geopolymer Fallacies in Pre-Columbine Constructions).
Although the presenter, geologist Raul Carreño Collatupa, did mention the Russian study, he also said Peruvian scientists confirmed that the rock from the quarry was the same rock that made up Sacsayhuaman’s citadel walls, therefore, the Russians were wrong. However, this was only one part of the story; although the rocks from the quarry and the walls where found to have virtually the same chemical and mineral percentages in them, showing they were probably from the same source (the Quarry), Collatupa failed to mention the key bit of information that the Russians presented — that there were a lack of fossils and microorganisms (which is always found in limestone rock) and an uniform microcrystalline structure in the stones at the citadel walls. As a consequence of this oversight, the audience in attendance was led to believe that this was the exact same rock, unchanged, from the quarry that was used in site’s walls, and not a geopolymer.
Although this may have been unintentional on Collatupa’s part, it was, however, a big omission and presented a very different conclusion to that of Russian geophysicist, Andrey Verianov, who studied about 30 samples of the stones at Sacsayhuaman, and found evidence of reconstituted stones, i.e geopolymers, throughout. Please see this podcast by Giacomo Renato Longato who interviews Verianov about this:
It is these kinds of omissions that, unfortunately, take place all the time, not only in the world of archaeology, but also in the world in general. It seems like someone is always trying to control the information for the ‘greater good.’ However, I believe that cherry picking your information to fit a thesis you wish to promote seems a bit disingenuous to me —although, I know others may accuse me of doing the same thing by not using official interpretations of how the sites were constructed.
Sure, I could use those papers published by archaeologists who defend the official story of how the Colossal walls at Sacsayhuaman, or the Hanan Pacha sites like Q’enko and Templo de la Luna, were built, but I have never seen anyone demonstrate how they would even make a small facsimile of these monuments with the copper tools and pounding stones that they say created them, so I remain unconvinced.
Of course, I don’t claim to know definitively who build these structures or even how they created them, although I do present in my book some interesting insights from clairvoyants who tapped into the akashic records and present us with a picture into humanity past that may pertain to these sites, but, of course, I also know that this area of psychic inquiry would never be accepted by the scientific world. However, whatever method one uses to examine the past, the one thing that I know with certainty it is that our history is not settled, and, maybe it never will be, certainly not to the degree that mainstream science would like.
It is a good time to end this article on a note about the series Ancient Apocalypse, and history in general. Although it is hard to figure out what is real and what isn’t in the world of fake AI images and widespread misinformation, and perhaps a concerted effort to keep our history hidden by the people and institutions who wish to control the narrative of human history, I believe we should keep an open mind to alternative theories, especially when they are grounded with observable facts and solid research.
We shouldn’t fear what Graham Hancock has to say. He is a very respected researcher and author who has spent more than 30 years of his life exploring ancient sites and their mysteries. He presents thought-provoking ideas as well as evidence that should get us to question the mainstream narratives about human history, narratives that just don’t ring true for many people.
Maybe outsiders like Graham and Reeves (a.k.a Neo) are just who we need to break us out of the thought-controlled Matrix and generate more curiosity and true inquiry about our past. As for me…. I will take the:
