Ancient Apocalypse III - Echoes of the Ancients - With Dr. Kinkella
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. We learned about Gunung Padang, Cholula Pyramid, and the Malta Mystery in part two.
This time we will continue looking into the sites he brings up as evidence. We will visit the large complex of Poverty Point and see what we know and how we know it—looking at some theories Hancock has left out. After that, we're back with the Serpent Mound, was Hancock banned from the site? We also look into the current discussion about the age of the mound.
Lastly, we will go down underground and visit Derinkuyu. Was this a location people used to seek shelter from armies or aliens? Or was it an ark protecting humankind from the serpents in the sky?
In this episode:
Poverty Point (1:56)
Layout and dating
What was it for?
Watson Break (8:40)
Older than Poverty Point
Serpent Mound (10:26)
The true date?
The Horned Serpent and iconography
Defense or not?
Interview with Dr. Kinkella (29:26)
Sources, resources and further reading suggestions
We are also visited by Dr. Andrew Kinkella, who hosts "Pseudo-Archaeology with Dr. Kinkella," CRM Archaeology Podcast, and Kinkella Teaches Archaeology. He's also a professor and a talking head at the Science Channel.
Hi, hello, and välkommen to Digging Up Ancient Aliens. This is the podcast that usually examines the TV show Ancient Aliens. But this time, we are going for something different, the new Netflix series "Cunk on earth." [Beep]
- What do you mean we're not doing Cunk on Earth?
- Big archaeology [inaudible]
- It's far more accurate, better made, and funny on purpose.
- Big archaeology [inaudible]
- Yeah, yeah yeah.
As it turns out, we're still looking into Graham Hancocks' "Ancient Apocalypse." Do the claims hold water to an archeologist or are there better explanations out there?
I am your host, Fredrik, and this is episode 32. This time we will focus on the episodes "America's Lost Civilization" and "A fatal winter." So we will look at sites such as Poverty Point, Serpent Mound, and the underground city of Derinkuyu. We have visited two of these sites in the past, but with an extraterrestrial hypothesis, so it might be interesting to see what is the same and different. We're also joined by Dr. Andrew Kinkella later in the episode.
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.
Let's start our expedition to the Americas. Graham Hancock gives us a whole episode centered on north America based on his book "America Before." This episode starts with Hancock complaining about "Clovis first," claiming that this idea was taught until 2010. But as we learned from Dr. Bill Farley's insights in episode 31, this could not be further from the truth. In fact, the debate over the earliest human inhabitants of the Americas had already been primarily settled by the 1990s.
But after finishing lamenting about Clovis, we're taken to a site called Poverty Point. The sight that unfolds before us is truly awe-inspiring. Six prominent ridges, arranged in a manner that almost resembles a Greek amphitheater, dominate the landscape. Along with these striking formations, we can see five original mounds and a vast plaza with several post circles (Kelly, 2015). This impressive structure, built between 1700-1100 BCE (Snow, Gonlin, and Siegel, 2020), bears witness to the sophistication and skill of the people inhabiting this land.
The ridges, which boast a diameter of approximately 700 meters (2100 feet), measure 10 kilometers (6 miles) (Feder, 2020). Among these remarkable structures, we find Mound A, which despite its lackluster name, stands tall behind the central square of the earthworks. This mound rises to an incredible height of 22 meters (72 feet), affording us an unparalleled view over the main plaza. Though the precise function of this impressive structure remains shrouded in mystery, it is clear that it played a vital role within the complex and the community that once called this place home.
Although the people who constructed Poverty Point had already domesticated crops such as squash and sunflowers (Snow, Gonlin, and Siegel, 2020), their way of life remained predominantly that of hunter-fisher-gatherers. The archaeological record provides ample evidence, including the discovery of stone artifacts like weights for fishing nets and atlatls (Kelly, 2015), a type of spear thrower. These findings suggest that the builders of Poverty Point were not yet reliant on farming.
The concept that non-agrarian societies could construct such large and complex monuments was once considered far-fetched by many archaeologists. However, as more sites with reliable dating have been uncovered, this notion has become more widely accepted. It is now believed that more complex political structures capable of organizing and executing such impressive feats could have existed without relying on agriculture. It is worth noting, however, that while Poverty Point is evidence of some form of a political system, there is no evidence of social stratification within the society that built it (Kelly, 2015). But note that an outside force isn't necessary to explain these monuments.
There are some things we can rule out about Poverty Point. No burial has been found on the site (Kelly, 2015), not even in the mounds. There are also no signs of a permanent settlement at the site, which suggests that the people who came to Poverty Point, if not entirely nomadic, likely had their settlements elsewhere.
While there is evidence of extensive long-distance trade at the site (Gibson and Carr, 2004), it is unlikely that trade was the primary function of Poverty Point, as there is no evidence of the exchange of non-durable items.
If we go and listen to Graham Hancock, he believes the site to have held an astronomical function. In contradiction to Hancock's idea that he alone thinks so, some archaeologists would agree with him (Kelly, 2015). Kidder (2002) and other archaeologists argue that it is unlikely that migratory hunter-gatherers would require a stationary solstitial observatory. Other researchers take a more moderate stance, acknowledging that it is possible that the mounds have an astronomical alignment but that our current understanding is not sufficient to confirm this (Sassaman, 2004).
See, Graham, if you get down from that high horse and approach the material more honestly, we could have a meaningful conversation. When speaking with archaeologist Mark Brink Jr., Hancock even demonstrates this by accident, trying to get a negative answer to his statement.
"Why should the people who lived here and created this place, why should they not have been interested in the sky?"
"I'm not saying they weren't. No. I bet they were."
The issue with celestial alignments is that they are subjective, and depending on the site, they can line up with several different things. At Poverty Point, we don't have any clear markers. In these cases, we would look for important stars or planets in mythology. Unfortunately, there are no surviving mythical accounts from the archaic period when most of the site was built (Kelly, 2015). We also know that the site was reused in later periods. Mound D was created by a later culture around 700 CE (Snow, Gonlin, and Siegel, 2020). You could ask if the site has been changed to fit their religion and important alignments compared to the original creators.
But there are other things the site could align to or represent other than astronomical. Some suggest it has a connection to the landscape, and a good case could be made that the ridges between mounds C and D reference the river (Kelly, 2015). Hancock is also leaving out a potential acoustic enhancement that could have been part of the reason for the site's construction. To have a chance to figure things out, we need to do more objective research and excavations. Speculation is all well and fine, but we need more than someone's opinion.
Why Hancock has chosen to bring up Poverty Point over Watson Brake could be because Poverty Point looks better on camera. Watson Brake is much older, going back to possibly 4000 BCE (Saunders et al. 2005), with the first mounds constructed 500 years later. That's much, much older than Poverty Point. It might not be as impressive in size, but in age, it definitely takes the cake. The original creators at Watson Brake were hunter-fisher-gatherers. We know this due to the seeds found in the early layers; none show signs of domestication (Gibson and Carr, 2004). As mentioned, we see a temporary site occupation for about 500 years before the first mounds were constructed (Saunders et al. 2005).
Hancock does spend a whole chapter on Watson Brake in his novel "America Before," (2019), so he's familiar with the site. He repeats the same theory that the mounds must be aligned to the solstices. He proves this by drawing lines through the mounds arranged in a circular shape claiming they "line up." I mean, items in a circle could align with several different things. Hancock also agrees that a nomadic culture might not have much use for a stationary solstice mound but argues that they must have had an advanced civilization come in teaching them this. Adding that, the evidence adds up toward worshipping a sky-ground deity. Hancock does not claim it's a snake, just implying it. And when we talk about snakes.
We're no strangers with Serpent Mound on this show. If you recall, in episode 21, "Aliens in the old west," we delved into the Ancient Alien proponents' theories surrounding the site. However, it appears that Hancock has a personal stake in the matter, as he claims to have been banned from setting foot on the site. Hancock believes that the administration's decision to shut him out is motivated by personal and ideological reasons, as they seek to censor his views.
I discovered some interesting details when I contacted the Ohio History Connection for more information on Graham Hancock's visit to Serpent Mound. Hancock initially requested four days of commercial filming at the site, which would have required accommodating a significant number of people. Given the request's scope, it's unsurprising that the Ohio History Connection declined. Additionally, they confirmed that Hancock was never actually banned from the site, contrary to what had been suggested in some reports (2022, personal communication, 22 Feb).
"The commercial filming application by ITN was the only inquiry declined by the Ohio History Connection; Mr. Hancock was not prohibited from visiting the site as a member of the public."
They were not allowed to film on-site, just as the note he read aloud stated. This stance from Ohio History Connection is not surprising if we look back at previous productions like Ancient Aliens and America Unearthed behavior (Colavito, 2014). Add to this that the Shawnee tribes acknowledge Serpent Mound as a holy site, and there have been incidents before (Pember, 2018, 2021; Welter, 2021). Chief Ben Barnes said (2021), "consider it to be a sacred site and we ask you to treat this remarkable place as you would any cathedral, synagogue, or mosque."
With all of these things in mind, the decision from Ohio History is reasonable and, to any other person, quite understandable. But Graham has not been interested in hearing any of this. Instead, he decided to doxx the staff member who answered his request by posting their contact details on Twitter.
Graham Hancock seems to believe that he has been banned from Serpent Mound because the Ohio History Connection is afraid that he will expose the truth about the mound's alignment toward the sun. According to Hancock, trees have been planted to conceal this fact. However, this claim seems a bit far-fetched, as there are signs marking the sun's positions during the solstices, as Carl Faegan (2022) can attest. He could have learned this information if Hancock had simply refrained from filming and visited the park. Instead, he has acted petulantly and unprofessionally, behaving more like a spoiled child than a respected researcher.
When it comes to dating the Serpent Mound, there is quite a bit of debate. Graham Hancock, however, seems unaware of this. In 2011, E.W. Hermann led a research project that took C14 dates from core drillings (2014) that suggest that the mound was from the Adena culture, dating back to 500 BCE-200 CE. These datings align with the theory put forth by Putnam in 1890, based on the nearby burial mound. However, the current dating places the mound in the Fort Ancient culture, dating from 1000 CE-1750 CE, based on in situ C14 datings by Fletcher et al. (1996). We could also add iconography (Lepper et al., 2018; Lepper, 2020; 2021) as evidence for the Fort Ancient date. While we know that the Adena culture did build mounds, we don't see any serpents represented in their art. The exception would be the Adena effigy pipe, but it's quite a leap from no snake to building a sizeable snake-based monument. I also want to stress that the new data are from core drillings, something we discussed previously that could be prone to contamination (Henriksen et al., 2019). Herrmann et al. (2014) also mention a buried A-horizon, the issue here is that Putnam (1890) notes that the A-Horizon was removed.
To clarify, the A-horizon in archaeology refers to the top layer of soil that has undergone significant biological activity, containing organic matter and nutrients that support plant growth. Depending on the specific context, this layer is typically found about 5 to 20 cm below the surface. Conversely, the O-horizon refers to the surface layer of organic debris, such as leaves and twigs, that has not yet decomposed.
We should note that what we see today is a reconstruction mainly based on the drawings from E. Squire and E. Davis in 1846. But they were not the only ones documenting the site. In 1884, John Maclean created an illustration showing the monument with an addition. On top of the serpent and the egg or vulva, we also see a frog. Yes, a frog. Is this type of representation found somewhere else? As a matter of fact, we find a similar depiction over at Picture Cave in Warren County in Missouri (Lepper, 2020). I might mention here that W.H. Holmes did another illustration in 1886 (Lepper et al., 2018) showing an additional figure; it's maybe a bit Roreshack test if it's a frog or not.
These three icons are standard within the Mississippian iconography, a culture we know had exchanges with the Fort Ancients (Lepper et al., 2018; Lepper, 2020). The icons have been decoded with help from the traditions of the Dhegihan Sioux to be representations of the great serpent, the serpents mouth, or a vulvoid, and lastly, a representation of the First Woman or old-woman-who-never-dies (Duncan and Diaz-Granados, 2018). These ideas are also present in Shawnee traditions (Lepper, 2020). While the depictions of these themes are slightly different in Picture Cave, for example, they are undeniably similar. The Mississippian culture has more representations of the first woman and snakes (Duncan and Diaz-Granados, 2018), themes we don't see in Adena culture. A sandstone pipe with this motif was found in Ohio (Lepper, 2020).
The question regarding Serpent Mound is far from settled. While Lepper and others present a strong case for a Fort Ancient date, Romain (2018) and Hermann (2014) have some compelling arguments. As all of these authors note in this public discussion, they agree that while ideas have been exchanged and improved hypotheses, we need more study of the site. Our current understanding is insufficient; and this is an excellent example of how science works. We need these discussions in journals to test ideas and get new knowledge. Hancock could learn something from this. On this bombshell, we will leave the Americas for now and head east and underground.
Welcome to Cappadocia, Turkey. A region famous for its unique geology, breathtaking hot air balloon rides, and mysterious underground cities. These cities, with their elaborate tunnel systems, carved deep into the ground and mountainsides, have captured the attention of archaeologists and tourists alike. With more than 200 underground cities identified (Yamaç and Tok, 2015), their origins and purposes have been the subject of much speculation. In episode 12, we discussed the Ancient Aliens' theories about the region with Bill Farley, who suggested that these cities were created as massive bunkers to save humans from an alien war. On the other hand, Hancock replaces aliens with a natural disaster to explain the underground cities.
Dating these stone cities is not uncomplicated or impossible but harder, mainly due to the lack of organic material to date. Hancock's statement that "we can't date stone" is right and wrong. Dating the stone itself would be pointless since it would be millions of years old. We could try to date the quartz in the sediment with Optically Stimulated Luminescence testing, but it would only work if it's been in the sunlight at construction and then buried. So in these cases, we would look at non-organic artifacts, similar sites and ancient sources.
Let's take a moment to explore the dates associated with Derinkuyu, one of the many underground cities in Cappadocia. The earliest date we can find related to Derinkuyu might be a Hittite tool, and authors speculate that the site could have started during the Hittite era (Aydan and Ulusay, 2013). It could be argued that it's been moved or arrived later since it's a single find. But the earliest possible date for Derinkuyu might be between 1600 BCE and 1100 BCE. The theory is not improbable; the site of Gökçetoprak has a possible Hittite temple carved into the rock (Gilli and Yamaç, 2017). Unfortunately, we have not found any Hittite glyphs or typical architecture in the sites that could support the idea more (Gilli and Yamaç, 2017). While the Hittite date is plausible, archaeologists need more evidence to obtain a more precise date.
As we delve deeper into the history of Cappadocia's underground cities, we discover accounts from ancient writers that provide us with further insight into their use. Xenophon, a Greek historian, and general, was in the region in 401 BCE leading the mercenary army the “10 000”. They were hired to help Cyrus the younger to take the Persian throne from his brother. Xenophone wrote about the underground houses with a "mouth like that of a well" (Xenophon 4.5.25). This indicates that the practice of constructing underground cities was already in use then. Vitruvius, a Roman architect, wrote about the Phrygians, who succeeded the Hittites and dug shelters due to a lack of wood (The Ten Books on Architecture, 2.1.5). So we have some evidence that places the construction of some of these in the BCE era. However, most of the underground cities we see today were constructed between 600 CE to 1100 CE, and many already existing were expanded during this time (Yamaç and Tok, 2015).
These cities were not built and used once; they were often reused throughout the centuries to escape different enemies. It was not abandoned until quite recently. We are sure these were known and used in 1909 (Dawkins and Halliday, 1916) during the Armenian genocide in Turkey (Suny, 2015). Derinkuyu and other locals were probably not entirely abandoned until 1926. At that point, they became forgotten by the people left behind.
So we know a great deal about the age and use of these sites. But how Hancock get to the 10 000 BCE date is beyond me. He offers no evidence supporting the earlier date except for stone axes from the 10 000 BCE era has been found in the area. Cappadocia has a lot of Tuff, a kind of vulcanic rock formed from the ashes after an eruption(Çiner and Aydar, 2019; Aydan and Ulusay, 2013) and is usually quite soft and easy to work with. While it's possible to shape this rock with stone tools, we don't see any signs tying these cities to an earlier era. There's not a population large enough to do this type of excavation with stone tools in the region (Gilli and Yamaç, 2017). Surely not enough to create the number of cities that Hancock describes.
Graham also agrees with Ancient Aliens that the site is unsuitable for defense. The explanation Hancock present is that enemies who find the entrance could smash the soft tuff door. It's not so brittle (Aydan and Ulusay, 2003; 2013) that it could have been done in minutes, which is why they have several of these round doors to block the entrance. If the enemy breached the gates, the population would still have a better chance of defense in the narrow tunnels than on the surface. We could apply the same idea to walled cities, the walls can be climbed, and the gates can be broken. Does this mean that the city walls must have a different purpose?
If we listen to Hancock, Derinkuyu was built for protection, not from people, but from nature. He claims that the surface becomes too cold to live on due to the meteoric impact and the floods. Therefore the people dug into the rock where there's always a stable temperature, like in a root cellar. I rented a place in Spain dug out in the rock, and it had a pleasant indoor climate, even if it was scorching outside. No AC or other things are needed if you close the doors properly. Like a root cellar, you must isolate the entrance properly (Melin, Berglund, and Monsen 2010) for this to work. These sites have a lot of ventilation shafts, and in Derinkuyu, the temperatures have been monitored. The 7th floor may reach -11 celsius and usually stay between three to 15 degrees cooler than the ground floor (Aydan and Ulusay, 2013)—quite far from Hancocks' "comfortable" temperatures.
So the material evidence for Hancocks' idea is missing, but as we know it's not only material culture he looks at. There are also myths and legends. In this episode, we hear a fantastic tale from the Zoroastrian religion. Graham tells about the ancient king Yima who is instructed to build an underground shelter before a long-lasting winter that a snake in the sky will tell when the time is near.
Except, as you might suspect, this is not the story written down in the Zoroastrian texts. The story is only possible if you mix and match from Zoroastrian text Avesta and then the Pahlavi texts (Colavito, 2022). The god Ahura Mazda indeed tells Yima that winter is coming and that he needs to build a shelter (The Zend Avesta 2.22-2.26). The word used is Vara which is translated chiefly to a type of enclosure out of stone or a barn. Yima later asked how to build this Vara, and Ahura Mazda answered as follows:
"O fair Yima, son of Vîvanghat! Crush the earth with a stamp of thy heel, and then knead it with thy hands, as the potter does when kneading the potter's clay." The Zend Avesta 2.31.
And the snake appears in the later texts of Pahlavi concerning demons. Nothing in the tellings refers to Yima or the story in Avesta (Pahlavi 3.10), and it's more a description of their movement than being a snake shape (Colavitio, 2022). While Hancock has created a terrific story, it's not something we can use as evidence now right? We can't change the source material to fit our preferred idea.
Interview with Dr. Kinkella
Let's close the doors to Derinkuyu for this time. But let's welcome our next guest!
Thank you again dr. Andrew Kinkella! You find his podcast "Pseudoarchaeology with dr. Kinkella" and his YouTube channel "Kinkella Teaches Archaeology" in the show notes.
Next time we will close the Hancock saga. We will look at Göbekli Tepe, Bimini Road and the Scablands. There will also be a special guest, none less than Jens Notroff. So make sure to tune in on the finale of this journey.
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
Aydan, Ö. and Ulusay, R. (2003). Geotechnical and geoenvironmental characteristics of man-made underground structures in Cappadocia, Turkey. Engineering Geology, 69(3-4), pp.245–272. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/s0013-7952(02)00285-5.
Aydan, Ö. and Ulusay, R. (2013). Geomechanical Evaluation of Derinkuyu Antique Underground City and its Implications in Geoengineering. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, [online] 46(4), pp.731–754. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-012-0301-7.
Barnes, B. and Lepper, B. (2021). Ohio’s Serpent Mound- An American Indian Story Written in the Earth. [online] Ohio History Connection. Available at: https://www.ohiohistory.org/ohios-serpent-mound-an-american-indian-story-written-in-the-earth/.
Çiner, A., Aydar, E. (2019). A Fascinating Gift from Volcanoes: The Fairy Chimneys and Underground Cities of Cappadocia. In: Kuzucuoğlu, C., Çiner, A., Kazancı, N. (eds) Landscapes and Landforms of Turkey. World Geomorphological Landscapes. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03515-0_31
Colavito, J. (2014). Review of America Unearthed S02E09 ‘Mystery of the Serpents’. [online] Jason Colavito. Available at: https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/review-of-america-unearthed-s02e09-mystery-of-the-serpents.
Colavito, J. (2022). Review of Netflix's Ancient Apocalypse. [online] Jason Colavito. Available at: https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/review-of-netflixs-ancient-apocalypse
Dawkins, R.M. and Halliday, W.R. (1916). Modern Greek in Asia Minor; a study of the dialects of Siĺli, Cappadocia and Phárasa, with grammar, texts, translations and glossary. [online] London: Cambridge University press. Available at: https://archive.org/details/moderngreekinas00hallgoog/page/n8/mode/2up.
Duncan, J.R. and Diaz-Granados, C. (2018). Landscape, cosmology, and the Old Woman: a strong feminine presence. In: C. Diaz-Granados, J. Simek, G. Sabo III and M. Wagner, eds., Transforming the Landscape Rock Art and the Mississippian Cosmos. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp.57–75.
Feagans, C. (2022). Fitting the Sky to the Ground. A Review of Ancient Apocalypse 5 and 6. [online] Archaeology Review. Available at: https://ahotcupofjoe.net/2022/12/fitting-the-sky-to-the-ground-a-review-of-ancient-apocalypse-5-and-6/.
Gibson, J.L. and Carr, P.J. eds., (2004). Signs of Power. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.
Gilli, E. and Yamaç, A. (2017). More than four thousands years of underground solutions in Cappadocia (Turkey). In: AFTES. AFTES 2017. Conference paper
Hancock, G. (2019). America Before. St. Martin’s Press.
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:https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2019.1670250.
Herrmann, E.W., Monaghan, G.W., Romain, W.F., Schilling, T.M., Burks, J., Leone, K.L., Purtill, M.P. and Tonetti, A.C. (2014). A new multistage construction chronology for the Great Serpent Mound, USA. Journal of Archaeological Science, 50, pp.117–125. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2014.07.004.
Kelly, L. (2015). Poverty Point in the North American Archaic context. In Knowledge and Power in Prehistoric Societies: Orality, Memory and the Transmission of Culture (pp. 186-202). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107444973.011
Kidder, T. R. (2002) “Mapping Poverty Point,” American Antiquity. Cambridge University Press, 67(1), pp. 89–101. doi: 10.2307/2694878.
Lepper, B.T., Frolking, T.A. and Pickard, W.H. (2018). Debating the Age of Serpent Mound: A Reply to Romain and Herrmann’s Rejoinder to Lepper Concerning Serpent Mound. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, 44(1), pp.42–56. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01461109.2018.1507806.
Lepper, B.T. (2018). On the Age of Serpent Mound. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, 43(1), pp.62–75. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/26599968.
Lepper, B. (2020). The Mississippian Iconography of Serpent Mound. Journal of Ohio Archaeology, 7, pp.38-55.
Lepper, B. (2021). Ohio’s Great Serpent Mound and the Effigy Mounds of Wisconsin: Shared Symbols, Shared Stories. [online] Aztlander. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1nB1JNRfqY&t
Melin, B., Berglund, A. and Monsen, K. (2010). Jordkällare Historik och användning i Jämtland och Tröndelag. Ås: Eldrimmer.
NASA (2000). Milutin Milankovitch. [online] NASA Earth Observatory. Available at: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Milankovitch/milankovitch_2.php.
Pahlavi texts. With translation and comment by West, E.W. (1880) [online] available here: https://www.sacred-texts.com/zor/sbe05/sbe0512.htm
Pember, M.A. (2018). Crazy Theories Threaten Serpent Mound, Demean Native Heritage. Indian Country Today. https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/crazy-theories-threaten-serpent-mound-demean-native-heritage
Pember, M.A. (2021). Shawnee reclaim the great Serpent Mound. Indian Country Today. https://indiancountrytoday.com/news/shawnee-relcaim-great-serpent-mound
Putnam, F.W. (1890). The Serpent Mound of Ohio. The Century Illustrated Monthly Magazine, [online] 39, pp.871–888. Available at: https://scienceviews.com/indian/the_serpent_mound_of_ohio.html.
Romain, W.F. and Herrmann, E.W. (2018). Rejoinder to Lepper Concerning Serpent Mound. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, 43(1), pp.76–88. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01461109.2017.1403738.
Sassaman, K. (2004). ‘Complex hunter-gatherers in evolution and history: a North American perspective’, Journal of Archaeological Research, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 227–80.
Saunders, J. W., Mandel, R. D., Sampson, C. G., Allen, C. M., Allen, E. T., Bush, D. A., Feathers, J. K., Gremillion, K. J., Hallmark, C. T., Jackson, H. E., Johnson, J. K., Jones, R., Saucier, R. T., Stringer, G. L. and Vidrine, M. F. (2005) “Watson Brake, a Middle Archaic Mound Complex in Northeast Louisiana,” American Antiquity. Cambridge University Press, 70(4), pp. 631–668. doi: 10.2307/40035868.
Snow, D.R., Gonlin, N. and Siegel, P.E. (2020). The Archaeology of Native North America. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
Suny, R.G. (2015). ‘They can live in the desert but nowhere else’: a history of the Armenian genocide. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Vitruvius. The Ten Books on Architecture. Gwilt and Morgan translation. Lexundria [Online] https://lexundria.com/vitr/2.1.5/cf
Welter, C. (2021). Shawnee Citizens Officially Invited Back To Great Serpent Mound. 91.3WYSO https://www.wyso.org/local-and-statewide-news/2021-07-12/shawnee-citizens-officially-invited-to-return-to-great-serpent-mound
Xenophon. Anabassis, Book 4. Edited and translated by Brownston C.L. (1922) Read online here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0202%3Abook%3D4%3Achapter%3D5%3Asection%3D25
Yamaç, A. (2015). Surveying Some of the Underground Cities of Cappadocia. Hypogea 2015 - proceedings of international congress of speleology in artificial cavities.
The Zend-avesta: The Vendîdâd. Translation and comments by Darmesteter J. (1880) [online] https://www.sacred-texts.com/zor/sbe04/sbe0408.htm#fn_415
“Folie hatt” by Trallskruv
Lily of the woods by Sandra Marteleur