Latest / The Joe Rogan Recap / Graham Hancock & Flint Dibble (2024) - Lost Civilizations and Archaeology

Transcript

Graham Hancock & Flint Dibble (2024) - Lost Civilizations and Archaeology · The Joe Rogan Recap

• 0:00
  Welcome to the Joe Rogan recap. Today we're plunging into a a
• 0:03
  really fascinating discussion that went down on the Joe Rogan
• 0:06
  Experience episode hashtag 2136, featuring Graham Hancock and
• 0:10
  Flint Dibble. Big one.
• 0:12
  Yeah, a big one. And our mission here for this
• 0:15
  deep dive is really to unpack the core of that, well, that
• 0:18
  very long conversation. We're focusing specifically on
• 0:21
  where Hancock's lost civilization idea and Dibble's
• 0:25
  sort of archaeological perspective clash, and maybe
• 0:28
  where they, you know, touch points, right?
• 0:30
  It's really interesting seeing these two very different ways of
• 0:34
  looking at the deep pass grapple with the same kinds of evidence.
• 0:37
  Absolutely. And we've got a lot to sift
• 0:39
  through here. I mean, think about those Lidar
• 0:41
  surveys in Guatemala just revealing 10s of thousands of
• 0:44
  Maya structures still hidden. Makes you wonder, right?
• 0:47
  Totally. Or the isotopic analysis stuff.
• 0:50
  Getting dietary info from ancient animal teeth.
• 0:53
  That level of detail is just, well, amazing.
• 0:55
  It's like reading a diary written in atoms.
• 0:57
  Practical. Yeah, exactly.
• 0:58
  And we'll, we'll definitely be getting into the compelling
• 1:01
  stuff. Sometimes pretty conventious
• 1:02
  points raised by both of them, stuff like Ice Age archaeology,
• 1:05
  those submerged coastlines. I mean 200 feet of sea lift, sea
• 1:09
  level rise, imagine the world. Map oh, completely different and
• 1:12
  we'll look at how farming developed.
• 1:13
  Was it introduced or did it spring up everywhere?
• 1:16
  And the iconic sites? Gobaclepe the Sphinx?
• 1:19
  Yeah, lots to cover. So get ready, the learner,
• 1:24
  you're in for some genuinely surprising facts.
• 1:27
  I think we're taking a trip way back into deep time, looking at
• 1:30
  the evidence, the interpretations, and these big
• 1:32
  debates shaping how we see human history.
• 1:34
  OK, let's get into it. So first let's just set the
• 1:36
  scene a bit. Hancock score idea, as many
• 1:39
  listening probably know, is this advanced global civilization
• 1:42
  back in the Ice Age. He thinks they face a massive
• 1:45
  cataclysm, you know, around the younger driest time about 12,800
• 1:49
  years ago. And the survivors, the theory
• 1:52
  goes, spread out and influenced hunter gatherer groups, jump
• 1:55
  starting things like agriculture, architecture,
• 1:57
  astronomy. It's a huge, sweeping narrative.
• 2:00
  Very compelling. It is.
• 2:02
  And then you've got Flint Dibble coming at it from a completely
• 2:04
  different angle. Yeah.
• 2:06
  He's an archaeologist, specializes in ancient food, Ice
• 2:09
  Age archaeology. It's literally the family
• 2:11
  business, right? His dad was also an
• 2:12
  archaeologist. Yeah, exactly.
• 2:14
  So he brings this expertise in like big data, isotopic analysis
• 2:19
  and just a really deep knowledge of the actual archaeological
• 2:22
  record as it stands. So it's that classic setup, the
• 2:25
  grand theory versus the the details on the ground.
• 2:29
  The data, precisely. And what's interesting is
• 2:32
  Hancock himself, he says, look, a lot of my evidence is
• 2:35
  circumstantial. Fingerprints is the word he
• 2:38
  uses. He acknowledges there isn't
• 2:40
  direct dated proof of this lost civilization.
• 2:43
  I mean it is lost after all right?
• 2:45
  So Dibbles approach is OK let's test this.
• 2:47
  What predictions does this hypothesis make that we can test
• 2:50
  with archaeological data? Does the evidence fit?
• 2:53
  OK, and this is where it gets really interesting because
• 2:55
  Hancock's counter is, well, maybe the evidence isn't on
• 2:58
  land. He argues a huge amount of it
• 3:00
  could be underwater because of that massive sea level rise
• 3:02
  since the Ice Age, like 200 feet.
• 3:04
  It's a strong point. Logically, if coastlines were
• 3:07
  centers of population, they'd be submerged now.
• 3:10
  A whole lost world, potentially. But Dibbles response is quite
• 3:14
  direct. He says, look, archaeologists
• 3:16
  are looking underwater. We do study Ice Age coastlines.
• 3:20
  He mentioned that recent find off Germany, a hunting wall,
• 3:23
  that's underwater archaeology happening right now.
• 3:26
  And he talks about finding lots of lithic scatters, basically
• 3:30
  stone tool debris in submerged sites all over the world.
• 3:34
  It's not a total blank slate down there.
• 3:36
  But the sheer scale of what's unexplored?
• 3:38
  Dibble acknowledged that, didn't he?
• 3:40
  Absolutely. He mentioned something like
• 3:41
  27,000,000 square kilometers of submerged shelf.
• 3:45
  That's huge. Like Europe and China combined,
• 3:48
  roughly. Yeah, still mostly unexplored.
• 3:50
  So who knows what could be there?
• 3:52
  That's the thing. But while acknowledging that
• 3:54
  vastness, Dibble stresses that we have found many underwater
• 3:58
  sites through thousands of dives.
• 4:01
  And the evidence we are finding, it's mostly these more ephemeral
• 4:04
  traces, hunter gatherer stuff, scattered tools, maybe temporary
• 4:08
  camps, Not, you know, massive temples or cities which you
• 4:12
  might expect from this proposed advanced civilization.
• 4:15
  So there's a disconnect there. Right.
• 4:17
  If it was a global civilization, shouldn't we see more
• 4:19
  substantial remains underwater? That's the question.
• 4:22
  Exactly. OK, moving on to another major
• 4:24
  point, agriculture. How did farming start?
• 4:28
  Hancock suggests it wasn't gradual or independent, but may
• 4:30
  be introduced by these survivors.
• 4:32
  A transfer of knowledge. Yeah, that's his angle.
• 4:35
  But Dibble pushes back hard with the archaeological consensus,
• 4:37
  which is that domestication of plants and animals was a slow,
• 4:41
  gradual process, and it happened independently in different parts
• 4:44
  of the world. The Fertile Crescent, China, the
• 4:47
  Americas. And we can track this.
• 4:49
  Through dating ancient seeds, mostly archaebotany, you can
• 4:53
  literally see the changes in plant genetics over time as they
• 4:56
  become domesticated. We can map it out geographically
• 4:59
  and chronologically, and the pattern shows multiple
• 5:02
  independent origins, not one single source spreading
• 5:05
  outwards. How far back does that evidence
• 5:07
  go? The oldest clear evidence for
• 5:09
  domesticated crops is around 11,000 years ago in the Ferrule
• 5:13
  Crescent. Plus.
• 5:15
  Dibble argues that farming on a large scale during the Ice Age
• 5:18
  itself, well, it seems unlikely. The climate conditions back
• 5:22
  then, low CO2, very dry in many places, just weren't conducive
• 5:26
  to widespread agriculture. It would have been incredibly
• 5:28
  difficult. So the archaeological picture is
• 5:31
  much more like localized innovation happening over time.
• 5:34
  That's the idea. Not a sudden gift from
• 5:36
  outsiders, but people figuring things out in their own
• 5:39
  environments. A decentralized view of
• 5:41
  innovation. Gotcha.
• 5:43
  Which kind of leads into how archaeology itself works, right?
• 5:45
  Double talked about that. Yeah, he emphasized that the
• 5:48
  field is open to new discoveries.
• 5:50
  It has to be. Our understanding constantly
• 5:52
  gets updated based on new evidence.
• 5:55
  He mentioned all the Open Access databases.
• 5:57
  Now researchers can share and scrutinize data globally.
• 6:00
  It's more transparent than maybe people think it's good.
• 6:02
  To hear Sometimes archaeology gets portrayed as, you know,
• 6:06
  dogmatic or resistant to change. Well, Dibble acknowledges
• 6:10
  pockets of that can exist, like in any field.
• 6:12
  But overall, he argues, it's evidence driven.
• 6:14
  And he pointed out that modern archaeology tends to avoid these
• 6:18
  big, sweeping birth of civilization narratives.
• 6:22
  It's more focused on understanding diverse local
• 6:24
  developments. He even said he rarely uses the
• 6:27
  word civilization himself because it's so loaded and
• 6:30
  frankly vague. Interesting, So less about
• 6:32
  finding the cradle of civilization and more about
• 6:34
  understanding many different complex societies.
• 6:37
  Exactly different paths, different adaptations and he
• 6:40
  stressed that discoveries that challenge old ideas are part of
• 6:43
  the process. Like the whole pre Clovis debate
• 6:46
  in the Americas took time, but the evidence eventually shifted.
• 6:49
  The census about when people first arrived.
• 6:52
  Monte Verde was key there. Monte Verde, yes, they
• 6:56
  definitely got into specific sites.
• 6:57
  That one in Chile. Right.
• 6:59
  Hancock highlighted the initial resistance to Tom Dillahay's
• 7:03
  findings there, which pushed back the timeline for humans in
• 7:07
  the Americas significantly. He saw it as an example of the
• 7:10
  establishment pushing back. How did Dibble respond to that?
• 7:14
  He acknowledged that kind of resistance can happen, but said
• 7:16
  it doesn't represent the whole field and ultimately the
• 7:19
  evidence won out. The paradigm did shift for pre
• 7:22
  Clovis. OK, what about Gunung Padang in
• 7:25
  Indonesia? That's another controversial 1.
• 7:27
  Yeah, Hancock brought up geologist Danny Hellman's
• 7:29
  research, suggesting it could be incredibly old, maybe 25,000
• 7:33
  years or more, based on drilling and soil analysis.
• 7:36
  A pyramid older than the pyramids.
• 7:38
  That's the claim, but Dipple countered with the actual
• 7:41
  archaeological excavations of the visible structure.
• 7:44
  The megalithic parts you can see archaeologist Luffy Andre's work
• 7:48
  consistently dates those features to about 2100 years
• 7:51
  ago. Much, much younger.
• 7:53
  So the argument is about what exactly is being dated, the
• 7:56
  structure or the hill it's built on.
• 7:58
  Essentially, yes, Dibble emphasized.
• 8:01
  The older dates come from soil cores deep down, not directly
• 8:05
  associated with the man made construction layers visible on
• 8:08
  top. It's about context.
• 8:09
  OK, and the underwater stuff again, Bimini read.
• 8:12
  Hancock discussed it, suggesting it looks man made part of the
• 8:15
  Bahama banks that were exposed during the Ice Age.
• 8:18
  He cited geologist Glenn Milne's sea level maps.
• 8:22
  What's the counter argument there?
• 8:23
  Dibble, noting he's not a geologist, pointing to the
• 8:25
  prevailing geological explanation.
• 8:28
  It's natural beach rock, cemented sand that fractured in
• 8:32
  straight lines. But Hancock?
• 8:33
  Questioned that geological consensus didn't he, suggesting
• 8:36
  maybe the studies weren't thorough or were misrepresented.
• 8:38
  He did raise questions about the basis for dismissing it as
• 8:41
  natural. Yeah.
• 8:42
  So there's still debate there, at least from his perspective.
• 8:45
  And Yonaguni off Japan, similar story.
• 8:47
  Pretty much, Hancock showed photos, argued they look like
• 8:51
  carved steps, maybe structures from when it was above water,
• 8:54
  maybe 13,000 years ago. Dibble saw them as natural
• 8:57
  formations, stone fractures naturally, sometimes in
• 9:00
  remarkably straight ways, again lacking definitive proof of
• 9:04
  human modification or dating from that period.
• 9:07
  It seems like a recurring theme interpreting ambiguous shapes.
• 9:11
  Very much so. Which brings us, inevitably, to
• 9:14
  gobaclipe in Turkey. Ah yes, such a mind blowing
• 9:18
  sight. Totally.
• 9:20
  Hancock sees its sophistication, appearing seemingly right after
• 9:24
  the Younger Dryas, as strong evidence for transferred
• 9:26
  knowledge from his lost civilization.
• 9:29
  How else could hunter gatherers build something like that?
• 9:31
  What dibbles take. He points out, crucially,
• 9:34
  there's no evidence of farming there, no domesticated plants or
• 9:36
  animals. It seems to be a hunter gatherer
• 9:39
  ritual site focused on wild resources.
• 9:41
  Hugely complex, yes. Challenging old ideas about
• 9:44
  hunter gatherers, definitely, but still fitting within a
• 9:47
  hunter gatherer context. So you mentioned anything
• 9:49
  predating it. Yeah, he mentioned some evidence
• 9:52
  for predecessor cultures in the region that used geometric
• 9:55
  stonework, suggesting the skills might have developed more
• 9:57
  gradually, even if the creepy itself represents a major
• 10:01
  flourishing after the Younger Dryas.
• 10:03
  So context again. Right.
• 10:05
  Not necessarily out of nowhere, exactly.
• 10:07
  And finally, the Sphinx. Always the Sphinx.
• 10:11
  Always the Sphinx. Hancock brought up the arguments
• 10:14
  from John Anthony West and geologist Robert Schoch about
• 10:17
  the water erosion patterns, suggesting heavy rainfall maybe
• 10:21
  dating it back to 10,000 BC or so much older than Pharaoh
• 10:25
  Coffrey. He praised Shocks Courage for
• 10:28
  challenging the mainstream. It's a powerful visual argument
• 10:30
  that erosion. It is, but Dibble offered the
• 10:33
  mainstream archaeological and geological counter.
• 10:36
  He talked about the Giza Plateaus geology, how the stone
• 10:39
  for the pyramids was quarried right there, including around
• 10:43
  the Sphinx enclosure. He argued the erosion patterns
• 10:46
  on the enclosure walls look similar to natural weathering
• 10:48
  seen in those quarries. So maybe not rain, but just
• 10:51
  natural weathering of that specific type of limestone.
• 10:54
  That's the geological argument, yes, And Dibble also stressed
• 10:57
  the other evidence tying the Sphinx complex to the Old
• 11:00
  Kingdom. Radiocarbon baits from wood
• 11:02
  inside the pyramids put them squarely in that period, and the
• 11:06
  graffiti found inside attributed to work gangs mentioning Khafre.
• 11:10
  Though Hancock mentioned there's some debate about that
• 11:14
  graffiti's authenticity are dating.
• 11:16
  He did note that, but Dibble presented the mainstream view.
• 11:20
  The confluence of evidence point strongly to Khafre and the Old
• 11:23
  Kingdom for the sphinxes construction.
• 11:25
  So again, it's geology versus archaeology, or maybe different
• 11:29
  interpretations within those fields focused on different
• 11:32
  lines of evidence. Pretty much, which led them into
• 11:34
  the whole discussion about media, public perception and the
• 11:37
  academic world. Right.
• 11:38
  Hancock voiced his frustration, feeling dismissed by the
• 11:41
  archaeological establishment. You mentioned that Society for
• 11:44
  American Archaeology letter to Netflix about his show.
• 11:47
  Yeah, urging them to label it sci-fi.
• 11:49
  That clearly rankled him. Understandably.
• 11:51
  Dibble, on the other hand, defended the archaeological
• 11:53
  community's focus on evidence and rigorous methods.
• 11:56
  Peer review. Testing hypotheses.
• 11:59
  The scientific process, essentially.
• 12:01
  It sounds like they just have fundamentally different
• 12:03
  standards of what constitutes compelling evidence.
• 12:06
  That seems fair to say, but interestingly, they both sort of
• 12:09
  agreed that the public is fascinated by these deep past
• 12:12
  mysteries and that archaeologists need to do a
• 12:15
  better job engaging with that interest, explaining their
• 12:17
  findings clearly. Yeah.
• 12:19
  Bridge that gap between academia and popular fascination.
• 12:22
  Exactly. So wrapping this all up, what's
• 12:25
  the big take away? This whole discussion, it really
• 12:28
  just highlights this core tension, doesn't it?
• 12:30
  You've got Hancock's idea. This grand lost Ice Age
• 12:34
  civilization, very appealing, sparks the imagination.
• 12:37
  Right. And then you have the
• 12:38
  established archaeological picture, which is much more,
• 12:41
  well, gradual, more complex, different developments happening
• 12:44
  in different places based on decades of digging and analysis.
• 12:47
  We've definitely heard strong points from both Hancock's
• 12:50
  emphasis on unexplored territory, especially
• 12:53
  underwater. That's a big unknown.
• 12:55
  Huge unknown, but then Dibble brings in the detailed evidence
• 12:58
  we do have hunter gatherer sites underwater, the tracking of
• 13:02
  agriculture through seeds, the context of sites like Gobic Clip
• 13:06
  A or the Sphinx within their known periods.
• 13:08
  It really drives home how important evidence is, but also
• 13:11
  how tricky it is to interpret. Right.
• 13:13
  Absolutely. Interpretation is key, and it
• 13:16
  shows that science, archaeology included, is an ongoing process.
• 13:20
  It evolves. Mainstream archaeology hasn't
• 13:22
  found that smoking gun for Hancock's specific lost
• 13:26
  civilization yet. But the possibility of future
• 13:29
  discoveries, well, it keeps things interesting.
• 13:31
  You never know what might turn up.
• 13:33
  Yeah, the sheer amount we don't know is staggering.
• 13:35
  It is, and yet what we do know through careful archaeological
• 13:39
  work is also pretty incredible. So this recap, it's just
• 13:42
  scratching the surface of a really long, detailed debate.
• 13:45
  We definitely encourage you, the learner.
• 13:47
  Go listen to the full JRE episode if you haven't.
• 13:49
  Check out the sources form your own view.
• 13:52
  What parts of this stood out most to you?
• 13:53
  What questions are you left with?
• 13:55
  Yeah, definitely worth digging deeper if you're interested.
• 13:58
  And maybe as a final thought, just think about that immense
• 14:01
  timescale. Human history is so vast, and
• 14:04
  our understanding is constantly changing, driven by new tech,
• 14:06
  new fines. Who knows what future
• 14:08
  discoveries may be in those deep oceans or under jungles or
• 14:12
  deserts might reveal? Could they reshape our
• 14:14
  understanding even further, maybe even bridge some of these
• 14:17
  big divides we've talked about today?
• 14:18
  It's fascinating to consider.