Archaeologist Recap of the Hancock v. Dibble Debate and the 89th SAA Conference.
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 09. 2024
- The archaeology world had two events this weekend. The 89th Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology in New Orleans, and the Graham Hancock vs. Flint Dibble debate on Joe Rogan. I enjoyed both thoroughly. This is a very informal, somewhat rambling recap of what I found noteworthy about each.
NOTE: When I recorded this I had just gotten done with an 8 hour drive after 4 days of non-stop archaeology presentations, and somehow I mixed up Tom Dillehay and Richard Yarnell when I talked about Monte Verde. That'll teach me not to record videos tired.
Here's the link to the debate video:
• Joe Rogan Experience #...
Interview with Seth Grooms on Poverty Point: • Poverty Point Culture ...
As a physicist i don't see archaeology as a real science. It is all just speculation and bias. You should be in the alley with the sociologists and tarot card readers.
www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-47299-x
www.mdpi.com/2075-163X/11/4/384
www.academia.edu/42068868/Remote_Sensing_as_Community_Settlement_Analysis_at_Moundville
www.researchgate.net/publication/328516234_Sorting_the_sheep_from_the_goats_in_the_Pastoral_Neolithic_morphological_and_biomolecular_approaches_at_Luxmanda_Tanzania
Read all of these and say that again.
The thing with archaeology is that it is not a single science, it is a multi-disciplinary science. Do you consider geology to be a science? What about botany? Palaeontology? Marine science? Genetics? If you say yes to all of them or even one of them, then you also have to say archaeology is a science, as all these scientific disciplines can and do work in archaeology.
An interesting claim to make when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, so clearly you haven't investigated the field whatsoever. The only one with a bias here is you.
@@inthenebula92 physicists are incredibly arrogant, thinking they are better than anyone else. To them, they are the only scientists.
Jerk
I just went to Poverty Point this weekend and it was so wonderful! I’d recommend to anyone going to go in the spring. Wildflowers are everywhere and all you can smell. There were tons of dragonflies all over bird mound. It was really cool. And the size of bird mound is amazing in person.
Thanks for covering the Hancock/ Dibble debate. I’m only half way through but dibble did an excellent job! I hope more archeologists do this!
On a recent field trip to the marsh of Wilmington NC my students found dozens of fabric embossed pottery shards in the mud. Really intricate. I’m a biologist, but To my eye, identical to the Badin shards I’ve seen in the NC piedmont region. As the waves are eroding the bank they are just spilling out like mad.
I know that there's an archaeologist at UNCW. My sister had a class with him. If you can send him pictures and a google maps pin he can forward that to the relevant parties. Unfortunately with climate driven sea level changes, we're going to lose a LOT of sites.
Interesting video as always. Thank you for sharing.
I was looking forward to your thoughts on that interview.
Many of the claims GH makes about the Cinq-Mars episode are very hyperbolic. He did get flak and criticism (as any new idea should get from academia) from colleges but he continued to work and publish (and be funded) for at least another ten years at the same site. He also retained his position until retirement. In short, he wasn't "canceled" as he asserts.
"Jarnell" ? "Arnell"? I turned on captions to try to figure out who the hell you're talking about at Monte Verde. What happened to Tom Dillehay? Never heard of this other guy.
You're absolutely right. I had just gotten back from the conference hearing people talk archaeology for four days straight when I recorded this. Mixed up two completely different people. I'll make a note in the description and put in a card correcting myself.
Thanks for the news!
I think sometimes we see and understand so much, it becomes really hard to see anything past it.
Dude, this was a great video. THANK YOU!!!!
Does gobekli tepe qualify as a city? I think everyone including the academic world must recognize that it's at least 12,000 years old. I think Graham Hancock came off just as he always does as a curious, knowledgeable, well-spoken, journalist. Flynn dibble while appearing to be someone knowledgeable was definitely exposed as a race-baiting part of the academic problem. Watching him forced to acknowledge some of his more slanderous claims was fun to watch.
Do you understand that it is the academic world that is teaching you about Gobekli Tepe? The discussion I watched showed Hancock scrambling to maintain composure against someone who showed rationality. No race slander in sight. Hancock still needs to publicly separate himself from the obvious racially biased parts of some of his sources. Easy to do so why not do it?
Some 19th century archeologist made a list of attributes to define an ancient city and I believe one was a permanent population of at least 10,000 people. So I doubt Gobekli Tepe would qualify and should probably be called a settlement or a town.
Given there’s no permanent settlements and it was a hunter-gatherer society, no, it’s not a city, nor were the other Tepe’s found in Turkey. Graham Hancock is a charlatan who knowingly spreads misinformation, and as such, repeatedly telling stories he knows are untrue, a verifiable liar.
I find that weird when it was Graham Hancock that had no evidence to support his theory. He literally said so in the debate.
Have you actually bothered to read what Hancock actually says? World of Antiquity has a video on what he actually says and it's definitely NOT just asking questions.
@@swirvinbirds1971 Poor Graham is stuck in the self-deception that unless someone proves to him that he is wrong then he must be right. It doesn't seem like he thinks proof is necessary for his claims.
It’s funny that he uses the “you’re not looking in the right places” argument when he’s using known archeology sites as proof for this all over the world civilization…
I think the line goes "Claims require evidence, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Burden of proof, parsimony of assumptions, and all that--Graham needs to come up with some evidence at this point. He can put some of that TV show money on the table to finance some exploratory work out wherever he thinks it all is.
What’s your thoughts on flint lying about the ice core data that shows spikes in lead going back tens of thousands of years. What’s your thoughts on flint lying about the evidence we have of plants being domesticated returned to the wild to then be domesticated again? Why do you think flint felt the need to lie about so much of the data?
@@insertyoutubeusername Oh sure, but they've got that--they're not asserting stuff without evidence. They've got Egyptian art of them hauling giant statues across the ground by using dozens, if not hundreds of people. Bits and bobs of unfinished stonework are around. There's a quarry still with an unfinished obelisk--it's only carved out on three sides. A lot of things are possible with simple materials and know-how and the Egyptians are as likely as anyone else to be skilled craftsmen.
As for the rest, current evidence suggests they weren't afraid to use lots and lots of elbow grease. Modern archaeology isn't working without evidence, but they present their conclusions for public consumption. I bet you if you asked an Egyptologist how they know what they did, they'd say something like "We found an unused stone block because it cracked/broke when dropped/fell off something, we could see tool marks on it, we examined those tool marks and tried to figure out how they were made, then we made replica tools and tried to cut our own stone block with them to compare the marks made and got some similar patterns so we're like 98% sure how they did it and they probably had some techniques you learn with experience and craftsmanship"
@@TelenTerrorthen how come all of the archeologists say "well we don't know how they moved the stones?"
Sounds like you're making things up.
@@TheHighSpaceWizard Because archaeology is science and science hates to say "I know with 100% certainty". It's one reason they're so bitchy over stuff they're certain of; they only let themselves say "I know" in very specific circumstance, if they've been doing their job right. They've got some reasonably informed guesses about pulling wooden sleds over wet sand and ramps and all, but they're not certain enough to call it knowing.
@@TheHighSpaceWizard Not so fast Mr. Wizard. I have heard archaeologists say: "Well we are not sure exactly how it was done. But there are theories that have been tested and have plausibility) stuff like that. There have been numerous demonstrations of teams of people moving large stones. There are records with measurements (in cubits) of Hatshepsut's barge that was built to transport granite obelisks to various sites along the Nile. It was just shy of a football field in length.
I have seen film of a college archaeological department faculty and student volunteers haul and erect a 20 ton obelisk using human power, ropes, wooden sledges and rollers, and a ton of sand. They used all the materials like papyri, inscriptions etc, and records dating from Ptolemaic, and Roman times that describe in some detail the methods and equipment they had learned and borrowed from the Egyptians.
And trying to claim that ..."all archaeologists say'''... or agree on anything sounds like you are merely repeating atl-history dogma ala G. Hancock, Ben from UnsupportedX, Brien Forster, and Randall C. Sounds like you are accepting a lot of "possibilities" as if they are fact and adopting them as your view uncritically.
I think Flint and Graham are coming at this from different directions. Flint only goes by what evidence we have, and Graham questions things I believe we should be curious about. I still want to know how the Olmec heads were moved. The rafts hypothesis doesn't hold water. So there are unsolved mysteries.
facts only seem to be facts until the next discovery - facts are as far as we know at this point - visionaries often point the way to the next facts and that will last until the next discovery
Yes I love the way archeologists confidently assert knowing things about moving very large and very heavy stones that they can't possible know. It is like they can't admit that there is any mystery left in the world today because science has already figured everything out. Just say "we don't know" how hard is that?
I want to know why flint lied about the lead spikes in the ice core data and why he lied about the evidence we have that plants have been domesticated returned to the wild to then be domesticated again going back tens of thousands of years. Why did flint spend 4 hours lying about the data?
I read my first Graham book in like 1998. Ive enjoyed his perspective since. I have never seen his Netflix show. I was very turned off by his Rogan debate, though. He came off so arrogant and whiney, and wasn't debating fairly.
I’ve really u turned on Graham recently , I used to be a huge fan , I now think he’s just very damn convincing . He would make a great lawyer. And now i actually think when you listen to archeology experts review him you realise that actually, he’s really misleading people , and worse ; I think he knows he is.
@@julescapper4231 What’s your thoughts on flint lying about the ice core data that shows spikes in lead going back tens of thousands of years. What’s your thoughts on flint lying about the evidence we have of plants being domesticated returned to the wild to then be domesticated again? Why do you think flint felt the need to lie about so much of the data?
Do you mean Dibble came off whiney and arrogant?
If not, what debate were you watching?
@@_TheGoobwhat were you watching? Graham literally said he has NO EVIDENCE for his ancient high tech lost civilization. What is there to actually debate at that point? If you have no evidence then how can you expect science to accept your theory.
The theory of Bigfoot has just as much, if not more evidence than Graham Hancock. Think about that for a moment.
@_TheGoob Dibble essentially just gave a lecture on why there's good reason to believe we would know about a globe spanning lost civilisation had there been one. He had some degree of rebuttal to all Hancocks arguments, and prefaced them with his lack of expertise in the area beforehand. What exactly was arrogant? Just that he has an annoying laugh? If that's the case, I think you're just assuming he was laughing in a mocking fashion, which he clearly wasn't because he would then go on to address Hancocks point in a reasonable manner. All Hancock had was a fabricated victimhood.
Great work. The info on the conference was interesting. Poverty Point has always been a fascinating topic for me. It's another of thousands of examples of how the narrative propounded by early colonial and later manifest destiny justified writers portray the indigenous people of the Americas as nomadic hunter gatherers.
I watched the "historic" debate with much anticipation and wasn't disappointed. He really did jump into the fray of his own making by bringing up the racist angle. He really likes to portray himself as a victim. Thanks for adeptly enunciating the real issues with GH using dated material authored by white supremacists. Every time he insists that "mere hunter gatherers" wouldn't have the sophistication or the technology, or the social organization or the intelligence to have figured out agriculture or megalithic architecture, or celestial alignments work without the help of some earlier, advanced (probably light skinned) culture for which we have no material evidence, he further offends the descendants of those who did accomplish this.
I believe no way could hunter gatherers shape and move stone block of weight 10-100 tons. I have read most of the original writings from the 1600s about the Algonquin woodland culture of Jamestown plus new videos out about tribes unchanged for 50,000 years. Something must have been going on that is so far unknown to us.
@@xqt39a The term hunter-gatherer is only about how a person gets their food. Do you think it would be more likely that the people who moved these 10-100 ton stones got their food from herding domesticated animals or by planting, tending and harvesting crops? The people who built Gobekli Tepe appear to have harvested wild grain and hunted a number of wild animals, mainly gazelles. This qualified them as "affluent hunter gatherers". That is hunter gatherers who found a regular food source in a location that made it so they didn't have to travel from place to place (nomadic) to get sufficient resources. When ever a people can settle down in a village setting they can devote time to arts and crafts like carving and building. They can also develop social organization capable bringing manpower to bear on monumental construction.
You’ve given me some things to think about - also very interesting hearing about the field work training for new archeologists.
Look at that size of the program
The issue with pre-Clovis was not skepticism about the evidence, the issue was the vicious blighting of the careers of those reporting the evidence. Serious researchers had their grants cancelled, and several with graduate degrees were driven entirely out of the field. The Cerutti site reporters still have people insisting dump trucks driving over could have rearranged bone fragments underground to, e.g., place hip-joint balls together several feet away from the rest of the femurs. Before the pre-Clovis viciousness, there was (IIRC) pre-4000bp viciousness directed at those reporting Clovis sites. Archaeology needs to come to grips with this, and stop pretending it is just about high standards and uncertain evidence.
that sucks! do you have any further readings on this?
100%
Really cool to hear about the experimental archaeology education stuff.
Oh hell yeah
Definitely thought this dude was going to have a strong Scandinavian or German accent when I first saw him
Nope. Appalachian.
Since civilization seems to favor the coast lines, I would think any evidence of a prior civilization would be on or under the continental shelf buried under thousands of years of mud deposits etc. How much research has been done there?
Less than for terrestrial sites because of the obvious logistics issues, but underwater archeological sites are known--just none so far to fit that profile. And even if a significantly large civilization were out on the continental shelf, there should be signs. We still favor coastlines, so there is a lot of activity around them--including out into the water--that should disturb and expose anything like that if it were there. Geological surveys, fishing activity, oil platforms, oceanic research. Just like on land, they turn up finds, but nothing like what people like Hancock suggest. Also note that civilization favors coastlines, but it isn't limited to them. Population centers have sprawl, and trade and travel networks, and logistical/agricultural support. Even if the densest concentrations were swallowed by the sea, we should see signs of expansion inland, still above water, that would point back to those sites.
@@jritchey267 good points. I think in 12k years a lot of sediment would build up and obscure whatever's down there. Since his posited civilization was at the end of the last ice age, I would expect hunter gatherer sites as we find them, but the other more advanced civilizations further south to avoid the frigid glacial conditions. If you google the following you'll see the shelf is quite extensive: Continental Shelf Map and Diagrams
Flint made the point many ships have been found, which are located on the shelf, the older ones would be off the edge of the continental shelf in much deeper water.
@@gerretw Sedimentation is complex and generally not absolute. Just as satellite imaging and lidar can find obscured and buried structures on land, so can sonar surveys under water. We can still determine much topography of submerged landscapes such as pre-sea-rise river courses and lake beds, so a significant enough cultural footprint of the type indicated should still have some recognizable indications even in the unlikely event that it somehow was entirely submerged and didn't have any sprawl that reached unsubmerged land. Aside from that, geological surveys include cores which pass through sediment; and fishing and other industrial processes frequently disturb sediment all over the world in ways that should (and do) churn up recognizable artifacts--but none so far to indicate that kind of civilization. It isn't 100% impossible that something significant has managed to stay entirely undetected, but it is increasingly unlikely.
@@jritchey267 Do the sonar surveys bounce off the surface of the muck, or penetrate into it? If so, how deep? At some point I would suspect it gets pretty compact rendering sonar useless. I am reminded of how little is left of the Titanic, and wonder if the action of sea water has dissolved many artifacts in the course of 12k years. I get stone is more durable, and more likely to stay more or less intact.
@@gerretw Again, it's complicated and I am by no means qualified to make definitive statements of all variables of sedimentation or the ways sonar readings can be affected.
On sediments: sediment accumulation is not one way. Sediments are deposited, but they also get eroded, so it isn't just a matter of x,000 years accumulation all piled up on top. Sometimes there may be a lot of accumulation, sometimes there may be none; and sometimes it gets washed away and has to start over. And that will all vary with geography--which is actually another point. The features that sediments collect on, in, and around affect how the sediment gets deposited and eroded. A practiced eye can potentially pick out likely buried archeological features from how sediments are formed--numerous sites have been discovered this way from satellite and aerial photography. These discoveries get flagged for priority to get them "ground truthed," that is to have physical surveys and/or excavations to confirm if it is archeological or an anomaly.
As far as the sonar goes, again, there are a lot of variables. The entire principle behind sonar is that soundwaves interact differently with different materials, so how much or if sonar penetrates sediments in a useful way is going to depend a lot on the specific sediments and the sonar being used. And again, even without useful sonar penetration, the surface features of the sediment can give clues to what's underneath.
For artifact survival, it's largely a numbers game. Only a fraction of objects will likely remain after thousands of years. That said, dense, complex societies tend to generate material in volume, so there should be more available to have the chance to survive. Mobile hunter-gatherers generally don't make a whole lot of stuff, relatively speaking, compared to urban populations. Having more urban stuff to start means more urban stuff should survive if it was ever there, just based on the numbers; but we don't see that that I'm aware of in this context. And larger works--buildings, conveyances, infrastructure, etc--tend to leave secondary evidence even when the object itself is gone. Foundation excavations, trackways, and the like end up carved into the land.
Does anybody at SAA ever mention the Hartley mammoth butchery site in New Mexico?
No idea. I don't generally go to paleo sessions at conferences. I stick to the Archaic period and the methodology stuff.
@@NathanaelFosaaen What’s your thoughts on flint lying about the ice core data that shows spikes in lead going back tens of thousands of years. What’s your thoughts on flint lying about the evidence we have of plants being domesticated returned to the wild to then be domesticated again? Why do you think flint felt the need to lie about so much of the data?
Old guy here. Excellent to find you updating ÿour poverty point video.
Getting papers in dang near real time!!
Given the micro analysis that is coming to the fore, i wonder if we dont wash our sherds and lithics like we did in the 80s?
Braided knowledge is refreshing too.
We still wash, but if we have particular analyses in mind we'll earmark an assemblage to not be washed.
Great channel, thank you so much for the calm comprehensive approach.
At this point I’m curious. Are you in the field staying at hotels or have you been in the field so much that you’ve natural transitioned you bedroom design to mirror a super8 hotel?
Always in the field. Literally always.
@@NathanaelFosaaen it’s kind of a signature for you now, so I’ll expecting the single occupant non smoking queen bed best western background to continue going forward.
@LongbowAdam it's a Quality suite this time. We do a lot of Holidays Inns out here too.
Good stuff Maynard !:-)
Minnesota being connected to Northern Louisiana makes sense to me because... the Mississippi 😁
Precisely.
What about the Hueyatlaco site?
This is a legitimate question. What about it? The subject has been tested and re-tested and seems a genuine anomaly with respect to the preponderance of other evidence. Seems that the volcanic ash that was found in association with the artifact containing layer was dated using the zircon fission track method to a solid 300,000 ybp. This would indicate the possibility that tool making apes (like us) had inhabited the "new world" way before even the 25,000 ybp that archaeologists are starting to find evidence for.
I would anticipate that in order for the academic community to, on this basis, conclude either that another species of human ( Denisovan, homo erectus) had migrated to America or that homo sapiens had left Africa way before they are believed to and made a beeline to Mexico, there would have to be many more sites discovered that render these dates and many finds where DNA can be lifted from bones that would be recovered from those sites. Still a world full of mysteries to be explored!
So... if there were a large city, 10 000 people who built a city with WOOD 10 thousand years ago on the COAST, you expect to find it if a tsunami devastated it?
Yeah, absolutely. We find much more ephemeral stuff on the coast from that time, so a full-blown city should be comparatively obvious.
Graham is fun and interesting to listen to but i rhink he got demolished by Flints evidence, got desperate and went into the whole name calling "discussion".
You seem to respect our native Americans. I've watched Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, a biologist, use DNA to help verify some of their oral history as far as where they come from and when.
His channel is "Answers in Genesis". Not sure what American Indians have to do with Genesis,( and vice versa) but I'm interested in your take of his timelines and interpretations.
Anyway, thanks for sharing what you do.
I started seeing the claims about Hancock about a week ago by Johanna on the Funny Olde World channel. I suggest you watch her video, it needs to be rebutted.
If I can pontificate a bit, there is material from Africa, it appears to be concentrate in several places south of the Sahara. All of these sites appear to post date the Natufian site in Israel and so from my point of view the incipient Neolithic is along the eastern Mediterranean coastline. The first kind of urban environment was a catalhoyuk and there are some signs at this site in terms of ritual behavior that has meaning later.
Then everything dies down. The period of about 6500 to 5500 BCE in the upper Tigris- Zagreb’s Mts and Eastern Ararat Mts appears to be formative in terms of resources and culture for civilization.
The we move down to the lower Euphrates and a tight cluster of sites during the initial Ubaid phase and in particular the site at Eridu. What’s important to note here is that Eridu has no base resources for the copper age, and so one has to assume there is cultural continuity with the upper Tigris Samarrah culture and sites like Tel Shemshara.
But if we compare the structures at Gobekle Tepe and Catalhoyuk there is an extension of rectilinear buildings at Eridu (The temple of E-Absu). And these structures are largely built from Adobe, because, it’s a flood plain delta by this point.
The is a historic memory of the earlier gods of the culture, Absu and his wife (later called Tiamat in the Enuma Elis). This period sees the growth of small cities, some lost like Ur, others like Bad Tibera had structuring for copper smithing, Eridu, as it was built in a swamp [=absu] was doing a lot more fishing. Bad Tibera may have had a god-king at some point possibly a historic memory of a shepherd who established the town but was later deified, Dumuzid [=Tammuz]
In the period that followed what we call protoEuropeans moved into the watershed [=Kura Araxas north of Samarrah culture and Halaf simultaneously expanded into the upper Tigris region and there is a rapid transition to the Early Bronze Age that is rapidly seen in a lower Mesopotamian culture of Uruk with the development of a new white temple, increasingly elevated at Uruk called the E-Anna to temple of the sky. By the time we see the god of this site, it’s already faded to the background of other gods, but we can gather it was an organizing god because we see gods being sorted into a pantheon of under a father god An and there appears to have been a priesthood that curated the collection. Uruk was situated on the Euphrates a few dozen miles from Eridu, and Ur, abandoned, has been reoccupied. The growth of Kura-Araxas and other Caucasus cultures with their Bronze Age technologies now competes with Uruk and Uruk needs more metals. So it’s likely that the merger of two villages to form the settlement was transcultural, enabling Uruk to settle further up the Euphrates.
What we see now is that settlements are spreading out and stratified into hub with smaller farming settlements around the hub. Trading was no longer as simple as sending dugouts up the Tigris, settlements up the Euphrates and Tigris as well as over into the Iranian plateau were involved, and there was likely groups that would try to pirate minerals in transport. As a consequence we start seeing a codified language of trade develops that eventually evolves into Cuneiform.
From my point of view it’s not technology per say that ushers in Sumer I, but advancing systems of trade evident from the Hassuna period onward in which minerals from east central Anatolia are being gathered and transported to the Zagros mountains were they are further processed and transported down the Euphrates. For this to work there has to be a system of compensation, possibly grains harvested at different times of the year in different places. The high god of Uruk appears to be a priesthood of diplomats involved in resolving disputes in a confederation of settlements. Once the dynastic period begins there is the appearance of a similar centralizing god in the highlands of the Levant and Ararat region, absent a temple, and sort of presiding over the wilderness from a variety of perched overlooks on trade routes.
IMO, Graham is looking for eye-candy civilizations, he is not looking for the abstract basis of why they came to be. When you get to Ubaid culture you quickly realize that Sumer started from mud, to be something other than dried mud they had to evolve a better system of trade.
He's an archaeologist and his name is Flint that's perfect.
The mystery of Atlantis pales compared to the peopling of America. First, 13,000 BPE, then 18,000 BP, then who knows?
I would have loved taking the experimental arch class
Almost 20 years ago I started a website called the Hall of Ma'at that warehouses articles showing the problems with Hancock's books in particular and alternate archaeology in general. We houses articles by well known professionals like Mark Lerner and Ken Feder, and amateurs like myself. Thank you for this review. It doesn't seem that Hancock has advanced his opinions a bit. He's still telling the same story that's been proven wrong many times.
Everything up until the last part I agreed with, there’s no possible way you could watch anything graham has put out and take away the idea that one race is better than another😂
That tells me you've never read his books.
@@NathanaelFosaaen I haven’t, which books in particular should I read from him
@@CheeseBurgerXJ fingerprints of the gods is premium-tier toiletpaper.
anybody here heard about the 23,000 year old site being studied by the sea of Galalei. probably misspelled
Yea that’s the site that makes a mockery of flints claim there is no evidence of agriculture during the ice age.
BTW i just subscribed so please don't take my insults too personally. I do like your channel.
A good area to search is Ontario Canada, everything has been missed, I'm not a pro but I've found some wild stuff, on my channel
On the subject of Ignatius, his book "Ragnarok" has this as its Wiki definition: In Ragnarok, Donnelly argues that an enormous comet hit the earth 12,000 years ago, resulting in widespread fires, floods, poisonous gases, and unusually vicious and prolonged winters. The catastrophe destroyed a more advanced civilization, forcing its terrified population to seek shelter in caves. As cave-dwellers, they lost all knowledge of art, literature, music, philosophy, and engineering (see Ragnarök). Sound familiar lol? 😂😂 its like the same thing just a different dance. Great video.
Yet, there _really was_ a comet strike 12,800 years ago that ignited continent-wide wildfires, starkly recorded in Antarctic ice cores, that drove dozens of North American megafauna genera, plus a few on other continents, to (geologically-) sudden extinction. Whether that event _also_ caused the Younger Dryas cold spell may take a long time to determine.
@@sciptick The comet impact may be true but it doesn't mean that their was an advanced civilization like Donnelly and Hancock suggest. That's the main point here.
@@sciptickman, megafauna populations were stressed from the ice age climate instability and died out once human population densities got high enough. This hypothesis explains all late Pleistocene megafauna extinctions. Otherwise, how can you explain Australian megafauna extinctions that happened 40k years before the younger dryas?
@@seanbeadles7421 The Australian extinctions happened over tens of millennia, not suddenly, where the North American extinctions happened in the first century after the comet strike, coeval with disappearance of all trace of Clovis industry. Furthermore, humans had been in the Americas for tens of thousands of years with no impact except on pachyderms, which yet persisted right up until the comet strike.
@@MikesLeague Obviously there was no "advanced civilization" as we would define one. The point is that just being a eugenicist does not make Donnelly wrong about every single thing. Hancock is obliged to cite them regardless of their personal flaws, and so citing them does not make him personally liable for their flaws, or adopt them himself. Margaret Sanger was also a eugenicist, and Erwin Schrödinger was an active pederast. We still use birth control pills and Schrödinger's equation daily.
Appreciate the insight. I'm factory worker and podcasts move the day along. I listened to the full interview on JRE and thought it was good, too. Having someone with "skin in the game" weigh-in is more food for thought.
Watching Hancock crumble was absolutely wonderful. The ad hominem racism claim by Dibble was completely off base. However he CLEARLY won that debate. Graham can’t win because he’s a charlatan with an art degree.
So far I haven't seen Flint call Hancock racist. What he said was that Hancock's writing is embedded in a larger tradition of vvite svpremacist rhetoric from the late 1800s. Those aren't the same thing.
I'm not convinced there's much value in having actual scientists debate cranks. I think it can somewhat legitimize their views and make it seem like there's something valid in them.
Hancock gets a lot of people interested in archeology and then many go on to watch channels like this.
What’s your thoughts on flint lying about the ice core data that shows spikes in lead going back tens of thousands of years. What’s your thoughts on flint lying about the evidence we have of plants being domesticated returned to the wild to then be domesticated again? Why do you think flint felt the need to lie about so much of the data?
True, but the general public needs someone competent who can explain things to them and can debunk False information
Discounting someone and calling them a crank shows your own level of arrogance and ignorance in one short sentence. The connection of so many different fields of study that are necessary to create a picture of what ancient history possibly was is necessary and critcal. The dysfunctional aspect of "the sciences" will never allow that. They are overall dogmatic, religious and single-minded. Making broad brushestrokes always smearing swatches of color and blocking out the fine detail of a sharp pencil that doesn't come from one's own kit. Discounting with a catagoric deletion like statement (crank) is very unscientific. Inviting new evidence fom many areas of study and examining data from other fields is science. Anything that doesn't is just a dick measuring contest.
Once I start thinking I know-it-all. It only proves I'll never learn anything else.
@@L_Train Yes, people like Graham Hancock do this.
Think on this for just a critical moment.
The idea that you could use a person's data, reference their work.
And _therefore_ insert yourself into their racist views. Is like saying that you can't listen to, analyze, and/or appreciate Wagner. Without being or supporting anti-Semitism. It's not even that subtle, or nuanced, of a social disconnect that could possibly lead a person to such a thought. It's a collosal failure of total social awareness that would allow that thought process to occur at all.
Another such example of such awareness, would be saying, for example, "Yes. Mr. X severely abused his wife a dozen times. But since they were married for 30 years...overall, he's a really good husband... statistically.".
The basic fact that a career is ruined with malice, because a find doesn't fit with the accepted narrative, even once. The idea that such an event could possibly occur at all. Strongly suggests that there is a massive problem within that community. To the point where, to some, the science has given way to _religion_ with the matching dogma attached. Those people owe an apology to both science itself, for betraying the process, history and ideals. And to the Vatican, for ever criticizing their suppression of the sciences.
What Hancock gives to science is question, and imagination. Two elements that set the foundation for progress, in any field of study or endeavor. Those elements are often disproportionately missing in many of the sciences today.Because they are disproportionately missing in the people who go into many of those sciences. Unfortunately, those people can often overshadow those who do, and in that process, hinder the progress they reportedly seek. We _need and require_ that balance between the two camps.
Hancock is irrelevant to science. His neverending goal is to make people think that he is highlighting academic weaknesses. Once you believe that, you will buy his books.
If you had a wide net cast then why come gobekli tepe was only found a few decades ago......
Only a few decades ago? That was before the big data revolution and early in the remote sensing revolution. That was a long time ago.
@@NathanaelFosaaen yeah, only a few decades ago in a field of study that moves like a glacier. Your "revolutions" have shown two things consistently, the data and discovery prove the academic narratives wrong again and again, and the academic establishment refuses to change its views to match the data at a reasonable rate of change. It shouldn't take 25+ years for explicit data to rewrite the story taught to student at University.
Imagine! New data improving the resolution of our understanding of things that happened thousands of years ago? WEIRD!
Somebody, under the debate video, pointed out that Dibble looks like 3 kids, stacked one on top of each other, under a trenchcoat, with a fake beard and fedora. But, since I give Hancock the same credence as Scott Wolter and Travis Taylor. I'm not questioning their intelligence... just their believability.
I only watched about 20 minutes of the "debate", TBH. I've seen Graham Hancock's presentations before. He points out some interesting anomalous evidence, but he doesn't seem to be discerning, and he leaps to some extreme conclusions based on very little data. He cherry picks data that supports his story, instead of changing his story to fit the rest of the data. The racist part is when his commentary presupposes that the indigenous people weren't capable of making the things they made. It's true that, in many cases, the megaliths weren't placed by the same tribe, or family, who lives there now. It's possible that the great ancient stone monuments were constructed by a global ice age empire of white people, but the liklihood just isn't there. He'd have to, like, show the evidence. I've seen some intriguing evidence that travel and trade went further in spce and further back in time than we'd imagined. Some of the similarities we see are coincidence, but some are probably monkey see, monkey do. He could make very many presentations about anomalous artifacts and unexplained sites, but it probably wouldn't be as lucrative as his current shtick.
TBC, I disagree with Hancock's assertions about Europeans, or a red haired, blue eyed bearded group, that went around building all of these monuments. I think the monuments were generally built by people from the area where each monument is found. I think the travelers and traders were explorers from civilizations all around the globe. I didn't mean to imply that I agreed with Hancock about a global empire. I suspect it was more like local and regional trade networks, and some intrepid explorers. I'm talking about during, say, Gobekli Tepe era. Genetics can show how populations moved, but I mean, I'm sure there were many individuals and small groups who explored far and wide, but didn't leave any record that we could recognize.
@GizzyDillespee Nobody -- literally, nobody -- is saying red haired blue eyed bearded groups were going around building monuments. The _claim_ is that refugees brought habits and taught skills they had developed over past millennia, maybe one or two of which left traces archaeologists can dig up. I don't think he is right, but making up straw men does not advance the conversation. What it does do is generate legitimate accusations of bad faith.
I don't think Graham Hancock ever said Patrick Duffy and a bunch of white guys showed up from Atlantis to save the savages. That's some crap that some progressive pulled out of their posterior in an attempt to slander the notion. The real racists are of course the ones peddling the "white Atlantis" myth ...
@@sciptick
That claim about red-headed builders IS cropping up down under
Hmm. About the theory that there was a high Ice age civilization and that there are no marks of it left. Theory is that much of the megalithic building *is* from that period, and that they´ve been miss-assigned to later cultures who only found them and put some stamps of their own on them. Also, the stone vases found in Egypt that appear impossible to have been made through rudimentary means, those would be from that unknown time.
Yeah, and that's a dumb idea.
@@NathanaelFosaaen What’s your thoughts on flint lying about the ice core data that shows spikes in lead going back tens of thousands of years. What’s your thoughts on flint lying about the evidence we have of plants being domesticated returned to the wild to then be domesticated again? Why do you think flint felt the need to lie about so much of the data?
@@NathanaelFosaaenhave you consulted with any engineers regarding those vases made to nearly perfect tolerances? Or are engineers and machinists also ignorant and stupid?
Any idea that doesn't fit the archaeologist grand narrative is assumed to be dumb I guess.
@@caseymckenzie4760 Some archaeologists are themselves engineers and have reproduced the vases and other allegedly "impossible" artifacts using period-appropriate technology. So any engineers claiming that these things can't be done with ancient technology are by definition ignorant on this issue.
Ignatius L. Donnelly, I think became a Senator just to get access to the Library if Congress and searching alike R. G. Haliburton did for the 1863 - New materials for the History of Man Derived from a Comparison of the Calendars and Festivals of Nations. Back then Craniometry Eugenics was cutting edge Anatomy, if you were a scientist back then you would know all about it. Have you read these? Both are seeking what Gram is, the Space Falls of The Younger Dryas Impacts and the space debris is our most recent, The Taurid Meteor Stream. The ancients knew all about it, but you don't. Could they be called "advanced"? And, the whole thing is about a late version of the blindingly bright white bolide ablation of the Feathered Serpent from The Pleiades, the radiant of said stream. Not skin color of the anthropomorphized Mesoamerican tradition. Virtually all ancient mythology has this commonality and Space Falls are global, so there is no need for dispersion. Toto saw through it, while the rest were frightened with the fiery dragon.
Those first citys and town could potentially be the first to be recycled !
Or even pulverized by the ice sheets and glaciers .
Extra ordinary to say the least .
What will be left of our civilization in a million years? NOTHING. Perhaps a thin layer of polymers.
This isn't talking about a million years. At all.
Watching this JRE episode now. What a dumpster fire. IMO, both sides are taking their stances and conclusions too seriously. Nobody is willing to acknowledge clears holes in either paradigms. And it dissolves to feelings and feeling personally attacked too much.
Gobekli Tepe & nearby Tepe are providing dates as early as 14000ya, but it's not advanced civilization of a Hancockian proportion
How do we know that? Does the image of the dude carrying the purse infer a global economy? Does the word "pyramid" mean "fire in the middle"? Did pre-Clovis people extract and refine metals using advanced chemical processes? Yes, they did. The evidence is surrounding us globally.
After watching Stefan Milo's video about Atlantis being now dead I started to watch the Rogan show. I honestly could not get past Hancock thanking the archeologist for coming and saying how it was an historic event that never happened before. As soon as he opens his mouth I hear bs and can't watch.
I did enjoy Ancient Architect's video in response to Rogan's show. He dug into the Ohalo 2 site that was appearently mentioned on Rogan's . I then watched Prof Trevor Watkin's video again. I'd like to know how accurate carbon dating is when a site is flooded then uncovered again and again with water.
Obviously, Atlantis came from the Minoans living on a fault coupled with the mystery that came from the Egyptians, Greeks, and others only skirting around the Mediterranean unlike how we do it today. I see similarities to Lock Ness. I've read Phiny the Elder, younger, Herodotus, and many more. This week I read the "Journey's of Coronado" and "Our Southern Highlanders", which is more on your line.
I do want to mention your "white suppresses" line. I read "Mein Kompt" mostly to see why Hitler feared the Jews so much. I was a little surprised that Hitler catered to those with that agenda and said he had no problem with them growing up, which I'm sure was a lie. The reason I bring this up is it occurred to me that all books written in a foreign language had the title translated into English, too-except Mein Kompt. In other words, War and Peace (which is a soap opera to me) isn't Vor ee Meer, its "War and Peace". So why isn't Mein Kompt not "My struggles"? I thinks its indoctrination.
I am just so turned off by Joe Rogan even though you say he did a great job I just can’t watch it, so thank you for the recap!
I listen to your channel sometimes cause i like that you seem somewhat less reactionarry than most archaeolgists. Lets see if you do any character attacks?
thanks for taking that "debate" on. I would prefer that JRE+ not get any clicks from me,
so I am unlikely to watch that or any of his stuff.
there is enough click baitey bs on the tube-u-all in particular, and the internet in general.
he has become quite wealthy from being sensationalist.
I prefer my information uncolored by feigned outrage.
I also tuned into to Atun-shei's take on this, and that is worth a watch too.
lol was Gobekli Tepe a campsite? Hancock showed where some of the cities were, no ones going to look. Big archeology continues to push its head further and further up its own ass!
I mean, Hancock seems to have the resources to travel to all these places that Archeologists have already looked at.
Maybe he could use some of those resources to arrange expeditions to places HE thinks they should be looking?
@@cainemangakahia4842 he has been to a lot of them and they ignore him. Maybe if they want to say he's just a pseudo scientist and the sites are not evidence of ancient civilisations pre-dating the acceptable paradigm they could check them out themselves and use all the resources available to piece the puzzle together, rather than writing anything that isn't part of that paradigm off as mythological mumbo jumbo.
@@TheLIVEKIWI
That’s putting the cart before the horse, he needs to provide actual evidence for his theories to become part of the paragdim, not speculation.
And yes he’s visiting their sites , but why do they need to pay attention to them when he just badmouths them and claims his speculative theory as a preeminent one without proof?
More to the point, if archeologists are looking in the wrong place, why visit THEIR sites rather than visit the supposedly RIGHT place?
@@cainemangakahia4842 So there you go. He provides evidence and you still say he needs to provide evidence. What r all the pictures he's taking, piecing together with indigenous stories. Just myths to you right? What do you want video footage of it actually taking part...lol.
Funny how archeology will use written evidence when it suits their narrative but not when it doesn't. Funny how archeolgy claimed Troy was just a myth, until it wasn't.
As for him bad mouthing them, now I know you have an axe to grind and are one eyed about this topic. Archeologist have been badmouthing, slandering and downright lying about Hancock since the 90's, he defends his position and calls them out on it and it is him badmouthing them...lol great logic! Btw the last few times I have seen Hancock he has admitted what great work archeoligists do and that without them he couldn't do what he does, he just wishes they were more open minded to new ideas and would at least investigate them and consider that they don't know everything about the ancient past.
Your replies show me your as arrogant as they are, thinking because you hold the mainstream view of history your right and everyone who doesn't blindly go along with it is wrong. Science is evolving in every other field my friend, look at quantum physics it's proving lots of, what once, were considered crazy fringe theories as correct and once archeology releases it "archaic" way of describing the past I gaurantee your lot will be in for a shock too...of course then you'll claim to have known it all along and there'll be no apology to the ones who's lives were destroyed for talking about such ideas. Great too always be right huh. Personally I rather follow the evidence openly and be considered wrong, knowing that the truth is more important than my own ego.
@@TheLIVEKIWI
What do you mean “there you go”?
Hancock doesn’t provide evidence, he provides speculations.
Archeologists provide the ACTUAL evidence, that’s the point.
He’s doesn’t actually have anything to “call out” because he has yet to provide proof of existence his so called “lost civilization”
Demanding said proof isn’t “arrogance” , it’s a standard requirement for these particular disciplines, if Hancock doesn’t like it then he shouldn’t be surprised that Archeologists don’t take him seriously.
And his supposed “calling out” of Archeologists not looking in the “right” places is complete rubbish.
Expeditions and Digs require funding, and he just blew a bunch of it looking at THEIR already discovered sites instead of financing digs to find HIS lost civilization.
His theories are highly speculative, lack anything close to conclusive evidence and are full of holes , but he gets ass-mad when Archaeologists criticize him over it, and yes, he does bad mouth them when they do.
What happened to the chat?
The premiere finished, so it went away...I think.
@@lethargogpeterson4083 lol… I was watching it on my phone and then my iPad… I think the chat was on my phone… and I could only see comments on my iPad… dur… user error
To me it seems obvious that the advanced civilization Hancock is looking for would have left material or artifacts behind on mountains and inland areas. It’s not in our human nature to stay out. Also I thought the Netflix show he made was actually suggestively racist. It was filled with white savour figures, coming to teach the humble locals how to survive and thrive. That seems to contradict historical record of
Indigenous groups sharing their knowledge with explorers to ensure they survived on the local landscapes. Anyways he annoys me. I see someone trying to lump themselves in with the blue fish caves site and others (can remember the name) as a way to say, “hey aerchos are doing to me what they did to these other aerchos who discovered these sites”. Um no Graham you have yet to bring forward a single piece of contextual evidence, unlike the bluefish caves site. Anyways I’m not an archaeologist I’m just a dreamer who grew up dreaming of pre contact North America.
Flint dibble gave evidence that there was no metallurgy in ice age.
Nice.
first: that is not Hancocks claim.
second: he gave moot evidence, follow that evidence and you actually DO find hint that perhaps there WAS metallurgy in ice ace.
but mainly, Flint toppled another strawman, like all Graham's debunkers.
It's not quite moot. Hancock's claim is that there was a global advanced civilization during the last ice age. Literally every culture that does shit that we tend to consider "civilization" used metallurgy to some extent. From the Indus Valley to the Aztec.
@NathanaelFosaaen exactly.
Every person has their OWN idea what an "advanced civilization" looks like, including Hancock.
And ppl debunk their OWN idea, not Hancocks idea, who thinks shamanistic culture would be the advanced one.
I dont.
But they clearly were star gazers, explorers, and there is dna evidence of that, people sailed to remote islands over 100 thousand years ago.
Navigation and sailing g is pretty OLD invention
@bujinkanatori well requirement #1 for an advanced civilization is that they live in cities, and we don't have evidence for those either. He also claims they were farmers and it's pretty clear from the pollen record and the history of plant domestication that no global agricultural society existed during the LGM either, so his idea doesn't hold up there either. His entire premise is just a re-hash of ideas from the late 1800s that have not held up to scrutiny or the vast body of data collected in the last century.
@@NathanaelFosaaen well, there is counter evidence to that exactly.
czcams.com/video/xON6v1zJ1g0/video.html&pp=ygUWZGVkdW5raW5nIGZsaW50IGRpYmJsZQ%3D%3D
@@NathanaelFosaaen But re-iterating myself again, Graham has said many times, most of the coastal areas that were coasts but now are under the sea HAVE NOT been studied or researched, there is no evidence, but He is sure that some day there will be.
as he keeps saying, stuff just keeps getting older. The oldest civilization found keeps getting older, there is no reason to expect that one day the oldest findings are 20 000 years old, or older.
complaining Graham for using sources from people who were racist in a time that racism was the norm is pretty nitpicking.
Especially when Graham has constantly been speaking against racism and has a wife from india.
#Facepalm.
If you actually paid attention, you'd know that the problem wasn't him using those sources, but using them uncritically.
@@NathanaelFosaaen We should have learned by now not to take such accusations at face value. If Hancock didn't cite earlier work, he would have been accused, instead, of that. Since he doesn't repeat the racist opinions, he cannot legitimately be accused of it. There is plenty legitimate to criticize, particularly his limited imagination; making things up ("aliens! racism!") is why we are obliged to have this conversation. He is mistaken about history, but not about the dishonest treatment he gets, and his fans see it clearly. There are plenty of real grifters, but Hancock, while wrong in detail, is totally sincere, and inspires in his fans real interest in ancient history. Vicious accusations drive away those who, if instead taught about sound methods, would be a real asset.
Dishonest treatment of people with off-mainstream ideas is a real problem that excoriating Hancock utterly fails to address.
@@NathanaelFosaaen Perhaps he didnt realize that people do cheapshots from that, naive as he was.
Anti-racism is the new racism. They just substitute someone new to hate. What a distraction from actual enlightenment.
@@bujinkanatori
That would still seem a legitimate criticism of Hancock uncritically citing the material no?
The archeologist's verbalizations are based on what he has experienced and what other scientists have experienced and written. Hancock's verbalizations are based on some of the science and his opinions. Hancock's penchant for trashing scientists' viewpoints completely undermine his views. He is an egotist and is only interested in his own views. He should be listened to then his ideas should be thrown out the window as trash. They deserve very little attention precisely because he is not a scientist and has no interest in science. Next!
did people count how many times Flint dibble lied?
He obviously was bullied as a school boy, it shows. It turned him into an internet bully.
Zero times. I'm sure he was wrong about a few minute details, but he didn't lie at all.
@@NathanaelFosaaen he denied calling Graham a white supremacist and lied that he meant his careless use of sources.
He lied, he has called him white supremacist and racist multiple times.
He does not have the spine to stand behind his words
And he gloated after the debate when graham said there is no co crete evidence of ice age civilization, AS IF he has not said that for 3 decades. His oppo ents claim that, he necer claimed there was.
There ks strange cult of anti graham where urban legends about graham soread like wildfire, and ppl think HE said those wild claims.
@@bujinkanatori
Citation needed please, I’ve been searching and have been unable to find Dibble calling Hancock a white supremacist or a racist.
@@cainemangakahia4842 sad, I have sent the link, but it's lost on comments history, perhaps you read the answers here.
it's there.
Strangely, when talking about ATLANTIS, it's mostly arcfheologists who link it to white supremecist or racistm.
those who research atlantis theories as an amateur researchers, do that so rarely that I have NEVER heard of a person who does that.
All referecnes seem to link to 19th century writers who were raised in a racist culture.
So it's actually archeologists who market atlantis as a white supremecist theory, thus promoting white supremecy themselves.
Good point about the sahara & “1% excavated is not the same thing as 1% surveyed”, where digs only tend to happen when there’s a reason to dig, and how the high probability areas have generally been surveyed to some degree. If there was some advanced global civilization building monuments during that period, there wouldn’t be zero evidence for it. All they can do is pretend that more recent sites date back to that period, even though carbon dating and other evidence conflicts with that.
Hahahaha. You need to check your facts on the dating of ancient sites. They keep getting older, not younger. Hahahahahaha
I have to agree with Graham on Donnolley, he may be noted for 'other' things he's associated with but his observations are still valid.
Which observations? Why are they still valid? Be specific. You might be right, but you have to support your claim with evidence and sound reasoning.
@@NathanaelFosaaen Greetings from the BIG SKY. The person being referred to is a person associated with the Louis Real trial in Canada. As for his observations, they are his alone, not mine.
Fun stuff. Glad to see that Dibble smoked Handcock like a blunt.
This guy looks like motorbike gang member.
Ope!
I'll admit, no fan of Hancock's publishable info, but give me some better, eh? I've been waiting a while.
Racist? Graham? Do you know what that word means?
Didn’t know that you were woke
Y'know it's a dope if he's whining 'bout woke.
Woke af fam!
11:22 debate talk starts
Ta
.
Good info. I Dont trust either guys cause of theyre names.
I don't have a dog in this fight, I see bad behavior on both sides. I like to listen to legit archeologists and GH. Believe it or not, I can tell the difference between wild speculation and actual scientific analysis as can almost everybody contrary to what archeologists seem to believe. Wild speculation is fun, interesting, and yes even necessary. Graham is a better speaker and a better writer than any main stream archeologists I have encountered which is why he has been so successful. That is his job. He also exaggerates makes wild assertions and overstates the evidence for his position. All of which would make him a terrible, terrible, terrible archeologists. He attacks archeologists with some pretty damming accusations and plays victim too often. Meanwhile the archeologists extreme and hysteric reaction to him has only served to seemingly validate the exact critique that GH makes about them. They come off as exactly the close minded, arrogant, know it all cut throats GH claims they are. I know most of them are great people who do amazing work and struggle against all kinds of nonsense and funding issues to do their work. If they had just laughed off Hancock and said his ideas were fun, interesting, thought provoking and we need to keep looking everywhere for evidence because we do not know everything about our ancient past and we are likely to be surprised by what we discover than Hancock would look like the negative one. That is not what most of them did. They also make claims beyond the evidence and seem to lack the ability to acknowledge the limits of their knowledge. We don't know is an excellent answer when you honestly don't know!!! GH and Archeologists should both start using that one way more than they do. Anyway, I like your channel. Keep it up.
one more thing, all you GH haters, stop saying Graham has no evidence. He does not have enough evidence to make anything close an actual scientific claim but he does have some evidence. The maps are evidence, (not very good evidence) the knowledge of astrology, astronomy and precession does seem to be encoded into mythology all around the world in a very mysterious way. That is evidence. Very disputable evidence but evidence non the less. I am sure he has a bunch of crappy evidence. When you say he has no evidence you sound like a liar or a bad faith actor.
No evidence is a sufficient description. Claims coupled with sophistry are not enough to qualify in my opinion.
How long is the actual measurement of a “shar”? I guess it’s whatever fits the theory you’re paid to promote.
Why are archaeologist so defensive, snobby and arrogant? Really weird. @@Eyes_Open
@@caseymckenzie4760 What a strange question. Do you have proof that all archaeologists are as you described?
@@Eyes_Open Don't change my statement. That is sophistry. I did not say ALL archaeologists. Proof, Go watch 5 random archaeologists react to GH netflix show.
Very imbalanced summary of the 'debate' you give. Most egregious perhaps are you apologetic for Flint's several ad hominem attacks calling Hancock a Nazi and a racist. You use Flint's ridiculous excuse tha Hancock needs to preface every word he writes with disclaimers and caveats distancing himself from people the woke like to cancel. That is a ridiculous proposition and one only made by the current crop of leftist cultists that have overrun the Academy.
I am no fan of Hancock but I have seen first hand that academic honesty and integrity is again and again highly questionable. The ice core 'argument' for example is a disingenuous example of calling a slam dunk where there is no data to support it. The analysis of lead Flint referenced in ice cores may well chart post ice age smelting but the granular analysis of pre-20k bce lead isotopes has never been done in the same detail so we have not ruled out that possibility. Neither would the cited analysis have necessarily detected any signal from local metal working in the tropics or southern hemisphere.
Given Flint's attitude and dishonesty I personally thought his only interest is self interest and he did a disservice to honest science.
The summary is one-sided because Flint ate Graham's lunch. He smoked him like a brisket.
@@NathanaelFosaaen Wishful thinking in place of critical analysis is not limited to one side. In fact Flint was dead wrong about the rate at which domesticated species go feral, and lead in ice cores has hardly been sampled beyond 6000 years back. So his best knock-down arguments turn out to fall flat. What Hancock fans heard was Flint doubling down on his false accusations of racist nazism.
I'm not saying Graham is a N@zi. I AM saying that Graham REALLY thinks that a bunch of books from the late 1800s that inspired the Third Reich are full of smart and compelling ideas, and he's oblivious to why that's a problem. Either way, you can't uncritically cite Whyte Svpremacist propaganda without legitimizing Whyte Svpremacy. Graham is guilty as sin on this.
@NathanaelFosaaen So you are an expert on the history of Nazi ideology? Is Hancock? Is he expected to be? How many pages of distancing himself from an ideology you yourself are ignorant about should he make to satisfy you?
@@NathanaelFosaaen Margaret Sanger and Francis Galton were enthusiastic eugenicists, yet we are not obliged to distance ourselves from eugenics every time we advocate for birth control or apply statistical analysis. We are permitted other reasons to like those products of their work.