My Review of "America Before" by Graham Hancock

4/23/2019

Today marks the U.S. publication of Graham Hancock’s new book America Before. Last night Hancock appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience to discuss the book, but I can’t say that I was going to turn over three hours of my evening to listening to it. I will review the recording and discuss it later this week. In the meantime, to mark the launch of the book, my review is now available. You can read it on Skeptic magazine’s website, in this week’s eSkeptic newsletter, or in the forthcoming edition of Skeptic magazine in print. By arrangement with Skeptic, it also appears here on my website.

The review is quite long, clocking in at nearly 8,000 words, and even that is a condensed version of my submitted draft. In addition to the review, I will present here one of the trimmings that got left on the cutting-room floor. It concerns Hancock’s interest in the agricultural techniques of pre-Columbian residents of the Amazon rainforest:

Hancock is quite taken by the existence of terra preta, an artificial soil made from compost, charcoal (derived from slash-and-char forest management), and pottery fragments. The peoples of the Amazon developed it, probably through accidental accumulations of trash, to make agriculture possible in the basin’s relatively infertile soil, but Hancock believes that it “feels like the work of scientists” according to an obscure master plan, and he blasts archaeologists for imagining that the Amazonians lived “amid a shitscape” of their own waste (168). As a British subject, he surely knows about the fetid conditions of London and the river of sewage that was the Thames down to the creation of the sewer system after the Great Stink of 1858, and yet he finds it insulting to suggest that other peoples similarly lived under less than ideal conditions of sanitation. “I’d say it’s an unlikely story!” he writes. Medieval Englishmen used to literally dump their excrement out the window onto the street below, sometimes hitting passersby on the head.

29 Comments

Kent

4/23/2019 10:59:52 am

The review was Roganesque in length, but well done!

An Anonymous Nerd

4/23/2019 07:27:30 pm

You seem to have treated his book with more charity than it likely deserved. Did he try to turn you into a strawman again in this book like he tried to in the previous book?

-An Anonymous Nerd

Jason Colavito link

4/23/2019 07:57:52 pm

No, I'm not in the book.

Matt

4/23/2019 11:41:46 pm

It's a conspiracy by the non-mainstream media to silence you!

Dima

4/24/2019 12:02:50 am

Really ? don't get me wrong, I think Graham Hancock is a pseudo scientist, but that does not mean that Jason has no problems himself, like, presenting things in unfairly and manipulative way, for example, in the previous article* he suggested that Graham Hancock was a racist writing on the white race of the Atlantis. Graham Hancock is a lot of things, but a racist is not one of them. In his book The Fingerprint of the Gods, he did wrote about the myth of white birded man coming to america (stories that were recorded by the Spaniards, and, as some suggest, were in fact written for a political agenda), but he also talks about the statues of the Olmec heads representing African people** so according to Hancock, not all Atlanteans were white, they were mixture of recess, a multicultural civilization...so to speak. Even more so, anyone who read his other books knows that the way he talks about indigenous cultures in countries like India or Africa, his attitude towards them is way more complex than just an "Noble Savage" attitude, Jason should know this too ...

* http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/graham-hancock-describes-the-telekinetic-powers-of-his-lost-civilization
** which is wrong, their facial features are in fact, identical to the local people.

An Anonymous Nerd

4/24/2019 08:40:27 am

Of course those of us who actually read the review with motives other than looking to defend a celebrity author we happen to like know that nothing you said is related all that much to the actual review.

On "noble savage" for example, the quote is:

[Hancock’s liberal social instincts yield an admirable defense of Native cultures, but by the end of the book they tip his argument toward the Noble Savage stereotype of the indigenous.]

which plainly isn't what you represent it as.

In the other article you cite, Mr. Colavito doesn't suggest Mr. Hancock is a racist. The quote is:

[As though in direct response to criticism that his older version of the lost civilization carried the whiff of Victorian racism, he now posits that its members were Native Americans and that the lost civilization developed entirely in North America before spreading its wonders around the world to everyone else.

But it doesn’t make it better to swap out Native Americans for white people.]

which again isn't what you represent it to be. The previous quote also makes it difficult to say that Mr. Colavito accuses Mr. Hancock of being racist.

I must inform you that your favorite fringe authors/speakers don't care about you, just like your other favorite celebrities don't care about you. You may wish to stop defending them.

-An Anonymous Nerd

Dima

4/25/2019 12:41:01 am

"Of course those of us who actually read the review with motives other than looking to defend a celebrity author".... Instead of speculating about my "motives" how about just reading what I wrote? To me Graham Hancock is a pseudo scientist, BUT, I don't agree with you that Jason treatment of him is with "more charity than it likely deserved", and I gave you an example, which is not part of his review on the Skeptic magazine’s website, but it is part of his comments about the book on this site.....unless, of course, You want to argue that all of Jason's posts about Graham Hancock's book "America Before" on this site are completely irrelevant to his "treatment"....of this book. "In the other article you cite, Mr. Colavito doesn't suggest Mr. Hancock is a racist. The quote is…." If you followed my link (and it seems that you did) I'm sure you read the following statement* : " I wonder, though, if this means that all of the evidence for “white” Atlanteans presented in Hancock’s many earlier books is now, to paraphrase Nixon’s press secretary, inoperative". And before that, he writes: "But it doesn’t make it better to swap out Native Americans for white people....his new version carries with it a dollop of the Noble Savage stereotype.... It’s an equally troubling—and almost equally ancient—leftover from the colonial and imperial era". So...according to Jason, Graham Hancock previously promoted the "white Atlantean" story ** and now replaced it with a "Noble Savage" story, a story that is still "almost equally ancient—leftover from the colonial imperial era". Now, how exactly this is not implying that Graham Hancock is a racist? But don't take my word for this, let's see what RationalWiki has to say about this: "The noble savage stereotype is generally considered racist, ethnocentric, or culturally insensitive at the very least due to its association with a long history of imperialism, colonialism, and scientific racism which attempted to "prove" that indigenous peoples were biologically inferior to whites".
Now, unless you want to create a completely new interpretation of the "Noble savage" stereotype, I say this argument is over.
* http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/graham-hancock-describes-the-telekinetic-powers-of-his-lost-civilization
**A statement which I completely debunked

Jason Colavito link

4/25/2019 06:49:50 am

Graham Hancock is not a racist. The issue is that he reuses old ideas from the nineteenth century that were racist without entirely considering their origins and implications. This transmits racist claims from the past even though it was not his intention.

Joe Scales

4/25/2019 09:48:54 am

A theory fails on its merits, or lack thereof. Not whether or not it is, or had been promoted by racists. Pointing out the latter to confront such theories is ad hominem in nature against its current proponents. Unless of course they were nice to you...

Doc Rock

4/25/2019 01:47:33 pm

Things like scientific racialism and eugenics developed and flourished in particular places among particular people for particular reasons. When things that sound eerily familiar to these pop up any rational person should see red flags. Science is not always apolitical much as many people would like to thing.

Kent @ Dima

4/25/2019 05:33:22 pm

First, the Wikipedia article is far superior to the RationalWiki article in terms of length, sources cited, and attempted objectivity.
|
"Now, unless you want to create a completely new interpretation of the "Noble savage" stereotype, I say this argument is over."
|
Because RationalWiki is the last word on the subject? Piffle.
|
You should learn about and use paragraphs. Your glurp above is borderline unreadable. I have notated paragraphs with the "|" symbol for your ready reference.
|
* This is a readable footnote. See how it is set off from the main text?
** This is another one. It's perfectly ok to bunch footnotes together.

Dima

4/26/2019 01:45:07 am

KENT wrote :

"Because RationalWiki is the last word on the subject? Piffle".
And you are implying that the "noble savage" is not a racist stereotype? because, if you didn't notice, even Jason Colavito is agreeing with me on this specific point ("he reuses old ideas from the nineteenth century that were racist..."), or you just showing everyone how to make the "ambiguity" fallacy ? By creating a false impression that I am wrong, without actually showing it, or even stating it directly, what is your take on the "noble savage" stereotype KENT ? Do you think it is racist or not?

Look KENT, I don't know what you hoped to @ with your comment, but you just took up space, didn't add anything of value to the discussion* that, and your condescending style leads me to believe that my comment made you emotional, and created a very strong desire for you to respond … and do you really think that when I posted my comment, before I pressed the "submit" button, it looked the same way it is appearing now? (because it didn't).

*But at least you did it in a very correct and articulated way...good for you

Look KENT, I don't know what you hoped to @ with your comment, but you just took up space, didn't add anything of value to the discussion

4/26/2019 03:47:49 pm

First, the Wikipedia article is far superior to the RationalWiki article in terms of length, sources cited, and attempted objectivity.

"Now, unless you want to create a completely new interpretation of the "Noble savage" stereotype, I say this argument is over."

Because RationalWiki is the last word on the subject? Piffle.

Quod scripsi, scripsi.

John

4/24/2019 06:50:35 am

Any theory that excludes past alien intervention is incomplete.

An Anonymous Nerd

4/24/2019 10:11:51 am

No. Not only is there no specific evidence for such an alien intervention (and the claims made are such that specific evidence would exist if it were true), but there's nothing for which such an alien intervention is required to explain. Rational explanations do just as well or better, and have better evidence.

Mr. Hancock's lost civilizations and your aliens really are the same basic fictional storyline anyway.

-An Anonymous Nerd

prospero45

4/24/2019 07:57:56 am

The subtitle to the book is "The Key to the Earths Lost Civilization" and the pre-publication blurb promised that Hancock has brought his decades long claims to a "stunning conclusion". Is there anything in the book's content which validates either of these two statements?

The Rogan podcast was unwatchable as Hancock went through his well practised act of victimization and whining self pity. God alone knows how Mr Rogan endured it for hours on end.

An Anonymous Nerd

4/24/2019 10:13:28 am

[God alone knows how Mr Rogan endured it for hours on end. ]

He seems like the sort who kisses up to whomever's in the other chair.

-An Anonymous Nerd

Naughtius

4/24/2019 11:20:53 am

“God alone knows how Mr Rogan endured it for hours on end.”

Marijuana. He definitely would have needed something for Russel Brand.

Corey

4/24/2019 02:12:23 pm

Maybe Hancock brought some Ayahuasca to share!

Riley V

4/25/2019 02:23:16 am

I just listened to Mr. Hancock on Coast2Coast tonight. Your review was very kind.
Upstate New York root cellars are clearly Neolithic structures aligned with the store.
Mr. Colovito, you may wish to check with your neighbors.

Doc Rock

4/25/2019 01:02:28 pm

Long story short, after 30+ years Hancock is still a joke who can't support his claims but is still taking in some decent coin off the 1 percent.

Toad In The Hole

4/25/2019 06:01:39 pm

What 1% is that?

Doc Rock

4/26/2019 10:08:44 am

The ten percent of the ten percent of course.

Nick the Limey

4/26/2019 07:00:24 pm

Jason.

To be a good sceptic (given that we are writing in English) I imagine you embrace the idea tat ALL outcomes are possible but FEW are likely.

Perhaps,then, you could just roll with Hancocks lunacy and let him theorise away..he ain't hurting you, you have no dog in this fight, you're not an accredited archeao,paleo,astronomy..o professor...you're just a guy that doesn't believe anyone or want anyone to make a few quid out of dickheads.

What kind of life is that? Do a Cat Stevens mate...find a girl, settle down etc.

Kent

4/26/2019 07:23:50 pm

"All outcomes" are not possible. Counterexample: an outcome that is two contradictory outcomes.

Yes, a Cat Stevens.

"He must be killed. The Qur'an makes it clear – if someone defames the prophet, then he must die."

-- C. Stevens

Reggie Wanker

4/26/2019 08:00:18 pm

Colavito has a B.A. in anthropology, an IQ above room temperature, and a demonstrated willingness to research topics in some depth. So he's probably overqualified when it comes to taking Hancock-up to task.

Harte

5/8/2019 07:03:45 pm

Jason, you've given me an idea about when hats were invented.

Jake Conner

8/6/2019 01:43:12 am

What a bunch of non-sense. Now I truly understand, someone views the use of their time on a review as productive can only operate as a critic of those who actually conduct experiments and do first person research of the topics they speak of. You find it more utilitarian to go around replying to comments massaging your ego on your website than being scientifically active.

Enjoy being unable to contribute to society while the people you criticize gain all of the things you're passive aggressively trying to strive for. I think the rest of us will be going on about our business in the typical pursuit of knowledge rather than assertions. Referencing science that has been stagnant for 50 years as your primary form of refutation doesn't do your case a lot of justice, either.

You basically point to establishment that has rested on it's laurels for decades, it's veracity in tatters. They likely have critically lampooned you likely for failing to adhere to it's standards yourself. Yet, you're here, Jason, in these comments dying on your sword for that establishment.

As others have stated here your arguments about the philosophical beliefs of the work show you're not motivated to think critically about your thoughts on the subject. I think the only reason you resent the book is because in reality it shows you that your lot has been cast with the wrong group, you fear the scenario to come if this information is true.

Your life's work will become naught and you'll have to reeducate yourself at the hands of a curriculum you hate the individual organizing it. The sooner you get over fighting the fact you are in a sunken debt fallacy the sooner you can work toward getting in front of the embarrassment of having spent money on an education you were robbed for.

You're literally defending an institution that has no quality regulation. It's so bad, that the schools in the United States have had to resort to utilizing curriculum tools from outside of establishment positions. People in middle school during the 2007 school year where I attended in Eastern Washington received a video and a corresponding lecture in their science classes about the Missoula Flood.

I suppose we're all just supposed to ignore that fact, in your opinion. Psychology, being as it's practiced in Jung's mode of thinking where popular opinion of science in a given community subjects facts to change as evidence changes, would suggest your ideation to be that of a person suffering cognitive bias.

Just stop consuming junk food science articles written by antiquated parties and ignoring the only sources that are proving their veracity. Yourself and Michael Shermer are disgraceful members of debate circles.

Jonny Bricks

5/26/2020 11:23:58 am

Ive watched about 7 hours of Graham Hancock and I can say that yes there is def some what I call gentle racism by him that is apparent. For example in a nearly two hour lecture he didn't mention ethnicity or skin color until the final 10 minute when he mentioned white skin and beards of these saviors that restored civilization. Then in an interview with Joe Rogan when Joe asked about the Olmec heads ethnicity Graham replied saying Polynesian as African was a second thought. Graham did this twice. Even when Joe asked about any heads without helmets Graham became slightly confused and said most of them had helmets. this is because the one that doesn't have a helmet shows a clearly an afro and a negro face. Also another Olmec head shows clear corn rolled hair style. Then Graham discusses the Lascaux cave art which he dates at 16,000 years and suggests that the sciences of Egypt came down from Europe. He wont touch on Nabta Playa in Nubia or the fact that the SLC45A2 and A5 gene variants for light - white skin don't even show up until 8000 years ago in rarity and only 5500 years ago in mass meaning all monolithic structures prior to 8000 years were built when not a single white skinned person walked Europe or Asia. These include of course Nabta Playa and Gobekli Tepe. The thing is Graham knows all of this too. If he was truly interested in finding the lost survivors of the cataclysm he would without doubt focus on the Nubians who were the Homo Sapien Sapien that brought divine science to humanity. If he was so perplexed by the building of the pyramids in Egypt why wouldn't he ever mention the documented historical person who was the accredited acrchitecht of the first pyramid IMHOTEP?? Who was a known Nubian man (look up Imhoteps mother) All of the answers are right there waiting for him to research like his buddy Robert Bauval but Grahams gentle British racism seems to not allow him to cross the racial line. His body of work when looked at from afar is partially an attempt to dismiss the "out of Africa" Theory. With that said I still enjoy his work. I will still listen to his lectures and interviews but I will do so knowing of his subtle bias

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.