Ancient Apocalypse II - In the ruins of knowledge
In this episode, we continue to look into Graham Hancock's new Netflix show, Ancient Apocalypse. Join Fredrik, who uses his background in archaeology and a bit of skepticism to look deeper into the claims presented in the show. Is Hancock on to something we missed, or are there better explanations?
In part one, we learned about Graham Hancock's origin and inspiration. This time we use this knowledge to look into the claims presented in the show.
We will first visit Gunung Padang, a site some claim was constructed in 20 000 BCE and is the world's largest pyramid. Next, we go to Cholula, the largest accepted pyramid, and investigate claims that giants constructed it. Lastly, we travel to Malta, home to some of the oldest megalithic temples, and explore the Sirius connection.
In this episode:
Is it a pyramid
Nationalism and archaeology
C14 dating taken on site
Bill Farley interview (16:37)
Largest pyramid
Giants, myth, and archaeology
Sirius connection vs. the Crux
Eye of Horus in Malta
Kayleigh interview (52:42)
With us, we have two guests. Dr. Bill Farley from Archaeology Tube teaches us a bit about the Clovis debate and what happened to some of Hancock's critics. Follow him on Twitter and Instagram.
Kayleigh is a history YouTuber who hosts History with Kayleigh. We discussed Malta and tried to find some good things we could take from the show. Follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Hi, hello, and välkommen to Digging Up Ancient Aliens. This is the podcast where we examine the Netflix show Ancient Apocalypse temporarily. Do the claims hold water to an archeologist or are there better explanations out there?
I am your host, Fredrik, and this is episode 31. So in the last episode, we looked at the origin of Hancock's claim and came to realize that it’s mostly an esoteric approach he has toward the sources. This time we will focus a little bit more on the historical sites he brings up.
We will also have with us dr. Bill Farley and Kayleigh from “History with Kayleigh.” The sites we visit are Gunung Padang, Cholula, and Malta. You’re in for a real treat this time, and we really get down and dirty with most of the claims from the first three episodes. I also want to thank @majoraZ, who kindly shared their research on Cholula and some of the myths about the site.
Remember that you can find sources, resources, and reading suggestions on our website, diggingupancientaliens.com. 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.
Gunung Padang
Let's start where Hancock starts the show, with Gunung Padang. This site is located in west Java, some three and a half hours from the central city of Jakarta. Hancock claims this site is a mystery and has to be solved. A puzzle indeed we have, but not the one Graham might have intended.
There's a rich tradition of legends in the Malay Archipelago, as in many other places. Of course, there are legends about Gunung Padang. For example, the Sundanese people tell stories about how King Siliwangi tried to build a palace here in a single night (Perez Garcia, 2017). While Hancock usually sees things from a mythical lens, we don't see much of it here. Or do we? His primary theory in this section is that there once was a vast and powerful civilization before the deluge in Sundaland. Now did he come up with this idea by himself? Well, as we learned in the first part, Hancock is heavily inspired by theosophic writings. So is it a big surprise that theosophist C.W. Leadbeater wrote in his book "The Occult History Of Java" that Java was an Atlantean colony still attached to the Asian mainland (Leadbeater, 1951)? Just because an idea is presented in an esoteric book does not mean it's necessarily wrong.
So let's see what Hancock claims about this site and what evidence there is. There are three claims we see in the show. That Gunung Padang is a pyramid, that it is human-made, and C-14 datings show the site's construction could be 9600 BCE or maybe even 20 000 BCE.
Let's start with the first idea that Gunung Padang is an intentional human-made pyramid. Since the rediscovery in 1979 (Sulistyowati and Foe, 2021), excavations have taken place ever since. A couple of hypotheses have been tested, and since no grave has been discovered within the complex, it's usually agreed that this is a "punden berundak." This would make sense since this type of structure is found across west Java. Punden Berundak is a megalithic structure whose name translates to "Glorified person" (Pageh and Pardi, 2021). These structures are similar to a step pyramid in the sense that they are pyramid formed and have different platforms. But they are used as a part of ancestral worship (Pageh and Pardi, 2021; Perez Garcia, 2017). This tradition was most active with megalithic sites during the Paleometallic Period, sometimes referred to as the Indo-
Malayan Bronze-Iron Age (Perez Garcia, 2017). This period is usually set to be around 500 BCE to 500 AD. So Gunung Padang is one of many structures with this shape in the area, but the largest due to the incorporation of the 885-meter tall natural hill. You also have Lebak Sibedug, Arca Domas, Bukit Kasur, and many more megalithic structures in the same type of tradition (Perez Garcia, 2017). We also see connections in later Samoan traditions of mound building around 1100 CE (Wallin, Martinsson-Wallin, and Clark 2007). Before we go further, and it will become clear later why I bring this up, the punden berundak theory is entangled with regional superiority.
But the manufactured part is only at the top of the hill. We find five enclosures where archaeologists would agree we see artificial structures (Bradley, 2016; Perez Garcia, 2017). But the rest of the hill is a natural phenomenon. Since the base is a volcano (Bachelard, 2013), the we see in the episode would not have needed to be brought in. Hancock makes a point that columnar joints are "normally vertical." While there are many examples where columnar joints are vertical, look at devil's causeway, and you see that. But there are many other examples where it's not. The cracks that create the columns appear where the lava flows cool (Bentley, 2011). We see this in the supposed retainer wall we see in the show. What Hancock and the geologist Dr. Hilman refer to as mortar is, according to vulcanologists, traces of natural weathering (Bachelard, 2013). That this is a volcano also explains the "cave" Dr. Hilman claim to be artificial. From all the evidence, it looks to be a natural lava tunnel.
So we can agree with Hancock here that the site is artificial. But it's not a pyramid and has never been intended to be a pyramid. The constructors also used locally available stones to construct this punden berundak. So that we don't know its function or refuse to accept it's manufactured is a rather strange claim from Hancock. But note that this hill is an ancient volcano, and the stones we see are usually found in the necks of the vulcanos that this site is a part of (Perez Garcia, 2017).
Now for the dates, and of course, things start to take a darker turn here. Much of the episode is spent with the geologist Dr. Danny Hilman Natawidjaja. He was, together with lead archaeologist Ali Akbar responsible for an excavation that took place here between 2011 and 2014. Both appear throughout this episode as experts, but this excavation has not been without criticism. And to understand the C14 dating, we need to look closely at how they excavated the site.
We should pause and reflect every time we notice archaeology is used for political gain. First, we should note that Indonesia is a post-colonial state. While the first president Soekarna was trying to build a nation based on economic freedom from the west (Sulistyowati and Foe, 2021), empires from the pre-colonial past were used to strengthen the legacy of his regime. That archaeology has been used to support nationalistic ideas (Díaz-Andreu and Champion, 2014) is far from new. Neither is sponsoring a pseudo-archaeological claim to boost your national image. We also saw this in Bosnia with Semir Osmanagic pyramids in Visoko (Trusohamn, 2022). We see another similarity with the Bosnian pyramids, funding going to investigate fringe ideas (Dipa, 2014; Trusohamn, 2022). The research team at Gunung Padang received 3 billion Rupiah (Dipa, 2014) in initial funding. Compare this to the 4,6 billion Rupah Bandung Archaeological Center to cover research and salaries.
There's no secret that the excavation of Gunung Padang was ordered by the then-sitting president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (Dipa, 2014; Sulistyowati and Foe, 2021). As Sulistyowati and Foe (2021) wrote, the Yudhoyono administration utilized symbols and landmarks to try and bolster the national identity. Yudhoyono wanted a symbol that could be considered older and bigger than famous monuments like the pyramids of Giza. We also see nationalistic activities take place during the excavations. There was a flag raising, salutes, high ranking officials, and they named the dig "Operation to Honor Red and White."
But even if an excavation has a political agenda, they can still do good research. So is this the case here? The more we look at this, the more it becomes clear that this was not the case. They went for a rather destructive excavation with a lack of general oversight and methodology (Dipa, 2014; Perez Garcia, 2017; Sulistyowati and Foe, 2021). Samples were taken and analyzed without motivating relevance or context. There are cases of more recent items contaminating the excavation. For example, a coin that turned out to be from about mid-1900 (Perez Garcia, 2017; Bradley 2017a) was dated by the excavation team to be from a layer they dated to 5200 BC. The find was not in-situ, and there was never any good reason for placing it in that layer. They didn't talk with other archaeologists or numismatics but decided it was an ancient amulet and evidence of this ancient culture's achievements.
The coin excavation team dated to 5200 BCE at Gunung Padang.
There are more reports of items not found in situ, which would be expected when the project sometimes had up to 500 volunteers. Their experience with archaeology is unknown, but there are cases where military personnel excavated with hoes to get down quicker (Dipa, 2014; Sulistyowati and Foe, 2021).
As for the C-14 datings, they have a similar pattern of mistakes. There are, for example, two core drillings from Dr. Hillman Natawidjaja. We're only sure where one of those cores was taken (Bradley, 2017a), creating a context issue. The dates look strange; there are some issues with older and younger material in different places in the core. The 20 000 BCE date thrown around in the show is from drill core two at a depth of seven meters. We get a calibrated date of 11 600 BCE at eight meters, and the sequence is closed out on another 20 000 BCE date (Hillman et al., 2018). I'd also like to note that some of these extreme dates are separated in the perceived layers by a couple of centimeters. While that might be plausible, it's highly peculiar and not something Hillman acknowledges in the scarce documentation we have. As for the mixed sequence, this type of contamination could happen. We previously mentioned that core drilling is sensitive to contamination (Henriksen, Holst, and Breuning-Madsen, 2019).
Drill core sample from Gunung Padang.
Furthermore, the researchers didn't know what they were testing. Context is everything in archaeology. We need to know what we're testing and in what context. But the team seems to have tested "organic matter" they decided is from activity during the construction (Bradley, 2017b). But since Hillman Natawidjaja's and Ali Akbar's teams have rounded the quality control that is peer review, the data we have is scarce. They have systematically only spoken with news and media outlets instead of publishing in journals (Sulistyowati and Foe, 2021).
C-14 dates from Gunung Padang.
Add to this a lack of attention to stratigraphy, an insufficiency of documentation when removing the columnar joints, and the general site destruction (Perez Garcia, 2017; Sulistyowati and Foe, 2021), we have parts of the site that are somewhat useless for a future scientist. This is an excellent example of what happens when politics and an agenda try to mascarade as science. Hillman Natawidjaja went into the site to find evidence for his idea, and the Yudhoyono regime paid for a nationalistic monument. It becomes pretty evident in Hillman's book "Plato never lied: Atlantis is in Indonesia" from 2013 that he was out to prove his idea. Evidence that might disprove his hypotheses is left out or explained away.
So I find it almost a little bit unseemly when Hancock uses these dates without context to prove his hypothesis. In the episode, they never mention the excavations or the obscene amount of money they got. Instead, he goes for the idea that the discovery is getting silenced. But it's not silenced because scientists have yet to see the data. But this approach fits Hancock since it gives a chance to claim that archaeologists refuse to look at the evidence. But then leaving out all the issues archaeologists have pointed out.
Before we move to the next part, I want to welcome back our next guest.
Thanks, dr Farley; you should listen to his previous appearance in episode 12. Links to his youtube channel and all other good stuff can be found in the show notes. Let's get back into the program.
Cholula
Hancock brings us across the globe to a place famous for its hot sauce and having the largest pyramid on earth. Welcome to Cholula, located in Puebla, Mexico. This might not be the tallest pyramid in the world, measuring some 25 meters (82 ft) in height, but by volume, it's the grandest. The sides measured 315 by 300 meters (1033 x 984 ft) and were built around the late pre-classic period, almost simultaneous to the Teotihuacan building. We can see the influences of this larger city on the Cholula pyramid in the earlier stages. They use, for example, the architectural style talud-tablero (Coe and Koontz, 2013), meaning that they have part of the wall sloping followed by a straight section.
Hancocks' visit brings us some excellent film of the location and the tunnels. Sure, one could discuss the Azteca and Concheros dancers' clothing, but we will glance over this for now. This is a topic we should revisit one day, but not today.
Church built ontop of Cholula.
Hancock's dating is not too strange, while his date of 500 BCE is a bit off, and he does not offer any reason for the date. Usually, the pyramid's original date is placed between 400 BCE to 200 BCE. But the 200 BCE date is more likely since it's based on ceramics found at the site (Coe and Koontz, 2013; Feagans, 2022b). Graham spends most of the time walking around the tunnels beneath the pyramid. But they bring up a small spring. Hancock claims it's beneath the Cholula pyramid but, in reality, is a bit more to the west. This natural spring feeds into a marshy area that's a bit recessed. If you have been with us for some time or are well-read on Maya mythology, you might recognize this scene from the creation myth. We have what could be described as a ceremonial ball court from where the maize god sprung. Water is an essential part of the Maya rituals (Lucero, 2006), as we discussed in an earlier episode. So it's not strange that they build a pyramid temple close to a water source.
We should note here that Hancock wishes to see something more than the shape of the building tying the world's pyramids together. There's little more than the shape that they have in common. Hancock said, "The problem is that these structures are universally associated with very specific spiritual ideas. What happens to us after death?" In Graham Hancocks' mind, all the pyramids of the world have a common idea, death and the afterlife. And since they all share this idea, it's impossible that these structures developed independently. But there's an issue with Hancock's reasoning; the pyramids aren't all connected to death or the afterlife. Sure, the Egyptian pyramids were tombs, and others were or are part of the religion. Sure, religion tends to claim to have the answers to what happens when we die, but that's as close as it gets. The pyramids in Mesoamerica were more connected to life. The pyramid of the Sun in Teotihuacan commemorates the creation (Porter Weaver, 2019). The sacrifices were to ensure the continuation of life (Almere Read and Gonzalez, 2001). The mounds of North America were filling several different functions ranging from ceremonial, locations for longhouses, meeting places, etc. It's not correct to attribute them to life after death. We have temples in India and Cambodia that have a religious connection but not dying or the afterlife. Then we have the pyramids in China that are tombs again. What Graham Hancock does here is cherry-pick data that fits his narrative. The same thing he accuses archaeologists of doing, funny, isn't it?
Cahokia Monks mound
But let's move into Hancock's favorite pastime, looking at myth from an esoteric lens. You see, there is a legend that giants built the pyramid of Cholula after seven of them survived a great deluge. The first and kind of only account of this story are written in a book called Ophiolatreia published in 1899. In it, the anonymous author retells a report from a nameless Dominican priest who visited Cholula in 1566 (Ophiolatreia, 1899; p.64). This story show sign of Christian influence, something not uncommon when they in the past retold pagan myth. Snorre Sturlasson's poetic edda does the same with the nordic pagan myths. We must remember that objectively writing down scholarly material is a relatively fresh idea. Even if giants appear in mesoamerican creation stories (Almere Read and Gonzalez, 2001; Murphy, 2015), they differ wildly from what we were presented here. Also, while some early creations were destroyed by a flood, others were destroyed by dogs (Almere Read and Gonzalez, 2001).
We need to evaluate myths critically; some might hold good information. Lipo, Hunts, and Hoa's (2013) recreation of how the Moai status could have been moved is based on legends but viewed from a critical lens. So archaeologists do use legends, but with a more objective approach.
Something that should be addressed before we move on to our last stop for this episode I want again to bring up the idea of Kukulkan or Quetzalcoatl. At least Hancock in the series does not claim Quetzalcoatl to be white (1995) any longer, but he still has this idea that this god came from the east. Within mesoamerican mythology, Quetzalcoatl has two sides, one part creator/destroyer of the universe and one part cultural hero (Almere Read and Gonzalez, 2001). But Graham seems to confuse the hero part of the story with the god part. Quetzalcoatl as a cultural hero is confusing since it talks about a ruler sometimes referred to as 1-Reed or Topiltzin-Quetzalcoatl. The end of 1-Reed varies depending on the version and when it was told. In some, he sailed east or west, burned himself up, became the morning star, moved to Tlilapan, became sick, and just died or split the ocean as Moses (Almere Read and Gonzalez, 2001; Murphy, 2015). Again we have captured Hancock in his orchard of cherry trees.
The idea of Quetzalcoatl being white is an invention of Gerónimo (Jerónimo) de Mendieta, a Franciscan missionary and chronicler who lived between 1525–1604. In his work "Historia eclesiástica indiana" volume two, chapter 10 (2.10), we learn about some of the histories of Quetzalcoatl. De Mendieta probably based this on the now-lost writings of Andrés de Olmos, another priest operating a bit earlier than de Mendieta. But in this chapter, we learn that Quetzalcoatl (or Kukulkan) was described as follows (translated by the author).
"He was a white man, tall in body, broad forehead, large eyes, long black hair, and large round beard." / "Era hombre blanco, crecido de cuerpo, ancha la frente, los ojos grandes, los cabellos largos y negros, la barba grande y redonda"
Malta
Let's head east from Mesoamerica over to the Mediterranian sea. Just south of Sicily, we find three islands: Gozo, Comino, and Malta. This little island nation is home to some of the oldest known megalithic structures. We covered these buildings recently in an episode called "Aliens and ancient engineers," and what's interesting is that Hancock's claims do not differ much from this old Ancient Alien episode. We still have the idea that an outside force came to the island and helped the "farmers who never built anything bigger than a shack." The funny thing is that the Ancient Alien proponents agree with the "mainstream" interpretation of the site.
But not Graham Hancock; he disagrees with the conventional date between 3600 BCE and 3200 BCE. He admits that there are datable artifacts within the ruins that make these dates possible, but they are handwaved away since that part was built later, of course. The director of this show does a great job of giving the impression that these sites are barely investigated. But there's ample dating of these temples. There's both Optically Stimulated Luminescence testing; we test quartz to see when it was subjected to sunlight. These dates come up again to be about 3600 BCE to 3080 BCE (Malone et al. 2020). Add to this Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, a form of radiocarbon dating that has given us dates between 3600 BCE and 3200 BCE (Trump [not that one], 2001).
But the date Hancock want is around 10 000 BCE, so he has set out to find someone who agrees with him. Hancock does this little sneaky thing again here, claiming that we will use archeoastronomy, which is a real thing. Or, as Graham calls it, "the knowledge of the ancients." In reality, it's not archeoastronomy we'll use since it would not fit with the theory. Instead, they interview a Dutch juridical translator by the name of Lenie Reedijk.
Reedijk believes that all the temples on Malta align with the brightest star Sirius. To get this theory to work, the construction time of the temples needed to be pushed back to 9000 BCE. According to Hancock and Reedijk, at least. The reason for selecting this date is unclear since Sirus would be visible about 5350 BCE or 4250 BCE (Bratt, 2022). You could also orient the temples toward Centauri, the equinoxes, or solstices. Why these orientations are not viable is never explained or even presented. They also leave out that the southern cross lines up a lot better with all the temples on Malta (Bratt, 2022). In contradiction to the Sirius alignment, that would only work with some of the temples even if the dates are moved back (Bratt, 2022). The southern cross, or the crux, would make more sense for the Maltese sailors navigating to and from Sicily. Using the crux as an alignment also fit's within the timeframe we have from the extensive dating.
However, there's an ace in the arm; Hancock has evidence of earlier human habitation. Or, well, human-like habitation. In the cave of Għar Dalam, two teeth were found in 1917 by Mr. G. Despott (Neanderthal Man in Malta, 1924) and identified as Neanderthal. It was based on the teeth' perceived pulp chambers (or taurodontism) (Kieth, 1924). But this identification has never been replicated, and it seems like it was wrong from the start (Boulinier, 2004). This does not mean that it's impossible that Neanderthals lived on Malta; we don't have any evidence for it. Plausible, yes, proven? No, not yet, but maybe one day in the future.
I'll gloss over the cart ruts here since I went into greater detail in an earlier episode on their origin. As the researcher stands now, they are most likely marks from carts hollowed out by erosion (Groucutt, 2022).
The eyes you find on boats in Malta
Hancock comes up with quite an interesting remark in the show to get a connection between Malta, Ancient Egypt, and Osiris. He claims that the boats on Malta have an eye on Hourus on them. Some look like this on modern vessels, but the tradition does not originate from Egypt. It originated from Greece and Rome (Novak, 2006) and was to ward off envy and harm. Concepts well known in Greek and Roman literature. So Hancocks Osiris connection topples over like a cow in the night.
To close out the show, I want to introduce our next guest.
Thanks again, Kayleigh; links to her projects can be found in the show notes. But we will close the books for now, but make sure to return next time. The exploration will take us to Göbekli Tepe, Poverty Point, Serpent Mound, and back to Derinkuyu. We will also be guested by dr Kinkella from the pseudoarchaeology podcast. So make sure you tune in again back then.
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 diggingupancientaliens.com 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
Almere Read, K. and Gonzalez, J.J. (2001). Handbook of Mesoamerican mythology. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bachelard, M. (2013). “Digging for the truth at controversial megalithic site”, The Sydney Morning. Herald, 27 July 2013. [Online] https://www.smh.com.au/world/digging-for-the-truth-at-controversial-megalithic-site-20130726-2qphb.html
Bentley, C. (2011). Columns form perpendicular to cooling fronts. [online] Mountain Beltway. Available at: https://blogs.agu.org/mountainbeltway/2011/08/31/columns-form-perpendicular-to-cooling-fronts/
Boulinier G. (2004). Les deux dents subversives: L'anatomiste Keith et le problème du premier peuplement humain de l' île de Malte [Arthur Keith and the first settlement of human being in Malta. Two subversive teeth]. Histoire des sciences medicales, 38(1), 37–48.
Bradley, R. (2016). Pyramids Pt.2: Gunung Padang. [online] The Lateral Truth. Available at: https://skepticink.com/lateraltruth/2016/11/12/pyramids-pt-2-gunung-padang/
Bradley, R. (2017a). Pyramids Pt.3: Radiocarbon at Gunung Padang. [online] The Lateral Truth. Available at: https://skepticink.com/lateraltruth/2017/01/01/pyramids-pt-3-radiocarbon-at-gunung-padang/
Bradley, R. (2017b). Gunung Padang: Open Letter to Danny. [online] The Lateral Truth. Available at: https://skepticink.com/lateraltruth/2017/05/14/gunung-padang-open-letter-danny/
Barratt, R.P. (2022). The Crux of astronomical alignment in Neolithic Malta: Using 3D simulation to produce new data. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, [online] 26, p.e00229. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2022.e00229
Coe, M.D. and Koontz, R. (2013). Mexico: from the Olmecs to the Aztecs. 7th ed. New York: Thames & Hudson.
Defant, M.J. (2017). Conjuring Up a Lost Civilization. [online] Skeptic magazine. Available at: https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/defant-analysis-of-hancock-claims-in-magicians-of-the-gods/
Dipa, A. (2014). Archaeologists Slam Excavation of Gunung Padang Site. [online] The Jakarta Post. Available at: https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/09/24/archaeologists-slam-excavation-gunung-padang-site.html
Díaz-Andreu, M. and Champion, T. eds., (2014). Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe. Routledge.
Feagans, C. (2022a). Graham Hancock’s Ancient Apocalypse. [online] Archaeology Review. Available at: https://ahotcupofjoe.net/2022/11/graham-hancocks-ancient-apocalypse-a-review-of-episode-one
Feagans, C. (2022b). Graham Hancock’s Ancient Apocalypse – A Review of Episode Two - Archaeology Review. [online] Archaeology Review. Available at: https://ahotcupofjoe.net/2022/11/graham-hancocks-ancient-apocalypse-a-review-of-episode-two/.
Feder, K.L. (2020). Frauds, myths, and mysteries: science and pseudoscience in archaeology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Groucutt, H.S. (2022). The morphological variability of Maltese ‘cart ruts’ and its implications. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 41, p.103287. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103287
Hancock, G. (1995). Fingerprints of the Gods: the Evidence of Earth’s Lost Civilization. New York: Crown Publishing Group.
Henriksen, P.S., Holst, S. and Breuning-Madsen, H. (2019). Dating Ancient Burial Mounds in Denmark – Revealing Problematic Ancient Charcoal. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 52(2), pp.170–178. doi:10.1080/00293652.2019.1670250.
Hilman Natawidjaja, D. Bachtiar, A. Endar, B. et al. (2018). Evidences of Large pyramid-like structure predating 10,000 Year BP at Mount Padang, West Java, Indonesia: Applications of geological-geophysical methods to explore buried large archeological site. AGU Fall Meet 10-14 December 2018. Available from https://essopenarchive.org/doi/full/10.1002/essoar.10500119.1
Keith, A. (1924). Neanderthal Man in Malta. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 54, 251–260. https://doi.org/10.2307/2843720
Leadbeater, C.W. (1951). The Occult History of Java. [online] Adyar: The Theosophical Publishing House. Available at: https://theosophists.org/library/books/occult-history-of-java/
Lipo, C.P., Hunt, T.L. and Haoa, S.R. (2013). The ‘walking’ megalithic statues (moai) of Easter Island. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40(6), pp.2859–2866. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAS.2012.09.029 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpNuh-J5IgE
Lucero, L.J. (2006). Water and ritual: the rise and fall of Classic Maya rulers. Austin: University Of Texas Press.
Malone, C., Grima, R., McLaughlin, R., Parkinson, E. W., Stoddart, S., & Vella, N. (2020). Temple places: Excavating cultural sustainability in prehistoric Malta. Oxford: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.62630
Murphy, J. (2015). Gods & goddesses of the Inca, Maya, and Aztec civilizations. New York: Britannica Educational Publishing.
Neanderthal Man in Malta. (1924). Nature, 113(2837), pp.405–405. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/113405a0.
Nowak, T.J. (2006). ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR SHIP EYES: AN ANALYSIS OF THEIR FORM AND FUNCTION. MSc Thesis.
Ophiolatreia, Or Serpent Worship (1889) Private print.
Pageh, I.M. and Pardi, I.W. (2021). Innovation of History Learning Based on Live Virtual Learning Through The Utilization of Megalitic Relics in Desa Pakraman Selulung, Kintamani, Bali. In: I.G.A. Wesnawa, D.B. Sanjaya, A.S.A. Nugraha, A.M. Fauzi, S. Sriyanto, R. Ridwana and L. Armiyati, eds., ICLSSE 2021: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Law, Social Sciences, and Education. ICLSSE 2021. https://books.google.se/books?id=OMVcEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=punden+berundak&source=bl&ots=HJYC9Wr06u&sig=ACfU3U1tkwMJ1nvysJ8HGZR2nNEBr6FQKg&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjT9sWIlfr8AhXbYPEDHU3ZC9gQ6AF6BAgEEAM#v=onepage&q=punden%20berundak&f=false
Pérez Garcia, V.L. (2017). Gunung Padang Y El Megalitismo indo-malayo: Arqueología Y Pseudoarqueología. ArqueoWeb, 18, pp.62–104.
Porter Weaver, M. (2019). The Aztecs, Maya, and Their Predecessors. 3rd ed. Routledge.
Sulistyowati, D. and Foe, A.W. (2021). INDONESIA’S OWN ‘PYRAMID’: THE IMAGINED PAST AND NATIONALISM OF GUNUNG PADANG. International Review of Humanities Studies, [online] 6(1), pp.125–137. doi:10.7454/irhs.v6i1.303. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348911628_INDONESIA'S_OWN_'PYRAMID'_THE_IMAGINED_PAST_AND_NATIONALISM_OF_GUNUNG_PADANG
Trump, D.H. (2002). Malta, Prehistory and Temples. Midsea Books.
Trusohamn, F. (2022). The Bosnian Pyramids and Semir Osmanagic. [online] Digging up Ancient Aliens. Available at: https://diggingupancientaliens.com/episode-20-bosnian-pyramids.html