PODCAST: Confronting Pseudo-archaeology on the Joe Rogan Experience
This is the first of a semi-regular feature that will cover some podcast or other that we are all listening to … or will be soon! Podcasts and YouTube are where most people are absorbing their history, so lets explore and share together!
I will not lie, I have never felt the urge to listen to the Joe Rogan Experience (JRE) podcast before now. No matter how many of my students assure me that it is a great show, and I would love it if I gave it a try.
For those of you who may not be familiar, JRE is an interview show hosted by comedian and presenter Joe Rogan. It is possibly the largest podcast in the world right now with over 15.5 million followers on Spotify and over 16.5 million watching it on YouTube as well.
It is a big deal, but just not my cup of tea. Before you even start to look at the choice of guests and the overall ethos of the show, I have an initial hurdle I will never overcome: it consists of long-form interviews, some of which go on for over 5 hours, and my ADHD brain just cannot even dare to press play and commit to that level of concentration.
Or so I thought.
That was until I heard that an episode was coming out in which a famous author, TV presenter, and proponent of … ‘alternative history’ is probably the kindest way to describe it, Graham Hancock had challenged a relatively unknown archaeologist, Dr Flint Dibble to a debate. Hancock’s main argument to date has been that he believes in an advanced, ancient civilisation that existed during the ice age, and that this civilisation is responsible for important passing of knowledge to later cultures which resulted in the introduction of agriculture and the building of large monuments. He also thinks that modern archaeology is closed minded to this belief because it does not fit their own ideas or agendas.
As the founder of BadAncient.com, a fact checking website that specialises in ancient history, it is fair to say that I have a particular interest in how this debate would go.
Flint Dibble and I have known each other via social media for some time, but we have never met or collaborated in any way; although, I do respect the work he has been doing to open archaeology up to the wider public. And many of you may follow him or watch his new YouTube channel - but for the platform we are talking about, and the size of audience being reached, Flint went into this as a rookie. And he did an amazing job.
Now I won’t spoil the debate, partly because it is an interesting watch and partly because I have still not finished all 4.5 hours of it! I do advise you watch it rather than listen to it because there are visual slides and images involved. You can watch it by clicking here.
A particular highlight so far has to be the moment that Hancock was made to admit that there is no evidence to support his theory at all. Now, for anyone who does not knows his work or how conspiratorial history operates, this is because he argues about the gaps in our evidence and he does go on to make this point in the video. So, to his mind and those of his supporters, the evidence for his theory just has not been discovered yet. Nonetheless, it is an interesting moment in the debate:
Let me know what you thought of the debate, if you managed to watch it (or some of it!). In a few weeks time I will be posting an interview with Flint about his experience of the debate, so keep an eye out for that.
I may have finished watching it by then!