Graham Hancock Endorses Book about Lost "Megalithic" Culture of North America

12/13/2017

It’s been a big week for Graham Hancock. A South African professor endorsed his lost civilization, and a luxury magazine conducted a fawning interview. Now, Bear & Company is getting ready to publish Spirits in Stone: The Secrets of Megalithic America: Decoding the Ancient Cultural Stone Landscapes of the Northeast by Glenn Kreisberg, and Hancock has his name on the cover as the author of the book’s credulous forward. Of the book itself there is little to say. It is more than 400 pages long and seeks to explore alleged stellar alignments among various rocks and earthworks in the northeastern United States to conclude that an advanced super-civilization once occupied the future United States. Weirder, it is partly the work of Kresiberg and partly an anthology of partially related essays by other writers. It is an odd book.

Kreisberg developed his ideas while living near Woodstock, New York, which he identified as a center of megalithic star culture. He has been promoting version of the idea since at least 2011, including on Graham Hancock’s own website. I remember reading the linked article last year and finding it so unimpressive that I didn’t think to say anything about it. Kreisberg is also the editor of Mysteries of the Ancient Past: A Graham Hancock Reader, so you can see where from where he takes his inspiration.

I feel like I should be reviewing Spirits in Stone, but I must confess that the thought of giving more than a cursory reading to 400 pages of minute arguments about stellar alignments makes my eyes glaze over. The problem is reducible to a simple point: Even if we accept that such stones and earthworks were indeed purposefully aligned to stars and constellations (and that they are all artificial constructions and not, as is the case with some, natural), it implies nothing about the existence of an “advanced” Atlantis-like civilization, for observation of the stars and the ability to point rocks at them is, in the final analysis, not an inherent development of state-level societies. Anyone with sufficient motivation and a rudimentary ability to carve records of stellar positions could do it.

Anyway, Kreisberg invited Hancock to tour some of what he views as megalithic sites in the northeastern United States, and Hancock came away convinced that Native Americans once had a scientifically advanced civilization that expressed sophisticated mathematical truths through the medium of stones aligned to stars. However, Hancock feels that Euro-Americans have destroyed these stony wonders:

What my rambles with Glenn have shown me, however, and what this book will reveal to you, are that those fragments are indeed present, even in the intensively settled, heavily farmed, and economically developed Northeast where the barbaric forces of “modernization” have been at work the longest, erasing and confusing the record of stone.

Here Hancock presents an infuriating mixture of fact and fantasy that marries a correct criticism—that agricultural and industrial development has disturbed or destroyed archaeological sites—to a romantic fantasy that the destroyed parts of the archaeological record would reveal a “Hermetic” civilization of staggering wisdom and complexity, one possessed of “energizing, healing, and soul-enriching effects.”

Hancock is at a loss, though, to explain why North America, if part of the same global system of megalithic construction inherited from Atlantis, lacks the kinds of massive stone sites that the Old World has in spades. With the haughty condescension of a wealthy, liberal European, he attributes the missing stone structures to deliberate destruction by us heathen colonials who lack a certain European refinement and British comfort with deep history.

What is different in America is only the scale of destruction of this ancient worldwide system, deliberate destruction, pursued for short-term economic gains, by rude and barbarous incomers whose cultures had been cut off from the wellsprings of planetary wisdom for so long that they were literally unable to see the pearls of great price that they so carelessly and callously swept away.

He doesn’t quite identify who these incomers are, but when he said that “we” are their “descendants,” he makes plain that he is speaking, somewhat imprecisely, of European colonists. Perhaps stung by the repeated criticism that his hypothesis about a lost white race civilizing the brown peoples of the world is racist, or at least racist-adjacent, Hancock has here and in his newer work from the past twelve months or so overcorrected and all but falls into the trap of demonizing Europeans while fetishizing Native Americans as possessors of a purer and more harmonious ancient earth wisdom that makes them all but avatars of occult earth magic.

25 Comments

Peter de Geus

12/13/2017 09:34:39 am

Finally the logic of dynamite stone holes should be seen for what 'we' were really doing.

Only Me

12/13/2017 10:21:39 am

Another Hancock clone and more drug-induced babbling from the man himself. Looks like this is a slow day.

Jim

12/13/2017 12:17:57 pm

They are getting darn close to the truth.

" Woodstock, New York, which he identified as a center of megalithic star culture."

Maybe not megalithic, but they should interview Richie Havens.

12/13/2017 12:22:24 pm

Oh, Hancock and Kreisberg,,,, don"t eat the brown acid.

Glenn kreisberg

12/18/2017 11:25:36 pm

I think it's Jason who ate the acid. I challenge him to show us where I identify in my book that Woodstock, NY is the center of a megalithic star culture...I think he's tripping on something strong.

David Bradbury

12/13/2017 02:25:45 pm

"observation of the stars and the ability to point rocks at them is, in the final analysis, not an inherent development of state-level societies. Anyone with sufficient motivation and a rudimentary ability to carve records of stellar positions could do it."
For position-based astronomical phenomena, I don't think it would need even the ability to carve records- just two people, one fixed marker for sighting, and two moveable markers to check daily position changes.
As for Hancock's claim in the foreword about colonial vandals- the multiple 17th century records of Dighton Rock, for example, suggest that there were at least some settlers interested in ancient remains.

Kal

12/13/2017 03:11:01 pm

From the actual old photos of that rock at Dighton, it looks like much of those markings are just settlers marking it up for fun. Older pictures show less carvings. The oldest show almost none. It looks like most of the markings were created after photos were taken, possibly following the Civil War, in the late 1800s. It is not old. Some of the drawing seem to depict the bay nearby. Others are just initials or names. It's not old, per se. It's ancient US yes, but not like it's some neolithic mystery rock. Has anyone just asked the locals? They might know.

12/13/2017 03:13:42 pm

Yes, the stuff from the 17th century was the first carving on the rock. It must be fairly easy to carve into also.

Americanegro

12/13/2017 03:25:28 pm

"From the actual old photos of that rock at Dighton, it looks like much of those markings are just settlers marking it up for fun."

If you're taking about

Massachusetts and
Photos and
Carvings in photos changing over time...

You are by definition not talking about "settlers".

How do you know the first carving is from the 17th century?

The 17th century is not "ancient US, yes".

Bob Jase

12/13/2017 04:01:06 pm

If only those super-advanced vanished ancient civilizations had thought to build with something more durable than stone.

Oh, wait, the durability of stone is one of the main reasons why we know as much as we do about actual historic civilizations isn't it?

Scott Monahan link

12/14/2017 06:27:33 am

Another fact: Diffusionism was worldwide in ancient times. Still, American archaeologists refuse rigorous scientific investigation while pronouncing evidence non-existent and themselves the ultimate arbiters and experts. Post-processulism has made their minds soft and their egos huge.

12/14/2017 12:13:48 pm

Please name the top three American archaeologists with the hugest egos. Please name the top three American archaeologists with the softest minds. Please name the top three American archaeologists that refuse rigorous scientific investigation. Please name the top three American archaeologists that pronounce evidence non-existent. Please name the top three American archaeologists that declare themselves the arbiters and experts of archaeology. I'd like to research them, just like you have. The top three in each of these categories should be well known and obvious but I'm having trouble finding them.

SCOTT MONAHAN link

12/15/2017 04:58:16 pm

Peter,

If I were to respond to what appears to be a rhetorical set of questions demanding 15 names, I’ll limit this to only 5, in the interest of brevity. But I’ll go the extra mile and provide verifiable, online references.

Archaeological EGO

Wilfred D. Logan, Chief, Branch of Archaeology, National Park Service (Department of Interior) written correspondence to Dr. Kenneth Jackson, Department of Celtic, University of Edinburgh, May 9, 1977, lead paragraph

“Dr. Rickey has developed these improbable theories, not the least of which he has used my name in connection with his activities with results professionally embarrassing to me. This of course, can be remedied; of more serious concern is the potential danger to the integrity of one particular prehistoric site in southeastern Colorado is the sensationalized claims concerning certain grooves in the standstone cliffs at this station go unrefuted, and if further publicity appears in the popular press.”

http://sacredequinox.com/pdfs/5LA1115.pdf scroll to page 4 of 20

Archaeological SOFT MIND

Larry J. Zimmerman, University of Iowa, in his essay “Sharing Control of the Past” in Native Americans and Archaeologists, February 26, 1999, Archaeology Magazine

“Some archaeologists maintain that the past is lost with reburial. Of course information from the remains is lost, but only to the archaeologist.

“The idea that anyone can “save” the past is a false notion. Preservation itself reveals that permanence is an illusion.”

https://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/native/debate.html

Archaeological refusal to SCIENTIFICALLY INVESTIGATE

Doug Bamforth, University of Colorado, Boulder, anthropology professor November 16, 2004, reported in Colorado Daily BEFORE evening presentation arranged by Cultural Events Board

“There are no professional archaeologists who would take this claim seriously.”

http://sacredequinox.com/pdfs/colorado_daily.pdf

Archaeological pronouncement of EVIDENTIARY NON-EXISTENCE

Michelle Stevens, US Forest Service archaeologist, SE Colorado, as reported by Colorado Springs newspaper September 17, 2008

“For archaeologists, the question is settled. There’s not support for the idea of ogham writing.”

http://gazette.com/ancient-messages-from-picture-canyon/article/40659

Archaeological ARBITER and EXPERT judgement before even seeing a documentary

Jodi Magnuss, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, February 2007, as reported by the Washington Post, ‘Lost Tomb of Jesus’ Claim Called a Stunt: Archaeologists Decry TV Film’ and Scientific American

“This whole case is flawed from beginning to end.” February 28, 2007

“I haven’t even seen the film. They’re presenting it or setting it up as though we have a discovery and you can react and it’s all legitimate and valid which it’s not.” March 2, 2007

http://onter.net/news.html#magness

12/15/2017 06:50:39 pm

Scott Monahan. I knew the name was familiar. You should have included in your resume of "producer, writer, host, editor" Barry Fell apologist.

Example 1)
Link to your website, which is a biased source

Example 2)
You should have included the rest of Zimmerman's quote:

"The past is always interpreted from the perspective of the present. For archaeologists, interpretations reflect changes in theoretical viewpoints, analytical techniques, and the politics of contemporary society. New interpretations replace the old; that is, they 'destroy' the past. Archaeologists construct the past, they do not reconstruct it."

Example 3)
Link to your website, which is a biased source

Example 4)
>In interpreting the site, it's not just a matter of separating ancient from modern. It's a matter of separating ancient from really ancient.

"That's one of the things that is so challenging about this place - all the layers of graffiti. It's hard to know what is what," Stevens said recently as she paced through the prairie grass on her way to Crack Cave.<

I noticed you chose to ignore this, as well:
>Most archaeologists agree the hash marks were made between A.D. 1500 and 1800, she said.<

And:
>If Celts had been here, many argued, there would be physical evidence - tools left behind, campsite remains, something. There wasn't.<

Example 5)
Link to your website, which is a biased source

Your personal animosity towards archaeology has gotten the better of you.

12/16/2017 01:50:45 am

ONLY ME (whomever),

My reference, Example 1 as you term it, is a screen-grab of an actual photocopy of the original letter authored and signed by Wilford D. Logan on official U.S. Department of Interior letterhead in use on May 9, 1977, sent to Professor Kenneth Jackson who replied (on page 10 of the anthology PDF referenced) on July 1, 1977 using the official letterhead of the University of Edinburgh, also maintained in the OSAC file for Colorado archaeological site 5LA1115. Are you suggesting I’ve intentionally forged both documents because of bias? Or would you kindly retract your lame and transparent insinuations?

Example 2 is indeed an excerpt of Zimmerman’s remarks, too lengthy to present ensemble on Jason Colavito’s nickel, but linked, unabridged, from my domain to the Archaeology Magazine domain archives from February 26, 1999. You and others are welcome to read as much or as little of Zimmerman’s treatise as you please. There are many passages revealing how SOFT his thought process appears in an unapologetic objective to have his team of subjective academic allies control the PAST through the 21st century pseudoscience known as post-processual archaeology.

Example 3, as you term it, is a screen grab composite of the actual Colorado Daily article published at CU Boulder on 11/16/2004 quoting CU anthropology professor Doug Bamforth THE DAY BEFORE colleague Phil Leonard and I made our presentation to an audience assembled the CU Student Cultural Events Board. How wonderful it was to have Professor Bamforth spout forth his prejudice in advance of our presentation, but this to, is neither a forgery or fake by, what you conveniently dismiss as a biased website.

Example 4, as you term it in your rather embarrassing and hasty screed, is a 3rd party source, a Colorado Springs news article enterprised independently. There’s much that was covered, but for the purposes of this forum, I cite was is immediately relevant and leave it to the gentle readers to consume however much they want from the article. If you accuse me of forging any of this, please state as much. I don’t think it washes. You appear desperate to deconstruct my credibility.

Example 5 links to the Washington Post 2/28/2007 abbreviated summary but not the companion Scientific American article which may not have archived web content then. Nonetheless, my duty to accurately quote from these sources can be authenticated with hard copies which may still be preserved by the publications. Jodi Magness was a loose cannon, firing her bile days after its release. Her knee-jerk dismissal of ‘Lost Tomb of Jesus’ thesis before having actually reviewed its content for days is inexcusable for a so-called scientist.

12/16/2017 05:16:17 am

Scott, I will retract nothing. I accused you of bias, not forgery. The two are not the same.

Zimmerman argued AGAINST control of the past in the example you provided. You blatantly misrepresent him by saying the contrary. You call Magness a loose cannon, but seem all to willing to apply her response to archaeologists everywhere.

You're biased and possess animus towards a scientific field, an all too familiar theme to the readers of this blog.

12/16/2017 09:23:14 am

priceless irony

12/16/2017 11:26:58 am

Ironic, as well, is Zimmerman rebuts arguments articulated by late UCLA emeritus anthropology professor Clement W. Meighan in his preceding remarks published in Archaeology Magazine’s 1999 feature, “Debating NAGPRAS’s Effects”.

I agree with Meighan’s arguments; he must be as biased as me on the Colavito blog, out-of-step with majority consensus!

Since I’ve witnessed first-hand decades of abject disinterest and ridicule by organized archaeology, “post-judiced” is accurate; “biased” is a handy pejorative insult justifying dismissiveness. Let us disagree with civility, shall we?

From the very beginning, archaeology has ignored USGS archaeoastronomy authority Dr. Robert Mark’s 1986 remarks upon witnessing Crack Cave’s equinox sunrise, in the company of Ogham proponents McGlone, Gillespie and others. Mark can be heard speaking on the Sacred EquinoX library page: “I think that a reasonable case has been made that there’s something of interest here that deserves further study and I would hope that it gets that sort of study.”

Ask Michelle Stevens, “how many digs have been done in southeast Colorado to rule out Celtic artifacts or habitation sites?” “Bias” applies to her posturing and indifference. When will archaeology consider the evaluations of Celtic linguists who agree with us? Probably NEVER at this rate. Someone needs to point out the professional malpractice and lack of adherence to the scientific imperative to investigate that continues year after year after year.

12/16/2017 12:07:08 pm

"Let us disagree with civility, shall we?"

You said I suggested or insinuated you forged documents when that clearly didn't happen. That wasn't exactly civil, now was it?

"Someone needs to point out the professional malpractice and lack of adherence to the scientific imperative to investigate that continues year after year after year."

Ah, so, archaeologists won't drop everything they're doing to investigate what YOU think needs investigating. That's the problem. Now I see why you're biased and hostile.

12/18/2017 02:53:14 pm

“For archaeologists, the question is settled. There’s not support for the idea of ogham writing.”

Here's a web page I created on the topic a decade ago, setting out some fairly basic reasons why:
http://www.pastpresented.ukart.com/ogham.htm

12/17/2017 11:01:32 pm

Funnily enough, I actually know several American archeologists who have, in fact, rigorously scientifically investigated claims of diffusionism. The near-universal conclusion has been "There is not enough evidence to support this conclusion."

Dear me, you don't seem to have one single source younger than nearly ten years old. In scientific circles, we call that "out of date." You seem to mistake "rigorous scientific investigation" for "agree with your conclusions." I hate to tell you, but science doesn't CARE about your opinion, sir. Quite simply, Celtic presence in Colorado can be ruled out, quite thoroughly and easily, by the simple fact that there is no Celtic presence between any coast and Colorado. Patterns of human migration are not particularly mysterious, and they inevitably include leaving traces along the way. Basic logic dictates here is neither need nor reason to conduct further investigations of this claim unless you can present something significantly more convincing than "there are straight lines in sandstone here." A migration route, a trash or midden heap, a burial, SOMETHING that is more than just "this looks like Ogham to people who completely ignore context."

Brad

12/14/2017 10:42:39 am

To me it appears that all of these places like the Stonehenge of New England were intentionally faked at some point. It seems that American history is full of people wanting to convince others that Vikings, Phoenicians, Romans, or dynastic Chinese had come to America long ago. Most of this fakery seems to have been done in the nineteenth century. Why? There are indications that Welsh immigrants marked land claims using Ogham that many people are now wishing was ancient for instance. People who want to believe this always fail to study local history before putting all their energy into such baseless theories. I am sure that is the case with this book and in turn many of G. Hancock's theories as well. I think N. America is a challenge to Hancock's entire theory because there is really nothing here that proves it beyond a bunch of people who faked history for political reasons. Sad that he is trying to sell this as part of his ideas now. He even co-wrote a book called "Talisman" that exposes the reasons that people would want to fake things like this but I notice he rarely discusses that book.

Vgc

12/15/2017 12:03:13 am

No megalithic structures in North America? Is Mexico not in North America anymore?

12/17/2017 10:44:46 pm

Mexico is Central America, actually, especially in an archeological context; there is a distinct cultural difference between the peoples and cultures of that are and the people and cultures of a bit further north.

Mahatma Ghandi

12/18/2017 02:35:15 pm

In response to Jason Colavito's non-review (or pseudo-review I should say) of my forthcoming book, Spirits in Stone, I have much to say. His incredulous analysis, which he admits includes not reading the book due to his impatience with the subject, makes numerous false assumptions and assertions, placing him firmly in the camp of the misinformed and closed minded.

Nowhere does this book promote or even infer the idea that an “advanced super-civilization” once occupied North America.

Nowhere in the book does it assert or suggest a connection with “Atlantis.” It does infer and imply that an ancient native population was far more permanent and present on the land in a way that allowed them to develop a sophisticated and complex worldview that included a vast knowledge of the sky and the practice of observational astronomy. Mainstream scholars in the northeast generally don’t accept this.

Nowhere in the book is the claim made, as Jason asserts, that such stones and earthworks are ALL artificial constructions and are not in some cases natural (many are in fact natural, with some manipulated by humans) and he further implies there is nothing that suggests their connection to an advanced Atlantis-like civilization. Colavito continues to conflate these two issues even when no such claim is made. Again, please read the book if you're going to judge, otherwise you're the definition of prejudiced.

More confusion ensues when Colavito criticizes examining potential connections to stars and constellations while he ignores the Sun/solstice connections that are documented. Maybe if he had actually read the book we would have something worthwhile to consider in what he has to say.

Apparently, having read my article on ancient astronomy along the Hudson River, he finds no value in understanding, for the first time, why the Native Americans considered Danskammer Point along the Hudson a scared site, and the astronomy involved. Maybe if he conducted some original research himself, he could offer some insight, instead of relishing cutting up others, deserved or not. He claims he did not comment because he was so unimpressed, but perhaps he found nothing to critique in this cut and dry evidence which speaks for itself and others have found compelling. Sorry Jason, I was not writing to impress you or anyone, but only to show an unacknowledged truth.

Nowhere in the book is it implied, again as Colavito asserts, that the ancient Native Americans had a "scientifically advanced civilization.” What is suggested, which Colavito dismisses, it that much of what has been destroyed in the northeast by settlement and development, included proof that an ancient indigenous population possessed knowledge they are not credited with possessing, such as “staggering wisdom and complexity” and a shamanistic approach to healing. I’m sure they did, and Colavito apparently thinks that is ridiculous.

Colavito ironically ends by playing the race card, claiming we "demonize Europeans while fetishizing Native Americans" when we acknowledge the great role European settlement played in the destruction of Native American culture, which Colavio seems to want to minimize, to the detriment of truth. Let’s get it straight: the colonists were the heathens, believing the “Indians” were savage devil worshipers who possessed a soul in need of saving. When it comes to souls, I’ll take a pagan one over a Christian one every time.

Lastly, If a blog can allow comments and not authenticate the person who's making the comment, that is irresponsible and you end up with comments attributed to somebody who never actually said them, such as the phony comment posted by "Graham Hancock" in this thread. Maybe Jason Coca-Colavito should stick to debunking ghosts, races of giants and space invaders.

“Sometimes people's spiritual ideas become fixed and they use them against those who don't share their beliefs - in effect, becoming fundamentalist. It's very dangerous - the finger of righteous indignation pointing at someone who is identified as bad or wrong.”― Pema Chodron

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Graham Hancock Endorses Book about Lost "Megalithic" Culture of North America

Leave a Reply.

Author

Newsletters

Categories

Terms & Conditions

Archives