"Groundbreaking!" - 1 Million Yr-old Skulls, Egyptian Labyrinth & Ancien...

"Groundbreaking!" - 1 Million Yr-old Skulls, Egyptian Labyrinth & Ancient DNA | Michael Button • 367 - YouTube

Transcripts:

At the end of the day, no one really knows what happened in the deep deep past. We're talking about the classic lost civilizations of the Amazon. Franchesco, he was the one that reported seeing vast cities in the jungle. So then he came back to Europe and everyone laughed at him. But then when you think about what happened when people conquer new lands is that people get killed.

 And that's what happens in recent years. They're starting to think that maybe this guy wasn't lying. They've been seeing these vast geometric earthworks. It's proof that civilization in South America is far older and far more complex. You look at so much of the megalithic stonework, then you look at the culture that built it and it just doesn't line up at all, which is interesting.

 [ __ ] it, it must have been aliens. >> This all buys into the argument, which is that human history everywhere is far older than we think. North American archaeologists basically tried to get this guy almost killed because he was making these statements. The idea was called the Clovis first theory. So, what's up, guys? Thank you as always for checking out my channel.

 If you have not already, can I ask you a huge favor? if you could take one second and please hit that subscribe button. It is the number one piece of help we can get to get our videos into the algorithm and allow us to continue to get great guests like this. So, thank you to all of you who have already subscribed and thank you to all of you who are going to do so.

 Now, enjoy the episode all the way from across the pond. Michael Button got you in studio. Welcome. >> Hey, Julian. How you doing? >> How you liking New Jersey, man? >> It's good, man. I was walking around listening. This is going to make you laugh or probably hate me. I was listening to the Sopranos theme tune because those big Sopranos fans, >> you know, I don't hate you at all for that. You fit right in.

 That's That's what you should do. It gets you in the vibe. All the opening scenes >> Yeah. >> were filmed, as you know, in Jersey. >> Yeah. I was walking around. I woke up this morning. >> Yeah. When you're walking through like Jersey City at 6:00 a.m., be careful. But, >> you know, it's it's actually funny cuz I grew up in South Jersey and then I moved up here when I was 22 and I've been up here mostly except for the 3 years I went back to my parents house as an adult and when I was first up here the way I kind of learned all the landmarks

was where Sopranos filmed. >> Yeah. >> Which is like I I forget who told me to do that and then you basically learned North Jersey. >> Yeah. >> Through that cool stuff. >> But you study the good stuff. the the ancient ancient English accent. That's a very English accent. >> Better than my Jersey one. >> I don't have a good one.

 But you know what I like about guys like you, Michael, is that you come at it from both angles. So you are traditionally trained academically. You went to college for this in Birmingham and are obsessed. We'll get into your whole backstory with that. But you also are fascinated by actual new discoveries and not putting the ivory tower around it and you know stopping discussion on things that we've decided to define as truth forever and never question which you know do you ever find it like a little strange that we're living in this

world now where you kind of have like hardcore academics and then hardcore alt opposite everything history people and they're just fighting all the time. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean that's one of the reasons I started to do what I do because I felt like there wasn't enough people kind of bridging that divide if you if you know what I mean like people that are open to more alternative ideas about history but also come from a an evidence-based academic background like myself.

 And so that's why I started to do what I do and I try to bring it from that perspective because at the end of the day this is kind of my view on history is that no one really knows what happened in the deep deep past. Like once you get back before recorded history, before you know 5,000 6,000 years ago, early civilizations like ancient Suma, ancient Egypt, no one really knows what happened back then before people started writing stuff down.

 So it's all interpretation and that's all the mainstream side are doing. They're just interpreting evidence. So all the alternative side are doing, interpreting evidence in a different way. So I try to, >> as I say, bridge that divide and yeah, it's going pretty well so far. >> Yeah. And you also just got to go off of what new evidence is found.

 I mean, it should be that simple. I feel like you know our world wants to make that complex these days and like revolutionary idea but you know we had this concept that you know whether people said oh humanity is 6,000 years old or 10,000 year years old or something like that we we just had this like beat into us in society for hundreds of years and now you know likeyou were pointing out there's evidence that things are strong evidence that things are much older than we thought you know and so you were telling me off camera like you like looking at the

neander all stuff going all the way back like what what's what's the farthest back you've gone and actually explored evidence? >> Well, this is the thing like we have a mindset when we look at history is we base everything off ideas that I think were formed like 50 to 100 years ago when we used to think the human species was extremely young.

 So, not even that long ago, like maybe in the 1990s or the 1980s, we were under the impression that human beings, homo sapiens, were only like 30,000 years old or something. And then new evidence came to light that we're actually 50,000 years old. And then new evidence came to light, we're 100,000 years old.

 And then 200,000 years old. And then in 2018, we discovered these fossils in Morocco at the Jebella brood site, which showed that modern homo sapiens, anatomically modern, just like you and me, were 315,000 years old, potentially up to 360,000 years old. And that's a super super long time ago. Like when >> what was that called? >> It's called Jeel Eru, I think.

Obviously, it's like an Arabic name and so I probably completely butchered that pronunciation, but but yeah, it's in Yeah, that's the one. Yeah, Jabel Erude. That looks right, doesn't it? So you said oh we discovered it's over 300,000 years old through that. >> Yeah the so the estimate is somewhere between about 300,000 to 360,000 years old and they're classified as modern homo sapien remains.

 So the brain case is pretty much identical to to us. And that pushed back the age of our species by 100,000 years. So it was pretty pretty like paradigm shifting discovery and that came out while I was at university. And that was kind of the spark that led me to go down this path that I have gone down and not pursue a traditional career in academia.

 Instead, kind of think about these ideas from a slightly alternative perspective because I thought it was a really like paradigm shifting thing because when you look at how old human civilization is, right? >> The dawn of civilization, the very earliest time that civilization formed is 5,000 years ago. >> So then what about the other 310,000 years? is, you know, prehistory is literally 98 99% of our story.

 And yet, it's just a dark cloud. It's a shroud of mystery that we don't really know anything about. So, that's kind of where my whole interest in this stuff kicked off. And I make a lot of videos about prehistory, about, you know, that whole time. And then, as you say, Neanderthalss, other human species, they were all existing in this time.

 And then there was also this really interesting discovery that literally came out about a month ago, which was this I don't know if you've seen this. It's about the human skull found in China that was a million years old. Did you see that? So it's not it's not homo sapien, just to be clear. It's um >> but you said human skull.

>> It's human skull. So it's classified as homongi, which is very similar to Denisven. So it's a different human species, but what they effectively are Yeah, there you go. It's effectively like a sister species of ours. So, I mean, that's not a very technical way of putting it, but it's like the most it's that's quite that's a layman way of putting it, but effectively they're large humans, right? So, they're very similar to us.

 Basically, a sister species or a cousin species, not an ancestor, someone that's alongside us. >> Oh, not an ancestor. >> Not an ancestor. No. So, like a sister species. Yeah. And the same pretty much the same brain size as us. >> Which does that suggest, maybe I'm reading too far into this. Does that suggest therefore that in finding this and it's a million years old that at the same time there were homo sapiens that existed at that moment? >> Exactly.

 So that's what the scientists who did this study suggest. So one of the scientists is Professor Chris Stringer from the Natural History Museum in London and he actually is quoted I think maybe in this article saying this basically suggests that homo sapiens were around a million years ago or at least the direct lineage of homo sapiens a distinct lineage of the humans that became homo sapiens.

>> Yeah, here we go. The start just found that the startling analysis has dramatically shifted the timeline of the evolution of large brain humans back at least a half a million years. According to professor Chris Stringer of the natural history museum co-led on the research co-lead on the research he said there are likely to be a million-year-old fossils of homo sapiens somewhere on our planet.

 We just haven't found them yet. And what was the this is where it gets way above my pay grade, but do you make that jump strictly by being able to say that the genetic evidence we found right here suggests that one would have been impossible without the other? Is thathow they do it? So they made that leap. So the genetic evidence suggests that we're younger than this.

 The genetic evidence suggests we diverge. So this is basically how it works. Because this this Homol Longi skull or perhaps Denise skull was found and reconstructed using CT scanning and classified as Homol Longi which is a sister species to us. That suggests that our last common ancestor was before then. So if these humans were walking around a million years ago that means that our species diverged before that point which means that whatever became homo sapiens potentially homo sapiens was around at this point. That's what it suggests.

Obviously the dating may not be correct. It's a reconstruction of an extremely old fossil, but it's a very interesting discovery. Um, yeah, and potentially extremely paradigm shifting. And like the reason I bring this up is because, you know, if we're 300,000 years old, that's crazy. But if we're a million years old, then in my view, you know, everything's everything's on the table, right? Like it's such a vast length of time. Like it's incredible.

 There's a strange exponential curve with which we how look at with which we look at time as far as like in the modern day bias. I talked about this with with Gnostic informant when he was here but it's like when we look at the last you know we're both of this era. So you look at the last 30 years it seems like pretty similar part of you know one thing came after another.

 Then you look a hundred years out and you're like wow that was a while ago. But now that you got to 100, when you go 200 years back, the distance between the 100 and 200 in your mind that you're looking at shrinks and 200 to 400 shrinks and 400 to a,000 shrinks and suddenly you start to make a leap such that you can look at some history of a Roman emperor in 50 AD and look at another one in 400 AD, 350 years apart, and assume it's like a very similar era.

 So now extrapolate that to oh, you know, we thought we were like 6,000 years old. by the way. Nope, we're actually 100,000. Nope, we're 200. Nope, we're 300. Oh, that we're a million. >> Yeah, >> the jumps here that you're making. Think about all the extinctions that could have happened that definitely happened in between all those times as well.

 It's like you are unearthing, no pun intended, so many different segments of history in one fell swoop, but treating it like one discovery. It's so that's so fascinating to me. >> Yeah. And I think we it's it's almost the way as you say we look at the world like we have a very w perception of time >> and you know we can cuz we only think in like very short time scales like our own life you know like 100 years at most or >> potentially if you're looking at the whole history of civilizations you can kind of sort of conceptualize it like

5,000 years or whatever. But then once you get up to these massive massive massive time scales, 100,000 years, 300,000 years, potentially up to a million years, a human brain can't really like think about that. It it doesn't really compute up there. So I think that's potentially where many people go wrong and potentially why we have I believe some kind of recency bias when we look at history and we think that everything that's happened in the last few thousand years, the stuff we can see is all that's happened. You

know, we think that because we can see that that's the only sophisticated era of human history. We live at the pinnacle of human history. And we may do, but that doesn't mean that nothing else happened in, you know, the 99% of human history that came before that we can't see. And think of all the human lives, all the stories, all the cultures, all the potential, you know, achievements that our species have made in that vast length of time that we have lost and yeah, that we can't see anymore. And it's it's fascinating to

me. So yeah, that's why I do what I do. >> Have you ever had that stomach sinking moment when you check your bank statement and see that unexpected charge? Or maybe you even worry about where your card details are stored every time you shop at a new website. That's certainly something I think about a lot. Luckily for both of us, the solution here is privacy.

 Not the word, the company. Privacy is a consumer protection focused brand that lets you generate unique virtual card numbers for every business or purchase. This is the ultimate online security. I use their merchant locked cards for subscriptions like Netflix or Amazon because that card literally only works with that one business.

 That means that if that business ever has a data breach, again, this could be Amazon, Netflix, whoever. My actual bank information is going to be shielded. And on top of that, I get a notification if anyone tries to use the card elsewhere. I love being able to pause, set spending limits, or delete a card anytime.

 It keeps me in complete control. Now, it's also important to note that privacy doesn't ever sellcustomer data for any reason. Protecting your privacy isn't just a part of their business. It is quite literally in their name. Like other card companies, their revenue comes from transaction fees called interchange from businesses.

 With privacy, it's easy to sign up and incredibly fast to use. They have a free plan with no transaction fees for domestic purchases. So, start protecting your financial identity today. Go to privacy.com/julen. That link is in my description below. That's p r i vaccy.com/julian to get your $5 signup bonus today.

 That $5 can be used on your first purchase. So, click the link in my description and make privacy a part of your daily routine. Thank you to privacy for sponsoring today's video. Do you think that when we find a skull like this a million years ago, maybe not this specific example, but when you find one from way long ago, do you think sometimes we might find something that we don't even realize was walking around in a world that had obviously not the same thing because there's always different iterations in this theory, but that

maybe had things that were technologically equivalent to an iPhone and then an extinction event happened and suddenly something like New York City is just rubble. Well, I would I wouldn't say there's evidence of this, but I would say it's it's possible, you know, because another thing when you get up to these huge time scales is the preservation problem, right? Like what realistically is going to survive that long if something not maybe not like New York City, but some kind of settlement existed 100,000 years ago? What

realistically would we expect to survive >> now 100,000 years in the future? Like what's going to be left? It's really hard for materials to survive that long. And especially if you think about the kind of things that humans were likely building with, which is the things they find in their environment, you know, like wood or something or plants or reads or anything that they would find around them to build with.

 It's just going to decay. Like the earth is an incredible recycling machine of destruction effectively. And we're we kind of underestimate in my view the sheer destructive nature of our planet >> when it comes to erasing our human past. And I always think, you know, humans like us with a mind like us, and that's a debatable point which I want to get into is the kind of history of intelligence and whether we did have a mind like ours for this long, but in my view, we've had a mind like ours for at least 300,000 years, potentially much

longer than that. What does that mean? Like what could we have been doing in that time? And what would we realistically see left to prove it? >> I want to get into that. But even even before we go down that rabbit hole, it's also like what about population sizes too? Cuz like if we have a brain that's of this capacity, it's one thing when you're working in a population of, you know, 10,000 of us who aren't even connected with the internet or something like that.

 And now you're working in a world of 8 billion people, four 3 to four billion of which are connected on the internet at any given time and can exchange ideas at the fastest rate in human history. It's like may have the same power, but we have significantly more resources and scale to be able to, you know, >> put something like this in our hands or something like that.

 Doesn't mean that they couldn't have come up with amazing at a smaller population >> with this little thing popping around up there. You know what I mean? >> Yeah. I mean, it's a good point to be fair. Like more people you have more chance of a lone genius coming up with something or people just being able to connect together and work together, especially in our connected society.

Like Yes. But something I always think about when I look at past populations of humans is we don't really know how high the population levels were because we have these things called genetic bottlenecks. So if you look throughout history like if you look at the genetics of our species, you have these moments in time where the population crashes and like almost all of humans are wiped out.

But what that means is only a very small amount of the kind of gen genetic information survives. So you can't really tell like you can tell at this point there are only like you know their genes passing through. So you don't know what you've lost if that makes sense because if everyone's dead or everyone's been wiped out you don't have their genetic information passed through.

 You've only got the 10,000 people that survive through this bottleneck. So there could be anything happening before then. Doesn't mean there was >> genes die off. Yeah. >> Exactly. So you can't prove that there wasn't, you know, millions of humans 200,000 years ago. Doesn't mean there was, but you can't prove that there wasn't.

 Which I always find I always find that really interesting because, you know, I think when you look at theclimatic history of the earth, there are these periods, these warm periods where humanity could easily have flourished. And then you look at the the crashes, these moments in the earth's climactic history which had the potential to completely wipe out massive amounts of humans. And we know that that happened.

So it's very interesting and I always look at those warm periods and think what could have happened in those warm periods and what could have happened when those warm periods ended and we crashed into ice ages and how must that have affected human populations and yeah something I I dwell on a lot and yeah I find it very interesting.

 Yeah, a lot of directions to go here, but I do want to I I do want to touch the the point you made about you believing that it's around 300,000 years that we've had this type of, you know, cranial ability or brain ability. Why why did you land on that specific time range? >> Well, that's the oldest modern human fossils, right? 300,000 years, the ones we were just speaking about.

 But then you have this skull here, which is not homo sapien, but it's the same size brain case. It's a large brain hominin and that's been around for if these results are correct for a million years. So it's potential that humans with you know the brain the size of ours has been around for that amount of time. Now there's a big debate in kind of anthropology and history of when intelligence emerged.

 So the traditional view was always that intelligence didn't emerge till relatively recently. Um, and the view always was until the last few decades that prehistoric humans were effectively stupid. So, have you ever read the book Sapiens? >> You've all Noah Harrari. >> That's the one. Yeah. >> Yeah.

 I've read I don't think I've read the whole thing, but I've definitely read some of that cuz I've owned that for years on my Kindle. >> It's a good book and it does a really good job of speaking about the importance of symbolic intelligence to us as a species and why that's been such a evolutionary advantage. Um, but what it does do is it promotes this idea that this intelligence didn't emerge until about 50,000 years ago.

>> And what does he base that on? >> Basically, we have these cave paintings in Europe that were painted around that date. >> And that evidence, and it's not just him. He's kind of collecting the kind of thoughts of academia and presenting it to a layman audience. So, it's not his argument, but he's kind of presenting what used to be.

 I think this is changing now, but what used to be the the mainstream argument for human intelligence, which is that it didn't emerge until around 50,000 years ago when homo sapiens apparently migrated out of Africa. At least that's the current story. We migrated out Africa at that point >> and we created all these beautiful cave paintings in Europe which are undeniably incredible.

>> But my argument is just because we see this evidence from 50,000 years ago of these incredible cave paintings doesn't mean that's when humans got smart, right? I mean, we've had this size brain for at least 300,000 years based on fossil evidence, potentially up to a million years.

 Just because we see cave paintings of incredible sophistication from 50,000 years ago, doesn't mean that that's when humans got smart. So, this is the cognitive revolution argument, right? That humans only got smart at this date. But I would argue that in recent decades, loads and loads of evidence has come out to suggest that humans have had these cognitive cap capabilities for way longer.

 And not just homo sapiens, but also our sister species like Neanderthals and Dennisovvens because there's so much evidence that these humans were doing incredible things. Like we have clear signs of symbolic behavior that are much older than this. There's a site in South Africa called Blumbos Cave which has these like ornaments that humans created 100,000 years ago.

 So that's almost twice as old as this so-called cognitive revolution happened. And there's even older examples. There's these uh eagle claw talon jewelry uh like necklaces made by Neanderthals from about 130,000 years ago that were found in uh Croatia. Neanderthals made these underground stone circles out of stallagmites which why would you do that if you don't have symbolic intelligence, right? You wouldn't start building stone circles if and like that's kind of that's the I I feel like I need to probably explain what symbolic intelligence is and why

that's important thing. So, and sapiens does a really good job of explaining this. I'll give sapiens that because symbolic intelligence has allowed our species to thrive in many ways. So, the idea is that because we can think in the abstract, right? So, we can kind of create these concepts that aren't real, but we all collectively agree on them.

So, what's an example? Um maybe like maybe like a country, right? Like so the United States, we're in the United States right now, right? And we bothbelieve that. We both believe in the existence of the United States, but the United States isn't a real thing. You can't story. >> It's a story. Exactly.

 You can't touch the United States. If I go outside the studio right now and touch the ground, I'm not touching the United States. I'm just touching some ground. But because we all agree that the United States is a thing, it allows us to cooperate in massive groups. So you have like the whole of, you know, the US Army or something. Yes.

 All believe in the United States. So they all cooperate in a huge group of humans and that allows us to get things done. And so that's the kind of power of symbolic intelligence. We believe these shared myths and that allows us to cooperate in massive groups. And no other animal can really do that. You don't get like >> chimps that all believe in like the chimp nation and like collectively, you know, cooperate in groups of thousands of chimps.

 Like chimps can only really cooperate in bands of about 50 chimps and then they split. they split into different groups because they can't kind of create a myth to to kind of base themselves around and work in a massive group. >> That's interesting though, just strictly on like this the symbolism of the math though too.

 I can't remember if it's 50 or 100, but the difference is going to be minimal here. If you've ever read Tribe by Sebastian Younger, he talks about how, you know, there's a certain mathematical number to which you can actually exist where the tribe all works together. and he was talking about humans in this case. >> So meaning when it goes beyond that it starts to thread off into different ideologies and different people with different you know I guess priorities.

And then you look at regular sociologists who are going to talk to you about like the total number of real close relationships a human being is capable of having on an individual basis. It's also somewhere in that neighborhood like a hundred or something like that. And so the fact that chimps can't cooperate beyond 50 is interesting because even if those numbers of like 50 to 100 for us humans to be able to either form relationships or stick in one tribe are similar, we are able to cooperate on a macro level symbolically

to use your term at a way bigger number just to you know be able to agree like you know what yeah there's a border here. >> Exactly. That's our country. That's pretty crazy. It's just like it's basically one revolution past where chimps are. That's it. But it makes all the difference in the world. >> Exactly.

 And I really I support that argument made by books like Sapiens that that is such an evolutionary advantage for our species because it's it's everywhere. You mean you look at like companies like Apple. Apple has thousands, tens of thousands of people all over the globe all cooperating together because they all believe in the existence of the company Apple, which isn't a real thing.

 You can't [ __ ] touch Apple. You can't you can't There is no real thing Apple because we all believe in it. we can cooperate in these massive groups. That's right. >> So that's what symbolic intelligence is. That's why it's important. >> The theory always was that we didn't have this until about 50 to 60,000 years ago.

 And the evidence of why that emerged at that point was purely based on these cave paintings. >> Yeah. That's kind of wild. >> It's not really much evidence, is it? >> No. And it's also like that's evidence that just was put in a place where it didn't get destroyed. >> Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. Exactly. you know, think of all the things that have happened since then from a planetary level that could have destroyed basically all evidence and, you know, leave an outlier like that.

>> Yeah. >> So, I wouldn't I wouldn't measure it that way either. That's interesting though that like what's the evidence that those cave paintings meant that those particular human beings, whether they were the oldest or not, sounds like they weren't. But what's the evidence therefore that those paintings were made shortly after those people left Africa? Like how do we know that? >> Well, that's the date that we have for the like the mass migration out of Africa is around 60,000 years ago.

 So it's called the out of Africa migration and it's >> we pull that up. >> It's when humans now do we do so this is the thing with out of Africa is there are homo sapiens that we found that are older than this date outside Africa. But the idea is that that's when we kind of came out of Africa and survived. Yeah.

60,000 years ago. Yeah. Um, the out of Africa migration is the theory that all modern humans originated in Africa and later spread to the rest of the world in multiple waves with the most successful wave beginning around 60,000 years ago. Just like you said, this migration was likely driven by climate changes and followed routes through the Middle East leading to the eventual settlement of Europe, Asia, and Australia.

 Earlymigrants were adaptable hunter gatherers who used their skills to survive and spread across different environments. And then they have a video of it here. You know what? Quick question. And this is like a very basic question for a guy like you, but I do think it helps reset the deck for idiots like me. When we're talking and thrown around like homo sapiens and Neanderthalss, obviously these are different things, but they're discussed in a light in common parlance where it's like, oh, we're talking about like humankind in a way.

 If you had to outline the main differences between when they exist, obviously homo sapiens still exist, but you know, and and what the differences were between Neanderthalss and Homo sapiens. How would you explain that to like a fifth grader? Well, you you say that's a simple question, but that's not a simple question at all.

 That's like the question there is like no one really knows and there's so much debate around that. Like what is the difference between Neanderthal and Homo sapiens? How different really are we? because we can't have been that different because we bred with Neanderthalss. We still have Neanderthal DNA in us. At least non-African people do.

 So me and you, like as white people, we have Neanderthal DNA within us. So we can't have been that different from them because you can't breed with something that's, >> you know, genetically too different from you. So we are very similar to Neanderthalss. And so the difference is what people classify is is like skull and like brow ridge shape and stuff like that.

 But there's also variety amongst homo sapiens. >> That's what I'm saying. We have all different looking people around the world. I don't look anything like a guy in China, >> but we're both the same human race. >> Exactly. So I mean, so so yeah, I mean there there is like So you can identify they do identify Neanderthal skull and they they claim, you know, they say it's a different species, but the line of that is quite blurry and yeah, it's it's kind of in flux.

 It's always in debate really. And so it kind of depends where you kind of land in that in that debate, but my argument is that we are extremely similar to Neanderthals. And I and this is quite controversial, but I would say I'm not sure they're, you know, any different from us in terms of intelligence. And that's why that's where I base that's where I take these sites like them creating jewelry and say, look, they clearly had symbolic intelligence, right? They were >> they were clever.

 Um, and I think to be honest, I think it it's a really outdated idea that they were dumb >> because what's interesting is that we we kind of put ourselves on this pedestal, right? And we so when Neanderthalss were discovered in at the exact same time as Darwin's theory of evolution. So in the late 19th century, Darwin had this theory that, you know, we're no different from animals basically.

 And that was a huge paradigm shift in the scientific world because up until that point, humans had always been seen as, you know, the pinnacle of everything. We're God's children, right? We're the smart, you know, people that came from the Garden of Eden. We're the we're the clever ones. But then Darwin came along and he was like, "No, we're just another animal.

" And that was a huge shock to everyone because suddenly we lost our special status. And at that exact same time, we discovered the first ever Neanderthal skeleton. And so it was like, hold on, we're not even just another animal. We're not even the only type of human. So what basically happened was that we decided that, okay, we may not be any different from the these animals and we may not be the only human, but we're the smart ones, right? And then we named ourselves homo sapiens, which literally translate to wise man. So we were like, okay, we're

the smart ones then. So we've given ourselves our special status again because we've lost this special status. So that's kind of where this idea came from, that Neanderthals and other human species were dumb because it was us basically trying to regain our special status on top of the food chain. But I I don't think that's really scientific at all.

 I think that's just us trying to, you know, pick ourselves up. And I think since then loads of evidence has come out to show that Neanderthals were just as smart as us and Dennisovvens were just as smart as us. And yeah, um I don't Yeah, I don't see any scientific basis on why that we think that they were stupider than us other than us trying to make ourselves look good.

>> When was the last time we saw Dennis Ovenans on on on Earth? Is that what you just said? >> When was the last time we saw them on Earth? So we I mean we have hardly any evidence of Denisovvens. We have like a tooth and a jawbone and they just found this well they just classified this skull called the dragon man skull >> as Dennisovven or Denisven.

 Um so we they found uh Denise in Denisova cave inSiberia relatively recently like a decade ago >> and they just they classified it as a new species. Um, what what made it diff what made it different for them to be able to classify it like the literal shape of the skull and brows similar to Neanderthals? >> Yeah.

 So, well, I mean, we hardly have anything. So, as I say, we only have a teeth and a jawbone. And what's interesting is they're quite big as well. Like the Dennisovven mer is like way bigger than a sapion mer. And that leads to people have theories that maybe they were giants or something. But >> they're they're a distinct species because I mean they're so much bigger.

But we we really don't know very much about them because of the sheer lack of fossil evidence. >> Oh, it sounds like there's a lot on the bone there. No pun intended. >> Yeah, that's that's going to be a rabbit hole for me. I'm very unfamiliar with that. The end of the year wears everyone down.

 Long days, short nights, too much caffeine, and somehow, of course, you're still exhausted. If you've been pushing through burnout, it might not just be stress, it could be your sleep. Thankfully, there's Ghost Bed. Ghost Bed is a familyrun company founded by a team with more than 20 years of mattress making expertise.

 They know how to build a bed that's comfortable, durable, and actually helps you recover after long days. Every Ghost Bed mattress is made with premium materials, proven cooling technology, and their exclusive Procore layer, a targeted support system that reinforces the center of the mattress where your body's the heaviest.

 It helps keep your spine align and your back supported so you wake up ready to take on whatever's next. And if you're a hot sleeper, Ghost Bed's cooling materials help regulate your temperature automatically, keeping you comfortable all night long. Every Ghost Bed mattress comes with a 101 night sleep trial and a 20 to 25 year warranty.

 Furthermore, shipping is fast and free with most orders arriving in 2 to 5 days. Right now, during Ghost Bed's holiday sale, you can get 25% off sitewide for a limited time. Just go to ghostbed.com/julen, that link is in my description below, and use promo code Julian at checkout. Once again, that's ghostbed.com/julian. Link in my description below.

 Promo code Julian. Upgrade your sleep with Ghostbed, the makers of the coolest bed in the world. Some exclusions apply. See site for details. >> Yeah. I mean, they're relatively new in terms of our understanding of them, human species. Now, when was the last time, like you said, there's Neanderthal DNA in in some homo sapiens, but when was the last time we saw them exist at like that we know of at scale, so to speak.

>> So, they disappeared around this time of the out of Africa migration, right? >> Like the 50 60,000. >> Yeah, exactly. So this that is in my view the biggest argument for the idea that we are smarter than them is that we effectively replace them >> cuz you know we won so maybe we are smarter but then then that's often an argument given like you know okay maybe they did all this symbolic stuff maybe they had in symbolic intelligence they had the same size brain as us but we won so we're the smart ones but there's

loads of other reasons why we could have wiped them out I mean firstly did we wipe them out or did we just merge right did we just breed with them and we kind of morphed into what we are now and we're both sapien and neanthal or was it something like disease? Was these two populations clashing? >> A lot of possibilities >> and they died because we gave them some horrible pathogen or something like it's not clear.

 And this is the thing with prehistory is >> it's presented as we know all the answers, right? We we we've worked it all out in our modern age. We're all so smart in the >> in the space age, you know, we know everything. But we don't really. It's just guesses based on extremely limited evidence. Yeah, there's a lot of possibilities that, you know, could be way different to your point than we're just smarter than them.

 It's also like you think about like waring populations. I'm just playing this out in my head. >> You know, if I had Lane Johnson and Miles Garrett in my homo sapiian race, you don't know who they are. Lane Johnson is a left tackle on the Eagles. He's [ __ ] huge. Okay. >> And then Miles Garrett is the defensive end on Cleveland Browns for American football.

>> American football. and he's they're both enormous, right? If I put them up next to Balon Jalal, who I just had in here, who's like a [ __ ] genius neuroscientist, they're going to kill him. You know, no disrespect to Balain, he's not their size, and they're going to be able to wield any kind of blunt force weapon and kill him very quickly.

 So maybe, and I'm really going beyond where I should here, but maybe there's also a possibility that like Homo sapiens had developed based on what the world populations were at a time to be able to wipe out theNeanderthalss because they had more and they were bigger or a combination of that as well.

 Meaning it wouldn't have to do with like what they have up here to survive. Is that possible or is that a little beyond? >> Well, I think the andthods are probably a little bit bigger than us in terms of, you know, physical anatomy. They're probably slightly bigger than us. They had slightly bigger heads. Um, but that doesn't mean that I mean, and that's an argument from we were more intelligent, right? But then there's evidence coming out recently that Neanderthalss had the same kind of technology as us.

 Like we recently found some arrow heads that were I mean to have an arrow head, you means you have a bow and arrow. That's pretty sophisticated technology. We don't really think of bows and arrows as technology, but Oh, it is. >> It is technology. And again, that was always thought to be a primarily sap exclusively sapient technology, but now we know that Neanderthalss.

 Yeah, there you go. >> Very good. >> Got it. All right. Eight 80,000y old stones in Usbekistsan may be the world's oldest arrow heads, and they might have been made by Neanderthalss. All right, let's read a little bit of this. Tiny stone artifacts discovered in Usbekiststan may be the oldest known arrowheads.

 A new study suggests it remains unclear whether their stone whether these stone tools were created by modern humans, the Anderthalss or some other group. Archaeologists found the tools at the site of Obi-Wan in northeastern Usbekistan. Previous excavations uncovered a variety of stone tools at the site such as a thin and wide blades and smaller bladelets.

 But numerous small triangular points called microliths were overlooked in prior work because they were broken. Let me get a little more Joe. Now, in a study published August 11th in the journal Plus One, the researchers argue that these micro points are too narrow to have fit into anything other than arrowike shafts.

 The stones also display the kind of damage that would be expected from used arrow heads. Study co-author Hugs Pleson, an associate scientist at the University of Bordeaux in France, told Live Science, "These micro points, which are about 80,000 years old, may therefore be the oldest arrow heads in the world, around 6,000 years older than 74,000 years years old artifacts unearthed in Ethiopia.

" >> Wow. Yeah. So, I mean, not definitively Neanderthal, but likely Neanderthal if you base the >> Keep that Michael. >> Sorry. If you base the view of history around the out of Africa migration, then that's almost certainly Neanderthal because that's outside of Africa, right? And we know that Homo sapiens did go outside of Africa, but that's probably why they're saying they're likely Neanderthal.

 But it's more evidence that I mean, if they are Neanderthal, it's more evidence that, you know, they were as intelligent as us because they were developing technology such as arrowheads, sophisticated weapons technology, you know. So, were they stupider than us? I don't know. Is there I don't want to ask this. Is there evidence, not even evidence, but is there a possibility that there are offshoot of human species that exist in our DNA right now that we don't know about similarly to how we do know about? There is some Neanderthal DNA in in some

of our DNA. >> So, what do you mean? You mean like traces of previous human species? >> Sure. Yeah. There's Dennisovven DNA in uh what kind of I think it's Southeast Asian populations or rather >> Wow. oceanic populations. Um, yeah. I mean, we we interbreed with these species and this is why I say we're must have been so similar because you you can't breed with something that's too different from you.

 So, if we can breed with them, we we we're not going to be crazy different to them, you know? >> I wonder where that line is, like what the percentage line for difference is to be able to still breed because like you can't You can't go what's another mammal? You can't go breed with a horse or something like that, right? >> Exactly.

 You can't breed with a chimp or anything. >> Yeah. Yeah. You can't you can't breed with a chimp, which is like a lot closer than a horse to to human DNA. But Neanderthalss and Homo sapiens were so close, whether it's 01 or 0001, I don't know. But meaning we literally separate them in like species, but they're so close that the average person would almost be like that looks like the same thing.

 That's like it's such a strange bar because then like I said, we still live in a world where I'm the same species as someone in China when we genetically look so different. And you can say that about anywhere in the world. You know, I look different from a person in this country or that country. And yet we're the we accept ourselves as the same species sometimes like it's you know like it makes all the sense in the world to me but then I see we separate something off like Neanderthal and I'm like would we separate that today youknow like if we looked at it. So I think

there are I'm not a geneticist but I think there are some you know genetic differences between the species but then as you say there are genetic slight genetic differences between different races but I mean you get into tricky territory when you start talking about that kind of stuff and then there's a really interesting geneticist called uh David Reich who who talks about this kind of stuff as well.

Um but it's not my >> David Reich. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's not my uh you know expertise by any means but it's it's really interesting and basically the core point that I try to make is >> we are very similar and we don't really know what happened back then. We don't know why we won. We don't know how much we merged and how much we won.

 We don't know where that line is. So yeah, I find it fascinating and um I think yeah, they had as at least as much intelligence as us. They had the same size. I mean, Neanthals had bigger brains than us. So, >> yeah, >> you know, maybe they were smarter. >> Yeah. Which a lot of times can point to more capability, but like the brain part makes sense to me cuz you're finding the skull, right? So, you can be like, "Oh, the brain fit in there.

" Makes enough sense. >> Hey guys, if you haven't already subscribed, please hit that subscribe button. It's a huge, huge help. Thank you. But when we're talking about all the different organs in our body and we find just some skeletal remains of a Neanderthal, can is it possible to like definitively prove that like oh yeah, they definitely had a gallbladder right there.

>> I guess not. But I mean it's basically the same skeleton as us. So >> yeah, why not? So you would think >> Yeah, you think so. Yeah, >> but like it's possible that maybe there were a couple organs that were different. >> I guess so. Yeah, I guess technically. All right. Yeah. How did you get into all this stuff, man? Like before you went to school, like would were you always just fascinated by ancient civilizations growing up? >> Yeah, I mean, I've always loved history, all types of history.

 Um, I kind of veered towards the ancient stuff because I felt that's where the most mystery was, right? So, I mean, I'm interested in all history all the way through, but when I got to the kind of age of, you know, 17, 18, thinking about going to university, I decided to do ancient history as my degree because I felt, you know, that's where the mystery is.

that's where we don't know. And then as I continued to do my degree, I was like, "Holy [ __ ] we really don't know. We know nothing. And there's a huge huge story here, a huge empty blank space in our understanding of our past that just no one really understands." And so that's how I got into it.

 And um yeah, I mean, my degree was uh was good, man. I like I like um I I have a lot of respect for the people I went to university with and my professors and everything like that. I don't want people to to think I'm like anti-un university or anti my course or anti the people that I met there and like I learned a lot of things and I found it really interesting but I did find myself growing more and more at odds with the perspective of human history that was put forward not like the specific things we were taught but more the higher level macro you know

wider perspective of human history that we were taught which was basically that you know we've got it we've got it sorted we may make a new discovery here or there but you know we know what happened we we've got the timeline It was hunter gatherers all the way until around the Neolithic Revolution about 10,000 years ago and then that led to civilizations developing sorted and I was like I'm not sure about that to be honest it's such a vast length of time >> anything could have happened right so yeah that's how I got into it

>> were you raising that point like in class when you were in college were you like well we have found this this or that what do you think and watching their brains like [ __ ] explode >> not so much because I was only starting the journey myself in my own head. I did I did um I remember I mentioned so you know about Gobeclete right? >> I remember I mentioned that we should we should >> so interesting but I remember I mentioned that I brought that because I was like yeah this is a site that clearly has severe implications for our

understanding of the development of human civilization. Surely this suggests that human civilization is far older and more complex than we think. And I was basically told that isn't your course mate. You do ancient history. This is archaeology. Uh, so >> wait, they made a distinction between the two. >> Yeah.

 Well, I mean, so technically there is a distinction, right? So archaeology is everything before recorded history and ancient history is, you know, everything >> what we know. >> Yeah. Exactly. But >> so I and I was like, really? Come on, man. I'm doing ancient history atuniversity. Surely we can have this conversation. But >> that's a crazy distinction.

 I didn't I didn't even know that. >> I didn't know that either until I was kind of told that. But yeah, ancient history, my course was only from the start of writing until, you know, the end of the Roman Empire. >> New to see here. Don't ask any questions. That's what it is >> basically. >> That's crazy.

 So, you found you started to learn about golette while you were in school, did you say, or you had learned about that before? So, I discovered it in my own time while I was at university. I wasn't taught it. It wasn't mentioned on my syllabus. And I was like, can we talk about this? And they were like, "No, that's not on the course. You need to go do archaeology.

" And I was like, "Oh, come on." >> For people out there who need a refresher on Gobecy or somehow haven't heard a lot of guys talk about this because it is talked about all the time. Can you just give a very broad explanation of where it was and what they found and what the potential implications are? >> Yeah.

 So, Gobekly is a site in modernday Turkey that is dated to around 11,600 years ago. Um, and it's this incredible site with these massive megalithic uh pillars and these far circular enclosures and it's something like 50 times larger than Stonehenge or something ridiculous like that. It has all these incredible intricate carvings on the pillars.

 They've only excavated about 5% of it. But in my view, in the view of many others, it's a massively disruptive discovery for our understanding of human civilization because I mean you just have to look at pictures of it. It looks like a civilization. How have you got the capability to construct such a site? And it's not the only one, right? There's like 14 or 15 other sites that they're discovering in the region.

 They're starting to call it the Tash Tapella culture. >> Very much emphasis on the word culture, not civilization because it's not deemed a civilization for >> How do you make that distinction though? Like how can you say one without the other? Like do we talk about like shark culture? You know what I mean? like well it's because well so they've got a very um they've got this this checklist effectively on what a civilization is and it's basically based on Mesopotamia on ancient Suma because that was the first civilization ancient civilization

that was discovered or the earliest one that was discovered. They were like okay ancient Suma this is the first civilization and so if we want another civilization to meet the criteria of civilization has to has to hit this checklist of you know cities agriculture surplus things like that and Gbecepe well I in my view Tashapella will be considered a civilization it's just going to take a while for people to get there I think in like a few decades people are going to start calling it a civilization it's just that it's so

disruptive because you know it's twice as old as the oldest civilization, right? >> Yeah. >> So to call it a civilization is going to it's a big monkey wrench in our idea of human history. >> So yeah, I think people will get there over time. But these I mean these sites are all connected, right? They have like shared symbolism which suggests a shared cultural identity. It suggests trade.

 It suggests that this was you know a cohesive society that all built these massive megalithic sites. I mean it it really does sound like a civilization. They just found um residential buildings at Gbecep as well. And that was always an argument why it wasn't a civilization. They always said this was built by hunter gatherers and they kind of migrated to this site once a year or something to >> they just happen to be [ __ ] amazing artists.

>> Yeah. Yeah. Well, yeah. That's another thing like you need specialization to create a site like this and to become such a skilled craft craftsman you need time to be doing that as your job, right? So you need other people to look after the. So while we don't have proof of agricultural surplus, the mere existence of geeklutepe and kadahepe and all these other sites implies surplus.

It implies people whose specialist trade was you know carving or megalithic construction or whatever you want to call it because otherwise how do they have time to develop these skills? It also lines up like with right around the the time scale of like the younger dus period and and what would have happened.

So is this like I mean this is a way over generalization but is this some sort of like bunker type idea or was it built shortly before that and then some people were able to survive in this area or got wiped out all at once? Like I guess it's all still possibility and they've been excavating it, but like you have so many obvious professionals doing this as well and yet they still there's obviously some sort of ivory tower effect given that it's so public and so many people can see walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. It's a [ __ ]duck. But yet they refuse to actually

say that. >> Yeah. >> It's kind of crazy. And like another thing is as you say it's so old but it's almost it's not the it's not like they just woke up overnight and just knew how to do that right. >> Yeah. >> It's not like they were just they that there has to be a kind of development here.

 Then that's the so that's the earliest it possib I mean the latest it possibly is right >> 11,600 years ago is the least long ago it possibly was that this civilization culture whatever you want to call it was flourishing. But there has to be a whole kind of civilizational buildup. And that's just the radiocarbon dates. It could be much older than that, right? Like that's just that's just the latest date we have if you know what I mean.

>> With all the sites put together, I'm kind of putting you on the spot so we we can Google this and and see if they have it. But with all the sites that they're finding put together that they're calling this, what was it? Culture. >> Tashapella. >> Tashapella culture. Do they have any approximation at this time based on what they found of what the total population of these hunter gatherers would have been? Not that I've seen and not that I know.

 Um, but I would suggest it implies a relatively large population because otherwise, how are you doing this? And almost more importantly, why are you doing this? Cuz if you're just a small band of hunter gatherers, like why do you need to go to such effort to create not just one but you know 14 sites that are all interconnected and have shared symbolism and creating these massive megalithic pillars and these incredibly intricate carvings like so I mean I don't I'm not sure what the population estimates are.

 I reckon they're probably higher than the estimates given but um yeah I don't know. >> Well let's see what CIA says right here. I got this pulled up while Joe's out of here for a sec, which by the way, I don't know if if you've seen any of like Matt Lacroy stuff in the past, but he's made some with a with another group of people as well.

 He's done some interesting excavations out on like Lake Vaughn all in this region. And some I mean people can refer the episodes to listen to him explain it with the pictures of everything they found. Like some of the things they're finding in some cases way down below in the bottom of that lake are so clearly advanced that this wasn't made by, you know, a [ __ ] rock and mortar kind of caveman or something like that.

 And it's just more evidence in the same region of the world. >> Yeah, I listened to him on here. Um >> Oh, awesome. >> Yeah. And he was Yeah. Talk I mean I don't know too much about it other than what I heard him talk about, but yeah, same region of the world. Clearly a sophisticated >> construction at least what they know about it.

 He's like doing some expedition though, right? Isn't he? >> He's done a bunch. He keep he keeps going back. Like he's very Matt Matt's so passionate about all this stuff. There's some stuff when he looks at ancient history. I'm like, "All right, slow down. Slow down." Like you were great till here and then you went a little too far.

 But the stuff that he's working on on the ground there, there's no doubt that they are they are on to something. Well, historically, but on to something as far as discoveries go, new >> like no question about it. Now what the extent of that is going to be I'm not sure how what percentage overlap it has with Gobeclette and that civilization to me seems to be certainly along the same lines but that'll be determined as well.

But there's no doubt that there's there's something special there. I I really do believe in that. I hope I'm not biased with it but the evidence that he's had for that in particularly that case is is is pretty good. So they I I I just pulled it up. The Tash Depell. Is that how we say it? >> I mean, I'm probably not say I say Tash Depella, but you know, I'm not obviously not Turkish.

>> Call us out in the comments. I'm sure we got it wrong. But the Tash Depeller are a group. This is what they're writing on CIA. Are a group of Neolithic archaeological sites in upper Mesopotamia near the city of Urfa in modern day Turkey. They are the remains of a number of settlements dating to the pre- pottery Neolithic period, 9,500 to 7,000 BC.

 Sounds like they even moved up that timeline. Or actually, no, that lines up. 9,500 BC would be around 11,600 11,500. Okay. During transition from nomadic huntergatherer societies to settled agricultural communities in the region. That's interesting. So in the by line, they're literally put they're calling it like the transition between.

>> Exactly. And so that's is that not just another way of saying the dawn of civilization. >> That's Yeah, that's what I would think. So let's let's see what they had here. Economy and culture. The first segment's called not economy and civilization. The societies of Tashapellar still had notyet developed the hering of animals or agriculture.

 Their sub their subsistence depended on hunting and selective harvesting of wild cereal grasses. Before I go on, is there evidence contradicting that? >> I don't think so. Not yet. But I mean, I mean, so it could well have been built by people that lived in that manner. But this again comes back to this extremely narrow definition of civilization that we have.

 Like we say it can't be a civilization because they didn't have mass agriculture as far as we know. But why does that mean that they can't be a civilization? Right. >> Yeah. They could have found another way to be able to eat. >> Exactly. And then I mean we'll probably get on to this later, but just quickly like if you look at you know what we're they're discovering in the Amazon like those people that clearly had a civilization, they didn't use agriculture.

 They used like this quite sophisticated form of kind of agroforestry like living off the land like that's not agriculture yet they had civilization. So >> right >> why is agriculture you know one of the chat marks for civilization. >> Definitely put a pin in the Amazon stuff. I love that that topic and I love that you're like so deep in it.

 You and Luke Caverns are like the guys doing that. I hope you guys continue to go all the way with it because it's one of the most undercovered probably the most undercovered place in the world in my opinion considering the levels of ancient history that could go to. So we're definitely going to talk about that but I just want to finish this so we have the full context.

 Man's domestication of animals seems to have started within the broad region of the Tashapellar culture also would point to something very civilizationally but and early efforts at animal management especially symbolic representations and enttrapment methods that's a fancy way of saying I guess hunting seem to broadly coincide with the development of gocley as shown in its animal art the earliest dates for actual domestication of animals are 9,000 BC for goats and sheep 8,500 BC for took them Another 500 years to do pigs. Interesting. 8,000 BC

for cattle. All in the area of northern Mesopotamia. KyonuPe, for example, may be where some of the first animal domestication occurred, as the pig may have been first domesticated there in 8,500 BC. One more paragraph here. Sites such as Cayanuppy developed from the cultural tradition of Gobecley and started to implement agriculture from the 9th millennium BC as well as other sites such as Nebakori Kefir Hoyak.

 I'm definitely saying all these wrong. Halan Chi Abu Hayara and Jerf Alamar. That sounds like a lot of civilization talk to me and I'm not going to read the next parts but they have a section called religion. You know there's a lot of very human civilization-y things going on here but that's just me, Michael.

 Well, exactly. So, I mean, so then it just I mean, what do we even mean by civilization? Why we why have we drawn this arbitrary line? It's the invention of writing, basically. >> Yeah. >> They say no civilization until after they invented writing in ancient Suma around 30,000 BC. But >> in my view, this is all I mean, and then is it even that important what you call it? Like it's clearly incredibly sophisticated culture with megalithic building, >> shared symbolism, religion.

 Like you know, I think as I say over time it's going to become more and more accepted that the story of human civilization is far deeper, far more complex, and just far older than we've traditionally thought. >> I think it's going to be this generation of ancient civilization educated people both in school and not in school.

 I mean in general, but especially when you're looking at the ones who go inside the academic institution, the thing is they do bring their Wi-Fi connection with them. You did bring that. So, you know, you can refer to some things that go outside the scope of what the dude teaching the class from the textbook in front of you can infer.

 And what's going to happen is the next generation is you guys are going to be teaching it. And so, it it'll I I do have faith in that part of it. It'll evolve with the times because we're only, you know, 18 19 years into legit social media at this point. You know what I mean? Like we're we're just going to college with social media.

 Imagine when, you know, they're in the growth generation of running things when they're 40 to 60 years old and we've had that. Now we're in the AI age and all that. But I I do think that'll change. Now, when we look at finding evidence like this, obviously it was a shocking discovery when they first found Gobekly. As we laid out, they found a bunch of other sites in Turkey around there.

 Have we since been able to find any sort of evidence, be it text or some sort of storytelling of some sort in symbols in other parts of the world that may refer to something like Gobeclet? Like I don't know, in Egypt, were they talkingabout something where it's like, oh [ __ ] that could be Gobeclet. >> So I wouldn't say anything solid.

 I mean, I'm sure some people probably make that connection and that doesn't mean that that connection doesn't exist, but as far as I would say, I'm not sure there's like solid evidence of people knowing about Quebec or referencing to Quebec. You know, I mean, there's interesting things. You can say there's links between things, but again, you could also say that's just, you know, pattern bias or whatever that's called.

You know, you see something that's similar like Easter Island for example, like completely opposite culture, opposite side of the world, so distant in time. But there's weird similarities with Geekbecia. You have these statues that, you know, look quite similar, but that doesn't mean there was a connection, right? But it's interesting.

There's this guy called Archaic Lens on X and he's basically been around the whole world. Shout out to him. Um, documenting this style of statue where they have their hands around their navl and it's like the same statue all over the world. And so there's some in Easter Island that look very similar to ones they found not at Quebec but Karahei.

Yeah, there he is. Um, yeah, he's got his picture. There you go. Exactly. >> Oh, wow. With the that the map points to all the places these similar statues are found. Look at that. >> Yeah. So, I mean, you could just argue it's a common human pose, but >> or it could be the aliens. >> Yeah.

 But he argues it's it's sign like a sign of a you know, some kind of cultural connection between all these places. Um, which is an interesting theory. But >> yeah, that's whenever it comes to the pyramids, that's where I mean we can get into of course the logistics of building them, the stone, how difficult it would be to move certain type of stone from a part of Egypt to the thousand miles away where they built it and stuff like that.

 But when you look at all these different places around the world that clearly made structures thousands of years ago that are just so similar, you can't tell me it's like born in the human DNA that they're going to make a [ __ ] you know, perfect looking thing to the sky that's the same design without some sort of shared knowledge.

 And you wonder, oh, was there like an underground railroad of rafts going from one place to another for [ __ ] 30 years with two people surviving just to get off and go, here's how you build a pyramid and croaking and dying. I don't know, maybe. But that seems a little crazy to me. It seems like something else was going on there. Yeah, there are a lot of weird connections like that.

 And again, it doesn't mean anything. I mean, doesn't prove anything. That's right. >> But it's it's interesting. I mean, one I love the connection or the the similarities between the the walls in uh South America in Cusco and the the stonework on the Mangaware pronunciation again probably terribly wrong, but the Menoway pyramid in Egypt.

So, they have these I don't know if you've seen the walls in uh in Cusco. >> Let's pull it up. >> These polygonal walls. Again, this could just be coincidence. It could be people >> dealing with the same problem. >> I'll be the judge. >> But it's remarkably similar. So, if you Yeah.

 If you look at the Cusco wall and then the the manry pyramid stonework, it's very similar. It might be quite hard to find, but >> we got it. >> Okay, here we go. >> Yeah. So, that's that's cuz >> this what you're looking for. >> Yeah. And then you need the men pyramid. Um >> I ain't even going to try to spell that. >> M E N K A U R E. Maybe.

 See, you're so worried about pronunciations and stuff, but that's the thing. British people, you guys make everything sound smart that you get forgiven. Whereas I say, and they're like, "What a [ __ ] >> So, you need the wall that's um at the entrance of the manari pyramid." Um, might be quite hard to find, but >> the wall of the entrance of the manar period pyramid.

 It might be quite hard to find a picture that actually displays it, but you had the you had the pyramid up, but you just need the specific bit of the pyramid. Sorry, this is a very specific thing to bring up. I probably should have brought >> Yeah, I'm one of those guys, by the way. You're going to have to bear with me on the pyramids.

 I've done probably like five podcasts where we go deep on the Egyptian pyramids and I watch videos late at night about them and I still always get the goddamn name mix up. Which one's Kufu? Which one's Manari, you know? So, if you look at that picture there, uh, and then you look at the >> This is the one you want though, Michael. >> Yeah. Yeah, this is correct.

>> We're looking at right there. >> So, again, it could just be dealing with the same problem and and coming up with a very similar thing, but it is just a startling similarity between the two walls of these cultures that are like separated by an absolute age in bothdistance and time. So a similar So what I'm looking at here, >> yes, >> it looks like what seems to be a certain type of stone that's formulating the foundation of a structure.

 And so you're saying because of the way that foundation is laid and how similar the stone looks in that foundation, it would suggest that it's like I'm going to make a dumb relation here, but similarly to how in a neighborhood where it's all the same model house, they have the same kind of established looking base in modern day. Yeah. Yeah. Effectively.

 I mean, so I would argue that it's not evidence of connection. I would argue that it's dealing with a similar problem and coming to a remarkably similar conclusion because humans Yeah. There's only a certain way you can do something. People may be come to the same result, right? >> Mhm. >> But they are remarkably similar and the stonework looks really similar and so it's just one of those weird things.

 Um if you had to put aside your academic rigor for a minute. >> Yeah. and absolute pure evidence and more focused on like an educated guess hypothesis. Would you say that there's a strange connection that we haven't yet figured out between the civilizations that built pyramids? Let's just start simply there. >> I would say there could be.

>> Could be. >> Yeah. I mean, why not? But I wouldn't say there's any solid evidence. >> And I try >> That's a good answer, dude. you know, I try just I that's kind of my whole perspective on things. It's like this could be possible, but I'm only going to really push it if I see serious evidence. >> And that's that's the difference.

 We got to be careful because when you look at like the worst of like academia where they're like, "Shut down anything that doesn't have a PhD." When you start running around with theories and posing it completely as evidence and saying, "I'm 100% confident about this with something that's clearly just disprovable on the base fact that it doesn't have any evidence at the moment.

" You kind of give those people exactly what you want or what they want. You know what I mean? >> Yeah. And I think that's a big problem in many ways. Like we decide something doesn't exist so we don't look for it. But you can't, >> you know, that's just like that's a self-fulfilling prophecy in a way. Do you know what I mean? Like if you're >> if you've decided that something cannot exist, you therefore don't look for it.

And therefore, because you don't find any evidence of it because you haven't looked for it, that's proof that it doesn't exist. It's like a circle. Do you know what I mean? >> That was probably not the best way of explaining that, but >> good. >> And I think I think we have that problem a lot throughout history.

 Like even just in the wide idea of lost civilizations, right? We've decided civilization didn't begin until this date. So we don't really look I mean we I guess we do kind of look but because we have this idea that civilization didn't emerge until even if you even if you count Gobeclet as a civilization if we're talking about way in the deep past no one would ever argue in an academic setting that civilization could have existed 200,000 years ago.

 So that possibility isn't explored seriously. And then because that possibility isn't explored seriously there's absolutely nothing to showcase it. I just don't understand how then academic type people find a skull from a million years ago and that doesn't open up a conversation. That's that's that's what has never and I I I posed this question this rhetorical question or whatever it is a million times on a lot of different podcasts and it's just it's like insulting to my intelligence that we would ever think that we've reached the limit of something. We've run into

this problem in science too where people are like oh yeah know it's just scientific law. The whole point of science is to disprove the latest thing and get to a higher truth. You don't solve science until you know who God is. You don't solve religion till you know who God is. But people, it's almost like they just they're like, I don't want to know anymore. It's good. We got enough.

It's fine. I I just want to carry on with my life and we'll figure it out later. >> Exactly. I would argue it's a completely unscientific way of viewing things, right? You've got to you got to push the boundaries because otherwise you're never going to discover anything new if you're not open to those possibilities.

you're always going to stay inside your box, you know, and that's not how science should work >> because you should be you should be pushing every single button and then maybe one of those buttons will light up >> and you'll be like, "Holy [ __ ] this is completely like no one was no one was looking for this.

" But if you don't look, you're never going to find. So that's kind of >> where I come from in all this. And that's why I that's why I'm not a you know on an academic career. That's whyI'm not doing the the career that was laid out for me, you know, do a PhD. That's why I went independent because that's my viewpoint on the world.

>> You were for at least for a few years though you were doing completely other things before going independent into this. So you had decided then by the end of college I'm not going that route and then you ended up going this route. Why didn't you do it like right away to like go make content? >> Honestly, I was kind of just a bit sick of it to be honest.

 I was sick of just the the mindset that I was and I didn't really think it was possible to be honest. I was just like I'm not really vibing with this like worldview to be honest. So I'm just not going to go down this path. But it never left me you know. It was always in my head in the back of my head.

 I was like you know kind of bit quite interested in this kind of stuff you know. So then I decided to make my YouTube channel about a year ago and yeah been a been a crazy journey since then because yeah I just have always had that in my head like so interested in these ideas and felt I had a relatively unique perspective on them with my traditional education and >> felt like I could give my opinions in quite a good way both because of the education also what the education did give me which is you know the ability to construct arguments and put forward

evidence and you know construct a a compelling narrative. I guess which is what that's all history is. And I almost feel like that's people don't really realize that that the mainstream historians are doing the same thing. They're taking the evidence and they're creating a narrative. And that's fine. But I don't get it when they attack people for doing the same thing but with a slightly different viewpoint.

>> Yeah. The last five letters of that word are quite interesting and very subjective. >> Yeah. >> You know what I mean? But the other thing is like your channel is [ __ ] awesome. you do a scope of ancient history around the world like and and I mean this is a compliment. You're like a generalist with a lot of different things which I love.

 So we'll have that link down below so that people can can go check it out. I would highly recommend it. But also I think you know a guy like you as you grow here it's going to it's going to go up an entirely new level when you're traveling to all these places too and seeing it and making your own conclusions. is also I'm sure doing content these different places so you can bring your audience with you.

 Like it's amazing the scope of knowledge you have. We were talking off camera about all the places you haven't been to yet. Like the scope you have without having gone and seen it or get to sit with it, you know, kind of feel the ghosts around it and whatever. So I I do I do think it'll it'll be even better. >> Yeah, it's definitely something I want to do.

 That's kind of the dream in a way of this channel that I I guess I'm on the verge of realizing which is to actually go to these places in person and be able to create content around that because yeah, as you say, most of the places I talk about I haven't really been to just because of, you know, financial reasons and like uh so go join Michael's members only.

 Actually, I heard Joe Rogan has some money. Maybe he can throw you like a hundred bands, get you started here. >> Yeah, possibly. >> Yeah, he's probably got that lying around in Nashville. >> He does. Yeah, he's already got it on uh on the way, I'm sure. >> That was pretty cool, though. That was like your first podcast doing Rogan or one of your first.

>> Yeah, it was Yeah, my first Well, I mean, I did I did a couple of like Zoom ones. Um but yeah, that was my first like actual podcast, which was just nuts. So insane. Like, >> how did he find you? >> He found me so early on, mate. Like, so no one watched my channel for like six, seven months.

 And then around March this year, I had a couple of videos that started doing proper numbers, like 100K, and then he like saw a second one that did well, and then he shouted me out on on his show. >> Oh, wow. >> And that [ __ ] blew my mind. I was like, how is like I have like two videos that have any views at all, and this guy's talking about me on this show.

>> Uh, and yeah, that was that was mental. So, I don't know how he found me. I guess he's just interested in this stuff. Um, >> he's definitely interested in it. >> Yeah. So yeah, he shouted me out and then a few months later he got he got me on and I was very grateful for that. Of course, it was an incredible opportunity, but I was, you know, kind of [ __ ] myself to go on that show.

>> Yeah, he did great. It's it's it's really cool to see that as well, cuz like, you know, he can kingmake pretty much anyone, but if he's looking at a channel might be smaller coming along and he's like, "Wow, that guy's great." and it can kind of just be like plucking you out of the crowd being like here yougo and now you're now you're running with it which is awesome to see but it's like we also have to have the next generation now coming up like he's a guy who also got a lot more attention on a guy who already had attention like

Graham Hancock or like a Randall Carlson who have helped move forward the conversation and you were telling me off camera like Graham Hancock was a big influence for you was that growing up you you liked him >> not so much so I didn't really get into any of this stuff until about midway through my degree, right? So, I didn't I wasn't aware of the alternative view of history until, you know, at some point during my degree when I was starting to look around >> for other explanations really.

 So, I mean, what kind of happened was I did this module on my uh university course called um catastrophe >> which was all about how natural disaster had massively impacted human societies during recorded history. And I found that really interesting. I was they did this study on the late Bronze Age collapse which was when all these powerful civilizations around 1000 BC all came crashing down simultaneously within like a few decades of each other.

So this was the uh the Hittite Empire, the palaces of Masonian Greece, uh the Egyptian new kingdom, a few others and these all these were like the most powerful civilizations in the world, the most you know prosperous places in the entire world at that point. and they all came crashing down at the exact same time as each other and no one really knew why and that's what we were being taught about and the theory that the the best known theory and probably the correct theory I mean I agree with this theory is that it was climate change it

was a small change in climate which then had this cascading effect so the climate changed by a few degrees that led to drought drought led to huge civil unrest in these societies that led to kind of rebellions these societies were all interconnected through trade trade collapsed and so they all came crashing down one after another.

 And I found that so interesting. I was like, that's ridiculous how such a small, you know, change in climate, something that's really fluctuates all the time, can just bring all these societies down. And so then I started looking into that more and I started looking at the climactic history of the earth and I was like, "Holy [ __ ] like the earth has gone through some crazy stuff while humans have been around.

" And this was the same time this Jabel Arude uh remains came out that showed we were 300,000 years old. And I was looking at the climactic history through this whole time. And I was like, >> "Yeah, we've been through some crazy stuff, way worse than what happened in the Bronze Age collapse." And what could that potentially have meant for humans at that time? >> And that's what sent me on the journey.

And then I started looking into alternative points of view because that wasn't spoken about on my course. It was on it was only recorded history. And I was like, "Yeah, what about what could have happened back in, you know, way before then?" So then I started looking at people like Graeme Hancock and Randall Carlson and I was uh you know enthralled by that and uh that's what sent me on the journey.

 Um but yeah, he's a he's a really interesting guy. I spoke to him recently and uh it was a >> quite a surreal moment to speak to him. Yeah. Um >> but yeah, he's a cool guy. Yeah, there's there's he's definitely when I think of the people that have really given a voice to to that side of things, I I don't think there's anyone who's been more consequential than him, especially over the past like 20 years.

 But, you know, it's it's opened up the conversation and we actually this this is a good spot to talk about some South America things because you had said we were actually looking at it right before in in your Peru video. I liked how you put it with looking at what the LAR scans in South America could tell us about older civilizations potentially living there.

 you you were talking about it there, but one of the things Graham has said in the past that then turns into like these headlines that kind of to his discredit, by the way, like it's not his fault, but the headlines then make it a whole new thing is he talks about how there are some there's evidence for some man-made things in, you know, the ancient Amazon jungle.

 And what what happens to the headlines is they'll start to come out saying like uh ancient historian Amazon is man-made, which is not fair to Graham because that's not what he's saying. But it creates this narrative that the Amazon, which is under constant threat and destruction and potentially poses an enormous risk climate wise and earth and oxygen wise to the Earth if it were destroyed to a certain level.

 It makes the idea get planted in people's heads that like, oh, people made the Amazon, so we could make it again, no problem. And I bring thisup because a good friend of mine is Paul Rosley. He's a guy who's largely responsible for me sitting here right now. He really helped blow up my podcast when he came on.

 And, you know, he's been down there for 20 years. And it drives him nuts when people will send him a headline saying, "Hey, look, the Amazon's man-made. We can kind of fix it." because the evidence for man-made stuff is like a one-off thing here or a one-off thing there. Some of which Paul will dispute, other things he's like, it doesn't matter.

 And so, when you're talking about this subject matter, I think it's really important that you like separate the two and say like, look, here's this amazing creation of the earth, like this full [ __ ] North America type or United States of America almost sized area of the earth that's just dense jungle that provides all this oxygen.

 And then by the way, there's a few cool things that happened in there because ancient civilizations existed and because they existed maybe farther back than we initially thought. So what let's start with your actual video you made here where you unearthed were we're going through the evidence unearthing that there were some older civilizations that had a different name than the ones we talked about found specifically in Peru.

 Who were they and and when did they exist? >> So as in you you mean like uh Carl Super and stuff like that? >> Yes. Yes. >> Yeah. So I mean it's always been the well the traditional view of South America was always that civilization emerged there quite late in terms of the rest of the world right with the people like the Incor being the kind of first true civilization that emerged in that region but in recent years quite a few discoveries have come out to show that civilization there is just as old as the old world perhaps even older right so

the Inca of something like 1100 AD or thing. But then they've been discovering these places like the Carl super civilization which is from about 3000 BC. So that's you know 4,000 years earlier than the Inca and shows that civilization in South America is far far far older than the traditional view was. And then they recently discovered another city called Paneiko in this region that they think is a kind of continuation of that culture.

 And you know these these cultures are real sophisticated things. They they built pyramids. They had these vast urban layouts. they had symbolism like they're really sophisticated civilizations. And then you link that to the discoveries that have been made in the Amazon recently. So that's always been like the classic lost civilization theory, you know, the the lost civilizations of the Amazon, right? That's always been the thing that people would laugh at like for hundreds of years, like ever since the Spanish first

got there, they had I can't remember his name. >> Francesco. Yeah. Is that is that his name? I can't remember. He I think he was the one that reported seeing vast cities in the jungle, right? >> Allegedly like an El Dorado kind of thing. >> Yeah. So then he came back to Europe and he was like, "Yo, I've seen all these vast civilizations and gold.

" >> Yeah. And everyone laughed at him. They were like, "What are you talking about? That doesn't exist." And then people came back 100 years later and they couldn't find anything. And so that's always been thought, you know, that guy made it up. But in recent years, they've been doing all this LAR scanning of the Amazon jungle, and they've been seeing these vast like geometric earthworks come up from these LAR scans, and they're starting to think that, you know, maybe this guy wasn't lying, and maybe these civilizations did exist, and

then they collapsed in the hundred years between these two visits, which sounds crazy, but then when you think about what happened when Europeans reached South America, you know, it was a big collapse of the indigenous population for various reasons perhaps primarily disease but also you know what happens when people conquer new lands is that you know people get killed and that's what happens so so people always laughed at Oriana or I don't know how to pronounce that name but people is that right people always laughed at him and said

you know he's made that up and it's always been seen as a conspiracy theory that there were lost civilizations of the Amazon rainforest but >> it's starting to come out with these new scans and stuff that there are vast like mysteries there that we don't already know about. And I think that's possibly the one of the biggest frontiers in ancient history is learning about the populations of the Amazon, learning about how sophisticated their civilizations were.

 And I think it plays into this um the discovery such as Carl Super because it's proof that civilization in South America is far older and far more complex than was traditionally thought. So once you appreciate that, it doesn't become such a, you know, crazy idea that there werecivilizations flourishing in the Amazon. And now we have pretty solid evidence that there was.

 So now it's a matter of kind of going in and excavating that, which is probably harder than it >> Oh, yeah. >> You know, easier said than done, obviously, and you don't want to like destroy the whole Amazon rainforest and stuff, but I think there could be some really, really interesting stuff there, and I'd love to see it.

 There's still significant parts of the Amazon jungle that have never been seen period >> by anyone. And like I was telling you, I went down there last year for a couple weeks with Paul. >> And when you get underneath that canopy, you not even you don't have to go underneath the canopy. You could be right out on on the river and you just look around and you're like, "Holy [ __ ] I am a speck out here.

" Like just imagine, literally imagine mainland America except the entire thing is covered by 100 150 foot trees and filled with you know equator level ancient species and plant life and god who knows [ __ ] spirits and voodoo. I don't even know. But like you even have out there to this day an accepted fact that there's like unconted tribes like now >> living there.

 They know they're what their name implies. They're uncontacted. If you see them, you're probably dead, you know. And it's like the idea that there wouldn't be ancient civilizations emanating from this place who would have figured out on a very unique plot of land, if that's what you want to call it, as well.

 I mean, you're talking about a place that has a completely different type of agriculture if you're going to do it. It has, you know, it's not most of it's obviously not on an ocean. It's it's on a river that runs through it and a bunch of tributaries. Like the room for innovation that is way different than what we would see in other ancient civilizations around the world is vast.

>> Yeah. And that's what I was alluding to earlier, like the Amazon and what we're discovering there is just shows that civilization doesn't have to follow this path that we've decided it has to follow. It doesn't have to follow the Mesopotamian model. It can be done in so many different ways.

 It doesn't have to be mass agriculture. It's completely dependent on the environment that these people were living in. And these what looked to be civilizations in South America probably did it in a vastly different way to the civilizations of the old world. And that just shows that human ingenuity is like a really, you know, variable thing.

 We're such an adaptable species. We can just do different things depending on our environment. Depending on the challenges and the pressures that we face, we can adapt and flourish in so many different ways. And the Amazon is is testament to that. And that kind of points to a further point about, you know, the whole world like we we're looking for these civilizations that are based on this model, but they don't have to look like that.

 There can be so many different models of of civilization and we shouldn't just cancel something out because it doesn't fit this checklist. There's so many different ways that it can happen. >> Yeah. And when you if you just break it down to the base case of what we talk about civilization wise, like what's accepted parliament, right? Incas.

 I'm just talking South America in general right now. Incas, Aztecs, Mayans, mechs. I know there's some others, but like those those are the main ones that people talk about. And these are all civilizations that exist far outside, let's say, the center of the Amazon jungle. You know, you got the Incas on on the west coast.

 You got the Mayans in between Mexico and Guatemala, like that area roughly. Correct me in the comments. You got the Aztecs up in Mexico. I don't even remember where where were the old Mexican >> uh I think I'm I'm not an expert. I think around Mexico kind of region. >> Yeah, that's I might be wrong as well stuff. Let's just get >> Luke stuff.

 You need to get Luke in here for that one. >> Yeah. >> Southern Mexico, right? So like then you have this whole vast area of land where it's like, huh, we never really wrote down a story of who was in there. As if there wouldn't be people in there. And by the way, you bring up Oriana and that journey that he then dictated.

 I believe if I remember correctly and we could pull this up de to check me but the diary so to speak was taken by the priest that was with him or the monk that was with him who also is a known name. I don't know if we can find that but he was the one that was writing down what they saw. They basically tra started on the west coast and then traveled all the way across to the Atlantic Ocean down the river and they passed these quote unquote this city of gold with you know like gold pyramids and people and lights and action and I just I I don't understand why

historians wouldn't be open to the fact that something like that would exist. Yep, there it is. The most famousexample is Barollame de Lacassus, a priest who documented the actions of concisadors, though he was not a concisador himself and his work was critical of their brutality. Is that the same one? Or can we type in Francisco Deorana priest? Let's do that.

That might be the same one. It's de Oriana like Yeah. Who was the guy? >> Father Gasper. >> Yeah, Gasper Dear. That's it. Car Carvajal. He was he was the one who documented it. So, you know, you're getting it from multiple sources in that way. He had men on this journey with him, I think, who corroborated that.

 And now we have these stories as well. To this day, people talk about El Dorado and where it could be. I mean, there's a famous Percy Faucet died trying to go find it. You know, greatest explorer probably in modern history right there. Have you looked at that case very much? >> Not really. No. >> Percy Faucet thing.

>> No. >> That's so fascinating to me. >> He just like that dude was about the action. Went down there with his son and his son's friend and then they never came back the last journey they took. But like the other thing people I don't think appreciate is that there's not like hiking trails or walking trails in the [ __ ] Amazon.

 You want to go into the Amazon, you bring a machete and you break you have to break trees in front of you, >> you know, to go a mile is like walking 20 miles somewhere else, maybe even more, you know. So the the ability to explore this and all the things you can run into. That's why governments who technically have parts of these lands, whether it be Brazil or Brazil, Peru or whatever, they're not coming out there to police.

 You know, when [ __ ] happens to Paul, like >> Yeah. >> You don't even call the military. There's no one to call. It's just like, "Oh, sorry. >> You got to sort it. >> Guess they got you, bro." >> Yeah. And I think I think part of the problem with South America is because of you know what happened when the Europeans came is that we don't really have a recorded history like we do in ancient Egypts and Mesopotamia and stuff like that.

 We don't have that continuous history that tradition that kind of >> because it basically got wiped out. And that means that there's just vast vast mystery there that isn't quite the same in in the old world. And um there's so much fascinating stuff in stuff in South America that doesn't quite make sense. Like you look at so much of the megalithic stonework and then you look at the culture that mainstream archaeology says built it and it just doesn't line up at all.

 Like if you look at >> who did they say built it? >> Well well it depends what we're talking about but if we're talking about so I was kind of referencing like some of the sites in Peru. Um, so places like Oay Titambo and Sashi Huan and stuff like these incredible sites with these massive megalithic constructions and then you look at what they say about the Inca and it's like this doesn't line up like how how are they doing this? I don't know so much about this site, but there's a the site O Titambbo.

Again, pronunciation is probably horrifically wrong, but it's it's up a mountain, right? And they've transported these incredibly massive stones and positioned them on top of this mountain, but the quarry is on the side of another mountain. So, they've quarried these stones.

 They've transported them all the way down this mountain, through a valley, across a river, then up another mountain. And it's like, how have they done that? Because when we look at the ink and you know technology, it's just like >> Yeah. >> chisels and ropes and stuff. >> How much are we talking weight again on these things? >> I don't know off the top of my head, but they're very big.

>> It's like tons. >> Yeah. Yeah. Very, very big. And >> and we're talking about potential hundreds of miles. They're taking them. >> Not necessarily hundreds of miles, but I mean maybe in some cases, but you know, it's the terrain up a mountain, down a mountain, across rivers. Like, how are you doing that? Why are you doing that? It doesn't it just doesn't line up with what we know about the Incan civilization.

Um yeah, and then there's sites like Tanaku in Bolivia which has these incredible like precision cut blocks and stuff and it's like how are they doing that? There's no explanation for that. And they just because we know the Incer existed. We're like it was the Inca. The Inca was existed in this region.

 So they built this. How do they do it? Well, they just did it. >> They just did it. >> Don't ask questions. >> Yeah. I mean, >> there's one right there. Whoa. >> I'm not sure if that's attributed to the Inca, but uh >> how big that goddamn thing is, though. >> It doesn't it doesn't line up with the known capabilities of the civilizations of the region is the point I'm making.

Um, which is interesting. I'm going to go outside academics with this question, okay? But do you ever just sit there and like you're staringat the screen and you sit back and you go, "Fuck it. It must have been aliens. >> I don't know. I don't usually go to aliens. I usually go to humans because I think humans are really incredible.

>> Sorry. Yeah. Sorry. I don't usually go to aliens because >> Yeah, I just think humans are really incredible and it probably was humans that did it. I just think the humans were far more sophisticated and there's so much that we've lost and we just assume that what we have is all that there was.

 Like we know that the Incer existed. We think it was the Inca. But I think there could be vastly more civilizations, especially in South America, that we just don't know about. We have no history of many of these South American cultures that we do know of, they recorded all their history orally, and then obviously when they all died, that was all lost, >> right? And so we just don't know.

>> Do we know why they didn't like write it down? >> I don't know. But that's another thing about these cultures. They didn't Yeah. They didn't even have a written script. And apparently that's one of the hallmarks of civilization, but the Inca didn't have a written script. They had this uh they used ropes.

 Uh I can't remember what it's called, like queer. That's probably wrong, but they used uh ropes to like kind of uh record keep effectively and really sophisticated, don't get me wrong, but they didn't have a written script. And yet they're considered civilization. So why Quebec? They always say, "Oh, they didn't have a written script, not civilization.

" >> Subjective. It's completely Yeah. Yeah. You got it. >> Close enough. >> All right. Can we go back to that, Joe? Read what that That's what it looks like. So, Kipu are recordeping devices fashioned from knotted cords. They were historically used by various cultures in the central Andes of South America and prominently by the Inca Empire.

 A kipu usually consists of cotton or camelid fiber corbs and contains categorized information based on dimensions like color, order, and number. for the Inca in particular use knots tied in a decimal positional system to store numbers and other values in Kipu cords depending on its use and the amount of information it's stored given Kipu may have anywhere from a few to several thousand chords.

 So it's extremely sophisticated. >> It's not just like tying one rope and saying look we did something. I mean it's extremely sophisticated. It's just a totally different form of writing. It's not writing but you know what I mean. >> Oh yeah. No, it's really sophisticated. I don't want to take anything away from the Inca like they were an incredible civilization and they you know they were very sophisticated in many ways but my argument is they're just the ones we know about right what about everything that came before them we don't really

know about that and so we just assume there was nothing and then this all plays into the >> the idea that we've had around the history of the Americas right so we've only >> we always thought that human history in the Americas was extremely recent and that's kind of built into this argument that you These were the first civilizations in the Americas because humans weren't in the Americas for very long.

 So the traditional argument was Clovis first, right? You know about you know about Clovis first? >> Remind me. >> So Clovis first was the argument for a long time about the first humans to reach any type of humans to reach Americas. And this was that humans didn't reach the Americas until about 13,000 years ago, which is incredibly recent if you think about how old our species is, right? Any type of human.

But this and this was the paradigm. This was fiercely defended paradigm for a long long time. Like people lost their careers over trying to dispute this for like the whole of the 20th century. This was the accepted idea that humans didn't reach the Americas until 13,000 years ago. >> What's this called? Clovis what again? >> So the culture is called the Clovis culture.

 The idea was called the Clovis first theory. So that the Clovis people were the first in the Americas. >> Yeah, I want to pull that up. We have a different guy named Clovis right now up. Oh yeah, that's some like uh >> Yeah, it keeps bringing up some >> some Frank King. Yeah, >> dynasty king. >> Yeah, not him. You want to type in the Clovis culture.

>> I don't think we've talked about this on the pod before. I I've heard that term, but I don't think we talked about this. The Clovis first theory was the long-held belief that the Clovis people were the first humans in the Americas, arriving around 13 There you go. 13,500 years ago by crossing a land bridge from Siberia and spreading south through an ice-free corridor.

 The theory is now largely rejected because the discovery of pre-clos archaeological sites such as the Monte Verde in Chile and Paisley caves in Oregon which show evidence of human presence in the Americas at least a thousand years earlier.>> Yeah. And so this is like a great example of of the dogma of archaeology. This is why people usually bring this up because >> archaeology basically suppressed or North American archaeology basically suppressed this find.

 Well, a lot of these finds so like sites like Monte Bing in Chile that was dated to around 15,000 years ago, potentially up to 20,000 years ago. So that's obviously before Clovis. Lots of people were not happy about that when that was discovered in the 1970s by a guy called uh Tom Dillah, I think. And like honestly, he he basically almost had his career destroyed because he had these dates of this site.

 And uh he even had um I know that Dan Richards, Dan D. Duncan, I don't know if you've heard about that guy. Yeah. But he um he always talks about um how North American archaeologists basically tried to get this guy almost killed because he was making these uh statements. So they wrote a letter to so he lived in uh so this is in Chile and Chile was run by a dictator at that point uh what's his name can't remember his name pine pico or something like that anyway people can search >> what years are we talking >> so this was in the 80s and the site he

dated to around 14,000 years ago >> going to kill I know the name >> yeah I can't what I gave was wrong there dictator >> something like pino or Pin pin. >> Pinch. Yeah. Yeah, that's the one. >> Yeah, I knew you were on it. Yeah, >> I had the P. Um, so yeah. So, so these this archaeologist even wrote a letter to to them saying that Tom Dillah was a CIA plant, which is like a it's a really dangerous thing to do, man.

 Like, he could have been killed for that because they were so against this find because, you know, it made them look really stupid, right? Cuz they were all behind this paradigm. Clovis first 13,000 years ago. And this this guy's here saying, you know, I've got evidence that it's way older than that.

 Anyway, long story short, he was eventually proven right. There was another cave another site in uh Canada called Bluefish Caves, which was uh even older, I think. >> Bluefish Caves. >> Bluefish Caves. Yeah. Uh so this was an archaeologist called archaeologist called uh what's his name? I've forgotten his name.

 Jacqu Jac, that's his name. Um >> yeah, there it is. >> Yeah. The site was first excavated by archaeologist Jacques Shank Mars. Can we scroll down deep? It's right there. Between 1977 and 1987 and the initial radiocarbon dating suggested an age of 24,000 before present. This was considered controversial in contrast with the Clovis first theory yada yada yada.

 Can you go up deep? I just want to grab this. So, Bluefish Caves is a site in Yukon, Canada, located 54 kilometers southwest of the Vintut Gwitchin community of Old Crow. I have no idea where that is, but hopefully people do. It has been suggested that human occupation. Yeah, we already read that part. Okay, >> so yeah, I mean, but he this guy was vilified for this.

 Like he was >> finding something. >> Yeah. And he his career was destroyed and he didn't have a career because he found this. >> And isn't that crazy? >> It's so crazy. And he was eventually vindicated like recently, like in the last 15, 20 years. Oh, >> that's nice. Is he dead now? >> I think so. Yeah, I think he is dead.

>> Don't you love when we do that? Someone like lives their whole life going, "I'm telling the truth." No, you're not. And then they die and you're like, "Oh, sorry. Dead." See? Yeah. Died in 2021. >> So, he probably lived just long enough to see himself vindicated, but his career was ruined. >> That's unbelievable.

 for doing what he was supposed to do and making an incredible discovery and proving archaeology wrong, but his career was destroyed basically. And there's a few examples like that. Um, but the point I'm making is that we don't know anymore how old human history in the Americas is. We have no idea because Clovis first is overruled.

 And there's an even older site called a White Sands Footprints in New Mexico >> um where they discovered these footprints that are dated to around 23,000 years old. Very solid dating. So that shows that humans have been here for at least 23,000 years, which is, you know, 10,000 years older than Clovis. Yeah, there you go. Undisputed.

>> Oh yeah, those are human feet. >> Yeah. So that's the oldest accepted evidence, but there's loads of other sites that are way older that are a bit more controversial. But my argument is that we really do not know how long human beings have been in the Americas. And that's also like when you when especially when you're looking at South America, forget North America for a second, which is certainly has a lot of great arguments as well, but like you're talking about climates that are goddamn near or on the equator. So if you're if

you're most concerned about, you know, ice periods where, you know, people can't survive because there's no agriculture and shit's frozen, well, that's the least likely place for thatto be the case. Like that's why when we look at ancient civilizations, other places, a lot of times they're in not always, but like the ones we talk about like Egypt, not too far from the equator, right? Like you're you're looking at places that have warmer climates and therefore have more potential, I guess, to survive. That's a

broad way of putting it, but it's like why you would why you would assume that forget even the Clovis first period. Why you would assume that the oldest species human species we know about in South America might be a few thousand years old or something and not older than that. Doesn't even It doesn't even make sense.

 It would be an amazing It has its dangers like anywhere else, but it would be an amazing climate to live in. >> Mhm. Yeah. The best. especially South America as you say. But then there's other sites. There's a site called the Seri Mastadon site. Have you heard of that? >> Serusi Mastadon. >> Seri Mastadon. >> Siruti.

 I think Lucas talked about this, but let's bring it up. >> I'm sure he has. Yeah. I mean, it's a very This is very controversial, but there was a paper published in Nature, which is, you know, the most pre prestigious mainstream journal there is. And this is um Yeah. So, they found these broken mastadon bones that look like they've been broken by humans, some kind of humans.

 And this site's dated to 130,000 years ago. >> 130,000. Oh [ __ ] Sir Rudy Mastadon site is a paleontological and possible archaeological site in San Diego County, California. In 2017, broken Mastadon bones at the site were dated at around 130,700 years ago. The bones were found with cobblestones displaying use wear and impact marks among the otherwise fine grain sands.

 Researchers have proposed that these marks were caused by the intentional breakage of the broken bones by hominins using the cobblestones. If true, that would be older by far than the scientific consensus for the habit. Yeah, that's Yeah, you already nailed all this. I don't know why I [ __ ] read, but you know what I mean? That that's that would if that's true, that would push back human history in the America by another 100,000 years, which is might work, >> you know? Exactly.

 That's like four or five times longer than we think. >> And so what does that suggest? Like this all buys into the argument of my channel basically, which is that human history everywhere is far older. >> Of course it is. >> Than we think. >> Of course it is. >> And there's there's other sites as well, but I mean there's just there's a lot.

>> Yeah. It sounds like you could go on for days. I mean it's like it's great. What what is the ones that we talk about, which could include, by the way, some older ones that now have evidence to be found. What what's the most intriguing civilization in South America that you've studied? >> Depends what you mean by civilization because well I mean but I mean I I find the the civilizations that we accept in South America really interesting.

 You know the Inca and the Aztecs like it's really interesting stuff but I mean I don't really focus on that because >> I focus on the older stuff. I focus on the controversy. But that's not to say these things aren't interesting and people often get that confused with me. I think people like criticize me a lot because they're like, you know, you you're downplaying the sophistication of these civilizations.

 It's like I'm not doing that. Like I think they're really interesting. It's just that I have no beef, you know, with how they're presented. My beef is with this idea that, you know, it's all been cut off at this point and nothing happened before then. So that's what I'm like really going hard at. So I mean I don't know what I I find them all interesting.

 I have no favorites, you know. I don't I don't choose. But yeah, I mean there is it's a super fascinating place. I think South America is so interesting because we know so little and I it's not like my area of expertise like as you say I'm a bit of a generalist. I kind of just hop all over the place wherever I find something interesting.

 But I think there's a lot of mystery there. So >> yeah, you seem to store all of it though. >> You got to have a memory with it. >> What was the site you were telling me about right before the new one in Mexico? I think you were you had just made a video on this or were making a video on it. >> Uh I think you mean way I can't pronounce it. It's all right.

 Way to wake or way at Laco or something like that. That's >> Do you know the first letter of how it's spelled? >> Yeah, it's spelled H U E Y A T L A O. >> Okay. I purposely didn't ask you about this when you mentioned it cuz I wanted to be surprised on here. But what what was going on here? So, this site's super interesting because basically in the 1960s a Mexican archaeologist found some artifacts here in this is in Mexico I believe. Yeah.

Near >> Pella >> and he found these artifacts and then awhole team of American archaeologists came in and they discovered more artifacts and then they got these team of geologists in to date the kind of the rocks and the sediments around it. And there was this layer of volcanic ash that was above the artifacts.

 And they sent this this ash off this ash off for testing and they were expecting it to be you know like 15,000 because this was in the time of the Clovis first theory. So they were expecting it to kind of align with that theory. And then this ash came back with dating of around 250,000 years old and the artifacts were below this layer and the artifacts were in an undisturbed context.

 Right? So they hadn't been corrupted or anything. They were hadn't been they hadn't slipped down there or anything. They'd been there since before this ash was deposited. And this ash was deposited according to their testing and they did multiple tests on this in like with various techniques to at least 250,000 years ago.

 Some of their tests were like 300 400,000 years ago. So if that's correct, that means that there was some kind of human making tools in Mexico. So in the Americas, you know, 250,000 years ago at least, which is just like ridiculous because Yeah. And this was in the time of Clovis first. And then this is another example of archaeological dogma because people weren't happy with that.

 Like this guy got his whole artifact collection, seized the site. >> Seized. >> Mhm. >> By the government. >> By the Mexican government. Yeah. >> Yeah. They're real not corrupt. >> They weren't happy with it. And um the the according to the archaeologist's own testimony or the geologist's own testimony I should say the uh site was cornered off by effectively the Mexican army or armed guards and they came there they seized the artifact collection and they said you can't do this.

 The um the work that they produced wasn't published. They they couldn't get it published in archaeological journals. And then when people came back to the site about 10 years later to be like, we're going to sort this out once and for all, it had all been like raised flat and there was nothing there anymore. So there's so the artifacts are gone and the site is gone.

 But so we just have these stories and this dating that suggests that these tools were in the Americas 250,000 years ago. So you can't prove it because it's all gone now. But this these geologists were very certain about their dates. And there's been some more recent testing on the on the ash, I think, um, which aligns with these dates. I can't remember who did it.

 Um, or what the testing method was. There's a really cool video by this guy called Will Brown. Uh, his channel's called Incredible History. He did a great job of um, >> shout out Will Brown. >> Shout out Will Brown. He's awesome. >> He did a great job of uh, kind of outlining it all. I did a video too on it, but I point people to his video because he he goes more in depth on it.

Um, >> can we pull that up? Give him >> Yeah. Give him some props, man. He's good. >> Yeah. Will Brown, what's the channel called? History. >> Channel's called Incredible History. >> Incredible. >> And his video on >> I feel like I've seen that. >> Yeah, he's great. His video on Laco or however you say it is um >> that's that's how it looks to me.

 You're >> all the comments on my video are like, "This guy can't pronounce this [ __ ] thing, >> which is fair enough." But um >> it's for engagement. >> Yeah, this this is the video. Um >> yes, I have seen this guy before. >> Yeah, he's good. uh he does a really good job of kind of outlining the dating, the cold controversy about the cover up and what it could potentially suggest about a vastly older human presence in the Americas.

 Then when you start to look at all these things adding up, it's like, you know, how long have we been in the Americas, man? Like, how long have human beings beings been there? And thus, why are we against the idea of civilization there being, you know, far far older than the Inca obviously, but even Carl Super and Pineo and these civilizations we're finding recently, how far back does it go? >> Yeah.

 And you're pointing out a lot of things that were found years ago in many cases and just didn't get attention. And it makes it does, you know, you don't want to just make your head go conspiracy on everything like that, but you would wonder why [ __ ] Walter Kronite wouldn't have wanted to cover this on CBS, like finding something like this. I think that's very interesting.

6:00 news, you know, if I'm going back in time. >> It's not even like conspiracy. Like, it's >> it's not I'm saying the conspiracy of people not covering it. >> But that's I don't even think that's a conspiracy. I think they deliber they like literally covered it up because they were not happy.

 Like you have it with Monte Verie, you have it with Bluefish Caves. >> They, you know, they they wanted to suppress this because, you know,>> North American archaeologists in the 20th century had built their whole careers around Clovis first. They'd written the textbooks. They taught the lessons. They'd kind of constructed their whole identity around being the source of information on North America.

And then you have these people coming out like this is not just wrong, but this is almost ridiculously wrong. like this. You could be hundreds of thousands of years out here. So, they weren't happy about that. But >> do you ever wonder if let me explain this so I can ask the question properly. But like if the intelligence agencies had the technology, and there's very good evidence that they do, to kind of simulate the effect of things on society, like if you told society that a truth that they had accepted for a long

time wasn't a truth, how would they react on a mass scale and things like that? Do you ever wonder if like intelligence agencies could have some involvement when it comes to ancient history? because perhaps there have been things found that would so shake the structure of maybe every world religion that's ever existed or people's basic, you know, quote unquote meaning of life that they're like, "Oh [ __ ] that would crash society and people can't know about it.

" Do do you ever wonder that? >> I do wonder that. I think it would have to be something like really crazy like, you know, aliens or something or just like a really really advanced civilization back in the past. I don't personally believe that. A lot of people like in this space push the idea that, you know, this has all been hidden from us and there's this like elite that know our true past.

>> I don't buy into that at all. I think it's more when things are covered up. I think it's more like a human idea of, oh, I'm wrong about my job, my whole identity, so I'm not going to push this. I don't think we have evidence of like an advanced civilization from way back in history that people know about and are hiding.

 I don't think, you know, the intelligence agencies would see if it was something like aliens, then maybe. But I don't think if it was a human civilization, I don't think that would like put people out too much, you know? But >> yeah, >> you know, maybe it would. I don't know. But >> yeah, the aliens thing I think is a whole different level.

 And I I could as much as like I want to know like I could see why, you know, something like that might not be disclosed. And that's also when guys from the government, including, you know, some people have come on my show before. It's who I haven't had on in a while. You know, it makes me wonder like, all right, why why are you here talking about this and tell this is probably not the true thing. It's probably something else.

Like, I feel like you wouldn't be telling us this. But, you know, it's interesting because if we don't even know what happened on our planet >> and every day it doesn't get blown up by like 6,000 years like Obey. It gets blown up by [ __ ] a million years sometimes like the one in China. Well, what else don't we know about the forget the solar the galaxy around us and you know how we could have gotten here? I mean, it's it's strange to even think about why we're alive or what caused it or you know, we're all like a one in

four trillion chance of just being born in the first place. Like, let's start with that. >> You know, your mind can go to crazy places thinking about this stuff. But I do I I like right now, you know, you go in phases doing this thing, but I I I like talking with guys like you that are focused on, you know, the the history that we can find on our Earth and kind of starting there because if we don't even understand the basics of, you know, what we have here with how the [ __ ] are we going to understand what we got going on

up there other than looking at the planets, you know? I mean, that's almost the the point I make all the time is we don't know as much as we think we know about anything about human history, about our existence, about the universe. Like, we think that we we've got it all figured out, right? But we don't.

 We don't even know who we are. We don't know what what's going on in our heads. Like, >> so yeah, I think there's so much still to be discovered and I just hope we can do it before, you know, everything falls apart. >> Yeah. I I'd like to have an optimistic view. I think we're in some weird times right now, but things will come together.

 Like I said, we're still young with social media even, you know. I think I do have hope we'll figure out how to use these tools and this access we have to each other a little more constructively >> before we all kill each other. Yeah. >> Right. Exactly. That's that's the downside here. But you were also telling me before you're interested in a lot of different things in history.

 like and I always I love this when when guys like you are known publicly for having one expertise but then you're like yeah I also kind of this stuff too>> and you were saying you would >> maybe eventually if not on this channel on a separate channel cover things like I think you said like World War I or stuff like this like what what are your other favorite parts that you know that aren't ancient so to speak? >> I love it all mate.

 I I love all of history. Um that's why I did it at university. That's why I do what I do. Um, but yeah, I mean like things like World War I, I have such a huge fascination with World War I. I think >> World War I, maybe it's partly because I'm British, but I think World War I was such a pivotal moment. It kind of almost was the beginning of the modern world.

It was the end of the kind of old society which was run by like kings and empires and stuff. And then it all it was like this age of like such illustrious almost hedenism that all came to a head like these people had so much money and these empires were so flourishing that they just didn't know what to do so they just ended up just creating the worst inferno ever and everyone died basically like it's almost like the beginning of the end of Britain I think I think cuz Britain was obviously the most powerful country in the world at the turn of the

20th century and had so much money and so much influence and so much power that it didn't even it almost didn't really realize where it was. And then you have this new upstart country in Germany coming along and trying to like take the crown. And yeah, the fact that all these societies just basically mass industry created a you know they basically poured the entire society's resources into death and everyone got slaughtered.

 And I I just find that whole period so interesting. And then what what came out of that which was you know transfer transfer of power across the Atlantic to you guys and America and then obviously all the imp implications in Europe which led to the rise of Nazism in Germany and led to the the second world war which led to the cold war which led to you know the modern world.

 So >> the domino >> Yeah. Exactly. I just think that one bullet. >> Exactly. I exactly like what one bullet led to everything in a way. It's also actually very sad to me how ignored World War I is specifically because then you had World War II, which is now more recent comparatively speaking, happen, you know, just over 20 years later >> and break out.

 But you had some of the most like brutal warfare ever in World War I with the trench warfare. Just, you know, pure savagery of behindthe-scenes suits paying for everyone else to kill each other. I think I think probably the wildest story that paints that picture is obviously I'm sure you're familiar with this, but the the when there were too many wolves in the one battle and they had to call like a ceasefire for a few days, the Germans and I think it was the Germans and the Brits and the French like were playing pickup soccer together.

>> Yeah. >> And then they had to Yeah. Exactly. And then they had to go back into their trenches two days later, same guys, and shoot each other. Like that's nuts. >> Yeah. So nuts. that whole conflict is cuz the whole point of the war there was no point for that war. That's what makes it so like ridiculous in my opinion because at least when you look at World War II like you can see there was a a reason behind that like >> you know Hitler was taking over the whole of Europe.

 He had these crazy genocidal ambitions. He wanted to take over the world and exterminate everyone who wasn't like him you know and clearly a bad guy. Let's fight that guy. It's a just war. World War I there was no reason to do it. It was just these stupid alliances that all kind of led to a domino effect which led to the entirety of Europe declaring war on each other.

 And and it was the first industrial war. I think that's what makes it so interesting and so tragic because you had all these societies that thought about war in the traditional sense. They thought it was this romantic thing cuz Europe had been at peace for a hundred years basically >> up until the 20th century. So war was this, you know, faroff distant thing that they thought about Napoleonic times.

 basically like these men in fancy coats riding horses and going to glory and there was these little skirmishes and then you know you trade a little province here with me and then the war's over. So that was what the idea of wars. They were like okay we'll have a little war but it wasn't. The world had changed.

 There was these mass industrial societies. They had the ability to call up millions and millions and millions of men. They had weapons like the machine gun and like massive artillery. And it just led to this horrific stalemate where the whole of Europe was just trench warfare with just pouring millions of men into this zone of death and slaughtering them all.

 For what? Because >> for what? >> You're allied with me and I'm allied with you and he's allied with him and he shot him in Savvo. So that means that hehas to attack him. So you have to attack me. So it's just it's ridiculous. And yeah, >> how many people, Dave, can we Google this? How many people died in World War I? Cuz it's a obviously horrific number.

>> Millions and millions and millions. >> Yeah. People always talk about World War II, but World War I over 37 million casualties. So that's 15 to 22 million deaths and 23 million wounded military personnel and civilians combined over like a 4-year period. Yeah, >> that is absolutely absurd. 8.5 million military as in deaths, 13 million civilians, and then total twow.

Yeah. See, I I remember I listened this probably like six years ago, maybe seven years ago, listened to Dan Carlin's >> Yeah. Blueprint McGreed. >> Oh my god. >> That's my favorite history podcast episode ever. incredible and you're like, how are we ignoring this? And then to your point, the way that it closed up is what set the set the stage.

 You had everything from the Treaty of Versailles, which then basically like completely hamstrung Germany and allowed for a vacuum to suck up with their economy for someone like Hitler to then seize power. all the way to I I I hope I get the name right like the Sykes Pico agreement which just >> carved up the Middle East and set up just like willy-nilly you know a bunch of dudes in an office in Europe like oh this will work >> yeah you can trace back the whole current Middle East conflict to to that basically >> exactly bow for declaration was back

then too like it's it's absurd and then World War II I'd love your perspective on this like history's written by the victors there's no history ever that's 100% right it's just a a fact of life. I always cite the American Revolution as an amazing example. Like I study the hell out of that war. It's amazing.

 There are literally things that are actually written in the history books that you'll read, whether it be HW Brands or some other brilliant historian from that era that like when it's when the war is talked about or the documentaries made, they don't really mention that. So even the stuff like some stuff that's written down, they won't mention.

 And that stuff I'm referring to will be things that are like negative towards the revolutionaries in the United States. meaning like, "Yeah, we did some stuff wrong in that war, too." But I, you know, I I'm not one of these like it's everything or nothing or like 5%'s wrong, so we're going to throw out the 100% baby out with the bathwater.

 But I can like look at it and say, "Okay, I'm very glad, all due respect to your people, that, you know, we did this revolution and we're able to form this great country and these guys were amazing and the [ __ ] they came up with, but yeah, they did a few things during the war as well that probably wasn't totally fair to the British for sure.

" not and that certainly happened a lot in the other direction and then yeah like in the constitution they [ __ ] that up and you know didn't abolish slavery like meaning you can point to things and call it nuance without excoriating the entire thing and what's really concerning me about society now with history in general but I think we've seen a major aspect of it formulate around World War II is that we're looking at narratives that have been told to us before and people are plucking on you that 1% that might be a little different than it was

written. And then they're pulling out that that bottom card from the house of cards and saying, "Look, the whole thing comes down. It's actually all fake." And they'll say, you will literally hear people say things sometimes like, you know, uh, Hitler wasn't great, but it was actually Church Hill that was the bad guy.

 And, you know, we should be, you should be able to discuss anything. You should be able to hash things out. I don't want to like shut down conversation, but when people are running away with narratives like that and suddenly now using the internet and algorithms to push them and suddenly report them as truth, do you ever get concerned about how we're discussing like even modern history? >> Yeah, I mean historical revisionism it's it's worth it's worth exploring for sure as you say, but you you do have to be careful because as you say when you

when you start taking these narratives you can like say this means this and then the whole thing falls down. Exactly. Like was Churchillberg bad guy of World War II? No. Like he wasn't a perfect guy, but he was a he was a man of his era, right? He was a he grew up in the at the end of the 19th century when Britain had the British Empire and was you know oppressing everyone around the world like >> British Empire had positives but also there was definitely a mindset amongst the especially the elite of Britain that

you know they were better than everyone else and Churchill was a product of that and you can point to many things that he did that were you know not great and the guy clearly thought that white Britishmen were the best thing in the world but at the same time more than almost anyone else I think in the world.

 He was instrumental in stopping Hitler. Right. Because if Britain had >> surrendered and Britain was extremely close to surrendering to Germany in 1940. Yes. And Churchill was basically the guy that stopped that happening. Like the British government wanted or factions of the British government wanted to surrender when France fell.

Yeah. >> For good reason. Like you're looking at this you because people always forget the context of World War I. like Britain and France and Germany had been through the most horrific traumatic experience only, you know, less than 20 years or just over 20 years prior. So all these people are still alive.

 All these people can still remember an entire generation of men being slaughtered, their kids or their brothers or their friends wiped out dead. And you're thinking, "Fucking hell, lads. The last thing we want to do is do this all over again." And yet it's happening. Let's just call it quits. like this Hitler guy like yeah he's a bit of a nutter but is it worth wiping out another 3 million men from our population but Churchill was like the one guy that was like no we're not having this we're going to fight this guy we're going to beat this guy so when

people say like Churchill was the villain of World War II because he you know didn't continue with the policy of appeasement or whatever I'm not quite not quite down on the arguments why people say that but he clearly wasn't and he clearly more than anyone else was the guy that kept Britain in the war and thus enable abled the Allied cause to keep going.

 Thus enabled America to eventually join the war and thus enabled the Allies to win the war and thus enabled Nazism and fascism to lose and for you know Western democracy America to become the prominent power at least with the Soviet Union then eventually defeat the Soviet Union which is >> a preferable outcome to >> yes >> fascism.

 this and and you're underlying an amazing point here which is that a lot of people who will look at this I find with revisionism want to assume the world is a perfectly balanced place where the logical outcome is always going to win and then when they see an outcome that involves using logic where something has to lose they cannot accept that that's the case and what I mean is in this context made a decision that the fastest growing GDP in the world which was fascist Nazi Germany there starting a war on multiple fronts and taking over countries by the

day. He made a decision that that was the worst immediate problem. That doesn't mean that he didn't think the communists were were a problem. Of course, in fact, he protested like the whole time like, "Oh, we got to work with this [ __ ] Stalin guy." Like, he knew that was a huge issue. He's the guy who invented the Iron Curtain and all that.

 But he made the best of two bad decisions at the time that unfortunately, yes, World War II is the bloodiest conflict ever. Tens of millions of people died. That's terrible. I hate that that happened. The alternative of like the United States never getting into the war and me speaking [ __ ] German right now. >> Definitely me anyway. Yeah.

>> Like like that's worse. I'm sorry. It is. And maybe eventually that would have fallen, but there would have been even more destruction >> on the way. And and you know there's even misunderstandings of like how Church Hill eventually viewed like Chamberlain. like he disagreed with what Chamberlain did, but Chamberlain gets more [ __ ] in history than he should. He tried for peace.

 He did it the wrong way. It didn't work out. Hitler was not a guy you should listen to. But like he made the effort and then what did he say? He's like, "If you break this, I'm going to be forced to declare war on you." And he [ __ ] did. >> Yeah. >> You know, like that's what it is. And also people people ignore that Church Hill gave the eulogy at Chamberlain's funeral in like 1940 or 1941 and and he talked about, you know, this guy's going to be misunderstood in history.

 We had some disagreements, but like he tried. Yeah. And now this is what it is. Like people, you have to live in reality and reality sucks sometimes. But when you're looking at history, you also have the advantage of having some hindsight 2020. Don't use that the wrong way and assume you could have magically solved the problem back then, you know? >> Mhm.

 And you can completely understand Chamberlain's position, as I said, because of the First World War, because of the trauma. You think, "Let's do anything to stop this happening again." But a certain point, Hitler's just he's going for it, mate. He's he's he's ignoring all the deals you make with him. He's attacking all these countries. You've got to you've got to fight him eventually.

 And Chamberlain did come around to that, but at the end, he was the wrong guy. Churchill came in. Churchill was instrumental in keepingBritain, >> you know, in the war. Because if Britain had sued for peace, which they tried to do, well, they didn't try to do, but factions of the government really wanted to do, then Churchill wouldn't have remained in power, it probably would have been, have you ever heard of Oswald Mosley? >> I don't think so.

>> He was the fascist leader of well, the leader of the British fas fascist party at the time. So, it probably would have been someone like >> Mosley. >> Yeah. Okay. >> He's actually in Peaky Blinders, which I know. Yeah. Yeah. Um, so yeah, he would have it probably would have been someone like him who would have been put in place in Britain because Britain would have then presumably had like, you know, good ties with Nazi Germany.

 So then you might have had a fascist Britain, whole fascist, >> a bit like Hitler. >> Yeah, I guess I think he's probably modeling himself on Hitler because Hitler, I guess, was his ideological hero. >> Wow. >> You know, Britain like it we weren't it wasn't like >> people think of fascism now as like, oh, it's evil, >> but it hadn't happened yet.

 So people just seeing that as an alternative and it's like well Mussolini is doing pretty well in Italy. Hitler's [ __ ] smashing it in Europe. >> Why don't we try this Mosley guy? So someone like Churchill was the guy that kind of stopped that >> and led to democracy. >> Yeah. >> Winning. So >> also shout out to the Brits too, dude.

 I didn't cuz I didn't that was one part of World War II. I hadn't done like a huge deep dive on. I've looked at it my whole life. It's so fascinating to me. But like the Battle of Britain and that year, which is all prior to Pearl Harbor, by the way, and not just Church Hill, but like the whole context of the bombing raids back and forth between Britain and Germany on each other.

>> Insane, man. There were a lot of times where Britain could have folded there. And like you said, because of Church Hill and obviously a lot of other brave people, they didn't. And that when you really look at like between that and the the evacuation at Dunkirk and everything, being able to like keep a standing army together and you look at the pivot of being able to be like, "All right, let's have a foot to stand on to win this war.

" That's really they deserve a [ __ ] ton of credit for that. >> Yeah. So interesting how history can pivot on like so tiny like things and tiny amount of individuals like cuz Britain's always been throughout history, Britain was always a naval power, right? So that kept Britain secure and we could rule the seas through having the best navy and that's what led to the British Empire being what it was and everything like that.

But by the time you get to the 1940s that's kind of redundant because of air power. So Britain had this amazing navy but the Luwaffa could just dive bomb it and destroy it. So Britain was like how do we defend ourselves now? So they invented radar effectively and because they invented radar and radar was literally being invented at the time >> that the World War II broke out and the first test of British defense radar system was the Battle of Britain.

 And if they didn't have this invention, they wouldn't know when the bombers were coming. They wouldn't know where to send the very few fighters that Britain had to intercept these bombers. And the bombers were targeting all the airfields. And if the Luftwaffer bombers had wiped out the RAF, >> then the Luwaffer could then wipe out the Royal Navy.

 And then Germany has free reign on Britain. So without the invention of radar at the exact time by like I can't remember the guy's name but there was like a one or two people >> invention of radar we'll get it. >> So radar I think radar was a little bit older but the development of the technology into a you know sophisticated defense system literally happened because of necessity at that exact time and if that hadn't happened then the RAF would have been wiped out and obviously the bravery of the RAF >> they had a lot of inventions around

World War II in the nick of time. Are you talking about Robert Watson Watt? >> I'm not sure. I'm not sure the name. >> No, actually >> the British invention of radar. So that was the initial invention you're talking about when they figured out how to use it. >> Oh yeah. No, it was >> him. Okay.

 So the British invention of radar led by Sir Robert Watson Watt played a pivotal role in winning the battle of Britain. The chain home system was the world's first early warning radar network, providing the Royal Air Force with crucial advanced notice of German air raids, allowing them to scramble the fighters, their fighters, and effectively direct them to intercept the incoming bombers.

 Without radar, it is highly unlikely the RAF could have defeated the Lwaffa. And then the system could detect approaching aircraft from up to 80 miles away. That's amazing. Back then, >> yeah. And if like that hadn't that if that technology hadn't been just at thatexact point where it was possible to do that, the whole history of the world would look different.

 And if that these people hadn't managed to do it >> and and that's the thing, you make an amazing point about how this was only like 20 years after World War I. So people in Britain, they had fathers, sons, brothers, friends who died in that war. People knew >> the cost of the the most brutal cost of war.

 So, and and the United States even getting in in the last year, they knew it very well, too. So, totally understandable at there there were some isolationist feelings and then the war breaks out and Britain is getting attacked. So, they're forced to not be isolationist. But one of the things that I really didn't understand just how deep it went was how isolationist we were in America.

 I read this book when I was telling you I was looking into this a couple years ago called The Splendid in the Vile by Eric Larson which is about the one year of basically the bombing of Britain and he talks about like the relationship with it's basically from Church Hill's perspective and he talks about the relationship between Churchill and FDR and FDR knew this was all a problem but beginning with the May 1940 bombings when Churchill was like please help FDR had an election on November 5th 1940 and he was telling Churchill, he's like,

"Bro, I agree with you, but like my opponent is running complete isolationism, stay out of this, so I have to like try to run in his direction just to win an election. I don't think you understand. Like the whole country doesn't support getting involved, so I can't really help." He couldn't even give Churchill a couple totally broken boats that Congress was about to vote on to destroy.

 Like they were floating in the Caribbean, useless. And Churchill was like, "Fuck it. I'll take them." FDR had to come up with some backhanded like secret deal to try to even get them there. It was that isolationist. And so Churchill was like begging for a year and then it took Pearl Harbor to get the United States involved. >> Do you think Pearl Harbor was a false flag? >> Unfortunately, absolutely.

 I've had West Point [ __ ] commandos sitting there openly saying that as if it's common parlance. I have had a dude who wrote a book on the entire thing and the dude who was in the building that this picture on the wall is taken from which is Rockefeller Center from MI6 during the build up to World War II whose sole job was to try to get the United States involved.

 There are cables that show that FDR knew it was coming and that you know that's what it was. And the ultimate poison pill there is that, you know, hindsight 2020, cuz I I've never looked at a false flag before and been like, "Well, that was a good idea. It was [ __ ] horrible." You wonder though, if that hadn't happened, if the world would look a lot different >> because they knew it would force Hitler's hand cuz he was such a [ __ ] big dog guy to like declare a war because the war was only declared on Japan.

>> But they knew >> that would get Hitler involved and give him an excuse to be like, "Okay, well, [ __ ] you. were coming in too. That's That's a tough one, man. >> Yeah. I mean, it's very plausible, I think. Not that it was a false flag, but that they allowed it to happen. >> Yeah.

 Yeah. There's also like there's financial things related to that with what they did with like the oil I forget it off the top of my head, but like the oil exports I think involving Asia that would have forced Japan's hand to do. Fix me in the comments on that. Um, it's hazy, but there were a lot of things going on there and it get it gets weird, but you know, we you should talk about all these things for sure.

 You know, like I said, no war is is ever 100% on the up and up and all that, you know. >> Yeah. >> Interesting interesting time. But I mean, I think one thing that's probably underestimated in the West is the the World War II was basically won and lost on the Eastern front. I think >> at least agree with you. Yes. >> Because that that's the that's where it turned.

>> Yep. >> Because if Hitler had taken Moscow, if Hitler had knocked out the Soviet Union, he's in such a strong position even with America. But because, you know, Stalingrad happened because it turned on the Eastern front. That allowed, you know, that allowed the Allies to win effectively.

 And I think the Soviet Union probably don't get enough credit in the West probably because, you know, they're so ideologically opposed to us. And they're also the enemy. they became the enemy. But without that contribution, Hitler probably would have won or at least wouldn't have lost and there would have been some weird stalemate.

 Maybe they would have sued for peace. Although probably that goes against Nazi ideology, but >> yeah, I think that's underestimating the West because we have, you know, we have this narrative like Britain and America together, we won the war, we defeatedHitler, but I mean the real war was the Eastern Front, right? So >> it was all three.

 And there's no doubt that the Russians because the war literally ended up coming onto their land, civilians and military alike through the most bodies of the problem. I mean, that's that's by a lot. >> Mhm. >> And that absolutely is true. And again, it comes back to that you kind of had to pick the lesser two evils to work with.

 And at the time, you know, Cold War wasn't great and all that, but didn't drop 45 million bodies in that way, you know, on on battlefields and and with the civilians in the middle in a 4-year period or anything like that. Obviously, a lot of people died and there was destruction within the Cold War. I don't want to underestimate that.

But, you know, these are the decisions that have to get made at the time, and you could sit there and analyze them to death afterwards, and I still think the the right overall decision was made by the Allies, and it was what it was. Yeah, it had to be done, right? Um, it was the only logical decision at the time.

 But yeah, it's just crazy how recent all this was as well. I think people forget that this is only like, you know, 60, 70 years ago. >> Shaped our entire modern world. >> Like our grandparents generation lived through this. >> Had two guys sitting in that chair who fought in it. >> Really? >> Yeah. >> That's cool. >> Yeah.

 That's that's the kind of [ __ ] I'll tell my grandkids about and pull up the video and be like, "Look at that." >> Yeah. >> You know, but that shows you it's it's not too too long ago. real quick. Michael, this is going great. I just got to go to the bathroom and then we'll come right back. We got to talk some Egypt and stuff. >> Yeah, we do.

 I need to go to the bathroom. That's good. >> Cool. We'll be right back. You know what's one thing I also I was just thinking about this on on the bathroom break, but one thing I've never really looked at. There was this video I saw when I was going through like a hardcore ancient Rome phase, maybe like a year ago, where it showed a a CGI recreation of like Britain since the ancient Rome times and it takes you through like each era, but I've never really looked at the history of your country before ancient Rome and like who was there. Have you done a lot of work

on that? Not so much. But I mean the Romans came to our country and basically made it good for a long time and then they left and we went straight back to I guess the dark ages. But I mean Britain before the Rome before Rome was basically just Celtic tribes I guess in just different locations. There was no unification really.

 I mean have you ever heard of Queen Buudaca or Buddha? >> I don't think so. >> So she's pretty famous in Britain because >> Bua. >> Yeah. Um, she's famous in Britain because she's kind of seen as like a heroine of British identity, which is kind of a bit silly because we're not really the same. Yeah, there you go. And she was like this warlord and obviously she's a woman.

 So that like made it like ridiculous because that was >> Yeah, they were ahead of the times. >> Very ahead of the times. Yeah. And she like led some British tribe and she almost unified all the British tribes against the Roman forces in Britain and she almost won. That's the crazy thing. She almost took out the Roman uh occupation of Britain.

>> Was she around when I didn't look at the years there was she around when Caesar was actually leading the armies there or was this slightly >> just after I think what's the date here? AD60. Yeah. >> Oh yeah, that would like 53 or something, right? >> He's BC. He's like uh when did he die? He died like 40 BC or something like that.

>> Yeah, let's get that. >> So this is just in the start of the Roman Empire. So that's maybe this is just after Augustus. Yeah. 44 BC. March 15th, 44. >> What did I say? I was pretty close there, wasn't I? >> Yeah, you're right. I think it said 43. Yeah, you killing me right there. >> Pretty impressive. >> It's It's [ __ ] up there, bro.

 You got an encyclopedia. It's great. So, this lady was trying to unify all the tribes against >> the constantly incoming Roman army. But the Romans at this point would have already been occupying, >> right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But I mean, so yeah, I guess less is known about Britain before the Romans Romans because, you know, there wasn't we weren't really with it.

 We were just some random island on the edge of the known world. Like Britain was not a relevant place until quite recently in terms of historical >> Yeah. Like the last thousand years. >> Yeah. Even less than that. Like >> Britain was always just this outcrop on the edge of the known world, like this crazy island where these tribal people lived and no one went.

 And like the Romans hated Britain because it was such a hard place to run cuz it was so far away from their central power and >> it was this place that you had to cross the sea to get there and>> full of crazy Kelts and stuff like that. So >> a bunch of Conor McGregor's coming at you. >> Yeah, basically >> terrible accent, but whatever.

>> We'll go with it. Are you are you someone that's also like fascinated with ancient Rome? Do you study that a lot or >> Yeah, so basically that was my degree was a lot about ancient Rome. Um I really I'm really interested by Rome cuz you know it's a fascinating civilization right like the whole Roman Empire is so interesting and yeah so I I know a lot about it.

 I find the period from the transition from republic to empire uh very fascinating. You know >> how so? >> Because it was just a crazy time in world history, right? Where Caesar see. So do you know the story of it >> of Caesar getting whacked? >> Yeah. And like then the whole beef that happened after that and then what led to the formation of >> it was like now it's been a while but that was like when they had the the tripartite thing.

>> Yeah. You know your stuff. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Um, so yeah, I mean I find that whole period of history so fascinating because you had this Roman Republic and they were very, you know, they they were really proud about their identity of not having kings. You can almost make the comparison to the to the modern day with the no kings protest against but um not quite the same thing.

 Not to be clear, not quite the same thing. But they were they were terrified of dictators cuz they used to have kings way back in the very early days days of Rome of Rome and then they uh they became this republic and they were like we're never going to have a king again and then eventually they had these more and more powerful individuals and Caesar was one of them and Caesar effectively wanted to take control of all of Rome and he was becoming so powerful and he had this he basically conquered all of Gaul and you you could

say he almost conducted a holocaust in Gaul but that's a maybe that's a topic of conversation, but he was amassing all this power and they were terrified of him in the in the Senate because they didn't want a king and and he was acting like a king. So, they were like, "You can't come back here with an army.

 You can't you got to stay out there." And then he crossed the uh [ __ ] what's it called? >> This is Rubicon. >> Yeah, that's it. It's like a famous phrase and I forgot the name of the river, but he he crossed the Rubicon with his army and that was basically him declaring war on on Rome and then there was this big civil war which he eventually won.

 Um, and then he he wasn't an emperor, but he was almost the first emperor in spirit because he kind of took control of Rome. But then obviously people weren't happy about that. And so then he was assassinated by, you know, all the the senators. And that's that famous story. Um, and he's like brute, which I don't think he ever said, but that's a that's a Shakespeare line.

>> Hey, it's a good line. >> It's a good line. Exactly. So you might as well just take it. >> Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. >> Exactly. So he was assassinated. But then you had this power vacuum and you had his adopted son who was Octavian. >> Um you had Mark Anthony who was Caesar's right-hand man.

 And you also >> he was banging Cleopatra, right? >> They were both banging Cleopatra. >> Yeah. >> Different times but they were both banging Cleopatra. Fair play. Um and then you had what's the other guy called? >> That's pretty bad. >> Maybe Mark Anthony and then the third guy. >> I think he was Leopard Leopardus or >> I think that's right.

>> Something like that. >> That sounds familiar. Um, >> Mark Anthony, Octavian, and the third guy. That should bring it up. AI. Google AI should be smart enough. Grock will definitely be smart enough. >> Was it Lepodus? >> Yeah. >> Yep. God, I should have more confidence in myself. >> That's fine. >> Yeah.

 So, they um they basically had this massive civil war which um Octavian eventually won at the battle of Actum and then that led to Mark Anthony and Cleopatra committing suicide. Lepodus got knocked out earlier on. He was a bit of an irrelevance. >> And and then Octavian became Augustus and he was like, I am the first emperor and he ruled for ages.

He ruled for like, you know, like 60 years on that peace time. >> Yeah. And it was like a very peaceful and prosperous period. And he became the first emperor. And >> yeah, it's just a fascinating time because it's a transition of how they structured their society from republic to empire and then they had that was the Roman Empire from then on and it lasted for quite a while in a in a good way but then it did go kind of go south later on.

fascinating period. Um, I don't I'm not sure too many people understand the distinction there. But it was a a very different society, I think, once it became an empire because, you know, the power was all concentrated in this one guy, this this emperor who who ruled basically the entire known world,>> which is an incredible uh thing to to do.

 And >> so much power and you had some pretty bad emperors as well that really abused that power and led to Rome, I guess, eventually collapsing. But you also had some good ones as well like uh you have meditations up in up in your little Exactly. He was a good one. But >> the brilliance I mean I I I would actually legit read those like once a day.

>> And like you're like oh my god bar bar like every single thing it's it's it makes you look at yourself and be like [ __ ] he's right. [ __ ] he's right. Like that guy was amazing. >> Yes. You had some real wise ones like him, but then you had some crazy people like Calig Caligula, uh the guy that made his horse a senator, I think basically as a massive [ __ ] you to the to the Senate.

>> Um and then also Nero who was a bit of a crazy dude. And >> yeah, fascinating period of history, man. Um >> it's one of those things like there was a trend um maybe this was worldwide, it was in America, so it was probably in the UK too, but there's a trend online a couple years ago where it's like how often do you think about the Holy Roman or whatever. Yeah.

>> And I remember when it came up, I was like all the [ __ ] time actually. Like I don't know if that's like a weird thing to say, but I think about it all the time. And there's a thief, I always ask for this and I never have it ready to go, but the map of the map of Europe that shows blood veins from the ancient Roman Empire.

 It's one of my favorite visuals ever cuz it basically shows how the cradle of, you know, modern civilization in the developed world all leads to Rome. No, that's not it. But that's close. It literally it looks like a bo like a human body, >> but it starts in in Rome and then leads out like a bunch of veins. Goes all the way to England and all the way to the east and stretches far and wide.

 Sorry, I should have had it ready. It's like a Twitter. >> I found it. >> You found it. >> No, it's a human body. That was close enough. Yeah, I mean it gets the visual across. If people have seen it on Twitter, like like all Google all roads lead to Rome veins. Let's see if that does it. I don't know. We'll give it one crack.

 But like I just I'm a real visual person. Yep, there it is. Boom. All right. Pull that bad boy over. >> Yeah, that's right. I'm using that. >> You see what I mean? >> Oh, yeah. It's like it's like a >> Damn it. >> There it is. That's fine. That's fine. It's it's it's like a a symbol of humanity itself >> that that was built right there.

 And obviously there's been empires since then. It fell and that's a whole story in and of itself. But what we know of like, you know, quote, you got to be careful how you say these this these days, but like, you know, world order, if you will, kind of emanates from some of the examples that they set. And also, to to be very fair, like there's a lot from ancient Greece, too.

 There's a lot from a lot of different civilizations. It's just this one kind of like amalgamated it, if you know what I mean, all together. And it it's it's truly incredible to me. >> Yeah. They they kind of were the first to almost unify Europe, I guess. I think that's probably a fair thing to say, which is an incredible achievement at such a time.

 Um, >> but obviously it was a really hard thing to maintain because just for obvious reasons and that's I guess eventually why it fell. >> But they did they had a they had a good run, mate. They had a good run. >> So very interesting civilization. But yeah, they were heavily inspired by the Greeks.

 I think heavily inspired like they really saw themselves as the inheritors of the Greek legacy and Greek culture. And the Greeks then saw themselves as the inheritors of Egyptian civilization in many ways. And obviously both Greece and Rome ruled Egypt for many many centuries. And yeah, it's quite an interesting continuity there. >> They were both pretty obsessed with Egypt.

 Like it's documented obviously like it became a part of the Roman Empire at one point and everything too, but >> you know, it's they looked at >> I don't know you could almost extrapolate it by years in history too. like they looked at Egypt the way that we look at them. >> Yeah. >> In a lot of ways. It's kind of like, you know, the 30,000 foot view of the 30,000 foot view, which is always pretty cool to me.

 But actually, on that note, we said we were going to do this before the break, so let's get to it. In Egypt, Ben Van Kirkwick, I know, has been making waves recently on a bunch of podcasts. I think he went on Joe Rogan and some others as well with like some new information on the pyramids. I have seen absolutely none of it yet.

 I haven't gotten around to it. So, what exactly? You were talking about this, like what exactly apparently has been found here and what does it tell us? Yeah. So, it's not the Giza pyramids. It's a different pyramid called Hara, which is further south in the country.

 Um, so what Benhas been talking about and he's done a great job uh talking about and I recommend everyone watch his video on his channel and he spoke about on Rogan, so a lot of people would have heard of it. So there's always been this almost tale of the labyrinth of ancient Egypt, the lost labyrinth of ancient Egypt and ancient writers from Greece and Rome wrote about it and visited it.

 So the most the first example is Heroditus. Have you heard of Herodus? >> Greek historian wrote the very famous histories almost seen as the father of history, the first historian in many ways. He claimed to have visited the lost labyrinth of ancient Egypt at Hara and he said some pretty outlandish things about it.

 Like he said it was greater than anything that his people, the Greeks had ever achieved both in grandeur and in expense, which is quite a mad thing. He also said it surpassed the pyramids of Giza in terms of its like achievement. So you know the great pyramids of Giza are perhaps the most impressive construction in all of antiquity, right? And they still confuse us to this day like how were they built? Why are they so big? Why are they so precise? What were they for? They're just massive and they're ridiculously impressive. And he said that this

labyrinth surpassed that in grandeur. So it's a more impressive achievement than the Egyptian pyramids, which is a big thing to say. So he went there and he said, you know, all this and he said he went in it and like had a detailed description of all of it. But he wasn't the only one.

 There was also the Greek geographer Strao who said he went there, said it was incredibly impressive. There were a few Roman writers like Diodora Siculus who went there and Plenny the Elder who went there and Pliny the Elder made the um interesting claim that the labyrinth was constructed over 3,600 years before his time.

 So I believe he was writing in the era of Augustus as we were just talking about the start of the Roman Empire. So 3,600 years before his time would put it before the first dynasties of ancient Egypt. So before the Egyptian civilization, dynastic Egyp Egypt arose. So that's quite a confusing thing.

 How are they how are they constructing something that surpasses the pyramids in grandeur before the beginning of Egyptian civilization, >> right? >> That's a pretty crazy thing. So we have all these classical uh authors that say they visited the labyrinth, say that it was like this incredible construction, but that was it.

 And then it kind of faded away into obscurity and everyone thought it was just you know this legend and these ancient writers were talking about it. So then you fast forward to the modern day and you get the the European explorers um visiting Harara. >> Um first notable one I guess is Napoleon Bonapart you know the famous French general >> and he was obsessed with ancient Egypt.

He he loved ancient Egypt. He he once spent a night in the king's chamber of the great pyramid and said he never spoke about it but apparently he was you know quite shocked by his experience in there which is a weird thing but he spent a night in the king's chamber which is pretty crazy. So yeah, and he brought teams of scientists and scholars to Egypt and some of them went to Harara and they said that they could see some like foundations and some ruins at the base of the the pyramid there.

 And that was kind of the first modern identification of the labyrinth's potential location, but that's kind of all it was. And then you fast forward to some British explorers like uh most notably Fendis Petri, who's the famous British Egyptologist. um he was the first one to kind of conduct any serious excavation there.

And so he drilled into the pyramid and under the the base there and he came across this uh kind of uh base that he assumed was the foundation of the labyrinth. That was all that was left of it. >> And he he had this like he found this massive base and he was like, "Okay, the labyrinth was here and I found all that's left of it.

 This this massive base." So the labyrinth was real. These ancient writers weren't making it up. But it's gone now. You know that there's nothing left of it other than this base. And that kind of was the theory that for forever basically about this labyrinth was that it was real. These writers weren't making it up.

 Petri found the base of it. That's the end of the story, right? And that was the case forever. In recent years, in the 21st century, a couple of independent researchers have thought maybe that's not the true that's not the the full extent of the story, right? So there's this interesting expedition in 2008 I believe called the Matahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha expedition which was led by a Belgian researcher called Louis Dordier and he went to Har with the permission of the

uh council of antiquities in Egypt the Egyptian authorities led by Dr. Zahi Hawas who I'm sure you've heard of and a few times.>> Yeah. So they went so they went there and they had the permission of Has and the Egyptian authorities and they basically they tried to conduct some scans using uh I think ground penetrating radar.

 Um, but what they discovered was not that the labyrinth was gone, but that the labyrinth was still there. And that they came back with these results that showed these vast subterranean grids beneath the sand of Hara, completely untouched and still existing. And they wanted to release this, right? Because obviously that's an incredible find.

 Like you found the lost labyrinth of ancient Egypt, this elusive discovery that's been known about since antiquity, but no one's ever found. But apparently, according to Louis Dordier and his team, Hawas and others weren't um they didn't want to release it. They were like, "You can't put this out there.

" They said it was a a national security issue to start to to release this data. And they basically kept finding themselves getting blocked. And um eventually after years and years of this, they were like, you know, [ __ ] this. I'm I'm putting out independently. So they released the the scan data to the world on a website that he made.

 At the same time as this, a different team uh from a company called Merlin Burrows and a man called Tim Acres also conducted uh I think satellite scans of the area. So Tim Acres was a he's dead now, but he was a ex British military satellite scanning specialist. So legit guy worked with the British military, knows his stuff.

 They conducted scans of the same area and it came back with similar results. There you go. Exactly. Right on Q. So they they found the uh a similar thing which is these scans of um you know vast geometric grids in the right area that was identified by Petri and people with Napoleon and it appears to look like a a vast you know labyrinth.

>> Yes. >> Still intact hidden beneath the sand. And combine that with the uh results from the Matah expedition and you start to think, you know, there could be something incredible down here. This could be like the most, you know, shocking and, you know, important discovery in archaeology of our generation, right? If it's true.

 Um, they also made the the interesting claim that they found an object in there that was shaped like a tic tac and gave off a metallic signature, >> which is a pretty extraordinary thing to say. >> That feels a little uh, shall we say not earthly, but >> yeah. Well, exactly. Especially when you combine it with all the kind of UAP stuff and Right.

 So, I mean, obviously this is this is what they're saying. I I'm just kind of reporting what they're saying, but this, you know, these are serious people saying this. Um, and they they yeah, they can't really explain. They didn't know what it was. They're just like, "Yeah, there's this object that's shaped like a tic tac down there in this labyrinth that's possibly metallic cuz it gives off a weird signature.

 And to the radar trained eye, it looks like not stone. It looks, you know, possibly metallic, which is an interesting thing to say. And that's kind of where we are with it because there's no excavation is allowed there. The Egyptian authorities don't want to do it. There's also the problem of water. >> So the whole Yeah.

 So the whole area is flooded. So in Victorian times they uh dug an irrigation canal through the area uh basically for agricultural reasons for local farmers and stuff. And there's like big flooding around the area and there was always the worry that the labyrinth had been flooded and if there was anything left it's you know destroyed by water damage and stuff.

 But these scans seem to suggest that while there's water damage at a certain level the labyrinth is beneath that level. So the water damage is kind of below I mean above the uh foundation or the roof that Petri thought was a foundation actually may be a roof and the water's above that but the labyrinth below and whatever this tic tac object which they nickname dippy after the skeleton in the natural history museum in London they uh they think that that's still intact and that whatever is in this labyrinth is possibly still preserved since antiquity

and that raises you know a whole load of possibilities, right? Like at very least it could be an incredibly important discovery for our understanding of Egyptian civilization and Egyptian construction and you know could be an extremely important discovery just within the mainstream narrative of Egyptology.

 The very most it could be a completely you know paradigm shifting discovery like how was this thing built so long ago? How was it built before the Egyptian dynasties if Ply the Elder is correct with his date? What the [ __ ] is Dippy? This potentially metallic object that's a tic-tac shape. So, it's very exciting.

 That's kind of where the story is at the moment. >> But they're not allowed to go try to excavate because the government's stopping them. So, you can't evenYeah. Well, the government the Egyptian authorities don't really want to. I think probably because of of cost rather than any kind of conspiracy, let's cover it up kind of thing.

 I think it would be very expensive to get all the water out. You'd have to it would have serious implications for local farmers and stuff like that. you'd have to redirect that canal. >> So, it would be a tough thing to do, but you know, the archaeological potential of the site is extremely interesting. Have they talked at all or is do we even have enough to be able to go off to ask questions about the ability to build it where they did? And what I mean by that is when you look at like the pyramid of Giza and some of the other pyramids,

there's there's a lot of evidence to state that like the stone that's used would have had to come from X number of miles away. It weighed this much. How the [ __ ] could they have even gotten it there? Would it have taken this much time? If they even could have physically at the time.

 Is there anything about this that also runs into those problems? >> Well, yeah, the fact that it's underground. I mean, how do you construct something so sophisticated underground? Because you when you start looking at the ancient testimonies with this data and you say, "Okay, this is real and their descriptions of it are incredible.

They're like, I can't remember off the top of my head, but what they say about it is, you know, it's like this vast maze of these with these huge columns and pillars and like it's a really incredible thing." And so I can't remember their quotes off the top of my head, but if people should watch Ben's video or I did a video on it as well and the things they say about it, it just makes it sound like an incredible construction.

 And the fact that it was all done under the earth implies some seriously sophisticated construction techniques, right? Because how do you do that underground if you, you know, pre-dynastic Egypt, they're not supposed to have had anywhere close to this kind of level of technology if it really is that old. So >> certainly very interesting site.

>> Deep just found what Heroditus wrote about this. I'll read this for people. And this would have been, you know, between 484 and 425 BC when he was alive. The Egyptians made a labyrinth which surpasses even the pyramids. It has 12 roofed courts with doors facing each other, six face north and six south, and two continuous lines, all within one outer wall.

 There are also double sets of chambers, 3,000 altogether, 1,500 above and the same number underground. We learned through conversation about the labyrinth underground chambers. Through conversation, the Egypt caretakers would by no means show them as they were, they said, the burial vaults of the kings who first built this labyrinth and of the sacred crocodiles.

 the upper we saw for ourselves and they are creations greater than human. >> That's a crazy quote. >> That's a Yeah, that's like a I want to put like a Jay-Z after that. The the exits of the chambers and the maisy passages hither and thither. Does that say thither? Yeah. Hither and thither. Through the courts were an unending marvel to us.

 Overall, this is a roof made of stone-like the walls, and the walls are covered with cut figures, and every court is set around with pillars of white stone very precisely fitted together. Near the corner where the labyrinth ends stands a pyramid 240 ft high on which great figures are cut. A passage to this has been made underground.

 So, with I was thinking this when you were saying underground labyrinth and how, you know, it's underground. That's really hard. Am I thinking about this totally wrong in that they could have they could have dug like a a giant hole and then built from there and then kind of covered it up or is that >> Yeah, maybe.

 But that would have been a pretty sophisticated construction project for a society that was apparently, you know, just coming out. >> They didn't have any cat they didn't have any like, you know, caterpillar [ __ ] cranes and [ __ ] Interesting. Did he say, can we go back to that quote real fast? He said he learned it through conversation, right? We learned through conversation about the labyrinth, underground chambers.

>> Yeah. So, he wasn't allowed into the actual underground part of the lab. >> Right. Okay. He says the upper we saw for ourselves. Okay, that makes sense. >> So, he saw the upper and thought that was ridiculous, you know, not even a human and he wasn't even allowed into the potentially more impressive bit, which was the subterranean part.

>> So, it's interesting. And then you have so you have these classical accounts and then they align perfectly with the modern data that shows that there potentially is still a labyrinth down there and you think yo this is a potentially crazy archaeological discovery that we could make if the you know the will is there to to do such a thing if the funding is there.

 Andthat's why what Ben does is such important work because he's bringing this to light. He's bringing this to the masses and you know >> Absolutely. >> Yeah. It's exciting. >> Yeah. And Ben does it in like a very calm, collected, evidence-driven kind of like sober way, which I really like because I think that it's going to be really important when you try to bridge these divides between, you know, the academics and people actually trying to uncover some things here.

 You know, your your the way you say it and the way you present the evidence, I think, is very important. And he's like to me like I remember when he first went on Danny Jones podcast like he's he's just he's a cool customer and and I think I think that's great. And it's another guy by the way who was like inspired by other people that came before him to like get into this.

 He was he was a normal dude and really started studying it and you know has made some amazing certainly some amazing claims and and I would say some some pretty impressive discoveries about what we don't know down there that's now you know it's cool to see like Joe Rogan bring that to the mainstream so that people can hear about it.

 But you know I I had Luke in here November 2024. We didn't put out the episodes until the end of January and then beginning of February. We did it, we did a couple episodes that, you know, one recording where it basically turned into the 27,000-year history of Egypt. And when you start to really when you start to really I think I literally called it like 20,000 year history of Egypt part one and then part two.

 It's really amazing stuff. But when you start to like actually go through the full length of what we know and then they inject in the pyramids like kind of out of nowhere and I'm going to [ __ ] up the years so I'm not going to try to be exact with the years but then talk about like how quickly they could have made some of these structures.

 We already mentioned how difficult it would be to get some of the stone from the river all the way to where the pyramid is and everything. It's like you don't need to run right away to like oh the aliens did it or something like that. But what other but outside of that like what other explanations are there for something like the pyramid of Giza being able to build in the time period and and you know the length of time it took to actually build it to what it was built into.

>> I mean I would argue that the conventional explanation for the construction of the entire Giza plateau doesn't really make sense. Like >> according to the conventional argument, the Giza pyramid was constructed in at most 20 years I think >> which is I think that's right >> ridiculous.

 And then if you do the maths of like how many stones there are something like they had to can't remember the exact maths but it's it's a crazy like they had to place a stone like every 3 minutes for 24 hours a day for that entire 20 year period and like transport the quarry the stone transport the stone lift the stone precisely place the stone like every four minutes for 24 hours a day.

 I'm not sure that's the correct maths but it's something like that. >> There was an AI video last year that showed a bunch of giants lifting the stones. I thought that made a lot of sense. something like that, I'm sure. But I mean, yes, it doesn't make sense. And then if you extrapolate out to the entire Giza plateau, like according to the conventional explanation, it was all constructed within the reigns of a couple of pharaohs over like a 60 70 year period.

 And it's like really cuz they had to level the whole thing flat, right? Which is a ridiculous thing on itself. And then build the three pyramids and the Sphinx. And yeah, it's it's very odd. And then there's the whole question about the dating of the Sphinx and the water erosion hypothesis, which is really interesting. And >> yeah, you want to dig into that a little bit.

 I've talked about that with Matt Lacroy and and Luke in the past a bunch, but >> yeah, >> some of the pictures there. I mean, it looks like water erosion, right? But the paradox there is that there was no rainfall in Egypt since the time of the green Sahara which was you know a lot earlier or at least the level of rainfall would have been a lot earlier which suggests that the sin >> is a lot older because otherwise how would that weathering occur and the conventional explanation is no it's just wind and sand but I don't know it it doesn't really look like wind and sand

obviously I'm not geologist but there are geologists who have looked at it like Dr. Robert Shock and they say that is water erosion. That's clear signs of water erosion. And then there's also the the fact that the Sphinx was buried by sand for like the vast majority of like when Napoleon discovered it and other people discovered it, it was buried in sand.

 Even the Egyptians excavated the Sphinx when it was covered in sand. So if it was covered in sand, then how didthe wind and sand erode it when it was covered in sand? You know, I've never really seen a >> explanation for that either. But >> isn't that the one where they where there's like a secret entrance that's blocked off too? Or a couple of them.

>> What? To underneath the Sphinx? >> I think there's one like up top, too. >> That's what people say. >> I hope I'm remembering that right. There was a picture we looked at. I want to say that was episode 153 with Matt Lacroy. I did 153 and 154 with him. I feel like there was a picture towards the end of that first podcast that we looked at.

 Maybe actually, maybe I'm mixing some things together, but maybe it's like a picture where Zahi was standing outside of it or something, but there's like a picture I'm seeing it in my head towards the top of the Sphinx where there's like a a manhole and you can't go there. >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah.

 Can you Google aerial shot sphinx entrance? Let's try that. I might be misremembering this. Go refer to episode 153. I remember Matt talked about this and had some images. Uh might be that first one. I want to say that's it, but I also don't want to say for sure. I don't know. Refer to episode 153. there's something weird there where they won't let people in >> certain areas.

 And again, like, >> you know, it could be like an explanation like the other thing you were talking about where they're like, "Oh, it' be too much money or shit's got to get moved or there's too much water there." Whatever it might be, but it's also not a good look cuz it makes you look like you're hiding something or it makes you look like something's going to be different.

 And I don't know, maybe I'm looking at this way too simply, but I've always thought like if there's more insane history at a place, that's a lot more tourist dollars that are coming going to come into your economy if if you can prove something like that. So why wouldn't you? I mean, maybe I'm thinking too much dollars and cents, but you think so, wouldn't you? You think the more mystery Well, maybe maybe it's the opposite.

 Maybe the more mystery the better, right? Maybe they don't want to rule it out, so people keep coming back. I don't know. I don't know. But yeah, there's so much mystery in Egypt, so much mystery at Giza, and hopefully as you know, the generations go past. Uh there's that quote um from Max Plank, the physicist, like science advances one funeral at a time.

>> Yeah. No, that's good. I've heard that one before. >> Once the old generation die off, you know, maybe these things will change, but we'll see. >> We shall see. Do you believe Atlantis existed? I believe Atlantis is a very interesting story in relation to the wider flood myth. >> So I don't necessarily I don't I mean I wouldn't rule it out but I don't necessarily say it existed.

But I think in conjunction with the flood myth which is you know a consistent story across cultures all across the world. Atlantis is yet another one of them. another famous story of a flood wiping everything out which you know so many cultures across the world have that story >> and it's interesting because Plato puts the date of Atlantis you know as many people have said right during the younger dus right he says it's uh God I' forgotten he says he says it's 9,000 years before his time I think either way he says it's you know if you do the

calculations it's during the younger dus which is interesting um I wouldn't rule out Atlantis existing But that would that would then be the lost civilization, right? So >> yeah, >> you can't say there's evidence of it, but it's an interesting story for sure. >> What what do you think of Jimmy Corsetti's Richard? >> I always pronounce that wrong.

>> Recot. Yeah, >> re-shot structure theory. >> It's a good It's I really like how he does it. I really like the videos. I've watched his videos on it. Um it's really interesting because, you know, it matches up in so many ways to Plato's description, right? Um, but I don't again, is there any evidence or is it just a good way of putting the story together, you know? >> Yeah.

>> But it's fun. I I really enjoy his videos. I really enjoy the way he does it >> and I wouldn't rule it out, but I'm not sure you can say that that definitely is Atlantis, right? But >> yeah, I'd like to think something like that existed. And obviously like there's a lot of writings in ancient Greece among some of the philosophers where they refer to it.

 I wonder sometimes though if it's really like some of the, you know, clearly not true stories from the Bible. Think of like a dude being swallowed by a whale and then, you know, living there and being spit out. >> Stuff like that. What was that? Job. >> That makes Yeah. Yeah. >> But like I wonder if it's something like that that's more supposed to be a mirror for ourselves as civilization to look in and aspire to be rather than something that's real.

 Whereas it seems like there's significant evidence for something like an El Dorado that existsbased on written history and what would make sense over there. But Atlantis, it's like they don't even know. It could be here, it could be there, it could be there, it could be this, could be that. Could, you know, it's all over the place. So I I don't know.

 But that's one I always like that's one of my favorite ones to kind of riff on because it's like it could be a lot of things. >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, I mean the conventional idea is that Plato was just, you know, creating an allegory to talk about his own civilization, right? But that doesn't mean there's no truth behind it.

 And >> Plato isn't the one who came up with the idea. He got it from Solon who was it was passed down through his family from Solon to Plato. And Solon got it from Egypt, right? And Egypt's this mysterious place. And apparently these Egyptian priests were telling him about this civilization that existed and was wiped out in a single day and night.

You know, it's an interesting story. >> It certainly is. Are you working on any cool videos right now on some places around the world? >> Um, yeah. I mean, I've got a few in the pipeline. Um, where are you looking? >> I just done a video that's not come out yet, which is about uh this, uh, genetic bottleneck we see.

 um it'll be out by the time this episode comes out. But this genetic bottlenecket we see in the late Neolithic, so around 5,000 to 7,000 years ago, where basically 95% of men were wiped out, but no women, which is really interesting because we see this massive bottleneck in the Y chromosome, which is the line that was passed down from father to son.

>> Luckiest 5% of all time. >> Yeah. But that's who we're all descended from, right? because they are the survivors of what the conventional explanation is was a massive like culture of violence in the late Neolithic of basically mass prehistoric war where all the men were going around killing everyone else and taking the women right so there's so there's no bottleneck in the mitochondrial DNA which is the mother but 95% of the men were wiped out at this in this period >> where's the evidence that they that they

found this >> it's in genetic it's in our in our genes >> oh that's it so they're just looking at our genes saying oh that had to at that period right there. >> Yeah. And you can see the bottleneck and it it it happened and we literally dropped right down to 5% 95% of men were wiped out in this period, but the females were unconnected.

 And then you align it with archaeological finds and there's all these like massive pits of bodies with weapon wounds and horrible injuries and people being slaughtered and it's quite an interesting period. >> Yeah, I haven't heard that. Can we Google this? genetic bottleneck. 95% of men exterminated. >> Yeah. >> What 5,000 to 7,000 years ago, you said? >> Uh, I think so. Yeah. Yeah.

>> That's also like a wide range, too. So, it happened over time. >> Yeah. But it's across all of Asia, Africa, and Europe. >> So, like the whole of the world except for the Americas. >> How large was the population of Homo sapiens at the time approximately? Not sure off the top of my head, but it was getting big because this was after the agricultural revolution, right? And that's what that's the theory of what it is is that we apparently settled down and Yeah, there you go. 95%.

>> There we go. >> We settled down and we had something to fight for. We had like property rights for the first potentially for the first time in history. And >> yeah. Okay. So, the forgotten prehistoric war that killed 95% of all men. How a brutal conflict 7,000 years ago left only one in 20 men alive. Within every single one of us lies a biological time capsule. 3.

16 billion base pairs of DNA. These strands don't just dictate eye color or height. They hide dark twisted secrets from humanity's past. One of the most chilling, a forgotten prehistoric war so catastrophic it nearly wiped out men entirely, leaving women outnumbering them 17 to1. This wasn't a minor skirmish or a regional feud.

 It was a global slaughter spanning continents, reshaping our genetic code and burying evidence of its horrors and mass graves until now. The story begins with a genetic mystery. Researchers analyzing modern human genomes stumbled upon a shocking anomaly. A drastic bottleneck in male genetic diversity dating back roughly 7,000 years.

 During the Neolithic period, the effective male population across Africa, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East collapsed by up to 95%. Imagine a world where 3.9 billion men vanished overnight, leaving only 200 million survivors. This wasn't a plague, famine, or natural disaster. The culprit was far more sinister.

 unbridled systematic violence. While mitochondrial DNA passed down through mothers showed stable diversity. Y chromosomes passed from father to son revealed a near apocalyptic drop. Nature doesn't discriminate by gender when wiping out populations. Volcanoes don't target men. Storms don't spare women. This Oh wow.Okay, so that makes a ton of sense.

 This was a human-made catastrophe. A coordinated eradication of males so extreme it left scars in our genes. But where are the bodies? Turns out they're everywhere. Over 250 late Neolithic massacre sites have been uncovered in Europe alone. Skeletons tell gruesome st tales. Skulls shattered by axes, arrow heads, and embedded in ribs, bones stripped of flesh at the All right.

Yeah, click to read the full story. But that actually that last part answered a question I was going to ask. Are there I was going to say like even in other parts of history are there biological diseases and things that could discriminate by gender? Do we know of any examples of that? >> Do I think so? No. >> Not that I know of anyway.

>> I mean that evidence of like they found the sites of massacres with skulls bashed in and stuff obviously points paints the picture. That's crazy though. >> 95% overnight. >> Yeah, it's crazy. Not overnight, but yeah. >> You know what I mean? over over time right there. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> They're just dwindling down over and over again.

>> You know, we almost wiped ourselves out there. >> And we're all descended from the the winners, the the most horrifically violent of them. That's who we all come from. >> Survival of the fittest. >> And this is quite recent. This was, you know, 7,000 years ago, which is recent when you look at the story. >> After [ __ ] go tappy.

>> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> Just savagely killing each other. What else you're working on right now? >> I can't even remember. I haven't I haven't like obviously I've been in America for a little while, so I haven't actually done too much, but that's one that's coming out. Um don't know, man. I've got a whole list, but I can't remember off the top of my head, but >> All right. All good.

>> All the historical mysteries, you know, I'm coming from them all. >> That's what I'm saying. Everyone's got to check out your channel cuz you cover I mean, you're covering every part of the globe and it's only going to get bigger and bigger. So, it's awesome to see what you're doing, bro. It's great to have you here in America, too, to hop on.

 You're going to have to do this again. You got to start coming to America a little more, too, >> mate. I'd love to. And I'm Yeah, I'm really grateful for you inviting me on. It's been an awesome an awesome chat and an awesome uh experience to come out to your beautiful country. So, yeah, very grateful. >> Excellente. All right, brother.

 We'll do it again sometime. >> Thanks, Julian. >> All right, everybody else, you know what it is. Give it a thought. Get back to me. Peace. Thank you guys for watching the episode. If you haven't already, please hit that subscribe button and smash that like button on the video. They're both a huge, huge help. And if you would like to follow me on Instagram and X, those links are in my description below.