À l'aube de notre histoire

This isn't a very well made show at all. It feels like something they made for a NatGeo show back in the 2000s but much less factual. The amount of slow-motion, pan-over drone shots of the worksite and Graham Hancock power-posing seem to outnumber the frames that actually meaningfully push the content forward.

Essentially the show continuously presents archaeological evidence that refutes the typical timeline of human history, which Hancock insists must be because of this advanced ancient civilization we've lost contact with. There's no evidence though of these mystical capabilities.

It genuinely feels like Graham Hancock is just showing up to various active archeological sites with a film crew, asking the workers questions, and then splicing out the parts of the interview that may further the ongoing narrative. I'm not convinced that the archaeologists presenting their findings are doing so in support of his theory, they're just having individual frames of content being mined out of interviews and interaction.

Why is this concerning? It's a film that has been made professionally enough to be called documentary even though it's not factual. Someone who doesn't really have a whole lot of attachment to the issue would probably entertain this as a factual documentary without looking too critically at it. And someone who is a genuine conspiracy theorist would allow this to feedback into their disbelief in genuine science anyway.

Could go on on, but I'll stop here.

This held my attention pretty well. I thought it was a bit overly rhetorical at parts and that the editing of (most of) his interviews with field experts or "buffs" (his term) really zeroed in on whatever sound bits propagated his precise message, otherwise ignoring most of what they might've contributed.

Some of the reviews here state that he offered no "proof" of a prehistoric advanced civilization, and that pyramids, stone temples and such are not "advanced". On the contrary, the point he's trying to argue is that a global cataclysm would've wiped out all traces of any prehistoric advanced people, and that if there are traces, they may exist in places we haven't looked or been willing to look (which he gives examples of). He's arguing that, in fact, the scale of construction endeavors (megaliths, pyramids, subterranean structures), and the astronomical designs/orientations seen in them are advanced enough to suggest a level of knowledge and sophistication that could only have been passed down from earlier humans, thus indicating that they must've been constructed at more of a resource, technology, and population 'reset' than the beginning of human life as we know it. In other words, the primitive hunter-gatherer groups that archaeologists currently believe were the earliest humans couldn't have just up & created these structures, all at around the same time--nor would they have had any reason to unless motivated by stories of fear & suffering from an apocalypse.

He dumps on archaeologists a lot, but seems to offer some reasonable explanations for it: he says they discount theories while refusing to look into them; that they refuse to excavate certain places; that they are not motivated to correct people's understanding of history even as new science proves old science to be incorrect.

I can see that, to be honest. It's not that I know much about archaeology specifically, but it is a field wrapped in academia, which comes with all sorts of funding, political, and bureaucratic issues, all while the people involved are necessarily as passionate about furthering their own careers (and maybe supporting themselves) as they might be about furthering human knowledge. Ideas/projects that get funding are often within the comfort zones of various interconnected institutions, following ever similar paths, expanding on existing ideas, etc. This kind of thing exists all over academia. Look up Drs. Karikó and Weismann re: how long it took to get funding for mRNA vaccine research, for example.

I'm gonna find myself some popcorn and look forward to hearing/reading any archaeology community response to this.

Hancock leads us on a nice and tidy path of his research and field of interest during the past decades, and gives us an compelling theory of lost civilizations due to global cataclysm.

Critics of this documentary series seem to dislike Hancock for his rejection of consensus in fields like archeology and geology, or dislike Hancock for being arrogant and bitter (in rather arrogant and bitter wording themselves).

Personally I find the theory well substantiated, enough to warrant more interest and research. I'm filled with a burning desire to see more of the submerged structures, and to excavate areas that have only been found via LiDAR scanning.

If you'd like to dip your toe into some groundbreaking theories relating to ancient civilizations, and the possible reasons for so little remaining for us to find, this is an excellent start.

If his motivation for making this film was merely asking questions about natural phenomenons & seemingly, forgotten landmarks, then this show has some defining moments. I do feel like he throws around a lot of dates, and treats thousands of years very loosely in his episodes, but his David Attenborough oration made this show more entertaining. The music & zoomed in angles made some moments a little overdramatic, which disconnected our thoughts from the story. Was the show thought provoking, yes, was is it entirely factually supported, no. This show has created many good questions & raised some interesting hypotheses. Why does a show like this create an apocalypse of his own, an a apocalypse of vitriol. His ideas are interesting, and this creates more investigations in to these suggestions. One thing we know, is those sites exist, and the monoliths and sites are old, so someone must have built them with more knowledge then clubs & loin clothes. This is indeed a thought provoking show, but remember, he is still throwing out ideas. If anything, this show has an entertainment value, but if this show doesn't provide accuracy to the ancient culture of forgotten history, then at least the show has shed some light on the current academic narrow mindedness of ancient history already has been answered. Whether you agreed with his viewpoint or not, we can see how this show has created interesting conversations & intriguing further study.

'Ancient Apocalypse' is an often confused, and generally arrogant, attempt to sensationalize history through one person's insistence of a rather ridiculous idea, and his desire to pick a fight with archaeologists, historians, and scientists.

Graham Hancock insists, on the one hand, how archaeologists and scientists all around the world have locked themselves into this one idea of human history, and are unwilling to change their perspective in light of new archaeological evidence.

On the other hand, he takes all the evidence, the myths and legends of diverse cultures, and any facts, hints, and suggestions he can find, and twists them all to fit into his own idea of an incredibly advanced, forgotten ancient civilization while doing exactly what he constantly accuses academics of doing: not being willing to accept anything which defies their own perception.

He has visited some amazing places, found some fascinating links between separate cultures across history, and maybe even come up with a few half-decent ideas about why we need to continue extensive research into our past to better understand our ancient ancestors.

However, the biggest conclusion he has drawn is largely nonsensical. The way he keeps implying ancient humans could not have progressed as they did, to discover agriculture and build large monuments and structures, without the help of some advanced civilization forgotten by history is plain arrogant, insulting, extremely annoying, and rather hypocritical given he accuses archaeologists of the very same arrogance he displays himself.