Hearted Youtube comments on World of Antiquity (@WorldofAntiquity) channel.

  1. 24000
  2. 2100
  3. 1300
  4. 1200
  5. 907
  6. 849
  7. 794
  8. 691
  9. 662
  10. 633
  11. 597
  12. 593
  13. 542
  14. 501
  15. 481
  16. 467
  17. 461
  18. 438
  19. 436
  20. 434
  21. 411
  22. 400
  23. 389
  24. 388
  25. 388
  26. 384
  27. 378
  28. 365
  29. 359
  30. 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
  31. 345
  32. 337
  33. 334
  34. 334
  35. 326
  36. 324
  37. 323
  38. 314
  39. 313
  40. 309
  41. 303
  42. 303
  43. 302
  44. 299
  45. 295
  46. 294
  47. 292
  48. 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
  49. 288
  50. 283