Graham Hancock

I think the odds are very, very low.

It does.

It does.

It does.

That's not true either, no. It's not true. And the whole notion of the origins of agriculture, I think archaeologists got a great deal more work to do on that. Often, I'm misrepresented as saying that survivors of my supposed lost civilization would have brought crops with them. I think that's most unlikely in a cataclysmic situation.

That's not true either, no. It's not true. And the whole notion of the origins of agriculture, I think archaeologists got a great deal more work to do on that. Often, I'm misrepresented as saying that survivors of my supposed lost civilization would have brought crops with them. I think that's most unlikely in a cataclysmic situation.

That's not true either, no. It's not true. And the whole notion of the origins of agriculture, I think archaeologists got a great deal more work to do on that. Often, I'm misrepresented as saying that survivors of my supposed lost civilization would have brought crops with them. I think that's most unlikely in a cataclysmic situation.

What they brought with them was the knowledge that crops can be domesticated. And it's precisely during the Younger Dryas that we see that shift from undomesticated to domesticated crops in the archaeological record. And what I'm suggesting is that these were people who had already... conquered that problem. They'd already solved that problem. They knew it could be done.

What they brought with them was the knowledge that crops can be domesticated. And it's precisely during the Younger Dryas that we see that shift from undomesticated to domesticated crops in the archaeological record. And what I'm suggesting is that these were people who had already... conquered that problem. They'd already solved that problem. They knew it could be done.

What they brought with them was the knowledge that crops can be domesticated. And it's precisely during the Younger Dryas that we see that shift from undomesticated to domesticated crops in the archaeological record. And what I'm suggesting is that these were people who had already... conquered that problem. They'd already solved that problem. They knew it could be done.

And they brought that knowledge with them and shared that knowledge with the people that they took refuge amongst. Because I don't think we're looking at a mass migration. I think we're looking at a few survivors who are taking refuge after a global cataclysm.

And they brought that knowledge with them and shared that knowledge with the people that they took refuge amongst. Because I don't think we're looking at a mass migration. I think we're looking at a few survivors who are taking refuge after a global cataclysm.

And they brought that knowledge with them and shared that knowledge with the people that they took refuge amongst. Because I don't think we're looking at a mass migration. I think we're looking at a few survivors who are taking refuge after a global cataclysm.

I think it's very bad for archeology.

I think it's very bad for archeology.

I think it's very bad for archeology.

It does. I mean, to be honest, I felt beaten up after that debate. But looking back in retrospect on the whole thing, I think it actually makes the point that we have a very arrogant, very controlling discipline in archaeology which has established a narrative about the past and which will fight tooth and nail to maintain that narrative, including using dirty tricks. And I...

It does. I mean, to be honest, I felt beaten up after that debate. But looking back in retrospect on the whole thing, I think it actually makes the point that we have a very arrogant, very controlling discipline in archaeology which has established a narrative about the past and which will fight tooth and nail to maintain that narrative, including using dirty tricks. And I...

It does. I mean, to be honest, I felt beaten up after that debate. But looking back in retrospect on the whole thing, I think it actually makes the point that we have a very arrogant, very controlling discipline in archaeology which has established a narrative about the past and which will fight tooth and nail to maintain that narrative, including using dirty tricks. And I...

I think instead of smearing people who talk about the possibility of a lost civilization or people who even talk about aliens, I think instead of smearing them, archaeology should understand why people are asking those questions. People are asking those questions because they're not satisfied with what archaeology is offering.