Hearted Youtube comments on World of Antiquity (@WorldofAntiquity) channel.
-
24000
-
2100
-
1300
-
1200
-
907
-
849
-
794
-
691
-
662
-
633
-
597
-
593
-
542
-
501
-
481
-
467
-
461
-
438
-
436
-
434
-
411
-
400
-
389
-
388
-
388
-
384
-
378
-
365
-
359
-
Thank you for this video WoA. You really did a great job of overviewing the work done in the region over the last 3-4 decades. Very succinct and easy to understand!
I did my PhD on ground/polished stone artefacts from the Late Epipaleolithic and early Neolithic of the Southern Levant. I actually worked on material from the site Shubayqa 1 in Eastern Jordan that you show a picture of at 08:43-09:00! Great to see our site referenced.
It appears that people like Hancock and Co. have a really hard time understanding stone tool technology and prehistoric stone masonry and artistry. It is almost as if they forget that stone (in addition to wood, bone, shell, fibres etc.) was the main material(s) people had to work with. Humans and our ancestors have been shaping stone (with other stones) for more than 2 million years. People didn’t much else to do and got really good at it!
Can’t blame them entirely, because unfortunately research of past stone technologies (especially within Paleolithic archaeology) has been heavily focused on flaked stone tools, like flint/chert knives, arrowheads etc. Until the 1990s very little attention was given to the study of prehistoric ground/abraded/polished stone tools. This has changed though! And we now know a lot more about how people shaped and used “ground” stone tools like mortars and querns of coarser igneous and sedimentary rock.
Another reason we know less about the process of shaping these rock types is also that the process leaves a lot less traces than other methods of shaping (rock). In flaked/chipped stone technology, people flaked pieces of stone like flint/chert and this usually left lots of flint flakes behind on the ground (for us archaeologists to find) and allows specialists to reconstruct the process from the intermediate steps, i.e. the different flakes left behind.
This doesn’t happen as much when shaping “coarser” stone types. Here you would also perhaps flake a basalt boulder into a more manageable size or a preform, but from there your main mode of shaping was abrasion, i.e. shaping by rubbing a stone against another (sometimes with water and sand), and pecking, i.e rapid/short percussion/impaction with another stone. These processes should and would rarely result in flakes but rather the byproduct is small/tiny stone fragments and stone dust released from the boulder you were shaping. This dust and these tiny fragments are almost impossible to find during an archaeological excavation, meaning that all the intermediate steps in the production process are lost. Only preforms or accidentally broken pieces are left behind, and again unlike flaked stone tools, mistakes are easier to correct/remove (by pecking/abrading) so fewer mistakes are also found.
Anyways, I just wanted to say thank you for sharing this research and letting people know that people of the past were really good at using and shaping all kinds of stone (and other materials as well!).
356
-
345
-
337
-
334
-
334
-
326
-
324
-
323
-
314
-
313
-
309
-
303
-
303
-
302
-
299
-
295
-
294
-
292
-
I was actually under the impression that the Aryan invasion theory and the indo European migration theory were the same thing. I'm an American and I was taught the Aryan invasion theory in school. It may be old pseudoscience but it seems that its still very widely circulated, both in india and across the world, so many people are likely just genuinely confusing the 2, and religious and right wing nationalist groups in India would likely stand to benefit from that misunderstanding. It doesn't help that under British occupation, the aryan invasion theory was used to justify the better treatment and promotion of aryan Indians over Dravidians, that the northern people of India were a superior race from their inter mixing with 'European stock' thousands of years earlier. And especially in northern India, the idea of being invaded and changed, even in a historical context is still a sore subject for many indians, From the abbasid caliphate, to the Mughal Turks, to European powers with an emphasis on Britain. Many Indians have likely externalized the indo Europeans because popular world history so often writes off the achievements of the Indian people in favor of their conquerors. So for scholarship to determine correctly that the vedas, texts that are quintessentially Indian and one of the few things the whole continent shares as something brought by outsiders is seen as an attack by western scholarship on the concept of indianness itself. And looking at the socio-cultural conditions of modern India and its relationship with its history, its hard not to see their concerns, even if it may be unfounded. I'm sure that the discussion will be settled though in the future, and as we slowly defeat the aryan invasion narrative, the indo aryans can gradually come to take their place in Indian history not as conquerors but as a thread in the ancient and vibrant tapestry of Indian identity.
290
-
288
-
283
-
282
-
First, I wish to thank Seyfzadeh for taking the time to comment on my research. I find this improves the quality of my work.
“Schneiker's idea that the Sphinx was made by rough pounding of naturally weak rock, rather than post-creation weathering is based on a fracture seen at the front of the Sphinx, actually not contested by the proponents of rain- and run-off erosion.”
No. My conclusion has absolutely nothing to do with any of the bedrock fractures that cross the Sphinx. I am specifically referring to the surface of the Sphinx body that has been misidentified as erosion by precipitation. The fractures he is referring to were eroded by acidic groundwater long before the Sphinx was carved. This erosion predates the Sphinx and definitely was not produced by precipitation.
There exists a continuing problem of erosion on the side walls of the Sphinx enclosure caused by wicking groundwater. To what extent this has affected the lowest sections of the Sphinx is difficult to say as it has been covered with small repair blocks.
I also suspect Seyfzadeh is speaking for himself, not for proponents of rain- and run-off erosion in general.
“This fissure is mentioned by Lehner in his thesis.”
I suspect Seyfzadeh is referring to the Major Fissure. This fracture, or cave as I call it, was formed as acidic groundwater dissolved the limestone over millions of years. Seyfzadeh is right that Lehner mentions it in his dissertation. Lehner believes the Major Fissure was not discovered until during the construction process. Saying that its discovery is what forced the builders to elongate the Sphinx body, thus making the head appear too small. The Major Fissure is what Anyextee mistakenly describes as a hidden entrance to the Sphinx.
If I understand Seyfzadeh correctly, he believes the erosion of the bedrock fractures occurred following construction of the Sphinx. And that the erosion was caused by precipitation, not acidic groundwater. That is inconsistent with all of the geologic evidence. For instance, Robert Schoch and Thomas Dobeclki identified a weathered limestone beneath the Sphinx as part of a seismic investigation. The presence of a weathered limestone beneath the Sphinx was later confirmed by Lehner in a series of borings constructed as part of a dewatering system installed to protect the Sphinx from wicking groundwater.
“What Schneiker is not showing you is the north and south side of the body where you can still see a whole row of vertical channels, more so on the south side than the north side in keeping with Reader’s model that run-off was more important than rain and that a rain catchment surface is needed to produce the run-off.”
I am not ignoring the fractures. Like Lehner, I am pointing to them, and the evidence contained within them. What Seyfzadeh is not telling you is the “vertical channels” are bedrock fractures. Fractures are produced by tectonic processes, then widened by acidic groundwater. Seyfzadeh needs to look at photographs of the north and south sides of the Sphinx taken prior to the 1920s. He would discover he is wrong about the fractures being more numerous on the south side. Not that this has anything to do with erosion by precipitation or the age of the Sphinx.
“I ask you, is the back of the Sphinx level? Take a look for yourself. Not to me, but I have not been up there to measure if it is.”
Yes, the Sphinx back is nearly level as it follows a geologic bedding plane. There is however, a 5 to 10 degree dip to the south-east at Giza. This dip is obvious to anyone who has ever walked uphill from the Sphinx to the Great Pyramid of Khufu. The dip can easily be seen in any photograph of the Sphinx taken looking towards the west. The geologic beds dip below ground near the Valley Temple, in the south-east corner of the Sphinx enclosure.
“How would Schneiker explain more channels south than north?”
As I already wrote, Seyfzadeh is wrong about there being more fractures on the south side of the Sphinx. I wonder if he is actually referring to the southern wall of the Sphinx enclosure, and not the Sphinx itself. If so he is correct that the southern wall has experienced a greater degree of erosion by salty wicking groundwater. This is because of the bedding that dips to the south-east placing the softer limestone closer to the water table on the south side of the Sphinx enclosure.
If however, the erosion of the Sphinx enclosure was caused by precipitation as Seyfzadeh believes, then the north wall should exhibit a higher degree of erosion than the south wall.
That is unless Seyfzadeh has found a way for water to flow up hill and enter the Sphinx enclosure from the south.
“Regarding Schneiker's idea that the rough-pounded statue was immediately dressed with hewn blocks, where are the oldest ones he proposes except on the lowermost courses?”
Now I am mystified. Seyfzadeh starts his comments by saying he agrees with me. Then questions whether the Sphinx was “immediately dressed with hewn blocks”. This is core to my theory. You cannot have one without the other. Unless he is suggesting the ancient Egyptians left the Sphinx with the rough cut body we see today.
Seyfzadeh is right about the oldest and largest blocks being preserved on the lower sections of the Sphinx. This is not surprising as the Sphinx was buried in sand for most of the past 4,500 years. Protecting the lower blocks from looting. That the blocks have not eroded away is further evidence they were not eroded by precipitation.
“The bulk of the blocks, i.e. the smaller ones, are not from the Old Kingdom. He thinks the blocks were looted. Well then why weren't the smaller ones, the ones easier to carry?”
Seyfzadeh is correct that the bulk of the smaller blocks do not date to the Old Kingdom. It is well documented that they were applied during a series of repairs beginning more than 1,000 years later. This process of repairing the Sphinx with smaller blocks has continued throughout much of the last century. The question is whether the original larger blocks were looted or badly eroded. To answer the question as to why the small blocks were not looted is easy, they have replaced the larger blocks that had been looted.
“Regarding Schneiker's idea that the face of the Great Sphinx is not exact....I encourage you to look at the face of (very young appearing) Khafre on a bust displayed at the Metropolitean Museum of Art.”
I encourage Seyfzadeh to look at the face of the Sphinx again. There is no question that the facial features were adjusted to match the bedding planes.
“I actually differ here from Frank Domingo's facial analysis because he used a model of face of Khafre that must have shown him as an older adult. That's a pretty close match including the still present facial fat pads. Regardless, the face of the Sphinx does not date the whole statue, nor does it falsify the idea of a remodeling job. I think that goes without saying.”
Well put, the face cannot be used to date construction of the Sphinx. Again I suggest Seyfzadeh is speaking for himself and not others such as Schoch and West for whom the face is paramount. Which is why they had Domingo analyze the face in the first place.
As far as a larger head, that is impossible. First because of the limited thickness of the geologic layer from which the head was carved. Second because of the bedrock fractures, “channels” as he calls them, that cross the Sphinx. It was the size of a fracture free natural block of limestone, that became the head. That block determined the overall scale of the Sphinx.
So it does not seem that Seyfzadeh agrees with me after all. For him to truly agree, he needs to agree that there is no erosion by precipitation, on the Sphinx.
I would love to debate Seyfzadeh or anyone who claims the Sphinx is older. I tried with Randall Carlson who agreed to “go toe to toe”, never to be heard from again.
Thanks,
Robert Adam Schneiker, Geologist / Geophysicist, MS, PG
280
-
275
-
273
-
271
-
262
-
258
-
256
-
252
-
252
-
246
-
238
-
229
-
229
-
213
-
213
-
Looking through some of your comment threads, I see that fairly often you get criticized for being "too sarcastic" and the like. I think that from a persuasion standpoint you've got it just about right, but watching the clips (and in the past, some of the LAHT crowd's whole videos) I'm impressed with how well you're able to hold yourself back. ;) 1) These guys spend their whole videos sneering at "mainstream" "orthodox" archaeologists and historians and accusing them of being part of an evil cabal out to deliberately hide the truth from us. 2) Then, with nearly unlimited cockiness, they toss out their hypotheses as Proven Fact on the flimsiest of evidence ("Look! A picture of one circle surrounded by a bunch of other circles, but I can't be arsed to find out what the rest of the pictures are or what the text says!"), and from there they often climb out on an even thinner branch of wild speculation of the "so they must have had psionic power crystals!" variety. 3) They do this without even knowing what the "mainstream" "orthodox" archaeologists and historians think or why they think it. 4) Because the "mainstream" "orthodox" scholar they're actually sneering at is their high school history teacher, and the three-page chapter on the Sumerians (or Egyptians, Mayans, or whoever) in their school textbook, from which they were expected to extract a few names and dates to regurgitate for a test at the end of the week.
It would be one thing if these folks could fairly represent the mainstream position and the evidence used to get there, and still make compelling arguments for their own side. Heck, I wish they could, because who wouldn't want to discover a mysterious ancient lost civilization rich in astonishing capabilities and deep esoteric wisdom?
206
-
205
-
202
-
198
-
195
-
192
-
191
-
191
-
191
-
189
-
189
-
189
-
187
-
186
-
186
-
186
-
184
-
182
-
181
-
181
-
181
-
181
-
180
-
177
-
175
-
175
-
As someone who felt completely duped by pseudoarchaeology after investing several years in posting their videos on my social media trying to spread the word and reading every book on it I could find, but when I watched my first video of your channel concerning UnchartedX, it only took about 5 minutes of your hour-long, steelman debunking of his video to feel deeply embarrassed that I had not realized this stuff on my own. I was intellectually honest enough to accept that you could easily debunk these arguments in multiple different ways that people like Graham Hancock carefully keep his audience away from for this very reason. After I watched your Randall Carlson video, It was so clear to me that people like Graham Hancock are charlatans because if I'm smart enough to understand that the counter-evidence is much more convincing than what they present within 5 minutes, then I know someone who has written several books on the matter knows that the survival of primitive stone tools and archaeology surviving this cataclysm, but not this highly advanced civilization is devastating to his claims, he just tries to make damn well sure his audience would never seek out that counter-evidence on their own by attempting to destroy their trust in the real archaeologists. they try to cut their audience off from all the counter-evidence that must have been presented to them before, but they keep it from their audience and tell their audience to not trust the only people actually trying to fact-check them. The fact that he wants to specifically overlook the step of peer review which is the step of the research process that attempts to control against the individual confirmation bias of any one researcher and tells you what parts of your theory are not working or unfalsifiable if you're starting with your conclusion and a multitude of other things he does so much so he's invested in convincing his audience that the establishment uses peer review to silence the TRUTH. Without peer review, a theory is nothing more than an enthusiastic promise from a possibly trustworthy source that things are the way they say. That's not even science. We all know what that is. It's cult-like behavior. Hancock says all of this, but then takes the highest order of offense if anyone ever accuses him of pseudoarchaeology. I mean the projection is outrageous all throughout Hancockian philosophy! So I began spreading your videos everywhere I had previously spread these pseudoarchaeology videos. And I challenge people with increasingly provocative language when I post your videos in the comments section of UnchartedX, Brien Forrester, Graham Hancock, and others. Almost NO ONE has engaged them after posting them in dozens of groups and the very few that accepted the challenge immediately started looking for conversation stoppers so they wouldn't have to address any of the devastating points in the videos. It's almost always because they feel triggered and claim you're mocking their beliefs. I can honestly say I was triggered the first time I watched your videos as well, but instead of turning it off and making excuses, I needed to know what else you were going to say because I actually want to know what I'm wrong about out of intellectual integrity. I see their excuses as clear copouts to let themselves off the hook. It's actually kinda sad, I feel for them because I was in the same place after being indoctrinated for so many years. That's why I'm desperately trying to show them the same thing that absolutely led to a sea change of my entire outlook, but Hancockian indoctrination is good at producing intellectually dishonest projection in virtually all of his adherents, including me when I was hoodwinked by his pseudoarchaeology and his dishonest tactic to preserve his investment by protecting his customers from the information that would destroy his credibility with many of them. Well, I'd like to think so, but after posting your videos in so many places only to get crickets in return is concerning. How do I convince them to watch your videos longer than it takes for them to find their conversation stopper? (Usually, they pretend that all you're doing is mocking them, which doesn't address anything. none of them have, zero.) I try to explain to them that conversation stoppers are almost always used by the person with the inferior argument as a sort of ideological damage control. It's just a way to excuse themselves from addressing these incredibly problematic points.
174
-
173
-
172
-
172
-
171
-
170
-
169
-
168
-
166
-
165
-
164
-
160
-
158
-
157
-
157
-
157
-
156
-
155
-
153
-
153
-
152
-
151
-
151
-
150
-
150
-
150
-
150
-
149
-
148
-
146
-
143
-
142
-
142
-
141
-
141
-
140
-
140
-
140
-
139
-
138
-
137
-
137
-
137
-
135
-
135
-
135
-
134
-
134
-
132
-
132
-
131
-
131
-
130
-
Honestly, what's most fascinating to me is how this video demonstrates the "evidence" selection process conducted by people who otherwise present themselves as reasonable and rational actors. The most believable figures and diagrams are snipped out of more outlandish publications, aligned with a pre-existing antipathy for the "intellectual elite," and then presented as a hidden body of evidence.
UnchartedX's quoted description of his being a "middle way" position speaks to the motives underlying this practice. By positioning the mainstream and the ancient aliens crowd as two diametrically opposed and equally wrong poles of equal weight, he's presenting his ideas as the reasonable approach.
The problem is, empirical data doesn't compromise. It can be revised, retested, recontextualized, reinterpreted, but there are certain things that the data cannot support. One person claiming the sky is blue and the other person claiming the sky is gray does not automatically mean that the sky is slate; it can mean that one observer is colorblind, or that the data for one observer was collected in Seattle.
EDIT: Okay, just got to the end and his rationale for dismissing the mainstream evidence, and it's... The biggest reach imaginable. Definitely didn't stick the landing if he's trying to claim that the rate of carbon decay is more falsifiable than painting a bullseye around a solstice.
129
-
128
-
126
-
126
-
124
-
124
-
121
-
Fellow academic in Psychology here. As a Brit I'm embarrassed by the tone and language of Sweatman. As a Scot I'm embarrassed that an academic at a Scottish University would speak to another academic like that.
Sweatman, you published a book for popular consumption. While you may have peer reviewed publications of this "stuff" (citations? IFs?). We both know that we don't have to worry about all that nonsense with a £8.99 from WHSmith's in Edinburgh Airport, do we? These types of books allow authors the "freedom" to "flesh out" their ideas (aka you can say whatever you want so long as it doesn't get you arrested or sued). So why on earth would anyone attempt to get a critique of this "stuff" published in a peer reviewed journal? Of course, you'd practically have a freebie pub on your hand. My suggestion would be to go to a journal that gives the original author final reply. You published one of these books for mass consumption so the popular arena of mass critique, YouTube, seems fitting.
Sweatman throws "science" around like there is an agreed definition. He might want to familiarise himself with philosophy of science. The experimental method is one way of defining it but there isn't consensus that THAT is THE definition. Likewise, "hypothesis" was referres to a lot but what about the null hypohesis? What exactly is Sweatman trying to disprove?
I am just appalled by Sweatman's attitude. Sweatman is insulted at being referred to as a Chemical Engineer? Sweatman stomps into a completely different discipline, insults an academic of ancient history's intellect, training, education, and knowledge of their own discipline, and infers the historian is ignorant about antiquity to the point of knowing nothing, infers that historians and archaelogists are ignorant of history, archaeology, "science" and "maths", and infers that archaeology is not a "science".
Thank the lordee that a guy wiv a spanna an' knows nuffin about some old rocks n stuff came along to save us
120
-
120
-
120
-
120
-
119
-
118
-
117
-
114
-
114
-
113
-
111
-
109
-
108
-
108
-
108
-
107
-
Lugalbanda II: Electric Lugaloo
On a serious note when I think of all the literature that has been lost to time I always flash back to 1 particular piece of writing, "Thunder, Perfect Mind." (TPM) While not nearly as old as some of the books mentioned here, and a shorter form poetic work, it reminds me of the magnitude of what we are missing. I find TPM amazing; it comes from a voice not as often heard in ancient literature, what could certainly be understood to be the divine female. It is as beautiful as it is impactful. In fact it speaks to much of what women face in modernity regarding what actually is a woman's role, how she is perceived, and if others can hold the contradictions concerning womanhood in their minds as easily as women must contain all of those often disparate facets in their very being.
This brilliant poem was completely lost to history before the discovery of the Nag Hamadi library. A story so wonderful, that holds just as much meaning in every day life as it did nearly two millennia ago, that had blinked out of memory and therefore existence, but that roared back to public consciousness once found, translated, and made available to the masses. TPM just always gets my mind racing about what other immense works of creativity and knowledge that remain lost and if any are still out there somewhere, waiting to be found while time slowly destroys them and the virtual timer for finding them ticks lower and lower.
Thanks for the great video, as always, Professor Miano! You do some of the best work on the platform in your field and seeing there is a new video from you is always exciting. I always have to drop what I am doing and take a history break whenever one of your upload notifications go off.
107
-
107
-
106
-
106
-
106
-
105
-
105
-
104
-
102
-
Dr Sweatman asserts at 10:00, that his expertise in statistical mechanics, and background in the configurations of atoms and molecules “is exactly the kind of expertise that you can use in decoding the symbols at Göbekli Tepe”. This is utter tosh. I’m a linguist and also an artist, I use my linguistic skills to decipher foreign language texts, and my artistic skills to draw pictures. If you gave me a chemistry question to solve, I wouldn’t have a clue, likewise if you gave Dr Sweatman a page of the Greek New Testament to translate and interpret, he probably wouldn’t have a clue, or if you asked him to decipher the hidden symbolism in a Hieronymous Bosch painting, etc. Scientists don’t have a monopoly of science: linguistics is a science, as is archaeology, and art is highly technical. The science of symbols is called “semiotics” from the Greek “semeion” meaning a symbol. Dr Sweatman needs to do a course in this subject, as well as sculpture, drawing, zoology and archaeology, plus a few ancient languages, before he opens his yap on topics he knows nothing about. He’s making a complete fool of himself.
101
-
100
-
100
-
I only have a Bc in History, more specifically in World Comparative History Specialization, but honestly.... I would LOVE if the idea of an ancient technologically advanced civilization existed before us, who were the architects of their own undoing, and from the ashes humanity started a new, it makes for a great story. Would love to read a novel about this, but this is what all it remains, a fantasy...
I was really into this theory during my middle-school years, and not gonna lie, it had a great part in me going to study History at the Uni. What we see in these videos and what we read in these kind of books are just attempts at explaining something that the writer cannot understand... "If I don`t understand how it was done, than the ancient, less intelligent people couldn't understand it either..." I think this is the base of this kind of thinking...
I do think though that no matter how ridiculous an idea might be, experts should investigate it... because the biggest letdown for me was at the Uni, when I learned that History is not really scientific, it is very, very based on personal emotions. Well, mostly when it comes to more recent history, national pride comes in the way of rational thinking. That's why I believe that one should not research their own nations history, for it will come with a biased view... people think that it is easy to be objective in these cases, but oh boy.... this is especially a problem with neighboring countries, each claiming something different about a common event...
100
-
99
-
99
-
99
-
98
-
98
-
98
-
98
-
98
-
98
-
97
-
96
-
I am a GPR/EMI technician (not a geophysicist). However, the map shown at 11:00 appears to be a EMI map showing various electromagnetic signatures at approximately 8 meters spherically from the EMI itself. The map could be showing you both above and below ground objects. Without context (Google earth overlay/site photos/gps coordinates), it doesn’t mean much.
Typically, when attempting to locate underground man made structures such as building foundations, one would look for straight lines, uniformity, and roughly equal on center distances. I see none of that in the data.
Also, the colors represent different density levels of objects. There is no uniformity to these either, and one would need to at least provide a summary and basic explanation of the colors as the EMI can be adjusted for assumed densities of expected objects.
GPR and EMI technology are always interpretive ventures. This is why you need experienced experts knowing what they’re looking for the begin with, performing the work, and assessing the results. I would love to see a giant man made labyrinth in the results. That would be amazing. But, it’s just not there. If I had to guess, this map likely represents both above and below ground naturally occurring objects or perhaps some debris.
95
-
95
-
94
-
93
-
93
-
93
-
93
-
92
-
92
-
91
-
90
-
90
-
90
-
90
-
90
-
89
-
89
-
88
-
88
-
88
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
85
-
85
-
84
-
84
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
As an Indian person, THANK YOU! I want to learn something about Ancient India from the Vedic Period, but most videos I can find are stupid conspiracy theories. Personally, the time frame I choose would be the late 12th-very early 9th Centuries BCE, as since the Kurukshetra War is presented to have kingdoms from all over the Indian Subcontinent, Afghanistan, Iran, Central Asia, and even the Chinese and Ionian Greeks. Historically, Kingdoms start popping around this time. Also, the iron age in South India becomes more advanced, and it starts having governments, like it is depicted in the Mahabharata.
83
-
83
-
82
-
82
-
82
-
81
-
81
-
81
-
81
-
81
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
79
-
79
-
79
-
79
-
Dr. Miano, I often sleep with your videos playing on repeat, lol. Your last video on UnchartedX absolutely changed my life, I can't understate that. You do amazing work, thank you so much for shining light on these guys for their audiences to see. I spent so many embarrassing years reposting videos from UnchartedX, Ham Grandcock, and others. I came damn close to starting my own channel (which I still might do), but I feel so much better armed to do so thanks to your videos, Stephan Milo, Ancient Architects, and others. I'm also THRILLED that Matt from Ancient Architects actually responded to you and updated his views and tactics. I always knew he was one of the real ones. Keep up the good work!
78
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
I find it incredibly frustrating that on one side there are those who want to deny ancient Egyptians their own culture, art, and architecture, and on the other there are those who want to deny the innovations of the societies that came later, claiming Egypt as the source of all knowledge. Ancient Egypt was amazing, and undoubtedly had influence, especially on the Greeks who ruled there, just as the Greeks would later influence the Romans. I am often confused by the desire of people to deny ancient civilizations their own accomplishments. That, to me, is what both sides of this dichotomy are doing. One side insists that Egypt's own accomplishments aren't really Egyptian, while the other claims that all accomplishments, including religions, and scientific discoveries belong to Egypt.
77
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
75
-
@WorldofAntiquity Here is the original Tiwanaku quote. I can see how this may be causing some confusion within the lost ancient culture crowd about who built the inca sites (further to the north). The english translation can be read in two different ways, but the original spanish is much more clear about what is being said.
Here's the problematic English translation (chapter 97, pg 284): "There are other things to tell of Tiahuanacu which I omit to save time. In conclusion, I would say that I consider this the oldest antiquity in all Peru. It is believed that before the Inca’s reigned, long before, certain of these buildings existed, and I have heard Indians say that the Incas built their great edifices of Cusco along the lines of the wall to be seen in this place."
A better translation here might be "built their edifices of Cusco in the FORM THAT THEY SAW the wall of this town", meaning in the same style, not along the same geographical lines.
Here's the original Spanish:
“Y así se tiene, que antes que los Ingas reinasen con
muchos tiempos, estaban hechos algunos edificios de éstos, porque yo he oído afirmar a indios, que los Ingas hicieron los edificios grandes del Cuzco por la forma que vieron tener la muralla o pared que se ve en este pueblo.”
Cieza continues:
“I asked the natives … if these buildings had been built in the time of the Inca, and they laughed at the question, repeating what I have said, that they were built before they reigned, but that they could not state or affirm who built them. However, they had heard from their forefathers that all that are there appeared overnight. Because of this, and because they also say that bearded men were seen on the island of Titicaca [ie. the legend of Tici Viracocha] and that these people constructed the building of Vinaque, I say that it might have been that before the Incas ruled, there were people of parts in these kingdoms, come from no one knows where, who did these things, and who, being few and the natives many, perished in the wars.”
That reference to Tici Viracocha, who is also described as a bearded white god in the legend (Cieza pg 27), is also sometimes used by those promoting pre-columbian european contact theories. Others speculate that this legend of a white god didn't originate until after the arrival of the spanish, where the Spanish then promoted that myth since it served their purposes. (from 7 Myths of the Spanish Conquest).
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
72
-
72
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
Just to help make a distinction. There are three disciplines that can be applied to a stone tablet. The archaeologist digs up the tablet from the ground by various means with great care and dates the object by known scientific means. Then a translator familiar with the original language of the text, or knows where to look up what he doesn't know (like a doctor might do on a first time procedure), translates the text with skill and understanding of the grammar. Then, someone familiar in the culture, such as an Assyriologist, may identify the chronology of the text based on other texts using evidence internal to the text like vocabulary, grammar, personages mentioned, and other indicators.
However, unlike a doctor, none of these professions require letters next to their names. As long as they have the requisite knowledge, it does not matter whether they acquired it autodidactically or through a higher learning institution or with on-the-job training, as long as they can demonstrate their knowledge effectively. Those who are self-trained are not pseudo-archeologists, -translators or -Assyriologist (Egyptologists, etc.), but are, in fact called "amateur" archaeologists, translators and Assyriologist (Egyptologists, etc.). Their knowledge and skill is no less valid just because they weren't instructed at an ivy league school.
68
-
68
-
68
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
Hi there. I really appreciate your videos and your dedication to promoting real science and history. But I think it is important to make some distinctions on this issue.
For starters what specifically is meant by "advanced" and "civilization"
The idea that there was anything like our current globe-spanning interconnected civilization in the last 10,000 or 1 million years, and seems very unlikely to me(though not completely impossible)even if you go back many millions of years.
On the other hand, the idea that there could have been a localized society of people who had some small city-states 10,000 or more years ago that were destroyed/ we haven't found yet/ we have limited artifacts but not enough and have been misinterpreted, possibly even with some things like an independently invented writing system that went extinct seems possible to me.
In fact, it even seems likely to me that some people somewhere could have had false starts to forming more complex societies that got pushed back at some point before it gathered enough momentum to take off, protect themselves, and pass on their innovations to others.
Basically, I just think it makes sense to draw a distinction between pure "woo-woo", the plausible but unlikely, and the possible but unproven.
66
-
66
-
66
-
I have a graduate certificate in statistics from a highly regarded program (I basically have 75% of a masters in statistics), and the fact that this got published in an academic journal is one of the most appalling things I’ve ever seen. If I had used his statistical design in one of my homework assignments, I would have failed the assignment and likely would have been invited to meet to discuss my dubious ability to remain in the program. I don’t even need to broach problems with his actual analysis of that fatally flawed design. He’s also disingenuous, at best, regarding his belief in highly advanced prehistoric civilization(s); he’s either misleading his fans or Dr. Miano about that.
Edit: I just heard the part where you asked if anyone with knowledge of stats could address this. Briefly, I agree with all the criticism you levied at his work. You are correct about the inappropriate conflation of two unrelated studies to yield a more impressive result, as he attempted to do with the cave analysis combined with the Gobleki Tepe one. He definitely introduced a lot of selection bias, as well, by discarding results he didn’t like - as you discussed. In addition, he doesn’t concretely define his null hypothesis, and the way he presents his results is improper as he provides no p-values or other statistics, although I understand it’s for a lay audience and I assume they were present in his paper.
To me, though, the most egregious sin he appears to commit is that what I believe he’s done is to find out when each constellation would have appeared on each of the 4 equinox/solstice days, found the carbon dates that most closely aligned with them, then calculated the differences. If this were actual science, he would have determined the year range each day (not all 4 days) each constellation painting represented first, then compared it to the carbon dated result. There is absolutely no predictive power in his design if I’m correctly assuming what he’s done. I don’t see how he could have even designed it in a predictive manner, because there’s no way to tell if the painter was representing the summer solstice or the spring equinox, for example. Ultimately, that doesn’t matter, because we know those paintings aren’t what he claims them to be, anyway.
This was very interesting - thank you for covering it. I admit I’m angry he’s receiving support for his nonsense, though.
Edit 2: I couldn’t help myself. I had to go a read his papers. I am shocked, although I suppose I shouldn’t be. There is no more scientific or statistical rigor present than in the videos you showed - there is no actual statistical analysis. I was correct in my assumptions about his cave analysis: “For each animal symbol… we find the associated solstice or equinox corresponding to that animal, whichever is closest to the calibrated radiocarbon date.” He then has the gall to claim that the dates he has found on his constellation software cannot be correlated to the radiocarbon dates unless his hypothesis is correct! Of course they’re correlated! He correlated them as closely as possible in his design! Both of his articles are in open access journals - I’m so relieved they aren’t in legitimate academic journals because I would have lost faith in academia.
By the way, he also claims that the cave paintings in Chauvet were created circa 34,000 BC [sic].
🤦🏽♀️
66
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
62
-
62
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
I'm not a professional historian, just someone with an MA in history, but my research focus was West Africa, where Oral Traditions are one of the most important types of source we have. A big problem in modern times is something called feedback; most people who keep oral traditions aren't isolated in their own little pockets of society, they're literate people who can and have read books about their own peoples' histories. Unfortunately, this often results in them knowingly or accidentally incorporating things they read about into their oral traditions, which makes it difficult to know what claims are consistent elements of oral traditions going back generations, and which ones may have been introduced more recently. It also reduces inconsistencies between the oral traditions as recounted by different tellers, which comes with its own issues; when we have lots of different tellings of a story with slight variations, we can cross reference them to evaluate which details are most likely to be accurate to older tellings of the story, whereas when all the versions converge due to drawing from a single more recent telling, we lose a lot of data. It's a really unfortunate situation.
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
Thank you so much for making this video, Dr. Miano: The YouTube "DIY Archaeology," community was severely in need of a comprehensive effort to inform the community of work that has been done (in some or even many cases) many decades ago that paints exactly the picture that Graham Hancock (and others) have been claiming for years does not exist: That the move towards megalithic construction (sites) was a gradual one, and most certainly did not, "appear out of nowhere."
I know you put a lot of hard work into this video and judging from a brief glance at the comments section, your efforts were well worth the while. I see dozens and dozens of comments reflecting a lot of, "wow, I never knew that," and, "I used to be a proponent of the lost civilization hypothesis, and your videos have slowly assisted me in emerging from ignorance."
Great work, Dr. Miano. You really are a gifted educator and an invaluable member of the community.
54
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
Seeing as how you enjoy laying out the facts, and we all know how muddled the ‘truth’ can get, especially in this amazing era of modernity, why should it surprise anyone that you’re using the most accurate monikers when referencing years past? It shouldn’t. But there’s the rub, folks have minds that form opinions almost exclusively to their experiences, which is all but unavoidable, speaking to intrapersonal interactions.
You can’t win this argument, Doc .. especially when you’re arguing truth to ‘feelings’.
I say all this being a proud Christian myself. Tradition is a nut, same as religion, that can’t be cracked.
And to use those words written long, long ago: ‘…thinking themselves wise, they became fools’. That’s as true a statement you’ll ever hear, concerning opinion and ‘truth’.
Thanks for the explanation, though.
Have an awesome day.
(Oh, give us some more travel guide stuff .. I’m diggin’ it. Please)
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
Kudos! Great work! Love the rigor!
One suggestion...You touched upon this, but I feel it could be expanded upon and may even warrant its own video, although I understand that it is a bit laborious to substantiate. I have a lifetime of practical experience in construction, including stone working. My personal experience has been that the level of precision in any given project depends far more upon wealth than availability of technology.
Our crews could do fantastic work, but only if the customer could afford it
The vast majority of the time, our work was a tiny fraction of our potential, and I’d have loved to be OCD and achieve perfection, but budgetary restrictions preclude this
You mentioned, for example, Roman concrete disappearing not because they forgot how to do it, but rather because they could no longer afford the huge construction that necessitated it
Similarly, people who say that crude, cheap construction proves that contemporaries are incapable of fine work seem to not notice the difference in quality of craftsmanship in modern cities between the rich and poor
Same companies, same workers, same technology
The variant factor is wealth. Budget
After all, stone working is hardly rocket science
We do it up to the standards that our patrons are willing to pay for and can afford
Personally, I’d love to recreate the great pyramid in Giza
Just find someone to pay for it and we could do it. Lol
What will we actually end up doing?
Faux stone finishes on concrete because it’s what people can afford
Rarely, perhaps a veneer of stone, rushed, underfunded, and poorly executed.
High-precision, seamless work in marble, for example, is a rare job, indeed, but we love them. Not least because it involves much more money.
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
Here's the ultimate Achilles' Heel of Sweatman's elaborate fantasy. He arbitrarily chose the free astronomy program Stellarium and its constellation and asterism lines connecting stars in the present western tradition. He then used those lines, totally unknown by ancients, to "analyze" placement but discarding the orientation of carvings from 10k years ago.
But why use the modern western lines? Those aren't ALL Stellarium makes available, you know. He could have picked different constellation and asterism lines from alternate cultures, for instance Babylonian - MUL.APIN, or Babylonian - Selucid, or Egyptian, or Macedonian, Greek (according to the Almagest, the globe of the Atlas Farnese Statue Sweatman likes so much, or from the Leiden Aratea). Even among modern Western sky lines, he could have picked that used by Sky & Telescope magazine, or H. A. Rey, or O. Hlad, in addition to the IAU lines he ARBITRARILY chose. Yes, he could have used authentic lines from ancient Greek astronomy or even earlier in the Babylonian age, but Sweatman arbitrarily chose to cherry pick from the vast array of choices, including much more appropriate ones relating to his "theory."
Also, Stellarium, unlike the astronomy program I prefer, Cartes du Ciel, has no concept of proper motion of stars built into the program. Proper motion is motion at right angles to our line of view, changing the position of the star in relation to all the other stars over time. Some stars have moved considerably from their historical positions in 10,000 BCE from today. Stellarium specifically says they make no account for stars moving across space over time. A GOOD astronomical program would have shown him the different positions of the stars then as opposed to today and that would change every angle he used! So he used the wrong angles, and had he chosen the correct sky map, the stars wouldn't have been in the correct historical position in Stellarium.
There is a problem with his chart, published in the Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, Vol. 17, No 1, (2017), pp. 233-250. He shows the Sun at 13:01 and 4 seconds in the afternoon only 45º in altitude! In reality, it would be plotted 77º high at that hour on that date from Gobekli Tepe on September 11 of that or any other year, for that matter. Something is very wrong with his published sky map.
Also, the positions of the stars in relation to each other change very little over even 2000 years. He can't use a defective map of stars from Stellarium to fix the date of the pillar, even if his other pipe dreams had a fart's chance in a hurricane of being correct.
Applying statistics, even valid statistics to nonsense, yields utter nonsense. Sweatman should confine is activities to the mathematical and statistical realms in which he is qualified and stay out of history, archaeology and astronomy, which he is ignorant of, or no more qualified than a layman. Even in his peer reviewed journal (if it is indeed peer reviewed at all) the reviewers wouldn't have my knowledge of astronomy and astronomy software to expose truly sophomoric errors on Sweatman's part.
I wish I could send you diagrams, links to Cartes du Ciel, screen prints of star charts, etc to prove I'm not making any of this up, but YouTube has decided that genuine exchange of information using the defining brilliance of the Internet, the hyperlink, is forbidden here in the comment section. I hope I've given sufficient information so that you can verify my contentions for yourself.
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
Im a guy very into history of sailling, and its so annoying the amount of dumb theories surroinding old maps. Since im portuguese i get the advantage of access to some books and documents that our national archive still has from the 1400-1600's, like sea charts. Its very interesting to see them evolve and grow, specially portulans.
One of the most annoying theoires was that portulans, which are made with the help of a compass and show you the direction of each port in relation to one another, are actually a roman invention, even tho Ptolomey wrote down longitudes and latitudes and we have no evidence of romans writting geography books based on compass directions. But people will insist that just because medieval europe loved to use roman and greek sources, that they must've not been original inventors of portulans.
The paradox of the dark age of science is so enfuriating: anything europe did that was backwater was because of their dumb beliefs, anything they did that was advanced was because of rome and greek writtings. Funny enough, both muslim and christian scientists of the time innovated plenty, and their more wacky ideas came precisely from ancient rome and ancient greece.
Name any weird old belief in medicine or geography medieval people's had in europe or the middle east and you can trace it all the way to rome and greece: humor theories, astrology, the idea that there is the exact same land mass in the northen hemisphere, the idea that strange lands have cyclops, giants, one legged people, etc, geocentrism, the idea that its too hot in the equator to sail into, the idea that the sea becomes too shallow beyong "the pillars of hercules", sea monsters, etc.
Medieval people's were innovative, all across history, they didnt need to steal knowledge from so called ancient civilizations that both leave no trace and yet left their mark everywhere.
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
Speaking as an architect who has designed power plants, here are some fundamental problems with the Pyramids being power plants:
- the building needs maintenance access inside and out (impossible with sloping smooth sides)
- there is no space internally for machinery, and doors/corridors have to be huge, for when the machinery needs swapping out
- there would be hundreds of service ducts inside and outside the building, with pipes, cables and screw clamps
- you wouldn’t build a power plant in a grave yard (mainly because every time somebody dug a new grave, they would hit a buried live cable or pipe)
- no fuel storage or provision (if nuclear, how would they get the waste out, and where are the coolers?)
- no toilets
- no access for firemen, or alternative fire egress for anyone working inside
- granite/limestone etc these are decorative exotic materials, not utilitarian.
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
I will say a bit about the anchors, just because the anchors found are Medieval doesn't mean the city is, anchors are not infrequently lost and left behind, so all that says on its own is that the area has been underwater since at least the Medieval period. Now, if there's a lack of any anchors predating that, then that's more support that it wasn't submerged much longer than the Medieval, but absence of evidence of not evidence of absence, while losing anchors isn't uncommon, it's not impossible for the water to have submerged the area and ships to have simply not lost anchors, ships to have not anchored in that area, or us to not have found anchors, say due to them being buried under too much silt. I'm generally willing to accept the dating, but I would find it far from unlikely for later evidence to be found pushing the dates back.
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
As someone who studied linguistics, even just as an undergrad, the way Frawley talks about languages is full of value judgements, e.g. Sanskrit is "more sophisticated" than European languages, that no academic linguist would make.
Oh, and if by "more sophisticated", he means that it has more complex inflectional morphology than most European languages, then I would like to introduce him to the modern, non-Indo-European languages of Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian and Basque, all of which are "more sophisticated" than Sanskrit by that measure.
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
One thing that stone masons are taught is that All stone has a grain, even diamonds . When one works with a grain,it is easier to chip/ carve. Granite , being metamorphic, (from volcanic eruptions), has a high content of feldspar.this has a mineral grain similar to diamond, so a competent stone quarrying mason can read the grain and act accordingly. Then there is the use of fire and water. Due to the grain, when fire is laid on a surface the heat permeates along the grains and when quenched by water, it causes the grain to split. Such action can be directed by cutting a groove along a line and heating accordingly. Finally there is sand. Something that is still in use for both wood and stone work. Sand having various quantities of silica creates the grits we still use. The courser the grit ( larger silica particles) the deeper it can cut. Sand is not just Silica. It can also contain carborundum and nano diamond particles these particles have acted on stone as they do today.
The advance technology people also have not considered that the amount of time spent creating an artifact was irrelevant. There was NO stress to do it quickly, only to do it correctly snd even then, there would be a division of work based upon the skill level of the craftsman. An apprentice would be given the task of cutting and roughing out a stone ,then a highly skilled craftsman would finish the product.
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
Interestingly, when considering the anesthetics of the Chinese bronze disk mirrors from #19; in the centre and four quadrants of the mirror there are 5 large points which make up the focal points of design interest which, are surrounded by apple blossoms.
Though they are the most prominent design features, more importantly, they are also the "sprues" or, "gates" that the molten bronze was poured through using the time honored process of "lost wax casting".
Think of the mirror first being created in wax but picture the spues being longer and coming together in the shape of a bowl at the top.
This then, surrounded by a cured slurry of investment made up of select fine sands that when dry will withstand high temperature, burning out the wax and curing the sand into a hard mold into which your molten bronze is then poured.
So, not only are the 5 pointy parts important from an anesthetic point of view, they were also integrally important in the manufacturing process that created the mirror.
Once you are aware of how this works; you won't be able to look at a cast piece without wondering how they included or, removed those gates to facilitate the creation of the object, itself.
From finger rings to massive ships propellers, castings have to have gates and small gas vents which are often hidden within the design.
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
In my experience as a machinist the larger a tool is, and the smoother the cut is intended to be, the slower it has to move. The person making the video being responded to seems to lack a fundamental understanding of machining principles all the way through. Furthermore, all the supposed evidence of machining he shows is large but relatively simple: flat sides, single and double intersecting angles, round holes. All of that can be made with very simple rotating machines if they are used creatively. The real art of machine work, in any era, is how creatively a tool can be used to produce unique shapes. That isnt happening here. The work is impressive in scale but not in its density of features. No curvilinear multidirectional arcs, no gradual curvature to showcase a mathematical understanding of things like elliptical shapes, nothing like that.
Everything shown here can be made with tools squarely within the capabilities of the societies they appear to have been a part of. And the math involved to make them is also contemporaneous to the era. Nothing shown stands out to my trained and experienced eye.
These works showcase ingenuity in how simple tools can be utilized, not technological sophistication. And if you cant tell the difference between those two things then you arent qualified to have a serious opinion on this subject. More simply: you dont know what youre looking at or what it indicates.
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
You weren't kidding that he doesn't even know the basics: Trying to assert that the interior structural fill of a building and the outer facing finer brickwork is because of the latter being from an "older civilization" is laughable. You mentioned how this is typical Maya construction, but it's not even that, it's the typical MESOAMERICAN construction process in general: Rough stone and mortar fill, finer outer bricks, then layer of smooth stucco and decoratives like paint, reliefs, sculptures, etc. The idea that the Maya in particular didn't build their structures is funny considering many have inscriptions detailing under what year/ruler they were made! It's also silly because there ARE cases of Mesoamerican civilizations reusing and refurnishing older structures from earlier societies which people could talk about instead, such as the Aztec's renovations of Teotihuacano shrines and the excavations they did in them, bringing back luxary goods into Tenochtitlan, and the working of Teotihuacan into their mythology and adopting it's artistic, architectural., and urban design principals... but since I guess historians and archeologists already attest to that, it's not exotic enough.
Anyways, I'm actually pretty interested in those papers you mentioned documenting the development of Mesoamerican construction techniques over time: Obviously techniques changed and would have been iterated on, like Earthen Pyramids are common in the Preclassic/Formative and not the CLassic/Postclassic, but I've never really bothered to read into how what I take for granted as the "standard" construction process I and you both explained was arrived at. Got any specific suggestions for papers beyond what you showed off? (I also didn't know that the fill used softer limestone then the exterior blocks, though I imagine that's not applicable outside of the Maya area, considering that volcanic rock was used for a lot of sites in Central Mexico even with the same construction method... though maybe there's softer volcanic rocks? Not a geologist!)
A related topic I've also been curious about is the categorization of different architectural styles: The Puuc style mentioned in this video is the only "named' Maya style I know of, and i'm curious if there are others beyond that, or say the Mixteca-Puebla/International style seen in painted art in Central Mexico/Oaxaca and some Norhern Maya sites in the Postclassic, etc. A part of me wonders if the "blockier" style of sculpture seen on Teotihuacano and Zapotec sculptures/ceramics from the Classic period represents a similar in-vogue style at the time, and I guess the consensus is also these days that "Olmec" style art seen in areas outside the Olmec heartland was the same?
Also, what's the art at 13:47 from?
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
@WorldofAntiquity I think there is a lot of confusion because Perú has had advanced civilizations for over 5000 years, while most people seem to think the Inca sprung up from the ground and came up with everything, which is initially confusing to any Peruvian since we study all the ancient civilizations in school.
The Inca where the latest in a very long list of civilizations, all of whom left their mark, even though their ruins are less famous, some of them are more impressive than what the Inca left. At least to me, like Kuélap or Chavín de Huantar, the latest of which was build more than a thousand years before the Inca even existed.
So its technically true, once the Inca civilization coalesced there were "ruins of much older civilizations" (much, much older in fact) and they where the inheritors of all that knowledge as well as all the civilizations that existed at the same time as the Inca, that the Inca later conquered/incorporated into the Tawantinsuyu, the "empire". And each brought the advanced of the past to its peak during that time.
As a final note, the famous Inca gold, is not in fact "Inca" its Chimú and a legacy of the norther Peruvian coastal cultures, the Inca famously "imported" the Chimú artisans to Cuzco after they conquered Chan Chan.
I think this knowledge arms one to be able to debunk all the crazy "theories" bandied about, the development of Inca agriculture, architecture, metalwork, etc. Can all be traced and follow through the millennia as it developed and which civilization contributed what. The ruins and pottery are all right there all over Perú if anyone wants to visit!
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
In fact, in tens of millions of years from now it will still be very easy to find human works: foundations of buildings, mines, and other artifacts of ours. Our ceramics will last indefinitely, for example. Some of our best stainless steels will last for tens of thousands of years - it is stain-less steel, not stain-free steel!
Our glass will last basically forever, and so will our gold jewelry. Our Nuclear storage facilities will last for hundreds of thousands of years.
It seems certain the Great Pyramid will still be recognisable as a structure for at least a hundred thousand of years, due to the extremely low erosion rates on the plateau, and our hardware on the moon, and in space will last for tens of millions of years - and perhaps even hundreds of millions of years. Maybe even billions in the right location.
Plus, geologists would recognise the Anthropocene period very clearly by the levels of plastic decay byproducts and odd radio-decay byproducts - in the layers of our time.
Recently I made a list of the items in just my garage that would last for 1,000 years, 10,000 years, 100,000 years, 1,000,000 years and 10 million years. There's not much left after 10 million years except the fired clay ashtray I made aged 7, the shattered remains of the concrete floor, and walls, some plate glass, and some small gold parts inside a collection of old phones.
So, people who think human traces couldn't be found even over geological time periods are quite ignorant of materials science, and how long things can last when buried.
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
I love myths for the meanings i can find and apply to my own life. I feel like trying to create a scientific basis for myth takes away from that. I cant pretend to fully understand the original audiences perspective, but theres a lot you can learn about yourself through other peoples stories (real or not) and seeing the things that people found important in ancient times like family, friends, and love, art, music, intelligence, passion, honor, determination, courage, loyalty, work and play, its beautiful to see how much we all have in common. Through gods and monsters other worldly adventures it reminds me of what it means to be human. And the troubles and beauty we all face whether its today or 2000 years ago.
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
I do writeups and help some history/archeology channels on Mesoamerica: I have mixed opinions about Aztec, Maya, etc codices in these conversations: a LOT was lost, but there's still loads to read/learn too! On one hand, the general public at large really doesn't know much about Mesoamerica, and often are surprised to learn they had books at all, so stressing how much was lost due to the Spanish is important: Even amongst people who bring up the burning of Maya codices, they may not be aware that there were also large libraries in the Aztec cities of Tenochtitlan and Texcoco, for example (and realistically all large Aztec, Maya, Mixtec, Zapotec, Totonac, etc cities likely had some amount of texts: the relative obscurity of those non-Aztec/Maya civilizations is an issue too), and when you consider how much people mourn over the Library of Alexandria when that's a single library and we still have huge amounts of Classical records, it really highlights the absolute travesty that is the destruction of eveyr library across Mesoamerica (which was far more densely populated then most people realize, 20 to 30 million+ people, comparably densely populated to parts of Europe at the time) and the relative lack of surviving sources
So while the general public may drastically undestimate the amount we've lost, I think often the conversations about that also paradoxically underestimate the amount that survives: While there's only 4 surviving Maya books/codices, there's thousands of surviving inscriptions in stone, which gives us a pretty large amount of information about the political history of the cities that the inscriptions are from or describe, especially when you cross-refference them from multiple cities. Granted, this is usually pretty dry, "On X Date Y happened" records, but it means that for certain sites or kings or officials, we have at least a semi-exhaustive set of bullet points of major events and history.
And if people want more qualitative information then when it comes to the Aztec, there's many sources (believe I saw a stat once of over a hundred) written during the early colonial period by Spanish friars or indigenous nobles, scribes, etc (or often a combination of the two) which can go pretty in depth on history or information about culture and society: The Florentine Codex/A General History of the Things of New Spain for example is a 13 volume set totaling thousands of pages about Aztec ceremonies, deities, festivals, calendrics, astrology, society and class, merchantry, artistry, courts and judiciary, daily life, royal courts, medicine, botany, naturalism, speeches, adages, riddles, etc. Duran's "A History of the Indies of New Spain" is hundreds of pages of in depth history for the Aztec of Tenochtitlan (and is very affordable/accessible, you can get the whole thinng for like 20$), and so on (of course, since these were written by or under Spanish supervision/decades or centuries after the fact, reliability can be an issue, but self-glorifying, rival-demonizing, romanticizing, etc bias is an issue with all historical records: That's what we have modern academic historians, books, and annotations for!)
When you look past the Aztec and Maya, and to a lesser extent the Mixtec and Zapotec (the 8 surviving Oaxacan codices give us similar information that Maya inscriptions do as far as political histories, giving us a pretty good generalized overview of 800 years of political history for the valley they cover), then yes, stuff is much more scarce, and there are very little sources for many groups but there's still some works like the above like the Relacion de Michoacan for the Purepecha; many towns have Relacion de Geograficas etc. And of course archeology can tell us quite a bit even when we lack textual sources. We have only tiny amount of scattered inscriptions from Teotihuacan which are mostly just contextless dates (or characters we can't read yet), but there are many, many gigantic books written about the city.
I guess in conclusion I worry that when we focus so much on how much is lost we may end up discouraging people from checking out or being aware of what sources DO exist. There is still SO much to learn and read about, especially for the Aztec and Maya, and so little of what we do have or what's out there is taught or is generally known in popular culture/understanding, and I think improving education for what we DO have left really needs to be the focus. When we have dozens of centuries old sources that go into detail on things like the Florentine Codex or Duran's history there's really no excuse that most World History textbooks even in High school and colleges only spend like half a page on Mesoamerica as a whole. To an extent, the fact that a lot of sources only got English translations recently which are still in copyright is part of it (and the majority of sources STILl don't have english translations), but that only excuses so much and as far as I understand it even in Mexico much of this isn't really taught either outside of archeology classes.
Anyways, I know you likely already know all/some of this, but wanted to say it for other viewers who may not. I found your channel recently, and I really respect how often you feature Pre-Columbian societies and sites, almost as much as Eurasian ones, most channels don't do that. Haven't had time to watch many of them yet, but you'll probably see me leave some giant comments on some of your Mesoamerican videos, or maybe even shoot you an email offering some resources. Let me know if you'd be interested!
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
There's a reason many fairytales & folktales begin with "Once upon a time" & aren't specific about dates, character names or even the names of the towns/countries the story takes place in. It's usually "the woods" or "the desert" or "by the river" "in the mountains" with castles, towers, roads & bridges etc added as necesarry. And the characters are usually just a Prince, Princess, Lady, Lord, Farmer, Maiden, Fisherman, Hunter, etc. Very rarely do you get full names of anybody, you mainly get their occupation/social status (possibly a common or generic first name) This formula works for many reasons. It's flexible for one, allowing the storyteller to customize. It's also very inclusive since it's the theme & not the characters that are most often important in oral storytelling so it's adaptable across different cultures/languages. Even now with modern technology, we still adapt & retell certain stories over & over again. Shakespeare did it & Hollywood loves doing it lol. It's human nature. We like stories. Stories are great, I love mythology & folklore & fairytales & what they say about human culture. I love scifi & fantasy & horror too for the same reason. But stories & conjecture aren't evidence or serious scholarship when it comes to actual history. I think some of these Alt Hist- Mystics forget that sometimes.
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
I mean, measuring curved surfaces, or things in general, was traditionally done with strings and pins. That was the way ancient philosophers all over the world measured and created the field of geometry. If you have a string and a pin, you can use it to mark out a perfect circle with a radius of the length of the string. You can find the center of that circle again by drawing two chords (yes, this word comes from the same source as the chords on a guitar), that aren't parallel, mark lines perpendicular to them, and find the intersection. An eclipse is merely made by putting two pins in surface and tying a string to both ends with some slack, pull it tight, rotate it.
You can actually do a lot of really clever things with strings and pins to recreate a lot of the mathematical concepts the greeks, persians, and indians developed.
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
Glastonbury is a fascinating, beautiful place, home to a tonne of ancient & medieval history - the Tor (the origin for the idea of the Isle of Avalon), the tower, the abbey, various churches, inns, Wearyall Hill, the Glastonbury Thorn, the fields and wetlands, and the beautiful market town itself. Even some of the new-age woo places like the Chalice Well Gardens are sweet, welcoming & generally inoffensive, even if it's not your bag. There's absolutely no need whatsoever to invent crank stuff up about it. I'd recommend it to anyone, it's a very special place.
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
Something I think people are really underestimating is how hard "do you own research" is. We hear it ALL the time now, but there isn't an appreciation for what that really entails, and for how unreasonable it is for most people to devote the time and effort to actually doing it. I am five years into my Ph.D. and the main skill we learn is literally HOW to be a good and effective researcher. This isn't a simple task, it is a hard learned skill that most people aren't fully prepared to do (and to be clear, this also applies to people who are experts within a given field. Doing research in one field does not mean you can effectively research another field without first putting in significant effort.).
I have really turned against this idea of "do you own research" because it is conveying the wrong idea, or at the very least it is being peddled or taken the wrong way. Doing your own research (as a layman) generally should be taken as reading literature (or well produced summaries that provide proper citations, etc) from actual experts within a field. Try to understand what evidence they have and how it supports their conclusions, conclusions that have support from many different people, and evidence from many different sources (note, this will generally excludes proposed paradigm shifts, as you need a very strong knowledge of the history of a field to really understand if they hold up to scrutiny). Really, this is built upon some level of trust in the field. It is generally not about trying to make your own hypotheses or conclusions, or trying to gather your own evidence or interpret data. Those tasks require some level of knowledge which most people don't have the time to attain to understand a singular subject, never mind a wide variety of subjects (which we are constantly being told to do our own research on!). To me, it shouldn't be "do you own research". It should be "learn about this subject" (and that is still a very difficult task, which is why science communication is so incredibly important, as is simply building trust with people!). So much misinformation is being spread by people "doing their own research", as if saying they did "research" puts them on the same level as experts. You don't need a Ph.D. to be a researcher, but you do have to dedicate a huge amount of time to learning about your field (which often have very long histories), understanding existing techniques and research, and building hypotheses and evidence to support a reasonable narrative that holds up to scrutiny. Hancock has not effectively done this, and that is why experts give push back. Misinformation is dangerous on many different levels, the biggest of which is the rising distrust of experts, whether such distrust is warranted or not!
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
Once again, Professor Miano, you have provided us with the information needed to show that Gobekli Tepe was most likely the result of a natural, gradual increase in knowledge from the hunter gatherer civlizations and I would imagine if time travel became a possible way to see it for ourselves, we would see the hunter gatherers as much more multi-dimensional with board games and all sorts of kit that has never made it to our time. They are getting labeled as nothing more than foraging tribes of people incapable of complex thought or imagination; the human mind I am sure back then was just as full of ideas as in the present day---and maybe even more so, because we have practically buried things like intuition whereas older civilizations probably relied on the sixth sense to get a lot things done. What probably was the case was that hunter gatherer tribes had elaborate settlements that followed the seasons i.e., followed the game and there was undoubtedly a sophisticated society albeit a traveling one, and these settlements were gobbled up by father time and nothing is left. Gobekli Tepe looks to me more like primitive hands were the architects of structures that I am sure were easily imagined, deftly constructed and nothing new to the people of the time. We must remember one thing that all of us can never know and that is that 'time' as we know it didn't exist. Languages probably only had the present tense. Building sites like Gobekli Tepe might have taken a century, but for the people of that era, there was no century, you simply drew your plans in the sand every day and worked until it was finished.
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
Dr. Miano, thank you for the outstanding work you're doing here. This channel is popular science in its truest form - focused on making actual academic knowledge accessible to non-academic people. As a person with a hobbyist interest in ancient history I really appreciate your efforts to give people like me free and easy access to reliable source of knowledge, half of which I could never hope to access, compile and make sense of on my own. When it comes down to it, as a hobbyist history buff I've started from the position not so different than the Ancient Advanced Civilization Fandom - I was fascinated by the world people lived in thousands of years ago and had pretty much no idea how they did stuff back then.
I'm not from the USA, so I'm sure my elementary and high school curriculum was different (and the only aspect of antiquity I had to study during my university education was law), but what I've learned back then was mostly about wars and political power structures and biographies of some Important Dead People. There was a fair bit on Important Old Buildings, but it was mostly about what and where those buildings were, not how they were made and how they tied into the broader context of the societies that made them (like the granite shipping industry you've mentioned in this video). So I couldn't have explained HOW Baalbek temple (or Egyptian pyramids, or Mayan, Aztec and Incan temples/cities) were actually built any better than the AAC fandom. And if all I've had to go on was a vague image of a dozen or so guys dabbing at giant stones with chisels the size of my butter knife and paranoid mistrust in academic knowledge, then I suppose I would see ancient aliens as the more plausible explanation as well. Which is my long-winded way of saying - thank you for dismantling that butter-knife-chisel image one video at a time :).
If I could be so forward as to make a few requests for future content, I would love to see your video on Petra and Qasr Al Fareed (Bright Insight has a supremely mis-informed video on that topic) or on the stone jars found underneath the Saqqara pyramid (this was something I saw in UnchartedX's video on the supposed unbelievability of the timeline of the Ancient Egypt; there was a few outlandish claims about Turin Kings List papyrus in the same video). I also appreciate that you point out in your videos how equating ancient non-Europeans with primitive people incapable of ingenuity and organization is prejudice (if only subconscious one), but I would love if you'd elaborate more on the subject in future videos. I would be interested in learning not just about the methods of cutting stone, but the organization, scale and specialized skill and knowledge of people involved in building pyramids - the estimated number of workers, who they were, how involved the pharaoh was personally in those building projects (from some claims made by AAC crowd one would think the pharaoh was basically the foreman personally overseeing the horde of unskilled laborers, which I somehow doubt).
Once again, thank you for all your work. I look forward to seeing more of your videos.
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
Fascinating. I was always mesmerized by the Minoan civilization, was waiting for a video on that topic form you
Also, I binged watched all your “busting” videos, and now I moved to other series. Hope you get invited to Joe Rogan or smthng, I feel like boom in popularity of “alternative history”, is at least partially caused by miserable answers of unprepared Michael Shermer, during debates with Hancock. I love to imagine, how different it would have gone, If you were on Michales place
I used to like Hancock, but then realized he is more of a fiction writer, rather than a scholar. Moreover a very dogmatic one.
Scientific exploration of history, is much more complicated and requires more effort, but in the end much more rewarding.
Love your work!
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
At the precise moment I write this comment, there are 59 comments, 186 likes and 3 dislikes. If you multiply 59 with 186 and divide the sum by 3 you get 3658. Exactly, 365, the number of days in the year, very precisely! Plus 8. But 8 + 4 is 12, yes, the number of months in a year. Then why 4 would the mainstream historians ask? Well, there are 4 letters in the name Giza, AND in the English word year, and that can't be a coincidence. But wait, there's more: 3658 divided by 4 gives us a very precise number of 914.5. And as everyone knows, the palakulakulaghinst-yohiyohiho, the unit for measurement used by the famous builders of the the Tabac-PMU at Castelnau-Barbarens, France, is exactly 914.5 meters. Now isn't that enlightening?
Thank you for this video. Those numerological deliriums are so embarrassing...
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
As someone who only came across your channel very recently, I just wanted to say you are doing a great job and I have really enjoyed everything I have watched thus far! I really appreciate your willingness to engage with and analyze many of these so called "fringe" theories that so many other historians, scientists, and archaeologists act as if they are too good or "professional" to even mention, much less critique.
Your debates, criticisms, and analyses are carried out in manner which appear to be honest (without any intentional misrepresentation or "dirty" debate tactics) and respectful to those whose views you are challenging. Obviously, many people are not going to respond well to being challenged, regardless of how respectful you are, but I do believe you attempt to be as cordial as possible, even when those you challenge respond in a way that isn't. I'm glad I found your channel and I really look forward to watching all of your current and future content!
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
There is, of course, the legend of Pope Gregory the Great who, upon seeing these beautiful, fair haired slaves in the market in Rome, asked what they were called.
The slaver said, "These are Angles, your Holiness."
"These aren't Angles, but angels," replied Gregory, whereupon, legend says, he bought them all and freed them, and sent Christian missionaries to Anglia.
The gradual ending of slavery in post Imperial Rome may be related to Christianization, where slaves who were not Christian were freed once baptized.
We know Patrick, for example, was a Roman patrician but he was enslaved by Irish raiders.
The Norse, we know, had a lucrative slave trade from Iceland to the Baltic Sea to Muslim Spain, and beyond.
We know Muslims enslaved Christians and pagans, and vice-versa but, once converted, neither Muslims nor Christians enslaved fellow believers.
17
-
17
-
17
-
@5:11 - "Many people, many archaeologists, will tell you that there is no flood tradition in Egypt." --Graham Hancock Wait, what? Prior to the construction of the Aswan Dam, Egypt had an actual flood every year. One of ancient Egypt's seasons was "Inundation." Their creation myths center on imagery of mounds arising from primordial waters, lotus flowers emerging from the mounds and the like because they saw those scenes re-enacted as their land emerged, fertile and rich, from the Nile floods. I think one would be hard-pressed to find an ancient culture with more "flood tradition" than Egypt.
BTW, a humorous element to this tale not mentioned is the fact that Plato (and his Atlantis narrative) predate Edfu Temple, so there is no way he or Solon could have received the Atlantis story from the priests there. Maybe Hancock, et. al. could argue that the texts from which some of the Edfu wall inscriptions were derived were more ancient, and the Atlantis story was contained in them, but unfortunately there's no evidence of that, since the texts are lost. Even if there was a recounting of the Atlantis story on the walls of Edfu Temple, it could have come from Plato rather than the other way around, since Edfu was built under the authority of Greek rulers for whom Plato was a major influence.
16
-
16
-
16
-
If anything, this just proves how artificial race actually is as a concept; humans have been mixing for thousands of years, sometimes even with human subspecies like Neanderthals and Denisovans. So naturally, it gets really hard to tell where a person is from just by looking at them. The idea of "White" isn't something that existed in the Ancient World; right out of the gate he's committing an anachronism by assuming the people of antiquity were as influenced by skin color as modern Americans are. "White" didn't emerge as a concept until the Transatlantic Slave Trade. And while it's true that the Arabs had a system that put darker skinned individuals on the bottom - see the Zanj revolt - it was the Transatlantic Slave Trade that codified it into Western culture.
Also, did he forget that Kingdom of Kush existed? To say that there was sort of ethnic class of "caucasian" rulers is just wrong when confronted with the Black Pharaohs of the 25th (26th?) Dynasty. In fact, they were probably the ones who saved Egypt, given they brought the Third Intermediate Period to a close and set up the Late Period, giving Egypt the last little bit of steam it needed to get conquered by Persia, and then Alexander the Great. They were perennial pain in Rome's ass, and unlike the Carthaginians, never lost their freedom. And while it's a bit outside of the time frame (although really, what even is the time frame and area being discussed here? We cover a distance from the Chacolithic to the Ptolemian period, which is more than 10,000 years, and hope from the Tarim Basin to Carthage and from India to Scythia, which is a huge hunk of Afro-Eurasia) this overlooks the great civilizations outside of Eurasia: the aforementioned Nubians/Kush, the land of Punt, the Nok iron smelters in Nigeria and Aksum, although Aksum may be a bit later - I'm fuzzy on the dates here - all in Africa, and the Olmecs in Mesoamerica.
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
The funniest thing is that he literally went against the one fact that is probably emphasized the most in historiography. The most I've heard the word "Arya" and its many derivatives used in historiography is usually the often repeated fact that it was NOT used to explicitly refer to race. Arya may have originally had SOME ethnic connotations, but if you actually read the texts, many people who were not Indo-Aryan/Indo-Iranian were considered "Arya", and many actually Indo-Iranian/Indo-Aryans were actually "disowned" constantly. By the time of the Buddha, it meant something along the lines of "Great" or "Mighty" or something like that. Also, Arya wasn't an Indo-European thing, but only an Indo-Iranian concept. Finally, when talking about the Buddha, he seemed to have emphasized the blue eyes, something found in medieval statues. In European countries, as well as in Canada and here in the US, do white people get discriminated or something if they don't have blue eyes? This is the first time I've heard a literal white supremacist emphasize the blue eyes, which I thought were only mentioned by people oversimplifying or being really frank and nonchalant when describing 19th-early 20th century anthropology and Nazi ideals.
15
-
Yes, this was a very good one, thank you so much, Dr. Miano! - Still, it breaks my heart, how terribly eurocentristic my (supposedly good) education in Austria during the 1960ies and 70ies has been: all the European rulers I've heard of, and also of their immediate neighbours (Egypt, Persia) - but about the rich and fascinating past of East and South Asia - not a single word during all of my school time (until, of course, the beginning of colonialism, when those "exotic" places became economically interesting for Europe...) - And the worst thing is: I do not think, that this exclusively eurocentristic perspective in schools has changed much after half a century. We would need teachers like you (directed by education politics worthy of an inclusive world)...
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
Awesome video, really informative. One thing that eats at the back of my mind is the question of "so what?" Like, let's just assume that he's 100% correct, that the people in the caves and all over Turkey and whatnot are all using the exact same zodiac symbols, despite being separated by thousands of miles and years. So? How does this prove an ancient advanced civilization? I don't know if I can articulate this adequately, but it reminds me of the megalith people using "precision" to mean "advanced." Astrology isn't real! It's just saying the stars look like a fish or a bird or whatever. It's not science, it's not advanced. Making rocks smooth and drawing birds with suns is...indicative of what? I'd say boredom before I'd say advanced! Why does this advanced civilization only leave behind dumb woo-woo stuff like astrology and pictures of snake people and whatever? That's all that humanity kept after the cataclysm? Not like, tylenol or grain seeds or like a pair of scissors? Nope, just the weird pictures of jaguars and buckets, which we're supposed to interpret as the date of a comet. Cool, cool. Thanks again for another great video, very glad there are serious historians like you out there willing to put in the work to correct the record about this stuff.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
I've been following the theories of Ancient Astronauts, Lost Civilizations, and Ancient High Technology for a while. Even from the start, I didn't literally believe most of it, but I did find some of it interesting or entertaining. But in time, I grew frustrated, because it seemed like some parties weren't even trying to find the truth but just making stuff up. Like, that one guy - some know - who used to point out everything circular as a space helmet.
The theories have shifted over time. I mean back in the space age it was more focused on ancient flying chariots and astronauts.
Then in information age it's seemed to shift to academic cover-ups are to blame. (In part this was true, but not often in the extent suggested.)
Now when modern people are focused on issues like climate change, the theories about the past focus on ancient climate change caused by cataclysms.
So, the theories of the past, especially fringe ones, seem to be a mirror of our present and speak to what we are concerned with in our age.
For example, there is and was in the past bigotry and racial bias and that led to Euro-centric academics and theorists buying into the linear progressive view of history in which the more ancient peoples must be more primitive even - disparagingly - "savages". This has meant that when artifacts that exhibit human craft and cleverness and engineering are found "the primitives" can't have made it, thus these aliens and dynastic races appear to be advanced and do things primitives that must exist in the past can't.
But that's like the bigoted bandage on the bigoted worldview. We should have just been declaring that ancient peoples were not "primitive" in the sense often applied. They had different technologies, including different ways of thinking and communicating, but were physically and mentally just like us today. They had their own geniuses and their own average people. They could adapt and problem solve.
And I am certain some people who are into the idea of ancient civilizations do understand this. Their "lost civilization" was only lost in the sense that it wasn't being perceived and acknowledged. Like, when we were not taught that any Native Americans had cities due to various political and racial biases. But they had cities and towns and monuments and trade and astronomy, etc.
But there are also those who make claims of "lost ancient high technology" which confusingly seem to be saying that clever feats of engineering and craft were accomplished in the past but that because they were told it was a primitive time with primitive people then it must mean that they somehow had access to advanced tools or technologies. And it's not always clear from one theorist to the next whether they are thinking the people were also more advanced than previously taught (true in cases where the linear progression was formerly asserted to exist) or whether they are just replacing the "dynastic race" or "aliens" concept with "a more ancient people from before an apocalypse".
Surely humans did survive some climate changes and disasters. Not sure we need an ancient civilization to understand rise and fall of various cultures over time as events made it necessary to adapt.
But we probably should acknowledge that people in ancient times whether 2000 or 10000 or 40000 years ago were people with their own intelligence and creativity and weren't necessarily any more "savages" than we are right now.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
The Blue eye argument is absolutely bonkers.
You don't need to be a Historian to answer this. The fact that certain dyes are an absolute luxury in the Classical world is enough to answer this with Honesty.
Let me explain as a layman:
These statues are made for Temples, for revering their Gods and Deities, to be put on public display and to honor the clergy and appease both the People's (and Clergy's) spiritual need and their Gods/Deities.
These includes Tombs, those who can afford the colossal cost of building one are considered Demi-Gods themselves... Like the Egyptians and their Pharaohs Sepehr kept mentioning.
Are you seriously saying that these should be made with cheap, easily erasable materials? No you won't. Brown is made out of Clay or Mud that contains small bits of rusts, called Umber. Brown are easily erasable and degrade... Unlike the colour Blue... Why?
If you google "blue" and read Wikipedia about shades of blue, you'll find a color called Ultramarine and if you read the Article about Ultramarine you'll find this sentence.
"It remained an extremely expensive pigment until a synthetic ultramarine was invented in 1826."
Continuing further you'll find that Ultramarine was made out of Lapis Lazuli, a mineral that is commonly found and mined by Ancient world Civilization around the region of Modern day Iran and Afghanistan... Reading about Lapis Lazuli you'll find
"Lapis lazuli artifacts, dated to 7570 BC, have been found at Bhirrana, which is the oldest site of Indus Valley Civilisation.Lapis was highly valued by the Indus Valley Civilisation (7570–1900 BC)"
These cultures who have access to Ultramarine/Lapis Lazuli will definitely use THE MOST expensive colouring they can get to depict THE MOST highest being in their society.
Why he doesn't say anything about this? There's two answer... One is that Sepehr is disingenuous about his claim that he omitted the part where the colour blue is THE MOST EXPENSIVE COLOUR in the ancient world, neck-connect to Purple. Second, he doesn't do any semblance of research of his claim
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
Hello sir. I have spent the better part of two days consuming your videos on the Myths of Ancient History topic. I want to thank you for this important work. It's been many years since I began exploring the theories surrounding the pre younger dryas civilization hypothesis and adjacent theories, including debunkings of the claims, but this series of videos was perhaps the most informative and convincing yet.
Although I've never supported the hypothesis, there were always some arguments that, even if I applied my most stringent standard of skepticism, left a fair amount of doubt in the accepted explanations. Some of them you did cover to a satisfactory degree, but some of the most interesting are yet unexplored on this channel. I would very much like to hear your thoughts on:
1. The quarrying methods of the unfinished obelisk at Aswan.
2. The global nature of prehistoric megalithic architecture, with common features such as knobs, and impressive mortar-less seals.
3. Theories of artistic connections between Gobekli Tepe and Australian Aborigines, as well as the supposedly Egyptian hieroglyphs in Australia.
I also recommend the "Ancient Architects" channel as a target for responses to his video essays. Of all the ancient lost technology types, this author legit tries his best to do research, apply reason, and has changed his mind a number of times. Though he is definitely naturally drawn to kooky subjects and claims, he has ultimately concluded that the classical timeline of construction of ancient Egyptian monuments is mostly correct, after years of arguing the opposite. He also tends to engage with good faith criticisms of his work. I think there's a lot of potential for quality content here.
Once again thank you for your work, and good luck to your channel!
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
Ummm....the date of Mahabharata is really a debate...
Tradition holds it around 3100BCE, like, The Aihole inscription of Pulikeshi II, dated to Saka 556 = 634 CE, claims that 3735 years have elapsed since the Bharata battle, putting the date of Mahābhārata war at 3137 BCE.
Although present day historians and archaeologists prefer a late date, Ranging from 1900-900BCE.
There are some historical kings in Mahabharata whose historisity was already proved like Parikshit, Janmajeya, etc
Puranic literature presents genealogical lists associated with the Mahābhārata narrative. there is the direct statement that there were 1015 (or 1050) or 1500 years between the birth of Parikshit (Arjuna's grandson) and the accession of Mahapadma Nanda (400-329 BCE).
Archaeological findings that are candidate for Mahabharata are PGW, OCP etc cultures.
recent excavation shows Charriots in Sinauli 1800-1900BC, the archaeolists BK Manjul also connects the Mahabharata with OCP culture (~2500 BC-2000 BC), and now even PGW which earlier thought 1500BCE old, now shows goes back to 2300BCE or earlier.
So, nothing can be sure about the date, let's see what new discoveries shows..
by the way nice video 👍👍
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
The nothing would be left argument makes sense for the Silurian Hypothesis, an advanced civilization of another species may have existed in the Cretaceous or an earlier time, 50 Myr or more (the name is taken from the TV show Doctor Who). Plate tectonics would subduct a lot of evidence. However, 10,000 years ago is not long enough. As you point out we find metal, wood, stone, and other artifacts even older than 10,000 years. The quick deterioration hypothesis also ignores the many hypoxic environments which can preserve things for a long time (peat bogs, the bottom of the Black Sea, the Orinoco basin, etc.). Artifacts last much longer in low oxygen environments.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
I didn't need to be convinced but I watched the three videos anyway because I was curious about this whole collaboration. It was very entertaining and allowed me to find out about this channel, which I am now subscribed. Regarding Donnelly, I had a very different idea of him before watching videos 2 and 3. I imagined him being a simple charlatan and/or a fool. However, I think he was kind of a nice man, and also I was surprised at how much knowledge he actually had. Not to mention the ammount of thought he put into that work. I believe he convinced himself of actually being into something. So, he wasn't a charlatan, nor he was an idiot. He was just wrong and his problem was "human". Speaking in general, we all have a confirmation bias. But yeah, before the internet and all that, this man surely knew a whole lot about the wold, and wrote some impressive sci-fi book without knowing it. I mean, the argument itself is fascinating. So, hmm... Even with all this pseudoscience problem we're having, we don't need to hate or discredit this man. The problem wasn't that he was wrong, the problem is us.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
From archeology we do know that some of the stuff he brings up as common between the Americas and Afroeurasia genuinely is technology that does predate populating the Americas.
Clothing: Estimated 170,000 years ago (based on DNA evidence of clothing lice)
Sewing needle: 50,000 years ago (possibly used by a Denisovan and not a Homo Sapien).
Bags: hard to find a source that even tries to date these, but containers that hold things are old.
Bow and Arrow: 72,000 to 60,000 years ago (For oldest found arrowheads in Africa)
Boats: 900,000+ years ago, believed to be older than Homo Sapiens
Domestication of the dog: Between 30,000 and 14,000 years ago (which based on DNA evidence entered North America 10,000 years ago)
Domestication of plants (specifically the "Bottle Gourd" a pre-pottery way of making jars, known to be used in Asia, start getting grown in the Americas 8,000 years ago).
So...technically some of these ideas, including the idea for domestication of plants AND animals (though not every domesticated plant and animal), arrow heads, clothing, and boats most likely WERE actually shared...but shared by hunter gatherers migrating and doing trade, NOT shared by a single world-conquering empire.
Other technology seems to have developed independently (such as writing systems). But certainly have older predecessors (cave paintings).
13
-
Thank you sir. I’ve learned about Egypt, Mesopotamia, Rome etc, famous ancient civilisations, and pre-history, through your channel, and other creators. However this video serves as my introduction to ancient Indian history & myth. I seem to be heading east in my learning journey. With India, where do you start? Here’s as good a place as any, as someone who had no prior knowledge of the Harappen period or ancient India at all. There’s something particularly engaging about seeing a fraud like Hancock exposed (again) while learning something new at the same time. As for the other fella, he sounded pretty legit, good voice, right up until the “craft attacking from orbit”, it caught me off guard I lost it 🤣
13
-
There is an ancient Sassanid book that is lost to history called the “Khwaday-Namag”, which means Book of Kings. It was commissioned by the Sassanid king Khusrow I Anurshiwan (Khusrow the immortal soul) in around 500 AD. At that time, there was a library in Ctesiphon, the capital, which was a capital city of both the Parthians and the Sassanids for about 900 years until it was replaced by Baghdad after the Muslim conquest in the 640’s. Now this book was written in the medieval persian language of Pahlavi or Parsig/Parsik, the predecessor to the modern language of Farsi. Around the year 1000 AD, a famous poet by the name Fedrowsi wrote the persian national epic the Shahnameh, which also means “Book of Kings”, except this is written in Early Modern Farsi. There is very little information in this book about the Achaemenids, and their fall to “Alexander the Accursed”, which was the Persian name for what westerners called Alexander the Great. It is believed that by that time, the persians had largely forgotten about their early ancestors from antiquity, and the ruins of the ancient capital cities such as Persepolis were attributed to mythological kings that are spoken of in the Shahnameh. For instance, they called Persepolis, the city build by Darius and Xerxes, “takhteh jamshid”, which means “Throne of Jamshid”, a mythological ancient king. If the more ancient Khwaday-Namag is ever found, it would shed light on just how much the Sassanids remembered about their Achaemenid ancestors and what else they may have known about them that is now lost to history. Today, there are only references to it in several Arab works, but who knows, maybe there’s a copy somewhere in some ancient ruin that has also withstood the test of time.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
Great stuff Dr. M! I would probably find this episode interesting and entertaining if it were about a ranking member of the Third Reich's propaganda apparatus, or a white newspaper owner in the mid 19th century American south that pushed pro slavery agenda. In those cases, the historical evidence being what it is, we are looking at the horrific policies, actions, and consequences, of these, and many others, in the rear view mirror.
Watching this video by Sepehr , with his slick, historical sleight of hand, mixed with apparent fluency with ( pseudo ) scientific jargon, delivered with deliberate low tones designed to invoke conspiratorial and apocalyptic sentiment in certain true believers, makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. The fact that this film, and others like it, are presented and accepted as totally historically accurate, by no small number of people worldwide, can seem morally deflating.
I thank you for a heroic effort in concisely deconstructing this evil. For those who have hope for an increasingly civil, reason based, nonviolent culture, using our words, "...keep talking ", is our only way forward.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
This is the first video I've ever watched from you, and upon reading the comment section, I just want to extend my sympathy for the endless deluge of comments stating the same flavor of "You are just dogmatic in your belief and pedantic. Everything you and other scholars do to defend the mainstream narrative is an attempt to hold onto your authority and power." It seems a large portion of people want you to both thoroughly explain why something can work, and also would prefer you be more succinct...
It's the height of irony that so many accusing you and other archaeologists of being dogmatic in your beliefs and theories are themselves exactly that. Apparently if you just disagree with the "mainstream narrative", you couldn't possibly be ignoring evidence and explanations while simply believing an alternate theory without seeking evidence to the contrary.
As for the authority that comes from being an archaeologist, I doubt the vast majority of people familiar with Ancient Aliens or other similar entertainment have ever even heard of contemporary archaeologists and experts such as Matthew Adams, Stan Hendrickx, Joris van Weterling, Yann Tristant, or even the more famous David O'Connor. I rarely even hear names such as Quibell, Reisner, or Emery mentioned on alternate history Youtube channels. The people I mentioned are just a few well-published archaeologists dealing with Ancient Egypt and Kerma! Does being an archaeologist really command so much respect that you've never heard of the vast majority of them? What authority and prestige do they command as long as they keep up a "mainstream narrative" of history going? Honestly, can a well-published archaeologist just show up to any prestigious event, announce themselves, and enter by the gravity of their name alone!?
What even constitutes a "mainstream narrative"? What status quo is being upheld when you can easily being studying Ancient Egypt by starting with some of Petrie's works and notice that in his book The Royal Tombs of the Earliest Dynasties Part I he almost immediately begins by calling out Auguste Mariette and Émile Amélineau for their shoddy work at Abydos. Petrie literally describes Abydos as having been "ransacked" by Mariette. Successive works by other archaeologists are typically not that on-the-nose in their criticisms, but Reisner and Emery both named previous and fellow contemporary archaeologists as wrong in some ways and simply disagreed with their interpretations at other times. Emery believed that the mastabas he uncovered in Saqqara were the actual royal tombs of the First Dynasty kings of Egypt, an interpretation that was argued about for several decades afterwards. Even today, you can easily go to the Academia website and download papers from the likes of Stan Hendrickx who will bluntly state that Ellen Morris, one of his peers, displayed "uncritical acceptance of human sacrifice" just one year after she had published her own paper on human sacrifice at Abydos. That seems tame compared to what is typical in media and common parlance, but that is an incredibly rude way to refer to the work of another scholar. Writing a paper takes a lot of research (as you can usually tell by the number of references) and having someone call the work that you spent months researching "uncritical" is like being jabbed with a needle.
And that was just one contemporary example! Recht in his book Human Sacrifice referenced Hikade and Roy's work with a footnote calling their interpretation of subsidiary graves in Abydos "cumbersome". Tristant frequently disagrees with previous interpretations of mastaba construction and Ancient Egyptian burial practices in the first dynasty thanks to his work at Abu Rawash. Hendrickx (again) writing in Shaw's 2021 release of The Oxford Handbook of Egyptology_, outright dismisses two ideas presented by Morenz in the _very next chapter and actually says that Kemp's (a famous archaeologist) ideas of kingship and state formation had to be "dealt with once again". As if he has to again perform the now annoying task of killing off a theory that, up until very recently, was widely accepted before the recent findings at Hierakonpolis. Even David O'Connor, another archaeologist of fame due to his work at Abydos beginning in the 70s, has had his interpretations discredited or theories disagreed with by scholars in his own field both in the past and present.
If you were interested specifically in engineering work and construction, you could look at Angela la Loggia's (2012) dissertation and subsequent paper on the matter where she both dismantles and confirms theories about the construction of massive mud brick tombs and other constructions built over a mile from the Nile. Scholars do ask questions like, "How did Ancient Egyptians create the millions of mud bricks necessary to construct the enormous tombs of the First Dynasty?" and, "The tombs were plastered with hundreds/thousands of feet of mud over a mile from the Nile. How much Nile alluvium and water would that have taken and how was it transported 5000 years ago?" Typically, the person attempting to answer that question won't leap to the fantastical as an explanation just because it seems like an enormous amount of work, especially for people living in a world where agriculture and domestication were still being perfected. Just because the hundreds of thousands of mud bricks were typically uniform in size and shape and managed to hold their shape for thousands of years (without being fired) doesn't mean that they had to be specially crafted by higher technologies. Just because the water used to make mud plaster had to be hauled by sled for 2 kilometers doesn't mean that the back-breaking work was handled by a vehicle we have no record of in the archaeological record. The mastabas of the First Dynasty as well as the enormous funerary enclosures found at Abydos could also be said to have created with precision (niched walls measured so well as to have the pattern repeat "perfectly" around the buildings) and would have absolutely taken years to construct. Saqqaran mastabas after the reign of Hor-aha were cut into the limestone to form rectangular and even more complex burial chambers using stone and copper tools which have been found buried within and surrounding the mastabas. Ritual and religion have obviously always been strong motivators for humanity which is why sites like Gobekli Tepe exist from a time in which we have no evidence of actual cities existing at all. I'll be sure to qualify the previous statement with a "yet", as perhaps we could find evidence of a city existing at a point even further in the past which archaeologists would absolutely accept assuming the evidence was clear.
If evidence of higher technologies was being kept secret, why would the results of said technologies such as delicately crafted stone wares and other artifacts be put on display instead of being hidden away in a store room like that found in Indiana Jones!? Are they taunting everyone by putting these works on display, or are they just blinded by their dogmatic thinking to the point where no evidence one way or another could convince them that the crafted works had to be completed using something we have no record of? Why are so many people somehow arguing that both of these contradictory situations are true simultaneously!?
Truth be told, I began reading into Ancient Egypt years after I had enjoyed shows like Ancient Aliens and visited forums like that of Graham Hancock. I do understand the aversion to authoritative sources so many have nowadays and the feeling that surely the scholars that study Egypt likely have a hierarchy rife with corruption and greased palms the likes of which can be seen throughout many industries and historic settings. I myself didn't pour through the books and journal articles written by archaeologists and other experts because it felt like a waste of time that I didn't have, and surely the work was just the same barely-changing portrayals recited again and again to dupe the unknowing useful idiots working for a larger hierarchy of archaeologists. However, the archaeologists of today aren't the same as the "archaeologists" in 1880 that, due to their station or wealth of a benefactor, gained control over a historic site and used underpaid digging teams to quickly unearth anything that looked valuable so they could send it to a wealthy private collector in order to expand their pocket books while also enjoying the prestige that came with being known as an archaeologist at a time where they were fawned over like swashbuckling treasure hunters. Instead, true archaeologists such as Petrie and Reisner would change the field thanks to their tireless pursuit of truly thorough scientific discovery. Nowadays, and I do hate to say this, archaeology is a typically very boring profession the involves months of preparation, surveying, and meticulous excavation that usually uncovers essentially nothing or note, or some pottery sherds that hopefully contain some sort of inscription or unusual shape. That sort of work, especially in Egypt, only occurs during the winter months to avoid the blazing heat and mosquitos, and takes years to fully categorize and then write the dry and jargon-filled academic articles that almost no one besides other scholars in the field read. This is one of the chief reasons it seems the "status-quo" never changes to an outside observer: Archaeology is so slow that new information is also slow to be debated and accepted. This isn't to say lead archaeologists or Egyptologists can't be unreasonably stubborn or unwilling to accept certain ideas at times, but this is typically not the norm and leaders in academic fields are typically older and retire within a decade or two which allows a new director with different proclivities to be promoted. (Have to split this into 2 parts, the next will be a reply to my own comment).
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
~31:00 Perhaps it shouldn't be a surprise given everything else he makes up, but he's also giving some incorrect terms/definitions here. Pr-Aa is indeed the etymology of "Pharaoh," but it should be noted that the term didn't refer to an individual in Egypt, it referred to the institution of the royal palace - it's a bit like how we might refer to the British Monarchy as "The Crown," but that's not the actual title of the monarch. The king himself was known by the title of "Nswt-bjtj," meaning "One of the Sedge and the Bee," with the sedge and bee being symbols of Upper and Lower Egypt, respectively, making the term essentially "King of Upper and Lower Egypt". I'll also note that "High" is an unusual translation of Aa; it makes sense, but typically the term is translated as "great," and there's an entirely different term that literally translates as "high."
Next on the list is "Per Ke," defined as "Tomb," and while there are many terms in Middle Egyptian referring to Tombs, I've never seen this one; the closest thing I can think of would be pr-kA, which would mean "House of Ka," or the spirit, but while that would make sense as a term for a tomb, the closest I've seen is hwt-kA, which has the same literal translation but refers to a chapel in a tomb or temple. The only term for tomb I know of which begins with pr is pr n nHH, literally "house of eternity."
Next is "Per-Be," defined as "Temple," but while this is another word with multiple Egyptian translations, this is another I've never seen, and the closest word I can think of to "Be" would be bA, which refers to another part of the human soul... doesn't make much sense for a Temple. In contrast, the final term on the list would make sense for a temple; "Per-Neter" sounds quite close to pr-nTr, which would be pronounced with a "Ch" sound rather than a "T," but is otherwise similar. While I've once again never seen this variation, the literal translation of "House of God" matches the translation of hwt-nTr, an actual Egyptian term commonly used for Temples.
Of course, this term is not used, as he suggests, for pyramids; pyramids were typically called the very different terms of mr and Axt, the former just meaning pyramid, and the latter literally meaning "horizon," a term commonly used for tombs in general (and in the case of Pyramids, rendered with a distinct Pyramid determinative). The term "Pyramid" itself is potentially of Egyptian origin, either from pr-m-ws or pr-mr-ws - but rather than the "pr" in these cases being "per" for house, they are "peri" meaning "to go forth" or "to ascend." These proposed etymologies are figuratively translated as "The Height of a Pyramid," and literally translated as "to go up - from - lack" and "to go up - Pyramid - lack" respectively, with ws, "lack" being inferred from context to refer to a crack or line used as a reference point to measure height.
Also, he implies that Champollion used the Greek understanding of Hieroglyphs to develop his own; this is false, Champollion was one of the first Egyptologists to reject the Greek understanding of how Hieroglyphs worked, and he developed his own understanding of Hieroglyphs based on his fluent knowledge of the Coptic language. I have two videos about how hieroglyphs were deciphered on my channel, with the second focusing on Champollion specifically, if anyone is interested.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11:00 Dave, I've got a PhD in math. Not only would I not be surprised to learn the Egyptians knew about π and φ, even if they didn't know about it, it would be mundane to find these numbers coincidentally associated with just about anything, and requiring less numerological mashup that to find other coincidences. The reason why π, φ, e, and other numbers are significant numbers is precisely because they show up so frequently in so many contexts.
It's like being surprised at finding the number 1 associated with the pyramid. 1 is the multiplicative identity, one of the most significant numbers there is (probably the second most significant after 0). Lo and behold, there is 1 great pyramid. Astounding! 2 is the smallest prime and also a significant number, and when you stand at a corner of a pyramid you can see 2 sides! The number 4 has special significance in abstract algebra (in ways too technical to go into here, but it sticks out like a sore thumb) and incredibly there are 4 sides to the pyramids.
Finding other significant numbers such as π and φ is not really any more incredible than finding these.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
When I was a lad, I was instructed first by the French Nuns who taught me, and later, my Grandfather what every gentleman carries with him every time he lives his home: Keys, comb, Rosary, handkerchief (in case a woman starts crying), fountain pen, matches or lighter, pocket knife, one .38 Special cartridge (just in case ---- one 12-guage shotgun shell may be substituted), personal spoon, chapstick, flask, coins for a phone call, a condom (not on the Nuns' list), small Bible, toothbrush, mints, and lube. That's what was in the Sumerians' bags. It's a lot to fit in your pockets. (What has it gots in its pocketses?) If your girlfriend or sister was going, too, a gentleman would add a Kotex or tampon (her preference). Oddly enough, all these decades later, all this is what's in my 72-hour Bug-Out Bag, along with some Nacho-flavored Summer's Eve.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
Okay, I have to be 100% honest here.
I have watched dozen's of Brien's videos, and I give him credit for visiting many of these sites in person and producing a huge number of "on location" videos.
However, there gets to be a point where you hear various claims in these videos, and you want him to go to the next step and "prove it".
As an educated person, I am more than willing to have an open mind as to what occurred in the past, but I want to see/hear undisputed proof.
At this point in time, there is 0 proof that an ancient civilization every existed in the distant past, well, one with a technology that was capable of cutting and moving huge stones with ease.
So until the proof is discovered/unearthed, I am not going to take someone's word for it, simply because they make claims about it in their videos.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
I find it interesting when people question that large stones were moved by man power. I designed and built my Japanese garden myself and some large stones were involved. Japanese gardening and stone craft books give really interesting tips on how to move and place large stones. Through trial and error, I've found that pushing or pulling or tipping them upright, so that the smallest surface area is touching the ground, then "walking" them (leaning then turning them) to where they need to go, is pretty easy. My daughter (11) and I (a woman) did it ourselves. I'm a scientist, so I gauge the mechanics first (surfaces over which it has to move, distance, what obstacles are in the way, which side "step" to start with, what side must face which direction when I get there, etc.), put on gloves, and do it. It's really just more physics than elbow grease. 😁
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
Mayan pre-classic and classic period architecture (classic period was 200 AD to 800 AD) is unquestionably some of the most beautiful building design from either antiquity or contemporary times.
The temple of Kukulkan at Chichen Itza is astounding and might, somewhat surprisingly, be more iconic than Tzacualli Tonatiuh (temple of the sun) at Teotihuacan (my personal favorite pyramid on earth). Buildings #1 and #2 at Calakmul are unbelievable. The sheer bulk of building #1 leaves me without descriptive language.
One last one. The central area in front of the temple of the Jaguar at Tikal is magical, simply looking at it via photo fills you with thoughts and feelings of the numinous. I know they intended their architecture to complement their religious beliefs, but the wonderful thing is that even if you don't practice the ancient Maya religious system you are still filled with epiphanies of the numinous by merely being in the presence of these designs.
For someone to take that away from a culture that still has 6 million speakers of the Mayan language family, by claiming a more advanced civilization accomplished these outstanding feats, is simply ignorance on display, broadcast to the world for the purpose of letting us know who's ideas to completely disregard and ignore.
P.S. this fraudster needs a dictionary, or a phone to call me so I can explain what a megalith actually is because he is so far off from identifying an actual megalithic structure I nearly feel bad for him; not really though, because his narration was excessively obnoxious. Also, to the professor who conducted this debunking, excellent work. Bravo
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
Thank you for doing this. It must have taken an immense amount of time to do the research necessary to debunk his garbage on each individual point. I intuitively knew he was wrong, just because I know how science and archaeology work, but I didn't have explanations for a few of the gaps you filled in. For instance, the scientists that reproduced his supposedly "machine made" pots cut from very hard stone (Right away I knew I could have figured out how to do that, but it was probably one of those crafts that took a lifetime to master.). I myself have made extremely sophisticated and symmetrical objects with very simple tools and basic math, so I know it is possible, but a picture/demonstration is still worth a thousand words. If you haven't worked with your hands as a craftsman, extremely well-made objects that take years to develop the skill to produce quickly and with quality can look like magic to the layman. Skills from just a couple generations ago are already "lost", like gunsmithing and engraving, and can be done so expertly they look like they were machined with modern methods, without that having been the case at all.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
This is a great way to show doubters that the ancients could use tools of the time to achieve the desired results. Their response, of course, is usually to attack the availability and cost of labor. They argue that we can't do it today. This ignores that slave labor and non'-slaves who would work for beer and a bowl of grain, in large numbers, is unavailable in most places today. They also ignore that most people today wouldn't want or use pyramids, though there are some. There are some small pyramid crypts in a N. Bergen Cemetery and others in places like Louisiana. There was a large useless one made of glass and steel in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and another in Las Vegas.
As always you provide thought-provoking and highly interesting content. Even the sponsor today was useful, interesting and entertaining. What an improvement over most sponsorships on the Internet, that are alien to the topic, as well as neither interesting nor useful. Kudos all around Prof. Miano.:trophy-yellow-smiling:
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
OMG Dr. M.as always I am enjoying this series of questions and your well considered answers. The gem, for me, was your dad's call. I'm likely closer to his age than yours, but I have always pronounced the phrase: " short-lived " just as you do. For exactly the same reason. My wife and I differ on this as well.
I'm currently reading a book titled ( not " entitled " ): " A Peoples History of science ", by Clifford D. Conner. His is a very down-to-Earth rendering of the anonymous people who really made discoveries and invented practices that were later credited to individual geniuses. It's a celebration of the contributions to our knowledge of the world and cosmos from common artisans, seaman, blacksmiths, merchants, etc, to the fields of mathematics, agriculture, metallurgy, navigation, instrument making etc. It puts invention back in the hands of those who worked with materials, sailed across vast expanses of open ocean, painstakingly domesticated food crops and animals, and, through trial and error over hundreds and thousands of years, developed practical knowledge, and innovations that enabled later theorists.
10
-
A lovely and important contribution, thank you. I greatly appreciate the expertise and scientific depth you brought to this project as well as the generally patient and respectful tone you kept to. I think this matters. I am a scientist (physical chemist) with a number of very enthusiastic, bright, curious but also pseudo-science-loving or at least -adjacent friends, and some of them present publish their opinions and intellectual edifaces around in various venues. It's a tricky business opening a useful dialog sometimes when I am asked for guidance, opinion and critique. Of course the issue of teleological reasoning comes up a lot, and frequently with cherry picking of sources as the prime and most prominent "red flag". Finding a way to correct glaring missteps productively without wounding and discouraging well-intended, curious folks can be quite a challenge. I find that success depends a great deal on the maturity and integrity of the receiver. One of my friends does make revenue and achieve influence from his work, and this does seem to make him especially refractory towards seeing the hand of teleology in his reasoning. My efforts frequently fail, but not always and I've kept the interaction flowing and productive by learning to just let some things go by. In your mission with Uncharted X, however, you have a tougher job to do and call to make. It would be so very easy to go "full snark" since indeed, spreading public ignorance is not a victimless crime (despite the ubiquity). I'm glad you don't give in; the public's too-frequent perception of professional scientists as being sharp-tongued finger-wagging buzz killers is just too easy to reinforce if we allow ourselves to be as conversationally direct with struggling amateurs as we might be towards our grad students. There's an important "ambassador thing" going here with what you're doing, and I salute the kindness and respect with which you deliver your message.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
I can debunk the film director's story on Krishna:
- Virgin Birth: No he didn't have a virgin birth. He was born to Vasudeva and Devaki in a prison, where Devaki got a divine vision that Vishu, the divine manifestation of Krishna, will be born to her; and eventually, free her from her brother's dungeons. In fact, her brother Kansha had already committed infanticide on his 7 nephews and nieces, before Krishna was born. Moreover, there is nothing about immaculate conception in Vedic mythologies. I mean immaculate conception would totally shatter the Hindu-Buddhist theory of "moksha/nirvana" because if your birth is sin-free you end up in heaven (unlike Abrahamic religion, in Hinduism the mortal realm isn't something worth cherishing). Moreover, our scriptures/myths encourage procreation (because it's a river valley civilization with the constant disease, bickering and warfare)!!!
- Star in the East: There is no such eastern star. According to myth, he was born on the midnight of the 8th day of the 3rd month of monsoon. He might be referring to the zodiac associated with the month, but Vedas/Puranas don't even have Zodiacs. Zodiacs were brought to the subcontinent by Alexander.
- Performed Miracles: Duh! He is a manifestation of a God. That wasn't unexpected of him! Like everyone knew he was the physical manifestation (incarnation) of Vishnu. This should not be considered semi-divine, this is total divine. Moreover, unlike Abrahamic prophets, Hindu divine incarnations don't suffer like mortals. In fact, Krishna is considered a mischief-maker in his childhood, a philanderer in his late teens and early adulthood, and finally a seasoned politician much like Machiavelli in the rest of his life. In fact, early colonial missionaries would point to this philandering and scheming nature of Krishna as the work of Satan to preach Christianity.
- Resurrections: There is nothing to be resurrected. He was a God, he decided to end his life after he was wounded at the end of a civil war that wiped out his progeny.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
This is not just a very interesting video, the content could, potentially, be very valuable. I think when I was young and reading science fiction, I became aware that constellations don't really exist. Possibly as a result of pareidolia, we see patterns in the stars, planets, clouds and cracks in walls of things that aren't really there. The elements are not actually connected except by a trick of human perception. I was amazed at a paper on the perception of the "zodiac" by South American tribes being about the spaces rather than the stars and planets as points on a line. As pointed out, different cultures have different zodiacs, and that's because there is no real object being described.
What's important here is that the Alt.Reality people have taken our concept of zodiac as a real thing and are imposing that, with scant evidence and little rationality, on the beliefs and practices of people we know little about. They are acting like the main character in Macaulay's funny book, Motel of the Mysteries. If, still unproven, the forms inscribed at the Turkish site, are identical to those at other sites, it could shed light on population and cultural dispersion.
Thanks for another great video.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Fascinating, as you say Dr. Miano! I bought a brass copy of this disk on my first trip to Greece in the 1970's, which included Crete. The copy had a hole and was strung on a leather thong. I've moved several times and don't know where this souvenir is. It was too large and heavy to be used on a keychain [except for a hotel, that is].
About the repetition being religious, there is a second possibility, political hagiography of the monarch. Minos, by the Grace of Zeus, ruler of the sea, ruler of Knossos, Ruler of Phaistos, ruler of the Helenes, etc. She is right, though, that without more examples no scientifically valid conclusion even rises to the level of hypothesis, remaining just a notion. Keep up the great work!
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
I was studying to be a historian, or at least a history teacher, when an economic downturn and reality made getting a job in the field virtually impossible. I was able to get work as a teacher of ESL overseas, and subsequently obtained a second MS in that field to improve my status. I made history and archeology as a hobby, and have been able to visit sites in Egypt Iran, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Korea and Japan. I have always been dismissive of the superstitious and pseudoscience based popular productions. I am very glad that some serious, science based channels like this have begun to put out accurate, science based information. This video is the best I've seen on this topic, so keep up the good work!
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Oh thank you for the chapter marks. The first time I started watching this I was thinking "Okay, three hours, that's fine, I've watched liner videos before, even a twelve hour long video analyzing a video game" but those were far less information dense than this, and it's nice to know I can go to specific sections if I need to.
2:27:30 It's also worth noting that stoneware like these would have been high value crafts that would justify a large time investment, and would likely have been meant to last a long time. Cheaper objects, either meant to wear out or for more frequent use, would have been made of pottery. While I know it's not a perfect comparison, I recall watching a British archeological show called Time Team, and in one of the episodes they mentioned that it wasn't uncommon for pottery to wear out or break after only a few weeks or months of usage, practically disposable, whereas stone or pewter would have been meant to last years or decades, possibly even multiple lifetimes.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Besides the fact that all pseudoarcheology wouldn't exist without heavily relying on the work already done by thousands of learned people in the field, their articles and research, photos, dating, databases and so on, one thing that pseudoarcheologists and those who are fans of fake history theories don't understand is that to get from point A to point B on any given piece of knowledge about a site, culture, or artifact is that it involves a multi-disciplinary approach. It can involve anywhere from a handful of people to hundreds. Archeologists, geologists, chemists, biologists, linguists, operators of various medical and physical scanning machines, genealogists, historians, sculptors and builders, land surveyors and imagers (with or without airplanes), and many other disciplines and services. These disciplines follow methodologies to come to their conclusions, and then there needs to be peer review to counter personal biases and check for mistakes in data, argument, presentation, and so on. Discoveries and books of information don't just pop up out of nowhere, fully fledged and ready to go. They also don't remain static, as newer discoveries and technical and scientific methods change the overall understanding about places, things, and people. Even if it does take longer than many would wish.
But let's think about it from the one-man pseudo-archaeologist-and-historian approach. You're telling me that someone with zero training in any related discipline can look at some satellite images and figure out what the ancients were doing tens of thousands of years ago? That he won't confuse myth and valid history without understanding basic traditional storytelling concepts like allegory, metaphor, and poetic embellishment or boasting? That he won't rely on making his own word meanings and literal translations of ancient languages without understanding the grammar? That he won't put his own modern and/or ethnocentric meanings into cultural writings, practices, and ideas from people who can no longer speak for themselves? That he won't confuse the art, language, stories, religion, and history of cultures in the same broad area but thousands of years separated? Or that he won't take the plagiarized writings of a professional grifter from the 1800s, the same writer that inspired the Nazis and their occult and ubermensch myths, to become his own personal spiritual belief system that he tries to quietly push in all his books and lectures? Or that he wouldn't use basic cult tactics to make people to doubt any dissenting voice to his theories because it would mean a loss of income and reputation?
If that sounds Hancock, Sitchin, and any number of YouTubers, well, it's based on them (mostly Hancock, though). The only peer-review these guys have is throwing a dart at a dartboard full of ideas and seeing which one the audience likes most, and then tapping into that income stream. They are entertainers and write really fun stories. Everyone loves a good mystery story here and there. But to believe these guys are doing any of the work and coming to any conclusions by themselves that a multidisciplinary team following rigorous methods requires is straight up dumb.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
40:47 Despite never claiming to hold entire China, the Eastern Wu kingdom was arguably the most successful of the 3 Kingdoms, and though the Sun (Wu) family fell and lost power to Sima (Jin), it was their lands that remained the only ones not conquered by "5 barbarians" invasions, as China lost their imperial capitals, Luoyang and Chang'an, as well as largest cities in the North, as well as former capitals of Shu (Chengdu) and Cao Wei (Xuchang) all very soon after Jin replaced Wei (Gaoping tombs, long story) and itself went into civil "8 Princes" war...
That's how you get so much Wu and Eastern Jin documents around Changsha, Nanjing and so on. They were the final frontier of what was left of centralized rule of Han China in fourth century after years of "unification" wars, and resulting famines and emigration (people fleeing from the warlords) destroyed most of the country up north.
The population of China diminished so much in that century of civil conflict, strife and everything that comes with it, that it was not matched until World War 2 or possibly Taiping Rebellion in 19th century... Though some scholars believe that the devastation was exaggerated in records thanks to chaos letting people avoid census – and taxes.
Highly recommend reading Romance of the Three Kingdoms or watching its adaptations, especially if you like KOEI games or 3K Total War. It's basically Chinese Shakespeare but if all stories flew one into another instead of being separate.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
from a young age I was in awe at the massive structures ancient man constructed, never once was I told martians, giants, or winged dino-beavers helped.
Thank God for this, and Mr Forester our dear friend..
My father always said 'we' did it all, the world forgets how powerful we all really are.
Always by hand, even with improperly tooled hands , in searing heat or freezing rain, but always with much sweat and blood and sheer muscle of many thousands, placed thoughtfully in the right place with the right motivation, and when absent of any, we let out warriors cries and get to work. We, are the Gods written about in books, We, are the fury that sculpted the land. Be proud, i certainly am.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@ryanvalicek7291 That seems to be a big hang up--how big the stones are, fitted perfectly, no mortar etc. You might want to check out studies done by Helmut Trebushet. His work opened my eyes to the idea that many facts about the Inca, and pre-Inca cultures, concerning their megalithic construction, are not discernible by casual observation. The cultures that produced these amazing structures had a level of sophistication wherein there were specialists and organized crews that dealt with each phase; quarrying, transporting, dressing, and fitting. whenever I hear those catch phrases: ....didn't have the technology...didn't possess tools capable...level of precision unattainable by such " primitive " people ( read " Indians " ), I realize that the real " primitive " people are those who live in a time when huge amounts of information are available, at their fingertips, yet who are not willing to check anything that may not fit their preferred narrative. Stone can be worked with harder stone--what level of intelligence does it take to understand that?
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Another great video! Thanks for including coin related discoveries. If I may be so bold; Lydia is certainly one of the earliest regions to strike coins under king Alyattes and Gyges to king Croesus, which if you know your Herodotus, you'll be familiar with, (some have the name "Walwel" or "Kukalim" in Lydian on them, which likely translate to Alyattes and Gyges) these would at the earliest be from 620 BCE.
It is more probable that the first coins were struck in Ionia, at about 650 BCE. They were globular electrum struck on one side with square incuse(s), depending on denomination.
This has been a contentious issue for a long time, because one can ask what merits the designation of a coin. In my opinion it would have to be struck between an anvil and a die, amongst a few other qualifiers.
Chinese coins were large cast bronze, which places it in its own category. Coin striking methods became more and more advanced, to a point that with certain denominations of Greek and Roman coins, we can only speculate as to how it was done (a topic I take interest in particularly).
Just thought I'd add my two denarii. I should also add, you are not wrong in pointing at Lydia as being the earliest, it's complicated. I'll leave it at that. Lol. Thanks again, I love the work that you do!!!
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Quick note to correct an error in your response to the revised claims regarding saw cutting experiments.
You state that granite was the hardest material cut by the Egyptians, using a drag saw and sand, but the same techniques would have been used to cut red quartzite. This stone is harder than granite and was utilised for the production of many royal sarcophagi in during Dynasty XII an during Dynasty XVIII, until at least the reign of Thothmoses IV; that of his successor, Amunhetep III has been lost, probably removed from KV22 in antiquity, while Akhenaten - Horemheb used granite sarcophagi, of a different pattern to the cartouche shaped coffers of earlier members of Dynasty XVIII.
You will probably have encountered such Dynasty XVIII sarcophagi, when visiting the Egyptian Museum, but may have have been deceived into thinking they were granite, as the Egyptians stained the quartzite to resemble pink granite.
Of course, this in no way invalidates the point that they were quite capable of cutting very hard stones using drag saws and abrasives.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Great video, thanks, and I'll certainly look after the two others (I follow Atun-Shei as well).
I must say, and I'll sound naive I guess, I had no idea that those "alternative history" ideas were so prevalent to this day (I don't watch History Channel, that must be why). I knew of quite a lot of those hypotheses, dating back to readings from when I was a teenager and fascinated by "the mysteries of the past", and then later when I discovered science-fiction and fantasy; ancient astronauts and lost continents certainly were not unknown to me, especially as they generated good sci-fi and fantasy stories, and I would never blame, I don't know, Lovecraft or Howard for using those themes in their fictions. I knew there were some who took all these stories very seriously (I know for instance there was that strange time when French surrrealists discovered Lovecraft and put him in the same category of readings as essays about the giants of Atlantis, ancient astronauts or ufology, beyond theosophical "sources" etc.), but that there were still now and maybe more than ever people actually believing in such fantasies and ready to fight tooth and nail against "mainstream archaeology", that came as a schock to me when I discovered recently your channel and some others before. These are strange times, although I guess a damn' MAINSTREAM HISTORIAN would say all times are strange (and I'd agree because I'm obviously part of the Conspiracy).
As for Atlantis, the fact that so many people nowadays still take this myth for actual history, disregarding about anything in Plato's life and works that doesn't fit their narrative, is quite... frightening, I would say.
Once I've read an interesting book by Pierre Vidal-Naquet on the historiography, let's say, of the myth of Atlantis; although that wasn't one of his major works, by far, it was worth reading. And there I've learnt of many people prior to Donnelly, such as Olof Rudbeck, who had strange theories about Atlantis... although not that strange actually, the purpose was almost always to locate Atlantis where it would be useful to claim that one's civilisation is the child of this original one and therefore the best of all (Rudbeck claimed that Atlantis was actually Sweden, and all languages derived form Swedish), even if Atlantis is "the bad guy" in Plato's dialogues. I guess Donnelly is taken as "the father of alternative history" for his global retelling and the central idea of an ancient advanced civilisation, but that leaves room for questions, I think: did Donnelly's "works" differ that much from those of those authors? And was there in his claims something as well of a nationalistic narrative? You didn't tell about this (maybe Atun-Shei does), but I would be actually quite surprised if it wasn't the case.
Anyway, sorry for this long and quite useless comment, great video, great channel, keep up the good work.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Love your vids, knowledge, and the links you post. There are a few things I would like to know about these mesoamerican sites.
One being the general scope of earthworks, that is evident. Did they remove or add a lot of earth for these sites.
Second is where they quarried the stone from.
Third is the evidence of any standard of measurement. At a single site or with many. Did they employ geometry and use scales of proportion.
It just amazes me that a culture that survived as long as it has, with maintaining it's architectural projects, their art, their ballgame.. Literally the oldest sport in history and longest lasting. They had to have had an education system. Writing, math, geometry, medicine, astronomy, history. I wouldn't be surprised if the very sites and structures, we call temples, like their sole purpose was for worship. Wasn't more of a school system that was also the place they worshipped at on their special days. But their primary function was as learning centers. Like our own universities all have ballfields, right.. lol..
Archaeology is speculative in nature and the preoccupation of the stories of human sacrifice, blood letting, and ritualistic ceremonies is great and all. But I kind of feel like it takes away from putting their society in it's proper perspective.
I look forward to your channel. It's a nice refreshing change from the channels pushing crazy theories to clikbait an audience.. Cheers!
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
"...Where the mummy resides." That would make a great book title! 😄
This was a really fascinating look into what we do, and don't, know about mummies and their histories. The fellow you interviewed, Dr. Price, was well-spoken and easy to understand. The questions were insightful, and the answers quite helpful to understand the subject.
Thank you, Dr. Miano, and thank you, Dr. Price, for a great watch, and a great chance to learn – learning is one of the remaining joys I have in my life – about one of the more fascinating time periods!
Thanks, Dr. David, for all you do! ❤️❤️
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
You know a load of BS is coming when you hear the phrase, "harder than steel". This means their target audience are clueless peasants !
Steel is "strong". Hardness in steel is only needed if the steel object is to be used for cutting, or armor (including resistance to impact). Major part of steels toughness, is that it gives and yields, a bit, instead of shattering, like harder, but brittle glass. This is why its okay to use steel wool, on glass windows, but not sandpaper (sand/glass).
1:15:00 - Biased to CNC manufacturing. Though as someone involved in manufacturing prior to the everything being "computerized", his statements are total BS. Look at engine, and care manufacturing going back to its roots, in the 1890s. Precision was done going back to steam engines. Machinist were really highly skilled. Especially back then. Go to any machining channel, and see what they can do, with a manually operated milling machine, and lathe. No computer needed.
6
-
I am very very glad to have stumbled across your channel. As an ardent fan of ancient history since the 5th grade I have to admit that in later years I found myself absorbing as much alternate history as I could find. I have been reading up on history for some 40 years now and I have always tried to maintain an open mind when it comes to new theories - and while I have never really subscribed to any of the wilder theories about aliens and whatnot I certainly found the ideas of a lost ancient culture to be very appealing and romantic. I have read/watched/listened to all of it - and I mean all of it , and up to now I have never been shy to share what I have ‘learned’ with those who have ears to hear it . Notions of an ancient super-culture fascinated me and made me feel smart and special because it was ‘outsider knowledge’ , and oh man was it ever cool to drop the ancient alternate history knowledge bombs on people - it never failed to get a ‘wow’ out of them.
. When I first stared watching this video I found myself getting upset over the idea of some dude at a desk calmly shattering my grand illusions of a global super-culture that existed in another age of the world - but then I kept watching - and watching - and as a rational person who respects intelligence and hard work and dedication I had to accept that I have indeed been the victim of a lot of shaky theories that - while they sounded cool and tickled my imagination - aren’t founded on much real research and are a lot like the political conspiracy theories that plague many peoples thinking today ..
After watching this video ( and many others on this channel ) I can’t tell you how delighted I am to find someone who is putting forward much of the literature that none of the alternate historians have even once mentioned .. in doing so you have shattered many of the illusions that I was quite attached to. It is quite easy sit down and create a romantic theory that tickles the imagination and sparks debate among those who have read none of the established literature , and it takes no effort at all to ignore research that might confound or disprove ones romantic notions of the past. Your bibliography is a most valuable resource - and any real student or fan of history ( or author ) who opts not to explore that material is failing to take in the whole picture , letting their bias lead their way rather than exploring all the viewpoints.
Thanks again for making this channel and all these videos ! you have certainly adjusted my approach to the study of history , and now I have a lot of added reading to do from real experts who have put countless hours in the field doing genuine research experiments to prove their statements. While I am glad to have read all the alternate notions of the past I am going to continue forward being much more wary and cautious of anyone who uses the unknown as a proof. I will continue to give credit to those who keep an open mind and use imagination to forge new ideas - but those ideas still need to be founded on something , proven .. rather than just based on speculation. I will still value all the alternate ideas and check them out as they are put forward , after all new ideas are the basis of growing and learning and to simply ignore them would be ignorant. I think that any historian who blatantly ignores and denies a new theory - regardless of how wild it may be - is doing a disservice to the field in much the same way that any alt-historian who blatantly ignores or denies the academic proofs does a disservice to the truth.
Lastly - your comment about the status quo in academia is great - the notion that keeping knowledge tied down and unchanged is anathema to the very idea of learning and for alternative historians to claim that they are the only ones who want to stir the pot is truly ridiculous. This sentiment is repeated by every single alt-historian I have encountered like a mantra , so Bravo for that one, points scored ! Lastly - your comments on not getting work recognized or respected when it is merely a regurgitation of other peoples ideas was pretty eye opening to me - and I am going to keep my little mouth shut about much of what I used to subscribe to and read all of the literature put forth by the people who have spent years in the field doing actual research experiments to try and reveal the truths of these matters , rather than echo the fanciful ideas of authors who’s main goal is to sell books.
Thanks again ! w
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Thanks again, Dr. Miano. For some unknown reason, the thought of the supposed finds in the Gulf of Khambat crossed my mind this evening. Then, Lo and behold, this video comes up on my feed. Synchronicity. I must confess that I am a fan of Hancock's books, but I consider them a form of Romantic fiction and purely for entertainment only. The Lost Civilization and, more so, the Ancient Alien movements seem to me to be secular fundamentalist religions demanding literal interpretations and conspiracies to create a persecution complex, while the "theory", proclaimed as fact, provides some kind of "gnosis". Only the true believers are "in the know," while "Academia" plays the role of the corrupt priesthood.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
41:57 It doesn't sound like you know what you're talking about here, even if your statements could be twisted into valid points.
Firstly, the "Mitanni" language is called "Hurrian" and is not Indo-European at all. The hypothesized "Indo-Aryan superstrate" in Mitanni Hurrian is a completely different language, which it is supposed the names of Mitanni kings and gods came from, and which the horse-riding jargon the manual uses are LOANWORDS from. You are correct that Kikkuli's horse-riding manual is not in "almost pure Sanskrit" as he says; neither is it in Hurrian: it's actually in Hittite, because Kikkuli was a man from Mitanni who was hired by the Hittites to teach them the Mitanni knowledge of horse-riding. The book was intended to teach Hittites what was already well-known in Mitanni, so it was written in Hittite.
Perhaps when he says it was written in "almost pure Sanskrit", what he's thinking of is that the language of the Indo-Aryan loanwords in the Hurrian and Hittite texts are from a language which, poorly reconstructed as it is from the few loanwords, which were distorted by being written in an alien script (cuneiform), likely after being borrowed into a language with an alien phonology (Hurrian), can't be much distinguished from Vedic Sanskrit or Proto-Indo-Aryan and thus may well have been closely related enough to both for them all to be mutually intelligiable with each other (noting that the difference between "Vedic Sanskrit" and "Proto-Indo-Aryan" is an artifact of the simplifying "tree model" of language change, and a more realistic model for such short time periods and for dialect continua, incorporating the "wave model" of language change, might make "Proto-Indo-Aryan" a vaguer language (or subgroup of a larger Indo-Iranian or even Indo-European dialect continuum), of which Vedic Sanskrit, proto-Prakits, Mitanni-Aryan, and others might all be called "dialects").
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Hey Dr. M., amazing the amount of time and effort you have given to examining Mr Sweatman's claims. This and other archaeological sites seem to hold the potential to document the transition between hunter gatherer life styles and later pastoral then rudimentary agricultural modes of sustenance. This is vital information for learning how our species developed first the motivation, then the facility to quarry and transport large stones. It would take centuries to develop the techniques needed to determine what type of rock was usable and available ( soft lime stone ), and how to move it from quarry to building site.
Early on it may have been a yearly gathering of various groups for trade purposes or other social groupings that bring people ( and ideas ) together. They still would have required mobility for most of the year for hunting and possibly moving of herds. It could be that during these gatherings, that may have fulfilled numerous social and spiritual needs, some wanted to build something larger and more permanent than the make-shift shelters they usually inhabited. Maybe they wanted something grand that would honor their togetherness and their common beliefs.
The construction would have taken untold hundreds of years, given the fact only about 5% of the total area has been excavated. The fact that someone decided to carve mythic animals and other simple depictions on the walls seems unremarkable, given human nature. The idea that someone or group, in this setting, came up with a complex system of astrology, that would correspond, magically, to a system developed by a far later and highly literate culture, before devising a system of writing nor a calendar of their own, doesn't seem all that workable.
Thanks for your defense of real learning and scholarly integrity. Stay strong!!
6
-
Wow! I took the opportunity to guess the answer to several of the questions these discoveries finally answered, and I was pleasantly surprised that I was actually correct quite often. It’s pretty fascinating that our instincts are often correct about these things, yet it’s often easy to over thank things the longer one ruminates about all the possible answers. I Guessed the Mayan gem adhesive correctly, the bronze dagger use correctly, etc… It just reminds me to not over think things, and over complicate it. Of course surprising answers are always possible, but the simple answer is often correct, as long as we are not overlooking fundamental elements of a discovery. That’s why it’s important to understand context and what other discoveries have demonstrated is important to an ancient society… I was just pleasantly surprised is all, these discoveries are absolutely fascinating, thanks for sharing them as I missed several of these last year!
I may disagree with you on certain things, but I really appreciate your respectful way of educating anyone willing to listen. We can all learn from each other, disagree, and be respectful while teaching and learning from one another. Thank you for all your amazing work.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Came here from Trey's vid and glad I did, cause your channel is a treasure trove of content. Love when that happens, got a bunch looking forward to now hahah!
If you ever take "requests" of topics, I've personally been trying to collect material of actual historical mentions (not just archaeological remnants) of pre-Indo-European Europeans, "Old Europe" so to speak. There's understandably very little of it to find. From Greece there are some few mentions of peoples existing before the (Proto-)Greek arrival. These peoples being described as having "sprung from the earth" as opposed to immigrated - a term they later start using for Greek tribes who've lived in the same areas for long.
I've always found the topic fascinating. It might be one of the absolute most impactful changes in Europe's history, but it's just at the cusp of where history disappears into the fog of time. So tantalizing, so frustrating! So "close", yet so far, RIP
Like I said, if you ever consider "tips" of topics and find it interesting, I'd die for a video about it.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
when it comes to saws, sure it could be done with all kinds of tools. and sure it takes long to do with modern copper abrasive saws, but don't you think all those hours and hours would inspire some innovation? don't you think the ancients were better at abrasive hand saws than we are? i mean you could do all kinds of stuff really, experiment with different sands, use freshly produced sands you crush out of very hard rock, use specifics amounts of water, multilayered blades, composite blades with stone in them, or crushed rock hammered in, there are a whole load of primitive ideas to try and i'm sure that even if they used as slow sawing as out technique studies today, they tried a whole bunch of variations. so my guess is that over literally thousands of years of similar techniques being used, they came up with some fancier versions of what we come up with today. think about it, if you could come up with a saw that goes twice as fast back then, you would make a small fortune or a name for yourself considering how slow our primitive versions of the primitive tech is. lets say you want a carpenter to build you a house without using modern isolation or door and window seals, do you want someone from 1600 or someone from today? you want to build a wooden bridge over a small river, do you want a master builder from 1700, or do you want a structural engineer today with no experience building large trussed wooden structures? a wooden bridge in Norway that broke in half because of a trend to use wood without actually being familiar with the material under load says no. technology progresses with time usually, but when we switch from old tech to new, not only do we become more efficient, we also lose knowledge about how the old tech works, so there, there is the proper place for ancient high technology, its ancient expertise, that we become clueless about, or so i would think, it seems obvious that one of those crews from back then would beat the shit out of modern archaeologists in hand sawing granite. probably.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Hi David.
Thanks for the response.
I have downloaded all of your links barr the one in French (link corrupted maybe), and will be going through them when I get the chance. Look forward to some light reading while on lock down.
Its been a while since I have read my books on roman architecture, I think they might be in the attic somewhere, but I think we will have agree to disagree. To move one block and position would have a massive achievement at the time, and was never matched at the major metropolises of the time.
Additionally, the number and position of such massive blocks throughout the temple just doesn't make sense. The polifiration of oversized blocks with the temple complex is just rediculous; even for the most full hardy and wealthy client, experience design team and enthusiastic contractor to undertake today. It just wouldn't be done. The blocks are just too big to effeciently work with.
However, I will talk to my colleagues to gauge their thoughts on the erosion thesis. If they were all located at ground level and located in the one area of unstable ground, this may have some traction. But this isn't my area of expertise, so I am just surmising.
Thanks again, and looking forward to watching some of your videos.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@WorldofAntiquity I apologize, my comment is being very unfair and reductive, I don't mean to imply that that's what you're saying (or that it's what I took away from your video!). My (incredibly reductive and ridiculous) point is that even if you take these guys as 100% factual, their theory is STILL stupid. Just IMAGINE you're the guy from the advanced civilization who survived the comet cataclysm. You fly your hovercraft from doggerland or whatever and you land in front of a bunch of hillpeople in Turkey. WHAT DO YOU TELL THEM? "Guys, this is important, write this down! OK, so here's how you make a big rock into a building, also we think these dots in the sky look like a fish or sometimes a bison, and also MAKE SURE you get the date exactly correct according to the stars. Nevermind who I am or what happened, just draw a picture of a bird and the stars around it, OK? I AM VERY ADVANCED!" :)
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Thank you for this video. I have seen many videos talking about these so called bags, and of course its always in ancient alien, or Atlantis based videos. Not one of said videos ever mentions anything about archeology knowing what they are or that they are buckets, even though I thought they looked like buckets. Its crazy how many people bring them up as if its some big deal. Yes I do watch stuff about Atlantis, ancient aliens, and I love Graham Hancock's work, however, its only because its all very interesting, like reading a good scifi or fantasy novel, and not because I believe any of it. I may find it all interesting, but its interesting nonsense.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
As someone who follows many of Oak's video. This is my 2 cents.
He has read Vedic text well as he knows Sanskrit.
He cherry picks any verses that suits his dating and discards whatever text that contradicts his dating as 'non-scientific', 'traditional' or 'imaginary'.
Any verse that he chooses to quote as support for his date really needs convincing, many other Indology researchers will have totally different interpretations of the same text.
He will blatantly claim that he has so and so numbers of 'scientific' evidence, but many if not all of then are all 'if's' and what not.
He does have a sizeable followers in India and other parts of the world, but they are mainly people who don't even understand astronomy and science, so they just blindly accept whatever he vomits out.
What is quite clear is that this guy is good in marketing and clearly knows how to sell his books (third edition, really?).
Professor Miano has bought one :elbowcough:, so, yeah, success for him.
He still remains as 'The Guy' to look for Mahabharata dating as no one else has really brought up any convincing counter points to his dating, as the other's dating also has flaws which Oak will ferociously attack to defend his dating.
There are only a handful of researchers in this field of 'Mahabharata dating', so he is the 'King' for the moment, albeit an arrogant one.
Note: The fact that he has shared this video in his personal Facebook page shows how 'arrogant' he is.
6
-
Putting a 50-ton granite column on a lathe is utterly impossible. Sorry ancient tech people.
Stone has amazing compressibility, and incredible strength when in compression, just like concrete. But it also has no tensile strength, just like concrete. This is why we have to put reinforcing into concrete, and why we create pre-stressed, and/or post-stressed concrete when it has to span a gap.
This is also why natural stone arches are quite rare, always arched, always amazing to see, and why they don't last for long.
If you tried to pick up a granite column just by each end, it will immediately snap in the middle. A column is only strong in one direction, downwards! Not sideways! A lathe only supports the workpiece at each end, and it drives only one end. I know this very well, because I have a lathe, and have used them for decades.
Wood is a very amazing substance, and it has incredible strength in both compression AND in tension, and that is why we build our houses out of wood. Wood is easy to lathe because it retains a lot of tensile strength even when the cross-section is small.
No stone has the tensile strength to support 25 feet of cantilever with just 5 feet of diameter! Only reinforced concrete, or massive and tall wooden beams, or huge steel I-beams can handle such enormous cantilever loads. Unreinforced concrete would fail instantly - just as granite would in the same scenario.
So, anyone who suggests you can put a 50-ton, 50-foot piece of stone in a lathe is an absolute idiot and knows nothing about lathes, or stone, or how wood differs from stone. So it is a pretty spectacular failure to anyone with even a little knowledge of the physical world.
Once again - sorry, ancient tech guys. I know you really believe this bullshit, but as Mark Twain (Mr Samuel Clemns) famously said, "It is much easier to fool a man than to convince him he has been fooled."
The truth hurts you so much, because you are emotionally invested in lies and falsehoods. And to admit you have been deceived, and now wish to understand the facts is a very difficult thing to do, because it involves being honest with yourself, and requires you to admit your mistakes to yourself. That is not an easy thing to do.
And once you do accept your mistaken beliefs, you also need to accept what you have done and said in the pursuit of justification for your bizarre beliefs. You have appeared very foolish to a very large number of people. And not just foolish: wilfully and aggressively so.
I have been fooled by people in the past. It is no fun, and I feel a bit sad for all of you.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@HarmanHundal01 you stated "check out the names of most European or American rivers, for instance, their names have never known to be changed [sic]. American rivers, for example, still have Native American names."
Aside from the examples given by World of Antiquity, I have often canoed down one that has had 3 names, that we are aware of. It had a NA name which I don't recall, then was called 'Cowskin River,' and is now called Elk River, in the central US states of Missouri and Oklahoma. THREE different names, for ONE river, when you claim they NEVER change names in America.
6
-
At first i was put off by your use of air quotes; later, watching you lean into the camera, I thought, "I'd hate to run into this guy at a party." Finally, though, I gave you a very rare thumbs up, because you were correct on every point and supplied good information, such as the Moh scale. I'm a life-long student of pre-contact South American cultures, live where they lived, and dealing with people influenced by guys like Brien Foerster is a price for walking into that room. I have the forensic tools to deal with such people but I'm rarely sure that I have convinced them, and it's nice to run into someone who can make the case with such brevity and clarity.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
It's relatively simple to make any carving symmetrical. You make a template or gauge with the curve of the part of your subject in question, and use that as a guide to make the opposite side have the exact same profile. I have made stocks for antique rifles, by hand, using this method, and it works quite well, with no help from "highly advanced pre-disaster civilizations" using heretofore unknown power tools and mysterious measuring devices. A sheet of stiff paper, a marking tool, (a quill pin will do), and a paper cutting tool, (I used a pair of scissors), are all the technology that's needed.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Actually in Arabic, Al-keemyá' الكيمياء refers to Chemistry, while Al-kheemyá' الخيمياء refers to alchemy. However, I don't ever recall in Arabic literature that Egypt was called anything closer to such names. Egypt around the beginning of the conquest and for some time afterward was called Al-Fustát الفُسطاط (and one can argue that Fustát means "tent" which is also خيمة Khayma in Arabic, but still it was known as Al-Fustát and not Al-Khayma, and Al-Fustát doesn't exactly mean "tent" per se) - the reason for that was in reference to the camp that was first established and the main tent was held as a headquarter for managing the armies. A later name (sometimes used still in media for poetic purposes) is Ardh Al-Kinánah أرض الكنانة (land of the quiver) - it is a figurative name given to Egypt at some point for the abundance of palm trees and other crops which made the land look like a quiver of arrows (arrows being protruding out of the ground, that is the plants and trees). However, never ever I've heard anyone call Egypt in Arabic as Al-Khem الخيم. To add, maybe at some point it was called بلاد الأقباط Biladu-l-Aqbát (land of the Copts), and in modern day, whenever we say a person is قبطي (Qibtiy) in Arabic, generally we mean that he is a Christian Egyptian person. Again, nothing like Al-Khem.
And about that claim that Al-Awyan, means "eye" and derived from the "eye of Horus" - boy, Mehler is about to meet lot of Horus descendants in the Arab world (this is IF the name is derived from the word Ayn عين meaning "Eye" in Arabic, I can't judge it unless I see it written in Arabic). Many family names (and for various reasons) in the Arab world are related/derived from this word alone.
When they say "keeper" I think they are either intentionally or unintentionally exaggerating the translation of the word Háris حارس in Arabic, which can be translated as "keeper" or "guardian". Apparently Hakim is a Saidi (صعيدي) from his looks, and Saidis are commonly picked (in Egypt and elsewhere) to be keepers and guardians for places and gates and so on, and now in modern times even, security guys (at least where I live they are also majorly Saidis but in uniform and not like in the old days wearing traditional clothing, Jallabiyyah/Gallabiyyah) - they would be also called حارس (keeper, or guardian). It seems they played well on that term and puffed it up.
I'm really wondering about those guys who make up such fantastical stories, like, why don't you guys try your hands with sci-fi novels and cartoons (not sarcastic, I'm serious really) - I really do think you can make out money out of such works of art and entertainment rather than going around making yourselves a laughing stock. At least you would be called "an artist" and not a "fraud".
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Another great one, couldn't agree with more with your point about interdisciplinary collaboration. Not only do I think a lot of these pseudo-historians miss out on a lot of art and aesthetic knowledge (as in maybe it's shaped like that because humans think that shape looks nice), but they also seem to fall into some gaps that a little behavioral science could fill in. For example, when you're talking about the lineage of the zodiac, you say the Romans "got it" from the Greeks, and the Greeks "got it" from the Babylonians, and so on. That process of "getting it" is, I think, where historical evidence is most lacking, and so it's the gap that conspiracy theorists fill in with Aliens, the Illuminati, the European monoculture, etc. A little bit of behavioral biology might tell us that those ancient people were exactly the same as us, they think like us, feel like us, etc. That means it very well could have been some Greek dude who saw a Sumerian dude's star chart and thought it looked cool. Maybe he's inspired to do one for his Greek buddies, but they wouldn't really get the reference of the swallows, and they won't know who Dumuzi is, so our Greek guy will have to change some things so the locals will get it easier. Of course, there's no evidence for that at all, that's why we have to say they "got it from" instead of so-and-so was inspired by this other guy. But if you're going to get into speculation and use your imagination to fill in those blanks, why is it always Aliens? Why can't it be "yeah, lions are cool, let's put a lion on our thing, too!" Anyway, thanks for another amazing video!
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Ultimately, I believe that UnchartedX is the result of an anti-intellectualism movement that has become a zeitgeist for the last few decades. It is a rejection of expertise, learning, knowledge, knowledge testing, critical thinking and analysis, credible peer-reviewed research, etc., while embracing the notion of "believing with your eyes." I'm highly educated, a retired Doctoral-level therapist with nearly a half-a-century in my field. Yet, when my faucet doesn't work, I call a plumber, hopefully a good, experienced, ethical one. I believe what they tell me, I don't try and micro-manage their work. I offer them cold drinks while they work and a hefty tip at the end. Why? Because these are the experts in this field. I don't pretend to "know it all."
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Just for anyone disputing the capabilities of the ancient Egyptian stone masons and sculptors because of either the material the tools were made from and, or the hardness of the stone, here are a couple of facts that need to be known, instead of being ignored by these ancient Alien wannabe's.
The chisels were not simply made from Copper, they were made from a copper alloy called arsenical copper, a huge selection of varying tapered chisels and shaped tools for masonry were taken for scientific analysis, they had this process perfected and had huge metallurgy production factories, the Copper Alloy was so well made that the galvanization continued long after being made from the act of using the tool. The White papers are available online.
Secondly the MOH's hardness scale is irrelevant when talking about stone which is being changed with force, the MOH's scale is a geological scratch test, the measurement is literally only used to determine which mineral is able to scratch an other, giving a numerical scale of comparable hardness, it is many relevant uses, this isn't one of them. For the alteration of the surface shape via tools and downward force, which of course transfers the energy from the broad striking end of the chisel and travels to converge and accumulate that energy to be released from the tapered or pointed end of the chisel, then the Rockwell Scale is used, there are various other scales such as Vickers etc, but the Rockwell is what is used by masons and sculptors alike.
Finally just needed to add that these people are ignorant to the fact that all they require to clear up all their delusions is ask to spend a day with a traditional stone mason, my father and Grandfather were both amazing at their work, they had to comply with the ancient techniques of masonry because they were the guys who repaired and replaced the granite, marble and diorite stone block, carved face stones, sculpted fonts, steps, ornate steeple décor, the list goes on. It all had to be quarried, cut, carved and polished to precise perfection by hand with the tools that were used to create it to begin with. The techniques and chisel shape is just as important when cutting granite or any other stone type, the tiniest of gaps is maintained between the stone and the chisels blade, squares and straight edges are used to mark lines on the outer surface, large pieces are removed first aiming the chisel away from the line, as you gradually get closer to the desired level, the chisel is changed, smaller and with a increasing angle to the blade, making sure the surface is level is very important, to achieve this it's very primitive but simple and extremely effective, they continuously check with a square, and to make sure not too much is take off leading to a dip in the face of the block, they used a dye, a pigment mixed with oil, with a rag wipe a thin layer onto the surface and simply remove that layer of dye, check again and add accordingly, when you reach the right level, then sandstone of various grit size is used, the finest of sand would be sieved through a weaved cotton sheet stretched over a drum, a this layer of this dust covers the stone and the final polishing is completed.
The actual smoothness factor, or mirror finish is more dependent on the actual grade of granite, which has a huge range, the highest grades is a uniform conglomerate which has had a significant amount of pressure during it's formation process, which was conveniently created by nature, unfortunately these idiots are even trying to take that away too, some saying it's poured concrete granite, which makes perfect sense, instead of chipping some of the outer surface of a stone, they ground it up, then carried it from the quarry as rubble, then unloaded it when they reached their destination where they were greeted by the group of workers who make the moulds, all different sizes for blocks for building, but also statues too, so they would need to actually carve a statue first, then make a mould out of that with clay, ready for the next stage when they got the rubble and the team of Alchemists to bring along the Giant vats of Chemical formula which will make the granite slurry, once they have their containers (god knows what they were made of) full of the slurry, they then some how poured 1000's of tons of granite concrete into the moulds. In steps the Priests to do the magickal re-composition ritual that will trick geologists in a few thousand years time, as it hardened to the same composition of rock found in the quarry were they cut it from (then pummelled it to bits (of course)).
Lastly the massive statue of the King needs to be cast, so they break open the clay mould and discard the ready carved statue inside, fill the 2 halves and stick it back together and coat it in more clay, finally it's dry and revealed, but like all casts they have imperfections so chipping away the central seam, between fingers toes etc, tidying up details, then polishing it afterwards, all this time workers are sweating their nuts off wishing someone would just of used the originals they used to cast it, but they enjoyed doing things like a civilisation full of dingbats in ancient times, if it was slow to create, then slow it down more, if it's 30km down the river then travel 100km in the opposite direction and sail back, basically think of the best way, then do the opposite of that.
The thing about people in this day and age is 0% common sense, if they truly (i sometimes doubt this) but truly believe what they are leading other gullible people to also believe then they seriously have a problem. In other words the main part of their belief is that a civilisation from pre-history used a tool or tools that were powered in some way, which exceed what we have today. The evidence of this they say is the ancient architecture, now immediately if any right minded person was thinking using logic, reason and common sense they would go and ask a master mason and a sculptor who used traditional methods (there are 1000's) and watch them to see if they can do the things you think requires a power tool, after a few days maybe of standing in awe and maybe being filled with inspiration and respect at what was witnessed leaving the question of power tools never needing to be raised, never mind preached. For this reason I think most of these alternative crack pot, self proclaimed ancient architectural experts saw a niche and are playing the game very well to make a lot of money, which is fine everyone needs to make a living, but this unfortunately is at the expense of 100's of years of historical and alcohological studies, and gullible new agers who believe any sentence with the words secret, alien or government conspiracy in it. They also have tells that they regret some of those idiotic things they have said in the past, but have now written a books and made entire boxset video's on it which they sell regularly, so even if it does make them feel silly, they can't go back on any of it as the rest will crumble from removing that 1 laser cut key stone. A great example of this cross of ridiculous claims and Money changing people is a channel PraveenMohen, his channel in the beginning was brilliant, he was one of the only people on YouTube showing the incredible architectural achievements in India, which in my opinion is more mind blowing than Egyptian, he read Sanskrit, he was very knowledgeable about the various religions god and deities, and because he was unique as to what he was doing on his channel, he was contacted by a TV Show, the cringeworthy Ancient Aliens, he showed the clips on his channel from his appearance on the show and overnight he was converted, his channel went through the roof he was getting more money than he could ever of imagined he would earn, all off the back of that cesspit of a show. Now he walks round temples literally looking for anything that resembles something we use today, from lightbulbs, to special rock melting technology, Shiva is a Alien and the Lingam is an effigy of his black spaceship, the Yoni which the Lingam sits on is the launch pad, stone turtles which had a removable piece of it's shell to store gems, quartz crystals and other things such as thin pieces of gold silver and copper used to be burial gifts, now they are devices used for communication like a radio, with wires and quartz to transmit and receive signals from Shiva when he was in his space ship. These are all his words not mine, this is just 1 example of a normal guy turned into a moron.
The moral to this absolute massive amount of text i just typed is this, listen to the guy who has took the time to create this video, he talks sense and uses logic to come to a rational explanation to these things, if he doesn't know, he does everything he can to find out, and you will learn something useful and interesting. Listen and believe the repeated spiel of Uncharted X, Brien Forester, Bright Insight, Graham Hancock, the list goes on, but take in what they are selling and you too can become a fully fledged MORON, and aspire to be like the aforementioned hero's of MORONIC IDIOCY, maybe dip a toe into the level headed Flat Earth gang and become a total C*NT.
Stay Cool!
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
No wonder this Ben from UnchartedX is so full of hubris, sarcasm and vitriol, despite trying to claim being open minded, it is all he has to his claims, no professionally credible evidence of proof, just some interesting possibilities, carefully cherry-picked, and a great deal of vociferous speculation.
Great scholarly response, David. I wonder if Ben appreciates the experience of 'peer review', not that he is actually a peer of professional archeologists or historians. You've certainly treated Ben and his speculations with a high level of professional respect by even taking these 'theories' seriously. By putting them back into context, you've also shown remarkable respect to the general viewer (thank you very much), to the archeological community (yeah, maybe don't expect anyone there to notice), and to the ancient Egyptian artisans and craftsmen who produced these works (may your heart be as light as a feather).
5
-
5
-
The problem with conspiracy history is twofold:
1. They usually present steep method problems that don't seem relevant to the wider public, but that invalidate them as serious theories. Therefore,
2. The victim card, the "Im being silenced" crowd, kinda seem true to the broad public, since most are really not published in serious scientific journals.
The public here is the key. The public is no expert in historical methodology, the public is where the money is. Serious historians can't do pop history easily because they will lose face, and very few are capable of doing it, because new findings and new theoried are usually not based on exciting stuff like aliens and ufos, but on odd sorts of pottery or a couple of half erased epigraphs. There are some, like Mary Beard or Paul Preston, but theyre few and far between.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
(Continued)
In today's world, almost no one cares about any sole archaeologist, because the field is now very specialized and people can spend a lifetime working in just one region or one period of time. What prestige or authority do the likes of Matthew Adams or David O'Connor command outside of a narrow band of academia? What narrative needs to be upheld else they lose their power over the common plebeian? Don't get me wrong, there are people who will take the smallest amount of power and utilize it to its fullest extent to a sadly absurd degree (looking at you moderators of various internet forums), but temper your expectations of corruption here. Moderating an internet forum is easy and doesn't require years of study to be taken seriously enough to be given the position. Archaeology is time-consuming, difficult, downright boring to most, and commands very little respect or power in the modern world - even less so since shows like Ancient Aliens and alternate history Youtube became popular. Most archaeologists with their own Youtube channels have an audience just a fraction the size of the previously mentioned media!
As for accusations of an actual conspiracy of cover-ups, in what way are the consistently disagreeing scholars working in the field of archaeology simply too dogmatic to entertain ideas outside of a mainstream narrative, where massive disruption of what is already accepted is exactly an occurrence that would make someone famous in the field? It's not as if you can make the argument that an industry surrounding the academic field of archaeology exists that has a vested interest in covering things up to make money like I've seen employed as an argument against governments or companies working in multi-billion dollar industries. On the contrary, a production such as Ancient Aliens absolutely does have a profit-motivated reason to sensationalize and overstate things in order to keep an audience of those suspicious of possible corruption in well-established fields coming back to view more episodes. These two accusations I've seen constantly levied are examples of incongruent and incomplete thinking.
If you truly care about the subject, pick a time frame within Ancient Egypt and dive into it. Unlike some fields, many academic papers about archaeology are usually readily available online for free! A great many books, especially older works, are also available online on archive websites or thanks to a college uploading it as a PDF that can be accessed. Have questions you want answers to already in mind, and start trolling through various papers to see what others have already asked and attempted to answer using the evidence they know of. It's certainly time consuming, but if you really care so much that you spend countless hours perusing forums and Youtube looking for information on the subject, you can likely spare some of that time reading instead.
As for those who just won't accept any answer other than a complete reconstruction of Ancient Egyptian works such as the granite coffins found in the Serapeum of Saqqara, I'm afraid you're going to have to pay a team quite a lot of money to do so. There are many stone-working companies today that can absolutely reconstruct the coffins with modern-day tools for tens of thousands of dollars if you want to confirm that we can do it with today's technology! As for utilizing the tools Ancient Egyptians would have used to do the reconstruction, it's an unfortunate truth that very few people have the expertise necessary and time to spend in order to utilize replicas of ancient tools to reconstruct monumental architecture. It has been absolutely proven that you can shape granite and other hard stones with the tools we know existed within specific periods of Ancient Egypt, but the actual work and time that would be required for a full reconstruction demands both a large amount of money, and a very large amount of time from experts in copper tool use that are certainly rarities today. It's certainly possible to do, but no one has bothered to undertake this task as mountains of evidence that the stone could be worked with various ancient tools already exists. Smaller works such as stone vases have been reproduced using ancient tools if that is what would convince you. As for claims of inhuman precision: Many people have already visited Egypt with digital angle-finders and have found again and again that the angles and surfaces are certainly not near-perfect in their precision. They're certainly impressive, but not even close to perfect.
As for those who don't like the video because of what apparently sounds like condescension... Not only are you tone policing, but surely you must also be tone-deaf to think an academic with an accent is equivalent to a condescending tone. If you don't enjoy the sound of his voice that's perfectly fine, but it doesn't discredit what he's saying.
Apologies for the long comment and thank you for the video mate, I just wanted to comment to let you know that I, at least, appreciated the video. Hopefully I could convince someone to rethink their instinctual distrust for all things perceived as crystalized hierarchies with no room for growth and filled to the brim with corruption, a position I myself have come to understand isn't always applicable. Subversion and distrust of any and all institutions seems to be more normal today that in the past, but making that the uncritically presupposed feeling for any institution goes too far. Seven years ago I would have likely rejected this video outright due to my own biases developed due mostly to some unsavory knowledge and experiences with the publishing industry surrounding biological sciences that I once blindly trusted. I'm glad I gave various fields in academia another chance, just with a better understanding of possible conflicts of interest.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Professor Lesch, a German science communicator, gave a video where he found some mysterious constants that, when combined, give amazing relations, like the ratio of the proton to electron mass, the fine structure constant, or the gravitational constant. Then he revealed that they came from measurements of his bicycle. After a satisfying rant about pyramid numerology, alien visitors, and bicycles built with extraterrestrial knowledge, he explained a formula by Cornelis de Jager, a Dutch astronomer, about how to get pretty much anything you want from any numbers you have. It's in German, but the video is titled "Erklärt diese Formel die Pyramiden?"
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
"The idea that a group of people with a common culture and/or language should resist oppression and fight for a homeland" conflates two distinct things when applying it to pre-modern conditions. Yes, there were peoples identifying with a shared culture, language or polity, and yes, there's a natural desire to resist oppression and defend your land (though that might just be your part of it, or the land of your village). But the second doesn't follow from the first, it's a different and universal phenomenon.
Nationalism is a fairly recent (and western) innovation, but it's taken three forms: a desire for independence from a foreign oppressor (the anti-colonialist variant); pursuit of cultural, linguistic or political unity (the "nation-building" form, often well-intentioned but too easily tipping into oppression of minorities); and belief in a mystical underlying unity too often accompanied by notions of exceptionalism or superiority - ironically the very doctrines that propelled the colonialism that the more "defensive" nationalism opposed.
I long shared your view that nationalism could be "civilised" and turned to positive ends, but I'm afraid experience both before and since the 20th-century heyday of classic anti-colonial struggle suggests that it's too dangerous a doctrine. That doesn't preclude nationhood or the right to self-determination and for peoples to live in peace under institutions of their choosing (which I'd offer as an answer to your question about alternatives), but as an ideology nationalism has become more of a menace to our shared human civilisation than a force for good.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I recently visited some Hoysala temples in Karnataka, India, and their carvings were absolutely divine. It’s amazing how well you can perfect your craft when you’re;
1. Part of a highly respected trade that’s given the time, space, and resources to practice your art.
2. Paid well enough to afford the best tools of the period or outright given the tools by the royalty/nobility who’s hired you.
3. Mentored under people who’ve been doing this their whole lives, and have a mentee yourself (you can learn a lot by teaching).
4. Have many existing monuments and historic examples of your trade to study the outcomes of past techniques and figure out how to improve upon them.
5. Hired by the royalty and nobility who can have you killed, so you have EXTRA incentive not to mess-up.
6. Have access to all the slave-labour you need to assist in your project.
7. Work in tandem with other experts they would’ve been onsite too; such as architects, mathematicians, and people filling coordinator roles.
My tour guide said people still insist to him that it was aliens, or that we can’t replicate these structures with our technology today. My dude, you might not be able to, but that doesn’t mean people can’t.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I love these episodes. I was actually in Turkiye for a month in 1989. Unfortunately, it was while I was in the US Army, so my “tourist” exploits were very limited! It’s hard for me to reconcile the fact that I was in Bandirma and Balikasir, so near to so many of these ancient sites you guys have visited, yet never got to see them. I did fly over many in a helicopter, and I do have some interesting photographs, but it’s not the same. As well, Gobekli Tepe and the other pre-pottery Neolithic sites had yet to be discovered, otherwise I’d have probably gone there instead of taking the cruise ship to Istanbul.
I can’t complain. Few have even had the chance to visit these places, and I have. I look forward to these videos, and being a student of both history and archaeology, I appreciate Dr. Miano’s narratives immensely!
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Found another interesting critique of the mathematical analysis that I thought people would like to read. It expands in more detail on WOA's main point of mathematics being read into the vase, as opposed to being read from it:
"I looked through the article, not in full detail, but somewhat thoroughly. While there are some noticeably cool features that could be intended, such as the incorporation of pi in the opening radii, many, if not most of the abstractions seem like a bit of a stretch. I'll try to summarize my points:
1. Why incorporate such intricacies in an urn of all things? I mean, did they just happen to think that future humans would scan/measure such an insignificant object (not in terms of quality, but let's say "flashiness") and spend countless of hours finding every little constant incorporated in it? To me that makes no sense. What would be the point of spending such an effort trying to fit the dimensions to basic constants that have been known for hundreds, if not thousands of years? Its purpose is to hold liquids, not high-level art or some kind of guide for future civilizations.
2. In a similar fashion to the previous point, why square the golden ratio? If it was exactly the golden ratio, then sure, it's quite interesting indeed, but if you start to fiddle with famous constants this way you can probably get almost any value with square roots, ratios, squares, cubes etc.
3. The circles generated by the R(n) formula get smaller exponentially, which means there will be a lot of circles of smaller size. Of course you can "fit" one of them (seemingly quite roughly) into every little bend of the urn. Moreover, why even the square root of 6 over 2 to begin with? It holds no mathematical significance to my knowledge. It looks more like it was chosen by the author to fit the data. Although I suppose you can rewrite it as square root of 3 over square root of 2 (or vice versa, depending on how you define your function), which is somewhat interesting considering they're the first two prime squares. Still, I think the inner/outer "Flower of Life" patterns generated by various R(n) seem a bit like a stretch. If the urn had a different shape you could probably find a different R(n) function (remember, you have a lot of constants to fiddle with) and fit it "perfectly" to that.
4. Why 16 GHz in the link between U and the speed of light? Again, seemingly grasping for numbers that fit the data. I also can't see how the speed of light could be known without precise clocks etc. Surely if this ancient civilization had such tools we would for sure have found SOMETHING more technologically significant than just some intricately shaped rocks. But maybe that's for another discussion.
5. About placing the handles, with both the inner and outer Flower of Light circle patterns, and the various points in/on the urn I feel like you can always find something to connect them too to find special angles like radians. Also, if it was shaped differently, maybe the author instead would argue about a different angle, such as from the bottom to the tip of the "lip" of the urn, or something (there are many choices). Again, the handles could simply have been chosen by the author because it fits with finding radians, not because those points on their own hold any great significance.
7. Perhaps this is a bit of a nit-pick, but where's e? Perhaps the most significant mathematical constant in use today (known for hundreds of years, so not exactly extremely modern). Well, let's just say that maybe there wasn't any ratio or whatever the equalled to e or the square root of e, or e squared over pi, or . . ., so we brush that constant aside for now.. Right?
There is a good point towards the end though. Studying more of these urns would show whether these patterns actually exist, or if people are just finding patterns in noise, something humans are quite good at doing. I think it's quite a bold claim to suggest that this cannot possibly be mere chance when the sample size is literally 1 and there are a LOT of things to choose from (constants, angles, lines, ratios) when trying to find meaning in its shape."
@ultimatewierdness
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Somehow I got in before the first one officially came out by a few months and I was enthralled by it. So much so that I was showing anybody who'd listen.
Prior to that, I was getting a group together in my college to gather historical documents, speeches, audio, video, whatever it was, and set about correcting history books and/ or expanded on the truncated versions. Not in a conspiratorial way, but a legit, this is real solid evidence kind of way. Which is why the latter half of Zeitgeist interested me so much.
Enter Dave.
I had a friend named Dave, a much older guy who was mostly a tutor in every subject at the library. This man knew almost anything you needed and had a personal library of literally thousands of books, all read. The kind of guy who could quote you stuff off of a page of a random book he'd read six years prior. I showed him the video and he was like "uh, yeah, I've got some questions." He asked "are you sure? ARE. YOU. SURE?" a lot. Which when a guy like that asks, it's only right to start questioning it.
And boy did I have some questions. I had realized I was taking most of it at face value. In regards to the religion stuff, I had read up a little bit on some of it prior and was, I think, using that bias to tell myself I could trust the video as 'some' of it lined up with my memory.
Thankfully Dave's forcing me to be more scrutinizing of the material really woke me up to the videos as a whole. I don't doubt some of the evidence they portrayed was potentially significant, but after looking more into the content, it was clear that some of it was out of context and/ or presented in a manner that was pushing a clear bias.
Nevertheless, a few of the people I showed the videos to joined up with it and was pushing them heavily. And it was too late to stop them. One moved to Florida and started a whole group around it. Dude was locked in. Zeitgeist guy did issue a corrections video on the religion part and released an edit that removed it entirely, which I found particularly interesting move. And now having found this video, I'm wondering if this isn't the reason why. And if so, I'm glad there are people out there watching this stuff and issuing corrections
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Thanks Professor Miano for another fascinating, fact-filled and thought-provoking video. I think one of the underlying theories involved is sometimes referred to s Uniformitarianism. This scientific assumption that natural processes occur and have results in very similar ways under similar conditions. When applied to social science it has to be more tentative. I would call myself cautiously uniformitarian, and I appreciate the cautious way that you apply certain criteria. The list of criteria has the potential flaw that it looks at the development of cities from the perspective of our concept of cities having been dominant for millennia.
In the early 1700's Boston was referred to as a town, and Massachusetts as a colony. Numerous towns have been founded from Boston in the surrounding area. These settlements were not unplanned, groups were sent out from Boston and were required to build public works such as a road to Boston, fences, a common [most have become parks but were originally pasture], a meeting hall, church and school [at first they might be a single multi-use building but were eventually separate buildings. and later an armory. The local government was by town meeting, which still exists and has become steadily more democratic.
In New England, town meetings still exist, but when the voting population becomes too large and meetings become too contentious, a proposal is made to add a permanent administration or Board of Selectmen under the authority of the meeting. At some point, the population becomes to big for even this to become practical so a vote is taken in the town meeting and the board, to petition the state government for incorporation change from town to city and an elected government is established. Unlike other parts of the US, our counties are vestigial, sometimes with no governmental function and without an administration, and sometimes only serve as convenient court districts or regional school districts.
These towns and cities in New England were planned and integrated, so the whole area is now considered one of the US's 11 metropolitan areas rather than one or more independent cities. There is some reason to think that the Indus Valley Civilization(s) might have been similar to this, with meetings held in a swimming pool rather than a meeting house.
I'm sorry for making such a long reply, as I just wanted to illustrate the French saying, "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose."
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Hello Dr Miano, I wish to thank you for all the videos that lend some scientific perspective on various topics of ancient history and debunking many of the claims of alternative history buffs.
I have watched a number of these videos and claims over the years and started back in the 70's with reading Von Daniken's books which were quite fascinating to a young mind. Yet over the years I've found that they ask too many questions that end in open-ended arguments...what if's....or aliens must have helped rather than detailed scientific answers. And they often fall into arguments of personal incredulity..if I don't know how they did it, then that means no one knows. They often never seem to seek out professionals in the area they are studying or commenting on....or resort to a single masonry worker or imprecise methodology and lack /absence of reference work.
In watching this video, I see that Brien Foerster falls into that category.
For one example, around the 25:00 mark, he goes into asking how the stone blocks were made so smooth..almost laser like. And others like Ben of Uncharted X have mentioned the smoothness of other items as well or laser like precision.
I recall watching a program on NOVA a number of years ago which dealt with the rebuilding of the Parthenon and at one point, the workers were tasked with smoothing the adjoining faces of the stone pillar blocks. I believe the video is still online and written excerpts.
They employed a simple, historic method adopted long ago by the Greeks and others of sliding around a flat metal plate over the areas to be smoothed and adding sand under the plate. Supposedly, this method allowed them to polish the faces to 1/20th of a millimeter of flatness. A millimeter being roughly 1/25th of an inch, that equates to nearly 1/400th of an inch in flatness....or 0.0025"
Excerpt from the PBS/NOVA website...
"Finishing new marble
To level a new surface, the team's masons again turn to an age-old technique. They sprinkle sand onto the surface, then use a metal smoothing plate to work out imperfections. The plate is an ancient invention, its modern counterpart based on stone plates found on the Acropolis. Korres believes that those early plates could grind to a precision of one-twentieth of a millimeter. "
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/parthenon/rest-08.html
Your average razor blade #9 is roughly .009" thick....nearly 4 times thicker than 0.0025.
"Often Razor Blades are described as 9 razor blades or #9 razor blades. This means that the razors have a thickness of . 009” which is considered standard duty strength for a single edge razor blade."
https://www.seniorcare2share.com/how-thick-is-the-edge-of-a-razor/
Recent studies show that the human finger is sensitive enough that it can detect variations as small as 13 nanometers in surfaces or objects.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130916110853.htm
I formerly worked in managing a bodyshop for a few years of my career and I was always amazed at how a bodyman could detect very slight ripples or dips/bumps in smoothing a car body or bondo prior to painting. The paint on a typical car is actually thinner than an eggshell. Human beings are quite capable of detecting and smoothing objects or surfaces to an incredible degree of precision. Try it sometime with a piece of glass or mirror and a human hair and see if you can detect it.
I also see a common error in many of these alternative history videos when people claim that the only thing that can cut or polish granite or other hard rocks is diamond...a fairly rare mineral in ancient times. As you point out in one video based on the Moh's scale, there are other materials that are abrasive enough to cut / polish such hard rocks..one of which is corundum or emery which is also used in modern abrasives including the polishing of optical glass and common nail files. Gemstones like Rubies and Sapphires as well. Or the rocks can be cut/polished using fragments/powder from the very rock they are working on or fragments of such embedded in molten copper tools like chisels or drill bits, etc.. and allowed to cool before use. It's a method used in making abrasive tools today. Indeed, I have some diamond coated or other silicon carbide abrasive 4" cutoff wheels in my workshop right now and a few vintage emery files for detail work.
"Uses Area
"Used as gemstone.
It is used as abrasive because of its hardness.
It is used for polishing and sanding of optical glasses.
It is also used in refractories due to its high melting point (2,040 ° C or 3,700 ° F)."
https://geologyscience.com/minerals/corundum/
https://geology.com/minerals/corundum.shtml
Another logic point in various people commenting on ancient cultures is the supposed absence of evidences of hard faced tools or machines that may have been used to work granite or other hard stone.
There is a saying in science that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". In other words, just because you have not found any evidence does not mean it does not exist. There are any number of reasons why some evidence is missing or lost to the ravages of time. Modern governments and commercial/ industrial companies go to great lengths to hide their secrets from others to prevent copycats and patent laws protect the rights of companies...something unknown in the ancient world.
Would the US put the plans for a B-1 bomber online for all to see? Does Microsoft or Apple allow it's code to be used by others freely?
I imagine that ancient cultures may have hid their techniques and tools to some extent or as much as possible and possibly even showed false information in drawings or carvings to misguide others from copying their exquisite work. Egyptian vases and bowls, etc.. made from granite or other hard rocks were in high demand and value in ancient times due to their precision and beauty that others could not duplicate. It does not make sense to me that they would freely give away their closely held secrets for all to see and that is perhaps why we find no certain tools or exact descriptions of how some things were made or accomplished.
A few hundred years ago, a man named Stradivarius produced some of the finest examples of instruments like violins and cellos worth millions of dollars today that no one has been able to replicate over the centuries and many have tried various ways from the type of wood or varnish, details of construction, etc..
We still don't know his exact process today...does that mean aliens must have helped him? or a previous hidden culture? No...he simply had a unique insight or years of trial and error that we have not found. Some believe it may have been as simple as soaking the wood in water which drove out any oils in the pores of the wood and when dry, those open pores give a unique sound to his instruments.
Thanks again for your work in bringing some science to these topics on ancient cultures. It's a fascinating study for me.
Paul
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Thank you so much David ! Everything you said in this video is just, you don't take any side, you stick to evidence, you're not afraid to express ideas if they are valid. Thank you for your courage, and this scientific video on History, specially the touchy questions. Thank you for saying what you said on the other video that some people felt offended about. I appreciate that you precised it. Indeed it seems today some people want to protect (possible) racism, by using bad faith and the victim card. Your videos are refreshing and reassuring, specially after having heard people like Graham Hancock, spreading lies on Ancient History. We need professors like you. Thank you for being on YouTube and the courses you propose. It makes me want to become a patron for your channel and your work, and subscribe to your courses. Take care, Gaby
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The mechanism is a testament to the state of the art in the period. It's like finding a CRAY supercomputer in recognisable condition 2,000 years from now. Highly unlikely, but not quite beyond the realms of possibility.
One important thing to understand is that although Chris at Clickspring makes one for himself, from scratch, the original is the product of a team of craftsmen, undoubtedly producing several at a time, using highly regimented process work, and in pretty quick time, too.
One can easily imagine the apprentices performing the repetitive gear work, and competing strongly to work their way up the production process.
These mechanisms in operation must have wowed even the most educated person of the time. We know this must be true, because we still marvel at reproductions of the mechanism, even with a good understanding of modern clockwork and manufacturing.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
At 24:35, he says 'some people are open minded, and can recognize' — without a hint of irony. I spent 22 years learning the Egyptian language from the KMT society and bought the courses by Bob Brier from the Teaching Company, and whenever I try to give someone any information that I have derived from reading, the studies, the intense years of memorizing — the rules of the language, the syntax, the variations from the old, middle, and new kingdom. i specialize in the first intermediate period. The irony of these guys is that they buy what they know will fit their conclusions and then test it to … see if it proves their conclusions, which they … bought it for the sake of doing. Looking at the whole of a strata and understanding the period and culture, like the power of the priesthood, the gods in fashion at the time, whether they are in the inundation etc. They don't get it, science isn't about taking an idea and proving it … or coming up with a theory and finding proof. They talk about all the potential for learning … and yet they won't study the record of the ancient egyptians and care little about them beyond the extent to which plucked fruit of their great., grand, beautiful and unique civilization — to demonstrate their unworthiness to make it without the help of other people, whiter people … Approaching Egypt is a huge, huge field … and they do away with every explanation the people who lived at the time gave us except when it is something malleable enough to fit into their brain-frame which is externalized, projected onto the culture, a culture which is as alien to them as actual aliens would probably be. The irony is sad, really, they are displacing admiration for an invisible glorious kingdom by looking past thousands of history of a unique, living, breathing cultural that was the peoples of the ancient Nile River Valley. Thanks for showing that historians and archeologists and linguists are not in the business of deciding what is true by what it proves, but the other way round. It's the opposite of scientific to test that which you select to prove your hypothesis.
This is a great channel, a great gift for a teacher is to be personable when talking about how others are ostensibly incorrect, and how sad it is that they have an entire alien world in front of them that they look past as though they are ghosts, because they don't have any respect for the inhabitants of egypt in a more familiar world to them, projecting the application and ideas of empire building, cultural dissemination, linguistic evolution etc onto what they find. Like reading Herodotus uncritically :P [though he is invaluable!]
Cheers brother!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Living in the UK and being interested in history, I've been to most of the sites on this travel log so far, and it's been fun to see them presented here. I was really not expecting Lunt fort to feature, though. I live in Coventry and it's always seemed like a very small local attraction, which doesn't get a lot of attention. I'd even thought I'd caught a glimpse of it in the introduction segment on one of the earlier videos, but just thought 'nah- can't be Lunt fort'. Anyway, it's really nice to see people visiting it from so much further afield than normal. Sorry the reconstructions are a bit run down- our local council has had big cuts made to its budget by the central government over the past decade, and like a lot of predominantly urban councils, hasn't been able to give heritage sites the same amount of attention they got previously. Local government funding in the UK is a weird, complicated subject that I very much doubt interests many people, but the short version is that poorer councils have been forced to do more with less than richer councils due to current central government policy and have suffered as a result. This is also the main reason Leicester's Jewry Wall museum was shut in the earlier video.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Thank you for this great video!
Finally some debunking of Khemitology. Coincidentally, I am in the midst of taking a deep dive into the khemitology lore at the moment. Of all the „alternative theories“ this might actually be my favorite one. It’s just too crazy.
(Apologies for the following wall of text)
First off: Gigantical mistake by Mehler at 33:48 „…»Neter« is actually where the Greek word »nature« comes from…“ »Nature« isn’t Greek, it’s Latin. (Same mistake in Land of Osiris, p. 48)
Anyway, so far I have read both of Mehlers books. They interlink in an interesting way that seems to back up the interpretation by Anyextee. It seems as if Mehler wants to create a holistic philosophy for his own niche in the esoteric community. "Land of Osiris" covers his view of the history of men and bears (at least some) resemblance to a somewhat scientific text. And I think it is on purpose. It's for attracting the alternative history crowd and for pointing out to some physical "proof" for his actual philosophy. "From Light into Darkness" on the other hand presents the metaphysical underpinnings (Mehlers actual philosophy) and seems to be the book for building a fellowship in the esoteric community. Hakim as the Guru & Mehler as his prophet. Here Mehler also comes up with a second and very creative way to make his arguments non-falsifiable: Whenever he wants to evade necessity for proof he simply states that some things just cannot be expressed in words or even be written down. Occasionally backed up, of course, by a classical "Hakim said so, too". Below the surface of his ancient-khemit magic sauce however, he presents a very very average (and boring) esoteric worldview. Secret societies are everywhere, everything is one, everything is harmony & love, everything is vibration, the elites know the truth but hide it, yada yada yada...
One thing that struck me is him referencing Savitri Devi (from Light into Darkness, p.105). The woman who (even after 1945) celebrated Hitler as a divine incarnation.
As to Hakim it is very difficult to find anything reliable about him.
Interestingly, there seem to be almost no accounts of Hakim that are truly independent of Mehler and his crowd. There are occasional references (also mostly made by Mehler) to a book Hakim is said to have coauthored with a "Karena Bryan". Despite having searched for it for weeks, I was not able to find any trace of it and I have serious doubts that it even exists. Also, even if Hakim is presented as a former academic and egyptologist I have not been able to find a single publication or even a mention of him anywhere in academic contexts. And from your video, I'm guessing you don't either.
One time I very briefly thought I had found an independent account about Hakim through German conspiracy author Stefan Erdmann. But (almost like magic) also here Mehlers name popped up almost immediately.
There is a website of a „khemit shop“ that seems to be connected to the khemit school. Here it is stated that apart from being a tour guide Hakim used to run a souvenir shop in the late 1970s near the pyramids. Perhaps he did this until the 1990s, when he met Mehler and saw his chance of setting himself appart from all the other guides and vendors at Gizeh and becoming a part of the new business of not-so-ancient khemit.
Another interesting observation: Until very recently Stephen Mehlers Blog was linked on the khemitology website as friend. Since about May/June 2022 this is no longer the case. Maybe there are some things going behind the scenes?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
It's good to prepare as best you can, but once you're on the ground, you learn as you go. Sometimes things change from the last guide book entry--sometimes a business will have changed hands, and prices with it. The folks down there are mostly good, but you find out quickly that anything of value left unattended finds a new home. Great tip about rental cars and border crossing. Get used to cold showers. Be aware that these folks may be inclined to tell you what you want to hear at the time money is being exchanged and to make hard to understand excuses when you attempt to protest--they are pros at it.
My travels in Mesoamerica are some of my favorite memories. Admittedly it's not like back home, but that's one of the reasons to travel. Some things are tiresome, like driving slow for huge pot holes where it seems to take forever to get anywhere. Losing your way due to lack of signs or incorrect gps directions, ( I almost drove into a huge, unmarked hole in one lane of the highway that would have resulted in me not being able to do this comment, at least). Some things are funky/scary like, what my wife and I refer to as, " suicide showers "; electric on demand hot water switch that you never want to actually touch for fear of completing a circuit.
With all the little difficulties and uncertainties, it's always an adventure, and sometimes it's the " topes " that make for a better story. In Costa Rica I was introduced to a local saying that was used as a retort to any story relating to traveling or living in their country, be it comedy or tragedy, life or death, feast or famine--someone will say--" yes, you'll have that ".
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
This is a very thorough, and fair, debunking of the claims that enormous circular saws worked by some unknown, unsourced, power source made (at least most) of the striations and tubular drilling claimed by uncharted x and others.
However, the claim made that the actual archaeologists (excellent and hardworking in the main as they are in their own field) that they have emulated (some) of the techniques required to produce these precise results emulating ancient building techniques, is not perfect either.
Still, there was far more evidence and research used in this three hour plus critique than the clips making the 'ancient technology" claim as far as my simple mind can see, and the fact that even more detailed examination of uncharted x videos that I have watched, are not in the ballpark of how this video was made, is undoubtedly true.
I think that Gobekli Tepe and Karahan Tepe tell us all that people were good at this stuff a lot longer than most experts in their historical and archaeological fields ever felt could be possible, (and that hunter gatherers could do this) has taken the historical scientific world by surprise.
Well done I say.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
It’s interesting how you say hunter gatherers stored food. I’ve heard theories that they knew about agriculture 1000 yrs before it began but that life was much better as a hunter gatherer. Who wants to be months bent over plants only to have them destroyed by a storm, or whatever, when you could have all you required in 15 to 20 hours a week and each day was an adventure. People spend 40 to 60 hours a week, in front of a screen or bent over, to have what they need nowadays. Also, did the routine of sedentary work lead to the thought, “Is there more to life than this routine?”, leading to the creation of gods? Is this also a concept that could lead to the thought, nowadays, of there being lost civilisations and aliens etc?
I grew up in Aberdeenshire in Scotland with its own particular kind of megalithic sites, they always fascinated me. One thing I’m sure of is that ancient man had an extraordinary appreciation of his natural world, just check out the depiction of the wild horses at Lascaux, as good as any modern painting, capturing the soul of the animals, beautiful!
Thanks!!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The biggest thing I've found that makes it tricky to date the Mahabharata is the fact that many characters (not the pandavas or kauravas, or anyone else who debuts in the Mahabharata) who play some role in the story are mentioned as historical figures in certain older texts and recensions of texts like the Yajurveda. The problem is, both characters before and after the pandavas are mentioned as living in the same time period, but with no mention of the Pandavas, or the 100+ Kauravas. I feel like a war that somehow dragged the entire Subcontinent (and more) in would have been mentioned in the Yajurveda or some other text. In fact, the main sections 3 later Vedas were finally compiled into their final recensions or forms DURING the reigns of Parikshit, a historical king who according to mythology immediately succeeded the Pandava Yudhishthira on the throne, and was Arjuna's grandson or great-grandson (sorry I forgot those details). They mentioned his son Janamejaya and even Dhritarashtra, the dad of the Kauravas. The only saving grace is that there is some evidence that parts of the Mahabharata date to the Late Vedic Period, which immediately succeeds the Middle Vedic Period (where the Kurukshetra War would have probably happened). There would have probably still been mythological exaggerations, but the historical context would have been more accurate.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
There is good and bad in all civilizations, ancient to modern, with nearly all of them being plagued by the evils of racism, nationalism, misogyny, homophobia, religious persecution, xenophobia, etc. My belief is that an evidence-based approach that openly and honestly acknowledges the problems and "sins," while celebrating the good things is best. The problem is that not everyone likes this open and honest approach, wanting to paint things rosier than they were or are, embracing views without sufficient merit and clinical evidence. As for the subjects of the video above, I have always been fascinating by the, "Iron Pillar of Delhi" and the metallurgical skill and knowledge of Ancient India in general. Quite ahead of its time.
4
-
Hi, FINALLY the video I needed to see !!! I am since a few years very interested in all those Egyptian discussions, and though I always take any hypothesis with a grain of salt and try to cross over informations in order to make up my own opinions, I miss too much knowledge, and all those informations you provide through a three hours video is so important and helpful ! There are still a lot of unanswered questions whether from Ben or You, but I think when looking at so ancient history that it comes with the package. People should accept the mysteries more, there is no need for all the answers. I personally always had an issue when “Ancient TECHNOLOGY” is mentioned, instead of “Ancient TECHNIC” I don’t thing Ancient civilizations had technology, they certainly had the logic, but not the Tech. ;-) Ben should give you back the respect you gave him and answer directly to your video, not doing so is discrediting him very much !!!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Thank you for taking the time to explain and provide information about our ancient history. Yet, I came to you entirely backward because Youtube first suggested many prominent pseudo-historians and the maker of Ancient Architechs before you. I delved deep into their fantastical approach to our ancient past, not with enough references for me to question them or pick up their poorly constructed arguments. You only came up very recently. It is delightful to watch you discuss their hypotheses, point out the errors, and back up your understanding of history with accurate data. It is entertaining to think some unknown high technology existed in the ancient past. However, it is more inspiring to understand that our past peoples did these monumental works of architecture with their rudimentary tools and labor. If we wanted to move a 100 million ton, perfectly square, and polished rock today, we could do it if the need was there for us to achieve it. But it's not, so we choose not to do it. However, Youtube has a problem that needs addressing, so more people see creditable people discussing history.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I have enjoyed your channel and work along with Martin's, along with Graham's, along with Stephen milos along with many others! This video was apparently made for me! As I am fascinated by the evidence and information available to a layman on this time period and all the different hypotheses so, I'm only 10 mins into your video, but I'm loving it, some knowledgeable objective interesting information, I'm sure I will comment again once I've watched it all! However for the time being sooo far so good bud, very good editing, understanding, explanation, research, keep up the good work bud! Kind regards me
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
If it were an older civilization, where are all of their tools? Where are all of the things that belonged to their society? Why is it not mentioned anywhere amongst any of the South American Societies?
Why, for nearly every single somewhat unexplainable thing in history that a culture does that we don't understand, the default is "Well, it was clearly an older more advanced civilization that no longer exists and left nothing behind but these big stones."
I'm sorry, but that just doesn't add up and is literally the go to for those who try to be less "It's aliens" and more "it's not aliens, but maybe an older more advanced civilization that we have absolutely no evidence of, left zero tools, documents, or anything else"
This is argument is used time and time again to dismiss whatever culture you want to dismiss as being the builders of things, especially large structures.
Take the incredibly obvious example here in regards to the Egyptians. The same argument is consistently said about pyramids being too perfect, they couldn't have possibly built them. Except they did. And they didn't just build one, but many over years. Just look at the condition of the first few pyramids they built. From being a bit lopsided to being made of shit materials that fell apart/ eroded away until only the center bit remains surrounded by a pile of rubble.
You can find similar progression throughout the cities of south American cultures as well.
It's not like they sprang up overnight and started building and carving. They grew over thousands of years, moving about, branching off and leaving their marks on landscapes. From massive cities to small villages to the literal quarries they got their materials.
Seriously, why is this so hard to believe? Why is it so easy to dismiss the very people who spend their entire careers and lives studying and looking for the answers. The very people who would love nothing more than to uncover an older "civilization" or group of people. It would be a massive deal and would propel literally anybody to fame if they could prove the existence of some kind of advanced civilization. And yet, nothing.
Only random dudes on youtube trying to discredit the "status quo," doing everything they can to dismiss reality and providing no evidence to it, but handily dismissing all evidence against their theories.
You can see this pattern all over the internet. Take Flat Earthers, for example. It doesn't even make physical sense, yet they do everything they can to dismiss the truth to the point of berating anybody who says otherwise and calling them a cabal and concocting even wilder conspiracy theories.
Remember, education is your enemy, listen to the random guy on youtube who can't give you evidence without constantly contradicting themselves. Constantly building a conspiracy against themselves.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
HIC SVNT GRAHAMHANCOCKES.
Thank you. I've always found old maps fascinating. One can marvel at them for their accuracy as well as for their fantasy.
I have read once a fascinating book about the first encounters between Europeans and Japanese, with a long introduction illustrated with many ancient maps, the first ones inspired by Marco Polo's (heavily fantastic) description of Cipango, then integrating the discoveries of the new world around Colombus' times (the book including also Colombus' notes on Marco Polo's description, as well as excerpts from his journal, and the guy seemed obsessed with the idea of proving he had indeed reached Cipango). Anyway, many of these maps showed Cipango, and often as a rectangular island the very shape of the one you pointed at. Maybe the Piri Reis map was in this book, actually, I can't remember...
Anyway, fascinating topic, and thanks for the video.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
It is indeed a shame that schools never teach the fine ability to distinguish fact from fantasy.
It seems people are never taught about Occam's Razor.
Also, it seems that many of today's human beings feel vastly superior to our ancestors despite there being absolutely no difference between people today, people 5,000 years ago, people 10,000 years ago - or indeed people 50,000 years ago. All those people are us. Dirtier, unhealthier, and much sadder than us - for sure - but they are us!
That many modern people reject the achievements of our ancestors as "unbelievable" simply shows how poorly educated those people are, and what terrible mental lapses they are capable of. It is a genuine indictment against the schooling in the countries where such beliefs are common. Like the USA, for example - where 40% of the population still believe the biblical story of Genesis, and who reject evolution entirely.
Such people are hurting the human race. Dumbing it down, and spreading stupid falsehoods.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
There must be more bullshit spouted about the H-blocks at Pumapunku than any other stones on the planet. I especially liked the way Childress and Forster held a set square on one, claiming it was a perfect right angle, when on the video we can clearly see the angle he is trying to measure is not even close to 90-degrees, and the arm of the set square was dangling in space.
The H-Blocks are NOT identical. They are NOT perfect. They are not even that symmetrical. They are made by hand, using basic tools, and are intended to appeal to the eye, and in this regard they are highly successful. Sign writers know that when you make a sign, if it is going to be seen from 2 metres away, then it needs to be very detailed and contain no errors, which would be easy to see.
BUT - when you are making a sign that sits on top of a 10-metre tower, then it ca be rough as guts, and look absolutely awful up close. But when it's on the tower, viewed from the ground - it looks fantastic.
Humans only put as much effort into making things look good, as is required by the intended viewing distance. Any additional effort is a total waste. And the ancients were no different! The work they did was good enough to fit into the construction, and appear the same as the other parts, even if the parts are not identical. Cunning builders use viewing distance to control your perception of a structure.
And cunning architects don't mind when things are not perfect, as long as they look good enough to keep the king happy, and paying for the project!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The only notion that can hold a truth, is that there was an additional purpose to the pyramids is that it can have a political aspect. That the amount if work required could be used to provide work to seasonal people such as farmers that had time during the annual flood and the growing season.
This was on top of the skilled stone workers at both the quarries and on site.
Apart from this workforce, would also be the various other trades needed for any type if large “ public works “ projects. From toolmakers, to cooks, to those responsible to insure the administration of such types of projects. That the depictions of huge gangs pulling a megalithic statue ( colossus of Memnon? ) is insufficient to insist 5hat only h7man labor was employed, as in the Midden at Giza there have been the bones of both. Goats and Cattle found. Anyone that has raise$ livestock can tell that goats can have more than one kid at a time and the gestation period is relatively shorter than of a bovine animal. A cow usually inly has a single birth and the gestation is the same as a human, nine months. So that would indicate that more goat was eaten than beef. With that stated, it would be rare if beef would have been there at all except for the purpose if heavy hauling, and if the cattle died, it would add to the food stock. There is additionally the amount of people that can be fed from one goat compared to one head of cattle. It has been considered that the workers consumed the equivalent of 1/4 pound of meat per day,per person this along with bread, and something like lentils and figs and dates and beer, would be proper compensation along with a tent camp alongside the permanent worker city, and probably additional types of payments. This could include employment for women and children, as there would be some jobs that even kids could perform, even if not heavy labor.
The concept of large scale construction being a draw for a labor force can be compared to the building of the Alaska Pipeline. Or the Hoover dam.
If he wants to compare the Egyptian pyramids to others he just needs to look at the 25th Dynasty, who’s Egyptian pharaohs were from the Kemer line, ( now in Sudan). They also entombed their rulers in pyramids,albeit much smaller and at a different angle, closer to the failed pyramid at Saqqara .while the form has been used in other locations, the one of the first emperor of China, is also a tomb andonly because of the writings of it possibky containing huge amounts if Mercury, has it not been entered.
4
-
4
-
4
-
I completely agree with your argument of the lines in Stellarium not being original. You, however, don't even need to go that far. The supposed objective statistical test fails on its own. tl;dr The test doesn't give the probability of 1 (i.e. 100%) for a random case.
I am a physicist so I hopefully "qualify" as having a sufficient grasp of the mathematics at play here. Let's do what Martin Sweatman suggest: "Actually you can create your own statistics [...] and you can do it like this: You need to create your own rankings for [the] seven pattern matches. [...] Once you have done that you simply need to multiply all your ranks together and divide by 280 million." If you do that for a random case - i.e. any animal symbol at the pillar at Göbekli Tepe has a "middle rank", which means there are an equal number of symbols which look more like the asterism as look less like the asterism - you can assume a rank of 6 (because there are 11 in total so 5 being better and 5 being worse is the expected value)*. Now if you multiply that together for seven symbols you get 6^7 = 279936. Divide the 279936 by 280 million and you get 0.1%. This number should however, as is stated in the video, be "[the] chance [...] of this set of animal symbols [to be] chosen by chance" (in the video the "[...]" indicated in this quote is his own example but the content of the quote applies to the general case of your own test (thats why he uses it)). Which means the test gives the probability of 1 in a thousand to a random case for being a random case. This clearly shows that the test cannot give the correct probability of 1 for a random case being a random case and is therefore not a scientifically useful test.
* Even if this not always 6 but rather scattered randomly and equaly around 6 the case of rank 6 (some get rank 5, some get rank 7, a few get rank 4, a few get rank 8, and so on) applied to every symbol gives an upper bound to this distribution (i.e. a random spread distribution would only results in a lower number of the total product) because of the inequality of arithmetic and geometric means (it is not entirely necessary to understand this sentence to understand the contradiction in the test I show, but it is necessary to make it mathematically rigorous (if you feel inclined you can look up "Inequality of arithmetic and geometric means" on wikipedia)).
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
These debunking videos are well done, and with an excellent, detailed list of source links. I appreciate that, a lot!
You are to bad history conspiracy theories what people like FTFE, Mr. Sensible, ResearchFlatMoon, Creaky Blinder, Sciman Dan, Professor Dave, Greater Sapien, and others, are to anti-space flat-earther conspiracy theories! I hope you know how high a praise this is from me, since I seldom compare anyone to the likes of those luminaries, LOL! Either way, since I recently found your channel, I have had at least one of your videos in my queue, nonstop, for days. I've still got several I haven't watched, yet, but I assuredly will get to all of them. I've become so certain I'll like each of them that I now smash that like button as soon as the video starts!
😊❤💯‼️
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Congratulations and good fortune attend thee with the Art History course. I took such a course in my undergraduate program. The book was extremely expensive and heavy, the course was really interesting and my project required several visits to the MFA in Boston. That led to a number of follow up visits over the years. I became a museum fan as a result, and have been to the Louvre, the old Cairo museum, The Met in NYC, Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam and many others. It would be useful, now that many museums have an online presence, to have an introduction to world museums so as to entrance a wider audience.
I thoroughly enjoyed this video. Your background started off very like my own, but I found it necessary to go abroad with the Peace Corps and then get an international career in ESL, to prevent unemployment. That proved interesting in its own right, and gave me the opportunity to do history and archaeology as a hobby. Best wishes, and may Al Gorythm bless you.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I would like to point out that it is likely that Abydenus did not get his information directly from Berossus. For example in regards to Berossus' astrological and astronomical views apparently the several of the surviving writings that refer to these views, i.e., Vitruvius Pollio, Pliny the Elder and Seneca the Younger got their information from the Philosopher Poseidonios and those writing have not survived. It appear Poseidonios got this info from Berossus' writing directly.
In regard to the historical info. Well it appears that Alexander Polyhistor (c. 65 B.C.E.) and Juba (50 B.C.E. - 20 C.E.) got their info directly from Berossus. Although it appears both highly condensed the info. Their works have not survived. The Jewish historian Josephus (First century C.E.) used Berossus but apparently by using Alexander not Berossus directly.
Three Christian apologists used Berossus by using Alexander's and Juba's work. Tatianus, Theophhilus and Titus Flavius Clemens.
It appears that Juba and Alexander's works were too long and boring so that Abydenus using them further condensed it in another summary. Then a Sextus Julius Africanus wrote a Chronology using Alexander and Juba summarizing it also.
And both these works haven't survived either!!!
The Christian Eusebius wrote a work using Abydenus and Sextus called The Chronicle which is also lost. But, miracle of miracles, we have an Armenian translation of it. And St. Jerome was nice enough to translate Eusebius' tables into latin.
And after all that we get, finally, the Chronology of George Syncellus!!! He probably used Eusebius, Abydenus and Sextus.
We have it seems no surviving writing from someone who directly read Berossus. We have some possible excerpts and bizarrely often summaries of summaries of summaries!!!! Is it any wonder what we have is bluntly a mess.
It appears that Berossus' actual book was little read in antiquity and the actual book vanished fairly early and scholars preferred to rely on excepts and summaries, possibly because the actual book was impossible or very difficult to find.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@WorldofAntiquity Thank you for your reply, you do me honor to take the time to do so. I will continue to follow you. As I said I like to hear ideas that oppose my own so that I can stay sharp. I would love it if you would focus on the legitimate anomalies we see and the ideas of knowledgable skeptics as opposed to the "Alternative Orthodox" nut jobs who do nothing to help resolve the debates. Just wanted you to be aware that there is a small, but growing, cadre of people who are very knowledgable and that question certain elements of the 'established' historical narrative who do not also believe in aliens, the supernatural or even power-plants.
I believe that the ancient sites, unless they were buried or hidden, were used and expanded/renovated by later peoples and did serve as tombs during the "Dynastic Period." However, certain parts of the core structures, whether shafts and tunnels or megalithic core masonry, could have been erected by an earlier culture. These core structures were then adopted by the 'Dynastics' and incorporated into their death rituals.
The "Orthodoxy" then takes any name they find written on the site and then attributes the entire structure to that person and period. I could go scratch my name into the wall of "G1" but that does not make me the builder? That's just stupid. When we know, we know from examples you mention like the famous looting papyri from the "N.K." that this culture was continuously cannibalizing older monuments to build new ones and that Pharaohs, like Rameses for example, are notorious for writing their names on stuff that was produced, in earlier periods, by other people?
Some of the most obvious examples are the quality of some of the hieroglyphic inscriptions on the 'Menkaure Triads,' the so-called statues of "Khafre," found in the "Valley Temple," and the base of the so-called 'Djedefre' quartzite statue. The statues are beautiful, incredible works of art made from some very difficult to work stone. Not impossible to work with ancient tools but still incredibly difficult to work. The inscriptions look like the work of small 'v' vandals or children when compared to the quality of the statuary. They are cut with rough chisels or stones and are unpolished and frankly look like s#!t. Please tell me with a straight face that those hieroglyphic inscriptions were cut by the same mason's that produced those fine works of art?
I am happy to have a knowledgeable representative of the 'Traditional Orthodoxy' to discuss ideas with.
Cheers,
Andrew
3
-
@WorldofAntiquity Thats wonderful to hear. I can't wait to see it. Thank you for taking time to really examine the arguments that we moderates are making. I know the temptation is to go for the "low-hanging fruit" so to say? The alien folk, the power-plants, the magical tone people, the crystal people....I know I express my disagreement with what they are selling too...but ultimately they are not true players in the debate.
I myself have taken flak because I question the "Orion, Unified Gizeh Theory". Because "G1" and "G2" are built atop, preexisting, 'ritual mounds/outcrops' how could they possibly have a true close alignment to stars in the Heavens? The "Sun-Disc Cult/Theology" was the primary cosmogony of the "O.K." The "Osiris Cult" did not really takeoff till the end of the 'First Intermediate Period" or even the "M.K." Even then the attempted revival of 'Sun-Disc' worship, by the pharaohs of the '18th,' show that it was still a powerful force in the "M.K.?"
I take hell of crap from folk in the "Alternative Orthodoxy" over it. IDK...lol. To me that argument is just as mirky as the "Traditional Orthodoxy" saying the tunnel attributed to 'Senwosret III,' at 'Abydos' in the 'Mtn. of Anubis,' was created for that pharaoh when the only evidence they have is a small cartouche carved on an exterior monument or facade somewhere? Much more likely that 'Senwosret III' was the discoverer of that amazing megalithic tunnel, made at some point in a previous era?
Trying to wrap this up...promise. My basic alternative to the "Funerary Ritual Theory" is that the early dynastic kings were more like explorers, kind of like how 'Khasekhemewi' is viewed later, they "rediscovered" the megalithic core work of their antecedents and claimed it as their own and then added to, or renovated, it. Thus creating a 'pastiche' of different elements that make pulling apart who built which parts, of which structures, extremely difficult to determine?
It could be, just speculating here, that the original function of the structures called 'mortuary temples,' found at the large megalithic superstructure pyramids, are like museums of the artifacts discovered at that site, by that particular pharaoh? We name our museums after famous people, or philanthropists, all the time...this does not mean that we are saying they created, or even commissioned, all the works held within them...right?
So our frustration with the "Orthodoxy" is their intellectual laziness, or attempts to run cover for the shoddy work of their predecessors, and taking whatever cartouche they happen to find, on a piece of rubble somewhere, and saying "yep...that whole structure was built by/for that one king.
Okay, thanks for listening.
Cheers,
Andrew
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I've really enjoyed the videos about exploring Mayan sites in the Yucatan region ( I have mainly been in the Mexican part). By the way, the bird you show in your "best sites" video that you saw on the way in to Calakmul was a Great Curassow-males are black and females are brown-definitely a rare, spectacular bird!We also saw several Ocellated Turkeys along the road--looks like you saw a lot at the site. Calakmul was where we saw the Howler Monkeys, as well! Calakmul and other sites in area best definitely in dry season--we were dodging rain showers and biting flies the time we went in May, and couldn't make it to Hormiguero. If I had to pick, my personal favorite is Uxmal, based on the combination of great buildings and lack of crowds. Really liked Calakmul, Edzna, Ek Balam, Kohunlich, the Puuc Hills sites as a group, but you can't really go wrong (for first-timers, recommend flying in to Merida and doing sites around Uxmal and Puuc Hills--lots of sites close to together, good roads and restaurants). Chichen Itza is really great, but like Cassie, I wasn't real thrilled about the crowds and vendors. We really enjoyed birding at almost all the sites we have visited, as well as learning the history. About getting lost (from one of your other videos)--I always use a paper map and Lonely Planet. Best wishes on your future travels!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The cuts in question is not a mystery it was revealed decades ago how they were made, there are I think several dozen videos out there showing it. is very easy and done with copper. they make a copper strip, as long and thin as they need it, they then sprinkle sand over the rock in question, even ganite, and then they actually use this copper strip to push and pull the grains of sand, that are constaly applied, and viola you are now actually cutting into the rock as accurate and as easy as you want to.
The end result is hard to if not impossible to tell from something cut by a modern machine, and why is this becuse it is the PRICIPAL of how it works that decides, and cutting a rock with a copper strip and sand is easy, then we have drills, same there, and the cores, well we use the same technique but this time with a copper cylinder as wide and long as we want it to be
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Losing technology is nothing new or unusual. I just saw a super interesting documentary on the original Tron, that movie simply could not be made today, the film and the bespoke processing machines don’t exist anymore, there will never be another movie with that analog hand colored look. It’s not practical, not to mention Economically infeasible. Plus we have new technologies to do the same thing. Eventually it could likely be duplicated to the point you couldn’t distinguish it from the original, but we won’t get there with old technology. Same concept applies to the pyramids, of course it was some form of “high technology,” they were absolute masters of their trades, they obviously had great measuring and moving tricks that have been lost to history, main reason being, we had no use for the technology for millennia. Humans were able to build Notre Dame with different, preposterously difficult means.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Thank you so much for talking about Tartessos, a subject of personal interest (as well as the other pre-Roman cultures of the Iberian Peninsula), since I was born in Seville, a millenary city at the center of the Turdetanian region and crossed by the Guadalquivir River. A true melting pot of cultures throughout the ages. I was very young when my father, a modern Renaissance man, started talking about what little was known at the time (the 1960s) about Tartessos and it’s legendary king Argantonio, as we know him.
You rightly refer to Tartessos’ abundance of valuable metals and other materials, but surprisingly fail to mention its metalurgy and skills to work those metals, of which the gold Treasure of El Carambolo, found in a hill just 3 kms. west of Seville is a great example. It is dated to the 8th century BCE, although the necklace is thought to be from 6th century Cyprus.
A few years ago, some investigators came up with a new possible location for the city of Tartessos. This site is at the very mouth of the Guadalquivir River, right across from El Coto de Doñana (which you refer to in the video) and in front of Chipiona (a dear family resort town where I happened to spend my childhood and youth summers). Nothing conclusive was determined that I’m aware of.
In closing, I would like to mention that the archaeological remains of constructions excavated at El Turuñuelo, Badajoz, also Tartessian and shown in the video with the animal skeletons) seem to have been taken apart and buried by its occupants. They abandoned the place after sacrificing those valuable horses and other animals instead of taking them on their flight, as in an attempt to erase what was there or hide it from someone. Although we can only speculate about the reasons for this kind of behavior, it is not unique and seems to be similar to what was done at Gobekli Tepe, for example.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
12:05 into the video:
As a mathematician, I might have a small correction for you here.
If you make the area of the sides of the pyramid equal to the area of the height of the pyramid squared, as Herodotus described, the exact number you get is.....not pi, or a multiple of pi. But...it is related to drumroll...the golden ratio. Well...sorta.
The number you actually get is sqrt(phi)/2, where phi is the golden ratio.
280/440 simplifies down to 7/11, which is 0.63636.
2/pi is 0.63662
The actual ratio is 0.63601 (a.k.a. sqrt(phi)/2) -- if you build the pyramid perfectly as Herodotus described
You might notice that 280/440 is actually a better approximation of the desired ratio than 2/pi is--I guess the Egyptians were very accurate..
So if you make a pyramid where the area of the triangles on the side equals the height, you do actually find a number which is...loosely related to the golden ratio. Doesn't have the properties of the golden ratio that get people all excited, but the golden ratio does show up as part of the equation.
No particular relationship to pi, though. At least not from building a pyramid whose side areas was equal to a square of the height of the pyramid.
7/11 happens to be a very good approximation of sqrt(phi)/2, and 11/7 happens to be very good approximation to pi/2. Interesting coincidence. My guess is that the Egyptians were approximating sqrt(phi)/2 to achieve the area ratio they wanted, and were not trying to approximate pi. Especially if they thought pi was 3.16 (since there's more accurate fractions for approximating 3.16. 19/6, for example).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@WorldofAntiquity
It was using the word "text" instead of "code" when talkng about DNA sequences, as if an historian who deals in ancient texts would grasp it better than "DNA code". I found it a little over the top, but then I was a molecular biologist.
The sad thing is, I didn't seem to learn anything about the evolution of domesticated horses. I do recall you asking about the Bowtie horse several times, after he had said they were not the point.
But then, I was listening while playing an MMO. I'll watch it properly later.
But all our cells (except red blood cells and a few other specialised cells) have a nucleus.
The nucleus is the library, like Alexandria, or the cave of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The chromosomes are the books in the library, or scrolls in a pot.
The gene families on the chromosomes are like the chapters in the book.
Non-coding regions are like the blank at the end of a chapter (and introns, non-coding sequences that interrupt many genes).
The coding regions of the genes are the sentences in the chapters
The nucleotide triplets are like words in the sentences.
The DNA bases are like the letters in the words and, like some ancient languages, the words are three consonants without vowels.
Each three-letter word, or nucleotide triplet, in a gene sentence is translated into an amino acid in a protein string.
Many genes are very similar and highly conserved in closely-related species, and show greater divergence in more distantly related species. We can estimate rate of change over time by changes in the DNA sequence, analogous to assessing the age and provenance of a document by changes in handwriting and additions to the text.
So the relationships and ancestry of organisms can be assessed like one would decide that (IIRC) Mark came before Matthew, and an extinct document Q existed and so on. So it can be deduced which organisms were ancestral to modern horses, analogous to Mark being ancestral to Matthew, and Matthew and Q being ancestral to Luke (or whichever way round it was).
I don't know if that helps.
{:-:-:}
(Edited for tyops)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
And to add to anyone out there trying to figure out how something was made to 1000th of an inch, I have a lathe and cracking out something that's within 1 thou of, say, 1cm is hard. Very hard. You need air bearings and the lightest of grinding. But to make your lathe run true i.e. with less than 1 thou of runout (wobble), that actually isn't all that hard. A lot of stuff will self-align as it wears in, particularly if it's made from granite. In otherwords, if you have "1 thou of accuracy" where accuracy simply means it's the same distance from the center of the turning point to the tip of the cutting/grinding surface, and that distance can be completely arbitrary, then that's actually pretty easy. I imagine they tumbled the pots smooth somehow, see "Tumble Finishing" on wikipedia, which will get you even closer than 1thou of rotational accuracy - just at some arbitrary diameter.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Contrary to popular belief, this is what we actually have. The heaviest stones moved by the Egyptians (like the statue from the Ramesseum ~1,000 tons) were moved during the New Kingdom, around 1000 years after the Great pyramid was built.
Sarcophagi keep evolving in size and complexity from the Old Kingdom onwards. Keep in mind that the famous Serapeum sarcophagi date from the Late Period to the Ptolemaic Period. There is nothing comparable to them dating from the Old Kingdom.
One of the best statues Egypt has seen come, yet again, from the New Kingdom, like the statues of Ramses from the Luxor Temple or the greywacke statue of Tutmes III from the Luxor Museum.
Pyramid evolution is clear in the 3rd and 4th dynasties. While the architectural peak of pyramid building is indeed reached during the 4th dynasty, under Khufu, this is the exception from the evolutionary curve, not the rule and it can be explain by multiple factors, like economy. However, the sealing mechanisms continue to evolve and the later pyramid of the Middle Kingdom (like the pyramids of Amenemhat III at Hawara and Khendjer), have much more complex sealing mechanisms and incorporate heavier stone, then anything at Giza.
Evolution can be clearly seen in the Egyptian civilization and it's megalithic tradition. Unfortunately, this is ignored by the disingenuous "alternative researchers".
3
-
3
-
3
-
Another good video....shukran! I will continue to hold out hope for the discovery of a "lost, ice age civilization" if only because, as you state in your video..."it makes me appreciate their (ancients) capabilities even more." After all, if modern homo sapiens like us, with the same brain capacity as us, have been around for 150,000 years (perhaps 200K), surely there must've been an Archimedes, Pythagoras, Da Vinci, or Einstein that popped up during that long interval...?
That said, your perspective is needed on here (are you on Rumble and/ or Odysee?). I look forward to more. Finally, though you've critiqued Randall Carlson in the past, I think you'd be a great "guest star" on their Kosmographia channel given your extensive knowledge of ancient history. I hope they reach out to you (or you to them) so you all can pool your knowledge & see where it takes all of us.
Stay safe!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I didn't get a chance to watch the full video after my first comment as it was very late at night, so now you get to endure early morning and tea fuelled grumbles at Dr Sweatman's very strange response to you.
So as someone with a minor bit of education and knowledge in Astronomy this weird thing he's doing with the Constellations irks me. People who take part in alt-history or new-age spiritualism look at the constellations as these fixed unchanging things in the sky that have always been there, forgetting they're just a cluster of stars we happened to draw lines between to make abstract shapes. The reason we have the modern ones we have now is because the history of "Western Culture" slapping itself down over the world. Dr Sweatman could look a different constellation set, like the Chinese Constellation, and see how the exact same stars are mapped in different ways.
When you compare the shapes without the lines that is a really important litmus test for if his claim is true. If the supposed constellations at Gobekli Tepe are there then you wouldn't need the lines to create an abstract shape and instead be able to just see them with the point locations (Which he says aren't "Dimensional" even when you can understand them as Co-Ordinates in the night sky. Each of those points will have the same equally distance relationships between them so accurate dimensions of our supposed constellations would be a good test.) Dr Sweatman does seem to be slipping into Begging the Question here, planting abstract shapes on top of one another and seeing some rough lines match and then saying that they represent the same constellations. It seems that even just the fact these animal symbols exist is enough to conclude they are constellations which is baffling to me; you rightly point out he's limiting this view to only those few he can compare and only allowing interpretation that they could match those specific constellation patterns instead of anything else.
AND he only wants you to test his hypothesis by exactly replicating what he is doing, whilst that's super useful in the more numerically focused fields it isn't so much when it comes to anthropologic studies. Not only that but if you run a science experiment with miscalibrated equipment then you're still wrong, even if your results look like they fit. Telling someone they have to follow your exact method and misalign their measuring tools by a certain percentage isn't science, it's just copying failure. We challenge hypotheses by testing their claims in a variety of methods, and it seems rich coming from Dr Sweatman who is coming out from the side here using an unorthodox method to arrive at a conclusion, which probably doesn't follow the hypotheses or methodology of Ancient Historians, then saying that Ancient Historians can only test his theory by doing exactly what he says.
Also this reverence he has to "Statistics" is weird to me, like he seems to use it as a way to claim that what he says is correct because the statistics say so. But statistics don't exist in a perfect void of "Truth", the way you gather or apply the statistics is really important especially if you ignore some of the other contextualising facts around it. We've seen how politicians abuse statistics in their favour, by quietly ignoring anything not in their favour or scripting their tests to avoid them.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
PROFESSOR MIANO! I will have you know that I am suffering from SEVERE, I mean SEVERE Asthma. YOU making these "intelligent" "observations" in regard to the people, who feel it necessary to repeat some other self-defined Experts with ZERO credentials, who have written books, inspiring- in some way, these people to record videos and post them while on or thinking about being on POT, has kickedvoff a SEVERE, I mean SEVEERE Asthma attack provoked by my inability to cease and decist busting a gut laughing. I can't stop it, therefore, I cannot breathe! Prof. Miamo, if I die, here are my last words to you Sir! -
God Bless and thank you very, very much! 😂
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@WorldofAntiquity it depends on the application. Oftentimes in industry you're just polishing up to a certain finish, generally whatever the customer's engineers decided was necessary for the part to function (or, more likely, whatever the customer was willing to pay, engineer's designs be damned). Oftentimes you can have a part that's completely smooth to the touch but still has visible polishing marks, it generally depends on the material. Aluminum is a pain to get tool marks out of, requiring an obnoxious number of polishing steps with increasingly fine sandpaper, followed by some sort of fine abrasive polishing compound, whereas granite you can get looking pretty good with just fine sandpaper, like those granite countertop polishing videos show. Even the best-polished surface will generally have some sort of marks, though. I'm wondering if any researchers have looked at some of those shiny pieces of Egyptian granite under an electron microscope or some sort of high end surface mapping equipment. I'd be willing to bet you'd find solid evidence of pretty straightforward hand polishing. (Assuming the fine marks hadn't worn away over time, of course.)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I can't even watch this whole video, it's too annoying. (But I'm still liking it.) And I haven't seen Sweatman's response video, but regarding his first video I can say--and every single person who knows the first thing about statistically testing hypotheses would say exactly the same thing--that his probabilistic calculations have nothing whatever to do with the statistical methods by which one tests hypotheses in science. Is the first calculation supposed to be a significance test? It sounds like it when Sweatman talks about the null hypothesis. But significance tests don't tell you the probability of the truth (or falsity) of your hypothesis. No statistical test can do that. That's literally statistics 101. Also, as I understand the test Sweatman performs, it tells us the probability of getting this good a match between figures and constellations by chance. But the question of course is if there is a good match! Clearly, the match is not fantastic--anyone can see that. So this can only be a "great match" compared to other pairings of these particular figures to some particular set of constellations. That's not the full set of possibilities. In particular, it excludes in advance the possibility that the figures have nothing whatever to do with the constellations, which might be the most probable. Thus, the test is rigged. Not very scientific, Dr. Sweatman! Obviously, given that these figures (esp. those by the "handbags") are little more than irregular blobs, we can't decide whether they depict constellations by simply staring at them. We have to determine this based on our understanding of what those people, at that time, likely could and would be up to with their artwork. This falls somewhat outside of Dr. Sweatman's field of expertise! As for multiplying the probabilities for the two different samples, to get an even lower probability that the hypothesis is wrong (something neither calculation has anything to do with in the first place) this is, in short, lunacy. Don't try this among real scientists, you'll be laughed out of the room. (I mean scientists who use statistics methods to test hypotheses. That's something very different from the probability theory used in statistical mechanics.)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Rogier182 With respect to this particular site, Baalbek is in Lebanon, known since the most ancient times for its cedar trees and lumber industry, lebanese cedar is found in use all over the ancient world. The Egyptians recorded themselves using sleds for their masonry transport, though I'm sure the method was appropriate to the application for each job.
As for the method at Baalbek used by the Romans, rollers makes the most sense due to the abundance of massive cedars, plus you can reuse them on site for other purposes when you're done using them as rollers. Moving big or heavy objects is not difficult with good use of engineering principles, and wood has enormous compressive strength. I once moved a 2 ton milling machine acoss a yard with a 10ft wooden beam, a block to lever against and strategic use of pebbles.
The methods for moving large loads has varied little until the advent of hydraulics, even now we still use rollers, windlasses, winches, block and tackle, levers, cable and rope, its just that the form, material and power source has changed.
A modern cable winch crane, or the heavy duty 20 axle trailers used for transporting massive masonry by road, would be instantly recognisable in their application and principles to a Roman engineer.
3
-
A practicing stone Mason here. I love videos like these as well as some of the work Brien has put out. Both have their place in this realm of ancient history, but presentations like these are generally more interesting due to the acknowledgement of the pros and cons of the arguments presented. 19:05 One note: I don’t even think the builders whom constructed the core/interior parts of the walls/structure had to be “less skilled” or “different people.” In my experience the lower level workers would be doing the grunt work, i.e. transporting the material, mixing the mud (mortar), maybe performing some of the cuts, cleaning up excess debris and so on.
Virtually every time you are constructing something out of masonry, say a wall with a stone veneer, you don’t need the interior of the wall to have any objective beauty - it’s simply about the structural integrity of the wall you are building. It’s all about the finished product - the exterior work and the veneer stone they are using. Quite frequently it’s the same workers doing both parts of the actual building of the project. There is no real need to bring in less experienced builders to construct the inside and then bring in the Master Masons (builders) for the finished work. In fact, from my experience, you want the experienced workers there constructing the interior part of the build to make sure everything is on the up and up, as well as the ensure that the structure is sound and ready for the veneer stone application.
After the last 15 years or so of looking into this sort of ancient history and megalithic work this seems to be the case for many of the sites. A “janky” appearance for the interior work will never be seen once the veneer stone is applied and it doesn’t matter for structural integrity, therefore there is no real reason to go through the trouble of making it look super nice as the exterior will be. I’ve seen examples of this from Giza to Machu Picchu and as the years progress I see more and more examples of this. One of the most impressive build IMO is the work done at Gobleki Tepi. This is because most of the excavated megaliths using a bas-relief technique out of whole stones (one of the most difficult forms of carving) and then Purposely buried before the cataclysm ~12,000 years ago during the younger dryas impact event.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Your videos are like watching Perry Mason and other lawyer-thrillers, where a theory is picked apart methodically, but with a a friendly, unaggressive style.....but better, because this is non-fiction.
You call to mind this scene.....
https://youtu.be/w47UQxld7LM
Until looking into this, I had no idea how terrifically important these origin theories are to many Hindus.
India certainly seems like a possible origin point for agriculture in theory. Monsoons and climate make for two harvest seasons per year, greatly lowering the risks associated with giving up hunting and gathering. For this reason, India seems like a good place to keep digging, but digs and DNA science over the last thirty years seem to point to a clear narrative......Neolithic culture seems to first get going in anatolia. There's evidence of neolithic culture in anatolia from the early 10th millennium b.c. It starts to pop up elsewhere, in places not too far away from anatolia, over the next few thousand years. That makes sense.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I don't think Sumerian had been translated in the 1960's, when I was in high school. 9th grade history did include Mesopotamia, but I only remember 2 names, Naburimanu and Kidinu. Sitchen did not know the ancient languages, he thought that if modern hebrew said "Shalom," then the ancient languages would resemble
It looks like X therefore it is X is magic thinking, not science. We know the Truth, the scientists don't because they lie, is a
very old and very stupid belief. I encountered it in the books of Error von Dummkopf* in high school and was able to see the absurdity of this. As a matter of fact, I wanted to believe in ancient aliens, UFO's and lost civilizations,
but the stupidity and irrationality convinced of the opposite, that lack of objective and verifiable evidence means
it is myth, or grift.
*The name has been changed to protect the guilty!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I almost always told my classes to ask questions and to ask other teachers or to research for themselves. This has gotten more difficult as the internet is where most students go for research and it is flooded with cranks, cultists and people who are ill-informed, anti-science, anti-expert, grand-standers, grifters etc. I Grew up in Massachusetts, so the public schools were excellent, the teachers had good credentials, and, likewise, my public college had mostly good scholars, with a few fairly poor ones. My 9th grade [I think] Ancient History textbook started with some pre-human and pre-civilization units. The teacher had us turn to the introduction which said something like:
"The material in this textbook is in line with the general scientific consensus. It is based on scientific research and is subject to change if new information comes to light. If it disagrees with what your parents or religious teachers have told you, and you have questions, you should take it up with them."
I may not remember the exact wording, but that content is what has informed my studies and teaching, as has the dictum of Leopold von Ranke, "Wir müssen Geschichte lehren, wie sie wirklich war!" That is, we must teach History as it really was, not as we want it to have been, and without propaganda.
This is the kind of video that I would hope history students with questions find on the internet. Thanks for your wonderful work.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
What most advance technology people forget, is that there is a reason we cll everything from the Paleolithic through the neolithic, the”Stone Age”. It was during those times ghat humans discovered and refined the use and technical characteristics of all types of stone. And how to combine the natural forces such as fire and water to exploit them for human purposes. Some of these came from accidental means, such ad seeing how stone can crack when a fire is quickly extinguished by water and remembering this to use it for human purposes. Even to how such technology can decompose granite, which while a hard stone, consists of softer materials that react differently to hot and cold.
Once a stone slab such as the Obelisk was fashioned the under cutting of the attached spine, would be hollowed through and discarded pounding stones filled into the hollows to support the stone while adjacent hollows were being cut. This prevents the stone from falling and acts like a Jack stand under a car. Then as you show in the video, the possibility of using sand to raise it from the pit and get it on sledges can easily be accomplished with the use of draft cattle teams to move the slab and human laborers to fill in the sand.
Such project management was shown as far back as the building of the pyramids and although there are the given indications as to why these obelisks were being created, there was also the political acumen to have people employed so as to not have rebellions. Such employment generated prosperity across the entire population, since it created spendable income apart from the trades of everyday life. Especially for the farmers who had a growing period for crops which apart from irrigation required little work and was, a difficult annual period of no income.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@WorldofAntiquity And this is the real point, now, isn't it?
There will usually be an earlier date for things than the earliest date we know of, because we are unlikely to find the very first instance of something happening. Just how far back these earliest dates are is an unknown. But they are all known unknowns. So what?
Did humans sometimes invent or discover something ahead of when science currently states they did? Frequently!
And sometimes we find things which baffle us for some times - like the Antikythera mechanism. But we now know exactly what it did, how it functioned, and even how it was made, as we have seen YouTube videos of the entire design and constructioin process using nothign but ancient tools and techniques to do so. The only mysteries about this device are who made it, how expensive it was, and why it did not manage to come into common useage at the time.
But lots of "superior" technologies fail - like the first TWO times electric cars were tried on the market. And why some technologies can't be translated into products due to materials science limits. The VentureStar Single-Stage-To-Orbit project for example: At the time we could not reliably make carbon composite hydrogen tanks. Today we can, but we don't see a VentureStar launching to the ISS.
So, yes, there ARE some artifacts which appear to be "out of time", but the keyword is "appear". But there is zero evidence of any truly anachronistic technology anywhere in the world. Egyptians did not have power tools. They didn't have 15-metre mirrors. They didn't melt stuff using the sun. They didn't use circular saws. They didn't levitate anything.
They used brains and brawn to achieve amazing things with stone.
So amazing that today, many poorly educated people literally can't believe it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Regarding the "quine", it appears in the French Wiktionnaire with this definition: "Canne du maître d'œuvre médiéval, définissant cinq mesures de longueur : la Paume, le Palme, l’Empan, le Pied et la Coudée qui formeraient une suite de Fibonacci et préfigureraient le modulor inventé par Le Corbusier."
Roughly translated: "Cane of medieval builders, defining five units of measurement, paume, palme, empan, pied and coudée (so I guess the quine as a unit of measurement would be the sum of those five units, hence the name; but I must say I have never heard that word used to specify a unit of measurement in itself, but I'm certainly not an expert in the field); those units would constitute a Fibonacci sequence, and be a prefiguration of the 'modulor' invented by the architect Le Corbusier"
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I see that everyone here wants to blame Joe Rogan for having had Randall on his podcast. I don't blame Rogan--he just likes talking to all kinds of people with all kinds of opposing viewpoints from far right to far left, from scientists to pseudoscientists, from journalists to entertainers, etc. etc. We live in a society where everyone gets a chance to speak freely and Rogan celebrates that, and it's part of the reason why so many like his podcast. Sure, Rogan has had on quite a few people who are just dead wrong, or who I deeply disagree with, but I do not want to censor their right to go on Rogan's show or ridicule Rogan's right to have them on. A lot of times when Rogan has these people on he doesn't know a lot about their beliefs, but he finds out when he talks to them and that's the only way we can find out who is a crank and who isn't, by hearing everyone out to begin with. I don't know if anyone remembers but Rogan even hosted a debate between Graham Hancock and Randal Carlson on one side and Michael Shermer of Skeptic magazine and then allowed his viewers to decide for themselves. And with that in mind, I would nominate Professor Miano as an excellent candidate for Rogan's podcast, as someone who can push back against the very popular ideas of the alternative ancient history crowd. Rogan often has professors and other lesser-known people on his podcast and I think if he saw some of Miano's videos he would be eager to have him on. What do you say, Professor Miano? If you give the word, I'll start a new campaign to get you on Rogan!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It's an interesting thought experiment to consider: If you wanted to "encode" a set of numbers/measurements/physical constants/whatever into a building (instead of just carving them on the walls or something), how would you do it to make sure the far-future archaeologists you're doing this for figure out the ones you put in, and not a bunch of mathematical equivalents of shapes in clouds?
I also have to wonder: what for? Let's say the Egyptians deliberately encoded the speed of light in meters per second (or in Khufu Royal Cubits, or whatever) into the geometry of the pyramid. What purpose would this accomplish? It wouldn't preserve any knowledge, since the only way people could figure out that it was there is if they already knew the speed of light and whatever units of length and time the Egyptians were using. IOW, we'd already have to have the knowledge they were "preserving" to figure out that they preserved it.
It wouldn't be necessary for any mechanical purpose (e.g. "the Giza Power Plant!"), and besides there are far easier ways to build power plants, water pumps, launch pads, whatever other technological function you might want to attribute to the Great Pyramid.
So why would you do it? Encoding "precision" measurements into the Pyramid or any other structure would significantly increase the costs and challenges of construction, all so that some high priest conducting a Heb Sed ritual (but pretty much nobody else except their fellow adepts) could know that "Mrehehehehe, the speed of Re's rays is told by the height of this pyramid!" It seems like an awful lot of work to go to just to flex over some far-future civilization with "We knew about pi and phi and Earth's circumference and the speed of light before you did! HA-HA!"
3
-
3
-
Of the four places you might visit next, I would recommend: Egypt, Egypt, Egypt, and Egypt. I dreamed of going there my whole life. When I finally got there it was so much more mind-blowing than I fantasized that...oh, I should stop right there. I also loved Rome, the rest of Italy, Athens, the Greek Islands, Istanbul, ...
I never got to Iraq. But, I sure would like to go. I love your cannel. Thanks for the sanity.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You're such a great narrator, I could listen to you all day long! And the topic is so fashinating, especially because the ancient Mayas left us many texts about their deeds.
Never heard about shell-stars wars before, a definition totally incomprehensible to me. Has anybody a theory about its original meaning? Please share, if you do.
Please keep your good work going on and on, and on en on.
PS I like you much more as a competent storyteller than a debunker: even if I m not sold about the Atlantis remnants stuff, I m still convinced there are real misteryies out there, that still need a deep analysis and explainations. I don't think archaeology alone can solve those evidences, I believe in interdisciplinarity for sure, the only way to reach any kind of valid conclusion.
Those are murky waters, better left on their own, and you can do so much better lecturing us about those great studied facts about human history, as you did hier, that aren't popular at all for lack of general information.
You"re GREAT! I m glad I ve found your site. Once again: keep your good work coming on and on, on and on, and on...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@World of Antiquity David, I just also want to say, I have enjoyed your videos very much. They have caused me to examine the claims of fringe researchers like unchartedx, brien forster et al much more closely. I am not for or against atlantis theories. I do allow the possibility that a period of global cataclysm where oceans rose 40m+ in a relatively short period, complete with megafaunal extinctions, and something akin to a nuclear winter lasting centuries has the potential to effectively erase traces of any civilisation that may have flourished prior. Non linearity and discontinuity of development of human achievement seems likely in such rough circumstances. ...
From Platos Timaeus.... a passage on the cataclysmic interuption of human development:
“Whereas just when you and other nations are beginning to be provided with letters and the other requisites of civilized life, after the usual interval, the stream from heaven, like a pestilence, comes pouring down, and leaves only those of you who are destitute of letters and education; and so you have to begin all over again like children, and know nothing of what happened in ancient times, either among us or among yourselves.”
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The thing with the alternative history industry is that they deal in perpetual mysteries with tantalizing clues. Mysteries raise dopamine levels through expectation. There would be dopamine reward if there were any satisfactory answers.... Whether we do true crime mysteries, Bigfoot, Loch Ness monster or ancient advanced civilizations, the mystery parts keep the dopamine flowing and thrilling.
I am a journalist and capable researcher but I am ignorant of ancient history and there is so much to learn. I did get quick fixes from the ancient advanced civilization crowd. Pyramids in the old world and new. Similar stone cutting techniques. And the "handbags"!!!!!
Dr. Miano, your explanation about those "handbags" caused a big thud in my mind. The mystery was gone. Recently I have listened to a scientific lecture about pyramid building as an evolution in human history which is far more thrilling than wondering about Atlantis and space aliens. 😆
I personally seek answers and those answers need not be dramatic or other-worldly. I very much appreciate what you are doing.
On the other hand, I think alternative history will keep going strong because of the 'yeah, but' factor. Yeah, but....the Nazca lines were surely created to be seen by ancient astronauts... Etc. The thrills keep coming.
I live rural in the Pacific Northwest and have spent a lot of time in the woods. I see the same thing with Bigfoot. People keep believing and seeking. Yet, indigenous people had to work very hard to feed themselves. They hunted, gathered, fished and hunted. We never see Bigfoot fishing or hunting. There isn't enough road kill or other food sources to keep such a big creature nourished. 😆
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
If you wake up in the morning to find your lawn wet, you are probably more likely to attribute the wetness to rain or dew than to a giant alien with legs that wetted your neighborhood, this is called Occam’s Razor. Thanks a lot David, I really enjoyed your discusion with Mr. Vincent Lee about building the great Inca fortress of Sacsayhuaman. Unfortunately, humanity lost and is still loosing capabilities, (e.g. stone) skills and routines with any new invention (modern machining, computer technology, modern medicine, ... etc) being introduced to help get something faster without an effort, sweat and pain. When I was going to elementary school, I was being taught math the old way, multiply divide add subtract without any calculators, just with my brain. Today;s kids dont know even that or much less then 30-40 years ago. Nowadays, digital technology, cell phones, internet, facebook, instagram is raising up kids and I think it does more harm to them than good. This society is becoming insane, a dumb herd without moral values, education, interest in science, scholarship or even archeology. Regards
3
-
3
-
Professor Miano, 10,000 BCE is ancient and 10,900 BCE is ancient, so everybody in 10,000 BCE was an expert on events in 10,900 BCE, right 😖. Seriously, as a physicist, Sweatman should know that one of the first things scientists do after developing a hypothesis is t try to disprove it. He is doing the opposite by fudging, at best, at every step so far (I am at 32:00 or so in your video).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
There's a bunch, but I'd like to read Aristarchus of Samos's texts where he outlines his heliocentric theory. Clietarchus' History of Alexander is another one that I would like to read. Same with Eudemus' lost histories - History of Astronomy, History of Geometry, and History of Arithmetic. The Catalog of Women would be an interesting read, since Ancient Greece isn't really known for its heroines; Pollio's histories is another one.
I'd like to read Zoticus' "The Story of Atlantis", but I can't help but wonder how that would affect the writings of, say, Igantius Donnelly and the rest of the crackpots.
Really, anything by Anaximander, any of Aeschylus' missing 80+ plays, any by Diogenes of Sinope, Enoch, really any primary Gnostic text rather than the writings by the heresiologists, and others. Although those aren't necessarily about history. It is enough to make you wonder how any of these persisting into the present would have changed history.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I recently saw a 3.5 hour video of this sort of Woo! and they also threw in that:
1). The Egyptians use cement and concrete and poured the pyramid stones into wooden moulds. The fact that wood was rare in Egypt and the stones are many different sizes was overlooked. The Romans used concrete, and we have a lot of evidence for that, but none for the Egyptians.
2). The Egyptians had giant magnifying glasses to melt granite and poured it into clay moulds in order to make their intricate bowls, vases and statues. This, of course, was kept secret for thousands of years until the medieval stone masons became free masons and used the same thing for all the major constructions in Europe. But kept it secret because they wanted people to believe thay actualy carved the stones. While giant magnifying glasses CAN melt granite with Sun light, there's no evidence that the Egyptians had them or knew how to make them, much less used them. And while such a thnig IS possible, that is not evidence that it happened.
3). They overlooked the fact that although the Old Kingdom had no wheels, probably as they could not make axles strong enough, they did know about circles. They could draw a circle on the ground with a rope tied to a central post in the ground, and if they used wheels on sticks for measuring, pi would be automatically built in to their measurements.
Of course, all of this was kept "secret" for eons, and the best evidence they have that all this is true is the fact that there is no evidence. Because it was a secret!
{:-:-:}
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I never get it on what is it with people like Ben of Uncharted X confusion and bewilderment of "Precision" done by Ancient Civilization... It's sounds so odd to them, that it is very much impossible for humans to learn how to make standardized calculations and create precise measurements.
It's eveywhere on their arguments everything in Tihuanacho is impossible to be built because of high precision, Just like the Argument for Egypt's Roads, Plazas, Temple walls and Sarcophagi.
It's really not, honestly... Humans are very adept on detecting patterns, and geometry. Pareidolia exists because of our tendency to see facial geometry and could draw them in our mind...
And about the tools being used, these people won't be able to use the tools they have at the time unless they know how to craft something stronger (Steel, Diamond tip, etc) like us in Modern times
Problem is, I am pretty sure these ancient people can work out that Erosion can cut stuff with very high precision. They probably have experienced stones being split or smoothed when exposed to abrasive materials for repeated amounts of time, from sand to water or the mix of the two.
And almost always forgot the scope of time and material management. Most of these highly detailed buildings are made in spans of hundreds of years of unrelenting labour force by thousands of skilled workers assisted thousands more of apprentice, and/or very possibly, multiply of tens worth of slave labour. Material that aren't that perfect are repurposed for other projects, like foundations, or for building a Commons area (Plaza, Library, Lesser Temples, "Insulae"/Mass housing, etc) so no material are wasted.
All of these can be figured out with common sense as hypothesis and with intensive research as evidence. Considering the Alternative is that the civilization repurposed unknown, civilization's ruins which existence isn't proven and/or made any sense... Assuming that Ancient Humans couldn't possibly have figured out basic knowledge and scientific and/or practical observations and experiments
The amount of Mental gymnastics need to be done is staggering... That's why I am confused of why this kind of theory hold any water, anywhere
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@WorldofAntiquity IDK, but from what I have read, determining the exact size and flow of the Saraswati compared to the Indus River during specific periods remains an ongoing challenge for geologists and hydrologists.The reconstruction of ancient river systems is complex and involves interpreting various geological data.
Another hurdle is the presence of settlements built over areas where the ancient river once flowed—villages, cities, and towns now occupy these spaces, making geological analysis appear nearly impossible. The other half of the riverbed also extends into Pakitan.
From what I've understood, there's no direct geological record that definitively proves the Saraswati River was mightier than the Indus River.
Nevertheless, I will go with your analysis and research.
Your experience and profound knowledge in the field surpass mine, so I place full trust in you when it comes to such research. I mean, You're obviously a veteran in this field.
You could be right about our 'lateral translation,' and interpretation of 'vigorously' as 'might.'
Even in my previous comment, I began with 'perhaps,' acknowledging possibilities.
As a Hindu, I hold strong faith in the correctness of the RigVeda. The term 'flowing vigorously' could have implied strength or prowess, and this strength could have been depicted as her might.
As I mentioned in the translation, महिना/mahinā can mean 'might' or 'force,' so you might be right!
But even if we concede that the Indus River was indeed mightier than the Saraswati River, it's undeniable that several lines of geological evidence suggest the Saraswati once flowed more vigorously than it does today.
Extensive paleochannels or ancient riverbeds have been mapped in the Thar Desert region, indicating the presence of a much larger river system in the past. These paleochannels are wider and deeper than the current Saraswati River, suggesting a greater volume of water flow. Features like floodplains, terraces, and abandoned meander belts found along the paleochannels point toward a more powerful river than the present-day Saraswati. These fluvial landforms indicate the river once carried significant amounts of sediment and eroded its bed more actively.
Geological studies suggest that the Saraswati's drainage basin was once much larger, encompassing parts of what are now Pakistan, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Gujarat. This wider catchment area would have provided the river with a greater source of water, potentially making it mightier than the Indus in certain periods.
The analysis of sediment cores drilled from the Thar Desert reveals layers of sand and gravel deposited by the ancient Saraswati River. These sediments are coarser than those deposited by the current river, suggesting higher flow velocities and a more energetic fluvial system in the past.
These pieces of evidence hint at a more robust Saraswati in the past.
I still believe it continuously flowed vigorously from the Himalayan mountains to the ocean without a doubt during the Vedic period. Hence, the people during the RigVedic period observed this and recorded it in the Rigveda. I don't think it resulted solely from flooding of any kind.
Regardless, I appreciated your analysis and wish you a very Merry Christmas .
I am a huge fan of your works. Indeed, it's a blessing that you've dedicated your efforts to creating videos like these. You do us a favor by making videos on these topics.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Turned on a lathe, seriously? Nobody would EVER turn a giant column on a lathe. This is what someone that is clueless says. What in the world? I do not understand why people don't take large rocks seriously. Its always aliens. No, its stupid people that have no clue that cant imagine what people working hard for a long time can do. At least we have obvious history of how cathedrals were built, and some took generations to finish. Its not easy, this is why they did it. It wasn't aliens. It wasn't some lost civilization that we lost all evidence of them except all the buildings they made. The summary is, if all you have is a lot of big rocks to prove aliens did this or some lost civilization, you have no clue. Why would any advanced civilization only leave really big rocks. No satellites, nothing but big rocks and no evidence of real technology at all, just the big rocks. Come on. No writing about all the other massively advanced tech. No inscriptions on the rocks themselves about how massively advanced they are, just really big rocks baby, thats all you need.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
At approximately 1:38:59 you show examples of sarcophagi, old and new. Please note that the sarcophagus at upper right, is probably better being grouped among the new specimens, as gigantic, cartouche shaped granite royal sarcophagi, with a recumbent mummiform figure of the King on the lid, sometimes flanked by Isis and Nephthys, only came into fashion with the burial of the Dynasty XIX King, Merenptah (c. 1218 - 1208 BCE), in tomb K8, and would continue in use until the reign of Ramesses X, of the following dynasty. Such sarcophagi can not be classed as being in the same category as the, basically, rectangular box examples of the Old Kingdom and are actually of much finer workmanship.
(Please note that I have many photos of New Kingdom royal sarcophagi, though only that of Thothmoses IV is in situ, rather than in Cairo, but am more than happy to provide them, should if you think they might be useful in arguing your case,)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ooh, I thought the name sounded familiar, I think I may have actually read the Atlantis book, or something with a very similar title, or something that referenced it. Actually, I think it's the last of the three... Anyway, just started the video, I'll just keep editing this comment if I have more to say.
17:23 While I wouldn't go so far as to say that oral tradition is more reliable than text, I would say it's more reliable than it's usually given credit for, and that text is somewhat less so. Especially if stories are part of religion, they're going to be less prone to accidental change than the oft cited example of the game of telephone would indicate, at least in part due to the fact that telephone is just that: a game, one where its generally more fun, and usually fully expected, to break the stated rules. People find ways to remember things that are important to them, and to ensure that future generations will remember them as well. I also recently read a comparative analysis (well, a reference to one, I've not had occasion to dig up the original study) of several European folk tales during the 18th century, painstakingly collected from communities with as little contact with writing and the rest of the wider world as they could manage (though it must be taken into account that definitions of literacy have changed considerably in the intervening centuries), and found that across very wide areas, while some exact details varied (usually things to localize the story to the local area, like references to landmarks) would change, the majority of the stories remained not only recognizable, but eerily similar, even in areas that were unlikely to have had any notable contact with each other in hundreds of years, and across language barriers, often remaining more similar to each other than their regional written versions (the one particularly referenced was Little Red Riding Hood, with various French, German, and Italian rural versions being closer to each other than to any of the written versions, or the written versions to each other).
38:00 Actually, there's an interesting point. If Atlantis is supposed to have been the origin of all domesticated plants and animals, how does he excuse the unusual distribution thereof? Why would they have only brought domesticated horses and cattle to half of their empire? And why not have brought maize and beans to that half as well? Cattle and horses are extremely important domestic animals, that would have been extremely useful in the Americas, maize, beans, and potatoes run absolute rings around wheat, barley, and chickpeas in terms of productivity. The new world has a rehabs dearth of good domestic animals, and the old world has somewhat less diversity of domestic plants, even moreso of you're only counting Europe and Africa. If there had been an advanced, intelligent empire connecting the two regions, there would be no reason for that disparity to exist, unless they were deliberately trying to kneecap the eastern and western thirds of their empire, which granted wouldn't fit too badly with Plato's description of their imperialism and decadence, but still...
Nothing further for now. Might have more if I rewatch the video in the future though. Excellent video, really enjoyed it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@WorldofAntiquity First of all, thanks for the great channel!
I was not trying to imply that you advocated for being ideology-less. My comment was more a comment on how people, particularly people who like the scientific method, fall into the trap of thinking that they are free from ideology.
And it's true, it's not enough to just be aware of our ideologies and biases, but also be aware that the pursuit for accurate knowledge about the ancient past is also motivated by ideology. Pursuing accurate knowledge about our past, or anything in the universe, is quite a recent invention rooted in European enlightenment ideology. I'm not saying that that is a bad thing, but that it is important to be aware of that.
Also, It's quite evident that the critiques in this video are mostly aimed at sections the (far)right's reading of ancient history. Not that I don't agree with that, I think you're spot on, but it is also interesting to look at specific readings of the (far)left of ancient history that support their claims. I'm particularly referring to the Marxist concept of historic materialism, that the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class-struggle. It is also interesting to review the concept of primitive communism (Urkommunismus), the idea that pre-agrarian hunter-gatherer societies tended to be very egalitarian and where private property did not play a (significant) role. Thus "proving" that classless, egalitarian societies are not in fact against "human nature". These ideas are quite fundamental to the revolutionary left, both Marxist and Anarchist. I should know, I'm a filthy Marxist myself. But I have my own huge critiques of the way historical materialism and primitive communism is often taught and understood.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@WorldofAntiquity Fair enough, I don't deny that the stones used on the cathedral are much smaller compared to the ones seen at Saqsayhuaman and that's my bad for using that example as I was trying to lend credibility to Cobo based on the fact that he witnessed Inca constructions methods firsthand.
In the very same chapter, Cobo goes on to say
"Thinking about this truly does cause one to marvel, and it makes one realize what a vast number of people were necessary to make these structures. In fact, we see stones of such enormous size that a hundred men could not work even one of them in a month. Therefore, what they say becomes believable, and it is that when the fortress [Sacsahuaman] of Cuzco was under construction, there were normally thirty thousand people working on it. This is not surprising since the lack of implements, apparatus, and ingenuity necessarily increased the amount of work, and thus they did everything by sheer manpower."
I just think the idea that the stones were constantly moved and worked in order to fit one another, although tedious, is very plausible and shouldn't necessarily be dismissed given the amount of man power the Inca were able to mobilize when required, and Cobo himself seems to indicate this in his chapter.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Here's an important point: when "ancient alien theorists" and "alternative archaeology" proponents say phrases like "mainstream archaeology," you can cross out the "mainstream" and just say "archaeology." There's a discipline called "archaeology," an evolving body of methods and basic underlying knowledge and current projects and published findings and so on, and it doesn't break down into competing categories like "mainstream" and "alternative." Graham Hancock, for example, is not doing any type of archaeology. Nor is he popularizing the research of working archaeologists, as a popular science writer might. Whatever the merits of his work, it is not a type of archaeology that is just different from the "mainstream" kind. No scholar working in that field or any academic field uses the terminology that way, and figures like Graham Hancock use it to make you think he's talking about a difference of opinion or approach within the field. As if it's like "mainstream" vs "alternative" journalism or music, which are arguably valid categories. But "mainstream archaeology" is, in a word, archaeology.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The mystery is people doing it at a time when they were suppose to only have copper tools.
It's not more mysterious then how sandpaper and emery paper works. The softness of copper makes it excellent for using with an abrasive like sand. Still, one of the
caves have chisel or pickaxe marks on the ceiling , at 27:44 , so most likely made well into the iron age.
Only copper tools? no.
Stoneage = Stone , bone and wooden tools
Bronze age = Stone , bone , wood , bronze , tin and copper tools.
Iron age = Stone , bone , wood , bronze , tin , copper , iron and steel tools.
If you put corundum sand on your smartphones screen, and rub it with your finger, it will probaly scratch the screen even if your finger is softer then the screen. I do not recommend trying this.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
So, within a month I am a changed man, dissapointed that I can not believe in Hancocks 'evidence' anymore.... I watched some video's on this channel and the nuanced evidence is so overwhelming... i feel sort of silly believing anything mr Hancock writes... I am also a little mad at him, and in 30 years I feel a little sorry for mr Zawi Hawass, I might have judged him wrong...
Now, science really has to make better documentaries about the same artefacts Hancock is doing. Use his visual filmic qualites and good writing to promote Real History. Science needs to really become more accesible, and not stay so modest and in the nuanced shadows.
So I hope Prof Miano, that you will get one day a Netflix budget and shine light on great ancient mysteries and buildings and give us the proper scientific perspectives, and I hope you will include also the pseudoscience idea's to debunk them in a nice gentle way.
I believed in Hancock for many years, although I had my questions... I liked his views and hell... why not? Now I am 60 and start to understand his flawed reasonings... wondering why I did not see through it before... Now i feel some anger... because I feel duped by lesser intelligence pretending to be very intelligent... So now I must be smarter then mr Hancock...
I am in crisis, but it is a good crisis.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Dr. Miano, When discussing Carbon Dating, I think it's important to explain why the C14 in the environment isn't decreasing like it is in biological remains. Well, C14 in the environment is decaying, but it's also being replenished by UV hitting CO2 in the upper atmosphere (and perhaps some other sources). The rate of decay and rate of replenishment naturally balance each other. If the rate of replenishment increases, then there will be more C14 in the environment and so more of it will decay, and vice versa. (This isn't intuitive, half of however much there is, will decay each half-life, so the more there is, the more will decay in a given time.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Circa 6:00 , Soft subject, soft science? Haha anybody outside of archaeology or in the literature side of archaeology haven't a clue what goes on apparently. My degree in archaeology in Sligo, Ireland was a hardcore 4 years of science - math, chemistry, biology, microbiology, anatomy, forensics and lab work. We started at the atomic level and learned everything including the social and cultural aspects of archaeology. we learned digital coding, how to use all the adobe apps, how to make interactive maps, how to use all the ground penetrating instruments, drone applications. I mean I could type forever about all the topics we covered in 8 semesters. Even extraction of DNA from poop, disecting oysters, microscope work, analysing glass and pottery, extracting fat from pottery to identify what it was from. It is not easy in any manner. Thousands of papers to read, hundreds of presentations and essays. So. Much. Research!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You make an excellent point here, one ppl almost always miss; virtually ALL archeological sites around the world are Reconstructed, from Yucatan to Teotihuacan, the Moai of Easter Island, Stonehenge, the megaliths of Malta, you name it.
Rebuilding activities alone rep. a HUGE part of modern archeology today.
BUT, sometimes archeologists make mistakes & get it wrong, & unfortunately anomalous (or just plain sloppy) work can also feed into the "fringe-conspiracy" crowd.
I have no particular point to make here, except to say this sort of thing highlights just how FRAGILE most of these sites are; being made from stone is no guarantee of permanence, mores the pity, & when you give things a few generations or so, Nature laughs last...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sasquatch1554 "It would have been pseudoscience if proven incorrect."
No!!!!! Most science, the vast majority of science is proven incorrect, it's still science. It's called falsification. You can't prove anything "true" in the natural world, you never know if a better explanation or new evidence will appear later. So science gains knowledge by elimination, hypotheses are proposed and then falsified when the data shows it. The famous example is Newton, established science for hundreds of years and then Mercury's orbit didn't quite work. So, LaPlace made up a planet Vulcan to try to fix it (that's how Neptune was discovered). But that didn't work. Then instruments got better and more problems appeared. And there were other problems too, then Einstein proposed a hypothesis which he expected to be falsified. The rest is history.
Actually, Wegener did propose evidence but let's for the sake of argument say he didn't. Then scientists won't accept it. But they might devise experiments to test the germ of the idea. So one might check the magnetism of rocks and say, if Wegener's hypothesis is right then this, if not it's wrong. That's science. Guess what, it was right and once the evidence was presented the consensus shifted. It doesn't matter where the idea comes from, the evidence decides.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Excellent deconstruction of Frawley's (and many more like Frawley) ethos, logos, & pathos (deceitful, disingenuous) argumentative strategies. I have been waiting for a video like this for a LONG time friend: so many of these anti-AMT videos have popped up on youtube recently and I'm more than a little sick of it. Many of them (including Frawley for the vast majority of his thesis) shy away from (or ignore entirely) the genealogical evidence for central asian genetic admixture present in the population of modern Indians, choosing instead to rely entirely on the argumentative tactics highlighted here to dismiss strictly archaeological research, yet lately I have even seen some lately (mostly of a certain brand of Hindu fundamentalist flavor) that even attempt (poorly, lazily, and confusingly) to refute the genealogical evidence, and even the most RECENT genealogical evidence for AMT. I mean, even Frawley here, when he finally does get to it (only after much disingenuous argumentative wizardry, as you so expertly have pointed out with your video) offers no real, solid refutation (or even citation for that matter) of the genetic evidence.
I just. Yeah. Wow. You did an excellent job with this. Will be sharing with all of my colleagues on Monday. Thank you much 🙏.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@WorldofAntiquity , Thank you for demonstrating your cognitive integrity under fire, your willingness to engage thoroughly with commenters and holding to the unknown where uncertainty is fact. You have earned my subscription and admiration. Coming from no academic background, I have waded through the mire of outside speculation, disinformation and politicized scientific research in my search for theories to our species prehistory. I anticipate learning a great deal here. This is the first youtube video of which I've read every comment and response in about ten years of watching! Take it for what it is, as dismissive as you can sound to me at times, when confronted with cherished beliefs and non science, it hasn't blinded me to the validity or value of the critique you put forth in this video, or the the few others I've watched. I greatly value this level of engagement, as it shows real dedication to sorting credible knowledge from the mire of biases like cultural mythology and traditional beliefs. You definitely trigger believers! If that's a premeditated part of your recipe, it would be masochistic/honorable to a level of sage skeptic level 23.
2
-
2
-
Thanks guys, this has been one of the highlights of the covid-19 months for me. I feel for you both in that, I totally get the phenomenon of RUIN FATIGUE. My wife and I did a road trip from Olympia, WA. to the Panama Canal ( and back) in 2006-2007, visiting various sites along the way. We found that attempting to cram all of these ruins into one trip would result in me never wanting to visit a ruin again! The heat, the physical exertion, the sheer size of the areas involved requires stamina and determination. I must say that your aside about the fellow who thought the Spaniards pitched in and helped the Maya build a temple dedicated to the god Ixtalatl? gave me a good laugh (well we all know that Indians couldn't have built these without help! right?). And we know the Spaniards wanted to help out the guys they were slaughtering and enslaving, coz that's just the kind of guys they were! I understand why you wouldn't to correct the guy (especially on camera). A sobering thought, though, is that for so many, history is just a few inches deep and beyond that it's an academic crap-shoot.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
At the age of discovery, it was not unusual for Portugal and others to make the maps and discoveries secret before openly declaring that they had found new lands. There is evidence that the Portuguese knew about the existence of Brazil from before Cabral's voyage, and they kept it a secret for some time
This could explain why the map has some information about the coast of Brazil, or why part of the lower continent looks like the southern part of South America (but I believe that it is just a coincidence, and the author simply put whatever was in his mind there)
"Discovery" at the time was about making a discovery public. But it was not impossible for ships to informally or secretly find new lands. The issue is that a proper expedition had to be sent, and the discovery made official. Maybe the author of the map managed to get some information from sailors, or some maps from these voyages
As an example, in order to cross the cape of good hope the Portuguese had to take a large "loop" in order to be carried by proper winds. Therefore it was likely that ships eventually found themselves in Brazil
The first known settlement in Brazil (Cananeia) is possibly from a few years before Cabral's journey, likely founded by sailors and "degredados" from these voyages that tried to cross the cape of good hope
Then, there is the Tordesilhas issue (but I believe that is was more likely from the Portuguese trying to set boundaries in Asia)
Curiously, the Tordesilhas line "crosses" Cananeia, and the Portuguese made a lot of effort to set the line there. It is a huge coincidence, specially because the settlement was in some kind of swamp
The part of the map related to Brazil possibly came from Portuguese sources
Also, at the time they did not know the region of the Amazon well. So the doubled river is not that surprising
Edit: the part of the map that depitcs Brazil is curiously similar to whatever lands lost ships would find while trying to cross good hope
Edit2: there is some kind of dangerous reef in Northern Brazil some distance before the Amazon. It was very dangerous and several Portuguese ships sank there. Because of this, reaching the amazon was very difficult
2
-
2
-
2
-
I went to Egypt this summer. Actually, I stayed at the Metropole in Alexandria. Our group went from Alexandria down to Abu Simbel during the trip. I really enjoyed the Egyptian Museum, sadly the Library in Alexandria was closed, so we visited the Jewelry Museum. The pyramids were okay, got to see Giza, Saqqara, Meidum, Hawara, and Lahun. Saw dim outlines of Abusir from Saqarra. During the trip, I felt very safe the trip. The biggest issue was acquiring small bills to pay for the toilets.
I really enjoyed your travel series about the Mayans and Egypt. I take 1000s of pictures and then incorporate them into my class lectures.
Have you considered say, Malta and Sicily or Malta and Tunisia?
2
-
2
-
2
-
What's funny about all this is why didn't anybody compare stone working to woodworking?...nearly everything you do in stone, can and has been done in wood, antler, and tasks...and this is more likely then not were most of the technology was mastered prior to using it on stone...one easy comparison is anybody that has worked with wood knows soft wood like cork and balsa wood are very easy to cut but extremely hard to carve or polish with precision, while hard woods, especially mahogany, are extremely hard to cut, but can be carved and polished very easy, even if it does take an longer time to get a finished product...I have made very pretty display bowls and plates with modern technology but to get the best and prettiest final product I resorted to using sponges, and even plain paper to shape and polish the final product...it just makes since that what can be done in wood can be done in stone, it just needs slightly different tools, used in a very similar way, over a slightly longer time frame...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I am subscribed to Uncharted X, Brien Forrester, Mystery History etc.
I nearly fell for their ideas but I always like to balance conjecture with fact, hence watching this video.
As with all things context is everything, the soicial, religious, skills and knowledge the day have to all be factored in, not just how we perceive things by our modern ways.
It humbling to watch and enlightening too
I have subscribed and will check out thise other channels you mention.
I find the alternative history videos all very interesting and they make some thought provoking videos.
Certain things about not just egypt but machu pichu, peru etc etc is as mystery history oft states is 'very compelling' yet however compelling, they have no substantiated evidence.
I like to balance anything against known archeological, historical and scientific practices because these are based on real evidence as you have shown.
Sure science does not have all the answers but it does have the right methods to find the answers.
I think sometimes these channels come about because archeology can be slow and people want answers now, also it doesn't help matters when we hear of archeology appearing to ignore historical writings as allegorical etc to then later find the archeology to back up what had been considered as just mere stories or myth.
Many myths are taken from fact, yes maybe even barely fact but in my eyes it is worth paying some serious attention to ancient writings at least as a guide and ernestly follow up those writings.
maybe they have been and I'm not aware.
I recently watched a video about a 4th main pyramid in Egypt, the black pyramid that seems to have disappeared and since been dismissed yet was featured in articles and descriptions of learned European gentlemen from early trips into Egypt, also about the lost maze near one pyramid that seems to have been found but not heard much about.
When things like this are not acted upon or reported much or very wide or far it can leave a vacum for other alternative conspiracy theories to thrive.
I just wish both sides would work together or at least see each others points as you have here.
I would live to see you and Ben go head to head in one of those kind of religion versus athiest deabates we see on you tube.
Anyway thanks for spending time on this rebuttal video. 👍
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Regarding pillar 43: I feel that the 3 'bag like' objects are representations of 3 temples in side elevation view.
The stone walls with extruded entrance way seen clearly here in a model of Gobekli Tepe: https://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/magazine/00000144-0a2f-d3cb-a96c-7b2f577f0000
The 'bag handles' are depictions of wood/reed/skin dome roofs similar to a Zulu Kraal structure as seen here: https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-29669446-zulu-kraal
and here: https://wretchedshekels.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/kraal-in-1903-8.jpg
Each structures doorway is shown crowned with a different tribal totem animal symbol.
Further down the pillar, we see stylised tall sheaves of wheat, like this:
https://www.canstockphoto.com/sheaves-of-wheat-4769032.html
Then, below this harvested crop, there is a low lying stone boundary wall, which does still exist in situ.
And most dramatically of all we are now treated to a shaman, dressed in vulture wings and mask, dancing with a style of hand held circular drum, commonly by used by primitive tribes to induce trance states,
as perfectly depicted here:
https://www.123rf.com/photo_22450065_portrait-of-a-shaman-dancing-with-a-drum-outdoor-.html.
Below the drumming shaman there is a clear physical and narrative separation between the head of the stone pillar and the supporting body where we see 'The Beyond' by way of a selection of beasts associated with the untamed wilderness and death itself; namely wolf, snake, scorpion and a vulture next to a decapitated human during an 'excarnation', the ancient practice of dead bodies being exposed to carrion birds, usually vultures, so as to strip the flesh from the skeleton in preparation for further ritual use.
So! In summary:
It’s harvest festival at Gobekli Tepe.
Nice and simple!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
One last thing. Gerard Butler's abs were real for the movie, "300."
"As the 15th anniversary of "300" approaches, Gerard Butler reflected in an exclusive interview with Looper for his new film, "Copshop," on the crushing preparation he undertook to bring some muscle to Leonidas. And while the actor and his "Copshop" co-star, Alexis Louder, joked around that his abs were fake in the film ("Everything on me is fake! This is a fake face," Butler cracked, motioning to his mug), he clarified that he did indeed take to extreme measures to get ripped for the role.
""They were real. I actually could stick my fingers up to there in my abs," Butler told Looper, motioning to his abdominal area. "I was training for months. I mean, by the time I'd finished, I'd been training for nine months, and I was on a six-hour day regime."
The training, Butler added, didn't end when production on "300" began. "Even when I was filming, I was pumping before every take and training at lunch and training at night," Butler recalled. "Yeah, I paid the price after, but it wasn't just for the body. It was also for the attitude ... because I kept thinking, 'These guys were willing to die in any moment, so the least I could do would be willing to die in that moment to recreate who they were.'"
Read More: https://www.looper.com/606296/gerard-butler-reveals-how-he-really-got-ripped-to-play-leonidas-in-300-exclusive/?utm_campaign=clip
2
-
2
-
Wow. This may be the finest presentation outlining the danger of denialism I've ever encountered. Nowdays the trend seems to be to let these denialists rant. They're great entertainment. But, as the end of your video helps to reveal, the real effect of denialism, whether it be scientific, historical, political or other, is to erode the true currency of civilization: the mutual trust that people work for their own good and the good of society, is alive and well. Everything good in our lives comes from the trust we have for scientists, engineers, celestial mechanics gurus, planetary scientists, physicists, ship captains, airline pilots, astronauts, astronomers, meteorologists, news anchors, historians, archeologists, anthropologists, teachers, professors, who dedicate their lives in service to all mankind. That trust is not misplaced.
When a denialist says "trust no one," they themselves are included in the ones they are cautioning against.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thanks for the video, and for this: "I would be wary of anyone who makes judgments about whole societies. They usually lack the nuance necessary to make an informed assessment."
Sadly, stereotypes of the sort are still powerful everywhere... It's a plague on so many YouTube channels, at least in the comment section...
I haven't read the book mentionned and couldn't elaborate on its views. The question treated in this video seems to indicate that it grants christianity probably way too much influence on modern (western...) values through debatable or outright false assessments and oppositions; is it indeed the purpose of the whole book? That would be quite problematic...
I agree on most of what you said here; one thing, though, seems debatable to me, when you speak of Athenian democracy: there was still the issue of slavery. Sure, free people would be (theoretically?) treated as equal whatever their fortune or business and so on... well, as long as they were not women, because, yeah... but that leaves many people out of the game anyway, doesn't it? Even more if we include foreigners, with their distinct status...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I feel like people have always likely placed value on life in some kind of balancing act between a certain, inconsistent level of default value (based on physical and social proximity, as well as familiarity), and a perceived "earned" value (based on seeds, accomplishments, and perhaps connections to others you care about e.g. You might not care about a person's worth directly, but they're your brother's best friend, and he has a long history of helping said brother out of troubles). I say this because I find it very hard to believe that people have not always, in some way, cared about the lives of their children and family and friends (barring social/cultural framing that might allow a death to be seen as a good thing, such as a belief in a pleasant afterlife mitigating the pain, or a belief that prior to some (quite arbitrary) point in time, children don't quite count as human or alive yet, allowing one to more easily (though not universally easily nor just "easy" on a more objective scale) accept their death). I know that humans haven't always thought the same way about everything, but I feel like that's, in a lot of ways, a response to the necessities of life. We care more about life now more because we can afford to than because of any change in human psychology or thinking, death is less omnipresent, and altogether easier to prevent, so we care about it more, respond to it more viscerally, I take as evidence for this that we still often don't think of the deaths of the elderly as particularly tragic, unless it was of a condition we could have easily treated.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
a direct quote 34:05 " were they so called Atlantians, were they aliens, were they an unknown culture that simply disappeared, that is something that we are presently working on" ...My God, unbelievable crazy, stupid, silly, ridiculous, uneducated statements and beliefs of charlatan Brien Foerster and his witnesses. Thank you for your effort and arguments fighting those ignorants like Foerster, UnchartedX, Bright insight and others
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
N. Oak's argument lies on the false assumption that the Mahabharata reference to Arundhati (Alcor) leaving behind Vašhista (Mizar) is a real observations in the sky. He reasons that prior to 4800 BCE, Alcor would lead Mizar unlike today, thus dating the Mahabharata to the most astronomically accurate date before 4800 BCE.
However, the sage Vyasa in the epic speaks of Alcor crossing Mizar as an anomaly, a bad omen, he mentions blood coughing idols, chariots and carts moving supernaturally, swarms of locusts rising, the sky raining dust and meat etc. in the same verse. I.e Arundhati, the epitome of chastity leaving behind her husband Vashista wasn't a real observation but a metaphor for the reversal of the natural order of things. Vyasa clearly mentions the Alcor crossing Mizar as an anomalous, unnatural, ominous event, comparable to the skies raining flesh and the idols of the gods vomiting blood.
If the Mahabharata happened as it was described before 4500 BCE, when alcor leading mizar was the norm, then why would Vyasa refer to it as a bad omen, an unusual phenomenon?
Oak also uses analogies as real astronomical references, e.g Bhishma being compared to the moon as an observation of a real full moon.
Several rebuttals of his work have been presented by Indian astronomers and astrologers, who date the Mahabharata to around 3,000 BCE or some to 1700 or 1100 BCE. An entire book has been written refuting him.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I always appreciate the clarity, thoughtfulness, and insight of your videos. Today, though, I'd really like to celebrate your tenor. If more people in the academy (across all branches) steel-manned as well as you and exerted as much good faith as you, academic discourse would be much more fruitful. Too many can't differentiate "opinion" as you can; and feel any disagreement with their ideas is a personal attack.
Also, since I can't get the only one who looked at that prominent copy of "The Art of War" and thought "why in earth is it so thick" - it's a collection that also includes including the Tao Te Ching of Lao Tzu, The Works of Mencius, and the Confucian Analects, Doctrine of the Mean, and Great Learning of Confucius.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
To one of the latter questions: Tartaria is to Atlantis what Flat Earth is to Young Earth Creationism. Low bar for entry, but one is lower than the other. And YECs need some group to look down on.
As to fashion: the Atlantean fashion is pretty old, going back to Donnelly, e.t.c. Writers like Cayce and Blavatsky dropped a load of mysticism onto it, for extra acuity. Both of these show strong amounts of literary borrowing from mostly 19th C fiction authors (Lytton, Machen, and so forth). Their works inspired further fictions (Lovecraft, Doyle, the Usual Suspects submitting to Amazing Stories and the like) who then inspired further "non-fiction", some streams of which flowed into Hollywood and other wide ranging parts of modern culture, by which time Aliens became more central than Donnelly's Atlantis or Lytton's Vril-ya. And so on. Frankly, a bit tired of it. We need better Antediluvian nonsense to occupy ourselves. But that's just my hot take.
Great video, as usual. Wonderful content and channel, Dr. M.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Great video, Dr. Miano. Goes to show that many alternative theories are a form of literalist fundamentalism. I like the part where you point out the selectivity of highlighting some parts of a mythology while ignoring others. The Lost Civilization theorists ignore, for instance, what Ovid says about the Golden Age. It was not a time of advanced civilization, but a time before laws, agriculture, sea travel, weaponry and fortification ( Metamorphoses 1:90-127). Martin Lings states, "In looking back to the past, [our ancestors] did not look back to a complex civilization but to small village settlements with a minimum of social organization; and beyond these they looked back to men who lived without houses, in entirely natural surroundings, without books, without agriculture, and in the beginning even without clothes. It would be true then to say that the ancient conception of early man, based on sacred scriptures and on age-old traditional lore handed down by word of mouth from the remote past, was scarcely different, as regards the bare facts of material existence, from the modern scientific conception, which differs from the traditional one chiefly because it weighs up the same set of facts differently." (Ancient Beliefs and Modern Superstitions. 3rd ed. 1991, pp. 6-7).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Great video, thanks.
About a lot of nonsense.
(Who doesn't love a good ol' fake etymology mixing greek and english?)
I really dislike those westerner mystical crooks who claim to be inspired by some "indigenous tradition", and play on that to sell terrible "spiritual" books, but actually only take from it what fits their purpose and then blast all the rest with their own BS. All that while denouncing other westerners, who happened to be scientists and not mystics. A lot could be said about what European and American scientists have done and thought while studying African, Asian, etc., cultures, for sure, but this is actually next level, a very hypocritical, very perverse colonialist mentality, disguised as something supposedly way more respectful.
Regarding the "hidden matriarchy" of Egypt, I too don't understand how they could have hidden such a thing. But I would add I don't understand as well why they would have hidden it. It should also be noted that Stephen Mehler, in this video at least, seems to imply that matriarchy and matrilinearity are the same thing; they aren't, and one doesn't necessarily imply the other.
On a more personal note, the mention of Rosicrucians at the beginning of the video really spoke to me (and instantaneously made quite clear what Stephen Mehler's ideas were). When I was a teenager, I fell in love with Umberto Eco's novel *Foucault's Pendulum*; and for some years I was very interested in all things Templar, Rosicrucian and so on. While not being a spiritualist or mystic myself at all, and not believing in all this. Just having fun with cranky esoterical history. It took me some time, I must say, to internalize the core meaning of the novel, about the danger of this rabbit hole endeavour and how it can very easily lead to dangerous conspiracy theories. Finally at some point I had to realize it, especially when I read a terrible book about the Knights Templars that was published by the AMORC. What this guy is doing is in the same vein: it may appear innocuous, or simply excentric, at first glance, laughable yes, for sure, but it can, in the end, be actually dangerous. Which is why I appreciate this channel so much, so thank you again for all your work.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Great video! My father is into a lot of alt-history stuff, like giants and the idea that the Smithsonian had secret giant bones that they destroyed on behalf of the Vatican, and the idea that all the stuff in Egypt is way older than the mainstream thinks. Every time we talk about it and I explain why its extremely unlikely and that it is ridiculous to believe that all the scientists and acedemics are all lying, he uses all of the same arguments that uncharted x used. "They're all lying to protect their power and tenure" and every time he says that I tell him that, no, Academics love change in narratives (as long as its the truth) and they all want to be the ones to change it, so if they found this groundbreaking evidence, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops! It's so refreshing to see an actual academic spelling it out like that and I hope more people hear it and understand what good science looks like. I also appreciate you going point by point and showing that the ancient techniques have been replicated and that we have a pretty decent idea of how it all worked with bronze age tools, even if we don't know the specifics, the Egyptians were more than capable of figuring it out. I also wanted to touch on Ben's use of "savages" when it came to the Göbeklitepe part. I think that is a deeply belittling and narrowminded term, just because they were hunter-gatherers doesn't mean they were mindless and violent lesser people, incapable of planning and cooperation. They were people just like us, with less technology, but still wonderfully creative and intelligent as people have always been. Ben calling them savages only portrays his own ignorance and, ironically, a lack of imagination about the distant past.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
These 'mythbuster' videos of yours are wonderful and very informative. For those of us who take a more casual, less scholarly interest in ancient history, it is very easy indeed to fall under the sway of 'alternative' histories. They're a lot more fun, for one thing, than having to dedicate your life to parsing through the near-endless and likely tedious research necessary, as you have obviously done. Just flip on a 15-minute video about the 'megaliths' and there you go, you've got your fill of wonder and mystery for the day. They also provide a healthy dose of conspiracy and coverup that everyone seems to want these days as well. It puts you in a kind of camp, 'Team Monolith".
On the positive side, what a profound and genuine compliment to those who constructed these amazing ancient sites that they are so wonderous and impossible-seeming that many people have to attribute them to some unknown, lost, possibly 'inhuman' technology rather than the clever genius of their very human builders.
Well done! Thanks for sharing what I'm sure is a lifetime of knowledge with a bunch of strangers.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I well remember my first visits to the Main Library in my university. They awe at the knowledge that is there, just waiting for you to make it your own. I spent many hours in there for fun, reading various periodicals, browsing the books, often in field that were no my own just out of interest. My own faculty had its own, much smaller, library, I spent many, many hours in there are well, just reading random stuff. Hundreds of hours, probably.
As a graduate I can still access the various publications in digital form, and I could visit the Library in person. But nowadays I just browse Wikipedia. Less glamorous, but much information is there and quite reliable. Google has specialised search functions for scientific publications if I really want to dig into a subject.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@WorldofAntiquity Pretty much. From what I've read from the people who specifically study the history of ferrous metallurgy, it's virtually impossible to work with iron without making some amount of steel incidentally, and the oldest steel artifacts are almost as old as the oldest iron ones. Now, I'll fully admit that consistent steel production came later, but that's just as true in China as elsewhere, and seems to have been roughly concurrent in China, India, and Africa (the Nok culture, I'll admit, was somewhat of a dubious inclusion to put alongside the Indians, but I felt the bloomery method was able to produce enough steel consistently to count, even if most of what you get is iron (you would not believe how blurry the line between iron and steel gets in metallurgical history) and there was more consistent steel making proven in the vicinity of Zimbabwe around the same time as the Indian and Chinese developments in the 3-200s BC) with Europe being about a thousand years later. Though, it's somewhat difficult to be completely sure, since metal, especially metal used for tools and weapons, tends to be recycled and reused whenever possible. The main reason we have those extremely old steel artifacts, like the Jericho sword (I think that's the one) is because iron and steel were so rare and valued at the time that they were largely reserved for ornamental uses, and liable to being buried as grave goods rather than reused.
My opinions on this subject are partially informed by the youtuber Shadiversity. He's an admitted amateur, but he does his research and I've read through some papers beyond the ones he references. Overall, I do basically think that the iron age is the beginning of steel production, although consistency would wait for a while, no matter where you were.
This being the first video on the origins of steel.
https://youtu.be/wrgK-9nNzow
This being a second, better sourced video on the same. Though he also gets pretty impassioned at points in this one.
https://youtu.be/aK_xWdvB9cw
He's definitely not a professional, but he doesn't claim to be, and again, he does his research.
2
-
2
-
2
-
It think I just realized (yeah, I think I might be late to the game there) what the fundamental problem with those fringe self-declared "scientists" is, and why it's futile to argue with them:
They think that science and a court of law are essentially the same thing.
After all, it's all about facts and evidence, and finding out the truth, right? So they must be the same, and follow the same rules.
Yeah. Spoiler alert - they're not, and they don't.
In the legal world, you argue to convince others of your story. Whether you even believe in it yourself is entirely irrelevant.
In the scientific world, you argue primarily to become convinced yourself - of whatever story has the most merit. Whether that's your original story, or a modified one, or even an entirely different one, is entirely irrelevant. And what others believe is also of secondary importance. (Not to you as a human being of course, but to you as a scientist.)
In the legal world, you win if you've convinced others beyond a doubt.
In the scientific world, you win if you've convinced yourself beyond a doubt (for now...).
Also, in the legal world, it's not even about finding the truth - it's about finding a winner. It's a duel of words. To the death, metaphorically. Nah, strike that - it's even worse: It's like YouTube comment discussions. First one to run out of arguments loses. Doesn't matter whether there are any more arguments in their favor - if they're not introduced as evidence, they might just as well be non-existent.
In the scientific world, truth is all that matters (or all that should matter, at any rate). A good scientist might "win" an argument with a colleague, and yet go home thinking, "huh, he might have had a point there. Dind't defend it very well, and besides, I really can't stand this guy - but he really might be onto something. I really need to dig into this. [Can''t have him win the nobel prize for that...]"
(A good lawyer might do the same, but only to find counter-arguments against that point the other side made - just in case they manage to bring it up again.)
So no, science and the court of law are two VERY different things.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
There are great parallels with conspiracy theories over these ancient achievements and more modern achievements such as the moon landings. The assumption is that because we don't do these things now, we can't do them, and this is not true. We need several things to make great achievements happen, motivation, funding and of course skills. Both a pyramid and a Saturn 5 rocket had these. The pyramid had a pharaoh providing the funding and motivation. The skills develop naturally. When someone is paid a living wage for a lifetime to perfect his skills, and then pass those skills on to the next generation to be honed and improved, you get results that are truly impressive, and that someone today would not be able to replicate, because we don't have the culture to drive these skills any more. The moon landings are exactly the same. Two superpowers find themselves in a 'race' to prove their position as the leading political entities and you have the motivation. Their superpower status provides the funding, and the skills come from building on aerospace knowledge which was producing aircraft capable of mach 6 at the time, so not at all 'primitive' by comparison to what a moon landing required, just an increment behind. If you think symmetry and smoothing cannot be achieved by hand, you haven't looked very far. Look at sculptures, glass work, metalwork, jewel cutting and many more. All processes done by hand from ancient times to the present day and all showing great precision, symmetry, smoothness and a level of perfection that the layman would be very impressed by. When I was an apprentice engineer, we had many tasks we needed to perform during our training including filing a name plate flat and square to better than two thousandths of an inch (0.05mm) and machining to better than 5 thousandths of an inch using only a rule (and other exercises, but this is already too long a post). If you wanted to make these items for sale, you would machine them and use verniers/micrometers, but it doesn't mean that you can't do it by honing your hand skills.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
About those odd racial theories of the 19th cebtury, cultures/societies adapt to local conditions and "issues". A society which is adapted to a certain location might fail horribly if displaced to another environment. Quite the opposite of those old supremacist racial theories
As some examples, when over 10 thousand confederates moved to Brazil after defeat during the American civil war, most went bankrupt because their knowledge of agriculture was not fit for tropical climates. Many returned, some managing to stablish the city of Americana
When the Portuguese tried to settle the tropical regions of Brazil with European settlers, many died because they were not adapted or prepared to tropical regions. They often died from tropical diseases. The short term solution was to bring slaves from Africa. And adapting people to live in many of those environments took centuries. Agriculture in some of those biomes has only been achieved a few decades ago
When it was necessary to settle the temperate Southern Brazil, they chose Europeans because they were better adapted to the environment
During the Paraguay war, soldiers from northern Brazil were displaced from tropical to temperate climate, many dying of cold as they were not prepared for winter
Again, societies are simply better adapted to their environments
Imagine how odd would be for some "superior race" to magically appear at a very specific place such as the altiplano, then manage to magically be the best fit for every other environment around it, considering that climates and environments in South America are extremely different
Worse when they consider some society managing to move magically from one continent to another ... even when these are western europeans, into a climate and environment completely alien
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Theres also the text 'The Poems of Ossian' by James MacPherson, published in 1773.
It contained a series of epic poems supposedly narrated by the titular Scottish warrior-poet Ossian, who lived during the Roman period.
MacPherson claimed to have collected and translated them from medieval Gaelic manuscripts, and oral stories from communities which spoke Scottish-Gaelic.
The book was insanely popular at the time.
It influenced both the Gaelic Revival and the Romantic movement, with Napoleon Bonaparte carrying a copy during his campaigns, Voltaire writing satire of it, and Thomas Jefferson proclaiming Ossian "the greatest poet to have ever existed" and voiced his intention to learn Scottish-Gaelic.
Despite all this, even MacPherson's contemporaries accused him of fraud, pointing out how many of the characters seem to be inspired by characters of the Fenian Cycle of Irish legends, such as Oisian fron the legend of Tír Na nÓg.
Characters would also have names which never existed before the publication of the book, most notably the name Fiona.
Despite MacPherson responding to the accusations with "Those who have doubted my veracity have paid a compliment to my genuis", the allegations of fraud was too great, and the publication eventually faded into obsurity.
And though the common consensus is that MacPherson made these poems up, there are still those who will insist on his authenicity.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Great idea! Here are my favorite two lost works: The first ever written commentary on Plato's Timaeus, by Crantor, and the work about the opinions of natural philosophers, by Theophrastus, the successor of Aristotle. Crantor is said to have believed in Plato's Atlantis, but we have no direct word by himself, and from Theophrastus we even have a direct citation of his work in favour of Plato's Atlantis, handed down to us by Philo (of Alexandria ...), which is really not liked by Atlantis sceptics because they have no good arguments to dispute it (therefore they often hide Theophrastus' opinion about Atlantis in footnotes!). Would be interesting, of course, to see these works in the original!
-- Sanchuniathon is abused by certain Atlantis believers to have written about Atlantis, but this is not true.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The fact that he leads with the implications of his conclusion before presenting any type of evidence means that he isn't confident in his evidence and tries to get you to accept the conclusion beforehand, which is a black flag in science. That is manipulation, that is what a salesperson does, "this drill will change everything about your life, you will not believe how well it works, one second using this drill and you will be in heaven, you will question how you could even have existed in life before using this amazing perfect drill"" it is all to prime you into accepting the conclusion before you see the evidence because you become emotionally attached to that conclusion, it feels good, who doesn't want to know the secret truth to the universe that everybody tried to keep secret.
That is an extreme dishonest practice when it comes to science. A conclusion always leads from evidence, even if it is in an introduction you need to present a TLDR version of the chain of evidence that leads to that conclusion. That is honest, if the conclusion naturally leads from the evidence that should be no problem. The only reason to lead with the conclusion is to manipulate you into accepting a conclusion that doesn't fit the evidence.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Brien is one of the true full on, massive BELLEND's, he thinks if the stones are big then it must have been a pre-historical civilisation, using a LOST Ancient Highest than the Highest turbo super sonic technology, because history apparently has nothing to explain how stone masons worked stone, he uses the Moh's scale to determine what can be used on what, when all it is, is a scratch test, there are several hardness test that use a tapered striker, using controlled downward force, you can even carve granite with granite.
His books are literally the same shit rewritten and reworded but they just explain the same hypothetical mental breakdown that he sells for $7000 per person in the shape of a tour. How he is keeping an audience, and also getting other people to believe his crap is beyond my recognition, he says everything was made using advanced technology able to do all stone mason work, all over the world, but it's LOST, so even though it's so advanced over time it simply dissolved, also dissolving the civilisation who used them, as no evidence at ALL ZERO, ZILTCH, but people believe his dribble. What you said about his stone theory too small ones on top of big ones, well i've travelled to most of the sites he sticks to, and he has to be so carful with what he records, because small stones below big polygonal stone is literally everywhere. What he doesn't want anyone to know is that the ground itself determines how it needs to be built, how deep the foundation needs top be.
If I see him in Egypt next year when i go, and over hear him talking about how great big stones are compared to small ones, im gonna pick a small lump of granite up and throw i9t at his annoying head, see what his view on small stones are then... WHAT A TOTAL BELLEND!!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@WorldofAntiquity its not your fault, it's Google its wiki its historians,
bc although its wrong its still a better story that saying it didn't happen
(around 30 yrs ago)
When I first started working & i heard nobody had found evidence ,I spent any free time digging hoping to be the 1st person to find evidence, & found nothing at all.
It's not just bc there's no archaeology, other things such as: Caesar claims to have left with documents agreeing to make payment taxes, slaves, to be sent to Rome on a regular basis . Yet,
In Rome nothing mentions Britain, paying or owing anything..
I know you already know,
.. I'm just trying to explain the wider picture, apart from the archaeology.
tbh I don't believe Caesar wrote ( finished his books) before his untimely death.
But that's another story & just my opinion :)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You can use these astronomical methods to come up with any arbitrary piece of mumbo jumbo (to use your own words) you wish. Some do (there's, for instance, a group of mathematicians in Russia, led by a certain Prof. Fomenko, busy arguing all of world history started about 1.000 years ago, based on the same kind of methods). All the mathematical and astronomical calculations involved, I trust you, are sound. What is not sound is the selection of sources from which the astronomical data used in the calculations is taken, or to be more precise, the way in which these sources are "interpreted" (to use a charitable term) to come up with the sort of data that fit with one's theory of choice.
To wit, both Fomenko and Oak use the same type of mathematical methods. Their claims contradict one another (Oak claims the Mahabharata described events from more than 7,000 years ago, while Fomenko claims it, and everything else ever written, describes events from no more, and usually significantly less, than 1,000 years ago). Supporters of the two theories are welcome to go duke out their mathematics and computer models with one another before they come back to bother the general public with their computations.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'm sure someone brought it up, but it's almost insulting how he brought up 1) how little about the Sumerian culture was gone over in compulsory history education (a comment that exposes how western-centric his view on the subject is, given each country has their own curriculum), and 2) mentioning how "advanced" the Sumerians were... and all to lead us to the "conclusion" that it's all aliens.
First of all, the former is in no small part thanks to how people pick and choose what aspects of history they think is important, and especially important for younger generations to know? For example, do you think American high school textbooks delve deeply into American imperialism? That it's barely covered just means they think it's less important. Whatever the reasoning entails is a whole topic in of itself.
Second of all, the way that he talked up the Sumerians, only for him to act as if it's proof that they couldn't have been them-- the nerve. At the end of the day, a lot of this "aliens gave knowledge" bullshit is just racism: "there's no way these people could've figured it out themselves." Never mind the fact that a lot of these inventions and technologies were teased out slowly over centuries, if not thousands of years; these weren't "inventions" as these people understand it, ie. more of that Great Man view of history. As you mentioned, attributing technologies and knowledge to gods and mythical beings is incredibly common. It's funny how many of ancient alien conspiracy theorists like to pick and choose which culture's are most likely to be aliens first. Sumerians being able to form a civilization and having some knowledge of nature they are in contact with on a daily basis? Surely that can't be from the need to sustain themselves, natural curiosity and understandable awe and terror of the environment that can, at whim, dictate their life and death.
It's so frustrating, but also thank you for the video in general. I really love learning about history in their context, and I've been on a happy binge through your library.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
While the concept of dialogue writing used by Plato of Socrates, for it’s time may have been “New”, the form was used into the Renaissance, with the dialogue writing of Galileo, in comparing the views of a terra centric to a heliocentric base of motion in the planetary plane. One side usually has an advanced knowledge based upon verifiable information and the other upon previous beliefs. Donnelley tries to obfuscate small bits of new information into older concepts that he was taught. It is through such rationalizations, logical as they may seem, that misinformation is proglumated. It fails when there is no possible verification.
When new hypothesis are presented, there can and should be investigations as to possible validity. There was a basic theorem that the Neanderthals possessed little innovation in technology. And yet research has unearthed verifiable evidence that the theorem was incorrect.
Even with their limitations it has been shown ghat they possessed more than the Paleolithic hand axe and innovated into other forms of smaller lithic tools. That such innovations of a basic technology cannot have independently arisen, only points out a inculcated bias.
There is one considered technology that can unfortunately cause inconsistencies due to it’s perceived rules. That is Mathematics, yet these rules are still not only being taught but anyone that shows how something in it’s rules is incorrect is still attacked as a lunatic.
Eg: Multiplication is the multiple adding of an integer. Therefore 2+0=2 yet by the rules, 2x0= 0? Illogical? 2+0+0=2!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thank you so much for calling out Mr. B. Foerster for his absurd lectures he keeps editing into videos. I've caught him improvising ( I've noticed you used the same term, and I was so happy to hear you used this term) during a really long & boring video about Abusir and Saqqara (Never been to Abusir but I've been to the latter site). Bad shootings and delirious narrative about ancient cataclysms, mostly referring to the youngest Dryas as the reason for all kinds of destructions, especially the arsonist signs, describing the Unas' Pyramid poor conditions as evidence of solar catastrophe, and bringing up random evidence that didn't prove anything. Even someone like me, very passionate about the history and mysteries of Ancient Egypt, but not even near to be competent about it, could debunk his tales, and that means really that he knows nothing about what he's talking about. He's very lucky to get so many wealthy tourists to accompany him during his dubious and expensive expeditions, but It seems he could bring them to arcane places, like the Osiris well, for significant extra charges. Maybe that's the reason he entices them to follow his tales, I don't know.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@WorldofAntiquity You know I will...I like your good sharp riposte! Please, always be as candid as you would like with me. You will not hurt my feelings, this is Science! Yes the 'buckets' contain some kind of 'ritual power' or, maybe, 'Generative Essences" or something?...I want to know the meaning too....The so-called 'pine-cone,' or 'artichoke,' or even "drill-bit" that Praveen suggests in one of his discussions on the extremely intricate temples in India, is....., I believe, simply a reference to the "Golden Ratio."
As I'm sure you know, if you pick up any artichoke, no matter how big or small, it will always have the same ratio of petals, running in each direction, across its faces? Same for basically any flower, or shell, or any kind of geometric growth in nature, correct? So that symbol, I believe of course, represents knowledge of both 'sacred' and advanced mathematical knowledge at a very early date?
Okay...to wrap this up...It seems to me that in both ancient 'Egypt' and the ancient 'T. & E.,' water-shed, area that their use of artistic motifs, and hieroglyphs as well in Egypt, operate on many symbolic levels. The symbols have meaning on many dimensions of thought and, I believe, correspond to an 'Initiates' journey into 'The Mysteries' of their cults and belief systems. I think "Demotic script" or some other kind of 'common tongue,' that was used at the time, does have set phonetic values for each symbol and functions, purely, as a way to communicate in a 'straight forward' way.
I think Hieroglyphics, and the repeating artistic motifs of ancient 'Mesopotamia,' are losing much of their meaning in this 'ultra-literal' translation period. The symbols are capable of conveying meaning on so many levels that once you begin to study them you truly feel that the 'more you learn, the less you know?"
Carry on my friend,
A.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Are they arguing that the meter is some universally defined non-arbitrary measurement? Ugh... This is why I hate the metric system, or at least the pretention to objectivity. Every single system of measurement is arbitrary, they're used by us to make sense of the universe, not fundamentally defined by the universe itself. Anything that I'm aware of that is defined by the universe itself tends to be useless on its own, and as soon as we tweak it to be useful, it has become arbitrary. Say we decide to replace all our units of distance with a system based off of the Planck length (absolutely minuscule, I'm not entirely sure if we've calculated it yet), the length itself would be useless for anything larger than quantum scale, so we would have to multiply it by various numbers to make units more sensical, and by picking any number, any at all, we've introduced bias and arbitrariness into the system. Any multiple of ten is arbitrary, because most of the scientific community has a bias towards decimal numbering systems, I wouldn't be the least bit shocked if the Planck length were multiplied by exactly the right number to make the result the same length as a meter, even if that requires going five or ten decimals deep for the factor, it wouldn't be the first time the way measurements were calculated was changed so the measurements themselves don't have to (looking again at the meter, defined as some ludicrously specific fraction of the distance light travels in a year...).
EDIT: Ah, you bring this up yourself.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ok ok... I can see you are applying boring things like "Reason" and "Evidence based conclusions", but what about the Noah's Ark being a metaphor for a gene bank of Martian flora and fauna we took with us on our exodus as Mars became slowly uninhabitable, thanks to help from the Annunaki?
All joking aside, these types of theories I feel all stem from a general disbelief that ancient humans were capable of biological limit to their intelligence cognition and sensibility comparable to modern humans. If you studied biological anthropology you actually know this to be a fact, as our civilized remains all come from our post cro magnid era,
In other words the modern human is you, but is also the ancient Egyptian, the Sumerian etc. So if you can conceptualize a perfectly symmetrical artwork or building or an object, so could they just as easily. Maybe they would have had to work much harder to achieve it, but in the inception of the mind, there would be little difference.
Analog prescision engineering is a thing, it's so much a thing that people in history formed their cultural identities around their precision architecture. A 23% Eastern Roman dome is very different from a Semi-circular Arabic Dome, to an Onion Dome etc. How did humans manage to build gothic architecture then if prescision architecture is only possible in contemporary technology.
Also, you can build a lot of things with such miniscule flaws that it looks machine made without some serious deduction. What you do not see in those types of works are all the stones that never made it, the ones that were cut wrong, discarded, lost or broke on the way.
In the case of Egyptians, we actually have records of their stone cutter lodges and artisans, and are privy to much of their techniques (Alchemy being created along these lines as a very early form of material pseudoscience) and we realize Chalcolithic and Bronze Age cultures had surprising material sciences knowledge.
In fact, material sciences could be one of those scientific fields which we can draw unbroken contnuity between dawn of civilization and today.
In many ways, material sciences ARE the reason for human civilization.
And also, I do not think scholars are specifically averse to an idea of "ancient technology" if it was to be true; I mean just imagine what a groundbreaking discovery for historical and archaeological fields that would be! The person to found such a fact would be carved in history themselves!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
By the way, this guy says his opinion is based on the evidence, as compared to archaeologists, anthropologists, and historians, whose opinion is a result of their having a "vested interest" in a particular narrative. But this guy owns a popular youtube channel that literally revolves around churning out videos to tickle the fancy of millions of people who desperately want to believe in atlantis, ancient aliens, giants, etc., like it's a religion. So who really has a vested interest in the conclusion? It's not like he can afford to just change his tune now, admit he was wrong, and start uploading videos that his audience would surely interpret as advocating a boring, mundane worldview where there isn't any wonder after all. This is the audience he's cultivated, now he has to satisfy them. And it's not like that imposes much cognitive dissonance on him — if you surround yourself with other, likeminded people, and write off everyone who disagrees as biased and part of some conspiracy to hide the truth, of course you're just gonna become more and more certain of the noise bouncing around your echo chamber. Also, how crazy is it that he thinks professional academics are less willing to change their mind, more afraid of change, than he is? Does HE have tenure to secure his job from the consequences of changing his opinion? Actually, is he even aware of what tenure is?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Very good and very necessary video. I call it the "10,000 BC belief complex". And poor Atlantis is in the midst of it all, undeserved.
-- In one respect I have to suggest a small improvement: It is not correct that the idea of an ancient civilization (aka Atlantis) is around since the 18th century. It is more complicated: Until the 19th century, nobody knew how old Egypt really was. Some followed Biblical ideas of a world not older than 6,000 years. Others took ancient Greek sources literally and believed in the literalist reading of an age of Egypt of 11,000 years and more. It was during the 19th century when things became sorted out: It became clear that Egypt came into being only around 3,000 BC. And only now (!) the literalist reading of the age of Atlantis of 9,000 years started to look much older than the known civiliations. Before the 19th century it was clear that Atlantis was a civilization (whether invented or not) existing at the same time as Egypt, as described by Plato. Therefore, the increase in knowledge concerning Egypt made Atlantis look odd. IMHO science should have applied its new knowledge about the age of Egypt on Atlantis, too, which means to date Atlantis (whether invented or not) after 3,000 BC. Few scholars have realized this connection, among them Alfred E. Taylor as one of the first. Still today, most scholars stay with interpeting the 9,000 years of Atlantis as a sign of oddness and proof for its inexistence.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@WorldofAntiquity , right back at ya! You've quickly become one of my favorite YouTubers. I'm looking forward to a bright future of entertaining & educational content. I find channels like yours, History with Cy, Launch Pad Astronomy, Atun-Shei Films, Professor Dave, Martymer81, Anton Petrov, Gutsick Gibbon, Greater Sapien, The Cynical Historian, Astrum, etc, far more gratifying and pragmatic than anything I've watched on The History Channel. Astronomy is my favorite subject and has been since I was a kid in the 80s but as I've grown older I've expanded my interests greatly. Nowadays, I love just about anything science or history related. So, thanks again and cheers 🍻 to future content!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
😁👍I SEE what you have done there....you brought this Pseudo-scientific, eclectic, non sequitur, unprovable, incomprehensible babble into the light of critical thinking and actual facts. Unsurprisingly, the Brien delusion crumbled, just like the stone that our ancestors obviously removed when sculpting a large megalith from a quarry....shame on you👍
Check out a video, " man lifts 20 tonne block by hand ". A single man using techniques and materials available at the time, constructs a Henge consisting of 3 very, very, large stones on his own....no Alien Tech or levitation required.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Humans building with large stones is nothing special. If you haven't noticed, people are pretty clever, and when they have a lot of time on their hands, they can do some pretty amazing things. Our ancient ancestors would have figured the best way to quarry & move large stones, shape them precisely, and fit them into a larger structure. Just our ancient ancestors, no aliens needed, no mysterious "advanced" civilization, just a bunch of people with time on their hands and an idea. We don't know precisely how they did some of the things they did, but we also don't have the same perspective; we can't think like a person from 2000 years ago, they are too far removed from us socially, and scientifically. We have to stop inferring what ancient peoples could do based on our preconceptions. Follow the evidence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They’re working back from a conclusion, so the “evidence” they find always seems to support their claim.
Those shapes they are seeing on the sea floor can be found in any tidal estuary. They are created by the sediment deposition from a river being cross-cut by ocean currents. River silt is finer than sand, so it gets kicked up again after deposition much easier, leaving regular patterns similar to what those sea floor sonar scans show. Those are submarine sand dunes, made by outflow from the river, wave action and undersea cross-currents.
See that bit at the top of the bay in the map? That’s called a river. That’s where any wood in their “site” most likely came from. Monsoon breaks tree, tree falls in river, river flows into bay, tree is now in sediment of the bay. That’s easy to explain.
Those ridged depositions like that are why shallow river valleys disappear over time. Water flowing over them laden with silt slows down and deposits the silt right there, making them more pronounced. The river cuts multiple channels as water backs up behind the deposition ridges, creating what looks to the human eye as city streets. It’s a trick of the brain more than a trick of the camera. It’s like seeing a camel in a cloud. What you are really seeing is an incomplete silting up of a shallow river valley by rising sea levels 14,000-21,000 years ago, but your brain wants to see something familiar in it.
Depending of the slope of the valley(bay), that could silt in entirely in few thousand more years or slough off into deeper waters entirely.
A special thanks goes out to Mister Ridder for explaining ocean currents and erosion in my oceanography class in high school. A second thanks goes out to him for teaching river sedimentation in my geology elective too. And a third thanks goes out to him for tying both those other two to monsoon effects in a meteorology elective. He never understood why I didn’t take the chemistry & physics courses, but he made sure that I learned more than what the curriculum required in the courses I did take. It certainly makes shooting holes in “theories” like this one very easy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
December 25th was a generally set and accepted winter solstice. So if some of those early Christians went by their tradition of saints having "perfect life", which means die the same day born, then they would come to some dates around the winter solstice, and conveniently they just placed it there.
Winter solstice was the day of shortest daylight, which was understood to be birth of the sun/beginning of warmth, onset of brightening, that kind of stuff.
So if Jesus is associated with the sun, does it mean he is a sun God? I am more inclined to accept the clear meanings for the selection of the date. Dates, rituals are meant for reminder of certain concepts and principles. If some Greek elements seeped into it, it is due to the fact that those "peasants in the Levant" have been living under Greek rulers for centuries.
Even in the old testament, clear absorption of religious elements can be deduced from intense interactions with various cultures such as Mesopotamia, Egypt and later Greeks. The strange attitude of purging everything into the basket of "paganism" is just a reflection of those internet preachers not understanding enough, not reading enough, projecting current mindset into ancient societies, injecting personal experiences into historical construct. More often than not, these internet "researchers" simply doesn't read enough, because they choose things that interest them most and leave things that sounds boring or off. I bet if all the supposed "researchers" willingly go thru the history courses and let themselves be guided on what to read and how to read, 90% of them would have seen the logic.
By the way, it might be helpful to explain the term a little bit. Like how many times the "sons of God" appears in the Jewish text/OT. How "Christos" was used as translation of Messiah in Septuagint. And instances of Krishna mentioned in Greek texts. (From my internet search, they seemed to call the deity Heracles).
If "plagiarism" is somehow an issue, imagine the more rampant plagiarism and blatant fusion that has produced mithras, Hermes and other mystery cults. Some were even taken from early Christianity. Sol invictus birthday could have been made to parallel the Christians instead of the other way round. But who cares nowadays. In the world of internet, the circle of scholars is helpless in the inundation of these pseudo researchers flood.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you look at the geological maps of the Yucatan, you'll see that the entire peninsula is Quaternary limestone. It is less than 2 million years, not "hundreds of millions". Furthermore, it is NOT "metamorphosed": not only has there been no tectonic event required to do so, the abundant fossils which compose these rocks (ranging from conchs, turritellids, clams, oysters, forams) are intact and are very similar to those that live in shallow waters on the Yucatan coast today.
I've spent a lot of time at these and Guatemalan sites, have scuba dived the waters, and have a PhD in Geology. Forster is just faking this stuff up. Real info is widely available in scientific books and articles.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Who would've thought that this topic would create two warring sides willing to cuss and disparage each other? What trips me out is when the LAHT crowd asks people to "show how it was done"... and people do, do it, they are then accused of "hiding the truth," or "being paid by the powerful to hide the truth." It's literally a lose lose scenario for anyone who attempts to disagree, and show their proof.
I thank the LAHT group for getting me interested enough to seek out answers to the questions they ask. I must admit I was initially disappointed that the truth is not missing ancient tech, but rather quite easily explained. But, if you're honest with yourself, I think it's clear. If you're willing to do the Legwork and can admit that even though you WANT it to be unexplainable, it is. All of it!
I am thankful to you, and others like sacred geometry, and scientists against myths for taking the time to go line item, by line item and explain how these things were accomplished.
If you think about it, it's still amazing, and maybe more so, WITHOUT the ancient tech.
I'm convinced it was the traditional story for the most part. Who gains by hiding "ancient tech?" No need to scream and yell, it's a fun discussion. I mean LAHT is clearly wrong, but I'm learning because of their claims. So keep on pitching, and channels like WOA, will keep knocking them right out of the park.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WorldofAntiquity yea, i know i know, was more giving the name for Alycia to check up if she didnt know it.
But now that i have you on the line, a question if i may?
Boudicca, fighter or leader? What do you think?
Im leaning more towards Leader.
Note that im saying Leader, and not, as so many seems to think, galleon figure.
Edit:
Oh, and im gonna take the time to say that i adore your content. Keep up the good work, you are doing a ton of good for the world, and history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Your videos are amazing and I love that you only speak facts, that are known as of now. Hearing all the alternative theories from everyone who can’t believe that an older civilization could do what they did gets pretty old. About Ek Balam…, I’ve been several times and heard a story of the mouth on the fresco of the pyramid. It’s actually a crocodile and the mouth is open because it is the portal in which a person passes from this world to the next. If you notice, there is a man above each eye, holding them open. This is because that the portal isn’t only for going to the next world, it’s for coming back as well. The tomb housed an individual that was important enough that the eyes of the crocodile were held open, eternally, or until the individual was ready to come back to this world. The eyes were held open because the crocodile wasn’t allowed the ability to sleep, as to not miss the return of the dead individual, when the individual was ready to come back. I had this story told to me again somewhere in Xpujil, maybe at Chicanná. I can’t really remember as they all blend together after awhile. Anyway, next time you are around, get with me. I have a van and know several archaeological sites, caves with artifacts, cenotes, etc. Thanks again for the awesome videos and keeping it all real!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The famous show literally argues that after thousands of years, most buildings with modern concrete and steel would still be standing (specially if not too tall to topple over and in areas with little earthquakes) or partly buried/covered by trees.
They argued all those nuclear plants we'd stop maintaining would creat huge radioactive areas where plants and animals either die or are super deformed for yeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaars (france has 56 nuclear plants, imagine 56 chernobyls and no one ever cleans it up).
They argued most glass would still be around even after 100 thousand years, most plastics, etc, polution would be uncontained, the planets health would be severely affected in many areas and this would be substancial evidence that we were around.
Most military bunkers, big bank vaults/safes, large infraestructure projects, etc would still be visible, after 10's of thousands of years.
Most trash, like in land fills or junkyards, specially buried one, would be a testament to our culture, literally, we'd be finding toys from the beginning of the plastic age to whatever end, and assuming older trash is buried first, we'd likely ve able to figure out what kids from the 1950s like to play with and what kids from today like to play with (im talking litterally finding a mikey mouse toy from 30 years ago on the bottom and an amongus toy from today on the top).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Comment #667 here 🤣
I haven’t seen Sweatman’s video or paper, but he makes way too many unfounded assumptions & bizarre leaps (and I actually think the zodiac, though not necessarily in its current form, goes back 10s of thousands of years, & that there were ancient ‘lost’ civs more advanced than our current one, & that there was a great cataclysm ~12,000yrs ago). I’m all for speculation but his approach is almost schizophrenic; severely lacking in logic, or even intuition.
I’m not a statistician, but I have a good understanding due to my scientific background (bio & chem), & once again, I find his entire approach severely flawed. Just seems like he’s trying to use bad science to make his hypothesis seem stronger. Imo, it has the opposite effect. He is so overly confident too. 🤦🏼♀️
I’m guessing Sweatman believes precession explains cyclical cataclysms. 🙄 Are you familiar with Suspicious0bservers? If so, what do you think if he cyclical catastrophism theory?
Great debunking.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Multidisciplinary engineer here. That "venturi effect bridge" at 17:55 is 100% BULLSHIT by an archaeologist trying to sound sensational. Some things you ask archaeologists about, and some other things you ask engineers about. And for this one, you should've asked an engineer. That is NOT a water-accelerating venturi-effect-utilizing device. That device has NO IMPACT on how far downstream the water is transported, it doesn't use the venturi pressure for anything, and neither can it pump the water in any way. It doesn't affect the water spread in any way other than just damming it. That much can be said with 100% certainty.
But why does it look so funny then?
With 90% certainty they tried to limit the span of the bridge, because building bridges is very difficult and building long spans is even more difficult. So that's why its so narrow.
With 80% certainty they chose to make reinforced walls to protect the bridge pillars from water erosion, at times of high water flow. So that's why there are those walls.
That explains MOST of it. But they didn't necessarily HAVE to make the walls and bottom of the passageway that particular shape.
There are multiple ways to put in bridge pillars and protect them from the water flow, without having to make them that shape.
And the bottom of the passageway have ALSO been shaped according to some obviously desired shape.
So what gives?
There is however another reason that would heavily steer the architect towards this specific way of protecting the pillars from the water flow.
-- cargo boats!
If you really want to have a dam, but you ALSO really want to permit cargo boats to pass, then you have a problem!
That's the sort of problem we nowadays use sluice gates for.
But if building a sluice gate is beyond your engineering capability, then that's when you build this!
So with 70% certainty this is a combined dam and bridge, but with ALSO a permanently open narrow outflow section, to permit cargo boats to pass with boatsmen aboard!
The gently sloping walls help guide both the water AND the boats, so that the boats enter the critical section in a controlled manner without risking entering sideways. Just common-sense safety!
Due to the narrowing passageway, the water will indeed speed up, and that will cause a dip in the water in the middle of the narrowest section (due to the venturi effect, yes!). This effect is VERY UNDESIREABLE for cargo boats, since it'll be like riding a waterslide with bumps and ramps on it. It might throw you off, or break the boat, or throw off the cargo, in the middle of the most dangerous flow.
So you want to counteract the venturi effect somehow. To solve the problem with the undulating water surface you put in a threshold on the bottom of the narrowest section, to perfectly counteract the venturi effect, so that the water surface remains flat and linear, and just gently slopes downwards through the whole passageway. Very easily passable by cargo boats. You don't need computer simulators design the threshold right - you just observe the water, listen to the complaints from the boatsmen, and wait until next season with low water flow, and spend that season to correct the bottomside of the passageway until it has the right shape. No more complaints from boatsmen. Some guy probably even made a miniature and adjusted the threshold shape on the bottom until the water surface sloped nicely, and then they adjusted the bottom according to how the miniature showed them it should be done.
It is quite reasonable that you also want to pull the boats through in the opposite direction, with ropes and pulling-men and oxen, when they're returning from dropping off cargo. So I expect some reasonably obvious place for the men and oxen to stand on, on the upstream side of the passageway, so that the ropes can be pulled straight through the passageway without grinding against the sides of the wall. Some kind of long straight raised-road-like thing, with a line that coincides with the line through the passageway.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thank you for this informative , educational video. And all your videos. You have helped me.
Educated me to spot , or question U-Tubers misleading us.
I also like the evidence you use to prove your point.
I recently watched , and I guess personally debunked a video on U-Tube that:
Claiming that: Perseverance on Mars has videoed a pyramid.
( The Bent Pyramid of Sneferu, in Dashur,Egypt. ). On Mars. !
He’s provided other videos claiming Perseverance has got footage of bones, cities,caves, rivers and the like.
So personally debunked
And thank you for the educational and informative videos, as a layman I appreciate honesty, research and proof, as well as objectiveness
You are a breath of fresh air ,
Compared with these charlatans, and Hoaxers.
Thanks again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Life After People also says the vaults of gold bars underground will remain for potentially millions of years.
Another thing: glass bottles don't decompose, so we will still have all of the glass bottles in existence right now in a few millions years as well. In fact, we will probably still have every glass, stone, and ceramic artifact currently buried in landfills still exist millions of years after today if humans all vanished today.
That ceramic flower pot you bought from Home Depot and tossed? Will probably exist forever in a landfill.
That stone vase you disliked so you tossed out? Probably will exist as well.
All forms of glassware, vases, pots, jars, bottles, etc? They will exist in pristine form.
Hell, there is no reason to believe that the aluminum cans we toss out will no longer exist after all that time either. And this is not even considering materials at the bottom of the ocean....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thanks a lot, Dr. Miano. I discovered your channel two days ago. Up until then I was living in an amazing world, a world that possibly had had an advanced civilization ten to twelve thousand years ago, one that might have been in contact with hyper-intelligent aliens, or super-evolved dinosaurs or even time travel (I can't say for certain; the evidence is all over the place). The possibilities were almost literally endless. Then you came along with your knowledge, your education, your scholarship, logic, inferences, reason, your critical thinking, common sense, and you just blow it all away. The world just got a lot less interesting, thanks to you. Okay, as a technically minded person I do appreciate you destroying this pseudo-scientific nonsense, though I think that you did pick a pretty soft target.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Something to consider with all such theories. Nothing exists in a vacuum.
Take something simple, such as the assertion that some Egyptian drawings show some people holding what look like huge light bulbs, with a power cord coming out of them behind.
If those things actually were light bulbs then there would be evidence of everything that is required to support light bulbs and make them useful.
You have light bulbs in your home. A thousand years from now, when someone digs up your neighborhood, they will discover broken light bulbs in the trash. They will also discover evidence of power lines within your home, lines bringing the power to you from the generator, a huge generator, power poles and towers, huge generators, and all the manufacturing facilities required to make those things including copper and iron mines, ore smelting plants, sheet metal and wire rolling plants, old spools that they wrapped the wire on, etc., etc. etc.
Likewise with anything else that is claimed to be high tech. There would be tons of evidence, all kinds of it, all over the place. If the pyramids were huge generators made out of rock, then there would be all kinds of evidence of the power cables and other equipment required to manage that much power.
Then you would also have the question of: If they could make electrical power, why didn't they put in street lights so everyone could work at night when it was cooler?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
'...inaccuracies, sketchy reasoning, unsupported claims and misleading comments.'
Yes but very lucrative ones for Mr Hancock. He's made a living [and possibly a very good one] by writing books and giving lectures. Velikovsky, Von Daniken, and L Ron Hubbard all did the same [with the last guy starting a cult no less]. As ever, follow the money folks, follow the money.
The one exception might be [might be] Hancock's views about the rock formation off the island of Yonaguni but even if there is something to it, I suspect it's just sheer luck that it turns out to be so.
Stefan Milo has also done at least one rebuttal of Hancock and I find his arguments compelling. Antiquity, you've also done a good job here.
C'mon folks, stop giving your hard-earned cash to these charlatans. Aren't there better things you can spend it on?
Listen to the scientists he lombasts and think about the logic of their arguments [as in the above video]. Yes, they are fallible humans like us all but listen to arguments and don't get fooled by ad hominem attacks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is what I've never understood, there's all these people who spout off about these fantastic numbers, some more than other (Graham Hancock), as if the Egyptians had a list of special numbers and then used every bit of knowledge they possessed to build something which had them all incorporated for humans in a few thousand years to discover using laser measuring devices and clearly no brain. The Egyptian used ratio's for perfect proportion, David explains this by showing they are the bi-product or proportion and symmetry at the correct ratio, the Egyptians used the ratio of 7:11, bringing circles squares and triangles into geometric coherence, once this is done the object can be expanded or shrunk in scale and every measurement is coherent and relative no matter the scale, therefore a tiny pyramid made from paper and sat on your desk, or a giant one made of stone, makes no difference as they will all have the same reoccurring natural measures such as Pi, Phi, etc. because scale is not the important part, ratio and proportionality is. The Pyramid occurs naturally as crystals, salt certain quartz types, principle properties of the earth, if they grow in these geometric shapes naturally then it can be concluded that building something in the form of these shapes will be coherently stable if the ratio is maintained the scale is kind of infinite.
The ancient builders weren't idiots like the Brien Forester's of this world, who just wanders around pointing at stones, and saying lost technology by lost unknown people or Aliens, then using a straight edge to prove something is straight but they would of used one of those (WEIRDO), and refuses to show the gear and pulley system they used which is in the museum he visits regularly.
Our ancestors observed nature closely in awe, with a thirst to know everything about it (GIVE IT A TRY BRI, IT'S FACINATING), and not simply the object in front them, but the invisible or non physical aspects of it's cause, by recreating the effects they observed and using their imagination and brains they could understand the whole, instead of simply half the equation, leaving the need to make up the missing parts with ridiculous claims which in Brien's case is not even a claim, it's just blah blah, point, blah blah, then try and stick a knife between 2 four ton blocks, wont go in so HIGHN TECH but LOST FOREVER...... that'll be 8 Grand please, strangest part of all of this is people pay it and go back for more of Brien taking a dump in their ear.
Great video as always David i look forward to every one you upload, not sure how i missed this one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, Professor, you forgot the Griffin warrior's tomb of Pylos! I felt I have to correct you in this case, even if I m convinced you're always right. You forget also to mention that the 2 imperial tombs, the Japanese and the Chinese ones, have never been explored into the most essential part of them: the burial chamber! In the Japanese case, it is forbidden by law to enter the Emperor's tomb, meanwhile, in the First Emperor of China situation, the authorities keep delaying entering that space because the technology is still too primitive for the preservation of the items interred in it. In fact, there are so many superstitious and religious ties that compel archaeologists to do it, and there are political reasons as well, at least since the big incident of 2017 during a BBC reportage when British and Chinese archaeologists dared to affirm that the Terracotta army was stylistically heavily influenced by the Hellenistic culture. These are my 2 cents... Keep your great work coming on, PLEEEEASE
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Rollers also don't work for stones that do not have a perfectly flat bottom. They work great for cubical stones and slabs on flat level even solid ground.
They probably pulled them by pouring water on the roads on cold nights, to ice up the roads, or when the roads were naturally frozen over, packed with snow, or wet, so they would slide easier due to less friction with the ground. They could have also used some kind of natural grease. Even could have used a portable rail system consisting of flat even greased logs, on each side the stone sat on, that could be pick up and moved in front of the stone every so many feet. They could have also taken smaller round rocks, and covered the roads with them, so the small rocks would roll under the large stone on the road. Many ways to lower the friction, and make the job easier, just have to use your head.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WorldofAntiquity Thank you for the response. While I’ve never been one to eschew the possibility that humans were experimenting with sedentary life and monumental building prior to the agricultural revolution, the idea that they’d be able to support entire cities, continuously and for the several decades it would take at a minimum to complete these types of constructions, has always seemed far fetched.
For one, if these pre-Younger Dryas civilizations existed, where are there crops? We know some small settlements have existed without agriculture, but no large settlements have. Surely some of their crops would survive today, and we would be able to see their genetic history.
The Nile flood patterns are very telling, and thank you for the explanation. I love history but I’m not an archeologist, so while I tend to trust reviewed archeologists word on their research, I’ve always been curious about their methodology.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I often do a thought/fantasy experiment and think of all the things ( tools, technology ) that we use today that fill our day to day needs that were done differently in the past. I consider how we cook in a modern kitchen, how we build houses, how we make fire, how we travel etc. Throughout human history people developed different ways to do these things. There were many crafts and skills that were commonplace in days gone by that, for the average person today, would be considered useless or unworkable.
It was common in times remote that people made their own shoes, and clothes, and butter. If most people today were required to fashion these things with the tools and equipment used by ancient peoples, most would be barefoot, naked,and butterless.
Consider Michelangelo's statue of King David. Could we not look at the " precision " work of that piece and conclude that a modern power tool was used?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This video closes another gap in the argument against the "10,000 BC belief complex". Great!
-- Randall's idea of a cyclical history with each civilization from each cycle leaving behind almost nothing and each civilization in each cycle starting from scratch goes back to Plato, of course. In Plato's eyes, a prehistoric Athens sank literally into the earth (in a water catastrophe caused by heavy rainfalls). Only uneducated goat keepers in the mountains survive. Plato's Atlantis is embedded in a theory of cyclical history. Plato saw remainders of previous cycles in the myths of the peoples. (Aristotle still believed this.) And since Egypt lasted longer than one cycle, Plato believed that Egyptian historical records could help him to look deeper in time than only the Greek myths.
-- Well, it is important to realize that this was really what Plato believed, and that this is not so dumb from his perspective. From a modern perspective, we have to revise this view. Civilizations fall, but mostly due to cultural reasons, rarely due to catastrophes. And they do leave many traces behind, not only goat keepers survive. A cyclical view of history based on catastrophes may still be a concept on a cosmic level but rarely for us human beings on planet earth. History still shows cyclical aspects when it comes to culture. The whole chronology of Plato is based on mistakes (not on invention as some are tempted to believe in case of Atlantis). What is still quite true is that we find in Egyptian records (which are written under the perspective of theology, not history) information which allows us to look deeper in time than Greek myths do.
-- Long story short: Randall Carlson has a severe lack of historical-critical text interpretation skills, as it seems.
-- Ah, and Atlantis has of course a chance to be a real place, under the perspective unfolded here. Not 10,000 years old. Not in the Atlantic. But real nevertheless. Just to mention.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hello,
i watched ur whole Video in the meantime, thx again for the link under the original first part.
i appreciate ur effort and ive to thank you expecially for that - i where simply not aware of the missing evidence in Bens Videos even if its obvious, and ure completely right about that... and its a shame at least for myself that i just got that straight into it without complaining.
Iam asking myself why he did not took any tools with him, at least the ones everyone of us probably have at home (Folding Rule, Tape Measure and so on) to give some evidence for what he speculates - sadly it isnt more then that - it would have make his very very good Videos (from Quality of Picture Aspect) so much better in the long term for himself at least.
To be clear: i have still problems to imagine what have to be done for this amazing artwork, even if thousands of ppl where at work (and iam going into it in the next time, but not via YT) but iam aware of that it could have been done with patience and lots of workours in shifts.
i think the main problem for the people - like myself too, i guess - is to understand and imagine the massive effort and use of manpower which is needed that had to be done to accomplish the Art that have been done.
Where i go completely straight with your Oppinion is the use for spiritual uses - i guess its just a problem of our time where many ppl simply dont believe anymore in gods, expecially in the western Countrys (doesnt matter what religion). Most ppl dont understand that this believing was EVERYTHING in the past, that it was one of the meaning of life to praise and to serve the gods.
i was raised by protestant parents and during that for a few reasons i have become irreligious, but ive no problem with anyone who believes in his religion because i can understand and put myself in it.
in the past thousands of years ago it was much stronger, that i know from religous lessons in school and Church teaching (as i told, i gone through that and read bible also as koran). it was a privilege to serve... and thats how everything was accomplished i guess.
best regards,
Marty
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WorldofAntiquity Dr, I respect what you are doing and why you are doing it. Don't let me take away from your noble endeavor. What you do is necessary and yes, there are thousands of views. Many history YouTubers are doing great work in this field and reaching a mass audience, it just isn't enough I feel. For every person who is convinced or assisted, Joe Rogan hosts Hancock and people drop ayahuasca because Atlantis or something (???)
The problem is that telling people to not believe in Atlantis is literally Step 0 of trying to teach history. A huge portion of the population which grows every day believes this is the case, and academia is poorly equipped to reject it at the gates. It is an argument of style over substance to reach outside niche communities such as our own and that's my concern - when, in 50 years from now, dangerously fallacious and untrue historical myths will be treated as public fact.
I just think in broad strokes the "war" is lost - individual battles can remain but it will be the Graham Hancock's of this world continuing to enjoy celebrity, power, and influence in the years to come. Think about what would happen if another demagogue like Trump had a pet Hancock talking about Atlantis on Fox News? That's where we are headed.
BTW I'm not some kind of angry anti democratic reactionary either, I think this stuff starts with education and there's a reason societies that are more brutally academic tend to be more insulated from this - places like South Korea. Not that there will ever be full insulation from conspiracy theories because like I said: they are comforting, a blanket, a way to make sense of a complex world filled with shades of Grey. Saying aliens did it is comparatively simple and makes the layperson feel smarter than the elites (a category most people have completely legitimate reasons to distrust).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I completely agree with your argument of the lines in Stellarium not being original. You, however, don't even need to go that far. The supposed objective statistical test fails on its own. tl;dr The test doesn't give the probability of 1 (i.e. 100%) for a random case.
I am a physicist so I hopefully "qualify" as having a sufficient grasp of the mathematics at play here. Let's do what Martin Sweatman suggest: "Actually you can create your own statistics [...] and you can do it like this: You need to create your own rankings for [the] seven pattern matches. [...] Once you have done that you simply need to multiply all your ranks together and divide by 280 million." If you do that for a random case - i.e. any animal symbol at the pillar at Göbekli Tepe has a "middle rank", which means there are an equal number of symbols which look more like the asterism as look less like the asterism - you can assume a rank of 6 (because there are 11 in total so 5 being better and 5 being worse is the expected value)*. Now if you multiply that together for seven symbols you get 6^7 = 279936. Divide the 279936 by 280 million and you get 0.1%. This number should however, as is stated in the video, be "[the] chance [...] of this set of animal symbols [to be] chosen by chance" (in the video the "[...]" indicated in this quote is his own example but the content of the quote applies to the general case of your own test (thats why he uses it)). Which means the test gives the probability of 1 in a thousand to a random case for being a random case. This clearly shows that the test cannot give the correct probability of 1 for a random case being a random case and is therefore not a scientifically useful test.
* Even if this not always 6 but rather scattered randomly and equaly around 6 the case of rank 6 (some get rank 5, some get rank 7, a few get rank 4, a few get rank 8, and so on) applied to every symbol gives an upper bound to this distribution (i.e. a random spread distribution would only results in a lower number of the total product) because of the inequality of arithmetic and geometric means (it is not entirely necessary to understand this sentence to understand the contradiction in the test I show, but it is necessary to make it mathematically rigorous (if you feel inclined you can look up "Inequality of arithmetic and geometric means" on wikipedia)).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I have to say I always find it insulting, that people who never worked by hand in their lives, dis miss the blood sweat and tears, and ingenuity of the human spirit because they cant be arsed to objectively research or better yet try the methods.
The most common argument of "how could copper tools work granite, when it is softer" shows the lack of understanding and laziness of these people. Yes, the hardness of granite is between 6 and 8 on the Mohs scale, and copper is 3. Iron is only around 4 though. Not only that but sand and water are also not very hard, and yet we cut and sand granite with it to this day.
People underestimate what generational work, with thousands of men can do, because we don't really work like that anymore. We live faster and lazier lives. So in that sense, ye, we cant build pyramids like that today, but not because we couldn't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I've seen several of Cline's lectures on this and he is one of the best speakers I have ever seen. Although he doesn't state it explicity, it's easy to see how, in the following dark age (where writing was lost for a time), the myths of giants, "Atlantis" and an ancient, vast civilsation where gods walked the Earth grew up. There had been complex, inter-dependent trading networks and all the great civisations collapsed except for Egypt, and she was never the same again. It seems that there was war, famine, and death, but no evidence of widespread disease.
So three out of four ain't bad.
{:-:-:}
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You missed out perhaps the most important form of reasoning when it comes to science and history (although you did alude to it); abductive reasoning. This is like inductive reasoning in that its conclusions are uncertain, it deals with incomplete information where a range of explanations are available.
With inductive reasoning you take specific information and extrapolate a general, if uncertain, conclusion. This medicine cures cancer in rats, an inductive conclusion might be that it will cure cancer in other rodents. Abductive reasoning on the other hand takes a limited set of data and evaluates explanations in probabilistic terms, saying which are likelier. Taking the best guess essentially.
Sherlock Holmes most often used abduction, and only sometimes induction. Say he notices that a vase by the window is knocked over. Abductive reasoning would conclude that it was a cat. It could have been an intruder climbing through the window, and it still might be, but cats climb through windows now often than people. Inductive reasoning would tell him that the window being left open was unusual as the vase would have been been knocked over before and so the vase wouldn't have been where it was. Thus the unusual event was the window being left open, and not the vase breaking.
The key to abductive reasoning, and the key logical failure of online crackpots, is assessing the liklihood of an explanation and favouring the most likely. Thus, ironically enough given the name, it's with abductive reasoning that we can dismiss aliens being the explanation for unknown lights in the sky so long as other mundane explanations exist. That's because everyday things happen more often than extraordinary things by definition making it irrational to conclude the extraordinary even if we have no idea what those lights actually were. Another important consideration is occam's razor, not multiplying unnecessarily the exponents. It is more likely that the student didn't do the homework because he forgot than because he had to go to his uncle's house and there was a fire. This is because a) oversleeping is more common and so more likely and b) two events had to happen in the 2nd and you have to multiply probabilities. Give all events a 0.5 chance (where 1 is certain) and the 2nd explanation has a 0.25 chance and the 1st 0.5; twice as likely.
This doesn't mean the conclusions of abduction are correct, only that, given the information available, it was the rational tentative conclusion on the balance of liklihood.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'll just add that, this is also not how you would do statistical analysis. Firstly, you would determine if the arrangement of animals is conditional. For example, do they ever appear in groups, and if so, how often are animals repeated on the same relief? Ie, how often are there more than one Scorpion, etc. then you would check to see if there are any consistent arrangements between them. Are there any patterns? Does x animal always appear with y animal? How many animals are depicted (on average), and what is the probability of that specific number being depicted from the sample size? Those conditions have to be factored in. Then, once you determine what conditions apply, you can begin formulating the number of permutations. If you're really smart, the permutations will have weighted values attributed, giving their likelihood to repeat in a set, and then once all of that is done, you can begin to determine how likely that combination is. A simple dice game is not rigorous mathematics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
CNC Machinist here. My entire career is about extreme accuracy, precision, and measurements.
Slapping a laser level on anything in the manner she did is like whipping a flashlight around and measuring refraction. Its meaningless if not directly applied to the position of the flashlight itself and only relevant to the flashlight. It would've been more productive in her case, too, because it would've been more fun.😂
Also, 1mm is a monkey measurement in my shop and may as well be a mile when talking about being precise. It's not.
And, yeah, flatness, perpendicularity, surface finish, and parallelism are all crazy different in application and expectation. You're not wrong: she ain't got no clue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
14:00 - pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo! The materials of the Pyramid can not generate or create electricity, or any kind of usable electron flow, or magnetic field. They're made from stone. Ordinary stone. There is no piezo effect, and additionally the piezo effect can only be harnessed when a crystal is electrically isolated in a machine - not embedded inside rocks.
The tunnels and passages of the pyramid have never ever held water, nor are there any signs of it inside the pyramid. And as we all know, water flowing, or stored, or pumped into reservoirs and pipes quickly leaves distinctive markings like bathtub rings, and creates erosion below the waterline. Plus, water interacts with limestone
Additionally, we know that water pipes NOT under high pressure (such as sewers and drains) don't operate properly when full, and they require a large airgap above the flowing fluid to maintain the flow. Pipes under pressure can be filled with water, but as we know, the pyramid's tunnels are not water tight.
Also, water does not flow properly unless it flows smoothly. Why would the inside of the pyramid have all these nasty right-angles everywhere? You've seen plumbing; when water gets to a bend, it goes through a smooth 90-degree elbow!
That's not all: water leeching through limestone changes it dramatically over time, and leaves clear evidence of dissolution or oxidation. And se we know there has never been large amounts of water inside the pyramid.
Capillary action can indeed allow limestone to absorb a lot of water, but it is a very process. You don't call it water flow. And once the rock is filled with water, that's it, it doesn't leak out and fill up a reservoir tens of metres above the water table. That is not the way rocks or water behave.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I saw the Phaistos Disk in Heraklion, sticking my nose against the glass case as close as I could get. I also spent an afternoon poking around the ruins of Phaestos, and recognize the spot where it was found. The disc has an uncanny ability to draw one into it, and anyone with the cryptographic bug can't avoid being fascinated. While I was in Crete, there was yet another false-alarm press release claiming it had been translated. My own guesses tend to lean toward the language being related to Luwian, possibly to an early form of what was spoken by the Lukka people on the coast of Anatolia. The Lukkans were a seafaring people known to the Egyptians, and may have been significant in some way in the origins of Minoan Crete. At any rate, the stepping stones from Lukka to Rhodes and then to Crete are pretty obvious. The symbols have the "feeling" of the small number of Luwian Hieroglyphic texts, though no straightforward correspondence.
If the disc is a medallion carrying a prayer or incantation, this may be in an archaic language used only liturgically, but not actually understood by the people it was intended for. Decades ago, when I was among the Tuareg in the Sahara, I saw people carrying around little leather pouches on necklaces, which contained passages from the Quran written in Classical Arabic, a language unrelated to their own and which none of them could read. Their own language was written in their own ancient script, Tifinagh, which can be found on 1500-year-old tombs in the Sahara and is probably much older, and they could read that perfectly well, but the talismans existed merely for their magical powers, not to be read. This might account for the fact that special tools, namely bronze punches, and a special process were used to create the Phaistos disk, but there is no other example of the product. If the tools were available to produce texts in an everyday spoken language, then surely we would have numerous examples of such punched texts, not a unique one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
thanks for your video, it was good. i am a fisherman, and i know what homer meant by wine colored water, some days the water looks green, some times it looks black, blue, and wine colored. its hard to describe, but it looks almost brown, and I've often thought of homers description of wine colored when i see it. he's basically trying to describe the weather to the reader. you know its not a nice day when its wine colored. the sea is a bit rough, its overcast, just not a nice day. thanks again for your video. great job, take care.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think there is a lot of confusion because Perú has had advanced civilizations for over 5000 years, while most people seem to think the Inca sprung up from the ground and came up with everything, which is initially confusing to any Peruvian since we study all the ancient civilizations in school.
The Inca where the latest in a very long list of civilizations, all of whom left their mark, even though their ruins are less famous, some of them are more impressive than what the Inca left. At least to me, like Kuélap or Chavín de Huantar, the latest of which was build more than a thousand years before the Inca even existed.
So its technically true, once the Inca civilization coalesced there were "ruins of much older civilizations" (much, much older in fact) and they where the inheritors of all that knowledge as well as all the civilizations that existed at the same time as the Inca, that the Inca later conquered/incorporated into the Tawantinsuyu, the "empire". And each brought the advanced of the past to its peak during that time.
As a final note, the famous Inca gold, is not in fact "Inca" its Chimú and a legacy of the norther Peruvian coastal cultures, the Inca famously "imported" the Chimú artisans to Cuzco after they conquered Chan Chan.
I think this knowledge arms one to be able to debunk all the crazy "theories" bandied about, the development of Inca agriculture, architecture, metalwork, etc. Can all be traced and follow through the millennia as it developed and which civilization contributed what. The ruins and pottery are all right there all over Perú if anyone wants to visit!
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yajnadevam is an engineer, not a linguist. Okay Let's not go appeal to authority! Yajnadevam's research is completely based on Cryptography, which itself is an unsound approach, considering that the corpus of Indus Script is too small, and the inscriptions are very small. Cryptography simply doesn't work without a sufficient corpus, and a bilingual inscription. And deciphering the Indus Script is very deeply connected to History, so he needs to explain how it aligns with the verified historical events. He ignores so many plot holes, and proceeds to jump in the dark, take a huge inductive leap.
The worst part is, Sanskrit being the language of Indus Valley would mean that its closest relative Old Avestan has to be nearly as old as 3000BCE, which is impossible. The entire Iran region was dominated by the Elamite language, and Avestan didn't even exist before 1700BCE. The Zend Avestan texts itself don't predate 1400BCE. This is just 1 example, I can list many plot holes in his research, there are 1000s. He needs to explain each, with proof.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WorldofAntiquity thank you, i enjoyed it.
even tough iam more interested now wether this library had really this kind of "humanities most valuable knowledge" focused or concentrated in this one library. i know it sounds kinda stupid (for explanation , see below) but the one real reason i got intrigued by this is that naval map of "piri reis", as far as i heard: historians are not interested in his particular map but rather the sources he used, because most of them can not be found nowadays, so they kind of try to find those informations on the map of piri reis..
for the library tho: on the other hand i begin to realize, that thing with "humanity lost so much knowledge, that we even dont know what kind of knowledge we lost" might be a myth..because i can imagine that people would have some kind of copies (specially) from important works/books and would kind of keep them on seperate places in the world, right? Rather than having everything at one place and risking to loose that knowledge once and for all , in case of a fire or some other reason.
so in the end: i guess i gave the myth too much of a value.
that was quite long, sorry .
but i thank you for your time to reply to my previous comment!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
By the way, I noticed something else upon reviewing this guy's videos. In this video, at 3:08:36 he says that "details are ignored by skeptics." That reference to skeptics was a real head-scratcher, yet simultaneously so revealing. First, it shows that he thinks of himself in similar terms to how religious apologists think of themselves, defending the truth from motivated skepticism. I have nothing against religion, I just think it's interesting and it's further evidence that his relationship with ancient high technology is similar to the believer's relationship with the subject of their religious beliefs. But more importantly, it totally conflicts with the way he's been presenting this. He says earlier in the very same video that the burden of proof is not on him, because he doesn't have any belief about these artifacts. According to him, he just disbelieves that Egyptologists know how the artifacts were manufactured. But doesn't that make him the skeptic?
If he's right, and he's not making any positive claims but merely expressing doubts about the consensus of academics, then he's skeptical — not the academics. And think about it, the way he describes his own position is identical to how popular atheists generally describe their position. They often say that "atheism" doesn't refer to faith in the nonexistence of God, it merely refers to skepticism in the God hypothesis. The present evidence for God just doesn't tip the scales for them. So they often consider themselves skeptics, since they're skeptical of the claim that God exists, but (at least according to themselves) they're not dogmatically asserting that God could not exist. They don't consider "skeptic" to be a pejorative, since they view skepticism as a value, as a tendency toward rationality and/or empiricism.
But UnchartedX talks about skeptics like it's a bad word. You can hear the sneering disdain in his voice as he utters the word. Even if he claims not to make any positive claims (lol), he clearly sees academics as doubting skeptics, infidels who refuse to accept the self-evident truth of his worldview. I don't think you can really separate the negative claims he makes from the worldview they support. It's all one big mythological complex. A kind of modern mythos, a replacement for more ancient, metaphysically mystical forms of mythology — basically a mythos that's more palatable to naturalists.
The mystery of it may even be the best part, such that adherents don't need to make positive claims in order to believe and palpably feel that they're experiencing some enlightening wisdom. They just need to believe that there's some grand mystery to the origins of mankind, the solving of which could help illuminate our purpose and give us guidance for the future. And speculation is naturally going to arise from this, as it's unfalsifiable in principle. So whether an adherent makes positive claims is really just gonna depend on their own personal integrity, how willing they are to dress up their imaginative, quasi-religious speculation as scientific theory.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well done, Doc., to the point, focused on the evidence, well presented and with respect to a contrarian view point. You took a lot on the chin yet you treaded lightly. Respect. This is how the debate should be, Bravo. My personal impression as a lay person on the matter is that whatever methods were used to produce the stunning, early dynastic stone vases and jars form the original body of knowledge that was scaled up to produce the big building stones and fine statuary. So to me, there are two elements to this technology: The actual cutting and abrading, and the scaling up of it.
Having heard both sides of the argument, I am left with this: Are there, or are there not any paradoxes left when it comes to explaining the know-how behind the making of ancient Egyptian monuments and art? If there are none, and historians are happy with how they have explained things—drag saws and tube drills initially made from arsenical copper, then bronze, then iron using abrasives also used to polish and oil finish, and given a still reasonable amount of time—then we are done here, are we not? Let's look for other mysteries to study or await new mystifying discoveries. If there are any technological paradoxes left, then maybe the feuding camps should focus on explaining those by designing an experiment perhaps to put it to a test with both parties involved in the design and in attendance to observe the outcome. This seems to one major sticking point. One side is not agreeing how the other put the observations to rest in its model of history. Is there a pragmatic way forward on which you and Ben can agree without walking away from the discussion?
Finally, I want to mention that there is now paleo-botanical evidence for a cyclical pattern to cultural evolution arguing against the orthodox linear model that proposed that environmental pressures pushed stone-age people to invent settled agriculture and begin to live in urban societies ...See Arlen Rosen's analysis of how the Early and Late Natufians adapted to changing edible plant life before and during the Younger Dryas. As you point out, models can only rise and fall with evidence as it comes to light and this is a good example of it. Alternative historians lament the fact that sometimes such evidence is met with dogmatic bias delaying a fair an even-handed appraisal. This, in part, may explain the back-lash from the non-organized non-professional lay persons that academic archaeology, anthropology, and history have faced when it comes to modeling the extant, amassed archaeological record into a historical narrative. My suggestion to both sides is this: There is seed of good insight coming from both sides that is worth considering to come up with a greater understanding based on both. I think you, David, have done a great job to start such a process: Thank you!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Regarding Hunter-Gatherers, Hunting is seasonal, Gathering is seasonal, those seasons do not occur at the same time. There are seasons where one can neither Hunt or Gather, that time is used to develop newer and better tools (shaping of stone and bone, tanning, etc.) as well as other skills (carving, weaving, drawing, food prep/storage and even language). Human activity doesn't stop, it may have set backs or slow downs due to climatic changes or cataclysms but it doesn't stop. Each succeeding generation, hopefully (I'll over look the current generation that can't tell if they're male or female), improves it's knowledge and skills. Once a new season of Hunting or Gathering comes they will use the new skills to increase their food supplies and material gain. More food a healthier population tends to increase its numbers, more people to share the workload and develop other skills. I can see where a group of people reduced to nothing can adapt, develop skills and knowledge to building stone structures, metalwork, etc in a short time, especially when there would be examples left behind by previous generations. The same would apply to Agrarian cultures (who are also Hunter-Gatherers at the same time, I don't understand why the division, people don't stop using a skill just because they develop others). My comment may be simplistic and sophomoric, I don't see the need to over complicate ideas or situations with WooWoo.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
At the 14:41 point the narrator says "Any electrical engineer will explain that a container serving as an energy capacitor or battery must be made entirely of the same substance ..." No they won't. First, batteries and capacitors (and ALL capacitors store energy, but in an electric field, not a magnetic one) are quite different. Batteries must use many different materials in order to work (usually two different metals and an acidic electrolyte). Capacitors are basically two conductors separated by an insulator. The conductors can be any two metals but must have a non-metallic insulator between then.
Then, at 15:20 the narrator says " ... because the crack, which occurred, would have interrupted the magnetic field, permitting (sic) it from successfully serving its purpose." This sounds like the narrator is merely reading a script, one that needed at least one more revision. Further, what is the difference between "unfinished" and "abandoned"? They abandoned the work, leaving it unfinished because a crack developed making it unsuitable for its intended use. There's no evidence that it was intened to be part of a power generator.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WorldofAntiquity I look at stone works from an artists perspective. I was a stone sculptor for 20 yrs.
The carvings show solid handles, the handles don't have a 'flow' or slack. Even though the sculptors were able to depict flow in their clothing, hair, plants, flowers, reins etc.
If you ask stone sculptors what they are, I'm pretty sure 9 out of 10 would say buckets or something solid, not a bag or purse, definitely not leather or cloth. Also, ever notice how people carry small handbags? its almost always hanging off the wrist. The best way for a sculptor/carver to depict a hand bag would be to show it hanging off the wrists or forearm.
I've never seen one of these carvings with people carrying bags with their wrists. Why? cause they are buckets and it would be painful.
They are buckets, or solid containers to carry something with weight, thats why they're always depicted stiff & mostly downward never exceeding an angle which would cause a spill.
I rest me case & i don't care what assologist have to say. LOL.
BTW Great Channel. Im obsessed with Megalithic structures, Ancient Civilizations and all that Jazz. Keep up the great work!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Recently discovered your channel and I'm already a fan! I did hear you mention that the Egyptians had calculated pi to 3.16, though, and I wanted to comment on that.
You do often hear that the ancient Egyptians used a value of 3.16 for pi, but this assertion is misleading. Pi refers to the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference, and is necessary for calculating things such as a circle's circumference and area in our modern formulas. The ancient Egyptians, though, did not use anything like our modern formulas to make these calculations: their approach was fundamentally different.
If you look at Problem 50 in the Rhind Papyrus, you'll see the Egyptian method for calculating a circle's area. They start with the diameter, take away 1/9 of that diameter, then square the result (thus, for a diameter of 9, you would subtract 1 to get 8, then square it for an area of 64).
When you hear that the ancient Egyptians calculated pi as 3.16, what it really means is, if we take the result you get using the Egyptian method and analyze it in terms of the modern formula, it's what you would get using the modern formula if pi was about 3.16. It gives us a sense of how accurate the Egyptian method was, but ultimately such a statement creates the false impression that the Egyptians used pi in their calculations: the reality is that they never calculated pi, and did not even have the concept.
If you want to read more, I recommend Annette Imhausen's Mathematics in Ancient Egypt: A Contextual History. She also has an article - "Traditions and myths in the historiography of Egyptian mathematics," in The Oxford Handbook of the History of Mathematics - which covers the topic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WorldofAntiquity Okay, I get you, thanks for clarifying. I certainly agree that the granular details of biographies, genealogies, etc. of these gods would have diverged pretty radically over the course of a couple of millennia (give or take) of separate development. But it seems plausible (to me at least) that some similarities in broad strokes, such as the broad natural forces that the gods represent, may remain in tact over fairly long periods, which would then lead to these divergent groups meeting after a significant period apart and still recognising the overarching similarity between various of their deities. And yes, at this point, the details such as specific divine family relations and their associated stories/myths, could be borrowed from one to the other. However, it is hard to know how much would be retained over many generations in a pre-literate society. It is something I am definitely interested to read more on! Or, if you have studies this, it could be a great video 🤩.
Thank you again for all this. I recently discovered your channel and have been binge watching your content. I think the “de-bunking” work you do is incredibly important, as I have friends who have fallen deep into the “secret alternative history” black hole, and I now have a reputable source to point them to. I will be joining your patrion today. Cheers 🍻
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Of course archaeology and history involve a lot of speculation. So does physics. That's part of how the scientific method works. It's true that the information we are able to get about an archaeological site puts considerably fewer constraints on speculation than the information provided in physical experiments, but in physics too, interpretative models have been debated (consider, e.g., the plethora of various interpretations of quantum mechanics), and sometimes entirely overturned.
But I think the main litmus test used in the distinction between "hard" and "soft" sciences has to do with the amount of mathematical notation used in the different fields. As a society, we appear to have a very troubled relationship with mathematics. The emphasis laid on this one discipline in the school system plays tricks on some people. This has two particularly unfortunate results.
On the one hand, you have people working in the "hard" sciences, who are brilliant mathematicians, but whose reasoning abilities in other respects, which they never bothered to cultivate, can be extremely poor. That doesn't stop them from opining on questions well outside their field, and the total nonsense they produce then receiving very deferential treatment the scholarly community at large (one case in point, physicist Max Tegmark's quest to convince us we're all somehow made of mathematics, which doesn't even begin to make sense).
On the other hand, you have people working in the humanities and social sciences developing a mathematics inferiority complex, or—which is worse—trying to push mathematical notation where it doesn't belong, and then claiming that their nonsense theories are "scientific", while better-reasoned alternatives are not (cases in point: formal semantics of natural languages and generative grammar, which, unfortunately, have had quite a bit of success with this strategy, or, on the more farcical and less successful side, the various "astronomical" conspiracy theories trying to overhaul the chronology of historical events based on a couple of ill-conceived calculations).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thank you Mr Miano. This is an excellent answer to, not just Mr. Hancock's miss-founded ideas, but to so much of what is currently passing as civil discourse in our world.
And
Having taken psychedelics on occasions ranging between 1968 and yesterday, I can assure you, in my considered expert 😊 opinion, the likelihood of finding universal truths about history, or anything else, "in there" is inconceivable to me.
My experiences have always been 100% reliant on my lifetimes pre trip ponderings set into a (I fail to find words) heightened awareness.
There are no grails, holy or otherwise, waiting to be found, that humans everywhere can find and agree to the description of in psychedelic experiences.
Thanks again.
I just became a Patrion Steward.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
One mindset I find is often used in these clips as "evidence". Quite simply, if it looks like something, it is what it looks like. We both know, this is not the case.
For example, I am the spitting image of Brad Pitt. Or, more accurately, Brad Pitt is the spitting image of me. When I go out in public, I constantly have to deal with Brad Pitt fans wanting a selfie. Most of the time, I just pretend I'm Brad and take the selfie to save the hassle of explaining. Now, if one of these people shows their friends the selfie they took, everyone will see a pic of them with Brad and believe it is Brad. Why? One reason, and one alone. Because I look like Brad.
The truth is, it's not a pic of Brad, despite appearances. Honestly, it's frightening how more and more people are dumber than a bag of rocks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Really love your videos btw, nice to see someone tackling history misinformation and talking around topics that are contested. Even after watching this particular video, I’m not sure. It’s not made any easier when people have dubious custody conditions of such items either. I like the idea of cocaine mummies, but I’m not as convinced as I was before this video. One thing I can’t stand is learning the wrong details of history, drives me up the wall 🤦♂️ being ex military I hear people discussing highly incredulous assumptions about historical battles and use of weaponry. Like the use of the gladius, if you’ve done public order for a number of years, the evidence for such is obvious, enormous shields mean you simply cannot use a longer sword full stop, that’s where the argument ends. But it’s amusing to see people create insane reasons based on zero actual working knowledge 😅
Anyway dude, great videos, huge fan already and I’ve only seen a few, keep up the great work bro 😎
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
While the accretion of Pagan festival practices onto Christian liturgical calendars is demonstrably a thing, when it comes to the dating of Jesus's birth, we Christians in the West get Dec. 25 the same way our Christian cousins in the East get Jan. 6: both calculations were based upon the notion in antiquity that important figures were conceived on the same date on which they died. Tradition (in the west) had long held that Jesus was crucified on March 25. Take that as the date of his conception, add nine months, and you get December 25. No paganism involved or required. Again, many aspects of seasonal celebrations and festivals (including ones associated with the winter solstice) were carried over, but it is by no means clear or certain that the date of Jesus's birth was a product of Paganism. Full disclosure: I'm a priest (with a degree in anthropology), so I am approaching this one question admittedly from a Christian perspective. That said, I think everyone, my fellow Christians and myself most definitely included, benefit from a rigorous adherence to scholarly research and evidence. So overall I'm a big fan of your channel and I very much appreciate your making this particular video, with that same emphasis on accuracy in what we can claim to know about the past. Thank you!
1
-
1
-
04:05
We are still in an Ice Age, as there is ice at the poles. This ice age has lasted 2.5 million years so far.
You, and the Atlantean Conspiritards, mean the last glacial maximum, 26,000 to 13,300 years ago, and the last glacial period, 115,000 – 11,700 years ago. We are currently in the Holocene Interglacial period, allegedly starting with the Younger Dryas, which Graysham Hackcock constantly bangs on about as it incidentally coincides with Plato's mention of Atlantis' destruction.
Hackcock, of course, never mentions that the same Platonic source also talked about Athens having a vast civilisation and army at that same time, indicating obvious fantasy and fiction.
The previous "Ice Age" was the late Paleozoic, formerly known as the Karoo ice age, between 360 and 260 million years ago.
{:-:-:}
(Edited for tyops)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Regarding the practice of the pseudo-sciences and why I believe it resonates with so many today:
Starting with a preconceived notion and working to "backfill" the evidence that one believes would support that claim is precisely how a vast majority of the population (at least in the US) approaches argumentation. Especially when requests for supporting documentation or data are requested. I've been party to so many arguments in person and online that follow this exact method of cherry-picking after the fact.
I think the link is obvious, but to state it explicitly, when someone is using methods you apply yourself, and you've accepted that they are, at a minimum, adequate, you're bound to believe those claims when their ideas align with your own, or have a fundamental emotional appeal like secret knowledge. My own culture has added, "owning the libs," to that list of emotional appeals.
This is why I think it's so critical to get the very basics of the scientific method instilled in young people as early as possible, leveraging their innate curiosity to explore the material world through these methods. Providing the mental framework and tools, even in a minimalist form, could transform this country (USA) IMHO.
Though I'm not a scientist myself, my insatiable curiosity and internal drive to be certain (as I can be) of what is true (independently verifiable), I've adopted these methodologies in this pursuit. It also didn't hurt that I enjoyed sci-fi novels that weren't conservative fantasies run amok, but the exploration of ideas and principles that ended up challenging the world view I grew up with. Add to that some extended stints outside the US in Europe in my 20s, the house of cards that was my understanding of the world began to collapse.
This has been a large part of my story for the last 30 years (I'm now just over 50).
With that being the case, I've felt increasingly compelled to find ways to communicate these methods non-confrontationally. I've also had a fair bit of luck in being able to explain complex topics and ideas in ways that bridge the gap for the listener/reader.
For example, as I was thinking of this issue this morning while popping between the three collaborator's videos, I saw the idea of claims at the top of an inverted tree where each node below would look like the 2D side of a pyramid. The central idea being that each pyramid would visualize the "bricks" to depict the research and well-supported conclusions that undergird the node above. I would then contrast, using real world examples, what these trees would look like for claims derived through the practice of the various the sciences, and those claims made by people applying the pseudo-sciences. As I'm a programmer, I really want to write an app now that leverages AI in specific ways, to do some of the leg work and generate the visual. Of course, that reliance on AI would mean I would need to confirm it all anyway, so it may or may not be worth the effort. :)
In my years of personal, amateur research, I've examined if claims from both ends of the spectrum held up. Recall, I started with a very different world view, so I was initially setting out to prove to myself that what I'd been told was well-founded. What I discovered was a consistent pattern of either no supporting sources provided, or very anemic ones. And those that were often cited pointed to completely unsupported claims in other articles. The more savvy at this form of propaganda would include legitimate sources, but would cherry-pick and quote them out of context such that it would be assumed the source's conclusions aligned with their own. Despite almost always being the polar opposite. And finally, the inclusion of apparently legitimate sources that are actually produced by industries and the think tanks they contribute to that do a more nuanced version of the propaganda methods I've just described.
With this example, I'm planning to perform the analysis and create visual aides, the primary one being the inverted tree. I also really like that the tree ends up being a kind of visualization of the excellent quote, "... we see so far because we stand on the shoulders of giants." Without all that supporting work to nail down what we can reliably say about the world around us, we would be stuck.
One last thought, which I won't expound on here, as it's an entire subject unto itself. I've noticed that, broadly speaking, the conservative way of obtaining information and determining how true it is relies heavily on claims made by authorities and eventual recitation by peers. It's worth noting that progressives are also susceptible to the recitation issue (particularly those who haven't been educated in the scientific method, or were unable to internalize it). Though many progressives, having attended some form of college and embraced these methods, are perpetually more skeptical and want to apply the methods they previously learned. This is painting with a broad brush, but so far, I've become more convinced of this as I continue to do research and interact.
Finally, thank you so much for the science communication work you do. I deeply appreciate those on YouTube, that have done the research and understood the underpinnings of what they are communicating.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Coincidentally, I had a discussion about Atlantis and G. Hancock, yesterday, with my brother in law. I feel bad, in a way, because he had recently been acquainted with GH's work and had consumed the narrative with the line and sinker. I was game to point out that the origin, of Atlantis, is from a story about a mythical land...Critias...story about foreign policy, maybe...yada, yada...and any tale that has Atlantis as a key historical reference, should be read with that in mind. I was momentarily hopeful when he pointed out all the various flood myths from places far and wide. I certainly concur with that idea. However, as to the explanation for this, our thoughts differed sharply.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WorldofAntiquity Yes, at that time Denmark/Norway and the Swedish empire were locked in both a literal war a propaganda war for the role of the leading power around The Baltic Sea, and the goal for the royal historians was to establish which country had the longest historical lineage and, therefore, was superior. Interestingly enough, Rudbeck had a nephew, Petter Rudebeck, who later purported a theory saying that Troy was located in Sweden and that the events of the Iliad and the Odyssey took place around The Baltic Sea. Interestingly enough, and maybe a good suggestion for a topic in a later episode, is that the Italian amateur historian Felice Vinci in the 90s published the book "The Baltic Origins of Homer's Epic Tales: The Iliad, the Odyssey, and the Migration of Myth" in which he claimed that Odysseus was a Dane and that Troy was located in Finland...:-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Historians , Anthropologists, Theologians and Engineers all use their specific knowlage to determine our past and origins . Engineers , like myself , use mathematics , physics , chemistry and all available science to create modern marvels , such as sending people to the moon , megastructures and super computers . We can use that same science to study some ancient artefacts , such as tool marks and prove beyond doubt that they were made by machines which were more advanced than anything we have today , in terms of feeds and speeds . I will never challenge a historian on a subject at which he or she is a lot more educated and qualified as myself , I respect that . My field of expertise on the other hand seems to point towards ancient high tech , but I also understand that not everybody would understand that . I enjoy your videos and I am looking forward to more . Well done !
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WorldofAntiquity Sorry for such a long reply...thanks for the speedy, honest and detailed response. Absolutely agree about the bias you identify, I see this on the history channel all the time e.g. alien hypothesis and conjectures, though I think you probably understand the deeper point I'm/was trying to make. I think the masters of this knowledge like you, need to do more work on things such as the "copper pins", I understand thought there is only so much that can be done as a given point in time.
"Mundane" that's the word:
It seems main stream historians would like to associate only a linear timeline that starts with backward (mundane) man (usually african since africa is the seat of civilisation) and ends with forward (fantastical) man dominated by european thought. Which it seems to me, this modern part of history is the only part identified with exponential movement. By the way, I only mention race because it has been such a dominant feature of european expansion over the last few hundred years and continues to affect us.
If not done yet, I'd love to see you do a video presentation about the non-linear elements of history (e.g. on a fundamental level could the "worship" in egypt be more of a scietific endevour and not religious in the sense of the western world today...there probably are more fundamental examples), because I think the human story is deeper than the mundane. which is why the video you are debunking has 14m views. Perhaps this is wishful thinking and "dangerous", perhaps not. While I have your ear, another is on immortality(or long lifespans in antiquity) especially given the kinds of queries science is making today or is the short answer once again mundane? hahaha
Either way, many thanks for opening yourself up to these types of engagements. I hope your channel continues to grow with new subscribers. Looking foward to going through your catelogue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Prof. Kate here: Whom are you referring to, Prof. Miano or author of the videos he is reviewing? Instructors by virtue of being such happen to see more of the background and interconnected aspects of students' questions than students think are so clear and obvious. (I believe college is their chance to one-up or talk back to an authority figure, which is different from a knowledge figure.) When persons do not see the entire field and only a narrow portion, they sometimes perceive the narrow portion (or an undergraduate level course) to be the entire field (of let's say, history). Here's an analogy: One apply tree does not tell the entire history of apples in the world for the past centuries, nor does a can of apple sauce--my goodness, how did they get the apples in that can?! I believe Prof. Miano provides comparative analysis of claim and rebuttal, indicated by the sharing of the original work he is reviewing. Please define regurgitative (misspelled in your comment) skepticism, and please don't threaten with violence. Resorting to threats of violence begs the question as to your ability to understand the question at hand; a sock in the mouth is not evidence--actually, a great void of it. I'm not siding with Prof. Miano just because I, too, am a teacher. I instruct in rhetoric and grammar, many fields away from his field of science, but I would have to give the professor an A for his analysis of scientific procedure and rhetorical points such as comments by the video author such as "that I have seen." He's positing himself as an authority that has gone over every aspect of his subject. A true scholar or scientist considers all sides of an issue, not just a narrow portion, before he declares a hypothesis, let alone a thesis. I, however, love the idea of alternate histories and enjoy reading the fiction of it. I would like a lot of things to be true, but some aren't and never will be. As we investigate more, we will, as Prof. Miano declares, change the tune of our lessons and the field of knowledge. Science is not afraid of change and does not change things to fit a model. History has shown that process has occurred; in today's world, hiding information is not possible and accolades are to be won for those who can add to the breadth of knowledge. We are not in the Dark Ages or in the days of witch trials in which superstition and fear might have guided some decisions about knowledge, granted to society's detriment, but we have risen above than now, yes, hopefully? To be a skeptic, in closing, is to keep an open mind, to be suspicious of easy claims or wishful thinking trading on being fact. To ask or seek for replication of procedure is the highest of clarity of intellectual adventure.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Looking for any evidence that we'd ever been here"
Gestures towards climate change - there's your evidence, lads. Tree rings, geologic evidence, ice cores, absolutely massive ongoing extinction event - the rocks don't lie. If humans vanished right now and alien xeno-paleontologists arrive 10,000 years from now, they are going easily infer that there was an ancient civilization here, based off climate data alone - but especially when they track that with a lack of easily available hydrocarbons.
Also, everyone forgets space. Why do they do that? While most of the orbital debris will burn up within a few decades or centuries, anything above 10,000km (in HEO) - like Vela 1A, IBEX, Spektr-R, Integral, Tango, Geotail, Samba, and others - will be up there essentially forever. We've left 796 pieces of garbage on the Moon ranging from shoes to money to apparently poop; some of that will almost certainly survive, including the flagpole left by the Apollo missions (although the flags themselves probably won't make it another 30 years; UV light, as it turns out, is not kind to flag fabric), Ranger 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, ear plugs, hammers, lenses, safety cords, nail clippers - it's estimated stuff could last for as long as 100 million years up there on the Moon, meaning that Argentiosaurus decided it wanted to start a space program and made it to the moon, we'd be finding their poop bags even today.
And then there's the Voyager space probes (Voyager 1 will take another 14,000 to 28,000 years before it leaves the Solar System). And the Magellan probes. And New Horizons. They may not be working, but they'll still be in the system. The Martian rovers will probably still be recognizable as machines, given Mars has almost no oxygen in its atmosphere and oxygen is what causes oxidation and decay. And depending on when and how we went out, there would be even more evidence of us; for instance, a blaze of nuclear glory large enough to wipe out humans will probably erase much of the higher order life on this planet, and there's going to be a layer of radioactive isotopes in the rock record, along with evidence of massive world-spanning fires, that indicate what happened.
If we vanished tomorrow without a trace, the xeno-paleotologists from the Tau Ceti-3 School of Advanced Xenoarcaheology and Alien Studies wouldn't be concerning themselves with whether we were here or not - it'd be impossible to argue against our exist. They'd be more concerned with what finished us off without leaving a trace.
1
-
1
-
1
-
This was very painful to watch. I did encounter Dr. Sweatmam’s work prior to seeing your presentation, but dismissed it as a typical cognitive bias problem (selection, confirmation, availability,... ) compounded with egotism and the Dunning-Kruger effect. I was trying to count the cognitive biases in Dr. Sweatman’s work but lost track.He selects the data he wants to use, interprets them based on the basis of assumptions. He ignores all the rest of the data at Gobekli Tepe and Catal Hoyuk. I always thought it was more likely that the images were clan signs, indicating the clans or family groups that were associated with a particular totem animal, as was the case with some rock carvings made by Native peoples in North America. But that is just a thought. Sometimes there is just not enough information to make a conclusion. Dr. Sweatman’s probability analysis appeared to be a bit loony to me, since there is a huge number of interpretations to start with, not just constellations with arbitrary orientations and specially chosen correspondences. Vultures are known to feast on dead bodies. I’ve watched them feed in the wild and compete with each other for the best bits. Dismemberment of human bodies by vultures is a feature of the Parsi Zoroastrian religion, so, to me, it always seemed logical to associate vultures with headless bodies, if the heads were detached and could be carried by a large vulture. This random diffusion through a vast space of concepts is no more scientific than dreaming. Special selection for confirmation of pre-conceived biases is not scientific at all. Dr. Sweatman wants to be acclaimed as the great discoverer of the origins of civilization. In the end, his work is an embarrassment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Your new series of short book reviews is great.
Lomas, The Rise of Rome is indeed a good book for a first approach and one of the better ones on the topic, as you said. But I have two problems with it. First it is sometimes technologically naive. When someone defines, what a state is by modern knowledge and modern views, you can't use it for history. With such a definition you can say, that a city misses some attributes, we regard necessary for an independent city. But you can't say, that it was no independent city in its time. This are problems found in the works of many authors today: Using our views as ancient views and an absence of the question, what a scientific or technical statement really means. The second problem is an older one. Sometimes it is not graphic, clear or illustrative enough. What we call 'anschaulich' in the german language. When there are findings, which prove this or that, but you don't tell, what the findings are, you can't follow. When Niebuhr explained, that there is a point, before which the stories about Rome must be myths, due to the old Roman calendar, he also explained how this calender worked, so every one can understand it. I don't expect this to be done with a lot of details as it was common in the 19th century, but we are no children and want to know more then: "Someone found out by diging." I know, these demands are not modern, but at university students are still told to consider them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Pythagoreanism may itself, even in evolutionary terms, be an easy-to-swallow case of pareidolia (at work) - it can, for example, be as easily attributed to summing up head shape, skull size or bone bits, etc, as to mathematics and their mathematikoi .. and also be as easily accused of making up a kind of knowledge, from a select set of items, which is an example of polymathy, or less politically, an imposture (of actual 'wisdom' and man's love of it). A cynical use of data, neatly arranged, to present an impressive - or least credible - theory, as fact (we make 'facts' out of the available 'data') may turn into mimesis crafted into neat memetics .. and build a largely self-referential and self-perpetuating industrial scale work of mimicry-production (not, btw, only of the Piltdownman variety). Thus the pseudo-science of wry-aside-ing 'European' 'science' and 'civilisation' .. in Marxian dialectic format - as though we had something comparable or better ready-made to hand .. can make the rhetorical wry-aside-ing (insert a disapproving noise or gesture) sound sorta scientificky rather than sophistical.
Clearly, the secrets of the mathematical secret society of maths, and the doing thereof, were not adequately locked away (in the professor's and initiate's head, as with Gnosticism). Notwithstanding, doing complex sums and drawing complicated lines or marking compound shapes is still a bit of a mystery to many of us .. even before having to find pi, give a square root, signify a level, straight, and unobstructed path .. or collate logarithms, or denoting the same via logic-squiggles instead of masses of number); it forms a select world of like minds (with adherents or scoffers), it is not exactly private or occult.
In short, WoA .. thank you, a very enjoyable romp through the genuine errors at the heart of an actual heresy = faux antiquarianism.
;o)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
i dislike how these people premis their ideas, no tools that could do what they did back then have been found so there must have been machinery to do it, sounds stupid to me, how long did they work on a bowl, what stones, wood, and leather straps, could they have used to make a primitiv lathe, if it took 1000 hours to make a small bowl, but they were fed watered and payed a small amount of cash, enough to feed their family, would it be worth it for the time, well Americans flip burgers for 7.25 dollars an hour, but in denmark they get 22$ an hour, for macdonalds, future anthropologists may think Americans had high tech burger makers and made many burgers per hour that denmark dfidnt so made more burgers a day and thats that, more burgers easyer work less pay, but lol thats not it, contxt is everything and financial reward for work v time is everything, what was the system of payment and work conditions af the time, not just the technology.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I typically suffer an ancient aliens/annunaki tiktok or YouTube on this very subject nearly every other day. You straight up went talking heads - burning down the house on his incomprehensible conclusions.
One cannot logically use a "god of the gaps" argument to favor one's own viewpoint that extraterrestrials were involved. Essentially he is arguing that since what he defines as "mainstream" history lacks a wholly complete historical narrative of ancient Sumer, then he will simply fill the gaps in with his own extravagant narrative (loved your breakdown of "advanced trade routes").
You even touched on his use of the god of the gaps argument when you said that the Sumerians attributed things like weather to their gods. Very excellent debunk there.
You have a brilliant understated delivery. It truly makes the man in the video appear as the court jester sent to entertain us viewers. Well done.
One would assume that one, just ONE of these conspiracists would consult with an expert. perhaps maybe even with our very own narrator of this video, to solidify the information in their highly speculative videos; alas, that would make far too much sense as they must surely know that they are peddling misinformation, thus inadvertently exposing themselves as bad faith actors.
Someone intent on communicating honest historical information would, one assumes, contact an expert on ancient Sumer before publishing their video, which is the type of behavior we could reasonably expect from a good faith actor. But no, we get a man with an inflated ego dismissing the entire discipline of historiography so he can ask his viewers questions in the key of delusional, such as "I mean come on, what does that look like to you?" Imagine if we conducted scientific and historical research via this strange man's method. The scientific method. . . . out the window. Observation and interpretation of archaeological artifacts considered within the context of their culture's time and place. . .no, reslly these types of artifacts are no better than garbage heaps. Ethnographic studies bolstered by forensic linguistics. . . . .or as some would phrase it: realistic research. No yeah I'm convinced, the whole things a wash. Let's just make a scholarly reduction to inane questions like "come on, look at that carving, what does it kind of vaguely resemble?"
That last question could have replaced the entire conspiracy theorist's video. We would have saved time and he wouldn't have had to put any more time, energy, or thought into his video's script. Excellent video, once again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WorldofAntiquity thanks for your response.
1. I am indeed glad about that, but it doesn't always happen like that. Finds are sometimes interpreted from a biased point of view, which is what I meant. And sometimes later those points of view are challenged or debunked. That is what I love about science. But this is unfortunately not always the case. Sometimes established opinions (interpretations of evidence) are calcified, so to speak.
2. I fully agree but that is not what I said. And just to be crystal clear, I'm not saying all of archeology is wrong. I'm just saying many gaps are filled with rubbish and the rubbish then becomes the leading narrative. As per my example of denisovans, there's just not enough known to make any sufficient kind of narrative, yet it happens anyway.
3. True there are many kinds of evidence, but without written records there is little confirmation of any conclusion. Without anyone speaking to us from the past, we simply don't know what they were thinking. Pottery and tools and ornaments are hints at best. If you disagree and you can counter my opinion with solid example, that would be interesting.
4. carbon dating is reliable within certain parameters. But it's not exact in itself, don't you agree? Without supporting dating methods to verify the outcome it could be contaminated or just simply impossible.
By the way, I never stated archeology is not a science, I totally agree it is. My point was merely it's not an exact science, and it does get affected by biases and personal interests. Since a lot of it is assumption (the further back in history the more assumptions), those assumptions tend to bend towards the general narrative even if that is a flawed narrative. In some sciences, going against the narrative has negative impact on one's career. I'm not saying it always happens, but it does happen too often in archeology it seems.
I would like to know your opinion on Zahi Hawass for example, with this in mind.
I would like to be clear that I do agree with most of your videos, and I enjoy your enthusiasm and wit a lot. You make history more fun with your style. There's no need to be defensive as I hope you can see. This is just about nuances.
PS I watched your suggested video (must've missed it before) and I think I understand why I triggered you.
I said ''at this point it's more of an ideology'' and that was a bit cheeky. Obviously on the whole it's not, and as a 'harder to do' science, it is not less of a science than what we consider 'hard' sciences as how you describe it in that video. I love history. By using the word ideology, I was basically complaining about what I perceive as the influence of bias, personal assumptions, and authority on specific stories.
Is it maybe an idea to do a video on revised narratives even if just to show the scientific method in action?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I have the impression that these gentlemen simply don't even think about what they say, because for them it's just the mantra they use to bring home their daily bread (nicely accompanied by some good butter). They have in mind that people who stumble upon their tours are just there to be fascinated by stories, and the more incredible the merrier. In this, my personal belief is that they simply don't care being debunked. Their numbers (visualizations, clicks, likes and alikes) is just staggering: how can a decent ground-footed person fight against aliens, miracles, ancient forgotten technologies, and all that stuff? Fascination of the weird is the key. But channels like this one, are way more interesting and funnier.
Thanks Dr. Miano, from the old Europe. May I treat you with a tour about the nuraghi, in Sardinia? Some person babbles about aliens on them as well (friends of Mr. C. Dunn, I guess)... Take care and ciao!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is this bronze is worse than iron fallacy again, well, not so fast, not without evidence. Snce the abrasive is making the cut, bronze is not less effective than iron saw is, not worse than even the ones used during medieval times in some cases. The teeth of abrasive saw is different because it has to direct the abrasive to the right place instead of making actual cuts. Of course the abrasive will damage the blade too, and this is where iron is better: it can last for generations, it does not need to be replaced every dozen years or so. I might remember wrong, but I think this was even tried with not terribly large 2 men pulled saws, and the only thing the sawing speed depended on is the type of abrasive and the material being cut, not that much the material of the blade. Of course the blade itself needs to be made from something that survives at least making a few cuts, although for religious purposes people are known to do worse things than destroying a few blades. Of course one could also argue, that a modern bronze might be much better for saw making than an ancient brozne was, so perhaps some studies in this could be useful too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This stuff fills me with sadness...we're living in a Golden Age right now; ordinary ppl like us have NEVER been so empowered or presented with so many opportunities!
And what about the science? Look at all the recent breakthroughs just in archaeology - Gobekle Tepi, the Great Pyramid cavity, the discovery of the White City in Honduras! It goes on & on, in ANY field you care to name! We are privileged & blessed to be alive at this period in Human history!
I just don't understand where all this denial, cynical-bitterness, flat-earthers, dinosaurs & Roman apologists & lunatic-fringe pseudo science comes from; isn't there enough going on to pique anyone's interests? I mean, WHY!?!?
And more importantly, why so nasty? Accusations, finger-pointing & name-calling, ppl being abused in the streets, & for what? What's wrong with Live & Let Live? Surely, if one's beliefs can't handle a little contradiction, then a little personal introspection might be more appropriate than hostility & paranoid conspiracies? Think about it; are any of us so hugely important as to justify the "Establishment" bothering to make such massive cover-up efforts? Honestly, why would they want to? Why would "They" care what we think? Why bother?
Cover-ups are expensive, but Truth sells itself, & it's a profit without risk of exposure.
The world today has never been more exciting, why would anyone interfere with that; there's more than enough opportunities around for EVERYONE!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As usual, I'm late here :-(
Thanks to both Tess S. and Prof. David M. for this resumee. Been to a number of places on both of your lists, as well as others. Turkey (or, maybe, Anatolia) encorporates so much ancient history that even many centuries of research won't be enough to unearth and study everything that's found beneath the floor. Even Ephesus alone hides a lot more than one can expect.
To me, the top site would be Hattusha for a few reasons. Primarily because the Hittites are largely a forgotten, or even neglected, civilization, yet very important, and which rivalled Egypt in few centuries in the 2nd millenium B. C., way before ancient Greece. I still don't get it how come the Hittites maintained such a large capital "mile high" in the center of Anatolia from 18th to 12th century, especially if you take into account the harsh winters there.
And for everyone interested. Anatolia is worth being visited not in summer because it can be scorching hot (say, in Antalya), but off-season. I have never been there in summer. And with less tourists, you can make trips to favourite places, some of which look in fact abandoned. Some sites are not in good shape, but some others are still well-preserved, and it's likely you'll be there alone. Literally, NO-ONE will be there except for yourself, and no-one will charge you for entrance. (E. g., Alabanda, near Cine, south of Aydin, and many others.)
Definitely must go back again, sooner rather than later.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Go wherever the evidence takes us." Bingo. There you are.
You would be wrong if there had been found artifacts of advanced technology such as advanced devices (components of aircraft, turbine engines, etc), advanced materials (stainless steel, titanium, tungsten carbide, etc), and so forth. While the absence of evidence is not equivalent to the evidence of absence, we simply cannot ASSUME that such evidence exists. Until we find some such artifacts, the answer remains negative. It is up to the advocates to come up with the evidence. You cannot be expected to dig up the entire planet to prove that such evidence does not exist.
Also, it is NOT sufficient if the "Advanced Civilization" advocates find some stuff that they cannot explain. Their ignorance of ancient technology is not evidence of anything whatsoever. It they claim that object X was made with advance machine tools, they must subject the supposedly machined surfaces under a scanning electron X-ray fluorescence microscope and locate traces of the advanced machine tools. Until they do that, they are just blabbing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I have read Martin Sweatman's book and agree that, although interesting with original thinking, (and some good points not probably capable of being covered here) the subjective aspect does impact on his main conclusions somewhat.
I definitely do not think of the Younger Dryas Impact theory as being marginal or a fringe idea, that has definitely moved the other way within the world of geology and related sciences in the last decade unless I am mistaken? The YDIT relationship to Pillar 43 is a bit dubious though. The headless man with erect penis is perhaps alluding to death and fertility/rebirth, there are mainly male animals (many showing the male genitalia) portrayed throughout the small area of Gobekli Tepe excavated thus far. The anthropomorphic T pillars come across as male too. I think the orb over the bird wing looks out of proportion to the body below although the other example given with a bird and orb shape looks exactly like a dismembered or disembodied head. Human heads have some significance in part of the ritual aspects of Gobekli Type from what I have read. The orb does indeed stand out in a way to appear like the Sun or the Moon is being shown, but in what context relate to the animal imagery, who really knows as yet? Further excavation might reveal other Pillar 43 like imagery to provide better context. The (Catalhoyuk?) images with birds of prey and disembodied heads (with phallus too) looked more specifically related to the deflecting of humans post mortem.
However, I do not believe it is a given that the archaeological world was really at all open to what ancient hunter gatherers or peoples leaning towards forming sedentary lives pre Mesopotamian civilisation were capable of when it comes to monolithic or monumental construction.
For instance Egyptologists (and many archaeologists) often used the argument related to non orthodox ageing of famous monuments in the Giza Plateau, that if any capability of monumental building existed many millennia anywhere before approximately 2,500 BCE then "show us the evidence". (paraphrasing)A great deal of archaeological opinion argued against the organisational abilities to plan, organise and utilise a workforce with high grade artisans able to further make elaborative portrayals of animals and other abstract symbols in basso relivo.
This sounds like a rant against archaeologists or current archaeology, but it really isn't, they do an amazing job, but science can get stuck down with orthodoxy and towing the line for career reasons that remove the exploratory nature or be quick to dismiss other ideas (not in the case of this excellent criticism though I suspect there will be aspects Dr Sweatman will challenge nonetheless)
I believe that merely the discourse created will lead to better understanding of the human mind.
Will subscribe to your channel and Martin's too.
Cheers
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Where to visit...Caral, Peru, 7,000 - 5,000 ya, Stepped pyramids. (Dr. Ruth Shoddy un covered it, removed several meter thick layer of sand.)The Mother city of the New World. Why "Roman concrete" fell out of use...once it cracks it is cracked and it continues to crack and fall apart. In Caral you can find 'hydrated' or fired lime. Hydrated lime is durable and is self healing. If it cracks it will fill the crack. Hydrated lime stucco has been found on large structures in Caral. Where else to visit...the Mirador Basin, Guatemala, Mayan, contemporary with Olmec. The production of hydrated lime has been given credit for the decline of major Mayan cities. It took 1,000 acres of green timber to produce enough lime stucco to cover one large structure. Recent population estimates of 3,000,000 persons. Lidar observations have revealed thousands of large structures, causeways, dams...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I just want to say sir, I am glad I found your channel, i am truly interested in those topics, but as you mention when you type "Atlantis" on the youtube search bar, you are bombarbed with theories about ancient alien civilazation that use the power of mind and what not, which im not oppose too, althought I think it's extremely unlikely that such a powerful knoweldge would have been lost, it's a possibilty. What I am firmly oppose to, however, is linking stuff without any proof whatsoever. You're channel is the most reliable I have found yet, thanks for doing this service to the curious community out there!
1
-
1
-
@WorldofAntiquity tlaskamati Professor. I've been in a reasonably polite debate with several conspiracy theorists in the comments section of a video that makes the claims you spent this entire video debunking. It's the whole "how did Egyptians cut blocks of granite with copper saws" thing.
My initial response addressed all of the comments where modern construction workers said things like " I worked masonry for 5 years and blankity blank is impossible" or 10 years or 25 years. I tried to convey to them, by way of Triple Alliance masons, that masonry was often a hereditary trade that you learned from your father, and that 5 years was nothing to a Tepanec/Mexica/Alcohua stone mason who had worked 12 hour days, 6 to 7 days a week, for 50 to 55 years. Not only that but I made the same argument Vince Lee just started your guys' interview off with about how the ancients had an advantage more than likely since they did these jobs ALL THE TIME and had surely learned tricks, shortcuts, and ways to master certain techniques. (Vince worded it much better than me, but I've never sold myself as an articulate debater)
Nearly all of it went right over their heads. This was the response I got from one: "it doesn't matter if your society has a mason tradition for 1,000 years or 10,000 years copper saws still won't cut granite. (Good lord I don't know why I engage with them)
My hopefully final response addressed some minor points they brought up but at the end I threw the gauntlet down and said "alright, if you can tell me, without conducting a Google search. how an Egyptian mason could split a block of granite in half 4,500 years ago then I will continue this conversation with you about pyramid construction; but trust me, I'll know if you've looked it up (97% a bluff but maybe my intuition will just shift into overdrive). And we can even discuss the largest pyramid in the world, by volume, which is the one at Cholula, Mexico which is associated with the ubiquitous Mesoamerican feathered serpent Quetzalcoatl; and we can also discuss my personal favorite: the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan."
Great videos by the way. I barely got any sleep I was listening so intently. I truly enjoy a polite but thorough debunking of pseudoscientific B.S. that only serves to obfuscate the truth from people who already don't know very much about a lot of these subjects. You are doing great work.
Hopefully they try and remain honorable, don't Google it, and can't come up with the answer. That would please me immensely
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I studied to be a historian. I can not listen to most of these "alternate facts" by "independent researchers" videos because they prefer fabulous guesses to boring real facts, click bait to the humdrum hard work of historians and archeologists, and myths and conspiracy theories to actual, scientific research. I enjoy take-downs like this one but have to watch with pauses because the ignorance, exaggeration, Error von Dummkopf*level stupidity, and sometimes deliberate misinformation are too much to be taken in non-stop. The whole idea of "independent researchers" is based on conspiracy theories that a gigantic cabal that includes millions of scientists and multiple millions of educated people are concealing reality from the village idiots, grifters and the like. Thanks for doing your best to highlight the work that goes into real history and real archaeology, those of us who are interested in the subjects appreciate it. Those who are uninterested in real work, and want flashy myths and bogus "alternative facts and theories" have already gone elsewhere, like Faux Archaeology* X.
*The names have been changed to protect the guilty. I wanted to believe in ancient aliens and Atlantis in high school, but upon reading Ignoramus von Dummkopf's books I was so appalled at the ignorance and the level of stupidity that I came away doubting everything asserted.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WorldofAntiquity I agree with your take that certainty is extremely difficult to reach. I was just poking fun at your Sol Poem. I'm a pretty poor communicator in general.
I'm just generally sensitive to assertions about history, especially archeological ones due to the (what I view as pretty strange and disturbing) pattern that loosely figured material can get blown way out of hand, especially when it comes to poor translations of works written a long time ago, and become viewed as solid fact by the next generation of researchers because the cultural meaning is totally lost.
Even happens in modernity with phrases like, "Begs the question," "Blood is thicker than water," and, "Curiosity killed the cat," with just a few decades of use.
I can't even get a room full of engineers with a cumulative forty years of education and sixty years experience to agree on a hard science like mathematics relating to GD&T (which isn't archeology, granted), and that makes me pretty skeptical about a good many historical claims about motivations for actions and events from even the most respected experts.
In all seriousness, I think your views and position on coverage of these topics are great, and you've got a fan. It's a great change from my normal interactions with PhD "experts" making wild claims that Greece in the Hellenistic Era and Ancient Sumeria were essentially the same religiously and therefore were almost identical culturally to include their folklore.
I swear there are more charlatans out there (or at a minimum they're far more vocal overall), and you, Sir, are not one of them.
Thanks for getting back to me and not accusing me of being a total windbag (which although true, I already know)!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WorldofAntiquity Thanks for the reply. love the channel.
Mr Miano, I'm just trying to get facts right, not trying to imply aliens did it and all that crap.
Online I cannot find any original documentation from Hemiunu himself or any original proof of it's construction, and by proof I mean a picture of original, not a document by a recent times study.
About the carbon dating, please give a link to the study of the mortar of khufu's. not wood around giza plateau.
About point 3. forget the word perfect, but why The interior finish, specially the kings chamber, feels so ahead of all the other pyramids.
point 4. what I meant was, if you remove the ladders from the pyramids does it look like it was designed to fit people?.
Yes, some people go crazy over the egyptians and all other ancient cultures, but man, some of these theories don't fit man.
Even egyptologists when interviewed don't say they know for sure. So why do we have to take it as facts, that is all I'm saying.
Take care, and keep debunking.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is no part of the Power Plant fantasy ("hypothesis") that isn't pure BS. For instance, we're told that "any electrical engineer will explain that a container serving as an energy capacitor or battery must be made entirely of the same substance so there's no interruption in the magnetic field."
Well, this is my wheelhouse. I'll tell you flat-out that first of all batteries and capacitors are two different things. And with a battery, you CANNOT make it entirely of the same substance. As with the Baghdad "battery", you must have dissimilar metals, one to act as a cathode, and one to act as anode. Electrons flow from the anode to the cathode through an external wire. The chemical processes are oxidation at the anode and reduction at the cathode requiring dissimilar materials appropriate to facilitating these processes.
A capacitor is an entirely different animal... an "interruption" is exactly what you're going for here, as capacitors aren't just used for energy storage; they commonly used for isolation. Capacitance is exercised by ANY TWO conductive materials separated by a "dielectric", or non-conducting material, such as air or ceramic. A surplus of electrons forced into one side of the capacitor creates an electrostatic field that causes a deficit of electrons on the other, and vice versa. At this point the capacitor can be disconnected from the power source and will hold the charge until a circuit connects the two plates and allows the electrons to flow to the opposite plate, balancing the charge. OR, you can transmit an AC signal across the dialectric by varying the voltage. This is why power lines are hung so far above ground. To hang them lower is to increase the loss of transmission through capacitance with the ground. And of course, the ground is literally the GROUND. It can be composed of practically anything whatsoever.
IOW, EVERYTHING ABOUT THE STATEMENT (from "any electrical engineer" on) is wrong except the grammar. Even conceptually. Even in principle. And that goes for just about everything else that the fantasists claim about "pyramid power".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WorldofAntiquity I am aware of the challenges and the requirement of compelling arguments that are needed to change the ideas, especially of elderly professors and experts. There is that saying that if you want to beat the champ, you better knock him out.
Regarding the ”youth” (I'm in my late 30's and I already speak like a pensioner), there is this "trend" of getting things done really fast, expecting results with little effort. I'm not saying this is the case for Ben, he certainly put in the time and effort to document his ideas, but he still jumps to conclusions rather hastefully. He often strawmans the "mainstream historians", and doesn't seem to spend that much time reading all of their/your arguments.
My issue with historians is that they also tend to jump to conclusions rather fast and reconstruct whole stories based on scarce data. I've seen this happen once, with some archeologists that were exploring the site of Sarmizegetusa Regia (not sure how familiar you are with the history of the Roman Empire). But this is a story for another time (don't want to be too long with this).
Getting to the point, I believe that, for instance, building a monument the size of the pyramid of Khufu in 27 years (according to the Diary of Merer if I'm not mistaken) with bronze age technology is borderline ridiculous (not sure on what the view is right now, but, as far as I know, a basic mechanism such as the block and tackle was discovered much later than the proposed time of the pyramid's construction). As far as I know, even Herodotus had some supernatural tales intertwined with his (more) historical writings. Historians rightfully throw that out as nonsense, but for some reason, unrealistic timelines like the ones written about in Merer's diary are considered historical fact.
There are other implausible theories that are considered historical facts, but, as I said before, I don't want to be too long with this comment. I might write you an email regarding these, as you seem to be very open in discussing such issues and also eager to engage with non-historians. I thank you for that. We definitely need more people like you and less like the arrogant Zahi Hawass (not questioning his expertise, just criticizing his character).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is the Graham Hancock interview. It gets more and more unhinged the further you go into it. By the end, they've posited that there was an advanced civilization that existed more than 11,000 years ago which used "enlightened" spiritual technology (ie, used drugs and also had telepathy). They were mostly killed off by the Younger Dryas event, and used places like Gobekli Tepe to "pass on" there wisdom to the hunter-gatherers that shared the place with them. This is their theory. They also continually complained about why the mainstream academics don't take them seriously. With a straight face, they seriously wonder why accredited academics, with their own deadlines, accepted set of evidential standards, class loads, et cetera, won't take time to consider their theories. And they make all these conclusions without a single shred of physical evidence. The problem is, is that people like pondering about a mystical ancient civilization. And now that these guys have a platform such as Youtube, they can make a few bucks by deeper and deeper down the rabbit holes. Unfortunately, I think these armchair academics are here to stay, especially with the continuing growth of the anti-intellectual movement. That's why it's important that people like you continue to make rebuttal videos pointing out the flaws and providing reasons why we won't take them seriously. Hey, if they come up with some REAL evidence, I am more than happy to consider it, and if they can prove their case I will be the first to jump up and admit that I was wrong... Cheers
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
On the point of universities, as you rightfully brought up, it is very much up to what definitions do we accept - and since Bologna was what defined what University is, it is naturally the first example. I do like however a slightly wider definition of university as an institution of higher education and research - and I think one contender for a very early example of that would be the Pandididakterion, or, how some would say, the University of Constantinople. Founded in 425AD, it was an institution that had legal presence (set educational curriculum, its education was officially recognized by the state, etc.) that most of the loose philosopher schools of earlier days, like Plato's Academy, lacked. It is an interesting example, operating relatively closely to how we understand universities of today. I also like this example because it debunks the myth of supposed dark ages of ignorance brought to Rome by its adoption of Christianity.
Anyway, just my small input but I also wish to say that I really enjoyed the video, and others on this channel. I appreciate the immense work you must put into them, especially in debunking some of the crazier myths and providing actual evidence on the matter!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just came across this. Wish I'd found it much sooner, but I subbed after watching sev. other of your vids. The "out there theories" on how these places were built just kill me. I was a forestry and Wildlife major in college, and we used simple tools, to measure slope (plumb bob), how much of certain types of wood you could get from a certain size stand of trees etc...I won't bore anyone with details. lol. What I'm saying is, even tho there are other easier ways of doing all of what we had to do...it wasn't limited to just those few things, I mean we had to also know our pace. Accurately. We had to figure our location on Earth, before GPS was public. So we used a compass and pencil and paper plus our known pace. That's how far apart your steps are when you walk, so you know if you walked 50 steps, then you should know the distance you just walked. I actually got closer than a computer can and won all kinds of awards for it, and not from just the Forestry Dept, but also the math dept. lol.
I've always said we do not give previous civilizations enough credit. They used what they had around them and they knew how to use it very very well. We flip out if the internet is down for even a minute. As for Sacsayhuaman, oh this one channel irks me so bad, as he goes on and on and on about "NUBS", what they are, were for etc...when it's OBVIOUS to most ppl who aren't dimwitted enough to buy into ancient polymers use and aliens helping. I guess they gotta keep their job somehow. They dug their holes, now they gotta continue with it, or no living will be made. AT LEAST MATT at Ancient Architects...he is fluid with his opinions. As Evidence changes, so does his theories or opinions. I think that's how History should be, science as well. Well, everything really. The Earth was flat for a long long time, then we found out diff. Well SOME OF US DID lol. Seems that cropped up again. I feel sorry for those ppls kids when they get sent to school and they are brainwashed by their parents that the earth is flat. I just say to them...guess you've never sailed the ocean blue, either above or underneath or traveled in space, which isn't real to them either. Because we use SPHERICAL TRIG/GEOMETRY to navigate vast distances because the earth is spinning and moving thru space at thousands of miles an hour. You can't draw a straight line from point A to B and actually arrive at point B (if the distance is far enough that is) It's like the navigator of a submarine. Capt. says...navigator...plot a course for....but..he is constantly recalculating his position. WHY IS THAT I WONDER? Hmmmm. Ignorant ppl fine. Stupid tho...drives me crazy lol. Sorry if I was harsh.
AWESOME CHANNEL. Can't wait to watch more!
1
-
1
-
As a geodetic engineer, thank you for pointing out that exact measurements do not exist, but always contain an indication of accuracy, i.e. a combination of mean result, reliability and precision.
As an example, there are two people standing on a roof in Paris looking at the Eiffel Tower. They both guess the distance between them and the landmark. One says between 5 and 10km, the other says between 7 and 8km. They each look it up on Google Maps and both find a distance of 7.5km.
Both guesses or eyeball measurements had the same accuracy, their guessed mean distance was the same as their measurements in Maps. But the first one had the best reliability and poorest precision. The second one had the poorest reliability and the best precision.
But here's the kicker: the measurements they chose as a decider measurement, they made in Google Maps, potentially far more accurate (more reliable and precise) than their eyeball guesses could ever be. However, their results were supposedly exactly the same, 7.5km and e.g. not 7.495 and 7.528, but probably between 7.4 and 7.6km, or a precision of 200 metres. It could also have been that one measured 7.8km and the other 7.2km and that they averaged their Maps results to end up with 7.5km. The unit resolution of their guesses determined the precision they needed from Google Maps to decide their bet, which was only needed in kilometres, pius or minus a half.
So in reality their guesses were neither exactly right, but simultaneously both were 'exactly right'. The first guesser had a much higher probability of getting it right. The second guesser was far more precise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1