Okay, I read the article. I think it’s bullshit. Case in point:
In addition to defying Indigenous histories and more than a century of established archaeological research in North America, Hancock’s theories are especially damaging because they fuel long-held racist beliefs that seek to erase the violence of colonization and slavery upon which the United States was founded, say Hancock’s detractors.
Now this is editorial, okay? It’s not referencing any particular thing - just the entirety of his “pre-civilization” theory, in addition to any theory which does not hold to “established archaeological research” AND native American traditions. Tellingly as you say, the intrepid reporter here does not discuss any other “established archaeological research” which conflicts with the native American origin histories, of which there are many.
“Hancock’s theories are especially damaging” because they “. . . seek to erase the violence of colonization and slavery upon which the United States was founded”. Which - NO THEY DON’T, and what the fuck. Oh, here we go: “. . . say Hancock’s detractors.” Well that’s a pretty sleazy sleight-of-hand there, Grauniad. But okay - let’s pretend you wanted readers to hear all that hyperbolic invective as coming from Hancock’s detractors and not from the authoritative voice of the source (the Grauniad). Sure. Let’s pretend that. So - who are “Hancock’s detractors”?
——— hang on, need to save the comment, go back to the article to copy/paste ——-
Edit:
“[Hancock] presents his theories as being superior to what the first inhabitants of the area say about their own history,” said Stewart Koyiyumptewa, tribal historic preservation officer for the Hopi Nation.
The Hopi people have lived in or near the Grand Canyon for at least 2,000 years and claim a sacred site inside the canyon as their place of emergence. They also have strong ties to Chaco Canyon.
Well, so the article author is lying. It should be Hancock’s detractor, singular, Stewart Koyiyumptewa, who says the 2,000+ year history of the Hopi people has been, apparently, made inferior by an alternate unproven theory of 12,000 years which does not appear in Hopi history.
Well, yeah. If Mr. Koyiyumptewa wants to take offense to the idea that an alternative theory is being proposed which was not known to have existed in his history or anyone else’s before - okay. But there’s no reason to. That’s pretty much how science works. Before the idea of Pangea was accepted, it infuriated all established archaeological researchers. And geologists. No need to declare it racist.
And tagging it to “long-held racist beliefs that seek to erase the violence of colonization and slavery upon which the United States was founded” is just fucking outrageous. Come the fuck on, even Mr. Koyiyumptewa didn’t say that. And neither did Graham Hancock.
And NO he wasn’t saying white men built it for fuck’s sake: “Hancock believes Serpent Mound is much, much older, and its current incarnation may not be the original. Instead, built millenniums ago, around 10,000 BC, by Native Americans.” So what’s not-established since that’s what “established archaeology” also believes? The timeframe. It couldn’t be then because we haven’t found pottery shards from then. (You know what I mean.)
So your Mr. Koyiyumptewa is all onboard with demanding no one be allowed to posit any other history besides the established one. Which, to be clear, is:
The Hopi origin story has it that Hopis used to live beneath the earth. When it came time to emerge into the world, that Hopi met Maasaw, Caretaker and Creator of the Earth, and promised him they would help take care of the world as a trade-off for staying. The sacred story of Hopi origins includes a covenant that Hopi peoples will be stewards of the earth. After making this promise, Pueblo Indians began a sacred quest, under Maasaw’s order, to find “center spaces” and settle, and populations marked their settlements with spiral insignia as they found them.
That’s what your Mr. Koyiyumptewa is objecting to - someone discussing a theory that does not comport with his established history.
If you want to triple-down that he’s a racist, then go for it. But I’m telling you these type of “outcrys” are not about racism, though they may say exactly that. What they’re actually about is someone threatening established knowledge. That’s it.
Maybe he’s just crazy, maybe he made it all up, maybe established history is complete and accurate. But I don’t think so. I hope that doesn’t make me racist.