#2136 - Graham Hancock & Flint Dibble

All right, well, this took a lot of time to organize, but I'm very excited and I'm happy you're both here. Thank you. Flint, please introduce yourself to everybody what you do. Yeah, hi hi my name is Flint and I'm an archaeologist I've done archaeology my whole life my dad was an archaeologist and I'm just very passionate about sharing archaeology and what we do I find in general that people don't really understand what modern archaeology is about and so I'm gonna try to get that across while here you know that's my goal fantastic take that microphone and try to keep it about a fifth from your face. All right. One second, we have to, his HDMI is not working. It's not going through. Mine is okay. All right, we had a bit of a technical issue, but we're up. So Flint, you were just explaining how your passion is archaeologists, you're an archaeologist, and you have this opportunity to sort of educate people on how archaeology is done. Yeah, that's my goal is to try to share what we do, why we do it, and what our goals are with it, yeah. Okay, terrific. And Graham, everybody knows you. We've been on this podcast about it 10 times. Well, largely thanks to you, Joe. Oh, I'm very happy. Happy to introduce the world to it. Are we okay Flint with the HDMI? I think we've been doing shows together since 2011. You, I think, were one of my first real guests. You might be the first real guest. Because before that it was just my friends, just comedians. Yeah. Yeah. And it was all in my house and we ate pizza. It was. Yeah. It's fantastic. Jamie's setting everything up, making sure we're good to go. Okay. The way we agreed to do this is you wanted to open and you wanted to do about 10 minutes and just sort of explain things. And so we'll let you do that and then Graham, you'll have an opportunity to respond. Yeah, thank you. Jamie, do you mind pulling up my screen? [2:01] Here we go. All right, so look, one of the things that I see when I'm online or in person sharing archaeology is I find it's tough to get across what it is. And so I wanted to start with a fun example. So I understand that maybe not everybody can see the screen. So Joe, do you mind actually just kind of describing what this artifact is? Oh, you put this on me, buddy. Exactly. this on me. Well this says a Athenian red figure from 470 BC and it is two people having sex. It's a man on top of a woman. You see his penis. You see it's a yeah it's very graphic. It is very graphic. So what do you think this shares about what archaeology is? Any ideas? Well I mean you're finding artwork and parts of civilization that were left behind and, you know, have been around in this case since over 2,000 years. Yeah, and for a long time, scholars thought that a piece like this described sort of life in Athens, and they connected to Athenian texts, sort of like Plato describing people having [3:02] sex even, right? And on the other hand, however, every single piece of Athenian artwork with graphics sex like this, couples actually fucking with penises and stuff like that, ends up in Italy. It's part of an Athenian pornographic export market. And Kathleen Lynch and Sean Lewis and others have published on this. And so the real point is that what we're looking at is the painters are designing something for consumers in Italy, and particularly in Etrusia. And this instead fits better in with telling us about life in Etruscans, and the kind of stuff that they show in their tombs, sort of romance between people, or the kind of sexual scenes that they design themselves in Italy as well. And the whole point here is that archaeology is not really about an artifact, it's not about a monument, it's about our patterns. And so when we sort of look at how much archaeology there is in the world, this is a map that shows the Horn of Africa with every single archaeological site that's been surveyed there and there's 171,000 of them. That's incredible. It just looks amazing. [4:01] It's just, and this is just because of the terrain, most of the, many of these are tombs, for example, Islamic and pre-Islamic tombs. And so they're visible on the surface. And so in many ways, when we think about archaeology today in the 21st century, we're thinking about big data sets and trying to analyze them statistically and understand the kind of patterns they put together. And we use innovative technology, sort of LiDAR, lasers from the sky to see these things underground, for example, here are this publication by Canuto in 2018, records 61,480 structures still to be excavated, found with LiDAR and surface survey, right? And so at the same time- This is it for people listening, says ancient lowland Maya complex as revealed by airborne laser scanning of northern Guatemalaatamala. That's amazing Yeah, and so I mean we have this huge data set and with it we get high resolution for example the bottom image and red It shows looters trenches because while there's a lot of archaeology because people have been everywhere There's it's very fragile and it's at risk and that's something I also want to take some time to get across a bit while I'm here [5:04] at risk and that's something I also want to take some time to get across a bit while I'm here. And my own research is very much big data-oriented too. I've studied nearly a million animal bones and teeth and horn fragments from ancient Greece like this pile here from the island of Crete from Missouri. And in particular, I also want to get across the kind of precision we have. Right now, I do what's called isotope analysis. I look at oxygen and carbon isotopes in the teeth of these animals. And by taking multiple samples on different parts of the teeth, you can see the different areas that I've drilled on that tooth on the right, right? And what that does is it lets me understand the diet of the animal and where it's moving in the landscape seasonally. So in different seasons of the year, I can understand the kind of ways that people are raising animals. We can do this with human remains too. And we can get this high level of resolution and precision that people don't always realize that we have, right? And so in this case, I'm here to try to discuss with Graham and to test his law civilization hypothesis. [6:01] He has this, he's written about it many books and he's given many talks here and on Netflix and he's talked about this idea of a lost advanced civilization from the Ice Age and advanced civilization that's around the globe, right? And in particular he thinks there was a global cataclysm at that time and the survivors introduced agriculture, architecture, astronomy and arts to hunter-gatherers. And so I'm trying to tackle this with an open mind. And I want to tackle this with the perspective of my own experience and my own expertise. And so in that sense, if you think about what Carl Sagan says, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Graham is in many ways the first person to admit that the evidence he has is fingerprints. It's kind of what he thinks is this technological transmission, 200 gatherers, but he does not have any direct dated evidence of this civilization. It's after all a lost civilization, right? And so what I've been thinking through is how can my own experience and expertise kind [7:01] of test this hypothesis in a fair way? That's kind of my goal here, while here. And so I'm here to, doing a lot of research. I'm here to present what I see are two clear disproofs of a lost advanced ice age civilization. And I mean, archaeologists were fairly sure this does not exist. We've been looking for this kind of civilization for several hundred years. It's this idea of a pre-flood civilization has been around for several hundred years. It's this idea of a pre-flood civilization has been around for several hundred years. And so what I want to do is focus on where my own experience and expertise is my dad was an Ice Age archaeologist. He studied Neanderthal caves. And so I want to dig into some of the stuff that he's excavated and surveyed. These are, for example, 100,000-year-old stone tools from Egypt. And so we have just so much ice age evidence and Graham usually ignores it. And he claims that his civilization. Do you have your notifications on or something? I don't know what the doggo is doing that. Sorry. If you hit mute, maybe it might stop. Yeah, I just muted it. Okay. Sorry about that. No worries, no worries. [8:01] And so this, this. So your claim is a gram ignore says my claim is that he doesn't he ignores most of the evidence for hunter-gatherers in the ice age which is is that he ignores it or that he doesn't focus on as much of these focus on does it ancient advance civilization I mean I think that's one in the same I think if you're gonna look at the ice age we need to look at the totality of evidence to understand what's there and so for example he proposes the reason why the ice age civilization isn't there is because it's underwater. It's been, you know, we've had 200 feet of sea level rise since the younger drys, and therefore it's not accessible. And so I really want to focus on ice age coastlines, evidence from ice age coastlines and excavations, underwater evidence from the ice age, things like that, these areas where he says that archaeologists don't look, but we are looking and what we find is the ephemeral traces of hunter-gatherers, rather than some sort of advanced civilization. And so that's one thing I want to show. I want to share this kind of evidence. Some of it's new, some of it's not, but I think it's the kind of thing that it has a direct bearing on looking for such an ice age civilization. [9:06] When you're studying these coastal areas where these ice age people lived and you're studying these underwater, whatever, what would you call them? Are the cities or the towns or the villages? No, these are, so in this case, this is a really brand new find from like a month ago. It's actually a hunting wall off the coast of Germany. So it's where they have their camp? Yeah, or maybe just where they drove a game along to hunt them. But most of what's underwater are lithic scatters. Scatters of stone tools. Stuff like this. What do you have there? I have a series of different stone tools. Come on, do it. Show them off a little later. Let me touch one That's one, then. Yeah, sure. How old is this? These are all modern replicas made by archaeologists. Some of them made by my dad. And some of them have been made by. So you're going to hook us up with some real stuff. Sorry, no, I can't bring real stuff. I have a real arrowhead. I have. This is from here. I do have an ancient corn cob right here. Oh, that's not really easy to say University Archaeology Collection, and I'll explain why this is here in a bit. My question for you though was how much of the ground do you think has actually been studied? [10:10] When you're looking at these ancient ice age Neanderthal populations, or were they homosapiens as well? These are homosapiens. This is right at the end of the ice age. So this is modern humans. So these when when you're finding remnants of ancient hunter-gatherers How much evidence how much of the ground do you think you studied? We've definitely not studied most of the ground Right, but as I'll show we've studied a lot and we actually put together predictive models on how to find this stuff And so there because it's fairly expensive to go diving right and so how many dives do you think? Have been done like how many times a thousand? Thousands yeah, oh yeah. And lots of different sites have been found from all over the world. And specifically, it was done to try to locate these. To try to locate stone age. An ancient civilization. I say age stuff, yeah. Okay. And then my second thing I'd like to focus on is food. I am an archeologist who studies ancient food. I'm an environmental archaeologist. I've studied millions of animal bones from the past. I've helped collect thousands and thousands of seeds like these. And it's something that people don't [11:10] realize we can get. We've developed sampling methods and we now at this point have millions of archaeopotanical remains. So seeds from ancient civilizations and ancient societies all over the world. And I want to sort of show you how we understand domestication as a process and we can see where it happened in real time, in real space, this sort of evolution from a wild plant to a domestic plant because that counters Graham's idea that the civilization introduced agriculture. It was not an introduction, it's something that happened in a real space and we'll track how we can see humans taking control of the reproductive life cycle of these plants is what I want to show you. Can I pause it for a second? Yeah, of course. Is that in a particular region, like right now on Earth, there are people that are living in essentially a stone age manner, right? I wouldn't call it a stone age manner now. Okay, let's say people in uncontacted and indigenous tribes in the Amazon, I mean, they essentially are living with animal skins [12:06] and bows and arrows, and they're living very similar to the way people lived 10,000 years ago. I think there's plenty of people living today in their traditional lifestyles, yeah. Right, but then there's also people that live in Tokyo. Of course. So the world is huge. So if you find evidence of agriculture that dates back to a specific period where you can see the wild plants and you can see this transition into domesticated plants. Is it possible that we're dealing with a region? And I think part of the theory about the Younger Drys Impact Theory was that although it probably devastated the entire human race, it didn't impact all the places the same way. Just like right now, if a volcano goes off in Iceland, we don't even notice it, right? But over there, it's devastating. Yes, but in this case, what I'm thinking about is unlike, you know, I know you guys have mentioned, at times you can't radio carbon date stone. We can date these seeds. So we can date that transition from domestic to, or from one of the oldest seeds that you've [13:01] found. Oh, the oldest seeds we have go back tens of thousands of years. The oldest domesticated crops we have go back about 11,000 years. And where are those from? From Syria, Turkey, the fertile crust and area. Yeah. Is it possible that there was domestication before that in other parts of the world? I'm gonna show you why that's not possible. Okay. Yeah, that's kind of my goal there. Yeah, because and it's not even that it's not even a disprove of an advanced civilization. It's a disprove of agriculture period in the ice age. There's a lot of reasons why there was no agriculture. And so I want to get into the weeds on that. Let's say, yeah. So just to kind of go off, I also want to explain. One penis. I know, man. What are you doing to us here? You want to do it here. Hey, you've got to get the audience somehow, right? Is it penis pipes? Is that a pipe? Yeah, they are. That's a rough... Not not pipe, it's a lamp. A lamp, okay. But so, you know, archaeologists... Those are cool. I think archaeology should be open. But of course, in the 20th century, the more years. If you go to the museum in Naples, [14:05] they have what's called the Gabi Neto Segreto, and it has all the erotic art from Pompey and Herculanium and things like that. And archaeologists look, we're underfunded, we're not perfect, but our goal most of us is to publish everything open data. And we have at this point millions upon millions of archaeological records available from things like open context, the archaeology, data service, the digital archaeological record, even the radiocarbon-paleolithic Europe database. So when you're talking about the Ice Age, we have radiocarbon dates directly dated from 13,000 sites in Europe and Siberia. We have quite a bit of evidence of this ephemeral evidence for hunter-gatherers, if you see what I mean. And so the evidence is just enormous, this database for hunter-gatherers, if you see what I mean. And so the evidence is just enormous, this database for hunter-gatherers. And so I think it's important that we deal with the existing evidence and see where it leads us if you see what we're doing. And what is the oldest evidence for hunter-gatherers just for the audience? Oh God, I mean that goes back, you know, a million years or something. Millions. [15:01] Three, almost, APNs. pre-homosapiens. But in terms of what we would consider a stone age man or early homosapian, what is the earliest buildings that we know of, what's the earliest tools that we know of, what do we have? The earliest tools we know of are many hundreds of thousands of years, right? Before modern homosapiens. Similar to the ones to show us. Yeah, well, they're bigger. They're probably, this isn't quite at either. This is a middle paleolithic style core that my dad made. But the earliest stone tools are quite large, many of them. But as time goes on, they become smaller and smaller because humans become more efficient at using this raw material, right? Because there's only a few different kinds of stones that you can nap, that's what's called a concoidal fracture. I'll pass some of these around at some point. We'll do a show and tell. And I'll show you how we can tell the difference between kind of a man-made stone tool versus just a piece of shatter. I actually just watched the documentary or YouTube video, I should say. And it was really fascinating watching them nap them. How they do it with like a piece of leather on their leg [16:05] and they knocked the top of it. It's very interesting. You even have some lovely deer antler that could be used for that, right? Yeah, it's pretty cool. Yeah. Okay, so continue. So you were saying that we have a very clear chain. Essentially you're saying there's a clear chain between what we know of in terms of like hunter-gatherers and then more modern civilizations that's a pretty linear line. No, I don't see it as a linear line. I'm not sure. Not linear, that's a bad. But you know at what point in time it's start, I should say. I think what we can say is we can understand, start pinpointing the starts of domestication and things like that. But I think that what this big data set that we now have shows is there is no linear trajectory to human culture. It's actually very heterogeneous, what happens. It's different in different areas of the world, and therefore we need to understand the local context to understand them. And that's really what it's picturing. I mean, in many ways, like I think Graham's TV show is fun and interesting TV, [17:02] but I think it misrepresents what we think of as the birth of civilization. We don't really write or teach about that anymore. It's very different in different places. Even the very term civilization is something that everybody has a different definition for. So we almost never use it. I never use the term civilization while teaching or writing, for example. It's just, it's a term that you can use to mean anything. And so it's like this, this, this, this grand narrative approach to human prehistory is something that's from the 20th century and not really a component of 21st century archaeology is what I would say. Got it. Yeah. And so I, I just want to end with a couple questions for Graham if he's willing. Um, in, in, at different times he's described that civilization that he's looking for from 12,000 years ago, it was advanced to say our own civilization in the late 18th or early 19th century. And so, you know, as an archaeologist, we study technology, we study the material remains of the past. And so I wonder what we're trying to look for, right? [18:01] And so I know that this is kind of how the last conversation with Michael Schumer started. And so I get that. But I do want to just quickly say Graham has acknowledged that there's a good chance there's no metallurgy, for example, with this civilization. He said maybe a decision was made not to use metals. And I'd say we could definitively prove there was no large scale metallurgy in the Ice Age. If you look at ice cores in the Arctic, right, we can track metallurgy of the Roman period of medieval periods based on lead emissions that end up in these ice cores. And there are no emissions from metallurgy in the ice age. So we can be sure that there's no global metallurgical civilization that's doing a lot of mining and smelting. Certainly they're not burning fossil fuels like they might be in the 18th or 19th century. So we know that could not have been around that early because it would show up in the atmosphere. Likewise, we can think about shipwrecks, right? Graham has mentioned that the bulk of marine archeology has focused on shipwrecks and not the continental shelves. And so the thing is at this point, we have something like 3 million shipwrecks from around the [19:05] world. One of my questions for Graham is if this is a global civilization with ships, why is it that we don't have shipwrecks from this global civilization? I see this as a big, big problem. If we're looking for a civilization that's traversing the oceans, we should find these shipwrecks. Similarly, these shipwrecks are located near the coast. They're located on the submerged continental shelves. We are actually exploring these submerged continental shelves in detail. We're able to find scattered, ephemeral shipwrecks, but not monuments of some sort of civilization. And these shipwrecks, what's the oldest one that we've found so far? Well, there was one that was just published from about, I think it was about six, seven thousand years ago off the coast of Italy that I saw. Um, something around there would say what I'd say is around the oldest that we have, yeah. And at what point in time do you, these are mostly wooden boats? Yeah, these are mostly wooden boats, yeah. What point in time would they deteriorate completely? Well, so actually underwater environments are really good for the preservation of organic remains, which is why we actually get wood in waterlogged environments rather than on land, for example. [20:08] You either need to be in a really dry environment for wood to preserve or a really wet environment, or with those seeds I was showing it needs to be charred. So in general, wood will decay. In a lot of underwater environments, it'll just preserve as long as it's in homeostasis. Which is why that explores boat that sank sank, who's boat was that? You know the bottom talking about? Famous explorer is this beautiful wooden boat that's almost completely intact at the bottom of the ocean. I think it hit a nice bird. Which explorer was that Jamie? Do you remember that dude? There's an amazing video of it. It's amazing. They're just zooming in on this boat and it almost exactly like it looked when it sank because the water's freezing cold. That's it right there. Look at that. Erna shackled in there. Oh yeah, okay. I have seen this. It's incredible. The whole boat just imagined what it would have been to bid on that boat back then. [21:02] The preservation underwater is amazing. There's this shipwreck off the coast of Italy that I just presented what was on the Babboi Science YouTube about shipwrecks and stuff. And there's still the vine netting that was holding the Roman cargo was still preserved. Wow. And so the underwater preservation is just freaky. And is it, would it stay that way for 20,000 years? Oh yeah. Oh yeah. There's this idea that things just decay the older they are. And that's really not true. It depends on the burial environment that they're in. So the taphonomy is what archaeologists use to study how things survive and how they are there. And so typically, when things are buried, they're very stable. Or when they're sitting, it depends on where you are on the bottom of the ocean, but typically it's very, very stable. In fact, the worst place to be is the tidal zone. So when sea level rises very slow, and an area stuck in that tidal zone, things will get battered. But if things are deeply deposited quickly or sea level rises very quick, that actually helps preserve stuff. [22:00] And so that's how we can still find these kind of shipwrecks and ice age sites and other sort of settlements underwater. Now what about the shifting of sediment at the bottom of the ocean when you're dealing with things like 10, 20,000 years ago, 30,000 years ago? Yeah, so there's actually, I was just talking with Jessica Cook-Hail out of Bradford about this. And actually, so she's done some studies off the coast of Florida of sort of hurricanes that are coming in today because she's excavating stone age shell mounds there. And it turns out actually that the hurricanes coming in today really don't disturb them much at all. Yeah, she's published on that. So obviously it's going to... So it's mostly... Mostly cervix. Yeah, it's going to depend on the specific environment is the answer. So certain environments, it's not going to preserve others, it will. Yeah, it's variable okay the reality of it was there any other questions for ground um wait a second I just wanted to end by saying look you know archaeologists we what we find is what we publish right we are not trying to keep stuff hidden if I found Atlantis I would publish Atlantis Klaus Schmidt found Gobechli Tepe he published Gobechli Tepe and so I think [23:04] that that's really important. We want to change and rewrite history. That's how we make a name for ourselves. Every article I have published and most of my colleagues have published is something that is adding and changing our picture of the past. We're not locked in on a specific narrative. What we're trying to do is update the picture of the past for each other, for our colleagues and for people all around the world to sort of give a sense of, you know, human culture and the diversity of it, the resilience of it, and how we've survived this long so that we can learn from it. Okay, Graham. Flint, first of all, thank you for joining me here. Oh yeah, thank you for that. It's in a way a historic occasion. Because as far as I know, this is the first time ever that a mainstream archaeologist has sat down in a public forum and debated somebody who's looking at the past from an alternative point of view. [24:02] And I'm grateful to you for sitting in the hot seat and doing that. I think it's really valuable, and I hope the audience will find it useful. I'm going to try and recall a few of your questions. The last civilization that I'm thinking of is like a black hole in space to me. It's like something missing in the story of our past. To the extent that I can put form on it, I think we're looking at a civilization, like all civilizations, that emerged out of shamanism. I believe that they did have rather advanced astronomy and a knowledge of the world. But I don't compare, when I speak of a 19th century level of technology, I'm talking specifically about knowledge of longitude. The longitude problem was not solved by our civilization until the middle of the 18th century. [25:01] And I'm talking about knowledge of very hard to observe astronomical phenomena such as the precession of the equinoxes. That knowledge is normally attributed to the ancient Greeks, but I think there's compelling evidence that it's much, much earlier than that. I'm not quite sure where to start with my first presentation, but you're telling us that archaeology is very keen on new ideas and wants to really explore and investigate the past, is that right? That's my perspective, yes. As your perspective, all right. Let's have a look at Clovis first. Now, tell me what you'll view on the Clovis first thesis is. Well, when I was an undergraduate student, I was taught that there were people here before Clovis. And that was over 20 years ago. And that would be what decade? That would be the early 2000s. The early 2000s. So would you feel the whole Clovis first idea? Clovis first is the idea that, excuse me, [26:01] it's a culture that archaeologists call the Clovis culture. The reason that they call it the Clovis culture is because its artifacts were first found in a place called Blackwater Draw. And nearby Blackwater Draw is the town of Clovis, New Mexico. So archaeologists named this culture the Clovis culture after that. And it was for a long while thought to be the first human presence in the Americas. And the dating that was put on that was around 13,400 years ago. This culture crossed the Bearing Straits, which were then a land bridge, as you can see from this image on the screen. They crossed the Bearing Straits and they entered into North America. They came down through, often it was argued, an ice-free corridor, all that's very debatable, and then they entered the main part of the Americas and gradually made their way further south. And this was a dominant paradigm, until I would say the 1990s when [27:00] it began to be seriously questioned. But I would wonder whether the ghost of Clovis first is still not haunting archaeology. So let me just say a few words on this subject. So across the barring straits, 13,400 years ago, and there's a single common origin, supposedly that was the idea with Clovis first. And there have been recent genetic discoveries showing a very close relationship between Australasians and certain peoples of the Amazon rainforest. We've talked about this before on your show, Joe. And I can go into that in more detail later. A huge amount of evidence from South America has a bearing on this subject. This is the typical tool set that the Clovis people were thought to have used. And despite the fact that you're telling us [28:01] that Clovis first has been debunked since the 1990s, really, and you were taught that it was debunked in the 2000s. We can find new scientists publishing, unless in 2013, questioning the Clovis first model. And those who did question the Clovis first model, I mean, I do love your picture of this free and open and generous archaeology. But actually, archaeologists can be very, very mean to other archaeologists who disagree with them. And the example of this is Jacques Saint-Germard, who investigated bluefish caves in the Yukon, and found evidence of human beings there more than 20,000 years ago. Now, if that evidence were correct, it would blow the Clovis first model out of the water. People are suddenly in America more than 7,000 years before clovus. The reaction to that was not welcoming. The reaction to that was fury at Jack Sankmars. And here's the Smithsonian, rather than launching a major new search for more early evidence, [29:03] the Feinstered FIASal position, and a bitter debate, one of the most acrimony as an unfruitful in all of science, not in the journal Nature. And it was a brutal experience for Jacques Saint-Marz. He likened it to the Spanish Inquisition. Audiences paid a little heed to his evidence at academic conferences that gave short shrift to the evidence. Then his competence was questioned. When Jack proposed that Bluefish case was 24,000 years old, it was not accepted, says William Jocene. And the fact is that Jack Sank Mares was ruined by the archaeological reaction to his discovery. His career was wrecked. His research funding was withdrawn. He was ignored by colleagues in the Halls of Academia. He was insulted and humiliated. It destroyed his life, but he was right. And the fact that he was right was later confirmed. It was confirmed that indeed human beings had been at Bluefish Cave. There's the publication from 2017, I think. [30:08] Yes, January 2017, confirming that all along Jacques Saint-Marc had been right, and that the ruining and destruction of his reputation for saying something that other archaeologists disagreed with had been wholly unnecessary. And again, the Smithsonian, the study raises serious questions about the effect of the bitter decades long debate over the people of the New World. Did archaeologists in the mainstream marginalize dissenting voices on this key issue? And if so, what was the impact on North American archaeology? Did the intense criticism of pre-Clovis sites produce a chilling effect, stifling new ideas, and hobbling the search for early sites. So here's Clovis Debunkter. You're telling me that it was debunked in the 90s, but here's Clovis being debunked again in 2007, National Geographic. Here's Clovis being debunked in 2012. [31:01] I mean, for a theory that was debunked in the 1990s, it's weird to see it still being debunked in 2012. It's weird to see it still being debunked in 2012. It's like there's something still there to debunk, isn't there? And Wikipedia entry, recently the scientific consensus has changed to acknowledge the presence of pre-Clovis cultures in the America, ending the Clovis first consensus. This was a piece from the 15th of April 2023. My God, here's the big, big think, April 2022. Clovis apparently still needs to be debunked. It's like a zombie. It keeps on haunting archaeology and people keep on having to debunk it. And I'd like to just mention Tom Dillahay. Tom Dillahay discovered the site of excavated, the site of Monteverde, a chili. And he found evidence that human beings had been there 14,000, maybe as much as 18,000 years ago in the deep south of South America. [32:02] And again, the archaeology that Flint would like us to believe exists would have welcomed that find, but no, that find was not welcomed, that find was massively attacked, particularly by American archaeologists. And what we now know that Tom Dele has been vindicated, and that he was absolutely correct all along, that human beings were in Monteverde thousands of years before Clovis, and he was eventually vindicated. Now, what I want to do, if you don't mind, is just play a tiny little clip from Tom Dilley himself. I don't have audio setup for you to do that. Can you send it to him? I just have the HDMI cable. Right, but if he sends it to you, can you do that? Sure, okay. I'll send it to you. You can even have a Mac. [33:01] Hmm? We'll pause. After a slight technical hitch. Okay. We're back. Uh, after a slight technical hitch, uh, let's play this clip from Tom Dillahay, uh, who was the, um, discoverer and excavator of Monteverdi. I put together an interdisciplinary research team of people got National Geographic funding and National Science Foundation funding and that went pretty well the way we expected to and I found that the scientists were open-minded. This includes archaeologists. We had Austrian, Cheyenne and Argentinian archaeologists working with this, accumulatively speaking, those people besides myself probably had close to hundred years of experience amongst them. What surprised me on the other side of the coin was the stiff, closed-mindedness of many North American archaeologists. [34:01] But some of the North American colleagues were very difficult to deal with. And I think at times presenting a very unhealthy atmosphere, cutting us off before we can present the data and meetings, not talking with us about it, refusing to even look at the data, this sort of thing. So I think I've, I think I've got a few minutes left of my presentation time. And I would like to deal with the issue that Flint has mentioned of archaeology somehow knowing that there was no lost civilization. If we could call this up on the screen, Jamie. So the Society for American Archaeology [35:00] of which Flint is a member wrote an open letter to Netflix shortly after the release of my show, Ancient Apocalypse, really asking Netflix to cancel the show. Not to cancel it. This is quite cleverly put. They said reclassify it as science fiction. Now to my mind, what is the result of 30 plus years of work on my part being reclassified as science fiction is as good as cancelling it. Netflix did not reclassify as science fiction, but the archaeology, the society for American archaeology, says that it really sees no evidence for an advanced lost civilization of the ice age, and that my series is simply entertainment with ideological goals. So I want to get into the parts of the world that archaeology has not looked at. [36:00] It's kind of interesting though, from that statement, just the last thing, contrary to Hancock's claims, archaeology does not willfully ignore credible evidence nor does it seek to suppress it in the conspiratorial fashion. But we just showed that. Yeah, we just showed in the case of Tom Dillahay that his evidence was suppressed, that in the case of Jack Sanguars, his evidence was suppressed, that archaeology was not open-minded about the work of these guys, that they suffered humiliation and great difficulty in advancing their work. And furthermore, I'd like to make another point clear at this point, Flint. I don't think there's an archaeological conspiracy against me. I'm not so conceited. I don't imagine there's a conspiracy. I don't think archaeologists are sitting together in a cumbal conspiring against me. I think that archaeology is locked into a mindset about the past, where my ideas simply seem preposterous. And I think it's very annoying to archaeology that those ideas have some resonance with the public. But I absolutely refute any suggestion that I have [37:02] ever said that archaeology is involved in a conspiracy against me or is trying to suppress my work That is that is not the case Look, there's the Sahara desert a bit of archaeology has been done in the Sahara desert But we look at at 9.2 million square kilometers of the Sahara desert Tell me how much of the Sahara you think has actually been excavated by archaeologists? I'd say a bunch of it has been surveyed, including by my dad. No, no, no. How much has actually been excavated? Well, a lot of sort of desert archaeology does not have excavation, and he wrote it away due to the wind. So what you're asking to my question, how much is archaeology really know about the past of the Sahara. Well, we understand about the domestication of pearl millet in the Sahara. From when the Sahara was much more, much of it was actually more habitable because it was not desert, so we can see the domestication of pearl millet in Storgan. No, we can see my question is related specifically to my subject. [38:02] Has enough of the Sahara being excavated for archaeology to exclude any possibility that they've missed anything important in the Sahara. We have found thousands of sites of a femoral hunter-gatherer remains in the Sahara. You're still not answering my question. How much of the Sahara has archaeology actually looked at? I have no idea but quite a bit, Graham. What do you mean by quite a bit? What I mean is that due to remote sensing, due to surface survey, and due to archaeological excavation, we actually have reasonable coverage across the Sahara. We understand that during green periods in the Neolithic, we can see agricultural villages. And before the Neolithic, we can find ephemeral hunter-gatherer camps where they were napping stones. But the fact of the matter is, around about 1% of the Sahara has been excavated and 99% hasn't. So to say that there's no possibility of any traces of a lost civilization in the Sahara seems to me a bit premature. Particularly since during the African humid period and there were several of them, the Sahara [39:01] was green and fertile and was a very attractive environment in which to live. I might come onto the ancient maps issue, but there's an ancient map up there which shows a green and fertile Sahara, and oddly, it coincides very much with the radar survey of the Sahara done in 2015, showing river channels in exactly the places shown in that ancient map. I think the Sahara is a fascinating undisserved area by archaeology. And the plain fact of the matter is it's very expensive to work there, it's very difficult to work there. An archaeology has done very little work in the Sahara. Not no work, not no work, but very little. Not enough to write off the possibility that evidence might be found in the future. You know you're basing this on our technology now. Let's look 200 years in the future. Look how much archaeology is progressed in the last 50 years. 200 years in the future, the technologies might be so much more advanced. There's so much stuff that has simply not been looked at. And the Sahara is one of those underserved areas as far as I'm concerned. [40:02] So is the Amazon. 6.7 million square kilometers, about 5.5 still covered by rainforest. It's bigger than India. And well, here's a nodic from nature. 95% of the Amazon has simply not been investigated at all, and those bits that have been investigated are minuscule by comparison yet where investigation is taking place in the Amazon, astonishing finds are being made. And these are in the Brazilian state of Acher, Accray and Geoglyphs have been found there. And I've recently been with not all archaeologists are as opposed to my work as a you and your colleagues, but I've been with Marty Passenen, who's a leading archaeologist studying the Amazon. I've been with Alseus Ranzi, who's a geographer from Brazil and with Fabio de Valle's Philho, who's a Lidar expert. [41:01] This is very recently actually, and we did some L hour work in that area. This is the kind of things being found, huge, enormous earthworks, geoglyphs, which, where we define them in the west, we would recognize them as almost as hinges. The amount of workmanship that goes into these earthworks is stunning. And they are very precise, very geometrical. You have squares. Here you have a square enclosing a circle. More of the same. Tikino is a gigantic site. These are just scratching the surface. The archaeologists who are working on these sites believe that there are thousands and thousands more of these geographic sites. They're just touching the edge. When I was there with them back in September 23, I think it was, we actually did a bit of light out work. We put up a drone with light air attached [42:00] and we found new geographers. Geogliffs had not been found before, within a mile of geogliffs that had been found, but still covered by canopy rainforests. And Marti and Arceo are of the view that if we were to really investigate the whole of the Amazon from this point of view, we would have to revolutionize our whole view of human history. That archaeology has hardly touched this incredibly important region. And therefore, I do not believe that archaeology can tell us that it can rule out any possibility of a lost civilization while it has so failed to serve the Amazon and is only now beginning to do so. And those who are doing that work are convinced that there's much, much, much more to be found. Thousands more of these geoglyphs, for example. 27 million square kilometers of the Earth's surface was above water during the ice age and it's underwater today. So yes, there has been quite a bit of marine archaeology. I think Nick Fleming says about 3,000 sites have been investigated underwater over the years. But it's, again, you're looking at a tiny fraction [43:03] of 1% of the submerged areas that have been investigated. I was very excited when I saw this, but it turned out that it was just another search for shipwrecks. And fortunately, some new work is now being done. Our kilds are beginning to look at the submerged area dogaland, for example, between what is now Britain and continental Europe, a submerged landmass, the beginning to investigate this. It wouldn't surprise me at all if lots of evidence of hunter-gatherers is found in these submerged areas. I would expect that to be the case. But to say that enough work has been done to rule out the possibility of a lost civilization seems to me absurd when we're dealing with 27 million square kilometres. And I just want to say that I and my wife, Santa, have done a great deal of diving. We did seven years of scuba diving all over the world. And what we did was we followed up local accounts of underwater structures, fishermen, local divers, and we went where they took us. This is Nanmadol Ponepe on the island of Ponepe. [44:01] You go a bit further underwater and you start finding structures underwater. Go a bit further still and you find this huge column underwater. This is a depth of 27 meters. That column has been submerged for more than 13,000 years. And it compares very interestingly with this column, if you see on the left, the submerged column at Namadol on the right, this column from Tinian, the island of Tinian, also in that region of the Pacific. I wonder if the Megaliths of Tinian have been mistated. What we're looking at here, and I apologize to listeners who are listening and not watching, but what we're looking at here are my fins disappearing into a tunnel. And that tunnel looks to me, this is in Japan, by the way, of the island of Yonaguni. That tunnel looks to me very man-made, particularly when I get inside it and find two on each side, two big megaliths, a pile one on top of the other. And then when you come to the end of the tunnel, you see ahead of you these two massive megalithic blocks directly in view from [45:08] the tunnel. That's a shot that Santa took of me diving beside those megalithic blocks just to give you a sense of the scale of them. They're enormous. No, they did not fall from a cliff above. There is no cliff above. And there's their in context. We're looking at a huge rocky outcrop with these two megalithic blocks on the side. But let's go round to the right of that rocky outcrop. And we find a rock-huean area with steps. And those steps archaeologists tend to argue this is all completely natural. I have done more than 200 dives at Yonoguni, Santa and I risked our lives. We are not delitantes, we are in this out of conviction, we're in this out of passion for our subject. We've done more than 200 dives at Yonoguni, I've been hands-on with this structure and all the other structures around it and I am absolutely confident that we're looking at a rock-hune structure, that the natural rock face that was cut and shaped by human beings. Here at Caramah, we're looking at a [46:10] stone circle underwater, depth 30 plus meters, 32 meters I think, been submerged again for more than 13,000 years. There I'm videoing for scale, you can see somebody down that beside that central megalith, flint. Do you think nature made that? I see no evidence of being manmade, if that's what you're saying. You see no evidence of that being manmade. You see a central upright. You see upright surrounding it. You see the inner curve of the outer megalith matching the outer curve of the central megalith. And to you, that's not even interesting. I mean, even the photos you were showing at Yonaguni showed a lot of natural fractures along straight lines. And so I think that it's really easy to confuse what can happen naturally and geologically with something that looks kind of anthropogenic. But this does not look man-made to me. It does not look like anything I've ever seen. Well that's interesting because I took a geologist diving there Wolf Witchman. [47:05] He's very skeptical. He was skeptical about Yonoguni, but he did confess after we came up from the David Karima that there's no way in his opinion that this could have been made by nature. This is a rock wall off Taiwan. Again, Santa and I went diving there. That's a local diver called Steve Sheer. He's showing us this rock wall. We can get in close to it. We can see a sort of pediment in front of it. And if you get up close, you can see that it is actually made of individual blocks put together. Let's go to India, Southeast coast of India. My wife, Santa, was born in Malaysia, but she's of Tamil, South Indian origin. So we had a great advantage in South India in talking to local fishermen and divers because Santa speaks the Tamil language fluently. And we had asked them, are there any structures underwater of here? And they said, you bet there are. [48:00] There's a whole city underwater of here. And we've complained to the government about it because we keep catching our nets on it And fishermen have to go down and sometimes they die trying to free the nets We'd like the whole thing clear away. So we said would you would you take us out there and show us? And it took some time to put it together This was an expedition with the scientific exploration society in Britain that I put together as you can see It's a very low tech expedition But when we got out there come come on, Flint, tell me these are man-made. Tell me these are natural blocks. That's a very blurry picture, Graham. Well, tell me it's a natural block. Tell me I cannot tell for sure from with these photos. OK, there I'm putting my diving knife between two blocks. And there, and then a curved wall. Actually the team from the National Institute of Oceanography in India, who were with us, were intrigued by this. Do you have any more photos of that? Maybe more convincing? No, that's what I've got. But I'm trying to keep it short. [49:01] Right, some of them do have characteristics of stone walls for sure, but it's hard to tell. That's the top of a stone wall, the rest of it's buried in sand on the left there. On the right, a stone wall with a standout feature above it. To suggest that these things are natural seems to me completely absurd. And my point is that if Santa and I, with no external funding, the only funding we have, I've never had financial sponsorship from anybody. The only funding that we have is the kind readers who, by my books, allow us to undertake this research. And we've risked our lives for 30 years investigating this research. And if we can find structures of this nature underwater on our very limited basis, then I would imagine that a detailed archaeological survey would find much more. So the submerged continental shelves, the Sahara desert, and the Amazon alone, these are three large underserved areas by archaeology. And I think it's premature for archaeology [50:01] to say that they can rule out any possibility of a lost civilization. While there's so much of the earth that remains to be studied, to say that they can rule out any possibility of a lost civilization. Well, there's so much of the earth that remains to be studied, and actually, how much of the so-called developed industrial countries, how much of the land area of those countries have been investigated? I mean, so look, hey, I fully agree with you that I'd like to see more archaeology done in ethical informed ways. I am not trying to argue against searching for sites in the Sahara, the Amazon, or underwater. I think we can hopefully agree that more archaeology needs to be done. I would say and develop countries are coverage is even better though, mainly due to the fact that laws require archaeological excavation and survey prior to construction. So whenever there's sort of construction going on in cities, there's archeology happening whenever pipelines are highways or things like that are being done, there's survey and there's excavation. And so I mean, at this point, our numbers of archaeological sites are well in the millions, right? And billions of artifacts that have been found. And so it's not trying to say it's perfect though, [51:01] and at the same time, the kind of excavations that happen on a rescue basis before construction, they're not going to have the same kind of investment that an academic project will have. On the other hand, an academic project is going to make a much smaller hole, because we are focusing on maximizing the evidence that we can get. And so in no way am I trying to say that archaeology has perfect coverage, but we do have quite a bit of coverage that people are unfamiliar with, and we do have quite a bit of coverage of this late ice age period, where we have many, many thousands of sites from ephemeral hunter-gatherers, underwater above water, and elsewhere. As we do above water. Yeah. Would you mind showing Yonaguni again? No. Because those other images aren't nearly as compelling to me as some of the right angles and it looks like passageways and that curved surface underground. That to me, that's a wild one. [52:02] See the other stuff, things look weird in nature sometimes, and I'm not an expert. And so I look at that, I'm like, that's blurry, it's green, it's odd, yeah, it's odd. Maybe if you were there physically, you would have a different impression of it. Maybe it would look more like a stone wall. But Yannaguni to me, it blows me away, but the other image blows me away of the curved front of that feature. And what looks like steps to the right of it. So there's that tunnel. That's crazy too. That's crazy too, because the lines line up. It looks like two blocks were cut and placed on each side. And there seems like a very clear passageway in between them. Especially since at the end of the passageway you're confronted by this. This is what you look at. These are crazy. If these are natural formations, they are so bizarre that you have enormous straight lines and right angles that look like they're cut and not just straight on one side, straight on all sides. You might go, yeah, so look at this slide. [53:02] You can see even to the right of those two blocks, what Graham is calling blocks. You can see these sort of straight angles that are made. You can see another vertical one to the left of the floor as well. How do you think they were placed in that manner? Well, I don't know if they were placed. I think it's possible that they just broke off at some point in history and landed like that. I think they were. Again, this is compelling to me, but not as compelling as the other one. Show me the other one with the front curved surface. This. Notice that. This looks crazy. Like the whole thing looks crazy. The steps look crazy. The fact that it's all this one uniform flat line. So which do my computer actually use? Yeah. Some of these look bizarre. Nature sometimes looks bizarre though. I mean, you i i if if i i'm i'm assuming that people have investigated this like geologists and stuff from what i remember reading professor masaki kimura has investigated it and he's published extensively on it and he's after he's a geologist he's absolutely convinced that yana goon he has been worked extensively by human hands and have another geologist like robert shock suggested that it's not yeah i took [54:04] Robert there his initial impression was that it was suggested that it's not. Yeah, I took Robert there. His initial impression was that it was that it was man made later. He changed his view. That's fine. He did three dives there. But I mean, I don't know. I've seen a lot of crazy natural stuff and I see nothing here that to me reminds me of human architecture and I've seen human architecture all over the world. Jamie, go to that one that we were just looking at with Graham. It's a lower right, like below the main image of the right hand side. Yeah, the next one, that one. Yeah. It's certainly crazy. I'll give you that. Yeah. You know, I'm not going to deny that. It's impressive. It's so hard. It's flat that surface is very bizarre and how it juts off and it's flat below it in a uniform line. The curved surface of the front of it is very bizarre too. The other image that you had, Graham? But stone oftentimes fractures in straight ways. Right. You know, that's how it fractures naturally. Yeah, I get it. I get it. It's just the appearance of those stones stacked in a uniform manner in that tunnel all these things and that this exists [55:10] somewhere else. It's very similar. Because these might be renderings of what they think it looks like. I mean regardless we still have no dates from this. We have no artifacts. Well, we do have dates from the submergence. You're looking at material that's more than 12,000 years old. Well, look, there was about length. This was a tough dive, massive currents there. This is Karima of Akajima in the Okinawa group of islands. To me, it's stunning that you see that as a totally natural thing, but I guess we've just got very different eyes. The central upright surrounded by upright megaliths all cut out of the bedrock very similar to the chamber recently excavated at Karahan Tepe where you have uprights cut out of the bedrock as well. [56:07] It seems to me inconceivable that nature could have made this, that nature could have separated out this central upright and then created the upright surrounding it in such a perfect way. But it's not totally perfect, right? Look, look at the back. The back is much larger. Yeah, there's a piece on the side that seems like it's cut out. And then there's a piece in front that seems like it's cut out. But even the one to the lower left is not, it's not cut the same. It's odd that you have that passageway when you're looking down and it's sort of uniform on all sides around the model. That's pretty fascinating. It's interesting. My point is, not nearly enough work has been done on archaeology. And how long ago was supposedly this above ground? About 13,000 years ago, somewhere of that order. Somewhere of that order. That was the last time it could have been done above ground. Otherwise, nature, if we believe so, has done it. But I'm pretty confident we're looking at this. What is the most compelling evidence that you've seen in an underwater site [57:02] that have man-made construction or moving of stones. I repeat, this is Karama. I am not showing, I'm only showing a fraction of the slides that we have from Yonaguni. Yonaguni isn't simply that terrace. It's a whole series of monuments which continue over a distance of a couple of miles underwater. There's a huge stone face carved out of the rock. There's a passageway. Down at the bottom of Yonoguni, there as rocks have been cleared to the side away from the passageway. It's the combination of all of these different things across an area of two miles off the island of Yonoguni that make that one of my high priority sites for manmade workmanship and the Indian sites are also extremely intriguing and unfortunately none of that work has been followed up which is a pity. And when we come to what you call rescue archaeology for if we come back to Northern Europe [58:04] for example, I mean the last place on earth that I would look for the remains of a lost civilization is Northern Europe. Because Northern Europe was a frozen wilderness during the Ice Age and any lost civilization with its salt would not have focused a lot of effort on Northern Europe in that time. The place to look is down near the tropics, down near the equator. It's in places that weren't horrifically cold and unbearable during the ice age. And when you talk about rescue archaeology, this is one of the problems I have is that there is no targeted search for the possibility of a lost civilization because archaeology is already convinced that no such thing could have existed. So what we get is accidental discovery. Somebody's building a road or building a dam. They call it the archaeologists to see if there's any archaeology that's going to be disrupted and some archaeology is found sometimes. That's how the Seruti Mastodon site in Nier Sandiego was discovered [59:02] because roadworks were being done there. But this is not a targeted search for a lost civilization. and near San Diego was discovered because roadworks were being done there. But this is not a targeted search for a lost civilization. This is accidental discovery. I would maintain that in the Amazon rainforest in the Sahara desert, in the 27 million square kilometers of continental shelves massively underserved by archaeology. And in other areas of the world, archaeology's focus is on very limited parts of those, not unmassive parts of them. And then I'm sure you know this Flint that when we come to most archaeological sites, the amount of the site that is excavated is rarely more than 5% and often less than that. And that's for good motives to preserve the site for future generations of archaeologists to investigate. But again, it doesn't, I think, allow archaeologists to lay such claim to the past that they can absolutely rule out any possibility of a lost civilization. Okay. What? Yeah. I mean, so if you want to, Jamie, do you want to look up the site Pavlo Petri, PAVLO, [1:00:01] PETRI? This is a site in the Aegean, and this is an example of kind of what a... I mean, I can boot it up on my computer if you want. So if you look at this, you have very clear stone courses for example underwater, and it's not just sort of stone courses and walls that we find, this is from a few thousand years ago, what we find actually are a ton of artifacts with it, right? They dive, they excavate, they pull up ceramics, they pull up stone tools, and they are able to, therefore, show that this was an occupy place. This is obviously not due to sea level rise, this is due to tectonic activity, that this is now underwater, heli-k, off the North Coast Degree, so also is another one that people have suggested might have inspired Plato's Atlantis because it happened during Plato's lifetime that that city was submerged underwater. And so we actually do find, you know, for more recent times actual underwater sites, aplenty. And Pavlo Petri, what year was that? [1:01:00] I think it's from about 3,000 years ago or so. So like 1, thousand BC-ish I could be off back. Are you saying those in natural blocks of public petriot? No, I'm saying you can say see clear stone courses That looks exactly like the type of architecture we have above ground Mm-hmm, and so the same kind of stone courses what you have you on a good historic period. No, huh? You would expect that from the historic. Yeah, we would. And so I would expect though if you're going to make an argument for something like Yonaguni that it would look like architecture. Maybe even the type of architecture that you have. Looks like a megalithic architecture to me. Looks like Rock-Hoon architecture. It looks like the Rock-Hoon areas at Saksai-Hwa Maan. For example, Jamie actually pulled up some pictures. Do you know sex, hua man? I've never been there. No, I've never been there. So how can you possibly talk about it? Because I've seen photos of it. Well, I've been there dozens of times. Well, I was there just a few weeks ago. Okay, but let's let's look at the images so we can discuss this. Let's look at the images because sex, hua man is a very complicated site. Yes, there are are huge blocks in the zigzag walls that sucks a whole lot, but they're also huge rock cut areas with steps in them. [1:02:06] I don't understand how being there lets you talk about it better than me. You've been there as a tourist to see how archeologists have conserved it and preserved it and presented it for people coming by. That is not the same thing as excavating a site. That is not the same thing with understanding archeological literature that's told me that I've not been there so I can not talk about it. It's obvious that you're ignorant of the sight flint. You're ignorant of the sight because you don't know what the sight looks like. You don't know. Well, it's a huge area that a kind of solid rock. Let's just talk about blocks. Let's have a bigger here and let's like look at it and discuss it. Let's look at it. How do you spell that? Sax S-A-C-S-A-Y-H-U-A-M-A-M. Okay, got it. Now that's the blocky walls that you've been talking about. Yeah, and that doesn't look anything like Yonaguni. But they confront another area. You were showing us some pictures of a dearly adjemy. [1:03:01] A whole rock-hue and hillside. I don't know. None of that looks like Yoniguni. This looks like actual architecture. Yeah, it is actually. I agree. But this is not the picture that I would like to see. Do you want to find a gram and put it up through HDMI? Because it's a jamey obviously. I know he was asking for about a stumble across it. I wasn't there on purpose or anything. It was probably in here somewhere and like how I got there, I was clicking around. So let's see if we can get. And I mean, you know, part of the goal those to also have a date. So, you know, like some of that stuff that you showed off the coast of India's that one there. There's lots of this in Saqseh Hwamun, as you would know, if you'd been there. This still does not look anything like Yon Agunik. It doesn't look like a season of steps cut out of rock. I mean, it looks like a series of steps, yeah, but it doesn't look like, it actually looks like a room there even is what I see on the left for example. It's not a room. To me, it looks similar but not similar in that whole room area on the left-hand side. [1:04:11] I don't think anybody could look at that and never argue that that wasn't made by humans. I think that's so clear. Whereas if you look at, go back. But I also don't know if this is Soxie Hora. Yes, and this is on Kora, right? Yeah, I don't know what it is. Let's go look and see what it is. It's a photo by Santham D. It is, it is, okay. How your wife. So the difference to me is like there's some instances like in between the steps where you look at that flat surface and the uniform line across the flat surface, that does look similar to Yanoguni. Some of the stuff on the right looks much more refined than what you see in Yanoguni but that also could be attributed to the underwater erosion, right? In thousands and thousands of years. Whereas how old is Saksai Waman supposed to be? Well that's an ongoing argument, Joe. Well, Pedro C. Azadileo and [1:05:00] mentioned it was only built a hundred years before he was there. The difference between in my mind, Sacsei Waman shows all those other things that are so clearly architecture. So clearly stone blocks fitted and piled onto each other. You don't quite see that level of sophistication at the Yonoguni site, but you do see some stuff that's very bizarre and doesn't look like it's natural. I suggest if we were to look further and spend the money and investigate thoroughly, we would find a lot more. I'm simply raising this to address Flint's apparent point that archaeology has done enough already to rule out the possibility of a lost civilization. That's certainly what's said in the SAA's letter to Netflix. And Flint, what is your position on that specifically, what he's talking about South America, that South America would be a place where an advanced civilization would thrive because it wouldn't during the ice age time because it wouldn't be experiencing the brutal cold that northern Europe had. No, but I still think we'd want to find some sort of evidence of things like agriculture, right? And so we can look at the development of agriculture in South America and in Mesoamerica. [1:06:04] I have slides on that. And we can see that it actually, we can see the transition from wild to domestic in real space and time. In which areas though? So in Mesoamerica we can see it with Teosinte, further south in the northern part of South America we can see it with a variety of different crops. And these are all areas that are outside of the rainforest? No, some of them are the edges of the rainforest here. The edges. And so I mean, look, we've done a lot of work in the rainforest with LIDAR in particular. And that's been dated based on excavations. Stefan Roestain just published in 2024, a series of LIDAR structures that were all connected with one another alongside major roads. And based on excavations of several of them it dates to about 2,500 years ago. And so this is the key thing is we want to understand clear dates for stuff. And that is the key thing. We have plentiful evidence. Do you mind if I show you some of our ice age evidence that we have? Every cell, I think the HDMI resets when you're shutting the computer. Did I shut my computer? Yeah. Sorry. Is it? Should I unplug it? Yeah. Okay. Technology, man. I don't know. [1:07:05] Sorry, I have a cheap computer. I need to, I work for a public university and have a small grant. I don't think he's the computer's problem. I think it's all good. Let me pull up my actual one. So let's look at some of the Ice Age stuff that we can look exactly where Graham says we're not looking and I want to show you what we do have no I say you're not looking enough okay but I want to show you what we find when we do look because I completely agree Graham I actually hope the people who are interested in our more archaeology happening donate to things like the archaeological institute of America the European Association of Archaeologists and the Society for American Archaeologists that can help fund more surveys and exercises so many wanted to do that where would they go? To their websites, sAAs.org, archeological.org. I think it's archeological.org. Can I give you guys the links to put it on the YouTube and stuff like that? Sure. Yeah, so archeological.org for the archeological Institute [1:08:02] of America. And I'll give you guys the links for that so that you can show that I just wanted to get it out there what still in people's minds Look it up archaeological Institute of America Society for American Archaeology and European Association for Archaeologists They are great institutions that support stuff I just want to dedicate this quick thing to my dad. He was an ICA archaeologist He innovated how to do mapping and how to look at stone tools. And please blame him for any of my mistakes, any of his colleagues that are listening. So I want to talk about one of his surveys that he actually did in the upper deserts of Egypt above Abidos. Abidos is famous because that's where the pre-dynastic dynasty came from in Egypt. But up in the upper areas, him with Devil chef ski and shanimic faren, they went and they surveyed 2100 different places where based on sort of the geology of the areas, they thought there was a decent chance that people might have been there in the past because of it being not a desert environment, but more of a savannah, more green. And because of erosion, there might be stuff visible, right? [1:09:03] So they targeted these areas and they found what, nearly 200 different sites all dating to the ice age, dense scatters, some of them dense, not all of them are dense, like this one on the right, of lithics, of stone tools that showed people working in place and they mapped them out in the desert. They have 36,000 different artifacts that they found in this survey. And in many places, they could actually refit these back together so they could understand that people were doing this right here in this spot. And so, you know, one of the great things about desert survey is because of all the window erosion, we actually should have exposed more architecture, more artifacts. And because it's so dry, things like organic material preserved sometimes as well. And so we actually have this picture of stuff that's different than say, you know, in a more temperate zone. But if we start looking at underwater sites, I talked with Dr. Jessica Cookele, who's now at the University of Bradford, who has done underwater dives and found ice age sites [1:10:04] off the coast of Florida. So this is in the Gulf of Mexico. Jamie, oh, I have to give this to you. Sorry. I have a video here for you. You could add, drop it. No, I don't have to have it. No, it's okay, just give the flash. I have a maximum. Yeah, I'm low tech, Graham. Well, it's just windows. Yeah, I know, I know. Um, isn't that part of a big lawsuit right now? And so one of the things that she does is she is an underwater archaeologist who focuses on the Stone Age and this period that we're talking about at the end of the Ice Age. And what we're looking at here, she'll talk about it, it's just a short one minute clip, is this site's underwater, they all date to the end of the Ice age. And so there are lithic scatters just like my dad found in the Sahara Desert of hunter-gatherers underwater sites though. And so let's see what some of these look like. Can I ask you something? How do they go about choosing these areas to search? Yeah, she's going to explain that. Okay. So what she does is she develops predictive models [1:11:00] based on the geomorphology. This is her, actually her colleague, finding some stone tools. So they look at the underwater geomorphology, they take known sites above water, and then they predict where they might be able to go and successfully find material, and then they go dive, and often enough they do find that material. And they're able to find... Here we go, yeah. Kurt has some of the densest terminal plies to see in early Holocene occupations in the American Southeast or definitely in Florida. We don't just do random dives. We go back from the known to the unknown. We look at terrestrial patterns. We look at cultural types. So periods where people were using shellfish as a subsistence base. It's really important to look at those sites on land and say, what are the factors? What environmental patterns, or cultural patterns, can we tease out of these larger distribution? And then we project it offshore. And if we're fortunate, then after we pull all these threads together, this is what we get. And so yeah, this is just like with my dad when he targeted areas in the Sahara. Now she's at University of Bradford, and they're doing dives in different areas of Europe. And they're specifically targeting this kind of stone-aged [1:12:06] material from this period. And they're able to successfully find it. And so I think that that's important to understand because this material is there to find, even though it's very much a femoral material from hunter-gatherer camps. And this is oftentimes outcrops of stone for making these kind of stone tools. So that's what they're actually finding is where they're making it, looking at the geomorphology to find them. And so if we, sorry, let's get past this. We already talked about this wall, but I also wanted to brought up other kinds of underwater finds that have been found from the Stonehenge Cowsker cave. It's a painted cave, it's 115 feet underwater, off the coast of Marseille found recently in 1985 by Omri Coast Kay and it's dated to 27,000 and 19,000 years ago and dated by radio carbon. It's actually the Pane cave with the most radio carbon dates from it, right? And this is what we have. We have panels of black horses. We have, it's one of the only Pane caves with sea creatures. [1:13:01] For example, these ox, I think there's this some stuff that they describe as jellyfish. There's a black stag. And so we actually are looking underwater and successfully finding this kind of material. But it's not just underwater because I don't think we need to stop there. If we look at this culture in Europe at the end of the ice age, this Magdalenian culture that's associated with most of these painting caves from about 17,000 to 12,000 years ago. The exact period that gram civilization should date to. We have radio carbon dates from a large number of these caves, very clearly locked in in time. And what do we see? They're actually even with sea level rise. They're only a couple miles from the Ice Age coast. So these are very, very close. There's not room for some sort of empire there, or civilization. I claim no empire. Okay, that's fine. That's just another way you misrepresent my work. Okay, I'm sorry for misrepresenting your work, Ram. But there's no room for some sort of large agricultural civilization along most of these [1:14:03] coasts because the way sea level rise has worked is it's variable in different places. And so we actually have a whole lot of coverage near to ice age coasts from the end of the ice age, not the glacial maximum. Can you explain those lines? Yeah, so these are lines based on 100 meters and 120 meters of sea level rise, which is about the amount that existed from the younger dryness. There's more from the glacial maximum, but that's 20,000 years ago. We're talking about 12,000 years ago at the end of the ice age. And so, they're only, all these caves on the north of Spain are only a few miles away from that ice age coastline. So just short walking distance. Right, so anything that had been submerged would have to be within those boundaries. Yeah, exactly. And there's only a few miles there. It's not like a huge, untapped landscape to look at if you see what I mean. Not in the Bay of Biscay. Not in the Bay of Biscay. Not in many places. Take the Sun to Shell, for example. [1:15:01] OK. An enormous amount of submerged material there. I'm not disputing that we're going to find, that we're going to find hunter gatherer sites underwater. I'm simply saying, and you seem to keep evading this issue, that not enough has been done to rule out the possibility of a lost civilization. They were hunter gatherers all over the world during the ice age, and of course, we're going to find hunter gatherer sites underwater underwater but to say that we've done enough underwater archaeology to rule out the possibility that something very surprising might be found underwater to me is actually dishonest. There's just not enough being done. There's not enough being done in the Sahara, there's not enough being done in the Amazon and there's not been done enough on those 27 million square kilometers of submerged continental shelves. The whole area between the Malaysian peninsula, the Indonesian islands, out over to New Guinea and Australia, the submerged Sunda shelf and the Sahul area, [1:16:01] to me is absolutely fascinating and not enough underwater archaeology has been done there to rule out the possibility. I'm not saying that we're not going to find hunter-gatherer sites, of course we are, but I'm saying that for archaeology to claim and to quite viciously and unpleasantly attack me for suggesting the possibility that there might be a lost civilization, to make that claim while having failed thus far to investigate thoroughly the vast areas of the submerged continental shelves, the vast areas of the Amazon rainforest, the vast areas of the Sahara desert that have not been investigated, that claim is premature, and that claim is disingenuous. But we have thousands of sites from these areas. I don't care how many sites you've got. Give me a second, we have to pause on underwater sites that have been found. Graham, working with archaeology is working from the known and what we actually have towards the I don't care how many times you've got. There's three thousand under water signs that have been found. Graham, working with archaeology is working from the known and what we actually have towards the unknown. And when you say that we're not investigating these areas, I'm showing you that we have. No, no, I'm not. I admit you have. Okay, so let me explain. Don't misrepresent me. I'm not misrepresenting you. Of. We've surveyed quite a bit of them and quite a bit of them are on- What do you mean by quite a bit? [1:17:06] How much of the submerged continental shelves have actually been studied? We're going to keep showing you areas that we have evidence for. Why do we have so much evidence for a femoral hunter-gatherers, but not evidence from an advanced civilization that is global? That should leave behind monuments that are far easier to find. Instead, what we get are plentiful sites outside and in caves that show coastal interactions. We have evidence of these hunter-gatherers interacting with the coastlines. They're collecting shellfish and fish. They're turning them into beads. They turn whale bones into points to hunt with and to other kinds of artifacts. These whale bones and these shells don't just end up on those coastal sites, they end up further inland as well. We we can see all over the world this kind of coastal interaction, and it's not just areas like that. So for example, sea level rise is not even everywhere. Just off the southern coast of Crete, I've been here Dr. Tom Strasser has shown me around this site. [1:18:00] Very thankfully, I'm very much in debt to him. This is an area where the African tectonic plate is moving under the European tectonic plate, and so the land is rising faster than the sea level has risen. And so Tom specifically targeted it for a survey. He found dozens of sites and then he excavated several of them. What this is is this is an uplifted sea cave. It's a cave that was formed from wave action, you know, before the ice age. And then with tectonic uplift, it raised up many, many, many meters above the current sea level. And what did he find? He found a stone age hunter gatherer or a camp. He excavated it. He found obsidian. He found other kinds of lithic tools. He found animal bones. And he dated it to right at the end of the ice age, right? None of that's surprising to me. Okay. But we can find this stuff so easily. How much of the submerged continental shelves have actually been investigated by archaeology? It doesn't matter. It does matter. Oh, it doesn't. What is 7 million square kilometers the size of Europe and China added together and you've investigated less than 5% of it? [1:19:02] That doesn't matter. The fact that we've found thousands of these hunter-gatherer sites does not matter. It does matter. Of course you're going to find that both things. That's what I expect to find in the world. Both things can be true. Both can be true. Or we can go to North America where we have 12,000 different sites, I think it is, with Clovis points. And we can see where these coastlines are. On the eastern seaboard, yes, there's a large amount of submerged continental shelf, including the area in Florida where we saw Jessica Cokail dived and found sites. If you look at the western seaboard on the other hand, there is not nearly as much of a submerged continental shelf. And what's really interesting about the western seaboard is not only have we been exploring it for forty plus years and we have multiple sites dating to this period at the end of the ice age sometimes with wood and corning other times with stone tools all of them hunter gatherers one second gram sure and so you mentioned this clovus first hypothesis right it's been decades you bring up news articles and headlines that say that it's still being debunked. That's not what archaeology is. [1:20:07] Articles ourselves don't say that. Our articles instead present new hypotheses like the kelp highway hypothesis because scholars do not write the headlines for media articles. I cannot help how journalists portray what we do. And so what we're looking at is this new migration pathway, the kelp highway hypothesis done by John Erlinson and others, and what we can do is we can specifically target areas that are above water. So what's happening along the Pacific Coast, North and Canada, is the glacier is melting, and that causes sea level rise, but the weight of the glacier pushes down the land. So as it melts, there's less weight on the the land and it's called isostatic rebound so there's a whole chunk of the Pacific Coast on on uh... sorry along Canada where it's above land right now for us to excavate and people have been targeting that out of the University of Victoria for example Duncan McLaren has found footprints right there on what is an [1:21:02] end of the ice age coast from about 15,000 years ago. These are footprints in beach sand from three different people from this analysis and so we can get these ephemeral traces of hunter-gatherers moving into the Americas at this time. Maybe some of them had lived there for a few thousand years and we can target these areas that are above land that were Ice Age Coast using our knowledge of geology. That is what we do. It's not that we're necessarily looking for one thing or another, we're targeting areas that are exposed, that we can understand coastal interactions at this early time. And whatever we find, whether it's footprints or something else, we work to publish it. And then we put together clear dates of the stratigraphy in order to get it at high resolution when these people were walking on this coastline, on this beach, if you see what I mean. These three different people right here. But how did you feel when Tom Dillahan, he's... [1:22:00] Tom Dillahan was the ex-giver. Dillahan, Montevete. How did you feel when he was describing what was ultimately true, but was being dismissed and he was being shut off and people weren't willing to look at the data? How do you feel as an archaeologist? Oh, I think that that's complete. I don't mean that what Graham Stannis bullshit, I think it's complete bullshit for any colleagues of mine that try to shoot down actual evidence. That is ridiculous. I'm not trying to say that archaeology is like any community of people. There includes some assholes. I have worked with some assholes before, right? And so I would say, though, that to represent that as all of archaeology is kind of silly because most archaeologists don't focus on the people in America. Me, I do ancient Greek research when people arrive in America does not impact the research I do, for example. All my Greek colleagues, all people that do Chinese archaeology, people that do archaeology of Australia, none of those people really have a horse in the game for the people in America. [1:23:01] And so if there were a few asshole archaeologists, well then I condemn them. I think that is a problem, you know, and I think that there are just like in any community of people, whether it's politicians, entertainers or in your neighborhood, there's assholes. We should say that that's the wrong way to be. And if those people are assholes, I think that's a problem. Then you were showing us a picture of Florida. Yeah. Recently the submerged continental shelf around Florida. Mm-hmm. Let's go back to that. Sure. That's why I interrupted you. Um, and apologies for doing that. You're fine. Now we're looking at the Florida Peninsula. And just to the right of that, we're looking at a large island that was above water during the ice age. Uh, it's in the light shaded green area. The dark shaded bit is the island called Andros. But what we're looking at is the Bahama banks that were above water during the Ice Age. So this might be a good opportunity to get into the controversial issue of Bimini, which is one of the many issues that I [1:24:04] featured in ancient apocalypse and that i've been uh... attacked you mind if i actually finish my powerpoint first or oh go ahead yes sorry okay no you're fine uh... well we'll go back to bimini yeah we can get to be many in a second i do want to point out that right in downtown my army right here is a archeological site called cutler rich which also dates to the end of the ice age it has shells, it has lithics, it has even I think human remains, and it shows that kind of coastal interaction, not too far from the Ice Age coast. It's just a few miles away. Sorry, let me give images from that. No, I don't think I do, I'm sorry. No worries. We could Google it if we want. But I do wanna just sort of end this little thing by saying that we have coastal ice age archaeology from around the world, from Africa, from Asia, from Australia, from the Americas. Everywhere you look, there are ice age coastal sites. For example, this set of beads from a burial of a child from La Madeline. These are marine beads found inland. [1:25:01] They were embroidered into the clothes that this child was buried in, right? It's about a seven-year-old little child buried there. And so you get these kind of pictures of the past of the people that lived in this sort of tough terrain and exploited the coasts all over the world. And so I just want to really emphasize, under water archaeology, we find things, for example, like a seawall off the coast of Israel, trying to combat the coast level rise that was happening in the Stone Age, right? We have lithic artifacts on submerged archaeological sites all over the world from different periods. And so we really are looking for this. Now we're not just finding shipwrecks and we are finding plentiful Stone Age stuff, hunter gatherer sites and it just sort of it strikes me as unbelievable that we have so many thousands of sites that show coastal interactions at the end of the ice age from these hunter-gatherers but we have no evidence of a loss of advanced civilization. That strikes me as maybe this doesn't disprove it but it makes it very very hard to swallow [1:26:05] if you see what I mean. Because nobody really understands how much archaeology we have. We have a lot these days. It is a study of big data. It's not a study of just going to one site after another. It's about aggregating this to understand how people were living at the past and sometimes zooming in to get pictures of individual people and how they survived. To draw, I have to repeat myself there. Yeah, I'll go back up there. We're looking at... Bimini. Less than 5% of the continental shelves that have been studied at a toll by archaeology. I'm not surprised that we find, hunt together, traces underwater. I'm very glad that we do. I would be very surprised if we didn't. But what I'm saying is that not enough of that 27 million square kilometers has been investigated. Only a tiny fraction has been investigated. And that fraction is not enough to draw the conclusion that we can absolutely say there was no lost civilization. Same goes for the Amazon rainforest. Same goes for the Sahara desert. [1:27:01] But can we say there's no evidence for an advanced civilization in what they have studied? In what they have studied, yes, we can say there's no evidence for an advanced civilization. But that brings us to another issue of what is studied and what is not studied by archaeology, which we can get into, and we will get into. But I would like to go back to Flint's in-dation map of Bimini. And we just beneath the compass rose there. Can we highlight that somehow? Yeah, the submerged Bahama banks, the Grand Bahama banks, here on them now, that was a big island above water during the ice age, and it actually stayed above water until about 6,900 years ago. So let's just talk, because I know Bimini has been a very controversial issue, I don't know if it's a controversial issue for you, but certainly for a large number of your colleagues, [1:28:00] the suggestion that the so-called Bimini Road is a man-made artifact has been mocked and laughed out. A great deal. I'm not sure if mocked is right, but I've definitely heard it's a geological sand beach. It's the beach sand. Are you familiar with the general work that's been done at Bimini? I am not a geologist, so I'll go with no. Okay, that's... But I've heard from other geologists that it is definitely not manmade. Okay. Well, can I put my... Can I put my... H.J. Mour. H.J. Mour, I have so many different peasant glasses here. It's really crazy. Bimini, inundation masks. Yes, I just want to say I worked with Dr. Glenn Mill, whose leading geology studying marine archaeology. This is the Piri Reese map. [1:29:01] And I've changed my glasses yet again. I'll tell you, old age is a bitch. So it's this map that I'm interested in. It's this large island. And the possibility that that large island was depicted on as it looked during the last ice age, that it is the submerged Bahama banks. And that running up the middle of it is a depiction of the so-called Bimini Road. Now, I'm showing, as it looks today, top left where the Bimini Islands are and the island of Andros. If you go back 4,800 years, bottom left, you can see that the Grand Bahama banks were submerged. But up until 6,900 years ago they were above water and 12,400 years ago they were above water. And I must say that looks very much to me like the island that's depicted on the Piri Reese map. This is Glenn Mill and he worked with me on the inundation maps [1:30:02] from my 2002 book Underworld. I think you have to agree that he's a very major expert in the field. And these Inundation Maps that he has given us are a very accurate representation. In those original maps, the ancient ones, how old are they? That's the 1513 Perry Reese map, which was based on more than 20 older source maps, as he tells us on his own handwriting. We only have a fragment of the map. It's full of inaccuracies and problems. But I'm just... You know what, what convinced me? What? So, I used to do a lot of GIS for archaeological projects where I'd take historical maps and I try to line them up with actual terrain, like satellite imagery and stuff like that. You should work on geo-rectifying these maps to see how they line up in real space because right now what I see I have to squint to see if it looks right or not. And so I think working with something like a GIS expert to geo-rectify this stuff and show how actually accurate it would be where you could actually statistically measure that [1:31:03] would make it a lot more convincing in my mind. No, that's a very good idea. Flint, thank you. Can we see images of the Bimini Road itself? I'll show you a couple of slides. If I can put this up. Come on. That's me diving on the Bimini Road. And so these are arranged in what fashion? I see the small segments of it. No, there's a huge extensive area runs for about more than half a mile right off the coast of Bimini of these blocks. Now, what I want to get to here is the suggestion that this is totally a natural sight. Are you not familiar at all with the work that's been done on this flint? It's not my expertise now. Yeah. Because if you read the literature, you'll find that archaeologists constantly refer to [1:32:11] work that was done by Eugene Shin and a couple of other geologists arguing that A. Bim, the moon erode is totally natural and B that is pretty young. It's only 3,000 years old or so. But this is an area where there's a real problem. Because in the literature on that, archaeologists cite the 1980 and later work of Eugene Shin, which itself cites his 1978 article. But 1978 articles very hard to find. I had to do a lot of work to get hold of it, and I did. And actually the 1978 article contradicts almost everything that said in the 1980 and later articles. [1:33:00] The whole authority for... Are there any artifacts from the Bimini Road? Because I've excavated road surfaces and I've found a lot of artifacts. But let me just play you again, Jamie. I guess I'll have to eardrop this to you. Let me just play you a little clip from Eugene Shin. Upon whose authority the Bimini Road is being dismissed as totally natural and very recent. Could we add drop this, Jimmy? And then I'd like to show you what a road surface looks like under excavation afterwards. From a project I work on in Romania. So this is the guy whose work on Bimini is used by archaeology to dismiss it as A totally natural and B totally recent. So we would hope that he would be an honest person that he wouldn't disguise his own findings from an earlier period of time. How do I play it? [1:34:00] Are you playing it? Are you playing it? OK. And this is just a little clip from Eugene Shin. Yeah, well I remember when I first met you, I was a film grant with Steve G. Brasmus. And I remember running into you, you were carved in this stone statue. Somebody asked you what you were doing with it and you said you were taking it over to the Bahamas and throw it on board and open it. You're cheap with money. So I don't know if you followed up on that. They saw it in the magazine somewhere, but I kept waiting for something that really happened. The guy who's planting artifacts on the Bimini Road is the main authority that is used to dismiss the Bimini Road as a man-made structure. Did he actually do that or was he just joking around about that? Not clear. I think joking about it would be in very bad taste as well. Yeah. And especially referring to the sheep who think that it might be. Well, certainly not a scientific approach. To my mind, it's not a scientific approach at all. [1:35:04] I think this is the moment where I'm going to do my sort of second major presentation. You might, if I quickly show some images of a road surface. Yeah, very happy for you to do. Sure. Jamie, do you mind showing an HDMI? I'd like to see better images of Bimini Road. Maybe you know, Jamie, there's loads of images of Bimini Road on the on the net. In Romania, we did a series of magnetometry surveys. This is called history. It's sometimes referred to as the Romanian Pompeii. And so the ground truth are magnetometry survey. We opened up trenches to find these Roman roads. And so what you see when you look at Roman roads is you see pottery in the packing of it. You see animal bones. In fact, they specifically use these complete foot bones from cattle and horses and amphorotos, amphorot these kind of ceramic vessels used to transport wine and olive oil and things like that, as drainage. And so, you know, as you dig into a road surface, you expect to find this kind of material [1:36:02] everywhere I've excavated roads in Greece, in Italy and in Italy, and in Romania. And how old are these roads? These are from, this is about 2000 years ago. Yeah. And so this is the kind of packing that you get, you get plentiful artifacts associated with roads all the time. And there's no reason, I could see maybe the animal bones not preserving underwater, but ceramics preserve really well, those thousands and thousands of shipwrecks that we've excavated, most of what we find is the wood from the ship and then ceramic vessels. And so that survives, ceramic is virtually indestructible once it's high-fired. And so, you know, this is the kind of stuff that we find alongside road surfaces and we find it everywhere in the world. And at Bimini, how much searching have they done looking for things like that? A great deal of work has been done by amateurs who archaeologists have poured really most unpleasant scorn on for several decades. But that work has, in my view, been highly valuable and has been worthwhile doing. [1:37:02] I don't claim that the Bimini Road is a road. That's just what it's referred to these days. I do claim that it's a very large megalithic structure, which was submerged by rising sea levels. So calling it a road is unfortunate term. You can't compare it to this road. We don't know what it is, but it's what it is. It's a series of megalithic blocks laid outside by side. Sometimes on top of it, perhaps something more that gives you the scale of it, because there's a problem with looking at things up close. Yeah, and can I just give a quick shout out to UT Austin, which directs that project in Romania? Yeah, I'm revenue with UT Austin, you guys rock. Shout out. Okay, so that looks crazy, man, mate. That last image though, go back to that last one. That's crazy. I mean, that is, how big are these stones? They weigh a couple of tons each. They're about 12 feet long on one side by about 15 feet long. They're fairly uniform in size. They're fairly uniform in size. In many cases, and again, the contrary has been claimed. [1:38:03] In many cases, they are propped up on other blocks underneath them. There are multiple layers and in many cases the bedding planes do not in fact slope as one would expect if this were natural, they are horizontal. And this is one of the things that's been missed in the in the geological literature. But go to the one the upper left-hand corner, Jamie, please. Yeah. You know, I'm just looking for some proof here. It's all right, but things look cool. I get that, but it's like a question of how do we tell the difference between man-made and natural. And that's not easy. And I've never really again seen architecture like this. We don't see stuff like this on the sites that Graham goes to an ancient apocalypse, for example. It doesn't look like this. If it's the same culture at those places, we'd expect to see more sites that look like this. Right, but we're dealing with completely different parts of the world, correct? Yeah, which is my point that it's not all one culture. Yeah, I agree. So this one is fascinating. Look at that one. That doesn't intrigue you. You don't look at that and go, wow, that really looks man-made. I think it looks really cool, but again, I've seen a lot of [1:39:10] that. But if you knew for sure that was man-made, that wouldn't that sync up? If you knew for sure, if this had been dated, everyone knew where this came from and you saw this and this was from an archaeological site that was well known and established. You would look at that and say yes, that fits that. If we wouldn't, you wouldn't look at that if it was in a well known archaeological site and say, oh this piece is man-made. All the other stuff is clearly natural. I mean, look to me, I don't see anything that tells me that it's man-made is all I can say. I just ask you that. What I'm going to say is that if you looked at this, you wouldn't say this is natural. If you looked at this at a known archaeological site, it's reversed it. If you looked at this at a known archaeological site, and there was other structures there, and then there was this, you would say this is a part of that. You wouldn't say that this is natural. Not necessarily, so there's a site that I worked with. But look at this right here. [1:40:06] I get what you're saying. You know what I'm saying? Like if there was other structures next to that that were clearly man-made, you would assume I would think that that would be man-made as well. No, that was what I was going to say is there's oftentimes a lot of natural stones alongside archaeological stones at sites. There was this one example of a perfectly circular depression at this site in North of Pilos. And so we kept saying to ourselves, it's in the middle of a stone structure. And so we went back and forth on whether it's man-made or not, this circular depression, geologists showed up, they said, nope, that part's not man-made. If you see what I mean, we are, we listen and collaborate with geologists who understand how to tell the difference. Well, we definitely know that that happens with sinkholes. There's a great example of this very circular sinkhole that goes, it was like hundreds of feet deep, right, Jamie? That one that swallowed up those buildings, and it looks crazy, like someone took an apple core to the earth and it's completely nuts. It's nuts. Yeah, it's nuts. Yeah. [1:41:05] But that's sort of a different thing than stones being laid out in a uniform fashion like that. No, it wasn't here. What was the name of the site? What, what are you looking for? No, no, he was looking at a pelo switch, which is not the site itself. It was an early, hellatic site north of it. I'm blanking on right this second. So since we saw Eugene Shen and the reference from the audience to the sheep who believe in outrageous possibilities like a lost civilization of the ice age, I want to address Flint the way that you dealt with the media about my work. And I'm going to express Flint the way that you dealt with the media about my work. I'm going to show a little PowerPoint presentation here and we'll talk it through. Well, we know that it's very painful to be burnt at the stake. And heretics were burnt at the stake until relatively recently. [1:42:02] And there's Galileo brought before the inquisition for heresy. And here we have Flint Dibble, who, sorry if I'm being direct, Flint, but you do recently appear to have set yourself up as a sort of modern inquisition to investigate and test whether output actually fits into what is regarded as acceptable thought by the mainstream. So I noticed your attack on the Homanaledi controversy on your YouTube channel. And that concerns the work of Lee Berger, who's an explorer in residence with the Master Geographic. He was really too big a target for you to bring down Flint. But this guy, my friend, Danny Hillman, Natta Wajajaja, he wasn't such a big target for you to bring down. And you presented this video on your YouTube channel, [1:43:01] where you refer to it as a pyramid scheme, which is an insult in itself. And I'd like to take this opportunity just to play a little clip from Flint's YouTube channel if that's all right with you, Flint. Yeah, feel free. Okay, Jamie, another bit of adrop here. Now this is a clip from your YouTube channel. This was an interview with Dr. Luuffy Yolver. Yeah, now you, very, very smart that you brought on a couple of Indonesian speakers to join your assassination of the work of Danny Hillman, not a wajaja. Dr. Luffy Yondry excavated the site of Gunung Padang. He did major excavations there. Indeed so, indeed so. And there's a conflict of interest between him. That's literally at the bottom there. There's a conflict of interest between him and Danny regarding Gunung Padding and work done and Gunung Padding. But I'm more interested in the way that you guys present this and the mockery that's involved in it. [1:44:00] Let's just play that little clip, Jamie. Harry, do you want to expand on any of these points to bring up a different point if you have your thoughts on this article? I will criticism about the outdoor first. If you see the outdoor, there is a dummy human and the others is you can see only one, the archaeologist. Who is the archaeologist? The one archaeologist? The archaeologist is the only... The only... The only advert. So it's... archeologists. Who is the archeologist? The one archeologist? Archaeologists is the only bi- So, it's the only archeologist. 11 is the geologist, all the giraffes and the geologists. It's not the archeologist. By the way, they have one sentence. They say on top of this very decayed rock mass, a unique stone artifact resembling a traditional Sudanese dagger called Kujiang stone was discovered that is all they say is that how you identify artifacts in Indonesia denied of the all this pyramid [1:45:02] is I think is only a Akbar who support him for this one. He's the only one, there's only one. I think because I don't find the enemy person and the Graham handcock too. It's a circle of the pseudo science for me. So his circle is not the archaeologists, you know the ordinary people or the people in the outside, they waiting our research and they waiting what we say because they always believe what we say, the archaeology said, we say it is the civilization, okay, civilization is like that because we are the researcher. We are the archaeologists. Now I'll continue with my little bit of presentation there. If we can call that up again Jamie That's the still Flint and then let's go on [1:46:00] So here we have you have great influence on media and. You say that you just have a small YouTube channel, and that's truth, then. You do have a small outreach on YouTube, but you have a much larger outreach with journalists, and you've put yourself forward. You and John Hoops actually, as people the journalists should talk to. So this concerns Gunung Padang. Now, Gunung Padang was the first episode in my Netflix Ancient Apocalypse TV series. It's about this huge pyramidal structure in the island of Java in Indonesia, which the work of Danny Hillman, who's a very experienced geologist, has suggested might be as much as 25, 27,000 years old at the very base of it. And here we have the Guardian. Well, there's Bill Fali on the left. He's strongly recommending that Flint's interview, the one I've just shown a clip from, be watched. There's Bill Fali saying it was not worthy of publication. This is the article that Danny Hillman and his team [1:47:03] published a peer-reviewed article on this. It went through a year of peer-reviewed before it was published. Until Flint and his colleagues began to put pressure on in the media, here's the claim being rubbished by Dibble and others. They point out that Natwo Gideau provided no evidence that buried material was made by humans. Actually, they did in Danny's estimation, what the remote sensing shows is rock structures that have been cut and shaped and moved into place by human beings. And the net result of all this pressure was that archeological perception, the journal that published the paper, came under such huge pressure. There was such huge amount of media fuss about this. And I do think actually that all of that was caused. I think Poor Danny suffered because his findings were featured in my show. I think the reaction of archaeology to my show was probably why Danny got targeted. [1:48:01] But at the end of the day, the witchfinder general worked out and the piece was retracted, causing massive humiliation for Danny and his team. Now, what Danny and his team asked for was that criticisms be published alongside the article, but that the article not be retracted, and that seems to me to be fair enough. Flint and his colleagues have really created a huge fuss in the media about me And this is just a small example Satan loves Graham Hancock the most But what do you mean? They didn't post that right? Oh, no, no I'm talking about Flint's influence on media. Can I make a quick comment? But you can't connect Flint to that go go back to that image again Yeah, I can connect Flint to this Well, I can make a quick comment but even if but this Satan loves Graham Hattcock the most is either one of two things It's either an insane person or it's some sort of a propaganda campaign It's someone who's trying to dismiss you or get the fundamentalist Christians against you [1:49:01] It it followed the onslaught on my work, following the release of Ancient Departments. I understand, but this person might have gone after you anyway. I'm talking about... Can I make a quick comment about my media influence? A lot of my media influence has to do with you announcing this conversation. The media rarely ever got in touch with me about you until you announced this conversation over a year ago. And then since then, I've had plentiful journalists get in touch with me to comment on things related to your show. So you're the one that's actually given me this media platform. I do not go to these journalists at all. They contact me. Which is great because that's why you're here. I'm happy you're here to do this. And I think we could do this amicably. We can discuss these things. The issue of whether or not this site has any evidence. I'm moving on from Gooding Padang. Okay, but I'm talking about... I think that's kind of important, so for the people who are listening, like what evidence is there? The evidence is... Can we see some of it? The evidence of dedicated work that's published in that paper, which eventually was retracted. [1:50:02] Why were you laughing when you saw that tool? Because it wasn't a tool. You don't think that's a tool? No. What do you think that is? I think it's natural again. That was that looked absolutely nothing like any human-made tool I've ever seen. And to be honest, the excavator of the site agrees. And so that it was never described in the article. Can we see that again? Can we see that image again i don't have it on me but uh... you can go back on there would have to play the video again it's we can google it if you want to see that image i can go back to that said the least important part of it right but the image is that the that piece right there boy that piece looks like a tool to me it looks like it's been shaped by human hands if you cut out that you cut out the part where we go into it in a little more depth and we compare it to the koojang daggers Okay, I'm not saying it looks like a koojang dagger. I don't even know what that is But what if someone showed me that in the museum? I would say oh 100% that was made by human beings Does it mean it 100% was I mean the weirdest of circumstances could that be naturally formed perhaps But boy it doesn't look like it look at the the right angles at the base of it how it looks like it's [1:51:05] carved and worked look at the line down the center of it that's not how we identify I understand but that that looks very similar to the touch of modern humans or some human that we would recognize as human on stone and that's the importance of people that are familiar with the millions of artifacts that do exist right we can look for things. That doesn't look to you like it was worked. Not really. No, it looks like just a natural stone that looks like a weird, eroded stone from a slope. So like maybe thousands and thousands of years of a channel passing underneath the base of it has eroded that part of it. Yeah, rolling around. That's sediment stuff like that, abrading against it. But how do you, what about the uniform peak, which fairly uniform, the peak of it, the way it expands at the base, and it looks like there's a, it's just not how we identify tools though. The line down the center of it, I understand, but that nothing about that. No, no, and in fact, part of what we are laughing at is that they don't describe it or go into any detail [1:52:00] about it in the article. They just describe it in half of a sentence and then they show an image that's about the size of my, you know, a quarter or a nick. How large is the actual artifact? I think it's something like this. So you're making about 12 inches? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. The artifact is the least important part of Danny's work. I was just fascinated by the dismissal of it that you guys were laughing because I just don't know if that's a thing to laugh at. The part of that was in the context of the fact that Lutfi Yondri had been snubbed. He had been working at that site for several decades. He published a book on it and none of his research was ever acknowledged in this article and the media never ever went to him, which is why I got in touch with him because there's all this publicity around this site, Gnuang Padang, partly because Graham's right, it was on his show, and nobody's paying attention to the fact that major excavations had happened there. This is, I'm sorry, me interrupting you, but this image looks much less man-made. Yeah, and that's just another image of the same thing. But the other side of it is probably what we're looking at previously. [1:53:00] Yeah, it is, yeah, okay, but that looks man-made. Once a one side does and one side does not Just to my untrained eye. Can I bottom bottom right hand corner Jamie click on that one. Yeah Get me that a little larger. That's that looks odd That looks very odd that looks that looks like somebody worked it the other side does not there's not another artifact in the world like it Can I be clear? Yeah, please. That the issue here is not that odd. I understand. I mean, we were probably getting lost in the weeds here on this. Danny's Danny Hillman and his team have done years of investigative work with seismic tomography with ground penetrating radar. Using their expertise in those technologies, they are of the opinion that we can see the image second, roughly in the middle at the top there. Those are photographs from Luke F. Yondrie's book, Not From Danny Hillman's article. This is the excavations that he did where he has clear radio carbon dioxide. I'm talking top left. Okay, sorry. [1:54:00] Top left. Keep the key. Where you see the red and the blue. Yes were you, Jim? Where were you? Where were you? Where were you? Where were you? Where were you? Where were you? Where were you? Where were you? Where were you? Where were you? Where were you? Where were you? Where were you? Where were you? Where were you? Where were you? Where were you? Where were you? much more seriously and not rubbish and dismissed in the way that it has been. And that I do feel that the retraction of the article, rather than the publication of opposing comments, is important. And thirdly, Yandri has not done any of the work looking into the deep depths of Gunning Padang. His excavations have only been in the top meter or so. Can I pause you for a second here and explain when we're looking at it? So the people listening, we're looking at an analysis of the ground structure. And what type of instruments were used? Sysmec tomography, which sends sound waves down into the ground and bounces back a reflection of what is seen, low resistivity, high resistivity, [1:55:04] at ground penetrating radar. We don't have time to go into all of this in depth. The information has been extensively published. I've published on my website a massive article by Danny responding to the retraction of his article, and I suggest that we don't waste a lot of time going on with it. Okay, but what evidence is there that this is man-made? The evidence is the interpretation that Danny and his team, who are largely geologists, have put upon the imagery that they receive from their remote sensing work. And their suggestion is that there are manmade tunnels and chambers in the depth of Guenun Padang. That the stonework in Guenun Padang is not in its natural formation or natural shape, that has been placed by human beings. And when you go down and you take up soil samples associated with that stonework, you find that they date back to about 25,000 years ago. None of those cores came from that tunnel or chamber or any of those features that they described. [1:56:00] None of this is a reason for the article to be retracted. I never called for the article to be retracted. I didn't say you did. And this is a reason for the article to be retracted. I never called for the article to be retracted and it's still available online in its full text and all of its images there. Do you think having the word retracted across the top of an article helps the credibility of the article? Yeah, but they they did not do an honest job of presenting the archaeology of the site by ignoring the major excavations that have already taken place there. And I think that that's very important when you publish it. The excavations have been in the top meter. What was the findings of those excavations? Yeah, could I get the HGM? Yeah. Okay, so on the left is actually the book published by Lufa Yandri, and I'll show you some of the trenches that he's done. So there's this megalithic architecture there, and he's gone down in all the different terraces and along many of the different walls and excavated below them so that you can get datable material from under the walls that are visible, the same walls that Graham featured in episode one of ancient apocalypse, right? And so in the case of all of them, [1:57:00] he has carbon charcoal that he has taken and that dates to 2500,500 years ago. It's impossible for there to be clear charcoal underneath all of these walls. Here, let me get a photo. It also, he's found plentiful artifacts, ground stone. This is for grinding sort of plant products. This is pottery that he's found. And then charcoal found underneath each of these walls where there's sterile soil, date that, and that tells you that the wall dates after that. And consistently across all of them, the dates came back as about 2100 years ago. So 100 BCE is when the walls that we see on the site were built. He only doesn't dispute any of that for the depths to which look free, yondry excavated. But he doesn't demonstrate of anything on the 15th and 20 meters below. He does demonstrate it's my life. And he claims that there was a reorganization of the site that was reorganizing an earlier layer, but these photos from this excavation demonstrate that this was not built on earlier architecture. This is built on soil. [1:58:01] And so there's no architecture directly underneath these terraces. None of the areas where Danny excavated or dropped the core into have anything to do with the standing architectures there. Okay, so to summarize, these particular excavation sites are very clear, 2,000 something. 100 years, yeah. 2,100 years, very clear. Now Graham, what evidence is there that there's man-made structures or any evidence of man-made construction that's older than that there? It's the interpretation of the Graham penetrating radar and the seismic resistivity, seismic tomography work that's been done is the interpretation of that made by Danny and his team past a year. Which is just this that we're looking at here? No, there's much more. But we just don't have time to go there. I'm actually giving a presentation on Flint's influence on media and culture and we're getting drawn into it. But it's important because it's actually comes up and I want to clarify. So is what evidence that you could show us that looks like man-made structures, man-made tunnels, man-made anything other than this stuff that's on the outside. [1:59:06] So the presumption is that these deeper layers are older, but why? They're definitely older because of the carbon dating of the soils that have been brought up beside them. What comes to question is whether those soils were associated with anything worked by human beings. Right. And what evidence is it there are? The evidence is the interpretation of Danny and his team from the remote sensing that we are looking at stone work that has been manipulated and maneuvered by human beings. And how do they make that decision? They never claim anything was manipulated and maneuvered. They never claim that in that article. They claim at the depths of Gunung Padang that the stone is not in its natural formation. They claim that that's a few times at the depths of Gunung Padang that the stone is not in its natural form They claim that that's a tunnel slash chamber question mark question mark They have another area where they claim there's a step question mark And I have never seen evidence for a pyramid where you're saying your question marks for these things But this is not Excuse me, can we be clear? This is not so [2:00:02] When we talk about all the conflict involved in something that is clear as day like the bimini road right so he disagrees he says it can be a natural formation other people agree this is less evidence than that right because we're not seeing the actual stone structures we're not seeing the actual work we're interpreting this ground penetrating. Yeah, exactly. And so in archeology, we'd often do what we call ground truthing. So I showed you that road at Heastrea, excavated by the University of Texas at Austin. The first thing we did was we did remote sensing. So we did magnetometry. And before we could figure out exactly whether the magnetometry was accurate or not, we put in trenches to test it. And that's always what you do when you do remote sensing, whether it's remote sensing with a satellite imagery, lidar, magnetometry, GPR, ground penetrating radar is here. You always wanna make sure that you test it because you have to be questioning that your interpretation of it can be wrong [2:01:01] because that does happen quite a bit of times. You know, it's like if you go out with a metal detector, right? And you get some signals, it's not always going to be what you want it to be if you see what I mean. And so you actually go and you test it. That's just the way that all archaeology with remote sensing works. Right. Yeah. Okay. This is, okay. Obviously, we don't have time to get into depth. Yeah, what I'll say is there's a major article by Danny published on my website which presents all his evidence and which addresses the issue of what he regards as the unfair retraction of his paper and I don't believe his paper would have been retracted if Gunneng Padang had not appeared as episode one of my Netflix. Is that evidence to you as compelling or less compelling than Bimini Road? It's at least as compelling. It's least as compelling, but we don't have time to get into it here I want to complete what I was what I was saying which is the the influence that Flint and his colleagues have on on media and culture [2:02:00] and if we can put my my HDMI back on yeah, So this was the next slide. This is Benjamin Steele from the SEO journal, search engine journal. Thank you, Flink Dibble, for speaking with him. And we're learning that how algorithms are rewarding, rewarding, good faith critique by legit scientists and creators. People ask his, just a Google search. Archaeologist Flint Dibble says, Hancock's claims, reinforce white supremacist ideas, stripping indigenous people of their rich heritage, and instead giving credit to aliens or white people, actually I've never heard of. Did you really say that? No, I said that this idea of Atlantis the way it goes back 200 years, it has been used for those reasons. So are you saying your quote is incorrect? I think that it's editing me out of context, Graham. [2:03:01] I've never called you a white supremacist or a racist. No, no, you've said that you've sang on that because that's because you're very, if I may say so, very slippery in the way that you deal with because you know perfectly well, you know perfectly well that saying that my work encourages white supremacism is and encourages racism is going to end up with me being taught as a racist and you know very well that towerring somebody as a racist in this day, look, the results there, down there. Make no mistake, Hancock is a white supremacist like Trump. It's racist fiction pretending to be such. These are not my words, but I'm talking about your influence on media and culture. You cite 19th century sources, you cite 16th century sources, and I label those as racist and I see it as a problem to Re-adapt those kind of sources without Critiquing them because this idea of a white Atlantis is what existed in the 19th century I have no idea but you might not but you're citing those sources on [2:04:00] Credit or not so I never make that the foreground of anything that I write I put that in there as a paragraph and I say he should not. And I never make that the foreground of anything that I write. I put that in there as a paragraph and I say he should not be citing these kind of sources without critiquing them because they do the harm. There's a lot of harm in the history. To be specific about that, what are these sources that you're citing about Atlantis and why do you think that they reinforce white supremacy? Yeah, sure. So the reason is, is because for a long time, Atlantis was used as a colonial justification by the crown of Spain for claiming land in the New World. And so what this idea of Atlantis from the 16th built up into the 19th century with the book on Atlantis by Ignatius Donnelly, it described this as this kind of global superpower that was, you know, European and that was responsible for these monuments in indigenous areas. It stripped credit away from local cultures of their heritage. Right, but he's not doing that. I never said he did. I said that he's citing these sources. [2:05:00] But this is something that is a very nuanced subject. And when you say that it reinforces white supremacy Again, I said the sources do right but you but go back to the quote Jamie But listen, but you this this this this quote here Reinforce white supremacist ideas tripping indigenous people the rich heritage and instead giving credit to aliens or white people None of those things are true. I know Graham doesn't even talk about aliens. Right, but why? Did you say that? I said that not in specific relation to Hancock's claims, but in specific relation to this narrative of Atlantis that has gone back hundreds of years. Right, but that's the point. But here's the Guardian. So they're misquoting you. Are they? As Dib but here's the guardian so they miss quoting you are they as double states such claims reinforce white supremacist ideas they strip indigenous people of their rich headed heritage and instead give credit to aliens or white people why didn't you get the guardian to put that right well i don't think you're actually saying that though i did not say the gram reinforces white supremacist ideas as i've said [2:06:00] so this quote is not real uh... they stripped the the stories of Atlantis yes and i think that that's an issue so gram you go around the world to megalithic sites right so the quote the quote reinforce white supremacist ideas that's not yours no that's not a quote it's not in quote right it was in the other article that's what i'm getting and again the strip indigenous people of their rich heritage and give credit to aliens or white people. In short, the series promotes ideas of race science that are outdated and long debunked. And this is your own article, Flint. Here you are. I'm quoting from, that's a quote from your article published in the conversation. This sort of race science is outdated and long syncs debunked, especially given the strong links between Atlantis and Aryans proposed by several Nazi archaeologists, you are associating me with this and you are attempting to get me to get you to distance yourself from that. But that's not what you're doing though. You're associating him with that clearly. [2:07:01] I don't think so. I don't think so. I don't think so. I don't think that. Look at the way it's phrased on your article. This sort of race science is outdated and long since debunked, especially given the strong links between Atlantis and Aryans proposed by several Nazi archaeologists. That's like a part of the headline. So you want me to show you some tweets I've gotten from people that are fans of Graham Hencock and think. No, no, and and and and and and and and and and listen stop stop don't do that this is that they're not connected to him they're just humans there's a lot of crazy people in the world this is you we're talking about you yes but i'm trying to say is that people miss interpret grand there's lots of people on the internet that think that he's talking about a lost white civilization this is something that you chose to highlight at the top of the page. No, I did not highlight that top of the page. Why is that like that? That's actually near the end of it. That's a quote from the author. That's near the end of it. But why is it up there like that? I put it there. You did it. Oh, Jesus. I did not put that there. I'm just taking an extract from Flint, South Dakota. But you did print it. You did print that this sort of race science is outdated long since debunked. What were you referring to when you said that if you were referring to Graham? [2:08:09] I was referring to his take on the Olmech heads where he described them as from an African culture and he specifically took that from Ignatius Donnelly who also described them that way, almost in the exact same words based on their facial appearances, despite the fact that Ancifer's has done excavation there and demonstrated with DNA and artifacts that these were indigenous people from the area in Mexico. And so that was an older essay that Graham has written, and that was what that quote was specifically relevant to. But how does it reinforce white supremacist ideas that they were seafaring Africans? Well, because again, it strips credit away from the people who actually did that. Right, but that doesn't reinforce white supremacy. And reinforces, if anything, he's trying to say that it was black people from Africa that were able to seafar and create these structures. Using some pretty silly stereotypes is what I said. [2:09:01] What do you mean about facial features? Yeah, yeah. There's many people that have made those connections. Looking at those, they look Polynesian perhaps. And yeah, the people that have excavated it and done the DNA right at that site at San Lorenzo have shown that none of those people had African descent. Right, but what are those structures representative of? Are they the people that were there? Of course. But is it possible that those structures are... No, we have no evidence of African women. We don't have any evidence of it, but we do have the actual structure of those faces, and they do. I mean, be honest, they look either Polynesian or... I can bring up some imagery on that. And perhaps we'll do that next, but I would just love to just complete this little point that we want to make here, which is the influence of Flint's and his colleagues on media and culture. And again, we've got these society for American archaeology, 5,000 members. Flint is one, Flint's co-author, John Hoops actually helped to write this letter for the Society of American Archaeology. They're saying that I embolden extreme voices that misrepresent archaeological knowledge in order to spread false historical narratives that are overtly misogynistic, [2:10:07] showvinistic, racist and anti-Semitic. I mean, you apply those labels to somebody and you're going to get that person hated by a lot of people. You threw a lot of people. Whole ball. No, you're a co-author, John Hoops wrote it. We urge Netflix to add disclaimers that the content is unfounded. They wanted to be called science fiction In other words, that's a very clever way of Canceling me cancel culture at work go back to that Wow, and here's clear. I'm just so much more of a celebrity than me is Flint Netflix correct I'm sorry. I'm sorry that I am Flint that's that's not really my problem Netflix hey Netflix correct your mistake and reclassify ancient apocalypse as fantasy. Netflix correct your mistakes. This is you pushing this, Flint. And then the general media fishing Netflix show ancient apocalypse that is the most dangerous show on Netflix. You use the word dangerous repeatedly in your conversation piece. [2:11:04] I don't think so. I don't think I've ever called it dangerous, Graham. you use the word dangerous repeatedly in your conversation piece. I don't think so. I don't think I've ever called you dangerous, Graham. I've not called these things. You're misunderstood. You don't think I'm dangerous. You don't think that, um, I think that the way that you refer to archaeology as, you say that your number one enemy of archaeology and things like that, you are promoting people to dislike what we do. We are doing our jobs. No, you started off ancient apocalypse by calling us patrons, I'm saying arrogant. Achaeologists see me as public enemy number one. That's exactly what I'm saying. We're not sitting around thinking about you. Most of my dad's colleagues, when I mentioned I'm coming on here to do this, they had no idea you talk about the ice age. I'm speaking of archaeologists like Uflin, who see me as public enemy number one, and who have quite a substantial outreach in the media. You need to add here. Sudo-Achaeology as Dibble calls it, acts to reinforce white supremacist ideas, flint Dibble interview, ancient apocalypse, Graham, Hancock, and conspiracy theories. I mean, what the fuck is the conspiracy theory [2:12:05] that archaeologists are conspiring against me, which I've never said or ever suggested? You claim we're trying to hide the evidence. No, I don't. It's just like with Clovis first. We shut down all the... Tell me narratives. Tell me where... Tell me where I've claimed that you hide the evidence. You have claimed many times that we try to shut down alternative narratives that we try to silence them. That suggests there's an archeological conspiracy where we're all working together to have one narrative. No, it suggests that there's a strongly held point of view, there's a paradigm and that those who go against the paradigm are likely to be attacked, like Tom Dillahay, like Jacques Saint-Mars. All of them still have successful careers for many decades. But Jacques Saint-Mars activated many other sites. sunk maw all of them still have successful careers for many decades but all the other but don't but don't many other sites but you did not that he was attacked for the very thing that you're saying archaeologists don't do no but that's a cool on denying there's a coordinated attack there was no coordinated that's a core on dilated was not an attack of course there were more than one person [2:13:01] i have no idea this was before i was even How many architects were involved in this? How many people the people that criticized Dilahe that went after him? Oh, very large number. The Clovis First lobby, the Clovis police as they used to be called by our own pages. So it's not. It wasn't one person. Well, think about how many people actually study the Clovis period. That is a tiny period in one area of the world. The majority of archaeologists do not study that even american that's completely relevant most american as far as the mental study the issue of the period it's fundamental to the issue of the people in the american but it's direct it's also direct evidence of a group of archaeologists going after this one guy for saying something that turned out to be correct it's evidence of an academic argument which happens yes that's not not that simple right because he was correct and they dismissed him they wouldn't listen to his evidence and he turned out to be correct what do you mean he kept excavating that site he invited people down there and convinced that he was right if they didn't listen to him they didn't take the data and they did dismiss him and publicly they still did all those things that you're trying to obfuscate i'm not trying to obfuscate anything that's no that's not fair at all that would that would be the point they did to him. It's a famous event from the 1990s, [2:14:05] where he invited down a series of Clovis First People and he convinced them at Multivere Day. They came down there, they had a conversation, he showed them the evidence and what resulted from that conversation was that entire group changing their mind on stuff. It was very, I'm not saying there were not a few bad actors. There's assholes everywhere. But what I am trying to say is that it's not some sort of conspiracy of everybody in archeology against Dillahay and Graham. Nobody said everybody. And nobody's saying conspiracy. I don't believe there's a conspiracy against me. I said that a thousand times. What did you say to the public under me number one? Yes, I am. Clearly flint to you because you have, and John Hoops, for example, from the University of Kansas. I can play you some stuff from John Hoops too, if you want. So what is this right here? It says DeGrasse. So Jimmy and others, we see you and we'll share with the world just how you try to bully and censor us. Who's trying to censor you? Well, I'd argue that when people swarm me, this is a quote from Flint Dibble, by the way, from the office tweets. There's times when people swarm me, [2:15:06] and they, people online, you may call it tweet people. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, don't read that. Okay, I try not to, but I have a small Twitter account. Yeah, but that has nothing, it's just people. It's just random people. When you're public, the whole world can attack you. So try to connect that to Graham or connect that to anything. You're just dealing with people. He's not responsible for that. You're responsible for you engage and read it. Do you believe that there's such a thing, you know we've all heard the word big pharma? Do you think there's such a thing as big archaeology? No. Oh, how odd. Because here you are, flint d'ibble. January 23rd, January 23rd, this is 2023. It's a scare quote, it's sarcasm. The reality is we live in a period where we're seeing an increased distrust of scholars [2:16:00] and scientists. As an archaeologist, I think we have to respond by engaging with the public. And we do. in many ways, the reach of big archaeology is way beyond that of Graham Hancock. Think about the millions of school children and parents who visit museums, etc., etc. What you just told me you don't believe in the big archaeology, but right here you've said there is a big archaeology. That's in quotes for sarcasm. Oh, sorry, you lost me there. Because you're saying, so you don't think that the millions of school children and the teaching that the teaching of archaeology, what archaeology teaches us about the past, forms the basis of the education system about the past, not people like me, people like you. That forms the basis of the education system about the past. Now, you like to present like you. That forms the basis of the education system about the past. Now, you like to present yourself as this small, low-envoy, but frankly, by comparison, with big archaeology, as you call it in your so-called scare quotes, by comparison, with that, my outreach is very small, even on Netflix. Graham, I was hoping we'd have a respectful conversation. [2:17:02] Yes, I was hoping that you would not disrespect me in the way that you've done. I came here to present an actual evidence, and I've done that. Here you have Dibble, exalted colleagues to mobilize worldwide in the battle against pseudo-archeology. If there's any conspiracy here, who's it against? Let's move on. Next one, Flynn. The balls in your court. The balls in my court. The balls in my court. Yeah, go ahead. Say something interesting. Say something new. Say something interesting. Well, listen, this is... Like, I came here to have a respectful conversation. I want to be very clear about this, Graham. I have critiqued the sources that you have used and I've critiqued the evidence that you use. I have only met you for the first time today, so I do not know how you are as a person or how you treat other people. And so to be honest, I think that you've just tried to go and smear me back for what you see as a smear on yourself. Fair enough, that's okay. I'm just presenting facts. What you actually said. I'm presenting facts as well from archaeology. [2:18:03] Yes, and I showed you this. And I showed you this. That's what we've done in the areas of the world. Which disproves your entire civilization. Let's have a look at it. It doesn't disprove my entire civilization. How could you possibly do that when you've only investigated less than 5% of the continental shells, 1% of the Sahara, 1% of the Amazon? How can you possibly disprove? How can you claim there's an Ice Age civilization and ignore all the Ice Age evidence that we have? The Ice Age evidence that you have, don't dispute it. Of course there were hunter-gatherers in the world in the Ice Age. There's hunter-gatherers in the world now. Every now. I'm sorry, there's hunter-gatherers in the world now. There's hunter-gatherers in shouldn't an advanced civilization of co-existed with hunter gatherers in the past? I mean, look, as I've said, I think you have an issue with the sources that you cite, and I think that you have an issue with the evidence that supports your civilization. Well, I think we should probably take a break. I'm deeply unhappy. I'm deeply unhappy. Well, we can certainly take a break. I'm deeply unhappy that you have associated me with white supremacism, racism, misogyny, anti-semitism. [2:19:06] If you didn't know that it was always the same quote recycled. So I said something once and then it gets recycled in like 15 different pieces. I understand, but you said it. I did say it and I said that there's this history of this idea which has been used by white supremacists and that's an issue. Right. And I would like Graham to separate himself from that history in a stronger way. Because he goes around the world to different cultures and he claims that instead of the ancestors building this stuff, it was done by his civilization. They were the ones that taught people around the world how to do that. But does he do that in his own backyard? Does he go to Stonehenge and say that Stonehenge was built by this law civilization? No, he says it was built by Neolithic British people. Because I wouldn't look for a law civilization in northern Europe during the Ice Age. Why not? Because a lot of us are there. Yes, a law civilization would not be choosing to live in northern Europe during the Ice Age. It was a frozen fucking wilderness. [2:20:02] Not everywhere. Why would they want to live live there not after the last glacial maximum we have people in the uk living there it's not where I look I look I look in areas in undiserved areas of the world we talk about this issue we have the we talked about these mysterious strangers the lovely aspects of humans around the world and and then he goes around and tells people wasn't their ancestors that did that. No, I don't tell people that. Well, I'm sorry, I don't tell people that. He doesn't tell people that. A civilization that created it. I don't consider civilization as teaching the ancestors that people that were there before in the exact same area. Let me summarize in very brief what I am actually saying. I'm saying that there was a Catholicism at the end of the last Ice Age. It's called the Younger Dryas. There are arguments about whether this Catholicism was caused by fragments of a disintegrating comet. This is the comet research group. This is the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. But I'm saying there was a Catholicism at that time. [2:21:02] There was a civilization. It's you, not me, who say that that civilization was an empire. It's you, not me, who say that that civilization had temples and was highly advanced in every part. I don't say that. I don't say that. I'm looking, in my view, what we're looking at is a civilization like all others that emerged out of shamanism. But that went a little bit further than some other civilization, than some other shamanistic cultures that developed a highly advanced knowledge of astronomy that was able to explore and map the world. And I'm saying that at the end of the ice age, that civilization was largely destroyed, that a very small number of survivors settled amongst hunter-gatherers as we would today. I've made this point before, but if there was a cataclysm on our planet today, people from our so-called advanced technological civilization would not survive it. We have absolutely no hope of surviving a global cataclysm like the Younger Dryas because we are spoiled children of the world. We do not have the survival techniques. [2:22:00] The people in the world who know how to survive are the hunter-gatherers in the world today. And if I were a survivor of this civilization, I would head for hunter-gatherers and I would try and make my home amongst them so that I could have some hope of surviving. And that's all that I'm suggesting, is that a civilization that, which had quite advanced astronomy, which was able to map the world, had a knowledge of longitude, I'm not saying they had machines. I'm not saying they had motor cars. I'm not saying they're sent spaceship to the moon. I'm saying that they were destroyed at the end of the Ice Age that there were a very small number of survivors, that those survivors settled amongst other hunter gatherer of peoples and benefited from their knowledge and exchanged knowledge with them. I am not saying that they introduced agricultural products to those people. I'm not saying they brought agriculture from where they came from. I'm saying that they helped to nurture the idea of agriculture amongst those people. I suggest you take a little bathroom break, clear our heads, relax, come back, and let's [2:23:01] discuss some of the ancient construction. Let's discuss. Before we do that, can I just issue of the All Mac heads? Yes. I have no view actually on what they are, but can I just show some pictures? Please. Yeah. Yeah. Jamie. Let me get the, let me get the, yeah. So these are the All Mac heads. Santa photograph these in Mexico way back in the early 1990s. And they're certainly intriguing, intriguing looking. I'm not sure whether they're Africans, whether they're Polynesians or whether they're Maya. They could well be my Olmech. I'm just interested, yes, they're all mech. We have a strong connection between the so-called all mech civilization and the Maya civilization. Maya, in a sense, are the inheritors of the all mech civilization. I'm interested by things like this. I don't know what to make of them. These are all mech figures from Treza Potis. [2:24:02] In the center is a picture of Pharaoh Kaffrey wearing the nemus headdress. And I'm just intrigued by the fact that these all mech figures wear a very similar headdress to that. I don't know what to make of it. I'm not saying that ancient Egyptians went to Central America. I'm not saying that Central Americans went to ancient Egypt. What I'm suggesting is that maybe both of them inherited a shared idea from an ancestral civilization that was ancestral to them both. And then in the same Olmec culture, we have these images on the left, the figure that's offered referred to as the ambassador. And on the right, the figures called the Danzantes, the Dancer figures from Montaillan. I mean, Flint, what do you make of these figures? What sort of ethnic group would you think they belong to? I don't identify ethnic groups like that, man. Like, it's a stone carving. That's not how we identify ethnic groups. No, I'm not actually interested. [2:25:00] So good. So you don't identify an ethnic group. But what do you see beards on these figures? Yeah, and people all over the world on every continent have beards from different ethnic groups. It's just curious that amongst the all-makes we have this, and we have this, and we have this. And I'm just intrigued by that. I don't know what it means exactly, but I do find it intriguing. And I see this as actually an example of the problems here, I don't know what it means exactly, but I do find it intriguing. And I see this as actually an example of the problems here because you cite Spanish colonial literature about, say, a white ketzelcoaddle coming. You talk about this and other kinds of people. Yes, you do. We got to get correct on this. We got to get correct on this. Are you saying that the whole story of the bearded pale skinned Quetzalcoathlon was a Spanish invention. Yes, I am. I can show you a depiction of Ketzalcoat from the pre-Spanish period. I can show you the pictures. No, no. Can I please get the... Here we go. This is Ketzalcoat on the Borsha Codex. This is from before any Europeans arrived [2:26:08] in the New World. This is on a hide. The ink has been analyzed. The hides have been analyzed. And this individual has tan skin. No beard, but a feathered headdress because this is the feathered serpent. Actually, we can't see anything from that image, but that's not the point that I want to make. The point that I want to make is, do you think that the Spanish deliberately imposed an idea of Quetzalco-Athel on the Mexican? I think that every single source that we have of white skin in indigenous Americas comes from Spanish sources. And therefore I see it as a quote in indigenous sources. But quoting them in accurately because people quote things in biased ways. How do you know they're quoting them in accurately? Because again we have earlier representations. Is there a document? Is there a document? Is there a document? They don't have white skin. This is the documents, Graham. Is there a document against about this [2:27:03] Spanish conspiracy? Do you do regard the peoples of Mexico, the peoples of Colombia, the peoples of Bolivia, are so stupid that they would simply accept an imposition upon them by the spousal news? No, I think that interpreting these kind of sources is difficult. And so Jamie, do you mind playing my video by Curly Tla Poyawa? He's an indigenous archaeologist here in Mexico. He is a co-host of the Tales from Atlantis podcast. Can I interview you? How old is that image? The image you just showed? It's from like the 14th century BC. 40th century AD, you know? AD, sorry, yes, I misspoke. Jill. So this is a pre-Sanish invasion yeah it's been dated and studied the hides in the inks is there are others of quetzalcoatl from that period or yeah there's other ketzalcoatl and they are similar they're all very similar yeah yeah if you go on Wikipedia there's several images of them of him okay great place I'm curly flapo yawa and archaeologist and cultural [2:28:02] consultant specializing in mezzoamerica. I want to briefly touch on why expertise is so important when it comes to researching our ancestral cultures. And I'm going to use the example of a mistake involving the feast of Banquet Salisli, a meshika ceremony celebrating the rebirth of the sun during the winter solstice. Banquetsalisli translates to the raising of the banners in the Nahuatl language. This refers to the multiple banners that are constructed to decorate the various temples and sacred centers associated with this feast. Now when the Spanish Cronistas wrote about the feast of banquets, at least they truncated the word banquets, at least to the first three letters, P-A-N, ban, leaving us with La Fiesta de Ban, or the Festival of Ban. This shortening of words in colonial Spanish was pretty common, as paper was in short supply, and this was an effective way of saving space. [2:29:05] Spanish friars had developed an entire method of shorthand to accomplish this. Well, the problem arose when a non-expert looked at these writings and didn't account for this shorthand, and Lafiesta de Pan became erroneously translated as festival of bread. Bon is bread in Spanish. This simple mistake can cause this individual's research into Meshika festivals to go entirely off the rails. And it completely distorted the actual meaning of the festival. All because someone without adequate training decided to claim something without adequate evidence, expertise matters, context matters. It makes sense to me that if a group of people were conquered by white people who showed up on boats and dominated the society, that they would have a great influence on a lot of [2:30:04] the myths and cultures, and not only that, but that they would heavily discourage deviation from the changes that they've made to those myths. And if you did that over the course of one generation, you would have a complete different narrative. What intrigues me is that whether he's described as having white skin or a beard or not. We have a tradition of a civilizing hero, Quetzalco atleast in Mexico, Bochica in Colombia, Viraculture in Bolivia, depicted as a bearded individual who comes in a time of chaos, who teaches certain skills, and then leaves. This tradition is a pan-American tradition. No. David Carrasco, I think you have to respect the work of David Carrasco. I do. I do have a strong attention to this. And to the notion that the magical pan of Cortez could somehow have hoodwinked an entire [2:31:03] continent into making up myths. And I just don't think that's credible at all. I don't understand what your video is telling us either. My video is trying to explain the complexity of difficulty of interpreting Spanish sources. Can I show a different video that talks about the complexity of Ketzelkoot as a figure? Sure. Can you play the video by, sorry, let me, the one by Marika Stoll, but not the hallucinogens one, the other one? Hello everyone. My name is Marika Stoll. I'm an archaeologist and research associate at Indiana University. I also live in Wilhoca and work closely with rural indigenous communities. It's been claimed that archaeologists do not engage with indigenous myths. This is simply not true, but once again, context matters. For example, the Kosoco Latumith that Graham frequently cites was written a hundred years after the conquest [2:32:02] by his spanish-indigenous scribes who were educated by Spanish priests, hence the overtly Christian overtones of this myth. But let's examine an indigenous Mischtec story recorded prior to the conquest. Several gods, including Katsapohat or Lord Nain Wind in Mischtec mythology, perform a mushroom ceremony and create the known world at Apohola. During this ceremony, Lord Nine Wind plays music by scraping stone around a human skull. This is a completely different picture of Ketsukawa than the one we get from the post-conquest myth preferred by Graham. In fact, in the Mishecha Alta today, when asked by anthropologists John Monahan to draw Fetzlkoa, his indigenous volunteers drew a plume surface surrounded by clouds. Again, context matters. And so the key thing I'm trying to say here is that Fetzlkoa [2:33:01] at all these different figures, they're not all one thing that you lump together. There's a variety of different traditions. You pick and choose the one that you prefer for your story, which is fine. I think that your investigations and your beliefs are totally cool. I'm not going to convince you otherwise, same with people listening. I'm trying to show the facts here and just how complex the situation is of Indigenous myths, of archaeological evidence, we have a lot of different evidence. A pan-American myth of a bearded civilizer could not have been imposed on the Indigenous population entirely by Spanish. So that's my view. That's David Carrasco's view as well. Again, if you look at my response to the SAA's attempt to get Netflix to reclassify my show as science fiction, you'll find detailed information on that there. Let's go. Let's share my screen really quickly. Can I pause it for a second? We know that once indigenous people are colonized, [2:34:01] that they try to at least alter their beliefs and if not indoctrinate them into what their beliefs they have. And we have recent evidence for that in North America with how Native Americans were treated when they were put on reservations and brought into school systems and forced Christianity and told that they couldn't use their language. I mean, we have very recent evidence of human beings trying to impose their ideas on the people that they've conquered. It makes sense to me that that would be something that would also have been done by the Spaniards that entered Mexico. Yeah. I'm not persuaded by that. In this case, the myth is too wide spread, and that constant reference to a bearded figure is very odd. And as a civilisation bringer in a time of chaos, in a time of disaster after a great cataclysm. Again, I mean, Flint and I can disagree on this. I'm intrigued by that information. [2:35:02] And I don't think that the indigenous people of the Americas were so easily hoodwinked by the Spaniards. That's not only gets hoodwinked, it's conquered. And I also think it's a lot more complex than that. So I study ancient Greek mythology, and you can see how these oral traditions change over time anyway, even without being conquered, right? You can see, for example, the weapons, the spears and the shields that Homeric heroes use, Susharit has an article on this and so you know you can see how a killy spear changes its description from a big bronze-age style spear, the kind of spear that we see in Bronze Age graves, and then the next line he has a smaller iron-aged style spear, the kind of thing that we see painted on iron-aged pots, and so you know you can see how these oral traditions adapt to what's going on around them. And I think that that's important to recognize here with these kind of traditions that are written down by, you know, Spanish and educated indigenous people and by Spanish priests as well. Also, that you must take into consideration, I would imagine that a lot of these people [2:36:02] can't read. And that these, that they're actually probably not only being conquered by the Spaniards But they're also being imposed upon with their language which we know to be fact Which is why Mexicans speak Spanish some of these traditions were recorded by Bernardino de Sahagun within 20 years of the conquest Bernardino de Sahagun is relied upon extensively by bio-acquisites in other years after the conquest. After the conquest. Right, but don't, man, you could do a lot in 20 years. Yeah, yeah. Okay. And again, there's just no evidence for these kind of culture heroes with this color skin or those kind of... Let's take a bathroom break. I don't care about the color skin. I do care about the culture heroes. Okay. We'll take a bathroom break, we'll come back much more to talk about. Okay. Thank you all. All right, we're back. I'd like to pick up on this finally on this issue of Quetzalcoatl and on Saagun and on the interpretation of indigenous traditions. And this is in my reply to the Society for American Archaeology [2:37:05] and their attempt to have my series reclassified a science fiction where they suggest that all these stories were made up. David Carrasco is a leading scholar of the Americas. And he writes, I have no doubt that Cortez was striving to impress the royal mind with his extraordinary management skills, or that his literary craft was elegant and profoundly political. What is challenging to me is Glendinins. She's just another one of these archaeologists who say that it was all made up. Glendinins claim that this Spanish political fiction of both Quetzalcoatl returning and mocked Izumas' vacillation and collapse was picked up by Sahagun, who powerfully reinforced it. Erroneously thinking it was an Indian belief when in fact the rulers gesture of abdication was a very late dawning story, making its first appearance 30 or more years after the conquest. The stunning implication is that this Spanish fiction, the story of mocked Izuma's paralysis, parades down [2:38:03] the years through the literature and scholarship and is internalized by commentators less wary of Enclin Dinnin. All the way to Le\u00f3n Portilla, who falls unconsciously under Cortez's charismatic pen along with the rest of us. This means that Le\u00f3n's portilla is extensive najo atle training and sense of the Aztec ethos, not to mention Sahagun's profound familiarity with Spanish native exchanges, contribute no effective critical stance in relation to the Spanish literary craft, which later Spaniards were not aware of and which a number of Indians internalized as their own. I'm quoting from David Carrasco here, I'm simply stating that this issue about Quetzalcoadle is more complicated than Fleetwood perhaps wishes to believe. Well, no. I've stated from the very beginning that it's extremely complicated that there's a lot of different versions of Quetzal Coatle mythology. And so I think that it's wrong to say that there's only one version of that. And the version- I don't say there's only one. Well, you only use one in your argument. [2:39:01] That's true. So I tend to think, though, also that this is fairly irrelevant at this point, because I think what we're still missing is any kind of accurate archeological evidence with dates. So when you go, for example, to the Olmec heads, or you talk about Ketsuko, or when you talk about any of the kind of evidence that you have in Yonaguni and underwater, we're still missing dates and how this relates to your larger hypothesis of a lost ice age civilization. And so I think that that's important to think about well-dated evidence. So do you mind if I go into my argument about the domestication of plants and food and things like that? Sure. Okay. Could I just, since we talked about Danny, Danny Hillman and Gunung Padang, I do have a major article on my site where Danny refutes the retraction of his paper. And there are some images with that, which will perhaps help us to understand what he's talking about. Sorry, I'm having to scroll through an enormous amount of material here. There's a very long article on my website. [2:40:02] Like you, I've probably created like 500 slides for this conversation. This is not a slide. I'm live on my website. Like you, I've probably created like 500 slides for this conversation. This is not a slide. I'm live on my website here. I don't know how to get to the bottom of this enormous piece of work. You don't have a slider on the right hand side? I tried to use it, and when I used it, it did something weird with the screen. I'm very old tech. Can you do like a search for a text? Yeah, there's a map. I just want to get to the end of it. There we are. Yeah, I just want to show some of these pictures that Danny puts up. OK. And I would urge those who are interested in getting into this matter in depth to look in more detail at what Danny has to say in this article. But there's that so-called Kujiang Stone or manmade artifact. [2:41:02] But it's... These are the different units that have been identified with the remote sensing. Not actually the remote sensing, those units were identified from a scarpe that was exposed. But that's okay. I'm not finding the pictures I want here. What are you trying to find? I'm trying to find the imagery of natural column, the rocks, gunning padan column, the rocks. It's the way when you get down deep that this material is referenced, that Danny and his team have concluded that even in the 27,000-year-old parts of Gunneng Padang, we are dealing with man-made workmanship. I won't take it further than that. Which flies at these? You're talking about like B8, B9 and B10? Yeah. And those are at 27,000 years? [2:42:01] No, those are not. But he's pointing out that as we go deeper, we get material which is not in its natural formation, but is in a formation that was placed by human beings. We sort of covered that before, but what's showing that it was placed by human beings? I'm planning... What was that last image that you had up there, a little higher up above that? What is not above that? The one that showed that, the outline of the area. What is that? That's the five terraces. It's just terror slope in a sense. Right, so that's what has been excavated. That's what's been excavated by Luffy on that. And at the base of of that it's been dated to about 2100 years. Yeah exactly. And Danny doesn't dispute that. It's the deeper material that's of interest. Right but what evidence is it that shows the deeper material has been manipulated by humans? Well if we can pause for a minute let me run through this in almost article and I'll see if I can [2:43:02] find it. Is any of the evidence visual? Yes. So is it the same sort of thing that like the imagery that showed? Yes, it's like that Rorschach test. It's like a bribe. So it's too big an article for me to go through. It's there on my website. It's Danny's refutation of the retraction. But what are you specifically looking for in this? I'm looking for his ground penetrating radar and his seismic to my brain. Well, I just do a search for ground penetrating radar on this page. Just what is it, Command F? Yeah. Here I go. Jamie hook you up. This is my... Okay, ground penetrating radar. I control here. Okay. How many versions of it is two? There's only two Yeah, this is this is the correspondence between him and the I'm the editorial team from archaeological prospecting Which which unfortunately ended up in the in the article being retracted instead- I want to point out when I interviewed Dr. Yondrie, [2:44:05] his goal talking to me was to write a response. Like we never got in touch with the journal to retract. It was other people that did that. We wanted to write a response, and I think we're still aiming to do so. So that's our goal, I don't know- About Yonk, but that's- About the Nupadong, yeah. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. And while we're on my website, I'd just like to say that I've recently put up a major article concerning Gobekli Tepe and the issue of whether we're looking at a transfer of technology or gradual evolution or both. There's been a huge amount of research done around Gobekli Tepe. Archaeologists have suggested that research visiates my argument that Gobekli Tepe was a transfer of technology. I've been investigating that research in depth, and my view is it strengthens my argument enormously. But again, we're getting into material that's too far and too deep to go into here. [2:45:04] I would just like, no, I think we should get into it. I like what makes you think it's a transfer of technology? Well, I start off my Netflix series by saying it's an enormous site. You can't just wake up one morning with no prior skills, no prior knowledge, no background in working with stone and create something like Gobekli Teppi. There has to be a long history behind it and that history is completely missing. To me, the philosophy and culture? To me, it very strongly speaks of a lost civilization transferring their technology, their skills, their knowledge to hand together as. And what I've done in this article is, I've brought up to date my investigation into gobekli tepe. Of course, the Natufians are dealt with a great length in this article. How do I search in the two fiend? There are many predecessor cultures. The question is, who worked in stone? The question is, when did this stone work? If you look at the research by Hakle and Gofr, for example, [2:46:01] and of the introduction of geometric elements into the stone work in pre-electionable and de-tapic cultures. You find that almost all of it comes after the beginning of the younger dryers, not before the beginning of the younger dryers. There is an interesting development at Ein Malahah in Israel, also called Inan, where some kind of geometric plans seems to have been put into place. But the bulk of the work, the bulk of the, I hate to use the word that archaeologists dislike, a neolithic revolution, but the bulk of the revolution took place after the younger dryers. So that's why you think it's evidence of a transfer of culture. Yes, I do. Except that the fact that there's no domesticated plants or animals echo Bechley Tepay. So if there's a transfer of knowledge, why are they not transferring agriculture? Well, there was actually agriculture in Abu Herrera, for example. But not a gobechre Tepay. [2:47:00] No, Herrera is a Natufian site, which was occupied before I go back to Tepe. Would you find agriculture around Notre Dame? Yeah, we have. It was a sacred site. Go back to Tepe, it was a sacred site. And we know that they're hunting gazelles by the thousands in harvesting wild plants. This has been published ad nauseam by people like Laura Dietrich, who have talked about the kind of plants that they're harvesting. And the ice was- But was it possible that they just didn't bring food to this area because it was a sacred site for ceremony and ritual and perhaps not at all for people to live in? No, it seems more like they were there about half of the year. So they're there during the warm months. If you look at the harvesting season from the plant remains we have and then the wild plants that are gathered. And then if you look at the isotope evidence and the mortality profile from the teeth of the animals that they're slaughtering, we see that they're basically during the warm six months of the year. So this is still... But not at Go Bechley Temple. At Go Bechley Temple. Yeah, for about six months out of the year, that's when people are there harvesting these. And so I sort of say they found an ecological niche and they've learned how to exploit this. And to sort of stay there for half the year, they probably went to the lowlands during the [2:48:08] other half of the year, which is a fairly common mobile, pastoral, or hunter-gatherer strategy, which is where you move to where the food is in different seasons, right? And so that area is a very naturally abundant area during the warm months. And so, you know, there's so much more that's under excavation right now by Lee Claire and other colleagues that shows sort of domestic spaces around this ceremonial center that we have. I sort of think of it as like Washington, D.C., we have the ceremonial center in downtown, and then we have the less nice looking areas outside. Is it possible that there was a sophisticated culture that also was hunter-gatherers because the resources were so rich that they didn't need agriculture? Yeah, I think that's what we're seeing in this period. It was no need to grow plants. I think they found a successful niche and they really exploited it and did a great job with it. [2:49:01] I think that's what's going on right in this period. It's also the period where we can start to see the start of domestication. And so do you think that that also explains the resources that were required to build such immense stone structures that they had the time to do this because they had abundant food? Yeah, they had abundant food six months out of the year. And while they're there, they had the time to build those kind of structures exactly. But were they the first of those kinds of structures you think that were? Well, that's a tough question to ask. We certainly have T-shaped pillars from other sites in the region. In fact, there were some that were found by a cloud smith before he found Gobekli Tepe at Navoli Chorey. To the younger site. Navoli Chorey is a younger site. It is a younger site, and so I think there's more invested but what we do have is good monumental architecture from that period that we've known about for 60 years if you go to tell us Tilton or Jericho there's a pre-podulary neolithic tower there and so it's an enormous not megalithic but an enormous monumental structure that we've known about in that area from the exact same [2:50:02] period and so this is pre-medalurgy this is this this is pre-medalurgy, this is pre-medalurgy. This is all pre-medalurgy. Pre-wheel. Yeah, well, yeah, probably pre-wheel. And where are they getting these stones from? From the area, most of them seem to be local. The quarries that go backly, happy, are right nearby. And how do you think they moved those things? You know, there's so many different ways to move large stones. There's been so many different experiments that show with rollers or ropes you can get enough people and know how levers and you can do that. And so you know there's so many videos on YouTube of Wally Waldington and others that show you how you can move stones weighing many many many tons. I don't think there's any mystery around the moving of the stones. Yeah. I don't claim that there is. I think what's intriguing. I go go back to the tapy, but there certainly is an Egypt. Yes, Egypt's a bigger mystery and we can go into that. Show us how that's going. But what intrigues me about Gobekli Teppi is the precision, the underlying geometrical plan of the site and the astronomical alignments of Gobekli Teppi. [2:51:01] And I think that the transfer of technology that I referred to did take place. It took place gradually. There's a site called Tal Caramel. You've spoken of Jericho. The tar of Jericho is fascinating. It's sort of neolithic skyscraper in a way. But it's after the Younger Dryas. There's Tal Caramel, which has got five towers. A Quatic Tepe. One Tukutara, Abu Herrera. Cal Caramel, which has got five towers, a courtic tepe, one took Lutara, Abu Herrera. Abu Herrera is a fascinating site, and it was hit by an air burst, according to the team working on the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. Abu Herrera, the destruction of Abu Herrera, took place because one of those comet fragments, 12,800 plus years ago, exploded over Abu Herrera within 100 or 200 miles of Quebec, Litepi. Certainly a controversial point. I'm not an expert on this particular topic, but I know a lot of people that believe that the evidence is not there for the younger, driest impact hypothesis. [2:52:01] Yeah, there's a huge dispute going on about it. It's an interesting thing. It's an interesting discussion in science. I would like to say that the destruction is an archaeologist best friend. So when sort of a site is destroyed suddenly from earthquakes, from volcanoes, from warfare, from fire, it actually helps preserve material for us. And so, you know, if there is this kind of global catastrophe, that should make things more preserved and easier for archaeologists to find. But isn't that dependent upon the scale of the catastrophe? Well no, because even like it's not going to be what incineration everywhere, because we still have hunter-gatherer evidence everywhere. Right, but it could be incineration in a lot of places and the hunter-gatherer evidence that you have is after the fact. No, the hunter-gatherer evidence we have is from well before the fact as well. As well. Yeah, we have hunter gather evidence going back 100,000s of years. Right, but when you look at periods, if you've seen the evidence of the younger, dry, same-packed theory in terms of like, erudium levels, nanodimus. Not someone who's qualified to be able to comment on that. I'm more thinking about it from an archaeological point of view, which is that if there was a destruction just like with Pompeii or Herculanean with the pyroclastic flow, [2:53:06] that stuff helps preserve material for us. Same thing with earthquakes knocking over buildings. Right, wouldn't that... Would it not to bomb preserved material for us? Yes, because the atom bomb, the very center of it might vaporize stuff, but then the whole area that gets abandoned afterwards because of the radiation, that actually is going to make that area an archaeological paradise for people once that radiation goes away. But if Randall Crosons work on the impact of what was the ice that was covering North America. And one small landscape. What do you mean? Meaning he talks about it in the SCAB lands, right? Not just the SCAB lands. He talks about that, but he also just talks about that there's massive evidence of intensive russian so very quick waterfall water flow that happened through an area that was absolutely devastating i mean look so the the the more rapid destruction is the better it preserves for us just like with sea level rise right but dependent upon how strong the [2:54:02] force is right now but if it's a global catastrophe, how is it so strong everywhere, yet it's not wiping out our evidence from hunter-gatherers at this exact same time? We have a femoral traces, footprints, campgrounds, fires and hearths. We have lithics. Because human beings did survive, right? Yeah, but we have it from this exact same period. Right, but human beings did survive at that same period. And it didn't wipe out the traces of them from that period. But the traces you're talking about are stone tools and... Harth's footprints, things like that that are extremely ephemeral, animal bones and seeds. We have all of these things from the period around this supposed destruction. But do you have them in the area where the supposed destruction... We don't know where the supposed destruction happened because nobody's ever found that. But with Randall Crossen's descriptions of this massive floods of water, just hundreds of millions of pounds of water. Let's go to Jay Holland Brets, long before Randall calls. I mean, the channel scablands are in the Nigma. The massive water flows. I don't think anybody's disputing that a massive amounts of water flow through there. It's a question of exactly when that happened and why it happened. [2:55:07] Well also what would be left over in that area? It does not evidence of hunter-gatherers in that area from where? Well I remember he showed when he was here last he showed sort of mammoth bones from that kind of period. No that was from Siberia though. Wasn't it from Siberia? I don't remember. But it was a really wonderful story. It was from the Channel Scablands. But let's cut to the chase here. 12,800, between 12,900 and 12,800 years ago, a very dramatic climate episode occurred, and that's called The Younger Dryas. The world had been gradually warming up before that. And then suddenly, it went very, very cold. There is evidence of a six-meter sea level rise at exactly that time, which is very hard to explain. But it looks like the suggestion is that that was due to impacts on the ice cap, on the North American ice cap, and perhaps on the European ice cap. The evidence for the Younger Dryas impact [2:56:01] is found in what are called impact proxies, and that's iridium, nanodiamonds, platinum, melt glass, like trinitite, found in sites across a vast area of the Earth's surface, 50 million plus square kilometers, an enormous, an enormous area. Abu Harreira next to Gebekli Teppi happens to be one of those areas, and what they're suggesting is that a fragment of a comet blew up in the sky, that it was an airburst. Exactly the same thing that happened over Tunguska in Siberia on the 30th of June, 1908. That was an object that fell out of the sky, almost certainly out of the Torrid meteor stream, which is thought to be the progenitor of the remnant giant comet, because that's the peak of the beta torids. It wasn't big enough to hit the Earth and create a crater. It blew up in the sky. When it blew up in the sky, fortunately, over an uninhabited area of Siberia, it flattened 2,000 square miles of trees. It was absolutely catastrophic. [2:57:01] If it had... No, there is evidence for that. No. Compelling it is not no Vince Howdy and his colleagues just published a huge refutation of this entire hypothesis What do they think? You're talking about the I'm sorry calling something a refutation doesn't mean it's a reputation No, but it's still is not we replied to that's currently the right thing it has it has been so not replied to extensively by Martin Sweatman But are you just you referring to Abahir are you referring to the entire idea of the younger drives impact? I'm right but tongue goose you're not you're not debating some but that's what you were saying Then I miss her okay you miss her. Yeah, he was talking about the amount of Forest that was flattened by the tongue goose I miss her to my thought it did happen during the Torrid meteor shower. Yeah, I guess it happened one year. Recently, like a hundred years ago. Yeah, but it did happen. It did happen. But it did happen during the same time of the year where the earth passes through. OK, yeah. I'm not debating tongueoos. OK, yeah. That was what it seemed like. I was saying I think this would be a good moment for me to just give a little bit of information about the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. [2:58:07] Can we do that? Because it's very important to my feelings about it. Okay. And God, these shortsight, I tell you, being 73 is no joke. Yeah, so the Younger Dryer's impact hypothesis. Since 2007, it's been a compelling and thoroughly documented case. It's been put together by more than 60 eminent scientists. Of course, some scientists oppose them as well. It was hit 12,800 years ago by multiple fragments of a disintegrating comet. Mark Boslow is one of the authors of that refutation piece that you've just put in. Here he is saying that Graham Hancock's use of impact hypothesis in Netflix is all wet. Here we have a post responding to that. Graham Hancock is a charlatan and a fraud. Younger-driest impact hypothesis is widely debunked. I'm sorry, it's not. If you want to learn about [2:59:04] the work done, go see Mark Boslow. Here's that paper you're talking about, Flint, the comprehensive refutation of the Younger Dryas hypothesis, because something is called something, does not mean it is something. Have you read it? It's fairly easy. I have read it in great detail, and I've also read James Lawrence Powell, who the authors of this paper largely ignore, but who is a highly respected figure and in whose view the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis has been prematurely rejected. Bill Napier is a member of the Comet Research Group. He's the person who's connected it to the Torrid Meteor stream. He's talking about the evidence of a large comet about entering the inner solar system about 20,000 years ago, going into fragmentation, creating a wide debris trail through which the Earth passes twice a year. And it's a catastrophe of celestial origin which occurred around 12,900 BC, BP before the present. [3:00:01] Now, you're referring to a reputation paper, but would you really so quickly accept it when you look at the credentials of the people in the comet research? I mean, James Kenneth, marine geologist professor at the University of California, he's a world expert in paleoceanography, Dr. Richard Feiston, James Whitke, Albert Gugier, Alan West. There I am with Alan West at the Younger Dryas boundary in Murray Springs. The Younger Dryas boundary is full of the signatures of a massive cosmic impact, probably an air burst, rather like the air burst that took place over Abu Harreira. I'm not expecting anybody to read these papers I'm putting up here. I'm just saying that the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis has been widely published, extensively published over the last decade that there's a huge amount of information in support of it. There we're looking at the Younger Dryas boundary field extending on the right as far as Abu Hurraera and on the left covering most of North America. It's also found in Belgium by the way. It's found in the deep south of Chile, it's found in Antarctica, it's found all over the world. And this platinum [3:01:08] anomaly documented at the Younger Dryer's onset is particularly important. But the evidence of a cosmic impact at Abu Herrera, that one, I mean we know that Michael Shermer is an opponent of my work. But even Michael Shermer, Michael Shermer, in my view, by the way, I want to thank Michael for this, a true gentleman. When he realizes he's got something wrong, he says so. And here he says, in the light of the work at Abu Harara, he says he's going to address his priors in about my theory in the light of this evidence from a massive cosmic impact over Abu Harara. So the fact that a paper has been published which claims to refute the Younger Dryers impact is really not anything at all. The question is, what's the depth to that reputation? Is it a solid reputation? Does it really work? And why is it that the same team who [3:02:00] claimed to have refuted the Younger Dryers impact hypothesis in 2023 also published a Requiem for the Younger Dryass Impact Hypothesis in 2023, also published a Requiem for the Younger Dryass Impact Hypothesis in 2011. Clearly that was something wrong with their 2011 Requiem. I am not a scholar that focuses on these kind of questions. I focus on archeological evidence. So I'm going to try to reply from that perspective. And so one of the examples you give is if this is Abu Harara, for example, the site is still there for us to excavate. We understand that it has some of the earliest domesticated crops there. And so the entire point is is that this kind of even if this hypothesis is true, it would not have wiped out the evidence for the civilization that you're looking for. Because we can see very clearly that if it's true at Abu Herrera, it did not wipe out the entire settlement. It's there we're excavating it now. Isn't Abaharara one of the first places that show evidence of real agriculture? Yeah so let's talk about some real agriculture. That's part of the evidence. Can we talk about some agriculture? Sure. All right cool. Can you boot up my HD? Yeah this is like my stuff finally. I did my dad's stuff earlier now I [3:03:06] get to do some of my stuff. In fact this is some of the sites I work on. So okay I want to be clear that we have a lot of evidence for ancient plants and seeds right. We have I'll show you the statistics we have hundreds of thousands millions of these just from the time period of thinking about domestication. So how do we even collect tiny little seeds of grains and beans and peas? Any idea, Joe? No. Okay, so you know how wood floats? So does carbonized plant material. So basically we collect samples from every single unit that we excavate and we put it in what's called a flotation tank, where we pump up a bunch of air to separate any charred plant material from the soil and the sediment. And then it sort of drains out right around here into a mesh and then we can start to study it under a microscope. So all right, big question. What the heck is the difference between wild and domesticated wheat? Any ideas? No, Graham? [3:04:00] Yes, the domesticated wheat depends on human beings helping it to continue. And how do we identify that? Not quite sure. Okay, that's important though. So all right, let's go to the bottom here. It's the scar right where that wheat kernel or the the the spikelet that the wheat seed is attached on. It attaches to the plant. And the reason for this is in wild plants like weets or beans or peas, it's going to propagate itself by falling off the plant easily. If birds or humans are harvesting it, it's not that it wants to, it doesn't have agency, but it propagates itself more easily by shattering easily off of the stem of the plant. On the other hand, as soon as humans start gathering it, that does nothing. Because some seeds fall, it replants itself in the field. But as soon as humans start gathering it and planting it in new fields, then all of a sudden there's an evolutionary sort of impact on the plant itself. And so what's selected for is the mutation for a seed that hangs onto the plant. Do you see what I mean? Because you're cutting off the plant, [3:05:01] taking it with you, and then planting it somewhere else. And so this is a shift in grains that we call a brittle to a tough rockus. And you can see it's kind of a clean scar right here on the left and wild wheat, while it's a much sort of tougher scar on the right. Do we know what the evolutionary mechanism is that would cause it to do that? There's two different genes that actually control this in wheat, for example. And so we actually know just statistically speaking, and by sampling wild wheat today, that this is going to exist within any field of wild wheat. There's going to be a few seeds with this genetic mutation. And then as soon as humans start collecting it and cultivating it, planting it somewhere, it's going to automatically put evolutionary pressure on that. And it's over time. And we see this shift from shattering to non-shattering in barley, in wheat, in rice, in every single grain species that we have domesticated. And so you can see this statistically, for example, in China, where over time, A, we have [3:06:03] 35,000 of these now that we're studying, B, you can see the population of rice at archaeological sites, it starts off mostly as brittle, meaning it shatters easily, and over time it takes about 1500 years for rice to evolve to become fully domesticated, where it hangs onto the plant more easily. And so we see this repeatedly, we could see this later on in the holocene. So we're talking several thousand years later, like five thousand years ago, in sort of the Sahara Desert, during the green Sahara periods where we see the domestication of pearl millet. Same exact transition is what happens. And you can see these statistics of it happening, changing statistically over time, the population of militant these regions from a brittle rockus that breaks off easily, to a tough rockus where the seed hangs on. How does it figure out that? It's just, yeah, it's just a selectionary pressure. It's the pressure of humans now collecting it [3:07:01] and then planting it. So as soon as there's one seed that's like that with that mutation, it slowly proliferates. Every single time humans replant it in a new field. It just takes thousands of years. Yeah, just thousands of years. And we see this in wheat, barley, rice, oats, teosinthe, which becomes corn. We see it in millet, sorghum. We see it with the pods for beans and peas. So the pod changes how it breaks off the plant, and again it goes from shattering to tough. And so we see that with lentils, chickpeas, peas, common beans, runner beans, soybeans, fava, vetch. All of these species, dozens of them, it's the first sign of human domestication. And so that's what we can see. The second sign is that- How many, I'm sorry, how many thousands of years does it take for this start showing? Something, well, it starts showing up fairly quickly, immediately. So you get small percentages of it, for example. You can see this with the rice graph here, with all of them. So at Abu Hurara, for example, it's a small percentage of the crops that actually have this feature to it. So it looks like it's just 150 years that it starts changing over. In fact, Gordon Hillman first worked out this would happen really rapidly, that it would [3:08:06] take just a few hundred years for the population of these plants to change over. Now we know it takes a few thousand years for it to fully the full population at archaeological sites to go from wild, breaking off easy types to domesticated, hanging onto the plant types. That is fascinating. Yeah. It's just fascinating how the plant somehow or another adapts and figures it out, but this is the way to survive. It's really cool, because it's not human selection either. In fact, 40 years ago when we first started studying domestication, we thought that all this was due to conscious human selection. And now we know that it's actually the plant adapting to us and what we do. Yeah, it's cool as hell, isn't it? I agree with you on all of that. I don't want to stop you with your presentation, but what bearing does that have on you? I'm getting rid of a lot of civilization. I'm gonna get there. Again, it's not about getting rid of a lot of civilization. I'm actually here to show that there's no agriculture at all in the ice age. right? No, no. Right. [3:09:09] But they survived. But in his books and in his Netflix series, he describes this civilization as introducing agriculture. He talks about seed banks and things like that. Oh yeah, in the Magicians of the Gods. I have a quote in here. Show me. Okay, you want me to? Yeah. I want to see it. Okay, I mean, it's the second. It seems fanciful to you, I can't do your accent. You want to read it? It seems fanciful to imagine that we might in an almost high tech sense be looking at the specifications of a seed bank here. Oh, this is from fingerprints of the God. No, it's from magicians of the gods. Oh, maybe I repeated it in magicians. And this is about the underground vara that Yima is said in myth to have created following a disastrous, following a disastrous cataclysm. But is it possible that this cycle of domesticating wheat [3:10:01] and beans and all these different things has taken place many many times and that if you left them alone They would go back to the wild form where if they're like if there was a disaster and people stopped growing them in this particular region How long would it take for them to revert back to their original state? Thousands of years ago. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah How many thousands of years you think well? I don't know because we, I mean, we've, I'd have to look that up because I know that we've observed this kind of stuff. Farrell, domestic hits going farrell, but I don't have that option. And you said how many years from the original till the whole process? Something like 3000 years. Dorian Foulers actually published a lot on estimating the time range of this. Right. So if you had agriculture in 12,800 years ago around the time of the Younger Drys Impact Theory and then people are resorted to hunter-gatherers again. It takes a long time before they start using agriculture again. Is it possible? That's not what he's claiming. He's claiming that he is. Yeah, I know, but I'm asking. Is it possible that those plants would prefer, and the process would happen again once people started growing them intentionally? That's tough to tell because what we see is that it's exactly at that time, at least in Southwest Asia, where this domestication starts. [3:11:06] Right, we haven't seen the reverse happen. No, no, no. But is it possible? Well, I mean, it would have happened a lot earlier if it was. But if people weren't cultivate anymore, wouldn't the natural selection reverse back to the original state? Yes, I agree with that. It would revert back. But It would take a long time. And so I want to get into how the next trade size takes thousands of years after that, which is the selection for large seeds. So we measure these seeds and we can see their change over time. And I have here a really cool is this a selection by farmers and by people that are that's such a great question because actually we think at first it's not so this is the plants adapting to the fact that they're being planted in plowed and tilled and cleared fields. And so larger seeds, no larger seeds actually grow faster. So they out compete their neighbors that might have been planted with smaller seeds. Because it's monocrop because they're constantly surrounded by other plants that are similar. And so they're competing for resources and the ones with larger seeds on average grow. [3:12:03] So a lot, this is done from a lot of experimental archaeology. Yeah. That is so wide. Glyness Jones, Dorian Fuller and others. Glyness Jones, that's Sheffield, who's retired now, has taught me this. That is just the fact. I mean, I know we're in the middle of this crazy debate. But just the wonder of nature itself, the complexity involved in these natural life forms adapting to their environment is so fascinating. And the fact that it's such a contentious issue amongst biological creatures, specifically human beings, because of religious implications. But if you just look at it in terms of what we know for sure with plants, it is such a bizarre, bizarre process. It's so fascinating and complex and there's so much going on. And just with our understanding of the communication that plants have with each other through mycelium and the different organisms that exist in the earth and that they're sharing resources and like what a bizarre, fascinating world. Almost mysterious. [3:13:01] There's a lot to learn. There's a lot to learn for sure, but. I think that's what's cool because we have this kind of stuff. So you asked about selection. So this is a MazeCob from about 1250 AD. This is part of the Southern Methodist University Archaeological Research Collection. That's how literally they were? That's from about 800 years ago. Wow. Yeah. And so I want to thank that for a little bit. It's a full, yeah, that's a fun cob. Yeah. Folks, this is like a thumb, not even my thumb. It's like one of my smaller fingers. And just to get a sense of that. It's crazy. Like they think of a corn cob today is this i mean i had one over thanks q's massive was like this big exactly we've got a lot of the car now that's human selection at that point crazy that's amazing and to give you a sense of just how much we find this is our chart corn kernels uh... i don't know how to just universe [3:14:01] so this they're not exactly sure where they come from they think they're sub sampled from collections at Pock Creek, Weblow in New Mexico. So several hundred years old for sure. But yeah, they were collected a long time ago, so they're not sure. Yeah, there's the kernels are so tiny. And the only way dehydrated are they're charred. They're charred, right? But would they be larger? Yeah, they probably would have been larger so we study how charring impacts these things as well. Yeah, so we do a lot of experiments to understand that. So that we can see the shape and the size and stuff like that. Yeah, that's so cool. So, to get back to your question though, because I think you're asked a good question, when we think about sort of this change over time with domestication, we also see a change in time in the kind of stone tools that people are using. So it takes thousands of years before we start seeing these sickle-type blades associated with harvesting these crops, right? And then the next step we can take is this introduction, this sort of transfer of technology that agriculturalists do when they move into Europe and elsewhere. And we can track this in real time. [3:15:00] So this is from a project that I was actually doing the flotation to collect the plants from this project when I was a student. So this is from a project, the very, I was actually doing the flotation to collect the plants from this project when I was a student and this is in Albania, directed by University of Cincinnati. So these are the trenches that we excavated. But this is one of the earliest agricultural sites in Europe, from about 6,400 BC, right? And what's really cool is we can see what this kind of introduction looks like. We see a full package introduced at the same time. We see multiple different domesticated plants, multiple different domesticated animals, as well as new types of artifacts, like stone tools and pottery of different types, then what the hunter gatherers were using there. And so this is kind of a parallel. This is where we see this transfer of technology is when agriculturalists spread out, and they take a whole package with them. We call it the Neolithic package. That's one of the key things is we have parallels for this. When we go back to the end of the Stone Age type period where we're maybe looking for something like a seed bank or a shelter that's keeping these Noah's Ark or something like that, what [3:16:00] we can also look at is it doesn't look like anything's introduced. These plants and animals get domesticated in their natural regions where their wild progenitors were growing and living. So there's not like an introduction of a new species that was not there. Instead, we already saw these wild plants in place, in the ice age, in these spaces. And then we see we can date directly these with radio carbon, right? There's no reason to assume anything else. We date plant remains in bones directly. And then lastly, I just want to talk about not archaeological evidence, but paleoecological evidence. So these are kind of cores taken in lakes, lagoon, swamps on the sea floor. And this is what a palanologist, so those are people that study pollen look at. So this map is from an article that I was actually a co-author on looking at different paleoecological proxies around the Greek peninsula. So we're looking at a real image of pollen? Yeah, this is pollen under an electron microscope from Dartmouth College, I think it is this [3:17:02] image. And so we have these kinds of cores that give us a sense of the landscape. And you know, we can track, for example, the rise of different agricultural societies from pollen that floats through the air. We can track, for example, tree crops when they start getting introduced and when they become common, we can track grains and when they come in and become very common in these different regions. And the key thing I want to draw your attention to is a lot of these proxies, these cores are taken from coastal areas and some are even taken from underwater. So we have underwater cores from the seabed and we can reconstruct these sunken landscapes and the sort of ecosystem that was there. And nowhere do we see an ecosystem of agriculture, our boriculture, or anything like that. And so we see very natural landscapes, the type of landscapes that hunter-gatherers would live in. And so this I think is really important because there really is, it's not just that there's no evidence for agriculture that early. We have evidence against it from [3:18:01] those pollen cores. But also this article by Peter Richardson and colleagues points out that agriculture, it was probably too hostile of a condition for agriculture in the ice age. The reason why is because there's two little CO2, plants need carbon dioxide to be able to propagate and grow and be grown intensively in particular. It's also a period of erudity, it's very dry because so much of the fresh water is trapped at the poles in the ice sheets. But this is not the case of the Amazon, right? And the quater, the environment would be different. But we have pollen cores from those areas. And again, we have no evidence of any kind of intensive agriculture. There was vastly understood to areas. I never clarify vastly understood. Right? Well, sure, you you have to imagine that a pollen core is actually tracking a larger landscape right because pollen travels really far. And so you're able to with one core track a much larger landscape and put that together. And so you know I just cannot emphasize this enough. We need to, I have a phrase I like [3:19:01] to use about archaeology. It's We work from the known to the unknown. So this is true when we excavate. We come down on the stub of a wall, and we change what we're doing to follow what we know, which is that wall, and we expose it. When we found the Gryffin Warrior Tumat-Pilos, for example, we found the corner on the very first day. And by the third day, we already expanded the trench so that we could catch what we know is there. And so it's the same kind of thing when you dig a layer, it's the same thing when you sort of test a hypothesis like grams, which is we want to work from what we do know, what we do know from the ice age and what we do know from right after this period of domestication. And so what we do know is all this kind of natural evidence about the climate, about the ecology, and about how domestication actually happens. And so that's why I think that unlike the other part with the Ice Age sort of coastal stuff, I think that's sort of like, why do we keep finding tens of thousands of Ice Age sites that are hunter-gatherers? It's a bit of a coincidence we don't find your civilization. Here- [3:20:00] It's not tens of thousands, it's 3,000 sites that are in the country. That's not true we have thirteen thousand different sites in the paleolithic radio carbon database i don't know i'm talking about underwater okay but we have three million shipwrecks that have been mapped not relevant according to you nesco and they're on the continental shelves can i can i pick up on some points you've made or you've not quite finished sure you can pick up gram i don't have a claim that uh that very small numbers of survivors of my proposed loss civilization introduced plant species. What I'm saying is that they introduced the concept of domesticating plants. There is evidence of early agriculture more than 20,000 years ago at a hollow of the gatherers. Yeah, of a hollow too. Yeah. It wasn't, it never, it never reached the stage of domestication. Yeah. A gathering not planting. That goes back 23, what, 24,000 years ago, they gathered, but they did not domesticate. And there are a number of attempts at domestication, but it's after [3:21:01] the younger dryers that we see this sudden surge in domestication. Now I'm not saying, and I've never said, and you will not be able to find a quote where I've said that they introduced agriculture. They introduced the idea of agriculture. And we're talking about a very small number of people. The myths speak of seven sages, again and again, in multiple locations around the world, bringing the idea of agriculture, but the agriculture is then applied to locally available plant species. And we do then see the long process of domestication beginning after the younger dryers, not before it. We don't see that domestication occurring before 12,900 years ago. We see some attempts at gathering crops. We see some sheen on sickles that show that people were cutting wild grasses and using the seeds. We do see all of that, but we don't see domestication. The steps that begin to lead us towards domestication begin after the younger dryers. And I think that's the elephant in the room. I think that what happened there during the younger dryers is extremely mysterious. And I don't think we have the whole story. And I'm simply proposing that the survivors of a civilization [3:22:06] who were in very small numbers, traveled around the world seeking refuge, sharing their knowledge with those they took refuge amongst and sharing the knowledge of those they took refuge amongst. It was an exchange, not a one-way trip, and they did not bring plants and seeds with them. They worked with what was locally available. And that's precisely what we see happening after 12,900 years ago. In this whole area of hundreds, thousands of square miles around Gobekli Teppi going right down into the Jordan Valley, Abu Harara being a particularly interesting example, very close to Gobekli Teppi, is the first steps being taken towards domestication. There have been multiple attempts to harvest wild grains before that but no domestication. Suddenly we see the domestication happening and of course it's happening with locally available plants. I've never said that they introduced plant species from elsewhere. But if they're introducing the technology of agriculture that they had agriculture beforehand, which as I'm [3:23:05] trying to show does not it doesn't make any sense. You need to invent new species of plants. You need to go against all the evidence that we have. What new species of plants? Why do you need to? Well, because they were using wild grasses in the area of where they were. They were the hollow too in the Jordan Valley. They were using them 23, 23,000 years ago. In the area of those wild plants, but they did not domesticate them. But then what was your civilization growing? I don't know. What I do know is it's very, I have, I don't know. What do you not understand about the word lost? I don't, I don't know what they were growing, but what I'm mystified by is this sudden surge towards domestication, which you rightly say is a long, slow process. It doesn't happen overnight. It takes a long time, but we see those first steps being taken after not before the younger dryers. And that's where I was. And we're talking about thousands of years when agriculture starts in different places. So it's very early in Southwest Asia, [3:24:02] but it's a thousand or plus year lag in East Asia or Mesoamerica. So when people say suddenly I think that that's a misinterpretation of the evidence. What are human generations? What are referring to? What I'm referring to suddenly is the transition from harvesting wild grasses to setting in process a project that will lead to domestication of wild grasses. And that cannot be demonstrated before the younger dries. It can only be to setting in process a project that will lead to domestication of wild grasses. And that cannot be demonstrated before the younger dryers. It can only be demonstrated after the younger dryers. And that project is just planting them in the ground. And that's why, and that's why I think that there's something odd about the younger dryers episode. And to me, that's something odd when I combine it with mythology from all around the world about the destruction of a great civilization in a global cataclysm About the fact that there were a few survivors about the suggestion that they traveled around the world sharing their knowledge and ideas That's why I think that this that the spark for the agricultural revolution that we say we see in that area was [3:25:03] Introduced not the agriculture, not the plants themselves, they used locally available plants, they'd be dafted. But to play Tevils advocate, if they did do that, wouldn't it would immediately show up as agriculture? No. Why would it take thousands of years for it to take hold? Because it takes a long time to domesticate plants, as Finters been saying, it's not something that could do it. not something you see the shift starting immediately You see the shift in 150 years and you see it immediately at Abu Harara Yes, and then elsewhere not as early But it is it also possible that The younger dry impact theory affect the climate and it made agriculture more Possible and then they figured it out after that because it was colder before that right? Yeah, we've had lots of cold periods in the past if you go back through the I sage 400,000 years or so Right, but that's different. That's a different species of human almost. No, no, no They hadn't 400,000 years ago 400,000 years ago, but they hadn't figured out anything that we've heard out the earliest evidence [3:26:08] So far for anatomically modern humans is from Jebela Iruhden, Morocco. It's about 320,000 years old, 315,000 years old, something like that, anatomically modern humans. So I think it makes sense to be... But my point is they hadn't figured out anything that we figured out. No, they... So it wouldn't make sense that at one point in time the human species would figure out agriculture And if that that transition would take place for over a period of thousands of years after a massive shift in the climate The mystery to me is why during the previous massive shifts in the climate that took place multiple times over the 400,000 years Because humans hadn't evolved to do any of the things that they evolved to do eventually. Those structures, dams, boats, seafaring, all those things took place afterwards, right? So there has to be a timeline for all innovation. I'm responding to you a point, was the climate shift the trigger for agriculture? [3:27:01] It had to be the trigger for something, right? What I'm saying is. Whenever there's a massive change in the environment, people adapt to that change. And if you look at the sophistication levels of societies over the course of hundreds and thousands of years, they always move towards a more sophisticated, they figure out new ways, new methods, they get better at things. It just makes sense that they would eventually figure out agriculture. In this area, there were multiple attempts to figure out agriculture. But there was also probably multiple attempts to figure out how to make a boat before they figured out how to make a submarine. Yes, that's great. I mean, so I tend to think that what we see with our record is it's very heterogeneous. So that's why we see agriculture showing up at different times in different places. And so I think that that's really key to get across. I do think that this climatic change, and introduced more CO2, it introduced more humidity and rainfall, that made agriculture actually possible, sort of as an intensive undertaking to do. And so I think that that's really important to acknowledge, but I don't want to sort [3:28:02] of say that human agency didn't have something to do with that because humans were the ones that chose to change from just gathering to planting. And so I think that's really, really key to demonstrate. I want to get to Egypt because I think it's one of the most bizarre accomplishments accomplishments of human beings and the age of Egypt is a fascinating piece of discussion because whatever it is one of the more fascinating things is Robert Chock at a Boston University the geologist who examined the erosion in the temple of the Sphinx and determined it to be thousands of years of rainfall and which would predate the Sphinx by quite a bit. Because this is all a stone that had been moved by human beings and it had been used to construct the Sphinx and this temple of the Sphinx had been carved out. It's very clear that it was carved out and you see these massive fissures that look exactly [3:29:03] like water erosion. He specifically said that he showed these images to other geologists without telling them what they were looking at. And they almost unanimously said that it was water erosion over thousands of years of rainfall. And then when he would show them exactly what he was telling them to describe, then they didn't want to have any part of it. Because they're like, okay, now you're saying something that's really crazy. Because now you're saying that this structure is 11,000 years old as opposed to, you know, 4,500 years old. Surprise, surprise, I'm gonna disagree with you. Shall we look at what's on me? It's a short shot. Yeah, sure. So if you could be up again, Jamie to the HDMI And again Credit to my wife Santa who has taken every risk with me [3:30:01] Every step every dive for the last 30 plus years. This is her aerial photograph of the Sphinx enclosure and of the Sphinx temple. So called? As you get that picture. In a helicopter. Wow. Back in, ooh, the mid 90s somewhere. Sphinx temple directly in front of the Sphinx so called and the valley temple to the left as we view it. And you can see that the Sphinx is a rock hue instructor cut out of the bedrock with a trench around it. And if we go in here, the notion that the Sphinx was, bears the marks of precipitation induced weathering, is an evolution of an idea that the late great John Anthony West had many, many years ago. You've had John on your show before, it's a dear friend of mine. He was great. He was a very magical Egypt. I can't recommend it off. It's such a fascinating material. Fascinating material. He is two of them, two series. I think there's like three DVDs in each one and it's just incredible stuff. Just on the undisfeatable things about the construction methods [3:31:05] and how fascinating it is that they built these things. Marvelous, out of the box, think I'm missing so much. He was a dear friend. He was here who brought Robert Shock to the Gees of Plata. And Robert took a look at the erosion around the Sphinx. And eventually came to the conclusion that the best explanation for it was that this Sphinx enclosure had been subjected to at least a thousand years of extremely heavy rainfall. And Robert Schock right now puts that back to around the 10,000 BC date, 12,000 plus years ago during the younger dryers when indeed there were heavy rains in Egypt. And it's these deep vertical fishes in the side of the enclosure wall, which most clearly demonstrate what he's talking about. The rainwater pouring off the edge of the plateau would have cut out the softer areas [3:32:01] of rock and created these fishes that we see through it and this rounded scalloped profile in Robert Schock's view and in mine. I've had Robert Schock on as well. Yeah. We talked about it for a long time. And I want to pay tribute to Robert Schock here. He and I have had our differences but Robert Schock in my view is a hero. Robert Schock is a mainstream academic who has stuck his neck out for an idea that is very unpopular with mainstream academics. He's taken all the risks for his career. He's put himself out there and he's spoken his truth. And I want to respect Robert Shock. I want to express that respect and queue us to Robert Shock for everything he's done. He's helped to advance this field enormously and to allow people to think previously unthinkable thoughts. And I've seen him attack mercilessly. Mercilessly. This happens again and again with archaeologists, unfortunately. So, now I'll just complete this point because it's often said that the Sphinx was the work of the pharaoh Cuffray and that these two temples were the work of the pharaoh Cuffray, particularly the valley temple that we see on the right there. [3:33:01] There's no inscriptions in the Sphinx temple, but when we come to the valley temple, what we're looking at is a limestone core and those limestone blocks were actually taken out of the Sphinx trench, which was then faced in a later time with granite and there's a quote from from from Robert Schock there who's saying that the the temples were limestone and that they were faced with granite. Now that's the interior of the temple. You can see that there's definitely two phases of construction there. There's the granite, no dispute that that's old kingdom Egypt. And then there's the limestone massive megalithic walls behind it, which are heavily eroded as you can see even from here. Now interestingly, is that temple really associated with the Pharaoh Coffrey? In 1947, IES Edwards, who was one of the leading Egyptologists of his time, wrote this, around each doorway is a band of hieroglyphic inscription, giving the name and titles of [3:34:01] the king. No other inscriptions or relief occur anywhere else in the building. That's been taken to assume that the name of the king was given as Kafre. Actually, Edward's corrected himself in 1993. Around each doorway was carved a band of hieroglyphic inscriptions giving the name and titles of the king, but only the last words, beloved of the goddess Bastet and beloved of the goddess Hathor, are preserved. No other inscriptions occur anywhere else in the building. In other words, there's nothing in that temple that directly connects it to the pharaoh Caffrey. But what's interesting is the way that that granite facing, which certainly was done in the old kingdom, has actually been the interior of the granite, has actually been cut to match the heavily weathered limestone that it's covering. It's been cut to match the heavily weathered limestone that it's covering. It's been cut to shape that, honoring and respecting that ancient structure. And so in my opinion, the geological evidence on the antiquity of the Sphinx is strong. There's no doubt that the ancient Egyptians were there, that they did work on the Sphinx. The head of the Sphinx [3:35:01] was re-carved into a human head. My colleagues believe it was originally the head of a lion, that the sphinx wasn't entire lion. But the evidence that it's been carved is that it has far less erosion than the rest of the body. Correct. And also the head is way out of proportion to the rest of the body. That's an issue because one thing the ancient Egyptians were pretty good at when they put their minds to it was proportion. And the disproportionate size of the head of this thing, in relation to the whole body of this thing. I mean, if you look at other ancient Egyptian's things, they also have small heads. If you put my head on a lion, it would look small. And they all look relatively small. Well, it did it would look small. That's the point. It was a lion before, and it was heavily eroded, and it was then cut down into a human head. But it does have a distinctly different form of erosion no that's actually where i come and disagree with you i have to do as well what's your evidence that it was connected to the head of the head of the head of the world it's a different stratum of the natural limestone i saw if you look at the geology of the area [3:36:00] are you finished gram if not put up some slides uh... yeah go ahead okay uh... yeah let's do this Are you finished, Graham, if not, I'll put up some slides. Yeah, go ahead. OK. Yeah, let's do this. So first off, I want to sort of show this is what it looks like even the neck. You don't see the neck today because they expanded the head dress as a support for the head. And so the point is that there's these different layers of this limestone here that we can understand geologically. And so there's this very dense limestone that's up by the head. And then the rest of the limestone is much more fragile and porous. So I do want to be clear, how do we date this thing? What kind of evidence archaeologically are we using? And so what that comes from is largely radioaccarbon dates from the pyramids themselves. So pieces of wood that were in between the blocks of the pyramids have been radiocarbon dated and definitively tell us that the pyramids were built during the old kingdom, right? But didn't they do work on the pyramids at multiple stages where they would probably like reseal things and surface things and clean things? [3:37:02] If they were constructed 12, 13, 20,000 years ago and people were still inhabiting them 5,000 years ago, wouldn't it make sense that they would do things to them? Well, we have inscriptions in there from areas that are sealed off from the actual construction graffiti from the workmen referring to, for example, friends of Kufu and different workmen gangs that are in there. And these are in areas... It's graffiti like they did. Yeah, yeah, they've acted exactly. You know that that particular graffiti in the Kufu Katoosh has long been suggested as a forgery by how it flies. Except it uses versions of Kufu's name that were not known until later by vice-golars. And so that's what versions of those? I don't know, man. I don't read hieroglyphs. Where'd you get that information? Each apologist. Where'd you get that information? I got that information. It's how it was. No, not from Zahiawas. I've never met Zahiawas. I got that information from reading, man. But OK, so let's go back. How do we know that these radiocarbon dates with the blocks and the pyramid relate to the sphinx itself? Because This thing is just hewn out of natural stone, right? These different layers here. So the reason we know is because geochemists have done stone sourcing on the chemistry of [3:38:10] these stones in the pyramids, and they've been able to trace them to different quarries at Giza. And so this is photos of different quarries and cuttings for the quarries, and so they've taken samples from the quarries themselves, and from the stones in the pyramids. They do different kinds of geochemical analyses to show the ratios of, in this case, magnesium and iron, and then they trace them back to specific quarries there. And so they know that a bunch of the stones from Coffrey, for example, come from the area of the sphinx. The sphinx is from a quarry. It's a quarry site for those stones. And so one of the things out- Don't back to that slide for a second. Yeah. We're cutting the quarry walls. Okay. And so this is a photo of some of these quarries and I want to point out that the quarry walls [3:39:01] look a lot like exactly the walls of the sphinx itself. It has the same kind of erosion on it, it has the same kind of rough working on it, and so what you're actually seeing with the sphinx is you're seeing this roughened shape from quarrying, which is then built with nicer stones around it. Right, but we're talking about the temple, the sphinx, the outside structures, what Robert Chalk was discussing. That shows much more clear indication of the water erosion. Not necessarily this, which shows a lot of kind of different erosion. By the way, this restoration on the poles of this thing says, the acid is yesterday. Yes, that is modern. I'm not gonna deny that. But what I'm trying to explain to you is that we can't, hey, I don't think that anybody really agrees with Shock that it is erosion. Be, if it is erosion, date, well, a lot of geologists do not know to it. But many geologists do. Many geologists do agree with it. Very few. I think it's quite a bit. Graham, you would know more than I do. I think it's quite a bit too, but it doesn't really matter to me. I think whether geologists agree with him or not, whether archaeologists agree with him or not, he's spoken his truth, he's made his case. And I think it's a strong and compelling thing. And what I'm trying to do is present the evidence [3:40:07] that goes against him, right? But when you look at those fissures that are in that wall, you see the same thing on quarries there. You know, it's the same exact kind of fissures on this is just a completely different quarry and a different kind of key. well, there's other examples of that wall, there are much more rounded out. So I have been the geezer by the way. See, this doesn't look the same to me. Wait, but I have a reason for saying that. I've been the geezer. The one time I went to geezer, it rained. In fact, the taxi got into an accident because the oil on the road got so slick that we were hit from behind very minor fender bend but the point is that how did the climate radically changed how you date erosion like this that takes a lot of experimentation and i've seen no evidence that shows how to date this kind of erosion to twelve thousand years ago or something like that you in control of the thing now i am and i was going to show can you show images from what you were looking at when it it shows [3:41:04] the water erosion? Because it's sure it looks very different though the images that Graham was showing from the We're Robert shock that is work It's much more extreme the ones that you have are from a distance and the other ones are kind of blurry and you're looking at it It looks similar, but like I was there in 2003 Sure you were sure you were. But the like this is different. This the the fissures in there are different. They really look like water flow. And if you're talking about the different layers of stone, which are softer and some layers and harder and other, if you did have that kind of water flowing through it, it would make sense that the softer layers would be more rotted and that's robber shocks contention and how are you going to date that though to however long ago one of the other key disperl don't you date though but don't you date it though by the amount of rainfall that we know took place at a certain time because of small amount of rainfall can also cause erosion [3:42:02] especially in a dry environment so very dry environment that tiny amount of rainfall can also cause erosion, especially in a dry environment. So very dry environment, so tiny amount of rainfall can actually damage things even worse because things are so dry. But that level of erosion? Well, but you need to come up with some independent way of dating it, right? And that's where the issue is, what we do have is independent confirmation that the blocks and the pyramids came from the quarry right there. And we have dates on those blocks from radio carbon dates of wood in between those places. There's an area where my work is misunderstood. I strongly support Robert Schock on the 12,000 year old dating of the Sphinx. And of the megalithic temples in front of the Sphinx. I've never claimed that the pyramids are 12,000 years old. Oh, I know it didn't see you. I know some people do some people do yes I've never claimed that I I do not seek the Dive also that's why I brought up from the notion that they'd been resurfaced because that's the claim Yeah, I've heard that claim as well. We're what you know people have been living in them for thousands of years And so that the material that you're dating is from that time period [3:43:00] Yeah, and what do you make of the high-were glyphs that show kingdoms going back 30,000 years? I've never heard that. So I have no comment. It's in all the king lists of the approach. Oh, you mean the dating of that? Yeah, well, so there's a lot of issues with the way that those are dated because they're not precisely dated. It's just generations. So it's about how you interpret that kind of stuff. But it's still, it becomes an issue of mythology, are they adding in extra generations there and stuff like that? Or are they actually reporting their truthful memory of their past? Well, but we'd want to have direct related evidence of that. You might want to have that. Well, yeah, I think if we're going to talk about archeological evidence, we need directly dated stuff. And one of the things that's fascinating about Egypt is the discovery of older construction methods that are below and very sophisticated below the surface that the different temples were built on previous construction. I mean that happens in every culture where you see sort of spaces being reused in different ways. Temple of Horus at Edfu where the Atlantis story is told in the ancient Egyptian context is a good example of [3:44:02] that because the Temple of Horus at Edfu was just the latest incarnation of a series of older temples that had stood on that on that site. It does it is a regular issue right in ancient Egypt. And so how much time are we talking about then? So if we go back to 4,500 years ago, which is the established date of the construction of the Great Pyramid right somewhere around that. Edfu dates to the Tali period, so it's actually after Plato. So can I talk a second about that? No, but when you come to that, I think it'd be really good to talk about Ed Foo and Atlantis. All right, briefly though. It's been doing for a long time. Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's great. Everybody's hanging in there. But these temples that were built these older tembo what time period is described to them? Like what's the oldest construction? Oh in the case of Edfu it comes into the early old kingdom, the earliest, not prehistoric. So what year? Maybe 4,000 years ago. And so what is the oldest construction that we're aware of in Egypt? I mean we have neolithic buildings that go back [3:45:04] you know 8,000 years or something 9,000 years. Yeah. I mean we have Neolithic buildings that go back, you know, 8,000 years or something, 9,000 years. Yeah. I think the oldest construction that we're at, where we're at in Egypt is the Great Sphinx and the megalithic temples in front of it. That's, that's my view. I mean but we have no evidence from the Giza Plateau of any occupation that early and that's one of the most intensively explored archaeological landscapes in the world. terms of food and terms of anything yeah the terms of artifacts or seeds or food we have nothing that dates back that old the question is like what would be left well we'd find stuff just like we find stuff everywhere I mean is it a there a point of no return though like there's a is there a time period whether it's twenty thousand or thirty thousand years ago where all the stuff you're looking for would have already been consumed by the earth. No, because when you work in stone, this survival... Stone tools. Yeah, stone tools. What about fire pottery, bones themselves are going to survive in that kind of environment? What do we think they used to transport these stones, cut these stones, place them, and how did they have a mathematical understanding of geometry to the point where they could [3:46:04] put together this immense structure of 2,300,000 stones. If you think about everybody else that was alive 4,500 years ago, you don't think of anything even remotely sophisticated as Egypt. I don't know. I think what we're starting to see is that there is a lot more stuff that's very sophisticated. Right, but there's nothing like the great pair of pieces. In terms of like visual striking stuff, I agree. Also accomplishment. Yeah, and I mean, but the Egyptians tell us that they do it. They tell us the names of their engineers, the design it like Imhotep, and they have depictions of them moving enormous stones and statues that take, you know, 50, 60 people. They do it on sand. Here, wait, I have this booted up in my Google if you want, Jamie. This is from later, but I hate Google sometimes. But this is from a little later. I think it's New Kingdom, but it shows people moving this enormous statue. [3:47:01] And so what they're actually doing is doing it on sand. Come on, Washington Post. And what is this image from? Oh god it's I think it's new kingdom so maybe twenty five hundred years ago something no more than that uh... three thousand years ago ish um but what they're showing is they do it on a sledge right here a sled and then they pour water on the sand so that it can actually help move it and so it makes it actually doable to move Something that large and so I mean I just want to get back to the point that look humans are smart People can I ask you this though is this this is two thousand years ago probably more like three thousand Isn't that after these things are made this will know because the Egyptians kept constructing large So they did have things like this that they made during this time. They stopped building pyramids, but they still built enormous temples like a carnage. And these enormous statues. Yeah, exactly. Sliding megalithic statues on wet sand. I'm not disputing that. But what I'm wondering is how you get a series of actually dozens of 70 ton granite blocks, [3:48:05] up to 300 feet above the base of the pyramid to form the ceiling of the King's Chamber and the floor and the ceilings of the relieving chambers above the King's Chamber. No matter how much wet sand you've got, you're not gonna get them 300 feet in the air. Levers? Levers, what levers? Yeah, well, levers made of wood. We can find this online. not a lever is made of wood you've been to geese's you know what the great pyramids like We're envisaging a ramp right? It's possible. Yeah, oh a ramp to bring Yeah, stones up to that I'm envisaging very smart people with large labor forces and the equipment me too I'm envisaging that too, but I find it difficult to see how you wet sound example Get all this 70 ton of 70 ton granite blocks 300 feet in the air, but you've got to make the concession that there's such a jump between What these people were able to do and what everybody else was able to do? There's such a difference. I mean, I think there's such a difference doing something different is how I put it [3:49:02] It's not just doing something different. It's doing something on a scale that no one is doing 4,500 years ago. That scale's insane. I mean, it's cool as hell. It's cool as hell, but it's also, it's so different. It's as different to the rest of the world is to hunter gatherer civilizations that are in the Amazon, to people that are living in Manhattan. And that's why even in the Roman period, Egypt was a tourist destination. You know, to go there and see these marvels. And so ever since they've been built, it's become a tourist destination because they're so visually striking and they really grab it, everybody's imagination, right? And so there's something very enigmatic about that, but I don't wanna sort of say just because it's enigmatic about that, but I don't want to sort of say just because it's enigmatic and mysterious that we should not give credit to these people. No, it's the same people. Smart people, yeah. No one's saying don't give credit to these people. I think even people that are dating Egypt back, like if the higher glyphs that dated back to more than 30,000 years, it's the same people. [3:50:01] No one's saying it's different people that did it. What everyone's saying is, how did they achieve the level of sophistication that they absolutely undeniably had at the very most recent 4,500 years ago? So just alone. Like, what the fuck was going on there? There's a date stamp at Giza. This concerns another issue between archaeology and me is what counts as evidence? What can we regard as evidence? Archaeology dismisses the great sphinx as evidence for an older civilization on the grounds that you've put. Can't be presented as evidence for an older civilization. And the other thing that archaeology tends to dismiss is mythology and tradition. Can I give a small quick presentation which is much to do with Egypt and much to do with what impassions me about this subject, and then we'll come back to Flint. So this is another one [3:51:04] of Sandh's amazing pictures of the great pyramid from the air. The ancient Egyptian spoke of a time called Zepp Tepi, the first time when the gods walked the earth. And if we're going to find out when that was, you need to have knowledge of an obscure astronomical phenomenon called the precession of the equinoxes. Now we all know that we, everybody's heard the song, we live in the dawning of the age of Aquarius. Actually, this connects to this idea. Because the earth wobbles on its axis and it's the viewing platform from which we observe the stars, it changes the times that particular stars rise in times of year and it changes the positions of those stars in the sky as viewed from the earth. Right now at dawn on the spring equinox the sun rises against the background of the constellation of Pisces. We live if you like in the age of Pisces and we will do for the next hundred years or so but because of the processional wobble we're going to move into the age of Aquarius in about [3:52:01] a hundred years. That just means that the constellation of Aquarius will house the sun on the spring equinox in that time because of the processional wobble. And these shifts take place at the rate of about one degree every 72 years. Now, the discoverer of procession is a, the discovery is attributed to a Greek astronomer and mathematician called called Hipparchus, and we're looking at 127 BC. But these guys, Georgia, De Santediana, and hearth of Undescend, in an amazing piece of work called Hamlet's Mill, strongly dispute that. And they suggest that we're looking at an extremely ancient knowledge of procession, worldwide heritage of a lost civilization to which all subsequent civilizations in all parts of the globe forgetful of the source of the precious legacy they received are the ungrateful airs. George Odessantiliana was professor of the history of science at MIT, Houth of Undeshed was professor of the history of science at Frankfurt University, so there are no lightweights. They refer to the fact that a series of numbers keep cropping up in ancient myths all around the world associated with imagery. [3:53:08] Those numbers are all based on the number 72. I have to be quick about this, but 72 divided by 2 is 36. 72 plus 36 is 108. 108 divided by 2 is 54. There's a whole series of numbers in ancient mythology, far more ancient than the Greeks, which deploy these numbers. They go back into the Rigveda in written forms and much, much earlier than that. If we go to Angkor in Cambodia, an amazing site against something that took this from a helicopter way back in the 90s, you'll find that Angkor a myth displayed on the walls and that's called the churning of the Milky Ocean and here we see the great serpent wrapped around the body of Mount Mandera and teams of demons and angels are pulling on the body of the serpent and this is seen as an image of precession of the precessional wobble by the by Santidiana [3:54:04] and Vandescent and they point out that it's not only expressed in myth, but also in architecture. So at Angkor Tom, we've got 108 statues on the bridge. That's a processional number. It's 72 plus 36, 54 on each side. And it's the churning of the Milky Ocean by Martin Mandera that's being displayed there. Ancaw what is like the great pyramid is aligned to within a fraction of a single degree of true north, south, east and west. And on the spring equinox, if you go to Ancaw and stand at the end of that long causeway right in the center, you'll observe this and you'll only observe it then. You'll observe the sun rising directly over the central tower and sitting on top of the central tower of Angkor Wat. This site, nobody disputes it, is an equinoctual marker. It's designed to celebrate the spring equinox. And that's what you see at that time and at that time only. Let's jump over to Egypt now. When we come to the Nile Delta, [3:55:02] here's the great pyramid. Now I give you some statistics. It's 481.39 feet high originally. It's a bit lower today. It lost some 30 feet from its top in an earthquake. Footprint of the base 13.1 acres. Weight 6 million tons. 2.3 million blocks. Lost casing stones also came off in that earthquake. 115,000 of them weighing 10 tons each covering an area of 22 acres. Anger of slope is 52 degrees and this monument is aligned to within three sixtieths of a single degree of true north. Why do I pick three sixtieths? Because degrees are divided into 60 minutes. So we're talking about three arc minutes, a tiny fraction of a single degree of error in the great pyramid. The great pyramid seems to be speaking to the Earth. It's not only aligned almost precisely to true North, it's placed very close to latitude 31, third of the way between the equator and the North Pole. And most mysteriously of all, if you use, [3:56:00] if you take the height of the great pyramid, a multiplier by 43,200, which is a precessional number, it's one of those numbers, you get the polar radius of the earth. And if you measure the base base perimeter of the great pyramid and multiply it by the same number, you get the equatorial circumference of the earth. So we have a monument that is perfectly aligned to geographical north perfectly aligned to geographical north, and that encodes the dimensions on the Earth, on a scale based on a key motion of the Earth itself, the procession of the Earth's axis. This to me is very clever. Now, I'm not going to support that here. There's not much time. But if anybody wants to freeze the frame and look at this slide, all this information comes from my eS Edwards about the statistics of the great pyramid and the calculations are there. Now there's the Giza Plateau, there's our three great pyramids. It's hard to... Can you see the Sphinx in this flint? How about you Joe? Is that in the left-hand corner? Yeah it's in the left there. It's in the left there. [3:57:04] It's 270 feet long but you can see how it's kind of dwarfed by the pyramids in the background. The Great Sphinx looks over the Nile Valley. That's the Nile Valley we're looking at. And the Great Sphinx is oriented perfectly to East. We've talked about the erosion of the Sphinx. This is the view from the back of the Sphinx's head. If you were there at the summer solstice, you would see the sun rising very far to the left, far to the north of east. If you were there at the winter solstice, you'd see the sun rising very far to the south of east. But if you're there on the spring equinox, you see the Sphinx is looking directly at the rising sun, just like Hanquad does. It's an equinoctial mark to it. It's clearly there to celebrate the equinoctial moment. And we find the same kind of metaphor of a whirling, churning process taking place in ancient Egypt, for example here. And the question then becomes, what's there a time when the lion's finks looked at the lion in the sky? And yes, there was a time when the lion's thinks looked at a lion in the sky. [3:58:07] And that time is around 12,600 years ago. It's not a single moment. It's an epoch of several hundred years. But the constellation of Leo was the age of Leo was rising, housing the sun 12,600 years ago. Precession can be used to fix the date of monument still is today. The Hoover Dam has a star map built into it, which freezes the skies above the Hoover Dam. And the reason that is there, the architect said in remote ages to come, intelligent people with knowledge of procession would be able to discern the astronomical time of the dam's construction. So let's use this processional tool to consider the age of the whole Giza Plateau. I strongly reaffirm I do not insist that the pyramids are 12,000 years old. I do insist that this thing says 12,000 years old. I think it's a very strong argument that Robert [3:59:00] Schock has made. But I do think the ground platforms for this thing were there. I think that for the pyramids were there 12,000 years ago. And I think the project was completed much later by the ancient Egyptians. You need to know a bit about Egyptian mythology, the god of Cyrus, who walked the earth in the legendary Zeptape the first time, murdered by 72 conspirators, another one of those processional numbers. Eventually becomes the ruler of the ancient Egyptian afterlife kingdom, which is called the duat, which is both an underworld and a region of the sky. And here's Robert Bavals, Orion correlation. And one of Robert's strongest critics is Ed Krupp from the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles, who doesn't accept the correlation, nevertheless he does accept that according to the pyramid text, the Pharaoh rose to the stars as a Ryan. Egyptian astronomy recognized a Ryan at least is belt as the celestial incarnation of Osiris. And I want to pay tribute to Robert Bavar. He's another researcher in this alternative field [4:00:00] who has suffered massive heart-rending attacks by the academic establishment. And yet, who has contributed massive heart-rending attacks by the academic establishment, and yet who has contributed a key idea that is worthy of further consideration. One of the reasons I don't separate the great pyramids from the ancient Egyptians is that there are four shafts cut through the body of the great pyramid, and this is not disputed. The southern shaft of the King's Chamber points directly at the belt of Orion and specifically at the lowest of the three stars as it crosses the Meridian, which is the north-south line in the sky. In the epoch that the pyramids are supposedly built, around 2500 BC. And so do all the other four shafts also target stars in that epoch, the epoch of 2500 BC. stars in that epoch, the epoch of 2500 BC. But when we come back to the Sphinx, we have to remember this alignment is slow. It would have remained recognizable for more than 1,000 years, roughly the younger dryers, roughly from 1,800 to 1,600 years ago. What confronts us at Giza, in my view, [4:01:02] is a three-dimensional representation of the sky of about 12,800 to 11,600 years ago. We have the Sphinx looking due east at the constellation of Leo, at the moment the sun, by sex the horizon, we find that the constellation of Orion is sitting due south on the Meridian with its three belt stars in the same pattern as the three great pyramids on the ground. And not only that, but procession has caused the orientation of the belt stars to change. In 2500 BC, they were in the wrong orientation. 10,500 BC, they're in the right orientation. And I'm just asking, are we looking at the date stamp of Zeptepi, the first time written in the astronomical language of precession? And in case it, lastly, in case anybody doubts that we've made up these images, these are shots from Stellarium. This is 10,600 BC. This is the juiced view from Giza, looking at the constellation of Leo rising in direct line [4:02:02] with the gaze of the Sphinx. As the sun breaks, the horizon, Leo, is a bit higher. If we look due south at that moment, we'll see the constellation of Orion sitting due south on the meridian. And finally, we have Orion and the Sphinx in this single image. These are genuine images from Stellarium. Anybody can have a computer software program and go look at the ancient skies. And the ancient skies tell us that there's this astonishing connection between the sphinx and the sacronectual alignment and the constellation of Leo and between the great pyramids and the constellation of Orion as it looked 12,500 years ago. What is your take on this, the understanding of the processional equinoxes? Do you buy it? Unsurprisingly no. So let me explain. So my issue here, there's a bunch of things that Graham talked about and I have replies to a few different ones and then I'd like to do a quick presentation of Jesus. This has been a long conversation. So I think the issue with the lion facing Leo rests on that assumption. [4:03:11] So obviously it's facing the sunrise. It even aligns reasonably well with the equinox. But we don't have any examples of, say, a constellation sign facing another constellation sign. That's a one-off example that that as I started at the very beginning, archaeology is built upon patterns. And so a one-off example to me is not convincing that that's the intention of that is to have it facing Leo because we only have this one example. And it's an interesting idea, but I don't see it as proven at all. If we want to get into some of the math, so look, I had surgery this last year and I was listening to one of your podcast grama while I was zonked out of my mind on painkillers. I must have been funny. Yeah, and so it wasn't a Joe Rogan podcast, it was a different one you did. But so I wanted [4:04:03] to check out this math about the pyramid. And so what I mean, I know that you did not originate with this math, but you you you use it a lot to explain how cultures see the procession. And so in a sense, you take the height of the pyramid 146.5 meters. You're trying to see how it relates to the polar radius of the earth, 6,356,000 meters, and then you're using this procession number 72, which is the amount that the earth's wobble changes by one degree is 72 years. And so you multiply it by 43,200. Why is that a procession number? Because that's 72 times 600. And I checked it. I checked it in different kinds of things. If you do it in metric system, it works, right? Because that's how math works. So with multiplication, it's going to be transferable to different kinds of units and it's 99.57% accurate. But then I thought to myself, wait a second, can we find this elsewhere? And sure enough, as Graham states, you can. So I went to my own backyard, the Parthenon in Greece. And the Parthenon has 46 inner columns plus 23 outer columns for a total of 69 columns, which [4:05:06] I think is a pretty cool number in and of itself. You got 69. And then you can multiply 69 by 576,000, which is also a processional number of 72 times 8,000. And you get 39,744,000, which is 99.17% accurate to the global circumference of the earth. And kind of my point here though, is that this will work for everything because you have such a large number. You can solve it yourself. So let's take 420. We all love 420, right? So you just do this backwards. You take the polar radius of the earth, 6,356,000, divide that by 420, divide it by our procession 72, and you get the solution to this problem, which is 210.185. Let's round that to 210, which is pretty cool because that's half of 420, plus it's 3 times 7 times 10. And then when you do it in reverse, 420 times 15,120, which is that processional number [4:06:03] of 72 times 210, and you get 6,350,400 It's 99.91 percent accurate more accurate than the height of the great pyramids So every time you smoke a joint you are connecting with the earth mathematically The reality is is that math is there to find relationships between numbers And so we can go and find those very easily if we work them out And I'm not saying that you did this in reverse I'm saying that we're always going to find mathematical relationships between such numbers and so that's what I think is really important here to think about that it's always going to be there if you look it's not something that the Egyptians necessarily encoded in there that's a large assumption if you see what I mean. Yeah, that makes sense to me. What doesn't make sense to me is how do you think they were able to align the pyramid to true North, Southeast and West within such a slight degree of error? And do you think they had knowledge at all about the processional equinoxes? [4:07:02] For the second one, I'd say I see no evidence of knowledge of the processional equinoxes in ancient Egyptian architecture. In terms of the first question, aligning it with true north, there's different ways you can do that with the north star, or by even on an equinox if you hold up an obelisk or a stick and you trace the shadow that it makes, you're going to end up getting true north southeast west. And so there's different ways that they could have worked out what true north was which one they used i'm not sure the level of so accuracy that they're cheap smart people the smart people be kind of beyond smart that's what freaks me out about the whole subject it's like how was this the regardless of the argument about the date, whatever it is. Humans built it. They did somehow. They made something that is so immense and so mind-blowing that today people scratch their heads and say, how? Yeah, and I think that that's such a cool thing when you think about the past. [4:08:00] They didn't have TV, they didn't have Joe Rogan to listen to. They had the stars above them. And so, I fully agree with Graham that a lot of ancient cultures are looking at the stars. And we can track different times when they're aligning things with solstices, equinoxes, or different... What do you make of what looks like ancient real marks and all these different bizarre ways? It seems like they were carving the stones out that's kind of inexplicable. Yeah, see, I'm not sure if I'd say it's inexplicable. You oftentimes see those drill marks, and so they're not as precise as some people always claim on line and stuff like that. Not just that they were precise, but that it required a drill that moves it in a sane speed. Well, I think it required a lot of sand. There was the abrasion of the sand that actually did that. And so the sand itself is just slowly abrating down the granite. With a core, but coreing it. Like what would you use to do that? A drill made of copper or bronze, and then sand and water. Yeah, there's never been shown to be possible to do that. [4:09:02] Yeah, yeah. They have that kind of results. They have that kind of results. They have done those core samples, like they dug into my trail. They've drilled into granite like that. Yeah. I know that they tried to cut them and it took a long ass time. Oh, yeah. And it's sawing back and forth. I think that's what we need to think finish on this point of the date stamp. It's not one thing, it's two things. It's the three pyramids on the ground, and their relationship to Orion at the same moment that this finks equinoxially targeted, very precisely not slightly, but perfectly juiced, is gazing at its celestial counterpart in the sky. And the Milky Way is in position over the Nile River as well at the same time. It's a picture of the sky that we're looking at at Geeser, a picture of the sky 12,600 years before our time that we're looking at at Geeser. And I don't think that's a coincidence. I think that's a deliberate, intentional date stamp that's been [4:10:03] placed on that place. It's not just one monument, it's a whole complex of monuments on the Giza Plateau and indeed the Nile River as well, which are being put on the ground to mirror the sky at that time. And I think it's worth taking seriously, I think it's worth investigating. And then we add the issue of the erosion of the Sphinx to this, which also puts it back to 12,000 years and I think it's unfortunate that archaeology is so hurried to dismiss all of this and so unwelcoming to the possibility that we might be missing something in the human story. Can I give a little conclusion myself? Sure, please do. All right, Jamie, do you mind if I can share my slides? First of all, I really want to express thank you to both of you for having me. Thank you. I want to say I'm not here to tell people what to believe. I really am not. I'm here to try to share the kind of evidence that we have and what archaeologists actually do. And I really do strongly believe that we do update with new evidence. [4:11:03] I think that every single paper we publish is trying to change the paradigm of how we see the past with new methods, new evidence, and new things like that. And what we're starting to realize is that humans were very resilient and very innovative. We're seeing these mammoth bone structures going back 30,000 years, something like that 20,000 years. I think I got that date wrong. It's been a long chat. But so we're seeing this evidence for sort of major hunter gatherer monuments that is growing and really changing our picture of who we are. But at the same time, I want to say that archaeology is very much about cultural heritage around the world. We need to give credit to the people that did things. And we need to really understand how modern people see their own cultural heritage and respect that. And so I just want to give a shout out to everybody listening from all over the world be proud of who you come from. But lastly, I'm not last day, I have a couple things I want to say, but I want to say there's major threats to archaeology that are going on in the world right now. There was just a major BBC article from yesterday, Wales, where I am right now, there's a 20% across the board cut to cultural heritage in Wales [4:12:06] They're talking about closing the National Museum in Cardiff the National Museum of Wales one of the jewels of That sector there and so I want to draw everybody's attention I'll share the links with you guys to this petition in front of the Welsh Parliament to try to get this debated because it's really important That these scale of cuts do not happen. Everybody that's listening, Graham, I think you and me can agree that archeological research is important. You could not do the research you do without the kind of cultural heritage initiatives that happen. Absolutely not. I couldn't do any of the work I do without the work that's been done by archeologists. And I've said that on Joe's show multiple times. I agree with you. And I want people to support the funding of archaeology history at Cardiff University where I teach there's threats to cut all ancient languages from the program from the teaching program Latin ancient Greek Sanskrit and Hebrew and so this is a huge deal if you want to have people go out and do their own research we need to have these kind of subjects [4:13:01] available at public universities like Cardiff University one of the top archaeology departments in the world it was just ranked just a few weeks ago in one of the world rankings, as like in the top 20 or 30 in the world, it had just closed. Sheffield, where I learned how to study ancient animal remains. University of Sheffield just completely axed and destroyed a few years ago. And so what we're seeing is a complete defunding of the humanities and the social sciences and history and archaeology Anthropology classical studies and more and so please if we care about understanding these mysteries from the past We need to fund being able to teach people we need to fund the actual research into it Can I ask you? Yeah, what what's the motivation behind defunding archaeology saving money? Did put on what? I have no idea new buildings. We don't actually cost that much. Most of our research is funded through grants that we competitively get. Like my grant that I used to do my isotope analysis, or it's funded through private donations. I can understand how, with our knowledge of history, [4:14:03] it's so fascinating that archaeology would somehow another be underfunded. Yeah, it's real bad. UNC Greensboro just seems so into archaeology. It seems so into the world. Yeah, it's crazy when you consider what our culture does spend money on. Right. That it's not spending money on finding out who we are and where we came from. Exactly. Is there better evidence or sick? Yeah, it's very good evidence that we're sick. That we don't want funding of our country. We want to live in the moment. Six civilization, we tick all the boxes for the next lost civilization. I'll get to that in a second. Oh no. I would like to, since you've had your mom at Teflin, or do you have a question? Oh, no, I have just a couple more things to say. Okay. And then you can finish up as we agreed. I'll roll it up a little bit. Sorry. We also face threats like looting. So the trade in archeological artifacts usually comes from looting done by terrorists, different cartels around the world. And we need funding to protect sites and things like that. But I want to share that there's good archaeology on YouTube. I want to give a shout out to the World of Antiquity, [4:15:06] Stefan Milo, Archaeology Tube. There's a new channel by Dr. Smithy Nathan that I think is really interesting. Pause this, go check out some of these channels. There's also a lot of really great archaeology podcasts. I want to give a big shout out to the tales from Aslantis, the dirt, movies we dig and one that's not on here that I'm going to appear on next week talking about the Bronze Age collapse and climate change in the Eastern Mediterranean is let's talk about myths baby hosted by Liv Albert. So check those out. But lastly I just want to talk about why it matters that we studied the past. When we look at scholarship and understanding the collapse of societies, what we usually see is human resilience. It's not like everybody dies. People survive. It's the like everybody dies. People survive. It's the upper crust of society that disappears. It's the palaces, it's the political structures, it's the major temples, it's the monuments, it's the art. Normal people survive. And so what I wanna say is if you are wealthy and you're listening to this and you're worried about societal collapse, [4:16:01] don't go and try to hide from it. You need to invest in our society. That is what your wealth and status is based upon is our society itself. So you need to invest in the resilience of the people around you and not thinking that you can protect yourself. Because if you look at history, go read these books. Eric Klein's book comes out tomorrow. Guy Middleton's book goes all over the world and looks at collapse. It is the rich and the elites who get eaten. So we have to invest in everyone if we want to survive this. And my own research into climate change at the end of the Bronze Age, what it shows is that the ancient Greeks adapted too late. It took them hundreds of years to realize that the climate had dried and it took them hundreds of years to adapt their food production systems. And so let's not do that. We understand how the world is changing around us. Let's listen to that and try to invest in our future. Everything we do, whether it's trading stocks, deciding how to fix our plumbing, deciding on what we're going to do is based on our knowledge of the past. And so we need to invest in our knowledge from the past and what it can tell us so that we can act properly today. [4:17:06] Thank you. Ironically, you sound like you're preparing us for the collapse of civilization. I already gave that interview. It sounds like what you're saying. It sounds like rich people better and put your money back into society. Exactly. Or we're fucked. Graham, you want to wrap this up? Yeah, it's been an interesting conversation, Flint, and there's so much, both from my side and from yours, that we've not been able to touch on. My request to you is, I show that clip where you're calling for a crusade against pseudo-archeology from the beginning. I believe your friend John Hoops, your co-author, John Hoops is one of the moderators of my Wikipedia page, which people cannot edit my Wikipedia page. It's locked. Now, the request that I have is, is it necessary for archaeology to [4:18:04] insult those of us who come from different perspectives and look at the past in a different way? Insult people like Robert Bavale, insult people like Robert Schock, insult people like John Major Jenkins, who John Hoops had a horrible campaign against back in the 2010s, through until John Major Jenkins died in 2018. Does mainstream archaeology have to insult us all the time in that way? Is it not possible to have a meeting of minds and say, well, here are a bunch of outsiders, we archaeologists think that they are completely crazy, but let's actually entertain their views. Let's look at them. Let's not be so combative about this. When I first started writing about this, fingerprints of the guards in 1995, I was immediately attacked by archaeology. It began immediately. BBC Horizon devoted a whole program to trying to rubbish my work and gave platform to archaeologists to do that. [4:19:00] Why do we need to have this conflict? Why is it not possible to have multiple points of view on the past? Why is it not possible to have multiple points of view on the past? Why ultimately does archaeology so much want to control the narrative about the past? Why and why do so by attaching notions like racism and white supremacy to people that archaeology disagrees with? Is it not possible to have disagreements that don't involve all of that? I'll tell you frankly, I was hurt badly, wounded badly, as a human being, by this association that you were very largely responsible for, of my work with white supremacy, racism, and all the other stuff that's written about in the SAA's letter. I don't think any of that was necessary. I don't think any of that got to grips with the fundamentals of my work or my ideas. It was just an attempt to write me off and to smear me. And I think it's most unfortunate. And perhaps if anybody can learn a lesson from this, it's actually, we're all on the same side. We're all looking at the past. We're all trying to solve the mystery of the past. Some of us are doing it in a rigorous scientific manner, in the manner that you are. Some of us are doing it in multiple different ways. [4:20:07] I've devoted 30 years of my life to this subject. I'm passionate about this subject. It matters to me. I have never knowingly told a lie, although I am constantly accused of lying. I tell my truth, and I try to represent my truth as best as I can. And I believe that's true for the majority of people in the alternative field. Can't we have some kind of meeting of minds between alternative approaches to the past and the archaeological approach to the past? And is it not possible that something beautiful might grow out of that? If I could speak to that, I think the problem is one of communication and this bizarre modern time where someone says something and then a bunch of people attack that thing that someone says. There's a big difference between a rational, calm, kind person being able to have a disagreement with someone face to face. Because like I think today there were some contentious moments, but I think overall we set a very nice tone [4:21:05] of just letting each side speak to what they believe and what the evidence shows and have a very, I think, a productive conversation about it. And I think part of the problem is most people don't have access to the people that are saying these things that they disagree with. So what do they do? They make a YouTube video or they make a blog post or they make a podcast, whatever it is. And they dispute it and they attack that person and maybe they insult that person or maybe they connect that person to a bunch of horrible things because they're shown emotionally invested in one side or the other side being correct, whether they're right or wrong. And I think it's a function that it's a part of how human beings aren't really meant to talk to each other that way. They're not meant to share ideas. They're meant to do this. Human beings are designed to sit down and talk to each other. And I think so much of our world's problems other than obviously geopolitical issues and [4:22:03] military issues and so much of our differences with each other. It's a lot of it is a lack of communication. We don't necessarily honestly communicate about things and where you get a more nuanced understanding of who this person is you're talking to, where they stand, who they are, what their beliefs are, how do they get to these places? What caused them to think like this? And it's also the effect that it has on the person who's attacked, who wants to kind of attack back, you know, which is very unproductive. It's very unproductive to carry around that pain. It's very unproductive to carry around that criticism. And it burdens you. And it takes away resources from all of the parts of your life. It can create stress, it can create a ripple effect that affects personal relationships, business relationships, all sorts of things in your life. You're health, whether or not you take care of yourself. You're so embattled in these conflicts with human beings that are almost mostly unnecessary, [4:23:01] especially at that level, amongst kind, intelligent people that really just want to find out what's true. A good statement, Joe. We can all be nice to do each other. I agree with you. We can all be nicer. And it doesn't need to involve pouring scorn and mobilizing hatred against others. As I say, I've been involved in this conflict with archaeology for 30 plus years. But the thing that hurt me the most is this bizarre association of me with racism and white supremacy and anti-Semitism and misogyny. All these words are in the Society for American Archaeology. Let him try to get my show branded as science fiction. So I mean one thing that I would say is I read your books in the upcoming release of your show, right? And the tone between your books and the tone between your show is night and day. You were very combative. What do you mean by the upcoming release of my show? I meant back two years ago. Yeah. So you read all my books? [4:24:06] No, several of them though. OK. You have a lot of books, because that's the other thing. I'm going to pick you up on that. I'd like to say right now, in a show like this, we've gone a bit probably over three hours. Oh, yeah. Sure. We're at like four hours and 30 minutes. But it's not enough. I've written a large number of books. We'll talk about Futex and Atlantis. For those who'd like to evaluate my work, do check out the books. It can't be possibly sampled here. Justice Flint's can't on the basis of a three-hour show. But I think we've done well. I think there is some kind of meeting of minds. I like you as a person. But I hope that we change our tones on both ends because like I said the tone You chose in that show was offensive to archaeologists. Yeah, that was that was because I'd be offended by archaeologists I hear you, but if we want to end this yeah, take the temperature down. Yeah, yeah We have to think about how we do this Yeah, and we need to talk about different aspects of that in a friendlier way here here So are you are you still going to crusade against Sudo-Akielji? [4:25:06] Well, I don't see it. Well, I think the best way to crusade against stuff that's not correct is to do what you've done. It just come on. That's why I agree to come here. Yeah, that's great. And I think everybody's goal is the same. We want to find out what happened. What this incredible history of the human species, it's so bizarre and especially when it comes to I am so fascinated with Egypt that that one to me is the craziest of crazy. Like what was going on there? Like what changed in the world that that's not possible anymore that societies like that don't exist and how did they exist 4,500 years ago in this one place? And they maintained their civilization for 3,000 years. Yes, it's crazy. And it was also a place rich with resources at the time. There's a lot of factors, right? But it's just, that's the most important thing. It's like what happened? [4:26:00] What happened? What was the process? So thank you, Flint, for coming on. And thank you for explaining all that stuff about grain and agriculture. That was really, really fascinating. Next time I'll share my research on bones. Yeah, and drugs. I want to hear it. Let's talk. Let's talk. And thank you Graham. It's always great to talk to you. And I really appreciate all your work and your years of dedication conversations and I think it's interesting. It's just really interesting to find out what happened. Yeah, well, Joe, thank you to you for hosting this first time ever kind of event. My pleasure, I think it was great. I think this can be done with a lot of subjects, you know. Like people don't have to be assholes. You can probably be nice. That's a beautiful line to ask. People don't have to be asked. Don't have to be asked. All right, bye everybody. Bye.