Graham Hancock

and the peoples of certain tribes in South America. And that's very ancient, very old DNA evidence in South America, but also to do with archaeological sites like Monteverde. I did bring up the issue of Tom Dillehay the last time we were on when Flint was here.

and the peoples of certain tribes in South America. And that's very ancient, very old DNA evidence in South America, but also to do with archaeological sites like Monteverde. I did bring up the issue of Tom Dillehay the last time we were on when Flint was here.

And Tom Dillehay, who found Monteverde, who excavated Monteverde in South America and realized that it was plus 14,000 years old and therefore a lot older than than what was then accepted as the model for the first peoples in North America. When he put that idea forward, he was eviscerated by his colleagues in archaeology.

And Tom Dillehay, who found Monteverde, who excavated Monteverde in South America and realized that it was plus 14,000 years old and therefore a lot older than than what was then accepted as the model for the first peoples in North America. When he put that idea forward, he was eviscerated by his colleagues in archaeology.

And Tom Dillehay, who found Monteverde, who excavated Monteverde in South America and realized that it was plus 14,000 years old and therefore a lot older than than what was then accepted as the model for the first peoples in North America. When he put that idea forward, he was eviscerated by his colleagues in archaeology.

It took them a decade to come around to accepting that actually he was right. And there are many other sites in South America going back 30 plus thousand years. They're all controversial because they conflict with an existing model. But I think instead of clinging on to existing models, I think that's one of the problems with archaeology is this territoriality, this kind of control of the past.

It took them a decade to come around to accepting that actually he was right. And there are many other sites in South America going back 30 plus thousand years. They're all controversial because they conflict with an existing model. But I think instead of clinging on to existing models, I think that's one of the problems with archaeology is this territoriality, this kind of control of the past.

It took them a decade to come around to accepting that actually he was right. And there are many other sites in South America going back 30 plus thousand years. They're all controversial because they conflict with an existing model. But I think instead of clinging on to existing models, I think that's one of the problems with archaeology is this territoriality, this kind of control of the past.

I think instead of doing that, it would be nicer if archaeology was a little bit more welcoming, a little bit more open to new and different ideas.

I think instead of doing that, it would be nicer if archaeology was a little bit more welcoming, a little bit more open to new and different ideas.

I think instead of doing that, it would be nicer if archaeology was a little bit more welcoming, a little bit more open to new and different ideas.

I've come to the point, and I'm going to say something, some strong words here. Get crazy. Get crazy, Grandmaster. I've come to the point where I believe that some archaeologists, not all of them, most actually this problem is with a small number of archaeologists, but they're extremely vocal. I think what we're looking at is a kind of abuse of power. Archaeologists have a power.

I've come to the point, and I'm going to say something, some strong words here. Get crazy. Get crazy, Grandmaster. I've come to the point where I believe that some archaeologists, not all of them, most actually this problem is with a small number of archaeologists, but they're extremely vocal. I think what we're looking at is a kind of abuse of power. Archaeologists have a power.

I've come to the point, and I'm going to say something, some strong words here. Get crazy. Get crazy, Grandmaster. I've come to the point where I believe that some archaeologists, not all of them, most actually this problem is with a small number of archaeologists, but they're extremely vocal. I think what we're looking at is a kind of abuse of power. Archaeologists have a power.

They are the official spokespeople for the past. And they use that power to slap down any point of view that doesn't agree with theirs. So I think that there's an abuse of power there. And at the same time, there's not a realization that that's happening because the mindset that drives it is the feeling that members of the general public are unable to decide things for themselves.

They are the official spokespeople for the past. And they use that power to slap down any point of view that doesn't agree with theirs. So I think that there's an abuse of power there. And at the same time, there's not a realization that that's happening because the mindset that drives it is the feeling that members of the general public are unable to decide things for themselves.

They are the official spokespeople for the past. And they use that power to slap down any point of view that doesn't agree with theirs. So I think that there's an abuse of power there. And at the same time, there's not a realization that that's happening because the mindset that drives it is the feeling that members of the general public are unable to decide things for themselves.

This is the arrogance of archaeology that they feel that they have to tell people what to think about the past and they underestimate the intelligence of the public and the ability of the public to discern, to make choices between different possibilities about the past. They think that So archaeologists seem to think that only one possibility of the past must be considered by the general public.

This is the arrogance of archaeology that they feel that they have to tell people what to think about the past and they underestimate the intelligence of the public and the ability of the public to discern, to make choices between different possibilities about the past. They think that So archaeologists seem to think that only one possibility of the past must be considered by the general public.

This is the arrogance of archaeology that they feel that they have to tell people what to think about the past and they underestimate the intelligence of the public and the ability of the public to discern, to make choices between different possibilities about the past. They think that So archaeologists seem to think that only one possibility of the past must be considered by the general public.