Ancient Apocalypse - A sage is rising in the west

Netflix's new documentary Ancient Apocalypse was on top of the charts for quite some time. The show is hosted by Graham Hancock, a writer who has written several books regarding his theory of a lost stone age civilization. The series is based on Hancock's books "Magicians of the Gods" and "America before."

But how well do Hancock's claims hold up when examined? In this episode, Fredrik, with his background in archaeology, looks into the origins of the theories of Hancock. We will learn more about what he is about and where these ideas originated. This journey will be through esoterism, Blavatskian Theosophy, philosophy, and archaeological methods. 

We're also joined by Dr. Jeb Card and Brian Dunning, who shares their knowledge about these ideas. 

Dr. Card is an Assistant Teaching Professor at Miami University and a pre-Hispanic Maya political history specialist. He has also been dealing with pseudoscience for a long time. Dr. Card has written Spooky Archaeology and co-edited Lost city, found pyramid. He is also the co-host of the podcast "In research of" and, previously, co-host of Archaeological Fantasies.

Brian Dunning is the host of the award-winning show Skeptoid, that's been going on for 16 years. He has also produced several documentaries, but recently "Science friction." It's a documentary about how filmmakers edit scientists out of context, something people have witnessed happening in Ancient Apocalypse. Brian also has a new documentary that will soon be released called "The UFO Movie THEY Don't Want You to See".

In this episode:

Intro and setting of the stage

Jeb Card Interview (4:30)

Atlantis (23:40)

Hyperdiffusion (35:02)

Atlantis: Rebirth (39:40)

Ignatius Donnelly (42:28)

Esoterism (50:32)

Helena Blavatsky and Theosophy (51:13)

Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy (54:18)

Edgar Cayce (55:18)

Brian Dunning Interview (59:36)

Hi, hello, and välkommen to Digging Up Ancient Aliens. This is the podcast where we usually examine the TV show, Ancient Aliens. But today, we’re going to switch out one world and examine Ancient Apocalypse. Do the claims hold water to an archaeologist or are there better explanations out there?

I am your host, Fredrik, and this is episode 30. As you just heard, we’re going out on a little detour again. Last time we reacted to Buzzfeed's unsolved but this time, we’re going after something a little bit bigger. Netflix semi new show Ancient Apocalypse, hosted by Graham Hancock and largely based on his books Magicians of the Gods and America before. What we’re about to embark on is a breakdown of the series in three parts. This means that we’re not going to dissect the series in nitty-gritty detail. Instead, we will have a different approach. Several others have already gone into greater detail, breaking down each episode. So I’ll focus a little bit more on what I believe they might have missed. We also have brought up almost every site Hancock is visiting already, but with the claim, it was aliens behind them.

We will also have a couple of guests who will share some great insights we can use when watching this show or confronting these types of more dubious historical claims. At first, I contemplated inviting Graham Hancock, but he does have access to quite large platforms already. Why offer more? But if you want to come on as a guest, Graham, you’re welcome to. Just have your people contact me, and we can set something up.

Remember that you can find sources, resources, and reading suggestions on our website, There you also find contact info if you notice any mistakes or have any suggestions. And if you like the podcast, I would appreciate it if you left one of those fancy five-star reviews I've heard so much about. 

Now that we have finished our preparations, let’s dig into the episode.

A comet is tumbling down through the atmosphere. But the people witnessing this do not know it by this name. In later tellings, they would refer to this as the serpent in the sky; others called it a dragon or the Evil One. At 50 000 kilometers an hour, the large cometh crashed into the ground. If there were some close by, they suddenly were no more. Those further away would feel the ground shaking as if the earth itself trembled in fear of what was to come. Those furthest away only felt a slight shiver, but the omen in the sky had already told them something was coming. For some time, everything was still, but it would change quickly as the water rose. One of the greatest civilizations we had seen until then was promptly lost, except for a few people who managed to survive. These people took it upon themselves to wander the earth, sharing a warning of coming danger and teaching others the lost technologies and knowledge.

This story might be familiar to you if you have watched the show Ancient Apocalypse or read Graham Hancock's books. But it's not from Hancock's books; I got this based on the book "Ragnarök: The age for fire and gravel" by Ignatius Donnelly. We will get back to Donnelly later, but I'm bringing this up to explain that the ideas in Ancient Apocalypse are not new. They have been around since at least the turn of the last century, and to contend with these ideas, we need to understand their origin. To ease us into this first part of the exploration, I like to welcome our first guest.

Links to Jebs' books "Spooky Archaeology" and "Lost City, Found Pyramid" will be found in this episode's show notes. His podcast with our previous guest Blake Smith "In research of," will be there too. 


To paraphrase Dr. Ken Feder, according to alternative history theorists, archaeologists and historians constantly lose civilizations (Feder, 2020). I would argue that losing track of an abandoned site is natural, but what differentiates a lost real site from a made-up one is that we find the real ones sooner or later. We also uncover them where they logically would be. Take, for example, the most known example, Troy. Heinrich Schliemann is attributed as the discoverer in 1873, but people had suggested the site of Hisarlik since at least 1822 (Card, 2019b). To be honest, Schliemann probably did the place a considerable disservice. It has been discovered that he faked a couple of finds, such as Priam's Treasure and a led figurine with a swastika scratched into it. Another place lost and found is the town of Truso, described by Wulfstan (Jagodziński, 2009). However, again, we found it on the shore of Lake Druzno, where we expected it to be. Note that both these locations were quickly found when people started to look. 


Compare this to the more fabled civilizations of Lemuria, Mu, and well Atlantis. Or El Dorado, the lost city of Z, and many other places. The mother of most of these legends is the story of Atlantis (Feder, 2020), originating as a rhetorical device by Plato. While this fabled city only gets a small role in the Ancient Apocalypse series, Hancock's ideas would not be much without it. To truly understand the hypothesis Graham present, we need to understand Atlantis and what this legend birthed.

Hancock claims in the show that "But for the tale of Atlantis to accord so precisely with the latest scientific evidence on the end of the Ice Age, should give even the harshest of skeptics pause for thought." This examination will be one of many, de Camp wrote back in the 1950s that thousands of articles have been written "ranging in tone from the soberest science to the wildest fantasy." The amount has not become less since then.

Platon was born in 429 or 428 BCE. This date isn't too important, but when he was 18 or 19, he became a student of the famous Socrates. While Socrates never bothered to write something down (Feder, 2020), he was fortunate to have such an ambitious pupil as Plato. As we know, Plato, just as Cher and Prince went by his mononym and was a star in his time. I've no idea why I went with these examples, but I'm younger than you think

Plato is also known for using dialogs to teach, but they were never intended to be taken as records from a real conversation. These dialogs usually include his old teacher, friends, and other real people (de Camp, 1975). They were intended to be literary devices to represent Platos' ideas. 

Plato describes Atlantis in two works, Timeaus, which was completed, and Critias, which was left unfinished. But  there would have been a third book called Hermocrates (Jordan, 2001). These books were to elaborate on Platons "Republic," even taking place the night after this discussion in 421 BCE. Plato was about eight years old at the time, so he was probably not there. The books were written around 355 BCE, putting Plato in his 70's (Jordan, 2001). 

If we read Timeaus, we learn that Socrates wants to continue discussing the perfect society. While we today might see Socrates' ideal as rather fascist, nonetheless, he gives his pupils the task of describing an ideal society and how it would perform against Athens. Hermocles proceeds to throw Critias under the bus by volunteering him to Socrates. Most presumably steaming of fury and planning his revenge Hermocles Critias go on and tells a story told to him by his grandfather. The grandfather had first conveyed this story during a festival called Apaturia, during which young chaps could win prizes for their literary inventions. But it was not Critias the older (the grandfather is, of course, named Critias too) who first told the story. No, that would have been his father, Dropides. Of course, this is not the source either. That was a Greek sage named Solon, who had heard it from a random priest in Egypt around 590 BCE. If we plot all this out, Plato retells a 235-year-old story (Feder, 2020).

What we have in Timeaus is an introduction, but as we learned in the past, it's here Plato specified that Atlantis is in the Atlantic outside the straight of Gibraltar. The Egyptian priest stresses that the Atlanteans made an unprovoked attack against Europe and Asia. Reading the book, we see that Critias was trying his best to describe the Atlanteans as evil. After this introduction, Timeaus is granted the floor and lectures about the universe's origin.

Heading to Critias, we learn that he first chitchats about ancient Athens and how it was 9000 years ago. Just by coincidence, it matches Plato's ideas in the Republic to the letter. Isn't this truly mysterious? We then learn that the decadent Atlanteans started nobler with a godly pedigree but would later turn corrupt. So debased, Zeus conjured the other gods to teach the Atlanteans a lesson. Just when Zeus is about to regale his plan, the story ceases. Plato seems to have abandoned it here and would die a few years later. Luckily or possibly unlucky for us, we learned in Timeaus that Atlantis ended with an enormous cataclysm that also would end ancient Ath ens. 

I challenge you listeners to find an ancient source telling a comparable account. So far, none have been located (de Camp, 1975; Jordan, 2001; Feder, 2020), and isn't that a bit strange? We have only found a small portion of the ancient literary body, but combining the sources from Egypt, Babylon, Sumer, or Phonecia, we don't see another single mention (de Camp, 1975). Herodotus, who lived only a century before Plato, never mentioned this story while writing about aspects of Athenian history. Neither do other historians that go into greater detail about the Athenian military power both after and before Plato. Why would they leave out such a great victory? Most likely because they knew it was not meant to be taken literary.

When we look at all of this, it becomes clear that the Greeks and others after saw this as the literary invention it was intended to be. Plato put the story in for the Greeks' mysterious time, just as authors put their stories in a distant time. Saying Atlantis is real is like claiming Middle Earth is real and that the Shire is located in today's Flen in Sweden. You might object and say that Critias explains the story to be true. Still, Tolkien does a similar thing in "The fellowship of the ring" the prologue starts with "This book is largely concerned with Hobbits, and from its pages a reader may discover much of their character and a little of their history." This does not mean we need to take Tolkien's writings as actual events, nor should we with Platon. Authors do pretend their stories are real sometime to drive a point. For centuries the story of Atlantis was just that, a story. But it would not stay like that forever because sometimes stories have other plans. 


Before we get deeper into what Atlantis has to do with everything, and we have a more in-depth discussion on the topics Jeb Card brought up. I need to explain the base of parts of Hancock's argument here. We need to talk about hyperdiffusion. 

What is hyperdiffusion, and what makes it more excited than normal diffusion? When archaeologists gab about diffusion theory, we usually mean this in the sense that we trace how and where artifacts unfurl (Scarre, 2018). Diffusion is used not only in archaeology but also in history, geography, and economy (Hodder, 2001). We can observe how a type of object or information spreads from one culture to another. We know that our ancestors traveled far and wide in the past and encountered different cultures that led to imitations or trade. 

We often see single-trait diffusion, that a smaller item is traded or gifted between cultures. This does not mean that the different cultures were in actual contact. In many cases, artifacts passed through several cultures before the travel was over. Note that this process rarely is one-sided. Trade went two ways back and forth. We also see imitations in an area where the original resources were scarce at the time. In late neolithic Scandinavia, the import of copper was relative later, but the concept was known. We know this because copper dagger imitations somewhat dominated flint tools in Scandinavia (Burenhult, 2003). The replicas were so detailed that they even added the seam on the handle to keep the leather in place. 

Archaeologists can sometimes talk about complex diffusion, where one culture seems to imprint on another. These cases are rare and far between and usually result from war or colonization. 

If we turn the volume up to eleven, we get hyperdiffusion. That all cultures and techniques can be traced to a single origin. For example, W. Perry and Smith argued that ancient Egypt was the penultimate source for all Civilization (Shaw and Jameson, 2008). Hyperdifferution was also used in the new world, as we will see later, to explain how "primitive people" could build these impressive structures. This kind of view is inherently colonial and has been used to defend scientific racism, such as lost white races

Diffusion is one of those 19th-century ideas that today have been replaced with post-processual arguments. Gordon Child and others were using diffusionist mechanisms but implementing a more Marxist thought. The focus became more on how diffusion worked in an economic environment (Shaw and Jameson, 2008). But it wasn't until 1970 and the publication of Colin Renfrew's book "Before Civilization" we started to shift toward a post-processual approach (Shaw and Jameson, 2008). Renfrew used radion carbon dating to show that the megalithic structures of Europe were independently invented in different areas and times. While diffusion still has its place, we have come to learn and accept that humans are more complex and imaginative than we might give ourselves credit for. 

On the other hand, hyperdiffusion has found a new home with alternative history (Card, 2019a). We see this frequently in Ancient Aliens; the idea that things resemble each other is due to alien involvement and tools. But note that Hyperdifusion carries a darker past that neither von Däniken nor Graham Hancock deals with when applying the idea of hyperdiffusion in their texts. This idea is tied to attempts to show that a specific race, nation, or religion is superior to others (Card, 2019a; Card, 2019b). 


Let's get back to Atlantis, the story that didn't want to stay a story. Almost a millennium went by with no claims toward Atlantis' reality, but it would change with Lopez De Gomorra's account in "Historia general de las Indias," published in 1552. In it, he noted, "But there is no reason dispute or doubt the island of Atlantis, since the discovery and conquests of the Indies plainly demonstrate that Plato wrote about these lands" (translated from Spanish by the author). We're no strangers to Spaniards making things up to justify or try to finance expeditions. Pedro Sarmiento De Gamboa also thought that located once in the Indies, just before talking about the barbarians of Peru's blind opinion on their origin. 

Now it's not only Spanish people we should blame; other nations also contributed to these ideas—John Josselyn, Abbé Charles-Étienne Brasseur, and Augustus Le Plongeon were a few who contributed. The two latter even translated the Madrid codex (aka Torano Codex) in late 1800, getting wildly different translations. Remember that we did not rediscover the Mayan writing system until 1973. Abbé saw a story of Atlantis in the text, while Le Plongeon read that the Mayans originated from the Egyptians (Feder, 2020). 

But Atlantis was on the way out by the late 19 century, but the story would not be ready to be forgotten. Let's reintroduce Ignatius Donnelly, the man we introduced in the opening who told us a tale early similar to the new ideas proposed by Graham Hancock. Donnelly was an American who became a lieutenant governor at the remarkable young age of 28 (Feder, 2020). Donnelly would move on and hold political office as a radical Republican, and for the time, he was regarded as progressive (Colavito, 2018). He supported the suffrage movement, was against child labor, and was a proponent of somewhat racial justice. Even if the latter part was colored by bigotry, that's perhaps most visible in his novel "Doctor Huguet," which deals with the challenging situation for formerly enslaved people in the South. While dealing with the topic in a for the time relatively progressive manner, we see how racial science shines through. Racist ideas are echoed throughout the novel, and we see this in "Atlantis: The Antediluvian World." White people are portrayed as the rightful ruling class in Atlantis, but all colors exist in this place where "barbarians become civilized." 

The hyperdiffusion in Donnelly's work "Atlantis: The Antediluvian World" is nothing the author tries to conceal. At the book's opening, we get 13 points he will prove; number three is that civilization as we know it originated in Atlantis. Later, he expands and repeats that all cultures must have derived from one common source. While Donnelly might have been progressive for his time, it's still far from our current ideas. To explain the complex buildings of Mayans and Native Americans, he insists that a race of pure blood lived there before (Donnelly, 1882:350). The base of the claim isn't new or only thought by Ignatius, the president of Chicago the academy of science J.W. Foster spoke in similar terms. Even if these racist ideas started to be thrown out, it was still a long road to walk. Cyrus Thomas's careful investigation and debunking of the Mound Builder myth would be released twelve years after the release of this book.

Donnelly's evidence for diffusion ranges far and wide, and nothing is too small or too big to include. One part he claims to be evidence is that Atlantis had art and so do all other cultures (Donnelly, 1882:141), it's a true statement, but it does not account for all the differences within the art. If the origin of art were a single source, would it not be more similar and not show signs of evolution and adaption? Looking at Mayan, Greek, Egyptian, and Indian art, we can distinguish between them. Except for them being pieces of art created with tools, little tie them together. 

Another point Donnelly make is that both the new and old world made bronze. But as Dr. Ken Feder (2020) points out, he does not account for the diverse ingredients in the alloy. In comparison, old-world bronze is made with copper and tin, while the new word bronze where typically created by combining copper and arsenic. There it is again, a clear indication that these technologies evolved separately. Same with agriculture, while the concept can be found across the globe, the technology and approach to it differ. While Europe was dominated by wheat and barley in separate fields, the Mayans tended to grow maize, beans, and squash in a triad (Sharer and Traxler, 2006).

Things are not better in the sequel Ragnarök where Donnelly argues that a meteoric impact caused the continental drift. The evidence for this is, according to the book's narrative preserved within our mythology, shared through generations as a warning if it happened once, it can happen again. You will recognize this narrative if you have seen the show or read Hancock's books. Donnelly's first book also relies heavily on flood (or deluge, if we want to be fancy) myths. You probably heard that flood myths are found worldwide and are all leery similar. Almost as if they were crafted from the same source. Donnelly certainly thought so, and this is an idea Hancock puts forward. But is it true? If we look into Sir James G. Frazer's extensive compilation "The Great Flood," we quickly realize this is not the case. It's more or less the same argument that the pyramids of Egypt are identical to the pyramids of Mesoamerica, china, or any other location you might think of. While Donnelly, in his later book, focuses more on the end-time myths, the approach is the same. 

I doubt Ignatius Donnely would describe himself as an archeologist or historian; his approach was more of a lawyer than a scientist. As Jeb Card mentioned in his article on "America before," we should not view Hancock as an archaeologist but as a mythisist. Even Graham agreed with Card in response to the SAA magazine cover of his book (Hancock, 2019). So approaching Hancock as a person trying to be a historian or archaeologist is to miss Graham's goal altogether. But to truly understand Hancock's paradigm change, as Jeb talked about, we must look a little bit toward the esoteric inspiration.


The last piece of the puzzle to understand Hancock's sources and paradigm shift can be found in the books on Esoterism, Theosophy, and Anthroposophy. These connections are familiar to us. We can see them among the Ancient Astronaut proponents too. Jeb Card mentioned that the Ancient Aliens people have shifted toward a more perennialphilosophy (Card, 2019a). Even if I disagree that this shift affects all of the most prominent names, some have a more esoteric approach. For example, Philipp Coppens and, to some extent, Robert Schoch come to mind. It's more than perfectly visible in the writings of Hancock. 


I would argue that Helena Blavatsky and Rudolf Steiner are the foundation for how Graham approaches mythical stories. Within theosophy, you collect all myths and put them in a barrel, and the ones with the most similarities are supposed to be true (Blavatsky, 1888). At the end of the day, it sounds like diffusion but with some flimsier foundation. Just because something is similar does affect its truthfulness. It might have helped if Blavatsky had added some more criteria for this, but that never came to be. 

One of the core thoughts is that philosophy and religion all originate from one source (Blavatsky, 1888). Does it sound familiar? Here's a quote "No one can study ancient philosophies seriously without perceiving that the striking similitude of conception between all" she then goes on, "during the youth of mankind, one language, one knowledge, one universal religion." Haven't we seen this before?

Blavatsky also writes about Atlantis since it's from where the fourth race originates. In her writings, she does talk about a concept called root races. Helena wasn't talking about human races, luckily for us, maybe, in this case. She where talking about esoteric protohumans. The first versions of which were m ore or less "energy." It evolved, and the fourth race would become us, and our origin is Atlantis. We also had psychic powers, but this faded over time. I enjoy her idea that apes originate from bestiality between the fourth race and animals (Blavatsky, 1888:201, Feder, 2020). But there is a common idea within theosophy that we can communicate with a form of being, spirit, or unknown sentience.

Hancock speaks about this, too; we see this, for example, in his approach to aliens. They did not build things on earth, but they are here in a higher form. That there's a "consciousness connection" among people who are abducted or have an encounter of the third kind (Hancock, 2016).


But we also see traces of Rudolf Steiner in his ideas, less in this series. But it's more apparent if we would go and read the 2006 book Supernatural, which was re-released with the new title Visionary last year. While Steiner was influenced by theosophy, he tried to have a more "scientific" approach to these ideas. We also have the notion of subraces, but Steiner also incorporated the racist beliefs of his time and became influential for the Nazi movement (Staudenmaier,2010). But Steiner talks a lot about science and how to access a spiritual world parallel to ours. 

Edgar Cayce

We should not forget Edgar Cayce's influence on Hancock's work. Cayce is more known as the sleeping prophet, the source of some jealousy since he could sleep in his job. This prophet is one of the original sources for a much older dating of the Sphinx. He came to this realization through his visions; many of them were about Atlantis. Cayce claimed to have lived some 700 lives (Feder, 2020) in this allegorical city. In one of the visions, he saw the survivors from Atlantis travel to Egypt and construct the Sphinx to cover "The Hall of Records" Cayce claimed to be located beneath. What time of the construction? 10 000 BCE. We saw the influence of this idea on Schoch in an earlier episode. But I think it’s important to note here that Cayce was not too familiar with the material. For example, he claimed that Solon’s Egyptians knew nothing about Atlantis's achievements (Jordan, 2001). While it’s unclear is Cayce ever read Platon, we are sure that some of his faith-healing patients where Blavatskians who shared their knowledge. 

It is to the sphere of magic that Hancock wishes to bring science. It is not out to overthrow post-processualism, Clovis, or revert to diffusionism Hancock is after. It's to get back to when the universities were part science and part magic show. As Card put it, he wants to become Newton in a sense. He wants an esoteric approach to these myths and applies theosophic and anthroposophic ideas. The sooner we understand that he is not trying to be a historian or archaeologist, we can't stomp out these ideas. I know we want to believe everyone wants to be an archaeologist, but we need to stop imprinting this on him. We need to accept that we need more than material evidence; we need to understand these magical ideas adequately. Let's finish this section the same way Jeb Card (2019a) "Hancock is not a failed version of an archaeologist. He is a successful mythographer in a post-science age". 

I think you have a better understanding of the origin and foundation of Hancocks' ideas. Before we move on to the actual claims in the show, we should bring forth that this show uses the same editing tricks we have seen in Ancient Aliens (and many other shows). We have reports coming that experts who agreed to come on have been edited out of context. For example, Katya Stroud from Heritage Malta wrote online that she was "Being heavily edited and quoted out of context further supports point." Ancient Apocalypse and Ancient Aliens are not the only shows or documentaries that have done this. It's so common that there's a documentary on this phenomenon. So to help us with some tips on how to spot pseudoscience and the editing experts' phenomenon, we will quickly introduce our next guest.

Spotting pseudoscience:

  1. Lack of empirical evidence or reliance on anecdotal evidence
  2. Use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims
  3. Use of scientific terms without proper explanation or understanding
  4. Reliance on authority, rather than objective evidence
  5. Lack of consistency with established scientific knowledge
  6. Resistance to change or criticism
  7. Use of confirmation bias to selectively report data
  8. Lack of transparency and openness in research methods and data
  9. Use of logical fallacies in reasoning
  10. Use of anecdotal evidence and testimonials to support claims
  11. Use of secrecy in research methods and data
  12. Use of non-peer-reviewed publications to disseminate findings
  13. Use of non-reproducible methods and results
  14. Use of misleading graphics or statistics
  15. Use of pseudonyms or anonymous sources to publish research.


You will find links to Brians podcast Skeptoid, the documentary “Sciencefriction,” and “The UFO Movie THEY Don't Want You to See” in the show notes. Before we close this episode out, I want you to know that we have a more extensive list of spotting and identifying pseudoscience on this episode's website. Next time we will look closer at the claims in each episode, and we will again have some fun guests with us.

But till then, remember to leave a positive review anywhere you can, such as iTunes, Spotify, or to your friend at the trench. I would also recommend visiting to find more info about me and the podcast. You can also find me on most social media sites, and if you have comments, corrections, suggestions, or just want to write an email in all caps, you can find my contact info on the website.

You will find all the sources and resources used to create this podcast on our website. You will often also find further reading suggestions if you want to learn more about the subjects we bring up.

Sandra Marteleur created the intro music, and our outro is by the band called Trallskruv, who sings their song "tin foil hat." Links to both these artists will be found in the show notes.

Until next time, keep shoveling that science!

Sources, resources, and further reading suggestions

Blavatsky, H. (1888). The secret doctrine the synthesis of science, religion, and philosophy. [online] Universal Theosophy. Available at:

Burenhult, G. (2003). Arkeologi i Norden. Stockholm: Natur Och Kultur.

Card, J. (2019a). America Before as a Paranormal Charter. The SAA Archaeological Record, [online] pp.26–30. Available at:

Card, J. (2019b). Spooky Archaeology: Myth and the Science of the Past. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Card, J. and Anderson, D.S. eds., (2016). Lost city, found pyramid: understanding alternative archaeologies and pseudoscientific practices. Tuscaloosa: The University Of Alabama Press.

Cicirello, C. and Curry, T. (2022). The Grand Unified Theory of Bullshit. Chicago: Gloryhole Studios.

Colavito, J. (2012). Gómara on Atlantis. [online] Jason Colavito. Available at:

Colavito, J. (2015). Graham Hancock May Not Be Aware His New Book Is About Watchers and Nephilim. [online] Jason Colavito. Available at:

Colavito, J. (2018). Ignatius Donnelly and the Politics of Atlantis. [online] Jason Colavito. Available at:

de Camp, L.S. (1975). Lost continents the Atlantis theme in history. New York: Ballantine Books.

Donnelly, I. (1882) Atlantis: The Antediluvian World. New York: Harper and Brothers.

Donnelly, I. (1887) Ragnarok: The Age of Fire and Gravel. 11th ed. R. 5. Chicago, Peale and Company.

Dunning, B. (2019). All About Atlantis. [online] Skeptoid. Available at:

Feder, K.L. (2010). Encyclopedia of dubious archaeology from Atlantis to the Walam Olum. Santa Barbara: Greenwood.

Feder, K.L. (2020). Frauds, myths, and mysteries: science and pseudoscience in archaeology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hancock, G. (2006). Supernatural: meetings with the ancient teachers of mankind. London: Arrow Books.

Hancock, G. (2016). Ancient aliens? Or a lost civilization? [online] Graham Hancock Official Website. Available at:

Hancock, G. (2017). Magicians of the gods. New York: Thomas Dunne Books.

Hancock, G. (2019). America Before. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Hancock, G. (2019). Response from Graham Hancock to the Society for American Archaeology. [online] Graham Hancock Official Website. Available at:

Hodder, I. (2005). Theory and practice in archaeology. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Hodder, I. ed., (2001). Archaeological theory today. Cambridge: Polity.

Jagodziński, M.F. (2009). The settlement of Truso. In: A. Englert and A. Trakadas, eds., Wulfstan’s Voyage - The Baltic Sea region in the early Viking Ageas seen from shipboard. [online] Roskilde: Viking Ship Museum, pp.182–193. Available at:

Jagodziński, M.F. (2010). Truso - między weonodlandem a witlandem. Elblągu: Muzeum Archeologiczno-Historyczne

Jordan, P. (2001). The Atlantis Syndrome. Phoenix Mill: Sutton Publishing.

López de Gómara, F. (1922). Historia general de las indias. [online] Madrid: Calpe, pp.248–249. Available at:

MacLaren Walsh, J. and Topping, B. (2018). The Man Who Invented Aztec Crystal Skulls. Berghahn Books. 

Roding, C.B. ed., (2019). The SAA Archaeological Record NOVEMBER 2019 - Volume 19 Number 5. [online] The SAA Archaeological Record. Available at:

Sarmiento de Gamboa, P. (1907). History of the Incas. [online] Translated by C. Markham. Cambridge: Hakluyt Society. Available at:

Scarre, C. ed., (2009). The human past world prehistory and the development of human societies. 2nd ed. London: Thames And Hudson.

Sharer, R.J. and Traxler, L.P. (2006). The ancient Maya. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Shaw, I. and Jameson, R. eds., (2008). A Dictionary of Archaeology. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.

Staudenmaier, P. (2010) Between Occultism and Fascism: Anthroposophy and the Politics of Race and Nation in Germany and Italy, 1900-1945. Ph.D. Cornell University. Available at:

Steiner, R. (2021). Cosmic Memory (1959). [online] Rudolf Steiner Archive. Available at:

Stevenson, D.C. ed., (2009a). Critias by Plato. [online] The Internet Classics Archive. Available at:

Stevenson, D.C. ed., (2009b). Timaeus by Plato. [online] The Internet Classics Archive. Available at:


“Folie hatt” by Trallskruv

Lily of the woods by Sandra Marteleur