The mounds in Ecuador may not be the only ones in the Amazonian region, there are other studies in Bolivia of similar mounds and about the same time (or before?), one source is Clark L. Erickson (Amazonia:the Historical Ecology of a Domesticated Landscape). There's still lots to learn from the past of Amazonia.
Its so cool that you were able to speak with the professor Rostain about his discovery, i am so excited to learn more about his find in the coming months and years !!!!
This show is amazing. Thank you so much for making these. Only thing: You forgot to mention that Tomb Raider's 1 through 3 have been remastered and are releasing on Lara Croft's birthday; Valentines Day! Thanks again for the great content.
Reconstruction of archaeological sites is such a contentious issue. I had not heard about the work at the Menkaure pyramid. I have to say I'm on the fence here. Do you know what the reasoning was behind the decision to reconstruct this particular monument? Was this work to include the interior of the structure? I understand that the Giza Plateau has been so extensively excavated that further discoveries there are unlikely (though technology may prove this wrong). I don't necessarily have a problem with reconstruction of this particular site, as long as the underlying structure is not damaged (optimistic?), it can be removed if necessary (highly optimistic) and the revenue generated is used wisely (yeah, right...). Rachel, as an archaeologist yourself, I would be interested to hear your thoughts. Are there any sites you would like to see reconstructed? What are your thoughts about the reconstruction work done on the Ur Ziggurat? And now it's been started, would you complete it if funding was available? We know so little about it's original appearance so any design would be a modern invention but is that not better than a half-finished monument?
I don't have a direct line to Dr. Waziry's office so I can't speculate on why they have chosen to do this project, from wha tI read it is limited to the first 16 layers of granite facing stones on the outside. Despite over a 100 years of ongoing archaeological work at Giza the site has not been fully excavated, and even now new evidence is discovered on a regular basis. The involvement of engineers in the committee will doubtless be looking at the possibility of damage due to the weight of hte stones but since they were there originally I don't think it would make much difference? I don't know how much the internal structure has shifted since it was built. I think reconstruction is a cool concept but, like facial reconstructions of skulls, it is very much subjective and open to artistic license. I think a better way of doing it is through virtual reality, which means you can conserve the monument but also give people a better sense of how it may have looked in its prime. The Assassin's Creed Origins game is a good example of what you could do I think.
The terms BCE and ACE are based in bigotry. The proper terms are BC and AD. The terms anno Domini (AD) and before Christ (BC) are used when designating years in the Julian and Gregorian calendars. The term anno Domini is Medieval Latin and means "in the year of the Lord" but is often presented using "our Lord" instead of "the Lord", taken from the full original phrase "anno Domini nostri Jesu Christi", which translates to "in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ". The form "BC" is specific to English, and equivalent abbreviations are used in other languages: the Latin form, rarely used in English, is Ante Christum natum (ACN) or Ante Christum (AC).. Bigots who hated Christan's decided to change. I do not believe in the old Norse religion, but I have no problem with having the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth days of the week named after Norse gods. That is because I am NOT a bigot.
BCE/CE stands for 'Before Common Era' and 'Common Era'. They are numerically equivalent year notations in the Gregorian calendar which is the world's most widely used calendar (ie. not used just by Christians). BCE/CE is used here as well as in most modern academic and scientific publications because they are religiously neutral terms. This accommodates non-Christians (and non-Christian sites as all the sites in this video are) by not explicitly referring to Jesus as "Christ" or as Dominus ("Lord").
Love your show, but I don't appreciate the "sudosciene" jabs. What you may not realize is there is a reason scholars are labeled sudo. It has more to do with societal controls. And you're sensationalizing the big bad vudo of "sudoscience". Why even go there? Science is all about hypothesis and experimentation. Do you think we are all too stupid to look past click bait? It's arrogant, and I personally will listen to everyone who has a good theory. And make up my own mind! Perhaps we all should. I dont appreciate being "steered"
I call it pseudoscience because it isn't real science, but it receives the same amount of, or more, attention in traditional media because it generates engagement. None of the claims made by pseudoscientists are backed up by evidence or use of the scientific method, it's merely people writing books/filming documentaries "just asking questions" and relying on the confirmation bias of their audience but then making no attempt to actually solve the question. A good theory is backed up by credible evidence, I would listen to a good theory too, but they don't have good theories so I don't. I like to show my audience that there is a difference between myself, who has studied and worked as an archaeologist, and people who have not but presenting themselves as qualified to speak on this topic. I want to people to know that I know what I'm talking about and am a credible source, not clickbait designed to cash in on getting their attention with no regard for the truth.
@Inside_Archaeology so the criteria is you hard earned expensive education. Cudos on that. Have we come to a place where only people who can afford the PhD. are the only ones that can have anything to say? My ignorant peasant grandfather built 2 houses and had several inventions. Everything inspected everything to code. Now, he would not even be allowed to start the build because he was not qualified. Many people labeled as unqualified are more qualified because they have a broad education, self-taught, and can think outside the box. If we just throw it away without really thinking about what they have to say, it harms us all. Utube is their only platform. When I was growing up, plate tectonics was pseudoscience....how did that turn out?
Well, let’s break this comment down. Keep in mind I only have a bachelors of science in anthropology from a state school, so I don’t exactly fit into the “expensive phd education” category you describe, Kimberly. Frankly, some of the most intelligent archeologists I’ve worked with have very little to no formal education. I appreciate that a degree does not necessarily mean that someone is automatically credited with a “superior” understanding of a field, especially one as complex as anthropology. That being said… A degree is what teaches us scientific method. It’s what enables us to examine a theory and the corresponding evidence holistically, instead of- as Rachel so eloquently put- just asking questions and relying on their audience to just accept their word as fact because it’s an interesting theory. AGAIN- theories are great! More the merrier! But they’re only worth considering if there is evidence to support them.
@WilliamMurdock-mb1yr I have seen people in all branches of science labeled with the seudoscience taboo. Scientists with pattons! Scientists with evidence. It's becoming some weird term. Like saying they are witches or something. The "don't look here, nothing to see here" term. Asking questions is the entire basis of the scientific method. If we start labeling people who ask questions and make hypotheses, science dies. They are asking the rest of the scientific community to help prove or disprove. Newton for sure would be labeled a seudosciencetist in today's atmosphere. Why are these people so scary? There have been a lot of problems with archeology, especially in the US. Clovis first...omg, how much evidence do you need? Anyone with evidence to the contrary was brutalized, defunded, etc. I don't appreciate arrogance and close mindedness. It's a huge turn-off. I was sharing your channel, promoting it, and I loved it. But it's like you slammed down this door in my head that now wants to walk away because to me, science is exploration, not dogma. I can go to church for that!
If you put forward a theory it is on you to prove it, and they never have. We are not being close-minded we are trying to respectfully answer your questions and points. You don't like how that I rightfully call out people who don't use the scientific method and trick others into thinking their theories are valid? Fine don't watch the channel, it's pretty clear your mind is made up and nothing I can say will change it.
I really found this episode interesting. I’m amazed how much our knowledge of South American civilizations has increased the last 40 years. Thank you
I know right?!
So informative!! Thank you Rachel! 👏
A real news worth watching.
Thanks Davlavi!
The mounds in Ecuador may not be the only ones in the Amazonian region, there are other studies in Bolivia of similar mounds and about the same time (or before?), one source is Clark L. Erickson (Amazonia:the Historical Ecology of a Domesticated Landscape). There's still lots to learn from the past of Amazonia.
Yes I'm sure the jungle still has has many secrets for us to find.
Great episode 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Thanks!
Its so cool that you were able to speak with the professor Rostain about his discovery, i am so excited to learn more about his find in the coming months and years !!!!
Thank you! Yes it was great to be able to speak to him directly!
Thanks!
Thanks for your support!
The long-awaited news.thank you.
You're welcome!
"I am from Brittany, I am stubborn." 😂 as a Dutch person I can relate my Celtic brother.
Love the trowel mic holder, Grateful that it was not the pink one however (grin)
Thanks!
Just found your channel, immediately subscribed! I love this series, can't wait for the next episode :)
Thank you!
Will sounds like Xerxes in the 300 movie. This man pisses gasoline. Respect 🙏
Hahaha I sent him this comment, I think you made him blush.
Rachel. That’s my wife’s name. Enjoyed the show. New subscriber 😊
Awesome! Thank you!
This show is amazing. Thank you so much for making these. Only thing: You forgot to mention that Tomb Raider's 1 through 3 have been remastered and are releasing on Lara Croft's birthday; Valentines Day! Thanks again for the great content.
Since it's being released in February it will be included in February's news. You're welcome!
Great channel.💯
Thank you! Appreciate your support!
You ate that up!!!! Thank you for such thorough and exciting coverage! I’m so glad to have found your channel :))
Thank you! I'm glad you've found it too!
No one has ever made a temple to me. Not angry, just disappointed .
Same!
My last name is Easterday so I can’t say the same. However, a more personal likeness would be nice. 🤭
Reconstruction of archaeological sites is such a contentious issue. I had not heard about the work at the Menkaure pyramid. I have to say I'm on the fence here. Do you know what the reasoning was behind the decision to reconstruct this particular monument? Was this work to include the interior of the structure? I understand that the Giza Plateau has been so extensively excavated that further discoveries there are unlikely (though technology may prove this wrong). I don't necessarily have a problem with reconstruction of this particular site, as long as the underlying structure is not damaged (optimistic?), it can be removed if necessary (highly optimistic) and the revenue generated is used wisely (yeah, right...). Rachel, as an archaeologist yourself, I would be interested to hear your thoughts. Are there any sites you would like to see reconstructed? What are your thoughts about the reconstruction work done on the Ur Ziggurat? And now it's been started, would you complete it if funding was available? We know so little about it's original appearance so any design would be a modern invention but is that not better than a half-finished monument?
I don't have a direct line to Dr. Waziry's office so I can't speculate on why they have chosen to do this project, from wha tI read it is limited to the first 16 layers of granite facing stones on the outside. Despite over a 100 years of ongoing archaeological work at Giza the site has not been fully excavated, and even now new evidence is discovered on a regular basis. The involvement of engineers in the committee will doubtless be looking at the possibility of damage due to the weight of hte stones but since they were there originally I don't think it would make much difference? I don't know how much the internal structure has shifted since it was built. I think reconstruction is a cool concept but, like facial reconstructions of skulls, it is very much subjective and open to artistic license. I think a better way of doing it is through virtual reality, which means you can conserve the monument but also give people a better sense of how it may have looked in its prime. The Assassin's Creed Origins game is a good example of what you could do I think.
Will could do movie trailers or nature documentaries with that voice
I know right?!
A solution to the Dodecahedron conundrum - ua-cam.com/video/5HDhyGkvXro/v-deo.htmlsi=w2nRNbZTz100jzB1
Promo>SM
The terms BCE and ACE are based in bigotry. The proper terms are BC and AD. The terms anno Domini (AD) and before Christ (BC) are used when designating years in the Julian and Gregorian calendars. The term anno Domini is Medieval Latin and means "in the year of the Lord" but is often presented using "our Lord" instead of "the Lord", taken from the full original phrase "anno Domini nostri Jesu Christi", which translates to "in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ". The form "BC" is specific to English, and equivalent abbreviations are used in other languages: the Latin form, rarely used in English, is Ante Christum natum (ACN) or Ante Christum (AC).. Bigots who hated Christan's decided to change.
I do not believe in the old Norse religion, but I have no problem with having the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth days of the week named after Norse gods. That is because I am NOT a bigot.
I would like to point out that history is not European-specific, What are your thoughts on this?
BCE/CE stands for 'Before Common Era' and 'Common Era'.
They are numerically equivalent year notations in the Gregorian calendar which is the world's most widely used calendar (ie. not used just by Christians). BCE/CE is used here as well as in most modern academic and scientific publications because they are religiously neutral terms. This accommodates non-Christians (and non-Christian sites as all the sites in this video are) by not explicitly referring to Jesus as "Christ" or as Dominus ("Lord").
Love your show, but I don't appreciate the "sudosciene" jabs. What you may not realize is there is a reason scholars are labeled sudo. It has more to do with societal controls. And you're sensationalizing the big bad vudo of "sudoscience". Why even go there? Science is all about hypothesis and experimentation. Do you think we are all too stupid to look past click bait? It's arrogant, and I personally will listen to everyone who has a good theory. And make up my own mind! Perhaps we all should. I dont appreciate being "steered"
I call it pseudoscience because it isn't real science, but it receives the same amount of, or more, attention in traditional media because it generates engagement. None of the claims made by pseudoscientists are backed up by evidence or use of the scientific method, it's merely people writing books/filming documentaries "just asking questions" and relying on the confirmation bias of their audience but then making no attempt to actually solve the question. A good theory is backed up by credible evidence, I would listen to a good theory too, but they don't have good theories so I don't. I like to show my audience that there is a difference between myself, who has studied and worked as an archaeologist, and people who have not but presenting themselves as qualified to speak on this topic. I want to people to know that I know what I'm talking about and am a credible source, not clickbait designed to cash in on getting their attention with no regard for the truth.
@Inside_Archaeology so the criteria is you hard earned expensive education. Cudos on that. Have we come to a place where only people who can afford the PhD. are the only ones that can have anything to say? My ignorant peasant grandfather built 2 houses and had several inventions. Everything inspected everything to code. Now, he would not even be allowed to start the build because he was not qualified. Many people labeled as unqualified are more qualified because they have a broad education, self-taught, and can think outside the box. If we just throw it away without really thinking about what they have to say, it harms us all. Utube is their only platform. When I was growing up, plate tectonics was pseudoscience....how did that turn out?
Well, let’s break this comment down. Keep in mind I only have a bachelors of science in anthropology from a state school, so I don’t exactly fit into the “expensive phd education” category you describe, Kimberly.
Frankly, some of the most intelligent archeologists I’ve worked with have very little to no formal education. I appreciate that a degree does not necessarily mean that someone is automatically credited with a “superior” understanding of a field, especially one as complex as anthropology. That being said…
A degree is what teaches us scientific method. It’s what enables us to examine a theory and the corresponding evidence holistically, instead of- as Rachel so eloquently put- just asking questions and relying on their audience to just accept their word as fact because it’s an interesting theory. AGAIN- theories are great! More the merrier! But they’re only worth considering if there is evidence to support them.
@WilliamMurdock-mb1yr I have seen people in all branches of science labeled with the seudoscience taboo. Scientists with pattons! Scientists with evidence. It's becoming some weird term. Like saying they are witches or something. The "don't look here, nothing to see here" term. Asking questions is the entire basis of the scientific method. If we start labeling people who ask questions and make hypotheses, science dies. They are asking the rest of the scientific community to help prove or disprove. Newton for sure would be labeled a seudosciencetist in today's atmosphere. Why are these people so scary? There have been a lot of problems with archeology, especially in the US. Clovis first...omg, how much evidence do you need? Anyone with evidence to the contrary was brutalized, defunded, etc. I don't appreciate arrogance and close mindedness. It's a huge turn-off. I was sharing your channel, promoting it, and I loved it. But it's like you slammed down this door in my head that now wants to walk away because to me, science is exploration, not dogma. I can go to church for that!
If you put forward a theory it is on you to prove it, and they never have. We are not being close-minded we are trying to respectfully answer your questions and points. You don't like how that I rightfully call out people who don't use the scientific method and trick others into thinking their theories are valid? Fine don't watch the channel, it's pretty clear your mind is made up and nothing I can say will change it.