Archaeologist Michael Button Challenges Established Human History Timelines

考古学家 Michael Button 挑战既定人类历史时间线 近期的考古发现与基因组图谱将人类智能、航海和复杂建造的起源推至百万年以前。 Michael Button 与 Joe Rogan 共同探讨了挑战标准考古时间线的诸多证据，涵盖哥贝克力石阵（Göbekli Tepe）、塔什泰佩勒（Taş Tepeler）、古代 DMT 残留物以及史前航海。他们讨论了深远历史时期的人类智能、古老采矿活动、诸如凯拉萨神庙（Kailasa Temple）等岩凿建筑以及基因瓶颈。对话还审视了大灾变、周期性冰期以及体制性把关如何塑造了我们对人类史前史的认知。 土耳其哥贝克力石阵（Göbekli Tepe）、石丘（Taş Tepeler）以及亚马逊雨林的激光雷达（LiDAR）探测成果，将人类复杂定居点与城市网络的时间线向前推演了一倍，达到约12,000年前。 (8:00) 阿根廷出土的距今4,000年前的美洲狮骨烟斗中化验出了DMT等色胺生物碱残留物，证实了古代文化使用致幻植物的悠久历史。 (12:28) 哥贝克力石阵展现了高浮雕雕刻技术、3D彩绘野猪雕塑及巨石工程，其主围合结构在约11,600年前曾被大量沉积物和碎石有意掩埋回填。 (23:00) 印度尼西亚苏拉威西岛、弗洛勒斯岛及菲律宾吕宋岛等深水海洋岛屿发现了早至100多万年前的石器，表明当时的人形古人类很可能已经具备了主动航海与跨洋探索能力。 (34:11) 北美苏必利尔湖地区在远古时期曾开采过多达68万吨纯铜，但在持续数千年后该技术遭到了废弃，体现出人类技术演进并非单一线性的上升模式。 (41:48)

Independent researcher Michael Button and host Joe Rogan argue that recent archaeological discoveries fundamentally challenge orthodox timelines regarding the emergence of civilization, human cognitive origins, and the settlement of isolated continents. Challenging the Timeline of Complex Civilizations (3:25) Button and Rogan argue that orthodox academia’s benchmark for civilization—traditionally pegged to written records around 3,000 to 4,000 BCE in Sumer—arbitrarily excludes earlier engineering networks. Megalithic structures across Southeastern Turkey's Taş Tepeler network, including Göbekli Tepe, date back roughly 12,000 years, effectively doubling the timeline for monumental construction. With less than 5% of Göbekli Tepe excavated, underground radar shows stone circles spanning an area estimated at fifty times the size of Stonehenge, featuring ten-ton pillars, life-sized 3D sculptures, and adjacent residential structures. Rogan highlights that similar blind spots existed in the Amazon, where recent LiDAR surveys uncovered dense grids of ancient urban settlements that accommodated millions under the forest canopy. Technological progress, Button notes, is non-linear rather than a steady climb. In North America's Lake Superior region, Archaic populations extracted up to 1.5 billion pounds (680,000 metric tons) of copper between 9,500 and 5,000 years ago before abandoning the industry entirely. Rogan points to advanced anomalies, such as pre-dynastic Egyptian diorite vessels cut with microscopic tolerances, anomalous machined-like Chinese jade artifacts, and the 57-foot monolithic Bahubali statue in India carved in situ from granite bedrock. Both speakers note that natural material decay and deliberate ideological purges—such as Aurangzeb’s assaults on the Kailasa Temple or modern destructions by ISIS and the Taliban—routinely erase historical traces, leaving modern observers to reconstruct deep history from fragmentary remains. Deep-Time Cognitive Origins and Pre-Sapiens Seafaring Standard models asserting that human intelligence abruptly surfaced 50,000 years ago are contradicted by physical findings stretching back hundreds of thousands to over a million years. Button points to the 476,000-year-old Kalambo Falls wooden structure in Zambia as physical evidence of complex hominin engineering. Furthermore, stone tools found east of the Wallace Line—including finds on Sulawesi dated between 1.04 and 1.4 million years ago, Flores at 1.02 million years, and Luzon at 700,000 years—prove ancient hominins crossed deep-water channels 50 to 100 kilometers wide. Applying NASA models indicating a minimum viable colonization group requires roughly 500 individuals without genetic screening, Button argues that deliberate boat construction and organized navigation, rather than accidental drift, is the simplest explanation. Fossil reconstructions also extend human diversity and timelines. Modern digital CT reconstructions of the million-year-old Yunxian 2 skull in China led researcher Chris Stringer and his colleagues to link the fossil to Homo longi ('Dragon Man'), a sister clade to Neanderthals and Homo sapiens that pushes lineage splits far earlier than the accepted 500,000-year mark. Furthermore, archaic robust hominins left deep morphological footprints; Denisovan fossils, including oversized jaws and underwater femur discoveries, suggest individuals stood well over six feet with massive bone density, which Rogan hypothesizes inspired mythological tales of giants. Surviving adaptations include the EPAS1 hypoxia gene inherited by high-altitude Tibetan populations, alongside early surgical sophistication demonstrated by a 31,000-year-old successful leg amputation discovered in Liang Tebo cave, Borneo. Upending Continental Migration Paradigms The long-standing 'Clovis First' model, which capped human entry into the Americas at roughly 13,000 years ago, has been invalidated by discoveries across North and South America. Footprints at White Sands, New Mexico, definitively place humans in the Americas at least 22,000 years ago, prior to the opening of the glacial corridor. Button outlines controversial earlier sites that suggest an even deeper chronology: Chiquihuite Cave in Mexico (33,000 years ago), Pedra Furada in Brazil (50,000 to 60,000 years ago), the Cerutti Mastodon site in California (130,000 years ago), and Hueyatlaco in Mexico, where volcanic ash and faunal remains yielded consistent dates around 250,000 years old. A comparable timeline revision is unfolding in Australia. While the Madjedbebe rock shelter anchors conventional entry at approximately 65,000 years ago, the Moyjil site in Southern Australia exhibits hearth structures and thermally altered stones dated to roughly 120,000 years ago. Validating Moyjil would require humans to have mastered deep-water maritime voyages and traversed the entire Australian landmass twice as early as standard models accept. Symbolic Communication and Deep Cognitive Capacity (140:15) Button challenges the narrative that written communication began abruptly with Mesopotamian cuneiform around 4000 BCE. Paleoanthropologist Genevieve von Petzinger documented 32 geometric signs repeated consistently across European Ice Age cave art over a 30,000-year span, with identical motifs found across continents along early migration paths. Recent PNAS research on 40,000-year-old Ice Age European bone engravings documents structured proto-scripts rivaling the syntactic complexity of early Sumerian script. Concurrently, chemical residues from 4,000-year-old puma-bone pipes at Inca Cueva in Argentina confirm ancient intentional inhalation of DMT and bufotenin from Anadenanthera seeds, supporting theories that psychoactive compounds influenced ancient ritual and symbolic culture. Button notes that the emergence of agrarian societies coincides with an evolutionary anomaly: human brain sizes have shrunk over the past 10,000 years. As knowledge shifted from oral memorization to external storage—progressing from stone inscriptions to writing and modern artificial intelligence—individual biological memory capacity declined. Both speakers critique academic gatekeeping, arguing that institutional tenure, peer pressure, and grant dependence disincentivize established archaeologists from accepting anomalous data that disrupts entrenched timelines. Button and Rogan conclude that prehistory must be approached with epistemic humility rather than dogmatism, recognizing that civilizations naturally undergo cycles of growth and collapse. The fundamental challenge remains an acute preservation bias: because stone is among the only materials that withstands hundreds of millennia of erosion and natural catastrophes, conventional history routinely mistakes surviving fragments for the absolute limits of human capability.

独立研究员Michael Button与Joe Rogan主张，近年在巨石建筑、史前航海、符号记录及人类遗址方面的考古发现，正在动摇传统学术界对文明起源和人类智能时间线的既有叙事。他们认为主流机构过于依赖狭隘的文明定义与既定框架，低估了史前人类深层认知能力与非线性发展的复杂性。 改写文明与智能的时间线框架 (3:25) Button提出，传统考古学长期以来声称已经解答、如今却无法合理解释的三个核心问题：文明为何在经历数十万年后，于大约一千年的窗口期内在美洲、埃及、印度河流域和美索不达米亚等互不连通的区域同时爆发；人类及其近亲物种究竟何时具备了与现代人等同的心智；以及人类最早于何时定居美洲与澳洲等孤立大陆。传统理论将文明起始点锚定在公元前3000至4000年间具备文字系统的苏美尔，但解剖学意义上的现代智人（Homo sapiens）已存在超过30万年，且经历过十余次温暖的间冰期。 土耳其东南部的Taş Tepeler遗址群（包含Göbekli Tepe、Karahan Tepe与Sayburç等十余个地点）将人类建造复杂工程的记录推回至12000年前，足足将原有时间跨度延长了一倍。Göbekli Tepe目前发掘面积不足5%，探地雷达已探明其规模若全部挖掘将达到巨石阵（Stonehenge）的50倍，柱体平均重达10吨，且出现了立体雕塑与成片聚落遗址。对于其在公元前9600年前后被统一土石填埋的成因，Button指出挖掘者Klaus Schmidt曾认为属于仪式性故意掩埋，而后续研究则认为是故意填埋与自然坡地侵蚀的结合产物，主流观点在面对超出框架的遗址时往往不断转移文明的定义标准。 深层智能与古老航海的物质证据 (34:11) Button与Rogan指出，人类行为现代性与认知能力的演进可能远早于50000年前的传统假设。印尼苏拉威西岛（Sulawesi）Talepu遗址发现了距今104万至140万年前的石器，而该岛位于华莱士线（Wallace Line）以东，隔着50至100公里宽的深海海峡，即便在冰期海平面极低时也从未形成陆桥；类似的古老石器亦见于距今102万年的弗洛勒斯岛（Flores）和距今70万年的菲律宾吕宋岛（Luzon）。Button援引NASA对地外殖民最小存活种群的研究（在无基因篮查下需约500人），认为多次跨越深海不可能仅靠偶然漂流，而是暗示了古人类在百万年前即具备有组织造船、交流与定向航海的能力。 在陆地遗址与古生物学层面，赞比亚Kalambo Falls发现的47.6万年前木制结构，为深层史前智能提供了直接实物佐证；在技术与生存技能方面，加里曼丹岛Liang Tebo洞穴发现了距今31000年前的人类截肢骨骼，其愈合痕迹表明早期社群已掌握外科手术、感染控制与照护能力。在中国郧县发现的距今约100万年的头骨（郧县2号）经CT重建分析后被归类于丹尼索瓦人近亲“龙人”（Homo longi），表明具有现代脑容量规模的旁支在一百万年前便已确立，大幅推前了人属物种的分化历程。 美洲定居与非线性技术演进 (41:48) 关于人类迁徙至美洲的时间，传统“克洛维斯第一”（Clovis First）所设定的约13000年前叙事已被多项发现打破。新墨西哥州白沙国家公园（White Sands）发现的22000年前足迹证实了末次盛冰期前的人类活动。墨西哥Chiquihuite洞穴出土了指向33000年前的石制工具，巴西Pedra Furada遗址显示出5万至6万年前的灶坑痕迹；加州Cerutti猛犸象遗址（130000年前）以及墨西哥Hueyatlaco遗址（测年约为250000年）的争议性发现，虽面临学术界的严格质疑，但持续对孤立大陆的定居时间线构成挑战。 关于人类技术的发展模式，对话强调技术积累并非直线上升，而是存在中断、遗忘与重构。北美五大湖区（Lake Superior）在距今9500年至5000年前曾开采加工高达1.5亿磅（约68万公吨）的天然铜，但该冶炼产业随后被原住民社群弃用并消失；中东巴勒贝克（Baalbek）数百吨重的巨石三石塔（Trilithon）缺乏罗马官方工程记录，印度埃洛拉石窟的凯拉萨神庙（Kailasa Temple）则展现了从玄武岩悬崖顶端自上而下开凿20万吨巨石的极高精度工程。此外，由于金属氧化和雨林高分解速率（如亚马逊流域激光雷达最新发现的掩盖网络），大量古老有机物与工程遗存难以完整保留至今。 史前符号系统与文字起源修正 (140:15) 在人类沟通与记录媒介方面，学术界传统上将文字起源归于公元前4000年苏美尔人的楔形文字，但近期的符号学研究显示了更早的抽象编码体系。Button引用古人类学家Genevieve von Petzinger对欧洲冰河时代洞穴壁画的研究，指出在横跨30000年的时间跨度内，存在32种高度统一的几何符号（包括螺旋形、网格状等）；这些符号模式在美洲、非洲、澳洲与亚洲部分岩画中亦有分布，表明可能存在随着4万年前走出非洲而扩散的跨大陆视觉表意传统。 近期发表在《美国国家科学院院刊》（PNAS）上的论文分析了欧洲冰河时代距今约40000年的200多件骨器刻痕，其复杂的结构特征被认为与公元前3000年的早期泥板楔形文字呈现出同等层级的系统性。与此同时，针对智人脑容量在农业和定居文明建立后的过去10000年间略有缩小这一现象，Button与Rogan探讨了知识外包（从高度依赖个体口述记忆转变为文字、存储设备等外部载体）对人类认知习惯与生物演化的潜在影响。 本期节目集中体现了独立历史调查者对传统考古学界范式壁垒的审视。然而，许多推前人类活动与工程能力的断代数据（如超十万年的美洲石器或极具争议的早期航海假说）仍面临主流地质学、考古学界的广泛质疑与方法论检验，古代技术究竟是经历了大灾难周期的重置，还是受制于物质遗存降解带来的认知偏差，依然是有待确凿证据厘清的未解议题。

## Background 本期内容由知名播客频道 PowerfulJRE 于 2026 年 8 月 27 日在 YouTube 平台发布。节目邀请了独立历史博主迈克尔·巴顿（Michael Button）再次做客，视频简介指出他是一位专注于探索远古未解之谜、失落历史以及社会崩溃现象的创作者。 ## TL;DR 节目围绕彻底颠覆主流考古学既定时间线的新发现展开深入对话。Michael Button 与 Joe Rogan 探讨了哥贝克力石丘、百万年前古人类跨洋远航、北美 9000 年前的古铜矿工业以及 4 万年前的原文字符号等突破性成果，指出现代人类心智与复杂技术的出现远早于教科书所定义的框架。两人批评了学术界守旧权威对历史可能性的压制，并从地质灾难抹除、脑容量演化以及文明周期性崩溃的角度，反思了人类在严酷自然与时间长河中不断遗忘与重启文明的宿命。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对谈充满了极客式的狂热探索欲与对未知深渊的由衷敬畏，节奏在严谨的学术论证与罗根标志性的诙谐打趣之间自如切换。Button 展现出客观克制的学者底色，而 Rogan 则以敏锐直觉和层出不穷的奇思妙想推波助澜，两人在对权威建制派傲慢的犀利吐槽中形成了极强的默契共振。随着时间线从数万年一路推向百万年前的深邃地质岁月，录音室里的探讨逐渐弥漫起一种哲学层面的苍凉感与认知震撼，给观众带来颠覆常识的智力冲击与沉浸感。 ## Bulletin - [09:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=593s) 土耳其东南部哥贝克力石丘及周边卡拉汉石丘等遗址群将复杂建筑与高度分工文明的时间线直接从传统公认的6,000年前推前一倍至12,000年前，目前哥贝克力石丘仅完成了约5%的发掘。 - [33:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=2030s) 印度尼西亚苏拉威西岛、弗洛勒斯岛及菲律宾吕宋岛发现逾百万年前的古人类打制石器，结合维系种群繁衍至少需数百个体的生物学基准，暗示直立人可能早在百万年前就具备主动造船与远洋航行能力。 - [01:19:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=4766s) 通过对中国湖北郧县人头骨的三维CT数字化重建，古人类学家判定其属于龙人（丹尼索瓦支系），将智人、尼安德特人与丹尼索瓦人的分化时间节点从50万年前大幅推前至100万年前以上。 - [02:00:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=7203s) 美洲定居时间线遭遇多处古老遗址挑战，除公认的2.2万年前白沙国家公园足迹外，墨西哥韦亚特拉克遗址双面石器及覆盖火山灰测年综合锁定在约25万年前，冲击了传统的“克洛维斯第一”范式。 ## Key takeaways - [03:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=193s) 现代考古学面临文明爆发时机与同步性、人类智慧起源时代、早期孤立陆块迁徙时间线三大悬而未决的底层谜题。 - [09:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=593s) 传统将文字发明（约公元前3000年）视作文明开端的标准过于狭隘，哥贝克力石丘12,000年前的超大规模高浮雕巨石建筑证明文明起点应翻倍推前。 - [12:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=747s) 麦角假说提出农业革命中谷物滋生的麦角菌（含类似LSD的精神活性物质）可能重构了先民神经回路，催生了早期的社会制度、哲学与技术突破。 - [14:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=842s) 阿根廷胡胡伊省出土的公元前2130年美洲狮骨烟斗检出DMT、蟾毒色胺等精神活性成分，证实四千年前南安第斯人群已精准掌握雾化吸食强效致幻剂的技术。 - [30:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=1845s) 摩洛哥杰贝勒伊尔胡德遗址将智人历史推至30万年以上，而生物死后形成化石概率仅百万分之一，极度残缺的地质记录可能遗漏了多次古老文明萌芽。 - [38:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=2326s) 华莱士线深海海峡数千万年未曾闭合，百万年前在苏拉威西与弗洛勒斯等岛屿定居必须依赖数百人规模的蓄意远航，推翻了智人专属航海心智的旧说。 - [41:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=2508s) 北美苏必利尔湖区在距今7000至5000年前开采了高达15亿磅的铜矿，但该工业体系随后完全荒废被遗忘，证明技术进步并非只升不降的“电动扶梯”。 - [45:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=2730s) 巴尔贝克三石塔与萨克赛瓦曼遗址呈现“底层巨石工艺登峰造极、上层后筑结构简陋粗糙”的倒挂现象，暗示后继文明常在失落文明的地基上借地加盖。 - [52:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=3158s) 距今约6,000年前农业定居爆发期，全球约95%的男性父系血统彻底中断，或与定居私有财产累积后引发的恶性暴力冲突与防御战争直接相关。 - [01:04:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=3848s) 赞比亚卡兰博瀑布出土的47.6万年前榫卯木构建筑遗迹，证明早期古人类早已掌握复杂的抽象空间规划与现代行为规范。 - [01:32:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=5556s) 现代人类基因组中潜藏着数段“幽灵种群”的DNA片段，证实数十万年前曾有尚未出土任何化石实物的未知人属物种与人类祖先广泛混血。 - [01:40:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=6011s) 撒哈拉沙漠在公元前4,000年前为湿润草原水网，其突变干旱化直接推动了人口向尼罗河流域汇聚，成为古埃及文明爆发的关键推手。 - [02:11:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=7872s) 婆罗洲出土的31,000年前儿童截肢骨骼证实了创口彻底愈合，将人类复杂外科手术及热带抗感染草药护理的历史大幅推前。 - [02:20:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=8422s) 欧洲冰河时代洞穴壁画提炼出32个标准化几何符号且传承3万年，高度平行的全球分布暗示这是走出非洲前就已具备的原文字信息编码系统。 - [02:24:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=8643s) 过去一万年间现代人类平均脑容量出现明显萎缩，文字、物理介质乃至AI的普及将记忆与思考外包，导致独立个体的生物认知机能发生退化。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=1s) 独立创作者的崛起与主流考古学的盲区 节目在熟悉的片头语中开场。Joe Rogan 热情欢迎油管创作者 Michael Button 再次做客。Michael 透露，自上一期节目播出后的一年里，他的生活发生了天翻地覆的剧变：他的 YouTube 频道粉丝量迎来了爆炸性增长，接触到了众多圈内杰出人士。最让他感慨万千的是，曾经仅仅出于个人热忱而免费研究的古代历史与人类谜团，如今终于成为了他能够全职投入的终身事业。他对帮助自己实现这一飞跃的受众和 Rogan 表达了诚挚的感谢。 Rogan 盛赞了 Michael 的内容品质，指出主流考古学界长期以来留下了巨大的学术盲区，这种傲慢与封闭反而给体制外的独立探究者提供了契机，让他们收获了远超传统学者的庞大受众群。Rogan 尤其欣赏 Michael 的叙事风格：不仅客观、严谨，而且毫无夸大其词与博人眼球的炒作（"no fantastic claims, no hyperbole"）。即便探讨某些极端的历史推想，他也始终保持着恰如其分的克制。Michael 对此回应道，他从未觉得自己已经触及巅峰，一直倾听外界建议并努力打磨内容；全世界有数以千万计的普通人对这片古老迷雾怀有强烈的探求欲望。面对 Rogan 对主流学者固守既定时间线、排斥体制外发现的批评，Michael 指出，脱离学术体制反而赋予了他无可比拟的探索自由——他无需顾及学术圈的经费审查，也无需在同行评议的非议与压力下畏首畏尾，从而能以真正开放的视野去审视每一个新发现。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 独立历史研究与主流学术界的定位对比 accDescr: 流程图展示了独立研究者与主流学术界在研究自由度、资金限制及公众影响力上的分化。 subgraph 学术体系困境["主流学术界"] A["传统学术体制"] --> B["时间线固化与圈子排他"] B --> C["科研经费与同行压力限制"] end subgraph 独立探索优势["独立研究者 (Michael Button)"] D["脱离学术体制自由探究"] --> E["以严谨客观视角重新审视"] E --> F["填补大众认知盲区，激发数千万人关注"] end ``` ### [03:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=193s) 考古学无法解答的三大根本问题 谈及过去一年的最新科学进展，Michael 强调新材料的涌现速度之快令人震惊，尤其是过去 12 个月内发表的两篇重量级论文，可能彻底改写人类对过去的既有认知。他开门见山地指出，当今考古学正面临着“三大无法回答的核心谜题”。吊诡的是，学界过去自以为对这三大问题早已有了盖棺定论的标准答案，但随着一系列颠覆性证据的出现，旧有的解释体系已被抽走地基（"the rug has been pulled out"），可表面上学术界却依然像什么事都没发生一样照常运转。 Michael 在展开前给出了严谨的免责声明（Caveat）：他并不是科班考古学家或学术权威，仅拥有古代历史学学位，本质上只是一个将毕生精力投入其中的“超级极客”（"super nerd"）。他告诫观众绝不要把自己的观点奉为圭臬，必须亲自去查阅一手学术期刊、原始论文和考古报告。在此前提下，他总结了现代考古学面临的三大认知危机： - **第一大疑问（文明的爆发时机与同步性）**：现代智人（Homo sapiens）在地球上已生存了至少 30 万年甚至更久，为何在长达数十万年的漫长岁月里文明毫无踪迹，却在距今短短几千年内，在彼此毫无联系的区域——美索不达米亚、古埃及、印度河流域、古中国、中美洲及南美洲——几乎在同一时间窗口（相差不过一千年左右）不约而同地爆发？ - **第二大疑问（人类智慧的起源时代）**：具备现代思维能力的人类心智究竟始于何时？过去学界自诩智人（拉丁文直译为“智者”，Michael 调侃这是人类对自己极度缺乏自谦的命名）才是唯一的智慧物种，但近期的两篇突破性论文及对其他人族物种的最新研究，已经彻底推翻了“智慧仅属于智人且年代很晚”的旧说。 - **第三大疑问（人类登陆孤立陆地的时间点）**：早期人类究竟是在何时、以何种方式首次抵达美洲和澳洲等大洋阻隔的孤立陆块的？既有的迁徙时间表已经被大量相互冲突的实物证据撕碎。 Michael 强调，无论这三个问题的终极答案是什么，它们都直接构成了“现代人为何能生活在今天文明社会中”的底层逻辑。然而现实情况是，最核心的答案已悬而未决，大众与学界却仍在惯性地粉饰太平。 ### [07:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=470s) 亚马逊秘境、奥尔梅克巨石与“文明”的界限划分 针对第一个疑问——文明为何在几千年前几乎同步涌现，Rogan 抛出了自己的怀疑与推论：所谓文明的“突然出现”，是否根本只是一个考古记录的假象？那些更古老的人类文明很可能早已存在，只是在数万年的风化侵蚀、大洪水、地质剧变等自然灾难面前被抹平了痕迹，或者深埋在至今尚未被探明的绝地之中。 Rogan 列举了亚马逊雨林的惊人翻盘：几十年以前，主流学界普遍坚称亚马逊热带雨林是原始蛮荒之地，绝不可能供养大型文明；然而随着激光雷达（LiDAR）等现代探测技术穿透密林树冠，考古学家惊愕地发现了庞大的古代城市规划网格和水利系统。这些实证表明古亚马逊雨林曾居住着数百万人，彻底颠覆了学界的定论。然而直到今天，我们对这群生活在雨林中的古代住民究竟是谁、有着怎样的社会形态依然一无所知。 随后 Rogan 又以中美洲古老的奥尔梅克文明（Olmec）为例展开探讨： - “奥尔梅克”这个名字不过是现代人凭空赋予他们的代号，其真实的自称与文明内核至今成谜。 - 遗址留下的巨大玄武岩人头像展现出令人费解的面部特征——既像波利尼西亚人，又带有明显的非洲人种特征，至今引发无穷猜测。 - 传统上将其粗略归入距今约 6,000 年（或前古典期）的框架，但实际上这也只是学术界的模糊推测，缺乏确凿的源流链条。 对于 Rogan 关于“文明是否早就存在只是痕迹被磨灭”的追问，Michael 给出了深刻的反思。他指出，“文明突然在公元前 3000 至 4000 年前后诞生”这一概念本身就是人为划定的陈旧框架，其最核心的定义基准仅仅是“文字的发明”（the invention of writing）。主流叙事据此将有文字记载之前的时代一概贬为无文明的史前阶段，而这种机械的划分正是导致学界无法客观看待更早复杂社会的历史包袱。 ### [09:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=593s) 文明与人类智慧的时间线被彻底改写 在20世纪，学界通常将文字的发明视为人类文明的标志起点。随着古代苏美尔等文明遗址的发掘，历史学家将文明开端定格在约公元前3000年。然而，近几十年的考古发现推翻了这一过于保守的时间表。在土耳其等地发现的遗址——如卡拉汉巨石阵（Taş Tepeler）及哥贝克力石阵（Göbekli Tepe），其年代距今已超过12,000年。迈克尔·巴顿（Michael Button）指出，无论学界对文明的定义如何严苛，当我们在12,000年前就见证了如此庞大精密的巨石建筑时，就必须承认文明的起点至少被向前翻了一倍，绝非仅仅有6,000年历史。 更颠覆性的是关于人类智慧演变的时间跨度。旧有的主流学术框架十分整齐而线性：人类物种仅有约10万年历史；到了约5万年前发生“认知革命”才突然变聪明；随后在14,000年前气候转暖，顺理成章地爆发了农业革命，进而孕育出最早的文明。如今这一整洁的模型正在全面瓦解。新证据表明，人类不仅物种起源时间更为久远，具备高级智能的时间跨度更可向前推移至100万年以上——相当于把人类智能的时间线扩大了20倍。巴顿强调，这一切意味着“史前史的所有可能性都被重新摆上了台面（everything's back on the table）”，而主流学界对这一剧变的讨论却远远不够。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 人类文明与智慧时间线对比 accDescr: 对比传统考古学观点与现代最新发现的时间跨度差异 subgraph Old["传统20世纪认知模型"] direction TB O1["10万年前：现代人类诞生"] --> O2["5万年前：智力产生飞跃"] O2 --> O3["1.4万年前：气候适宜与农业"] O3 --> O4["约公元前3000年：苏美尔与文字出现（6,000年文明）"] end subgraph New["新发现与修正后时间线"] direction TB N1["100万+年前：人类智慧起源大拓展"] --> N2["1.2万年前：卡拉汉/哥贝克力石阵（文明翻倍）"] N2 --> N3["史前史可能性全盘重新审视"] end ``` - **文明起点的翻倍**：从传统认为距今约6,000年的美索不达米亚苏美尔文明，直接推前至距今12,000年前的哥贝克力石阵及周边卡拉汉山丘群（Taş Tepeler）。 - **智力演化的扩容**：人类拥有高等智慧的时间跨度认知从5万年暴增20倍，延伸至超100万年。 --- ### [12:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=747s) 麦角假说：迷幻体验催生了文明与创新？ 乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）顺势提到了前一天做客节目的杰西·迈克尔斯（Jesse Michels）带来的一种激进理论——“麦角假说（Ergot Theory）”。通常的观点认为，农业革命之所以推动文明，是因为定居生活带来了充沛稳定的食物供给，使人类摆脱了饥饿的压力，有了充裕的时间与闲暇去发明创造、建造城市。但麦角假说提出了另一个颠覆性诱因：黑麦、小麦和大麦等农作物上极易滋生麦角菌（Ergot），其中含有与强效致幻剂 LSD 极其相似的天然化合物麦角生物碱。 这一理论与布莱恩·莫拉雷斯库（Brian Morescu）在畅销书《不朽之钥》（*The Immortality Key*）中对古希腊“厄琉息斯秘仪（Eleusinian Mysteries）”的探究紧密相连。早期农耕定居者无论是有意还是无意摄入了这种含有麦角致幻成分的谷物，都可能引发前所未有的意识觉醒、非常规思维与疯狂的创造力，从而催生了人类早期技术、哲学与社会制度的大爆发。 - **传统定居假说**：农业 → 稳定热量与闲暇 → 科技发明与文明演进。 - **麦角致幻假说**：农业栽培谷物 → 麦角菌感染 → 摄入类似 LSD 的精神活性物质 → 大脑神经回路重构、产生颠覆性灵感与创造力。 --- ### [14:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=842s) 阿根廷4000年前的美洲狮骨烟斗与致幻传统 在谈论古人与致幻剂的渊源时，罗根和制作人杰米（Jamie）通过现场检索，深入探讨了一项来自南美洲的轰动性考古成果。在阿根廷西北部胡胡伊省（Jujuy）的高海拔印加洞穴遗址（Inca Cueva）中，考古学家发掘出了用美洲狮腿骨制成的管状吸烟斗。残留物化学检测明确检出了色胺类生物碱，实锤了烟斗与吸食致幻物质的直接关联。 经碳-14测定，这些美洲狮骨烟斗的年代可追溯至约公元前2130年（距今4,000余年），是南安第斯地区人类蓄意使用精神活性植物的最古老实物证据。残留物主要来自细花云实/黑叶安第斯相思树（*Anadenanthera colubrina*，当地鼻烟传统 Cegua 或 Cebil 的原料），其种子中天然富含蟾毒色胺（Bufotenin）、DMT 以及 5-MeO-DMT。尽管古人并非像现代化学实验室那样提纯纯度100%的 DMT，但他们早在4,000多年前就已经精准掌握了将这些种子碾磨并加热雾化、通过吸入烟气摄取强效致幻剂的技术。 罗根指出，这种现象在世界各地的古宗教神话中反复出现。例如耶路撒冷大学的一些学者曾推测，《圣经》中摩西遇见的“燃烧荆棘”，极有可能是富含 DMT 的相思树属植物（Acacia）；摩西在浓烈的致幻烟雾体验中见到了神圣异象，带回了刻在石板上的“十诫”律法。 - **遗址地点与年代**：阿根廷胡胡伊省高海拔洞穴 Inca Cueva，年代约为公元前2130年（距今逾4,000年）。 - **器物材质与用途**：美洲狮长骨管状烟斗，用于仪式性吸食特定植物种子。 - **化学检测成分**：检测出色胺类生物碱（包含 DMT、蟾毒色胺 Bufotenin 与 5-MeO-DMT）。 - **植物源**：柯鲁伯利亚金合欢/细花云实（*Anadenanthera colubrina*），传统 cebil 鼻烟的来源植物。 --- ### [17:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=1047s) 意识解放与权力控制：文明进步为何总被当权者压制 罗根与巴顿随后深入探讨了统治权力对精神活性物质与自由思想的天然敌意。不仅现代社会在1970年将此类物质妖魔化并列为“一级管制药物（Schedule I）”，古代社会对待自由思维同样充满恐惧。厄琉息斯秘仪之所以在古典时代晚期被强行取缔，本质上是因为当权者无法容忍这群思维不受拘束、富有反叛精神甚至孕育出早期民主思想的“致幻者”。如果民众的思想过于开放自由，统治阶级就无法推行极权控制，更难以驱使他们充当炮灰发动战争。 巴顿补充道，当权者的天性就是抹杀一切脱离其意识形态轨道的思维，以维持自身绝对统治。然而，打破固步自封的异端新思想，恰恰是推动文明避免死水一潭、实现演进的核心动力。罗根借用去过阿富汗服役的朋友经历对比指出，在阿富汗偏远山区，人们依然保持着千百年前由封建军阀统治、按部族宗族割据的游牧与半游牧状态；由于地理环境恶劣、终日为基本生存奔波，加上外部思想被严格封闭，那里的社会几乎陷入了数千年如一日的技术与文化停滞。相比之下，唯有在那些土壤肥沃、地理条件优渥的地区（如安纳托利亚/现代土耳其一带），人类才能挣脱温饱束缚，激发出一系列改写历史的思想与建筑奇迹。 ### [20:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=1200s) 赞助商插播与关于“真正文明发源地”的猜想 对谈在一则关于 BlueChew 产品的口播广告后正式进入核心议题。Joe Rogan 与 Michael Button 重新切入远古历史的探讨：如果地球上真的存在某个单一区域，孕育了人类“真正文明”的诞生，那它会是在哪里？Button 毫不犹豫地指出，位于今天土耳其东南部的“石丘”（Taş Tepeler，包括著名的哥贝克力石丘和卡拉汉石丘等聚落网络）正是这一猜想的最佳候选地，这也是目前考古学上能够证明类似人类文明的最早证据。 主流考古学界对这一说法往往持保留态度，认为由于它缺少传统定义中的某些标准“打勾项”，因此不能直接被称为真正的文明。但 Button 强调，学术界玩弄字眼毫无意义，这里展现出的文化精细度已经超越了传统狩猎采集者的范畴。目前该区域已经发现了大约 14 个紧密互联的遗址群，它们拥有共享的宗教符号系统、共同的传统信仰与极为相似的宏伟建筑形态，并体现出高度组织化的劳动力与社会分层结构。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Taş Tepeler 文明特征与学术分歧 accDescr: 展示土耳其 Taş Tepeler 遗址群展现出的成熟文明特征与主流学术界标准之间的分歧 subgraph Culture["Taş Tepeler 遗址群核心特征"] A["约 14 处紧密互联的遗址群"] --> B["共享宗教传统与象征符号"] A --> C["高度统一且壮丽的石柱环形建筑"] A --> D["有组织的大规模协作与社会阶层分化"] A --> E["最新确认的常住/半常住居住遗迹"] end subgraph Debate["学术界争议焦点"] Culture --> F{"是否被归类为'文明'？"} F -->|"主流学界守旧"| G["缺少文字等个别传统指标 / 移动球门线"] F -->|"独立学者视角"| H["将人类文明时间线直接从 6000 年翻倍至 12000 年"] end ``` - **遗址互联性**：Taş Tepeler 包含了约 14 个被确证彼此关联的石器时代聚落点。 - **阶级分化**：能够组织大型石构建筑工程，必然要求顶层指挥者与底层劳动者之间明确的社会分工。 - **守旧的时间线壁垒**：Rogan 指出学术界不断“挪动球门”，本质上只是为了捍卫几十年教科书里沿用至今的人类历史纪年表。 --- ### [22:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=1339s) 遗址规模与发掘比例：哥贝克力石丘的冰山一角 两人进一步讨论哥贝克力石丘（Göbekli Tepe）及其周边遗址的最新考古发现。过去学界常断言这些圣所只是季节性朝圣地，原始人并不定居在此；但最新的挖掘已经证实，当地实际上存在常住或半常住属性的居住建筑。唯一的所谓“文明缺环”目前仅剩文字系统（尽管一些早期符号与近期的农业萌芽线索同样引人瞩目）。谈及卡拉汉石丘（Karahantepe）、哥贝克力石丘和塞费尔石丘（Sefertepe）等代表性遗址时，Rogan 惊讶于目前哥贝克力石丘竟然仅发掘了大约 5%。 Button 解释说，整座哥贝克力石丘若全部挖出，规模将达到英国巨石阵（Stonehenge）的约 50 倍之巨。尽管主流考古学为了防止使用重型机械（如拖拉机挖掘）损坏地底无价之宝而倾向于小范围精细化作业，但他认为哥贝克力石丘拥有重构人类文明起源的极高战略价值，理应受到“特殊对待”。正如一块罗塞塔石碑（Rosetta Stone）彻底破译了古埃及象形文字一样，未发掘的 95% 土地之下很可能正沉睡着颠覆整个人类历史认知的核心遗物。 - **发掘比例**：哥贝克力石丘目前仅有 5% 的区域完成了实际挖掘，大部分环形结构仅凭探地雷达（GPR）侦测知晓。 - **尺寸对比**：全面发掘后的哥贝克力石丘预计比英国巨石阵大 50 倍。 - **罗塞塔石碑类比**：呼吁加快或特批保护性深度发掘，探寻能带来突破性认知转变的远古核心文物。 --- ### [24:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=1490s) 令人惊叹的高浮雕工艺、巨石搬运与“文明重启论” 画面随后切入哥贝克力石丘出土的文物细节，包括一件带有原始红色彩绘、嘴部带有红色痕迹的等身野猪雕像。Button 指出，这可能是人类历史上已知最早的 3D 石雕作品之一。更关键的是，石柱上栩栩如生的野猪、蛇等各类野生动物图案，并不是后来凿刻凹陷进去的，而是采用了极度耗时费力、对石工技术要求极高的“高浮雕（Raised Relief）”——工匠必须将整块巨石其余所有表面整体打磨削平，才能凸显出凸起的图案轮廓。 这种工艺毫无疑问证明了劳动专业化（Specialization）的存在：雕刻师不需要外出采集狩猎，石雕就是其专职工作。再者便是工程力学之谜，大部分柱体重大约 10 吨，而在采石场甚至发现了一根重达 50 吨、未运走的半成品，证明当时的人类掌握着难以想象的重物搬运能力。Rogan 幽默地调侃柱体上抓握着下体（"clutching their peckers"）的怪异雕像姿态，随后话锋一转抛出关键核心问题：这究竟是地球上“最古老的初生文明”，还是在上一次被大洪水与新仙女木期彗星撞击（Younger Dryas Impact）彻底摧毁后的“文明重启（Reboot）”？ - **高浮雕工艺的难度**：并非凹线阴刻，而是把图案周边的巨量岩石全部削掉留出立体浮雕，极耗工时与工具精度。 - **巨石载荷**：平均立柱重达 10 吨，采石场遗留的未搬运立柱重达约 50 吨。 - **文明时间线断代**：将人类文明的技术上限从距今 6000 年前（苏美尔/古埃及）直接翻倍推至 12000 年前，这表明他们绝非从零摸索的简单原始狩猎者。 --- ### [27:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=1647s) 刻意掩埋之谜：封存的胶囊与考古学界的盲目自信 针对哥贝克力石丘的碳-14 测年机制，Rogan 解释了其测年精准的异常原因：覆盖在石阵之上的泥土具有高度的人工均质性，说明整座圣殿是在距今大约 11600 年前被“刻意人工掩埋”的，而非像埃及狮身人面像那样历经数千年风沙慢慢堆积掩盖。这就留下了一个更深的谜题：在它们被泥土彻底封存之前，这些建筑究竟已经存在了多久？ ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 哥贝克力石丘掩埋过程与争论 accDescr: 说明遗址在11600年前的人工掩埋与天然滑坡假说之间的学术争论 A["距今未知更早年代<br/>（石阵建成并使用）"] --> B["约 11,600 年前<br/>泥土封存事件"] B --> C{"掩埋成因假说"} C -->|"克劳斯·施密特主流观点"| D["建造者/原住民刻意掩埋保护"] C -->|"学界反对/修正派"| E["罕见的大规模天然山体滑坡掩盖"] C -->|"冲突推测"| F["征服者恶意掩埋或政治宗教清除"] ``` 对于掩埋的动机，早年主导该遗址发掘的德国考古学家克劳斯·施密特（Klaus Schmidt）坚定认为是原住民主动掩埋，但也有部分学者试图主张这只是某种巨大的自然滑坡。Rogan 对“滑坡完美掩埋全场”的观点嗤之以鼻，并推测是征服者摧毁抑或是建造者为了保留火种主动封存。Button 总结道，越往远古追溯，事实的真相就越模糊；任何以笃定口气断言远古历史的学者，往往忽视了未知的浩瀚——这也是他对当代考古界某些僵化派系感到最为不满的盲点。 - **碳测年基准点**：距今约 11600 年前的掩埋土层，仅代表石丘被封存的时间下限，而非始建时间。 - **施密特的假说**：首席发掘者 Klaus Schmidt 认为遗址是在功成身退后被其建造者亲手整齐埋入地下。 - **认知边界的反思**：年代越古老，未知便越多，以绝对权威自居的历史定论往往站不住脚。 ### [28:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=1735s) 面对深邃历史的傲慢与推测的本质 迈克尔·巴顿（Michael Button）直言，他在历史探索中最反感的事情之一（"bug bears"），就是许多人谈论远古历史时表现出的那种不容置疑的自信，以及随意排除其他可能性的傲慢态度。他强调，面对极其遥远的深邃过去，尤其是跨越数万甚至数十万年的时间尺度时，无论是拥有数百万订阅者的 YouTube 博主，还是身处象牙塔的历史学教授，本质上都只是基于极其匮乏的碎片证据进行推测。巴顿认为研究历史应时刻保持谦卑：“我们不知道，也许是这种情况，也许是那种情况”，向公众传达“未知与无限可能”才是探索古代历史的核心所在。乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）对此表示赞同，指出既然生物学不断将人类的演化时间轴向更古老的源头推移，考古学理应随之拓宽视野，而不是守着旧框架固步自封。 两人随即谈及哥贝克力石阵（Göbekli Tepe）遗址填埋的学术争议。资料显示，仅 D 号巨石环形阵（Enclosure D）就包含了约 500 立方米的碎石和文化废弃物堆积，且在回填过程中，特定的残损拟人雕像头部似乎被刻意摆放在石柱附近。然而，考古界目前并没有确凿证据支持大众文化中广为流传的说法——即建造者为了隐藏、保护遗址或举行单一闭合仪式而“一次性蓄意掩埋了整个遗址”。现存的人工土丘虽然属于人类文化遗存堆积，但其形成过程混合了人类有意为之的活动以及持续至公元前 8000 年左右的自然沉积物移动。 - **D 号环形阵填埋规模**：仅该区域就堆积了约 500 立方米的碎石与文化废料。 - **沉积物演变性质**：包含蓄意放置的仪式性物品（如立柱旁的断裂雕像头部），但也伴随自然地质沉积过程，最终在大约公元前 8000 年（距今约一万年前）停止堆积。 --- ### [30:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=1845s) 化石记录的残缺与三十万年智人文明之谜 罗根对公元前 8000 年这一时间跨度感慨不已，认为现代人很难真正理解这种时间尺度的漫长与沉重。他联想到巴顿曾制作过的一期视频——探讨“如果十万年前甚至更早存在过人类文明，今天究竟还能留下什么”。罗根回忆道，当年他在高中读书时，教科书和学术界普遍认为解剖学意义上的现代智人（Homo sapiens）只有大约 5 万到 10 万年的历史；而如今摩洛哥杰贝勒伊尔胡德（Jebel Irhoud）出土的人类化石，已将智人的起源时间一口气推至距今 30 万到 35 万年（约 31.5 万至 36 万年）。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 化石记录稀缺性与文明痕迹假设 accDescr: 展示生物学将人类时间线推向30万年，但化石形成极度罕见，导致历史记录如同碎纸片。 subgraph S1["时间线的扩张"] A["过去传统认知: 智人约 5-10 万年"] --> B["现代重大考古: 摩洛哥 Jebel Irhoud 遗址"] B --> C["智人时间跨度推至 30-35 万年前"] end subgraph S2["证据链断裂与文明反思"] C --> D["化石形成概率仅百万分之一"] D --> E["碎片化认知: 如同仅凭半句话解读整本书"] E --> F["反思: 具有现代生理智力的人类，为何耗费30万年才学会盖屋顶与建立复杂文明？"] F --> G["假说: 周期性自然灾难与小行星撞击抹除古文明印记"] end ``` 巴顿强调，化石记录是极度不完整的，因为生物死后能变成化石的概率极其微小，大概只有“百万分之一”。罗根用了一个生动的比喻来形容这种极度受限的研究现状：“这就像试图通过一张只有半句话的破碎小纸片，去读懂整整一本书的内容，然后你问别人：‘你觉得这本书讲了什么？’这太荒谬了。”罗根由此提出尖锐质问：如果 30 万年前的人类在生理结构、脑容量和生物学特质上与现代人完全一致，“为什么他们会花上整整 30 万年的时间，才搞明白怎么盖屋顶、发展复杂文明与农业？”他认为地球上遍布着 2 万到 5 万年前的小行星撞击痕迹与极端自然灾难，这些灾难性事件很可能曾将古老的先驱文明从地表抹除。 - **智人化石年代革新**：摩洛哥 Jebel Irhoud 发现的古人类化石将现代智人历史推至 30 万至 35 万年前。 - **化石形成概率**：约为百万分之一，导致绝大多数远古生物与古人类个体无法进入地质记录。 - **灾变可能性**：地质史上频繁发现距今 2 万至 5 万年的小行星撞击坑与自然剧变遗迹，具备抹去早期物质文明的物理威力。 --- ### [33:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=2030s) 越过华莱士线：百万年前的古人类远洋航海之谜 巴顿顺着智人认知能力的议题进一步推进，提出根据过去一年发表的多篇重磅学术论文，古人类所谓的“行为现代性”（behavioral modernity）和高级智力水平，其起点可能远远早于学术界过往的估计，甚至能追溯到 100 万年以前。最关键的突破口来自印度尼西亚的苏拉威西岛（Sulawesi）以及远洋航行（seafaring）技术的研究。长期以来，跨海航行一直被定义为现代智人独有的排他性标志，因为建造经得起风浪的耐海船只、精确穿越汪洋并抵达与世隔绝的陆地，需要极其复杂的规划与智慧。 苏拉威西岛坐落在著名的“华莱士线”（Wallace Line）以东。华莱士线是一条极深的海槽与生物地理界线，这意味着数千万年来该岛从未与亚洲大陆相连，无论冰期海平面如何剧烈升降，其间始终横亘着宽度在 50 至 100 公里不等的深海海峡。然而，考古团队在苏拉威西岛的卡利奥（Calio/Talepu）遗址发现了距今 104 万至 140 万年前的人工石器。不仅如此，华莱士线以东的弗洛勒斯岛（Flores）早在十多年前就发现了 102 万年前的古人类石器，而北部的吕宋岛（Luzon）也出土了 70 万年前的石器遗迹。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 跨越华莱士线的理论对比 accDescr: 比较偶然漂流说与主动航海说的逻辑差异与群体规模要求。 subgraph G1["偶然漂流假说 (Accidental Drift)"] D1["偶发海啸或洪水将个体冲入深海"] --> D2["抓附漂流木熬过烈日暴风雨"] D2 --> D3["极小概率漂至孤岛"] end subgraph G2["种群生存法则 (NASA 数据支持)"] N1["隔离群体基因健康基线"] --> N2["严格配种/基因检测: 最少 160 人"] N1 --> N3["无基因干预自然繁殖: 约 500 人"] end subgraph G3["奥卡姆剃刀结论"] G1 -.->|"难以解释500人同时漂流且三次独立成功"| N3 N3 --> R["必然行为: 百万年前古人类具备造船与主动远航能力"] end ``` 过去学术界面对弗洛勒斯岛的孤证时，普遍采用“偶然漂流假说”（accidental drift），假设几个直立人被风暴卷入大海，抓着漂木侥幸跨海生存。但巴顿引用了美国国家航空航天局（NASA）针对人类拓殖孤立星球（如火星）的最小有效种群研究：在有严格配种管制与基因筛查的理想条件下，建立免于近亲繁殖衰亡的殖民群体至少需要 160 人；而在远古无任何基因技术的环境下，这一安全阈值约为 500 人。 面对这种严苛的种群基因法则，巴顿反问道：要让大约 500 个人同时被冲入大海、全员熬过暴风雨与热带烈日暴晒、同时成功登上遥远海岛并繁衍立足，“在同一区域的三个独立岛屿上发生三次，在什么节点上，‘偶然’会开始变成‘既定行为’？”巴顿与罗根一致认为，如果动用“奥卡姆剃刀”（Occam's razor）原理——即最简单的解释通常最接近真相，那么最合理的解释不是接二连三的荒诞巧合，而是早在 100 多万年前，某种古人类就已经拥有足够的智慧建造船只并进行了有组织的远洋航行。 - **华莱士线（Wallace Line）的天然屏障**：数千万年间始终存在 50 至 100 公里的深海阻隔，非智人陆行生物无法通过陆桥自然迁徙。 - **东南亚三大岛屿史前石器年代**： - **苏拉威西岛（Sulawesi, Calio 遗址）**：距今 104 万至 140 万年前。 - **弗洛勒斯岛（Flores）**：距今约 102 万年前。 - **吕宋岛（Luzon）**：距今约 70 万年前。 - **有效繁衍种群阈值（NASA 研究）**：人工严格调控下需至少 160 人，自然粗放繁衍下维持无遗传缺陷的隔离群体需约 500 人。 ### [38:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=2326s) 远古航海的争议与早期人类的心智之谜 迈克尔·巴顿与乔·罗根就早期人类跨海迁徙的意图展开了深入探讨。主流考古学界虽然不得不承认远在 70 万甚至 100 万年前就有人类生活在偏远岛屿上，但往往拒绝承认这是一种“蓄意为之”的航海行为。罗根对此直言这完全说不通：仅仅依靠落入海中漂流幸存，绝不可能让 500 多名处于生育年龄的人同时到达同一个岛屿，更何况这种事件在同一地区先后发生过至少三次。巴顿引用了航天机构（如 NASA）对人类建立地外定居点所需基础人口的研究指出，要建立一个基因健康的繁衍群体，至少需要数百名育龄个体。如果这不是有组织、有目的的航行，根本无法解释这种规模的成功定居。 这一推论对人类智力演化史带来了颠覆性的冲击。过去学术界普遍认为造船跨海是智人（Homo sapiens）独有的专属技能，因为造船需要极高的前瞻性规划、足以为抵御海浪的精湛木工技艺，以及无数次试错沉淀下来的经验。罗根幽默地调侃道，想象一下在百万年前，一个“长着巨大眉脊、满脸毛发的人”带领众人出海，不仅需要无法想象的狂热勇气，更需要辨别方向的领航术——比如仰望星空利用星象导航，否则航线根本无法重复。两人一致认为，要组织大批同伴踏上一场航程至少 50 公里、耗时数天的未知海上冒险，不仅需要掌握洋流和风暴季节的自然历法，更意味着他们早已掌握了复杂的组织沟通与语言能力，这直接将人类具备“现代心智”的节点从传统的 5 万年前大幅推前至 100 万甚至 140 万年前（如苏拉威西岛发现的 104 万至 140 万年前的石器），把人类智力的历史拉长了整整二十余倍。 - **基因定居门槛**：至少需要 500 名以上育龄男女同时抵达才能维系种群，彻底排除了偶发“浮木漂流”假说的可能性。 - **苏拉威西石器测年**：印度尼西亚苏拉威西岛（Sulawesi）的石器工具测年介于 104 万至 140 万年前，比传统认知中现代人类行为出现的时间（约 5 万年前）早了近 25 倍。 - **航海心智必备条件**： - 预测风暴与平静期的季节认知（早期历法思维） - 制造坚固耐用船只的工具制造与工程逻辑 - 依靠星象或地标的定向导航与航程复现能力 - 协调大规模群体同舟共济的复杂语言与组织架构 --- ### [41:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=2508s) 北美九千年前的铜矿开采与工业规模之谜 话题随后转向北美大陆一项令人瞠目结舌的考古发现——古铜矿工业。巴顿与罗根讨论到，在距今约 9000 年甚至 9500 年前，北美苏必利尔湖（Lake Superior）周边地区就存在着规模庞大的铜器工业体系。这个年代与世界上任何已知最早的铜器文明起源地并驾齐驱，彻底颠覆了人们对美洲原住民史前科技水平的刻板印象。 最让大众感到震撼的是其开采总量。根据相关考古与地质测算，在整个远古时期（Archaic period），苏必利尔湖区被开采出来的铜总计高达约 15 亿磅（约合 68 万吨）。尽管最初的开采可能源于散落在地表的“漂砾铜”（float copper），但随着需求增加，古代开采者进行了极为深入的大规模采掘，开采高峰期集中在距今 7000 年至 5000 年前。人们将这些铜制造成矛头、箭头、工具和装饰品。更离奇的是，这套庞大的采掘工业在持续运转了数千年之后，竟然完全停摆并被彻底放弃，古人似乎主动遗弃或遗忘了这项成熟的金属冶炼与加工技术。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 北美远古铜业兴衰流程 accDescr: 展示北美古铜工业从漂砾铜发现到工业化开采最终彻底停滞的历程 subgraph 发现与繁荣 A["地表漂砾铜 (Float Copper) 的发现与利用"] B["大规模深层露天开采与冶金加工"] C["制造矛头、箭头武器、日用工具与饰品"] end subgraph 工业规模与转折 D["采掘峰值：距今 7,000 - 5,000 年前"] E["总量测算：约 15 亿磅 (68 万吨)"] F["突遭停滞与技术被完全遗忘"] end A --> B --> C --> D --> E --> F ``` - **开采规模与总量**：苏必利尔湖区古代开采总量估计高达 15 亿磅（约合 68 万公吨），属于工业级体量。 - **时间跨度**：始于约 9500 年前，鼎盛期为距今 7000 年至 5000 年之间，延续了数千年。 - **制品用途**：出土文物涵盖铜制箭镞、枪矛尖、斧具以及各类装饰饰品。 --- ### [45:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=2730s) 技术非线性发展与巴尔贝克的巨石迷思 巴顿指出，北美铜矿工业的突然衰落彻底打破了现代人对科技进步的固有成见——我们习惯将技术发展想象成一架只升不降的“电动扶梯（escalator）”，认为文明只要迈上一个台阶就会持续上升。然而真实的历史却充满倒退、技术遗忘与重新发明。人类社会很可能经历过波浪式的起伏，在不同方向上攀登至极高境界后又湮灭无踪。 为了佐证这一观点，两人将视线转向了全球各地令人费解的巨石遗迹。巴顿特别提到了黎巴嫩巴尔贝克（Baalbek）神庙基座上的三石塔（Trilithon）。这三块巨大的石灰岩构件单块重量达数百吨乃至上千吨，远超罗马人修建斗兽场时移动的任何构件。然而奇怪的是，以事无巨细记录工程著称的罗马帝国，在其所有文献中对如此浩大的超级工程只字未提。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 文明技术发展的两种认知模型 accDescr: 对比线性的电动扶梯模型与真实的周期起伏重塑模型 subgraph 传统单向假说 M1["原始状态"] --> M2["线性进步"] --> M3["持续上升 (电动扶梯模型)"] end subgraph 真实历史形态 R1["技术发现/萌芽"] --> R2["文明高峰与巨石工程"] R2 --> R3["灾难/瓦解与技术遗忘"] R3 --> R4["后代在废墟上粗糙筑造"] R4 --> R2 end ``` 罗根进一步补充道，不仅巴尔贝克如此，秘鲁的萨克赛瓦曼（Sacsayhuamán）等众多史前遗址都展现出相同的奇特规律：位于最底层的地基往往由最大、加工最精密、工艺最难以企及的超级巨石严丝合缝地堆砌而成；而建造在上面的后世建筑，无论是石块体量还是砌筑工艺，反而显得粗糙落后得多。这种“下精上粗”的现象表明，后来的文明往往只是在早已废弃的远古宏伟地基上借地加盖，随着数千年的岁月流逝，后人甚至连最初的建造者是谁都已无从知晓，只能将其简单归结为“神迹”或“神灵将这些巨石摆放在了这里”。 - **巴尔贝克三石塔（Baalbek Trilithon）**：单块重达数百吨的超级石块，被归为罗马时期遗存，但没有任何罗马官方施工记载。 - **建筑技术倒挂现象**：包括萨克赛瓦曼在内的多处遗址均呈现“基底巨石工艺极高、上层后筑结构简陋粗糙”的特征，暗示技术的断代与退化。 ### [47:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=2857s) 遗址重叠利用与专家的“权威假说” Michael Button 指出，世界各地普遍存在一种现象：后世文明往往直接在更古老的遗址之上进行修建。原因很简单——原址通常是整个区域内地理条件最优越的位置。然而，现代人极易陷入一个思维误区，理所当然地将最后使用该遗址的文明当成其最早的建造者；即使他们确实可能是建造者，但也绝不能武断地断定他们“一定是”。 Joe Rogan 深表赞同，认为承认“证据不足以得出绝对结论”至关重要。他吐槽学术界的某些权威专家对此难以容忍，因为这些人极度依恋“唯一真理掌握者”的精英权威身份。专家们常常带着傲慢讽刺像 Michael Button 这样的 YouTube 创作者在散布“考古伪科学”，殊不知普通大众根本不再盲从这些死板的学者。Rogan 称赞 Button 等创作者风格客观严谨，比如 Ben van Kerkwyk（UnchartedX 频道主）和 Jimmy Corsetti（Bright Insight 频道主）等人，都用令人信服的方式揭示了远古历史中不可忽视的未解之谜。 Button 总结道，新证据的不断涌现正让人类认清自我认知的渺小，这在两个学科上尤为突出： - **物理学**：回答“我们身处何方”，揭示宇宙的广袤浩瀚与人类理解的浅薄。 - **历史学**：回答“我们是谁、从何而来”，让人认识到具有相似心智与生理特征的人类在地球上生存的时间跨度何其漫长。 --- ### [51:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=3061s) 灾难幸存者的野蛮本性与人类遗传瓶颈 两人谈及贯穿全球各大古文明的洪水神话。Rogan 推测，这些神话可能不是单纯的虚构传说，而是惨遭灭顶灾难、全球人口骤降至仅剩数千人时，先民一代代口耳相传记录浩劫的历史回声。按照传统历史时间线，人类文明呈现出奇怪的倒挂现象：如果先民早在五千年前（甚至更早）就拥有建造古埃及宏伟建筑的能力，为何在两三千年前却显得极为野蛮、残忍？ Rogan 给出的解释是：大灾难后活下来的人，骨子里必须是极度凶狠、甚至冷酷无情的恶徒，否则根本无法在绝境中存活。例如约 7 万年前印尼多巴超级火山（Toba volcano）爆发，全球人类幸存者被压缩到仅仅几千人。在绝大多数同类死亡、食物极度短缺的荒蛮环境下抚育后代并生存繁衍，其残忍程度超乎想象。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 极端灾难对人类基因与社会的筛选机制 accDescr: 多巴火山爆发导致全球人口锐减，残酷生存竞争筛选出野蛮幸存者 subgraph Disaster ["超级自然灾难"] A["约7万年前 印尼多巴火山爆发"] --> B["全球人口暴跌至数千人"] end subgraph Survival ["极端生存压力"] B --> C["极端资源匮乏 / 饥荒蔓延"] C --> D["残酷生存淘汰: 唯有极度彪悍者存活"] end subgraph Consequence ["历史余波"] D --> E["幸存者基因与文化带有极强野蛮本色"] E --> F["数千年后人类社会依然残留残酷暴力行为"] end ``` --- ### [52:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=3158s) 新石器时代父系基因灭绝之谜与定居冲突 Button 提到了他做过的一期视频：有遗传学证据表明，在农业革命爆发不久后的约 6000 年前，人类社会出现了一次极度诡异的“男性大减员”。Y染色体基因测序显示，当时全球约 95% 的男性血脉突然彻底中断，男性遗传多样性发生灾难性雪崩。在这一时期的地层中，还发现了大量的乱葬坑和带有暴力杀戮痕迹的骨骸。如果这是自然灾害造成的，男女伤亡比例应当一致，但该现象完全集中在男性群体，因而学术界推测当时可能爆发了规模极其恐怖的男性间杀戮战争。 Rogan 阐述了其背后的演化逻辑： - **游牧采集阶段**：族群随着食物迁移，居住帐篷，没有固定资产，摩擦相对流动分散。 - **农耕定居阶段**：人类掌握农业并建立固定房屋，积累了粮食、牲畜等私有财产。然而，周边依然游荡着大量未进入农耕文明的狩猎采集者和游牧劫掠部落。 - **防守困局**：定居者“蠢到盖了房子、把自己困在四面高墙之内”，无法像以前一样拔腿就跑，从而沦为移动劫掠者的天然靶子。 Rogan 拿蒙古骑兵打比方：蒙古人极度鄙视住在固定房屋里的人，视其为作茧自缚的蠢货。他们习惯逐水草而居、住毡房，并嘲笑定居者无处可逃；攻城时，他们甚至利用人体的高脂肪含量，将点燃的活人装上投石机直接投向茅草屋顶纵火。农业社会让财富集中在固定地理坐标上，建造城墙防卫也随之诞生，战争由此成为全人类常态。 在话题转向防御工事时，Rogan 随口提及了一个广为流传的未解传闻：据说中国长城的部分箭垛与发射孔居然是朝向内侧防守的。 - **Y染色体瓶颈事件**：距今约 6000 年前，约 95% 的男性父系血统消失，伴随着大量暴力创伤的集体掩埋墓葬。 - **定居文明的代价**：农业与私有制带来了粮食储藏与固定居所，也迫使人类必须在固定据点以死相拼，促使战争和防御城墙的诞生。 ### [57:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=3425s) 中国长城的箭孔之谜与惊人规模 乔·罗根与迈克尔·巴顿讨论起中国长城上一个令人费解的建筑特征：在许多城墙段落，箭孔居然是朝向内侧（朝向中国境内）的。两人最初打趣推测，这是否是为了把城内的人困住防止逃跑，或者部分城墙根本不是传统历史所认为的建造者建造的。杰米随即查阅了相关史料进行释疑：虽然长城大部分防御工事确实朝向北方的游牧大草原，但许多存世段落的垛口和箭槽实际上南北双向开孔。这一设计主要是为了应对破城危机——一旦外敌翻越城墙或夺取了敌楼烽火台，南侧守军必须能够向南回射压制和组织反扑；此外，长城绝非单一方向的阻拦隔离墙，而是一个集要塞、关隘、烽燧、巡逻道路于一体的综合交通与防卫网络，负责双向管控人员流动与边境贸易。 随后二人猜起了长城的总长度。罗根随口估算长城大概有“一千英里”，并调侃中国幅员辽阔，实际肯定远不止于此；杰米则猜测大约有六千公里，被罗根打趣说他非常适合去参加《价格猜猜看》（The Price is Right）。然而当检索结果展示在屏幕上时，所有人都被震撼了：经系统调查测定，历代长城总长度竟然达到了惊人的 21,196 公里（约 13,171 英里）。罗根忍不住惊呼：“我的天哪……这太疯狂了，这得耗费多少城墙！”虽然大众游客熟知且经常拍照的明长城相对较短，但包含相关工事与天然屏障在内依然有 8,850 公里。整座工程跨越两千余年，从公元前 5 至 3 世纪的早期城垣，一直延续修筑至 1644 年明朝灭亡。 - **明长城长度**：约 8,850 公里（包含城墙、壕沟及险绝天然屏障）。 - **联合国教科文组织认定的历代长城总长**：超过 20,000 公里（实际测量数据为 21,196 公里 / 13,171 英里）。 - **修建跨度**：始于公元前 5 世纪至前 3 世纪（战国至秦），持续至明朝覆灭（1644年）。 - **双向射孔战术意图**：防范关口陷落后的内线反攻，并实现双向人员与边防贸易管控。 --- ### [01:00:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=3623s) 史前失落科技：极薄玉器与埃及闪长岩石瓶 话题从古建筑工程自然过渡到了被正统学术界低估的远古技术。罗根提到了独立研究者卡西·科普史密斯（Cassie Coppersmith）关于中国古代反常遗物的观点：在数千年前的某些中国古文化遗址中，出土过薄如蝉翼、抛光至极致且带有精密机械加工痕迹的玉器。令人困惑的是，拥有这些玉器的同期人类，其日常陶器与工具制造水平却极为原始粗糙。这强烈暗示这些精美玉器并非他们当时所造，而是代代相传的“继承物”，属于前代失落文明留下的遗珍。 罗根指出，这种技术断层现象在全球具有高度一致性，最典型的对应案例便是古埃及前王朝遗址出土的硬石容器。这些器皿由硬度极高的闪长岩雕琢而成，不仅内外壁公差小于一根头发丝，而且器身两侧还带有雕出的双耳把手。如果使用的是原始旋转车床，根本无法解释把手如何在同轴车削中完整保留。种种证据表明，古人在其技术退化期保有的这些高精尖器物，是文明走过“起伏周期”的铁证——先人曾经达到过惊人的工艺高峰，随后在灾变或历史断层中将技艺遗失殆尽。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Prehistoric High Technology Degradation Cycle accDescr: Diagram contrasting ancient high-precision artifacts with contemporaneous crude daily tools, indicating technological regression. subgraph Peak["失落的高峰期（史前精密加工）"] A["极薄抛光精密玉器 (中国古文化)"] B["闪长岩高精度带把手石瓶 (古埃及)"] end subgraph Regression["文明衰退与继承期（后继原始部落/早期王朝）"] C["粗糙陶器与简陋石器"] D["视前代高精度器物为传家神物 / 无法仿制"] end Peak -->|大灾变、战争与知识遗失| Regression ``` --- ### [01:02:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=3745s) 文明兴衰周期与地质岁月的抹除效应 巴顿完全赞同技术会经历“发现、精通、遗忘”的周期循环。罗根举了有据可查的历史实例：在被蒙古大军洗劫彻底摧毁之前，巴格达曾经是全世界科学、医学与天文学的璀璨中心。人类在短短数千年的有文字历史中就已经历了无数次这种兴衰往复，而在长达几十万年乃至上百万年的漫长史前时期，类似的文明轮回更不可能完全空白。 然而，阻碍现代人发现远古文明证据的不仅是大灾难，更有残酷的地质保存机制。在十万年甚至二十万年的地质尺度面前，几乎一切人工痕迹都会被彻底风化抹去。罗根提到网上常见的 AI 模拟画面：如果人类突然消失，仅仅一千年后，整座纽约市就会荡然无存——摩天大楼坍塌粉碎，玻璃化为尘埃，整座曼哈顿岛将完全被泥土与热带般的原始丛林吞噬，后人顶多只能偶尔挖出一块未完全腐蚀的金属残片。巴顿补充道，他长期研究材料降解规律，除了石质结构外，人类目前使用的绝大多数现代建筑材料在几千年内都会彻底降解消失，而在漫长的史前尺度下，几千年不过是一瞬间。 --- ### [01:04:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=3848s) 卡兰博瀑布木结构与古人类智力 面对“既然三十万年前的人类拥有与现代人相同的脑容量与逻辑创造力，为何他们没能创造先进事物”的疑问，巴顿给出了坚定回答：他们绝对创造过。即便一百万年前的远古航海行为尚存争议（有人辩称可能是自然漂流事故），但近期的考古发现已经提供了不容辩驳的硬证据——赞比亚卡兰博瀑布（Kalambo Falls）出土的木质建筑结构，年代被测定为距今 47.6 万年前。 这个近 50 万年前的木构遗迹证明，当时生活在地球上的人属物种已经拥有令人惊叹的智慧。他们懂得对木材进行榫卯联结和规整加工，用于搭建房屋或特定结构。这种行为明确符合现代行为规范（modern human behavior），必须依赖高度抽象思维、空间规划能力以及象征性智力才能完成。两人进一步推论，既然他们具备营造工程的能力，就必然拥有交流复杂概念的成熟语言系统以及代际教学机制；而由于木质有机物在地质年代中极难保存，现代人能够极其侥幸地碳化检测到这一处木结构，意味着未曾留存下来的史前建筑与工具可能占了“99% 以上”。 --- ### [01:05:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=3924s) 假想超级 AI：通过全地表分子回溯重构人类真正历史 对话后半段，罗根提出了一个大胆的科幻式设想：如果未来的超级人工智能（AGI/ASI）算力发展到极致，能够全面扫描并精确盘点地球表层的每一座矿藏、每一片地层、每一个物件甚至每一个分子，是否可以通过物理逆向演算，模拟出所有物质在几万年、几十万年前的位置？通过逆推天然矿脉变动、火山喷发、板块挤压与自然灾害的物理轨迹，AI 或许能彻底倒推出一部精确无误的“地球与人类终极编年史”，还原出人类当前认知无法企及的历史真相。 尽管在当下来看，要扫描整个地球地壳的物理结构宛如天方夜谭，但罗根指出，正如 500 年前的人类把“探地雷达”（Ground Penetrating Radar）视作不可思议的魔法一样，科技的指数级扩张正在打破一切想象壁垒。巴顿对此表示赞同，并补充说如今的人工智能已经能够在极短时间内解决困扰顶尖数学家五十年的世纪数学难题。这一颠覆性工具的迅速崛起，正在彻底重构人类探索未知与破解远古谜题的边界。 ### [01:06:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=4012s) 考古学的希望、保存难题与历史的认知局限 对人类历史认知边界的探讨拉开了对话的序幕。面对未来我们究竟能还原出怎样的历史全貌与大致时间线，Michael Button 指出，这正是考古学最令人期待的地方——现代科技让人类有能力发现过去完全无法察觉的事物。激光雷达（LiDAR）就是眼下最具代表性的例证，如果顺着科技发展向前推演，未来必定会涌现出更多超乎想象的探测手段。正如 500 年前的人根本无法想象现代探测技术一样，500 年后会发生什么突破，谁也无法预料。 然而，阻碍我们探寻真相的核心瓶颈依然是极其残酷的“保存问题”（preservation problem）。历经漫长岁月，绝大多数历史遗存早已湮灭在尘土中，除非我们能找到从地层中提取残存信息的颠覆性技术，甚至是“造出时光机”。Joe Rogan 笑着附和，如果真能造出时光机，那可就彻底把现有体系搅得天翻地覆了。 两人一致认为，人类目前对历史的理解绝不可能是终点。最让人感到沮丧的，莫过于某些学者对现有的历史定论展现出绝对化的态度。科学在所有领域都在不断进步，人类从未探明过一切，然而在历史上的每一个时代，总有人自大地以为当下所掌握的就是知识的“认知上限”。面对 30 万年前的悠久岁月，除了石头工具外，金属等材料早已腐蚀殆尽，除非遇到像南非卡兰博瀑布（Kalambo Falls）木结构那样极端罕见的保存条件，绝大多数证据早已不复存在。 ### [01:08:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=4137s) 古代工艺的谜团：从玉器雕琢到重型巨石的运输 话题自然转向了那些在严酷岁月中留存下来的特殊文物——玉石与矿物。Joe Rogan 提到，金属部件腐坏殆尽后，往往只剩下坚硬的玉柄留存下来。随后两人在屏幕上翻看起出土的古代玉石器物，包括公元前 3000 年至公元前 2000 年的奇异玉璧（玉环）。虽然明代（约 1600 年）的古籍中记载了当时的加工技法，但许多出土文物的年代比这些记载还要早 3000 多年。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 古代工艺与考古谜团的认知逻辑 accDescr: 对比微观玉石加工与宏观巨石工程在解释上的差异与疑点 subgraph Craftsmanship["精细工艺 (微观尺度)"] direction TB A["绳索拉动磨料 (沙/水浆)"] --> B["手工钻具与硬质石材"] B --> C["数代匠人长年累月的经验与巧思"] end subgraph Megaliths["巨石工程 (宏观尺度)"] direction TB D["数十吨花岗岩巨石 (如阿斯旺采石场)"] --> E["翻越崇山峻岭与无路地带"] E --> F["成百上千乃至数百万块的惊人规模"] end Craftsmanship -.->|"常规巧合尚能解释"| G["技术演进认知"] Megaliths -.->|"传统'滚木搬运'解释陷入困境"| G ``` 他们谈到一种被称为用绳索带上研磨砂浆、慢慢磨穿软玉（nephrite）的传统解说。当屏幕上出现一件雕刻极其精致繁复、花瓣层次分明的立体玉雕时，两人一度震惊于没有金属工具的古人如何能达到这种精度，随后发现那其实是现代大师的作品，这才松了一口气。对于早期较为粗糙但留有钻孔痕迹的真实古玉，Joe Rogan 认为尚可归功于匠人世代累积的巧思、硬石配合砂石浆研磨的手工钻探技法。 但真正让人匪夷所思的是“巨石工程”。小件器物可以用耐心解释，可一旦面对阿斯旺（Aswan）重达 50 吨的花岗岩巨石，在毫无平整道路的崇山峻岭之间，官方学者轻描淡写的“用圆木滚过去”就显得极其苍白，更不用说成百上千、数以百万计的惊人搬运规模了。 - 软玉传统加工据记载主要依赖蘸有研磨剂与水的绳索进行拉扯锯切。 - 许多出土玉器的微小孔洞经过放大观察，确有使用原始钻具的痕迹。 - 宏观尺度上的巨石运输（如埃及阿斯旺开采的花岗岩）在工程体量与地形限制上构成了难以自洽的考古谜题。 ### [01:12:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=4331s) 印度古迹之谜、巴霍巴利巨像与人类摧毁历史的宿命 Joe Rogan 提到了此前与 Cassie Coppermith 录制节目时探讨过的印度古代遗址。那些年代更为久远的古迹，往往展现出更惊人的复杂度和极其精密的加工痕迹，甚至让人联想到机械加工的特征。其中最震撼的例子之一，是矗立在印度的一座巨型整石立像。 年轻的制作人 Jimmy 在电脑上调出了照片。这座雕像被确认为著名的巴霍巴利王巨像（Lord Bahubali，位于卡纳塔克邦的什拉瓦纳贝拉戈拉）。雕像巍然矗立于山顶，从极远处便清晰可见，通体由一整块巨大的花岗岩雕凿而成，高达 57 英尺（约 17.4 米），常规考古认定其建于公元 983 年前后。雕像表面打磨光滑、线条利落，仿佛经过机械加工一般，让人不禁困惑古人究竟是如何在山顶将这一整块巨岩加工成型的。 此外，两人还提到了著名的凯拉萨神庙（Kailasa Temple）——整座神庙是从一整座玄武岩山体自上而下整体开凿出来的，官方解释同样归结于简单的铁锤与凿子。Joe 补充道，历史上曾有统治者派出大军试图彻底铲除摧毁凯拉萨神庙，工兵花费了数年时间狂拆滥砸，结果只在岩石表面留下了一些微不足道的凹坑和划痕，神庙整体巍然屹立。 由此两人展开了对“人类摧毁历史”的深刻感慨。历史上不断有新统治者为了让历史符合自己的宗教信仰或叙事体系，肆意抹去先前的文明痕迹： - 塔利班炸毁拥有上千年历史的巴米扬大佛。 - ISIS 肆意洗劫和炸毁叙利亚帕尔米拉古城（Palmyra）。 人类总是为了确立当下统治和权力的合法性而编造叙事，一旦过去的宏伟遗迹与自己的叙事不符，便将其摧毁抹杀。这也意味着，今天我们看不到的失落历史，除了被时间风化消磨，更有很大一部分是因为这种“摧毁与重塑叙事”的人性痼疾而永远消失在岁月之中。疲惫的 Michael 此时倒了杯咖啡提神，笑称跨洋飞行带来的时差着实不轻。 ### [01:15:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=4539s) 印度古代石雕奇迹与未解的建造工艺 谈话从一座巨大的耆那教雕像展开——在2016年之前，它一直被认为是世界上最高的耆那教雕像（位于印度什拉瓦纳贝拉戈拉的巴胡巴利/高默德什瓦拉雕像），由西恒伽王朝（Western Ganga Dynasty）的大臣委任建造。面对屏幕上的图像，Joe Rogan 和 Michael Button 感叹于其惊人的工艺与规模：这座雕像建造于一千多年前，耸立在山顶之上，面部表情极其匀称，手指与脚趾的线条栩栩如生，甚至散发出一种如同现代机械加工般（machined）的精密感。Joe 忍不住调侃道，站在雕像脚下的人显得如此渺小，如果这不是原地矗立的一整块天然巨型花岗岩，古人究竟是如何把它运到山顶并竖立起来的？ ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 古代巨石雕像传统假说与工艺疑点 accDescr: 对比传统考古学关于原位雕刻的推断与实际工艺中存在的未解谜团。 subgraph Archaeology["主流考古学推论"] A["就地取材（In Situ 雕刻）"] --> B["避免开采与搬运17米巨石"] B --> C["从整块山体岩石中逐渐剥离多余石料"] end subgraph Questions["工艺细节与未解难题"] D["公元900年左右的简陋工具"] E["高容错率难题：一刀失误即全盘报废"] F["精细的藤蔓浮雕、四肢与面部处理"] end Archaeology -.-> Questions ``` 根据现场查阅的技术资料，没有任何幸存的古代工程文献记录过具体的建造流程。目前考古学和艺术史界的共识是，工匠们采用了“原位雕刻”（in situ）的方式，直接在一整座花岗岩山体露头上雕琢，剔除多余石材，先勾勒出粗略轮廓，再逐步精雕面孔、四肢、发髻以及缠绕在双腿上的独特藤蔓。这种做法避免了在悬崖峭壁上开采、运输并立起一座高约17米石雕的“近乎不可能的任务”。然而，这依然带来了极大的疑问——在公元900年左右，工匠们仅凭简陋原始的凿子与工具，究竟耗费了多少岁月？如果在漫长的雕刻过程中出现哪怕一次严重失误，整座巨型石雕便会彻底报废。Joe 感慨现代社会早已丧失了这种雄心，因为现代人凡事追求投资回报，建造一栋摩天大楼只需几年并能在顶楼冠名，没人愿意再花数十年去凿石头。 - 雕像细节包括沿双腿攀附的精细植物藤蔓浮雕以及极为对称的面部特征。 - 该雕像通高约17米，取材于整块天然花岗岩。 - 主流假说认为采用就地（in situ）减法雕刻，避免了搬运数千吨石料的工程挑战。 --- ### [01:18:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=4686s) 印度巨石神庙、镜面石窟与旋床石柱之谜 话题随后拓展到印度各地更加令人匪夷所思的古代石构建筑。无论是埃洛拉石窟等直接从玄武岩山体自上而下整体掏挖出来的岩凿神庙，还是那些悬空且完全三维立体的雕塑，都展现出令人难以置信的几何与力学掌控力。两人讨论到，现代人用强光侧向照射这些石雕时，其三维纵深与镂空细节令人叹为观止——在没有现代照明和小型动力机械的情况下，古代工匠究竟是如何探入石雕背面进行掏空的？ 更加离奇的是印度的巴拉巴尔石窟（Barabar caves）。这些开凿于花岗岩中的古老洞窟内部拥有完全如同镜面般平整光滑的抛光墙壁（mirror-polish）。主流学术界通常将其解释为古代僧侣避雨或苦修的简单“遮蔽所”（shelters），但这完全无法解释其惊人的声学设计与超高精度的几何打磨。正如 Michael 所指出的：“如果你只是造个避难所，根本不需要这种极致的镜面打磨。”此外，印度部分古神庙中那些圆润精美、如同在工业大型车床（lathe）上旋转切削加工出来的精密石柱，同样让现代研究者哑口无言。两人一致认为，现代人对过去的了解充满了基于有限认知的盲目假设，而当这些假设被学界包装成“既成事实”时，反而严重阻碍了人类去探索历史背后真正遗失的技术与细节。 - 巴拉巴尔石窟内部拥有极致的镜面级花岗岩抛光工艺，内部声学共鸣极为独特。 - 印度诸多神庙拥有类似机械旋床加工外观的对称同心圆石柱。 - 主流学界常以“宗教庇护所”一言蔽之，回避了其超常工艺精度的制造动机与技术来源。 --- ### [01:19:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=4766s) 郧县人头骨研究：人类起源时间线的剧烈改写 随后，Michael 提到了古人类学界近期的一项重磅研究突破：在中国发现的具有现代脑容量大小、距今约100万年的古人类头骨化石。这项研究源于中国湖北郧阳（原郧县）发现的化石（郧县人1号和2号头骨，发现于1989至1990年间）。这些头骨因数百万年的地层挤压而严重变形损坏，长期以来由于年代古老（超过100万年）且地处东亚，学界依照传统范式自然而然将其归类为直立人（Homo erectus）。 然而，由中国高校学者与伦敦自然历史博物馆的克里斯·斯特林格（Chris Stringer）教授领导的联合团队，采用高精度CT扫描与现代数字三维虚拟重建技术，对严重变形的“郧县人2号”头骨进行了数字复原。研究结果令人震惊：复原后的头骨特征表明它可能属于“龙人”（*Homo longi*）谱系，而龙人被认为是与丹尼索瓦人（Denisovans）密切相关的支系。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 郧县人头骨研究对人属演化时间线的修正 accDescr: 展示郧县人2号复原后归入龙人/丹尼索瓦支系，如何将智人分支时间大幅推前。 A["郧县人2号头骨（距今约100万年）"] --> B["传统观点：直立人 (Homo erectus)"] A --> C["CT扫描与三维数字化重建"] C --> D["归入龙人 (Homo longi) / 丹尼索瓦支系"] D --> E["龙人/丹尼索瓦是尼安德特人与智人的姐妹群"] E --> F["结论：人属三大支系分化必定发生在100万年以前"] F --> G["将原本认为的50万年分化时间线直接推前了一倍"] ``` 这一发现对于整个人类演化史具有颠覆性的意义。因为龙人/丹尼索瓦人支系是智人（*Homo sapiens*）与尼安德特人（Neanderthals）的姐妹群（sister species）。如果距今100万年前龙人支系已经独立行走在东亚大地上，这意味着演化成智人、尼安德特人与丹尼索瓦人的共同祖先分化事件，必然发生在100万年甚至更早以前。以往学界普遍认为现代人类各谱系的分化大约发生在50万年前左右，这项新发现直接将人类谱系分化的时间节点往前推了四五十万年，彻底改写了古人类进化的时间表。 - 郧县人头骨（Yunxian 1 & 2）于1989-1990年出土，具有超过100万年的古老历史。 - 伦敦自然历史博物馆古人类学家 Chris Stringer 等人利用三维 CT 技术复原了郧县人2号。 - 复原特征显示其与哈尔滨发现的“龙人”（*Homo longi*）高度同源，代表丹尼索瓦人谱系的分支。 - 这一发现将智人与其近亲支系的分离时间从原先认定的约50万年前直接提早至100万年以上。 --- ### [01:21:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=4875s) 丹尼索瓦人读音争论与人属物种的复杂交融 在探讨这篇论文的过程中，两人还插科打诨地聊起了学术界的发音习惯。Joe 提到学者们往往偏好将“Denisovan”读作“Denise-ovan”，而他自己习惯念成“Dennis-ovan”，因为该物种命名的起源地是西伯利亚的“丹尼索瓦洞穴”（Denisova Cave），因此理应按地名发音，甚至开玩笑说“管他什么科学家规范”。 玩笑过后，两人的讨论深入到古人类之间的复杂基因交融。现代基因组学已经证实，智人曾与尼安德特人、丹尼索瓦人广泛发生过基因混血，甚至尼安德特人与丹尼索瓦人之间也存在跨物种繁衍。人类各支系在生物学上如此相近，以至于能够孕育具有繁殖能力的后代。近年来考古学更在多处遗址发现了智人与尼安德特人长期和平共处、生活在同一区域的实凿证据，彻底打破了过去认为两者相遇必然充满敌意或非自愿繁衍的刻板偏见。 在此基础上，Joe 提出了一个他最近读到但颇具争议的疯狂假说：是否存在一种理论，认为尼安德特人并非智人平行演化出的独立分支，而是早期智人在更古老的时期与某种古猿或其他古老灵长类动物跨种交配产生的后代？尽管 Michael 对此表示未曾耳闻并持怀疑态度，Joe 仍当场让制作人 Jamie 在后台搜索相关论文和学术假说，试图验证这一关于尼安德特人起源的冷门假说究竟源自何处。 - 智人、尼安德特人与丹尼索瓦人之间存在复杂的双向甚至多向基因交流。 - 考古证据显示早期智人与尼安德特人曾有在同一地理区域长期共存与合作生活的记录。 - Joe 试图求证尼安德特人是否可能由更早的智人与未知古灵长类交配演化而来的前沿争议假说。 ### [01:24:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=5076s) 用 Perplexity 考证智人与尼安德特人的杂交假说 乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）与迈克尔·巴顿（Michael Button）在节目中尝试探寻一个反直觉的演化猜想：尼安德特人（Neanderthals）是否可能本身就是早期智人（Homo sapiens）与其他古人类物种杂交繁育的产物。由于记不清具体出处，两人现场求助于 AI 搜索引擎 Perplexity。在等待 AI 检索网页的过程中，罗根开玩笑地催促算法快点抓取数据，戏称“快爬啊，混蛋！它们迟早要统治世界、搞砸一切”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 古人类演化与混血假说推演 accDescr: 展示节目中探讨的早期智人迁徙、基因杂交假说与幽灵种群关系 subgraph Timeline["演化与杂交时间线"] A["约20万至25万年前<br/>早期智人走出非洲"] --> B["欧亚大陆发生多次早期接触与基因交流"] B --> C["晚期尼安德特人与现代人反复混血<br/>约5万至6万年前"] end subgraph Hypotheses["节目探讨的边缘与未解假说"] D["尼安德特人起源假说<br/>智人是否更早就与其他古猿/古人杂交"] E["基因组学未解之谜<br/>现代人DNA中潜藏的'幽灵种群'"] end ``` AI 给出的反馈显示，主流学界并不支持“尼安德特人最初是由智人与另一物种结合形成”的观点。但最新基因组图谱证实，现代智人与尼安德特人的杂交远非原本以为的仅发生在五六万年前的短暂窗口期，早在距今 20 万至 25 万年前，早期走出非洲的一波智人就曾进入欧亚大陆与尼安德特人发生过交配。尽管 AI 的回答并未完全匹配罗根脑海中模糊的特定非主流理论，罗根也感叹现代人在海量信息中的困境：“当你看了太多视频、读了太多文章却没把它们随手存下来时，就会遇到这种操蛋的情况。” - 现代人类与尼安德特人的反复混血历史被基因测序推前至距今 20 万至 25 万年前，打破了过去认为仅发生在距今约 5 万至 6 万年前的认知。 - 节目中检索的核心疑问在于：是否存在关于尼安德特人最初也是某种古人种杂交产物的科学假说。 --- ### [01:26:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=5207s) 丹尼索瓦人的体型之谜与圣经中的“巨人”传说 话题随即转向古老而神秘的丹尼索瓦人（Denisovans）。巴顿提到当月（2024年8月）刚有学术讨论关注丹尼索瓦人的惊人体格，认为其体型可能远比同时期的智人庞大。罗根补充道，在海底发现的股骨化石，以及先前出土的巨大牙齿、粗壮下颌骨以及归类上高度接近丹尼索瓦人的“龙人”（Dragon Man）头骨，无不揭示出一种异常高大、强壮且面部骨骼极为粗犷的古人类形态。从推算来看，他们的身高极可能显著超过 6 英尺（约 183 厘米）。 这种体型差异放在史前环境中尤为震撼。现代男性的平均身高大致在 5 英尺 8 英寸至 5 英尺 9 英寸（约 173 至 175 厘米）之间，而远古时期的普通人类往往更显矮小。罗根结合自己担任 UFC 解说员的亲身经历打比方：每次在 UFC 称重仪式上站在重量级选手旁边——那些身高 6 英尺 7 英寸到 6 英尺 9 英寸、重达 265 磅（且是脱水减重后才达到 265 磅）的庞然大物面前，普通人会产生强烈的生理压迫感。 两人推测，如果一个身材矮小的早期智人部落偶遇一群身材高大、骨架粗大且具备压倒性体能优势的丹尼索瓦人，这种视觉冲击极有可能深植于原始记忆中，并通过口述历史流传演变，甚至可能就是《圣经》等古代文献中“巨人”（Nephilim）神话的原型来源。罗根甚至怀疑，目前人类发现的微量化石，说不定正好属于丹尼索瓦人中体型偏小的一批个体。 - 丹尼索瓦人的牙齿、颌骨、深海股骨推算身高均显著超过 6 英尺（183 cm），骨骼呈现极其厚重强悍的形态特征。 - 罗根将丹尼索瓦人的身躯威慑力类比于现代 UFC 超过 200 斤、近 2 米高的重量级格斗选手。 --- ### [01:30:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=5447s) 步氏巨猿、弗洛勒斯人与岛屿巨型化 谈到古生物的巨大化，罗根和巴顿探讨了灵长类动物究竟能长到多大。巴顿提及了步氏巨猿（*Gigantopithecus*）极具传奇色彩的发现史：20 世纪早期，古生物学家在中国的一家传统中药铺中，意外从被称为“龙骨”的中药药材堆里辨认出了巨大到无法理解的灵长类臼齿，顺藤摸瓜才让这种远古巨兽重见天日。 关于步氏巨猿的形态，早年学界曾猜测其可能具有双足行走特征，这也使许多神秘生物学爱好者将其视作北美“大脚怪”（Bigfoot）神话的源头；而现代研究则普遍倾向于认为它是一种体格巨大的地栖巨猿，亲缘关系更接近红毛猩猩，身高可达 10 英尺（约 3 米）左右，宛如迪士尼电影《奇幻森林》（*The Jungle Book*）中的路易王（King Louie）。 人类演化的树状图在极端环境中展现出令人惊叹的多样性。巴顿提到了印度尼西亚弗洛勒斯岛上发现的弗洛勒斯人（*Homo floresiensis*，俗称“霍比特人”），因“岛屿侏儒化”（Island Dwarfism）影响，成年个体身高仅有约 3 英尺（约 90 厘米）。自然界中同样存在“岛屿巨型化”（Island Gigantism），这表明只要食物与蛋白质资源充足，史前人类演化出超乎寻常的巨大分支在生物学逻辑上完全成立。 --- ### [01:32:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=5556s) 遗传学中的“幽灵种群”与史前未解之谜 两人感叹人类目前对史前历史的认知存在巨大的空白盲区。丹尼索瓦人迟至 2010 年才凭借在西伯利亚洞穴发现的一块极小的指骨切片结合 DNA 测序被人类确认，至今全球留存的化石实体证据也屈指可数，仅包括少量牙齿、下颌骨和股骨碎块。面对如此匮乏的化石记录，人类究竟错过了多少支古人类物种根本无法估量。 更神秘的证据来自现代人类自身的基因组。基因测序显示，现代人的 DNA 中潜藏着多段被称为“幽灵种群”（Ghost Populations）的古老基因痕迹——这些遗传片段证明，在数十万年前，智人曾与某些在解剖学和化石记录上完全一片空白的神秘未知古人类频繁接触并混血。罗根提及 BBC 科学纪录片《人类》（*Human*）中关于幽灵 DNA 的讨论，感叹人类对自身史前的社会形态、文化阶层以及是否曾有专属工具遗存所知甚少，整个史前学界其实仍处于充满未知的迷雾之中。 - 丹尼索瓦人于 2010 年首次被确认，目前物理化石数量极其有限。 - 现代基因组学确凿证实了“幽灵种群”的存在：曾有数个尚未出土任何化石的未知人属物种在数十万年前与现代人类祖先发生过基因渗入。 ### [01:33:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=5634s) 人类抵达美洲的时间线不断被推前 人类制造的石器很难直接指向具体的人种，因为若没有与石器伴生的骨骼化石，考古学家便无法断定这些工具究竟是谁制造并使用的；即使在旁边找到了骨骼，也难以百分之百证明制造者就是该个体。当乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）询问迈克尔·巴顿（Michael Button）近期还关注哪些引人入胜的话题时，巴顿提到了古人类何时抵达美洲与澳大利亚等孤立大陆的谜团。长久以来，“克洛维斯第一”（Clovis First）理论统治着考古界，认定人类是在约13,000年前经由白令陆桥及冰盖无冰走廊进入美洲的。然而，近年来的多项新发现已经彻底推翻了这一旧观念，将人类抵达美洲的时间大幅向前推进。 其中最确凿且已被学界普遍接受的证据是美国白沙国家公园（White Sands）发现的人类足迹化石，其年代至少可以追溯到22,000年前。巴顿指出，白沙足迹的里程碑意义在于它完全打破了原有的理论框架：因为该时期处于末次盛冰期之前，无冰走廊尚未开启，这表明当时的人类必须通过其他路径进入美洲，同时也意味着人类在这片土地上的活动历史可能远比想象的更古老。 - **白沙国家公园（White Sands）足迹**：目前考古学界公认的美洲最早人类活动确凿证据，测定年代至少为距今 22,000 年。 - **“克洛维斯第一”范式瓦解**：打破了过去普遍坚信人类仅在约 13,000 年前才首次抵达美洲的传统学说。 --- ### [01:35:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=5734s) 奇基威特洞穴与巴西佩德拉·富拉达的争议性遗址 在公认的白沙遗址之外，还有一系列年代更为久远但饱受争议的考古发现。位于墨西哥北部高山地带的奇基威特洞穴（Chiquihuite Cave）出土了约2,000件疑似石器的物品，科研人员进行了大约50次独立的年代测定，结果表明其地层年代在距今30,000至33,000年之间。尽管年代测定本身没有争议，但学界对这些碎石究竟是人工打制还是自然崩落的产物存在分歧。现场发掘的学者坚信，这里证明了33,000年前美洲已有古人类活动。 更为激进的证据来自南美洲深处的巴西佩德拉·富拉达（Pedra Furada）遗址，测定年代高达50,000至60,000年前。发掘人员在极古老的地层中发现了类似火塘的结构、木炭以及经过加热变黑的石块，显示这里可能存在持续数千年的定居痕迹。罗根与巴顿仔细查看了出土的石器照片，批评者往往坚称这些石块是自然剥落形成的伪石器（geofacts），但2023年发表的一篇权威论文通过打制石器技术（knapping）分析有力地支持了人类活动假说。巴顿感叹，要让主流学术界完全接纳如此颠覆性的结论，门槛极高，除非直接出土人类骨骼化石，否则质疑者永远可以将火痕或碎石归咎为自然现象。 - **奇基威特洞穴（Chiquihuite Cave）**：位于墨西哥北部高海拔山区，出土约2,000件石器，经50多次测定年代为距今约30,000至33,000年。 - **佩德拉·富拉达（Pedra Furada）**：位于巴西东北部，年代测定达距今50,000至60,000年，包含火塘痕迹、木炭、受热黑化石块及打制石片。 - **证据瓶颈**：由于缺乏古人类骨骼化石直接共存，主流学界对超早期的打制石器和火遗迹始终持怀疑态度。 --- ### [01:38:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=5911s) 撒哈拉沙漠深处的塞法尔迷宫与绿色撒哈拉之谜 罗根向导播杰米（Jamie）分享了一段在社交平台上看到的奇特短视频，展示了阿尔及利亚境内撒哈拉沙漠深处的失落岩城——塞法尔（Séfar）。视频解说带有典型夸张的AI播报腔，虽然惹得罗根与巴顿吐槽“说话声音简直受不了”，但画面中的内容令人震撼。塞法尔宛如一座由自然风化岩石与人工痕迹交织的巨大石头迷宫，号称拥有5,000个互通的“房间”，没有任何公路可达，只能徒步穿行于错综复杂的狭窄石道中。岩壁上保留了超过15,000幅古代岩画，不仅绘制了现今早已在当地灭绝的动物群、干涸数千年的古代河流，还描绘了没有面孔的悬浮人形、戴着头盔宛如身穿宇航服的圆头生物，以及一尊被早期探险家称为“火星大神”的高达3米以上的神秘巨像，目前整片遗址绝大部分仍未被测绘。 由此，两人展开了对“绿色撒哈拉”（Green Sahara）的探讨。在大约公元前4,000年之前，整个撒哈拉地区并非黄沙漫天，而是覆盖着茂密草地、树木和河流的富饶绿洲。随着非洲湿润期的终结，当地迅速干涸荒漠化，而这一转变的时间点恰恰紧挨着传统历史记载中人类文明在尼罗河流域爆发的时期。巴顿指出，像纳布塔普拉雅（Nabta Playa）等古遗址暗示着在进入尼罗河定居之前，当地人群可能已经拥有相当发达的社会组织与天文知识。然而，撒哈拉沙漠占地极广，绝大部分埋藏在沙丘之下的遗迹从未被系统挖掘。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 撒哈拉环境剧变与古代文明起源关联 accDescr: 展示绿色撒哈拉向荒漠转变的时间节点与埃及文明起源的潜在联系。 subgraph SaharaEvolution["撒哈拉气候演变"] A["公元前4000年之前: 绿色撒哈拉<br/>(水网密布、草原、大型动物群与聚落)"] B["公元前4000年左右: 骤然干旱化<br/>(沙漠化加剧，生态崩溃，人口迁徙)"] A --> B end subgraph RelicsMigration["遗迹与文明爆发"] C["塞法尔/纳布塔普拉雅等早期聚落<br/>(1.5万幅岩画、圆头神像、天文观测)"] D["尼罗河流域早期文明崛起<br/>(人群汇聚尼罗河，古埃及文明诞生)"] A -.-> C B --> D end ``` - **塞法尔（Séfar）**：位于阿尔及利亚阿杰尔高原（Tassili n'Ajjer），由数千个岩石“房间”与迷宫通道构成，记录了15,000幅涵盖失落河流、奇异人形与“火星大神”的史前岩画。 - **绿色撒哈拉转变期**：约在公元前4,000年生态发生骤变，原本肥沃湿润的环境迅速沙漠化，直接推动了周边人群向尼罗河流域等水源地迁徙。 - **纳布塔普拉雅（Nabta Playa）**：埃及西南部沙漠中的新石器时代巨石遗址，体现了撒哈拉荒漠化前古人群的早期复杂社会组织。 --- ### [01:41:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=6069s) 极端环境下的考古困境与黑市文物盗卖 在中东与北非等地区开展深入考古发掘面临着极为严峻的现实挑战。罗根与巴顿指出，前往撒哈拉腹地开展项目不仅要承受残酷的沙漠气候，更受困于部分地区长期的地缘政治动荡与武装冲突；考古人员稍有不慎就有面临枪击甚至丧命的危险，这导致大范围的田野调查几乎无法推进。 更为棘手的是文物防盗与腐败问题。罗根联想到哥贝克力石阵（Göbekli Tepe）若进一步扩大挖掘规模可能遭遇的隐患：古文物的黑市价格极其高昂，利益驱动极其巨大。这种现象在南美洲和埃及早已屡见不鲜。罗根特别提到了埃及前文物部长扎希·哈瓦斯（Zahi Hawass）过去在某些考古发现声明中的自相矛盾之处，例如在某些石棺开棺记录中，早期版本声称内部发现了一具骨骼，而在后来的官方口径中却改口称“石棺内空无一物”。罗根犀利地质疑道，尽管不能无端指责某个人，但在巨额黑市利益的驱使下，古尸与珍贵陪葬品在挖掘和监管流程中被人暗中倒卖牟利的情况在考古史上绝非罕见。 - **实地考察的现实阻碍**：恶劣的沙漠极端环境叠加政局动荡与武装冲突风险，使得撒哈拉深处的考古调查极其难以落地。 - **文物流失与黑市交易**：随着遗址发掘规模的扩大，高价值文物的安保面临巨大压力，类似哥贝克力石阵等重地必须严密防范盗掘与走私。 - **官方记载矛盾疑云**：埃及石棺发掘记录中曾出现早期声称有骨骼、后期改称空无一物的记录差异，引发了外界对文物是否在监管漏洞中流向黑市的质疑。 ### [01:42:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=6179s) 富豪的私人珍藏、盗墓黑市与未解骨骼 乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）和迈克尔·巴顿（Michael Button）探讨了世界上那些超级富豪的极端收藏癖好。罗根设想了一个场景：一个身处海外、靠石油暴富的亿万富翁，在拥有了所有法拉利超跑和尘世享乐之后，会开始渴望常人无法触及的战利品——比如一具货真价实的埃及木乃伊或古代黄金文物。在考古学正规化并全面勘探各大陵墓之前，无数陵墓早已遭到盗墓者的疯狂洗劫；除了像图坦卡蒙（Tutankhamun）陵墓那样因隐蔽而侥幸完整保留至今的纯金石棺与无尽珍宝外，海量文物早已流散在全球各个不见天日的私人收藏室中。 巴顿补充指出，南美洲同样存在极其猖獗的文物黑市。以秘鲁库斯科（Cusco）地下的古老隧道系统为例，民间早在官方考古学承认其存在前数十年就已知晓，甚至暗中经营观光活动。在缺乏官方机构监管的漫长时期，地下的古代珍宝被大量倒卖至黑市。此外，还有南美洲那些引发广泛争议的拉长头骨（elongated skulls）——究竟有多少真正震撼、保存完好的奇异头骨在早期就被盗掘并藏入了私人地下室？罗根打趣说，若想真正弄清被隐瞒的古代历史，可能得组织力量去突击搜查全世界富豪的豪宅地下室。那些有钱在后院打造私人野生动物园的人，完全有财力与欲望在自己家里原样复刻一个开罗博物馆。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 文物从遗址流向私人地下黑市的链条 accDescr: 展示古代文物从地下遗址被盗掘、经由黑市交易最终流入私人藏家手中的过程。 subgraph 遗址与盗掘 ["古代遗址与失控监管"] A["古代陵墓 / 地下隧道<br/>(如埃及墓穴、库斯科地道)"] --> B["早期盗墓活动与民间走私<br/>(缺乏机构监管与法律制约)"] end subgraph 黑市与流通 ["文物黑市流通"] B --> C["国际黑市文物网络"] end subgraph 终点归宿 ["隐秘终点"] C --> D["私人超级藏家<br/>(亿万富豪、私人博物馆、地下室藏品)"] C --> E["偶尔被执法部门缴获<br/>(如FBI突袭跨国追讨)"] end ``` --- ### [01:45:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=6345s) 唐·米勒案与走私恐龙化石风波 罗根与巴顿随后调出了美国印第安纳州轰动一时的唐·米勒（Don Miller）案件。2014年，美国联邦调查局（FBI）突袭了时年91岁的老人唐·米勒的住所，查抄的物品规模之庞大令人瞠目结舌：屋内囤积了超过4.2万件古董文物以及2000多具人类遗骸（包括大量美洲原住民遗骨、埃及石棺、明代玉器，甚至一艘曾穿行于亚马逊河的独木舟）。这构成了FBI历史上针对单一私人收藏规模最大的一次查抄行动。米勒一生以传教士和业余考古收藏家自居，周游世界擅自发掘并将文物偷运回国，因严重违反文物保护法规而遭调查，他在被查抄约一年后的2015年离世。中国官方甚至曾专门派出代表团前往印第安纳州交涉追索被盗文物。 话题顺势转到了名人购买化石的法律风险。好莱坞影星尼古拉斯·凯奇（Nicolas Cage）曾在一场拍卖会上花费27.6万美元购得一具暴龙（T-Rex）头骨，后来美国司法部门查明该化石是从蒙古戈壁沙漠非法走私出境的，凯奇最终不得不自愿将其无偿归还给蒙古政府。罗根还提到，得克萨斯州的前沿医疗诊所 Ways2Well 内部甚至在天花板上悬挂了一架合法购入的大型水生爬行动物化石，证明私人合法拥有特定化石在市场上确实存在。 - **唐·米勒藏品规模**：FBI共查获约42,000件文物及约2,000具人类骨骼。 - **涉案跨国文物**：涵盖中国明代玉器、古埃及木棺、美洲原住民遗骸及亚马逊独木舟。 - **尼古拉斯·凯奇化石事件**：花费27.6万美元竞得暴龙头骨，查实系蒙古走私品后归还。 --- ### [01:49:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=6584s) 恐龙怀疑论与骨架复原的真相 面对当下互联网上兴起的一股宣称“恐龙根本不存在、是现代谎言甚至是神话巨龙伪装”的阴谋论思潮，罗根与巴顿表示极度不可思议与荒谬。罗根分析认为，这种盲目怀疑之所以蔓延，部分原因在于古生物博物馆在展出时对公众缺乏透明度：许多人走进博物馆看到完整霸气的恐龙骨架时，误以为化石出土时就是这般完美无缺的整体拼装，殊不知绝大多数展出的恐龙骨架包含大量石膏或树脂树立的人工复原件，甚至有些展品是百分之百的复制品。 但“存在复制骨骼”绝不等于“恐龙是假造的”。罗根与工作人员当场核实了已知最著名的暴龙化石“苏”（Sue）的数据——其化石完整度高达80%至90%，具有无可辩驳的真实骨骼支撑。罗根激动地强调，正如现存的鳄鱼真实不虚一样，史前时代确实生活过这些庞大的爬行动物，数千万年前的真实骨骼就是最铁证如山的物理存在，将博物馆的部分翻模复原直接歪曲成“恐龙不存在”纯属愚昧。 - **化石完整度参考**：最著名的霸王龙标本“苏”（Sue）骨骼完整度约在85%至90%左右，地质年龄约6700万年。 - **公众认知偏差**：博物馆因化石珍贵、脆弱或残缺，常用复原模型替代或补全展出，导致部分公众产生“恐龙骨骼全是塑料造假”的极端阴谋论误解。 ### [01:52:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=6722s) 化石记录的残缺与探寻远古的魅力 谈话从恐龙时代化石记录的极度残缺切入。恐龙在地球上繁衍生息了约 1.6 亿年，然而人类迄今发掘出的化石标本却只有区区数千具。化石的形成条件极为苛刻，现存的化石证据仅占当年实际生命数据中极其微小的一小部分，人类只能依赖这些碎片化线索去向外推演。因此，对于遥远史前时代的真实面貌，人类其实知之甚少。但正是这种巨大未知带来的震撼，让乔·罗根与迈克尔·巴顿（Michael Button）感到无比着迷，这也正是巴顿全身心投入这一事业的原动力。 对于任何初次深入接触这门学问的人来说，那种直击心灵的惊叹是无可避免的。然而，大众与学界对格雷厄姆·汉考克（Graham Hancock）的 Netflix 纪录片所产生的剧烈反弹，让罗根感到难以理解。某些主流批评者甚至歇斯底里地将其扣上“最危险的剧集”这顶帽子，这种敌意与恐慌令人费解。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 史前考古证据的推演逻辑 accDescr: 展示从极其残缺的化石与遗址线索向外推演史前真相的科学探索逻辑与争议所在。 subgraph Fossilization ["严苛的形成与留存条件"] A["恐龙存活约 1.6 亿年"] --> B["仅存数千具化石标本"] C["化石生成概率极低"] --> B end subgraph Extrapolation ["极小样本向外推演"] B --> D["仅掌握真实历史数据的极微小碎片"] D --> E["必须基于碎片向外合理假想与推测"] end subgraph ScientificStance ["对待未知的态度分歧"] E --> F["主流建制派：固守既有范式与资助体系"] E --> G["开放探索者：包容更多可能性与古老遗址"] end ``` --- ### [01:53:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=6787s) 名气背后的舆论恶评与来自体制内考古学家的认可 随着巴顿频道的知名度大幅提升，他也开始切身体会到被舆论攻击的滋味。不少网络声音对其进行曲解与抹黑，扣上他不曾认同的观点。对此，曾遭遇政府层面舆论风暴的罗根以过来人的身份传授经验：彻底戒掉看评论的习惯。罗根指出，网络上总有一小撮无论如何都不快乐的人，一旦看到有人获得巨大的关注度就会心生怨恨，哪怕比例只有百分之一或千分之一，其传递的负面情绪也会对创作者的心态造成内耗。巴顿所要做的就是保持严谨、客观与克制，继续产出优质内容即可。 令巴顿感到格外欣慰的是，除了那些负面攻击文章之外，不少在正规机构任职的体制内考古学家也主动私下联系他。这些一线专业学者在信中明确表示，他们非常看重巴顿的工作，认为他在公众传播领域是一个极其重要且不可或缺的声音。这打破了人们将考古学界扁平化为“千方百计打压一切异见的反派大魔王”的刻板印象，证明体制内同样存在大量保持开放思维的人。 - 面对突如其来的网络审判与恶意抹黑，罗根建议绝不要去翻看评论区，因为负面言论比正面夸赞更容易在创作者脑海中挥之不去。 - 许多在传统学术机构工作的专业学者私下对巴顿表达了支持与赞同，认为他的内容富有启发性与客观价值。 --- ### [01:55:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=6900s) 学术界的晋升壁垒与破局的体制外路径 罗根与巴顿探讨了传统学院派的内部困境。特别是许多刚刚入行的年轻学者，他们起初都是怀揣着对未知世界的好奇心步入考古殿堂的。但随着学业深入，他们往往会对为何学术界拒绝探讨替代性假说而感到困惑。高校与研究机构内部被牢固的学术“守门人”所把持——终身教职（tenure）的评定、科研经费的审批以及教职岗位的分配，全都掌握在资深学者手中。年轻学者不得不谨小慎微，生怕触怒权威或踩踏学术红线，导致原本最依赖好奇心驱动的学科，反而严重压抑了学者的探索本能。 更重要的是，考古学绝非像数学那样是一门已经彻底定型的硬性科学，它所接触的全是远古留下的蛛丝马迹，并且随着勘探技术的发展，新的发现往往把人类历史的节点推向更古老的过去。巴顿强调，自己的初衷并不是向观众灌输任何特定结论，也从未宣扬过“史前存在高度发达的超级文明”，而是希望启发大众跳出思维定式，认识到现代人类心智可能已经演化了上百万年，史前人类所涉足的活动空间远超以往认知。罗根对此高度赞赏，认为巴顿在体制外开辟了一条健康且可行的全职自媒体道路，不搞外星人等离奇噱头，而是以客观、克制的学术态度将历史的可能性摊开在桌面上，这为体制内受压抑的年轻学人树立了极佳的示范。 --- ### [01:58:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=7125s) 美洲史前人类活动的新线索：从切鲁蒂乳齿象到韦亚特拉克遗址 当罗根询问近期有哪些令人兴奋的新考古线索时，巴顿将话题引向了推翻美洲人类迁徙时间线的若干争议遗址： 首先是著名的加利福尼亚州**切鲁蒂乳齿象遗址**（Cerutti Mastodon site）。该遗址测定年代距今约 13 万年，现场发掘出的乳齿象骨骼呈现出在动物死亡不久后即被新鲜砸碎以吸取骨髓的痕迹，骨骼旁边甚至伴生有疑似作为加工工具的石砧与石锤。这项研究甚至于 2017 年发表在顶级科学期刊《自然》（Nature）上。尽管目前尚无法百分之百确证这些破坏痕迹完全源于古人类，但其呈现出的行为特征高度符合早期人类活动，成为了将人类涉足美洲的时间线大幅推前至 10 万年以上的关键数据点之一。 随后，巴顿提到了位于加州莫哈韦沙漠的**印第安卡利科早期人类遗址**（Calico Early Man Site）。尽管巴顿个人对该遗址的石器真伪持保留态度，但 20 世纪考古学界泰斗路易斯·利基（Louis Leakey）生前深信这里的石制品证明了 10 万年前美洲就有人类存在。最后，巴顿提到了位于墨西哥的**韦亚特拉克遗址**（Hueyatlaco）。在该遗址中，地质学家在人类石器工具的上方地层发现了火山灰沉积层，而对这层火山灰的科学测定得出了一组惊世骇俗的古老年代数据，再次对传统的美洲定居史构成了强烈冲击。 - **切鲁蒂乳齿象遗址（Cerutti Mastodon Site）**：测定年代约 130,000 年前；骨骼有被重击砸裂取髓的痕迹，伴随有石锤和石砧遗存；研究论文于 2017 年登上《自然》（Nature）期刊。 - **卡利科遗址（Calico Early Man Site）**：著名古人类学家路易斯·利基支持此地存在 10 万年前的人类敲击石器证据，但学界至今存有较大争议。 - **韦亚特拉克遗址（Hueyatlaco）**：位于墨西哥，人工打制石器上方覆盖着厚重火山灰地层，测年结果惊人地古老。 ### [02:00:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=7203s) 墨西哥韦亚特拉克遗址与25万年前的石器谜团 迈克尔·巴顿向乔·罗根讲述了一个极具争议的美洲考古发现。20世纪50年代，一名墨西哥考古学家在普埃布拉市附近的瓦塞基约盆地（Valsequillo Basin）进行发掘，意外发现了大量灭绝更新世动物遗骸与人类活动痕迹共存的现象。随后美墨联合团队进驻，正式确认了名为韦亚特拉克（Hueyatlaco）的遗址。在该地点，研究人员出土了制作极其精良的双面加工打制石器，显示出相当高级的工具制造水平。团队原本邀请地质学家前来测定工具周边的沉积层，当时推测其地质年代约为8,000至10,000年前，认为火山灰来自该时期已知的一次火山喷发。然而多项检测得出的结果却令人震惊——覆盖在工具层之上的火山灰年代竟高达20万至60万年之久。 更具决定性的是，考古人员在与双面石器完全处于同一层位中，出土了一具骆驼骨盆。通过多种独立的地质测年手段，这件与石器直接共存的化石年代被锁定在大约25万年前。在地质学上，石器位于这些具有25万年历史的地层之下，这意味着制造工具的人类可能在20多万年前就已经活跃在美洲大陆。然而，这项发现直接冲击了当时根深蒂固的“克洛维斯优先”（Clovis First）学术范式。论文遭遇了学界的猛烈阻挠与打压，长达20年无法正式发表。在此期间，关键文物不翼而飞，遗址甚至遭到破坏推平。巴顿指出，尽管地质学家数十年来始终坚持这一测年数据的真实性，但由于实物丢失和遗址损毁，它在考古学界成了一桩难以复验的悬案。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 韦亚特拉克遗址测年争议与美洲早期人类活动链条 accDescr: 展示墨西哥韦亚特拉克遗址的层位矛盾及美洲早期人类活动年代对比 subgraph Stratigraphy ["韦亚特拉克遗址地层结构"] A["上覆盖层：火山灰层<br/>（测年：20万至60万年前）"] B["核心出土层：双面打制石器与骆驼骨盆<br/>（综合测年：约25万年前）"] A --> B end subgraph Controversy ["学术困境与遗址现状"] C["撞车'克洛维斯优先'主流范式"] D["论文遭阻挠推迟20年发表"] E["文物失踪 / 遗址被推平破坏"] B -.-> C --> D --> E end subgraph Timeline ["颠覆主流的美洲古人类遗址序列"] T1["白沙遗址：2.2万年前"] T2["奇基维特洞穴：3.3万年前"] T3["彼得拉富拉达：超5万年前"] T4["塞鲁蒂乳齿象：13万年前"] T5["韦亚特拉克：约25万年前"] T1 --> T2 --> T3 --> T4 --> T5 end ``` 巴顿还特别致谢了 YouTube 频道 Incredible History 的创作者威尔·布朗（Will Brown），正是布朗亲自探访了该遗址并引导他深入研究这一课题。巴顿指出，即使加利科遗址（Calico）的石器更可能源于自然力量，但从白沙遗址（2.2万年前）、奇基维特洞穴（3.3万年前）、巴西彼得拉富拉达（逾5万年前）、塞鲁蒂乳齿象遗址（13万年前）到韦亚特拉克（25万年前），“只要其中任何一个遗址被确凿证实，人类迁徙美洲的完整时间表就会彻底改写”。在地球广袤的历史长河中，人类完全有充分的时间跨越山海抵达这些陆地。 - **地理位置**：墨西哥普埃布拉附近的瓦塞基约盆地（Valsequillo Basin）韦亚特拉克遗址（Hueyatlaco）。 - **关键出土物**：工艺精湛的双面加工石器（bifacial stone tools）以及原位共存的古骆驼骨盆。 - **测年数据**：沉积物、火山灰及骆驼骨骼检测年代落在 20 万至 60 万年之间，综合锁定约 25 万年前。 - **学术命运**：因严重违背克洛维斯范式而遭遇强烈阻力，拖延 20 年方得发表，原址随后被夷平，关键石器下落不明。 --- ### [02:03:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=7436s) 特奥蒂瓦坎、失去的名字与文明周期性崩溃 围绕人类从何处迁徙以及古老思想如何在各大洲流传，乔·罗根将话题引向了全球各地金字塔构造的奇特巧合。罗根感到不可思议：为什么相隔万里的大陆上都会诞生相似的金字塔概念，这种建筑思想是如何传到中美洲阿兹特克文明的。巴顿坦言，建造金字塔固然可以说是人类在重力作用下堆砌大型结构的最自然方式，但美洲建筑背后的历史断层远比单纯的形式更离奇——最著名的那些宏伟金字塔，根本就不是阿兹特克人建造的。 阿兹特克人所崇拜的特奥蒂瓦坎（Teotihuacan），其名称在阿兹特克语中意为“众神诞生之地”。当阿兹特克人迁徙至此并在丛林废墟中发现这些惊人的巨构时，原先的建造者早已消失无踪。阿兹特克人甚至给生活在他们之前的先民起了许多名字，例如将中美洲母文明称为“奥尔梅克”（Olmec，意为“橡胶人”，推测因其生活在橡胶树丰富区域或擅长提炼橡胶）。现代考古学普遍认为特奥蒂瓦坎建于阿兹特克兴起前约一千年，但至今无法确定它的真正建造者究竟是谁，也无法彻底弄清他们属于哪种语言或族群。 罗根与巴顿感慨这种文明记忆的脆弱。特奥蒂瓦坎的太阳金字塔结构庞大、层级复杂，其轴线设计精准呼应着天体星象。然而创造了这种神迹般石质建筑的繁盛社会，竟会在历史中彻底瓦解并被人遗忘。当几个世纪后阿兹特克人拨开荒草与藤蔓目睹废墟时，根本不敢相信这是人类凡人的造物，只能将其归因于神祇的降临。巴顿总结道，人类文明的历程并非单调向上，而是多次达到极其繁复的高度峰值后急转直下、陷入崩溃，最终将全部辉煌与记忆淹没在荒野与尘土之中。 - **特奥蒂瓦坎词义**：阿兹特克语中意为“众神诞生/居住之地”（place where the gods lived），阿兹特克人是其后来发现者而非建造者。 - **奥尔梅克名称由来**：阿兹特克人因该族群使用或出产橡胶，将其称作“橡胶人”（the rubber people）。 - **太阳金字塔谜团**：规模宏大并对应天文星象，但其确切始建年代、社会形态及建造族群至今未有明确定论。 - **时间尺度对比**：罗根提醒，现代美国建国尚不足300年，而中美洲前后文明交替的时长动辄上千年，足以让一个辉煌帝国的名字与技艺彻底归零。 --- ### [02:07:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=7634s) 澳大利亚南端12万年前的用火遗迹挑战人类迁徙史 谈到近期其他引人注目的史前考古新发现，巴顿将焦点转向了人类涉足澳大利亚的时间节点。按照学术界目前的标准认知，人类抵达澳洲大陆的时间约为6.5万年前。该结论的主要依据是位于澳大利亚北部沿海的马杰德贝贝（Madjedbebe）岩荫遗址。地质地理条件决定了早期古人类必须具备造船与跨海航行能力才能登陆澳洲，因此最早的登陆点出现在北部完全符合逻辑。 然而，在澳大利亚最南端发现的一处古老遗址却给这一理论带来了巨大冲击。考古学家在该地表层之下发掘出了黑化的烧石、木炭以及类似火塘（hearth-like）的排列结构，经测定年代竟高达12万年前，足足比公认的人类踏上澳洲的时间翻了一番。更为重要的是，负责发掘的考古团队在正式学术论文中明确写道，现场证据更有力地支持这些遗迹源自“文化起源”（即人类有意识的用火行为），而非自然野火。 虽然该遗址尚未出土明确的人类骨骼化石或典型的人工石器，因而学界尚无法视其为彻底盖棺定论的硬证据，但研究者坚信各项迹象正向“人类活动所致”倾斜。巴顿强调，如果12万年前南澳遗址的用火痕迹确属人类行为，这不仅意味着古人类跨海登陆的时间被推早了一倍，更证明他们早已从北部登陆点一路繁衍迁徙，彻底走遍并占领了整个澳大利亚大陆的南北两端。 - **主流最早遗址**：澳大利亚北部约65,000年前的马杰德贝贝遗址（Madjedbebe）。 - **南澳新发掘年代**：测年达到约 120,000 年前，几乎为主流定论的两倍。 - **关键迹象**：烧黑的石头、木炭以及疑似人工构筑的火塘结构。 - **论文核心论断**：现场证据更支持“文化起源”（cultural origin）而非“自然火灾”（natural origin）。 ### [02:08:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=7709s) 澳大利亚人类定居遗迹与丹尼索瓦人基因之谜 对澳大利亚人类历史的考古研究正在彻底颠覆以往的认知。Michael 指出，最近发现的证据表明，人类不仅早已踏上这片大陆，甚至一路深入到了该大陆的最南端，其年代比学术界此前认为的要早上一倍。例如位于西澳大利亚金伯利地区的莫耶尔（Moyjil / Point Ritchie 或相关争议遗址，文中提及 Moyel 遗址）可追溯到 120,000 年前。尽管学术界对如此久远的年代极为苛刻，因为古人类骨骼化石极其罕见，证明门槛极高，但这强烈暗示人类早在 12 万年前就已到达澳洲，而这必然意味着他们当时必须具备跨海航海的能力。 Joe 随即提到澳大利亚原住民与丹尼索瓦人（Denisovans）之间的基因联系。Michael 解释道，科学界推测当年可能存在多条不同的迁徙路线，不同的人种可能都曾涉足澳大利亚。考虑到此前讨论过的早期人类在百万年前就能跨岛航海，他们更早到达澳洲完全合乎逻辑。Joe 提出疑问：丹尼索瓦人直到 2010 年才被首次发现，科学家是如何从化石中提取出古 DNA，并推断出澳洲原住民带有其基因痕迹的（就像欧洲人带有尼安德特人基因一样）？ 两人探讨了丹尼索瓦人独特的基因特征。在尼泊尔等青藏高原高海拔地区生活的人群身上，丹尼索瓦人的基因残留比例极高，正是这一基因赋予了他们适应极端低氧与严寒环境的能力。这是否说明丹尼索瓦人本身就主要栖息在高海拔严酷环境中？由于目前出土的丹尼索瓦人骨骼屈指可数，科学家至今尚无法给出确切定论。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 古人类跨海迁徙与基因流变 accDescr: 展示古人类跨海航海到达澳大利亚以及丹尼索瓦人基因在现代人群中分布的推导逻辑 subgraph SeaVoyage["超早期跨海能力"] A["超百万年前跨岛航海能力"] --> B["120,000年前抵澳迹象 (Moyel等遗址)"] end subgraph Genetics["古人种基因遗传"] C["丹尼索瓦人 (Denisovans)"] --> D["澳大利亚原住民基因流动"] C --> E["高海拔适应基因 (EPAS1)"] E --> F["尼泊尔/喜马拉雅高海拔人群"] end B -.-> D ``` - 莫耶尔（Moyjil）遗址的年代测定指向约 120,000 年前，将人类在澳洲的活动历史推前了一倍，且证明跨海航行出现的时间极早。 - 丹尼索瓦人基因不仅存在于大洋洲原住民群体中，还被证实帮助喜马拉雅和尼泊尔地区的人群适应极端高海拔低氧环境。 - 目前全球出土的丹尼索瓦人实体骨骼极少，仅凭少量指骨和牙齿等样本进行古 DNA 提取，其整体生态和活动范围仍有大量未解之谜。 --- ### [02:11:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=7872s) 婆罗洲三万年前的截肢手术与史前医学认知 Michael 接着分享了印度尼西亚群岛附近的另一项震撼发现——世界上已知最早的复杂外科手术证据。该发现位于婆罗洲（Borneo），年代距今约 31,000 年前。这一地区在冰期时属于露出海面的巽他大陆架（Sunda Shelf），随着冰期结束海平面上升，大片古陆地被汪洋淹没，留下了丰富的未知历史遗存。 考古人员发现了一具未成年人的骨骼化石，其左小腿下段曾被整齐切除。令人震惊的是，骨骼生长痕迹显示截肢断面完全愈合，这名个体在术后健康地生活了数年之久。在一个湿热、极易感染的热带雨林环境中实施截肢手术，不仅需要成熟的外科切除技术，更需要高超的防感染与创口护理手段。这一发现将人类复杂手术的已知历史从原先以为的数千年前直接推前到了 31,000 年前。 面对截肢带来的剧烈剧痛，Joe 难以想象在没有现代止痛药的情况下如何承受骨锯切骨之苦："What's going to kill the pain of a fucking amputation?" Michael 认为，古人必然利用了野生草药。考古学早已发现尼安德特人等早期人种栽培和利用野生植物作为镇痛与药用的铁证。无论他们使用的是何种石刃工具切除骨骼、是否使用骨针和线缝合，他们都成功让患者存活了下来，展现出远超现代人刻板印象的社会关怀与高超智慧。 - 婆罗洲儿童骨骼遗骸证明了 31,000 年前的截肢手术，且个体在术后存活了数年，创口完全愈合。 - 巽他大陆架（Sunda Shelf）在冰期曾是一片辽阔平原，海平面上升淹没了史前人类活动的大量核心据点。 - 史前医学不仅涉及复杂的手术切割，还涵盖了利用天然野生植物防止伤口感染、消炎与镇痛的药理实践。 --- ### [02:13:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=8016s) 间冰期文明假说与形态发生场理论 当 Joe 问及"若大胆猜测，真正意义上的最古老文明究竟起源于何时"时，Michael 阐述了他的全新思考范式。他认为，当前这个周期的文明始于新石器时代初期的塔斯泰佩拉（Taş Tepeler，包括哥贝克力石阵等群落）及其前身。但从全球视角来看，农业和文明在全新世（Holocene）开启后几乎在世界各地独立且同步地爆发。这说明文明与农耕绝非某种不可逾越的旷世奇迹，而是人类的某种必然特性——只要气候进入长达数千年的稳定温暖期，人类就会自然而然地开始创新并迈向文明。 顺着这一逻辑反推，智人已在地球上生存了 30 万年，其间至少经历了 4 次持续万年以上的稳定温暖间冰期；若将具备现代智力和航海能力的古人种拉长至 100 万年的尺度，地球总共出现过约 11 次长达万年的温暖期。既然文明与农业并非极其罕见的偶然，为什么在这过去的 11 次稳定温暖期中就不能曾孕育出早已湮灭的文明？ ```text 过去 100 万年的人类与气候周期推演： -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 时间跨度 智力/行为阶段 温暖稳定间冰期数量 文明可能性 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 近 11,700 年 全新世（现代智人） 1 次 (当前周期) 农耕与文明全球爆发 近 30 万年 解剖学现代智人 (Homo sapiens) 约 4 次 每次温暖期皆有萌芽潜力 近 100 万年 具备远航与工具能力的早期智人 约 11 次 (超万年) 可能存在多次文明兴起与消亡 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ``` 此时 Joe 提出了一个引人深思的平行现象：历史上常常出现互不相连的文明在同一时期独立领悟同一概念或技术。Joe 提到了生物学家鲁珀特·谢尔德雷克（Rupert Sheldrake）提出的"形态共振"（Morphic Resonance）理论。该理论曾通过大鼠走迷宫实验佐证——当东海岸的大鼠学会走出某个迷宫后，西海岸未受训练的大鼠学会相同迷宫的速度也会显著提升。 Joe 思考道，是否存在某种宇宙级的"阿卡西记录"（Akashic Records）或全物种共享的潜意识信息场。人类的大脑或许就像一台天线，能够同步接收、调谐到该场域中的创造力："当 Michael Button 在地球这一端想通了某件事，地球另一端的人也会感应到并恍然大悟。"如果否定这种跨越物理时空的意识场连接，那么唯一的替代解释就更加令人震撼——历史上必然存在一个曾周游全球、将火种散播至世界各地的全球性航海文明。 ### [02:16:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=8216s) 农业爆发的谜团与亚马逊雨林的考古盲区 乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）与迈克尔·巴顿（Michael Button）探讨了全球文明近乎同时爆发的奇特现象。如果不是某一个高度发达的群体掌握了跨大洋迁徙的本领并将知识散播到世界各地，那么各个文明几乎在同一时期自发掌握了农业与定居技术就显得极其耐人寻味。罗根指出，相较于人类在地球上漫长的生存史，这段时间窗口窄得不可思议，这绝非单纯的巧合，而是一场真正的知识大爆发。主流考古学通常将原因归咎于气候变暖——末次冰期结束后气候转暖，促成了农业与文明的诞生。但巴顿提出了一个反问：在智人存在且大脑同样聪明的漫长岁月里，地球至少经历过11次间冰期的温暖阶段，如果定居与农耕是气候适宜下的必然产物，为何在之前的那些温暖期里没有发生？抑或是曾经发生过，只是痕迹已被抹去？ 谈到气候，赤道地区始终处于常年温暖的状态，比如南美洲的亚马逊盆地。即便在地球深度冰封的完全冰川期，赤道区域也完全适宜人类居住。巴顿指出，关于亚马逊的讨论本质上牵涉到人类究竟何时踏入美洲大陆；如果人类到达美洲的时间远比既往认知更早，那么在亚马逊繁衍生息的历史也必定更加久远。近年来利用激光雷达（LiDAR）在亚马逊雨林中发现了大量由几何网格和道路构成的古老聚落遗址，颠覆了人们对这片原始雨林“从未有过大型文明”的偏见。然而，相关系统的考古挖掘工作才刚刚起步，且由于热带雨林如同一台极端的自然物质回收粉碎机，除了石器外，绝大部分木材、泥土等有机建筑材料会在数千年内彻底降解腐蚀，导致数万甚至数十万年前可能存在过的定居遗存很难留下直观痕迹。 - **气候矛盾**：人类具备现代智人智力已数十万年，经历过11次温暖的间冰期，为何农耕文明仅被记录在最近这一轮变暖中爆发。 - **亚马逊的保存困境**：雨林湿热环境加速有机物降解，千年前的木质结构早已腐蚀殆尽，不留痕迹不代表过去不曾存在。 --- ### [02:19:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=8356s) 对抗历史定论：探寻人类古老智慧的自媒体使命 巴顿表达了自己从事古代谜团与失落历史创作的由衷热爱。他认为，虽然自己的作品是以 YouTube 视频这种易于大众消化的形式呈现，但挖掘那些传统叙事无法解答的真实疑点，能够引导公众跳脱固有框架去思考。罗根对此十分认同，直言巴顿的工作意义重大，因为许多体制内学者总是试图灌输一种“答案已被完全掌握”的绝对确定性，但历史的真貌远比教科书描绘的复杂得多。 巴顿特别反感某些学者对待远古历史时表现出的毫无弹性的自信。他强调自己的态度从不是“某件事一定是真的”，而是展示被忽视的可能性。每一次颠覆性的新考古发现，几乎都在一致地将人类的技术、智慧与起源时间推向更早、更古老的深处。 --- ### [02:20:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=8422s) 跨越三万年的冰期几何符号：文字出现前的通用密码 在罗根的询问下，巴顿分享了关于文字与符号起源的最新颠覆性研究。主流历史学界一直将苏美尔人在公元前4000年左右发明的楔形文字视为文字与文明诞生的起点；此前两人讨论过的土耳其石柱群（Taş Tepeler，包括哥贝克力石阵与卡拉汉特佩）虽然可追溯至12000年前并带有浅浮雕符号，但在欧洲冰河时期的洞穴中，还隐藏着更加久远的符号传递传统。加拿大古人类学家热纳维耶芙·冯·佩青格（Genevieve von Petzinger）在对欧洲各大冰川期洞穴壁画进行系统梳理时发现，长期以来被研究人员当成野牛、猛犸象壁画旁“无关涂鸦”的几何图案，其实构成了一个高度标准化的符号系统。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 冰期早期符号演化与扩散示意图 accDescr: 展示人类走出非洲并携带着32个几何符号扩散至全球各地的假说流程 subgraph Origin["起源与传播"] A["智人走出非洲<br/>携带原始符号传统"] --> B["扩散至各大洲迁徙路线"] end subgraph EuropeCave["欧洲冰期洞穴（距今40000-10000年）"] B --> C["32种固定几何符号<br/>（如螺旋纹、点、手印、折线）"] C --> D["持续传承长达30,000年"] end subgraph Worldwide["全球平行分布"] B --> E["北美洲、南美洲、澳洲"] B --> F["中非、东非、南非"] B --> G["婆罗洲、马来西亚、缅甸、新几内亚"] end D -.-> H["高级抽象智力体现<br/>外化存储与信息传递"] E & F & G -.-> H ``` 冯·佩青格在横跨30000年的欧洲岩画中，精准归纳出了32个反复出现的几何符号。这并非完整的口语对应文字，而是一套成熟的信息编码系统，且令人震惊地保持了30000年的形态一致性。作为对比，现存连续使用时间最长的文字系统如古汉语，历史也不过几千年。制作人杰米（Jamie）在屏幕上调出了世界地图分布研究，结果显示这套标志性的几何符号（包括遍布各地的螺旋纹、折线等）不仅存在于欧洲，还惊人地平行出现在北美洲、南美洲、中非、东非、南非、澳大利亚、新几内亚、马来西亚、婆罗洲和缅甸等地。冯·佩青格推论，这套符号传统的源头可能远早于40000年前的欧洲冰河艺术，而是智人当年走出非洲、散布全球时随身携带的信息传递工具，是早期人类高度抽象思维与高级智力的确凿证据。 - **32个几何符号**：欧洲冰期洞穴艺术中提炼出的固定符号集，打破了以往“冰期猎人仅画写实动物”的刻板印象。 - **时间跨度**：这套信息编码传统在欧洲维持了近3万年未曾中断。 - **全球分布性**：亚洲、美洲、非洲及大洋洲的原住民早期遗址中，均可见到高度相似的几何构图体系。 --- ### [02:24:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=8643s) 脑容量萎缩之谜：文字普及与记忆外包的代价 罗根抛出一个发人深省的大脑退化假说：人类在学会依赖语言、文字和词汇交流之前，是否曾拥有某种更原始的心灵感应式直觉沟通能力，而这种能力随着语言文字的工具化逐渐萎缩？巴顿随即指出了一个在古人类学界毫无争议但鲜为人知的生理事实：自农耕定居与文明出现以来的近10000年间，现代人类的平均脑容量相较于晚期智人祖先不仅没有变大，反而出现了明显的小型化萎缩。 巴顿解释道，在文字诞生之前的纯口述时代，生存技能、族群历史、动植物知识及星图等所有关键信息，都必须完全凭借个体的大脑硬记硬背，神经系统需要承担巨大的信息吞吐与检索负荷。然而，随着文明发展出符号与文字，人类首次将记忆“外包”给了陶板、泥石等物理介质，大脑不再需要维持如此庞大的内部物理存储空间。罗根补充提到，古代哲人（如柏拉图转述的苏格拉底观点）曾强烈反对将知识落于文字，担忧书写会彻底摧毁人类的记忆力。两人一致认为，这种“外包”使人类作为一个整体文明的智慧与技术水准呈指数级累积，但对单个个体而言，生物学上的记忆与认知依赖却被削弱了——这一演化轨迹与当今人类将记忆全部转移至硬盘、智能手机和互联网的时代阵痛，有着惊人的镜像对应。 ### [02:25:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=8719s) 人工智能与个体智能的退化 两人的对话从技术的飞速发展转向了现代人对工具的依赖。他们谈到 AI（如 ChatGPT）正在以空前的规模重塑人类认知，外界普遍担忧这类工具正在导致人类智力的下降。乔·罗根指出，AI 的可怕之处在于它直接“将思考本身外包了出去”（"it outsources thinking itself"），这种跨越前所未有，照此以往，人的大脑可能会萎缩得“像一颗葡萄干”（"like a raisin"）。迈克尔·巴顿对此表示认同，但他补充了一个微妙的悖论：尽管人类作为一个文明整体所掌握的知识库在不断膨胀，但落到每一个独立的个体身上，我们很可能正在发生退化。 罗根以日常生活中的生动例子佐证了个体记忆能力的退化。他感慨道，在自己年少时，他能随口背出所有亲朋好友的电话号码，而到了今天，因为不再需要去死记硬背任何号码，他脑子里总共也就记着三个人的电话。巴顿感叹这正是认知退化的写照，现代工具在接管个体大脑机能的同时，也剥夺了人类原本具备的基础记忆与学习潜能。 --- ### [02:25:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=8757s) 四万年前的原文字系统与侵蚀测年法 随后，巴顿分享了一项震撼学术界的新研究成果。发表在《美国国家科学院院刊》（PNAS）上的一篇论文显示，考古学家分析了 200 多件距今约 4 万年前的冰河时代欧洲出土文物。这些在骨骼上雕刻的复杂符号，其复杂程度竟然与公元前 3000 年左右美索不达米亚苏美尔早期的楔形文字不相上下。长期以来，主流学术界将公元前 3000 年的文字萌芽视为文明诞生的门槛标志，但若这种能够通过抽象符号传递意义的原文字（proto-script）早在 4 万年前就已经存在，就意味着人类象征性思维与记录能力的起源被大幅提前了数万年。罗根调出出土骨骼刻痕与楔形文字的对比图像，两人惊叹于这些远古划痕背后的认知深度。 紧接着，罗根提到了前一天讨论过的另一项奇特假说：一位意大利研究者提出的“侵蚀测年法”（erosion dating）。该方法利用大约 500 年前埃及大地震震落吉萨金字塔外层覆石（casing stones）的契机，通过比对数千年来一直暴露在外的石块侵蚀程度，与近期才裸露在外的石块风化差异，推算出金字塔的建造时间可能超过两万年。巴顿对此持审慎态度，他指出这种测年方法必须先在那些已有确切年代记录的历史遗址上经过严格对照与反复检验，但在考古学探索中，保持开放心态看待各种新假设依然非常迷人。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 人类文字演进认知的颠覆 accDescr: 对比传统文明起源与最新考古发现的原文字时间线 subgraph Traditional ["传统学术界认知"] T1["公元前 3000 年"] --> T2["美索不达米亚苏美尔人"] T2 --> T3["早期楔形文字诞生<br/>（被定为文明开端）"] end subgraph NewDiscovery ["最新冰河时代考古发现 (PNAS)"] N1["距今约 40,000 年前"] --> N2["冰河时代欧洲刻纹骨骼"] N2 --> N3["高度复杂的原文字系统<br/>（具备早期文字同等符号复杂度）"] end ``` - **冰河时代符号文物**：研究涵盖 200 多件刻有复杂几何与象征符号的史前骨器。 - **年代跨度**：原文字能力被推前至 40,000 年前，比公元前 3000 年苏美尔楔形文字早三万多年。 - **侵蚀测年论点**：基于 500 年前地震剥落的覆石风化差，部分学者提出了金字塔年代上限可达 20,000 多年的激进猜想。 --- ### [02:28:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=8921s) 频道推荐、新项目《历史模式》与朋克乐队 Headache 节目录制接近尾声，罗根对迈克尔·巴顿的内容创作表达了极高的赞誉。他赞扬巴顿不仅选题完全切中自己的兴趣点，而且在调研和考证上投入了常人难以想象的心血与耐力，并热烈邀请他只要有了新成果就随时再来做客。巴顿对罗根长久以来的支持深表感谢，并顺势介绍了自己的内容矩阵：除了深耕史前遗迹与失落历史的主频道“Michael Button”之外，他最近还开辟了名为“历史模式”（Patterns of History）的第二频道。巴顿解释道，一旦人类文明进入信史时期，世界各地遗址和纪年展现出的兴盛、崩溃与消亡循环总是一再重演，而现代文明自以为高人一等，实则仍在复刻同样的宿命轨迹。 最后，罗根询问巴顿的节目在 Spotify 上的音视频同步情况，并好奇他衣服上的外星人头像图案。巴顿笑着揭晓了谜底：这是他自己的朋克摇滚乐队“Headache”（头疼）的标志。他透露自己在疫情前经常登台演出，但疫情打乱了所有计划，后来鼓手又搬去了澳大利亚，导致乐队活动一度暂停；不过他们近期正打算重返录音室录制新歌。在欢声笑语中，罗根调侃着乐队宣传照里乐手“头发挡住眼睛”的阴郁酷劲，热烈结束了本期播客。 - **主频道**：YouTube 上的 Michael Button，聚焦史前未解之谜与考古新发现。 - **新项目《历史模式》（Patterns of History）**：探讨有记录历史中各大文明周期性兴衰的普遍规律。 - **收听平台**：播客音视频同步上线 Spotify，方便习惯通勤听音频的观众。 - **朋克乐队 Headache**：官方网站为 `thisisheadache.com`，标志即为标志性的外星人头像。 ## Notable quotes > [00:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=1s) no fantastic claims, no hyperbole — Joe Rogan > [03:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=193s) the rug has been pulled out — Michael Button > [03:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=193s) super nerd — Michael Button > [07:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=470s) the invention of writing — Michael Button > [09:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=593s) everything's back on the table — Michael Button > [24:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=1490s) clutching their peckers — Joe Rogan > [30:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=1845s) 这就像试图通过一张只有半句话的破碎小纸片，去读懂整整一本书的内容，然后你问别人：‘你觉得这本书讲了什么？’这太荒谬了。 — Joe Rogan > [30:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=1845s) 为什么他们会花上整整 30 万年的时间，才搞明白怎么盖屋顶、发展复杂文明与农业？ — Joe Rogan > [33:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=2030s) 在同一区域的三个独立岛屿上发生三次，在什么节点上，‘偶然’会开始变成‘既定行为’？ — Michael Button > [01:18:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=4686s) 如果你只是造个避难所，根本不需要这种极致的镜面打磨。 — Michael Button > [01:24:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=5076s) 快爬啊，混蛋！它们迟早要统治世界、搞砸一切 — Joe Rogan > [02:00:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=7203s) 只要其中任何一个遗址被确凿证实，人类迁徙美洲的完整时间表就会彻底改写 — Michael Button > [02:11:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=7872s) What's going to kill the pain of a fucking amputation? — Joe Rogan > [02:25:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=8719s) it outsources thinking itself — Joe Rogan > [02:25:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI&t=8719s) like a raisin — Joe Rogan ## Mentioned Joe Rogan, Michael Button, Jamie, Jesse Michels, Brian Morescu, Klaus Schmidt, Ben van Kerkwyk (UnchartedX), Jimmy Corsetti (Bright Insight), Cassie Coppersmith, Chris Stringer, Nicolas Cage, Don Miller, Graham Hancock, Louis Leakey, Will Brown (Incredible History), Rupert Sheldrake, Genevieve von Petzinger, Perplexity, BlueChew, Ketone-IQ, Target, YouTube, Spotify, Netflix, NASA, FBI, UFC, Headache, Patterns of History, The Immortality Key, PNAS, Nature, Göbekli Tepe, Taş Tepeler, Karahantepe, Sefertepe, Jebel Irhoud, Kalambo Falls, Chiquihuite Cave, Pedra Furada, Cerutti Mastodon Site, Calico Early Man Site, Hueyatlaco, Séfar, Nabta Playa, Barabar Caves, Kailasa Temple, White Sands National Park, Madjedbebe, Moyjil ## Video description Michael Button is a YouTuber who explores ancient mysteries, lost history, and societal collapse. https://michaelbutton.substack.com https://www.youtube.com/@MichaelButton1 Perplexity: Download the app or ask Perplexity anything at https://pplx.ai/rogan. Visit https://ketone.com/Rogan for 30% OFF, or find Ketone-IQ at Target nationwide. Use code ROGAN at https://BlueChew.com to get 10% OFF + Free Overnight Shipping on your first order. [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnt0wEc9YmI)

[0:01] Joe Rogan: no fantastic claims, no hyperbole [3:13] Michael Button: the rug has been pulled out [3:13] Michael Button: super nerd [7:50] Michael Button: the invention of writing [9:53] Michael Button: everything's back on the table [24:50] Joe Rogan: clutching their peckers [30:45] Joe Rogan: 这就像试图通过一张只有半句话的破碎小纸片，去读懂整整一本书的内容，然后你问别人：‘你觉得这本书讲了什么？’这太荒谬了。 [30:45] Joe Rogan: 为什么他们会花上整整 30 万年的时间，才搞明白怎么盖屋顶、发展复杂文明与农业？ [33:50] Michael Button: 在同一区域的三个独立岛屿上发生三次，在什么节点上，‘偶然’会开始变成‘既定行为’？ [78:06] Michael Button: 如果你只是造个避难所，根本不需要这种极致的镜面打磨。 [84:36] Joe Rogan: 快爬啊，混蛋！它们迟早要统治世界、搞砸一切 [120:03] Michael Button: 只要其中任何一个遗址被确凿证实，人类迁徙美洲的完整时间表就会彻底改写 [131:12] Joe Rogan: What's going to kill the pain of a fucking amputation? [145:19] Joe Rogan: it outsources thinking itself [145:19] Joe Rogan: like a raisin

[26:22] Michael Button: At the end of the day, none of us know what happened in the deep, deep past... We're all just speculating based on the very limited evidence that we have. [112:42] Michael Button: I think there's a lot of young people that feel confined by the gatekeepers... career academics that are sort of in charge of who gets tenure, who gets jobs, who gets grants... You don't want to ruffle any feathers or step on any toes. [118:49] Michael Button: There's multiple geological dating methods on the sediment, the ash, and also the camel pelvis... and they collected all this to a date of 250,000 years ago for this site where these tools were found. [209:14] They were performing surgery 31,000 years ago and surviving and living for years afterwards. And that is insane.

[0:01] Joe Rogan podcast. Check it out. [0:03] >> The Joe Rogan Experience. [0:06] >> TRAIN BY DAY. JOE ROGAN PODCAST BY [0:08] NIGHT. All day. [0:12] >> Hey, good to see you, brother. What's [0:14] going on? [0:14] >> Good, man. It's been um it's been a wild [0:17] year for me. [0:18] >> I bet it has been [0:19] >> since um since I was last here. I mean, [0:22] I've seen my YouTube grow to numbers I [0:24] couldn't have imagined before. I've met [0:26] so many cool people. I've managed to get [0:29] to a point where it's now my job to [0:31] research and investigate ancient history [0:34] and the vast mysteries of our past. And [0:37] yeah, I mean, that's something I was [0:39] doing for for free before. So, the fact [0:41] that I'm now able to do that full-time [0:43] is just an immense privilege. And I'm so [0:45] grateful to everyone that's helped me [0:46] get there, including you. [0:48] >> Well, you're putting out fantastic [0:49] content. Thank you. So it and it's such [0:52] an interesting subject and uh the giant [0:56] blind spot that the um mainstream [1:00] archaeologists have left has allowed all [1:03] these people to go through and get a [1:04] much larger audience even than them. [1:07] >> Yeah. [1:07] >> And it's it's really important when [1:09] someone like you does it because you're [1:11] so thorough and you're so objective and [1:13] you're so you're so measured in the way [1:16] you describe these things and talk about [1:17] these things. There's no fantastic [1:19] claims, no hyperbole. It's all very [1:22] welllaid out. And even when you go to [1:24] like extreme possibilities of these [1:27] things, it's very measured. So, I really [1:29] appreciate that. [1:30] >> Well, thank you. I appreciate you saying [1:31] that. And yeah. Yeah. I mean, I'm always [1:33] trying to make it as good as I possibly [1:34] can and I try and listen to what people [1:36] say and trying to improve. And I don't [1:37] think I've reached like the peak of [1:39] where I could possibly be, but you know, [1:40] I'm trying my hardest. But it's not just [1:42] that. I mean, as you say, I think there [1:43] are so many people out there. And now [1:46] that I'm in this position, I've seen it [1:48] firsthand. There are like millions and [1:50] millions of people around the world that [1:51] are deeply fascinated by these [1:54] questions, by the vast mysteries of our [1:56] past. So, [1:57] >> as well, they should be. And they also [1:59] know that we're getting a very narrow [2:02] version of it from mainstream academics. [2:05] They and they are so determined to cling [2:09] to their timelines and cling to this [2:11] notion that anything new that's [2:13] discovered by people outside of their [2:15] little circle uh can't be accurate and I [2:18] think that's so silly. [2:20] >> Yeah. I mean I think someone like me has [2:22] the kind of advantage of the fact that [2:24] because I you know didn't continue my [2:26] career in academia or I wasn't in [2:28] academia but that was the pathway that I [2:30] was on. because I've gone independent [2:32] now. I kind of have the freedom if you [2:34] like to talk about these ideas in a much [2:36] more open way than maybe I would have [2:38] been able to if I was uh well wouldn't [2:40] been able to if I was still in academia [2:43] because you know I'm not restricted by [2:45] funding or I'm not restricted by even [2:48] the the pressures of uh you know people [2:51] working in academia hating on me. I [2:53] mean, I get a lot of hate anyway, but I [2:54] mean, I think I have that freedom to [2:57] almost come at things from a completely [2:58] open-minded perspective and speak about [3:01] these ideas without any restrictions. [3:03] And I think that is the advantage that I [3:06] have that academics perhaps don't. Um, [3:10] so yeah, I mean, yeah, I'm I'm in a [3:12] great place. [3:13] >> Yeah. So, let's get into it. So, in the [3:15] last year, a lot of wild stuff has been [3:18] discovered, which is really exciting. [3:20] Yeah, [3:21] >> it's so interesting how quick this stuff [3:23] is moving. [3:23] >> Yeah, it's wild. I mean, there's been, I [3:25] think, two papers in particular that [3:27] have come out in the year since I was [3:29] last here on the show that I think have [3:32] huge ramifications for how we view [3:34] history. Um, so I mean, I don't know [3:38] where to start. I mean, I think I think [3:40] we should start like this. I think as [3:43] things currently stand, there are three [3:47] huge questions that archaeology cannot [3:50] answer. And the it's interesting because [3:52] these three questions we used to think [3:54] we had an answer to, but in light of new [3:57] discoveries, in light of new evidence [3:59] coming up, we no longer have the answer [4:01] to these questions. And I think that's [4:03] fascinating because it's almost like the [4:05] rug has been pulled out from underneath [4:07] our understanding of human history. But [4:08] on the surface, it's kind of like [4:10] business as usual. Do do you know what I [4:12] mean? It's like [4:12] >> so what are these questions? [4:14] >> So I mean and this is just coming from [4:15] me, right? So like the caveat on the [4:17] whole conversation. I'm not an academic. [4:18] I'm not a professional archaeologist. [4:20] I'm just I mean I have a degree in [4:21] ancient history. But I think my main [4:23] qualification is that I'm a super nerd [4:25] for all this stuff and I spent my whole [4:26] life researching it. Um so that's the [4:28] caveat on everything. So don't take what [4:30] I say as gospel. And I always encourage [4:32] people to go and look at the actual [4:34] archaeology. Go and read the journals, [4:36] read the papers, and go investigate what [4:37] yourself for yourself. like listen to [4:39] what I say but don't take what I say as [4:41] gospel cuz the end of the day I'm just a [4:42] YouTuber you know so [4:44] >> that's the caveat I want to put on it [4:45] but from my mind these are the three [4:47] questions that I think archaeology can [4:49] no longer answer but used to think it [4:51] had an answer for so the first question [4:53] is and we spoke about this a little bit [4:56] last time um is the fascinating question [4:59] of why after hundreds and hundreds and [5:02] hundreds and hundreds of thousands of [5:04] years of human beings like us being on [5:07] this planet it? Why did it take so long [5:10] for civilization to emerge? And then why [5:13] when it did did it emerge in all these [5:15] different unconnected locations all over [5:17] the globe at pretty much the exact same [5:19] time. So we see civilization flourishing [5:21] in Meso America. We see civilization [5:24] flourishing in South America, in Egypt, [5:26] in the Indis Valley, in Mesopotamia, in [5:29] ancient India, in ancient China, all [5:31] around about the same time, give or take [5:33] a a thousand or so years. [5:36] compared to the time span of human [5:37] beings on this planet, you know, 300,000 [5:40] years plus for modern humans. And I [5:43] would argue some of these papers are [5:44] showing that it could be a lot longer [5:46] than that. Why after so long did [5:49] civilization suddenly crop up all over [5:51] the place? And we no longer can answer [5:54] that question um in light of new [5:56] discovery. So that's question one. Why [5:57] did civilization emerge everywhere all [5:59] at once after so long of not doing so? [6:02] Question two is [6:06] how old is human intelligence? How long [6:10] have humans been intelligent? How long [6:11] has a mind like ours really inhabited [6:15] this planet? And I think two papers in [6:18] particular that have come out in the 12 [6:20] months since I was here have huge [6:22] ramifications for that question. And [6:25] also combining to that is the question [6:26] of other human species. How intelligent [6:29] were other human species? cuz we used to [6:31] think that we were the smart ones. I [6:33] mean our name Homo sapiens literally [6:36] translates to wise man which is a [6:38] incredibly humble thing for us to say [6:40] about ourselves but but yeah so so [6:43] that's question two. How old is human [6:44] intelligence? And again I think the [6:46] answer is we don't have the answer [6:48] anymore. Um so that's that's really [6:51] fascinating. And then question three is [6:53] when did humans first reach the more [6:56] isolated land masses? So that's the [6:58] Americas where we are right now and also [7:01] Australia which is perhaps less [7:03] important but still interesting. And [7:06] again we don't have the answer for that [7:07] anymore. And I think whatever the answer [7:10] is to these three questions. Why did [7:12] civilization appear everywhere all at [7:14] once? How old is human intelligence? And [7:17] when did humans first reach the more [7:18] isolated parts of the world? The answer [7:21] to those questions, whatever it is, I [7:24] think it's fundamentally important [7:25] because [7:27] whatever the answer is, is the reason [7:28] we're all here, right? It's the reason [7:29] we all live in this civilization. It's [7:31] the reason we all enjoy the fruits of [7:34] everything that uh we exist in today. [7:36] And yet, we don't know the answer [7:37] anymore. But, as I said, on the surface, [7:39] everyone's kind of carrying on like it's [7:42] business as usual, but we no longer know [7:45] the answer to the most fundamental [7:47] questions of how we got here. So, yeah. [7:50] So for question number one, why did all [7:54] of these civilizations emerge [7:58] roughly the same time? What do you [8:01] think? Do you think that this is [8:03] incorrect and that these civilizations [8:07] uh probably existed far earlier than [8:10] that, but there's no evidence of them [8:12] because of time and just erosion and [8:15] natural catastrophes and fill in the [8:18] blank. all all the factors and or we [8:22] have not discovered some of these yet [8:24] like some of the weirdness of the [8:26] Amazon, you know, as they find these [8:29] what would appear to be the grids of [8:31] ancient cities that are hidden in the [8:33] jungle that they're discovering with LAR [8:34] and these other technologies that were [8:36] unavailable until fairly recently. So, [8:39] we know that not only was the Amazon [8:43] uh filled with people, but it was filled [8:44] with millions of people. And that's [8:46] crazy. That is a crazy shift in the way [8:49] we used to look at the Amazon just a few [8:52] decades ago. And we don't know who these [8:55] people were. We don't know like if you [8:57] go really far back like the Mex is just [8:59] a word. We gave them that word. We don't [9:01] know what the [ __ ] they were doing. We [9:03] have no idea what they looked like. We [9:05] know uh some of the heads look roughly [9:07] either Polynesian or perhaps even [9:09] African. It's very strange. Very [9:12] strange. Big giant heads that are left [9:15] behind. And that's like the cornerstone [9:17] of what we understand about the [9:18] civilization. Okay. What how long? 6,000 [9:22] years, we think. Who knows? It's just a [9:24] rough guess. Like there's really nothing [9:26] to to go on. Um do you think that uh [9:31] this is just like as far back as we can [9:34] find stuff or do you think what do you [9:37] think? Well, I think well in terms of [9:40] the civilization question, I think it's [9:42] just it's I think it's an old idea that [9:45] we kind of drew this line and it's the [9:46] the line is the invention of writing, [9:48] right? So, it's around 3,000 4,000 BC [9:52] was the invention of writing or [9:53] supposedly was the invention of writing [9:54] and that in the 20th century was kind of [9:56] given as the marker of civilization. We [9:58] were finding all these civilizations in [9:59] the 20th century like ancient Sumer and [10:01] so that was kind of given as the start [10:02] of civilization. But I think in terms of [10:05] like more recent stuff, so 3000 BC back [10:09] to like 12,000 BC, I think the answer is [10:12] that clearly civilization is older. I [10:14] mean considering we see things like [10:16] Tashapella, Quebec 12,000 years ago, I [10:19] think that is a civilization. I think [10:21] over time that will come to be accepted [10:23] as a civilization. And I think whatever [10:25] you want to define civilization as, I [10:27] think we can now clearly say that it did [10:29] exist 12,000 years ago rather than 6,000 [10:32] years ago. So that's a kind of doubling [10:33] of the timeline. In terms of going back [10:35] much further than that, I think then you [10:37] get into kind of like purely [10:38] hypothetical scenarios like is it [10:40] possible? And that's when I think things [10:42] like the history of human intelligence [10:44] start to come into play because it was [10:47] incredibly recently that we thought [10:49] humans were only got intelligent. Well, [10:51] we thought humans were young, like only [10:53] 100,000 years old, only a few decades [10:55] ago, and now we know we're much older [10:57] than that. And so this is how what I [10:58] mean about everything kind of being back [11:00] on the table again because we now have a [11:02] incredibly increased time span of human [11:05] intelligence that I would argue and I'll [11:07] I'll come to this later stretches over a [11:09] million years. And yet the old idea [11:12] which is still sort of in place but I [11:14] think is breaking. I think most [11:15] archaeologists would accept that is [11:17] breaking. But the old idea was that [11:19] humans only became intelligent around [11:21] 50,000 years ago. And so because that [11:25] idea kind of was in hold, it almost made [11:27] sense, right? So humans only existed [11:29] from 100,000 years ago, then got smart [11:31] 50,000 years ago. Then the climate got [11:33] good around 14,000 years ago. We see the [11:36] agricultural revolution and the [11:38] emergence of the first civilizations. [11:39] Like it was very neat. Do you know what [11:41] I mean? But now in light of new evidence [11:42] and in light of new discoveries, [11:44] suddenly everything's back on the table. [11:46] Suddenly the whole time span of [11:47] prehistory or not the whole of [11:49] prehistory but I would argue and I'll [11:51] get on to why I think this later I would [11:53] argue that the time span of human [11:55] intelligence has increased by 20 times [11:59] from 50,000 to over a million years. And [12:01] I'll explain why in a minute but I think [12:03] that puts everything back on the table. [12:05] I think that the possibilities of [12:07] prehistory are are so vast now because [12:10] of our understanding has shifted so [12:12] dramatically in the last few decades. [12:13] And I don't think anyone's really [12:15] talking about it. And that's kind of why [12:16] I do what I do because I really want to [12:20] bang this drum if you like that [12:22] everything's back on the table as I say. [12:24] And so yeah, I don't know. I kind of got [12:26] a bit sidetracked there from your [12:27] original question. [12:27] >> Well, that's a no you it's a great [12:29] start. Um Jesse Michaels was here [12:31] yesterday and he had a really [12:33] fascinating theory. I don't know if it's [12:35] is that his theory or is it someone [12:36] else's theory? The the Urgot theory. His [12:40] theory was that um [12:44] he believes that agriculture and that as [12:47] they started agriculture wasn't just [12:48] significant in that you you could like [12:52] stay in one place and you would have [12:53] food and you always had a reliable diet, [12:56] you didn't have to worry about starving [12:58] to death and then you because you had [13:00] that sort of relaxation that came with [13:02] that, you could start inventing things [13:04] and building things and and civilization [13:06] would advance. He thinks it's also [13:09] because Urgot grows on these different [13:13] wheats and barleys and grains and that [13:16] these people whether knowingly or [13:18] unknowingly were probably ingesting this [13:21] psychedelic substance which is akin to [13:24] LSD and that this was uh a key part of [13:28] what Brian Morescu talked about in the [13:30] Illusinian Mysteries in his great book [13:32] the immortality key and that this was [13:36] probably what led do a lot of invention, [13:38] a lot of innovation, a lot of [13:40] alternative thought, a lot of [13:42] creativity, and a lot of like, you know, [13:45] what are the whatever the wild [13:46] advancements of the time were. Did you [13:48] see that? They just um not proved it, [13:50] but they just they just did a study on [13:53] the Alissian mysteries where they kind [13:55] of showed that they they were doing uh [13:57] they did have a go because when Brian [13:59] wrote that book, they hadn't proved [14:00] that, but something just came out that [14:02] >> Did you see the um it was a puma bone [14:06] pipe that they found that tested [14:08] positive for DMT [14:11] >> where in Elis? [14:12] >> I do not know. I think it was I don't it [14:15] might have been in the America. No. [14:17] Where was that? [14:18] >> Peru. [14:18] >> Peru. Yes. Really? Yes. [14:20] >> How old is that, Jamie? [14:24] >> See if you can put that into perplexity [14:26] if it it knows what this is all about [14:28] cuz it's a fascinating subject. Cuz not [14:30] only does it not imply that they were [14:33] willingly taking psychedelic drugs, it's [14:35] somehow or another they knew how to make [14:37] DMT. [14:38] >> Mhm. [14:39] >> Like, okay, what? cuz that that's a [14:42] complicated process when you have to [14:44] separate the molecule from whatever [14:47] plant it's in and then you have to [14:49] figure out that you need to freebase it [14:51] or smoke it like how what [14:52] >> this says there's actually a [14:53] northwestern Argentina [14:56] >> the and so it's still the Andes but um [14:58] >> the Inca qua a high altitude cave site [15:02] in Jujoy northwestern Argentina [15:06] uh the tubular smoking pipes are made [15:08] from the long bones of a puma they were [15:11] found alongside uh anantherra [15:16] anadanthra [15:18] ana denanthra seeds including the plant [15:21] commonly associated with uh v [15:26] vila cibil snuff traditions residue [15:30] testing detected tryptoamine alkyoids in [15:33] the pipes. So, they were figuring out [15:36] how to take these seeds and smoke them. [15:40] Um, the materials been dated to roughly [15:43] 2,130 [15:45] BCE, over 4,000 years ago. That makes [15:48] the find amongst the oldest direct [15:50] archaeological evidence for intentional [15:52] use of psychoactive [15:54] anadenth anadenther [15:59] anad sorry scientists in the southern [16:03] Andes. That's [ __ ] crazy. The careful [16:06] answer is DMT was detected in pipe [16:08] residues. But uh anadanththerera [16:12] uh colubrina is not simply a DMT plant. [16:16] Its psychoactive chemistry can include [16:20] uh buffet buffetin DMT and 5me DMT in [16:24] varying quantities depending on plant [16:26] material and preparation. The [16:28] archeological interpretation is that the [16:29] pipes were used in a ritual context [16:32] involving [16:34] one more time anantherra [16:38] rather than proof that people were using [16:40] modern purified DMT. Either way, they're [16:43] smoking whatever the [ __ ] that stuff is, [16:45] they're getting DMT from it. So, they [16:47] had figured out somehow or another that [16:50] ingesting it through smoke. Now, the one [16:53] of the reasons why this is particularly [16:55] significant is there's scholars out of [16:58] um I think it's the University of [17:00] Jerusalem that uh believe that the [17:03] burning bush the mo that Moses [17:06] encountered [17:07] >> some kind of psychedelic [17:08] >> that that's what what that's exactly [17:10] what they think. They think the [17:11] translation was it was they believe it [17:13] was possibly the acacia tree which is [17:15] apparently rich in DMT. So that Moses [17:19] has Moses trips ball and gets some [17:22] really good solid rules to live by and [17:24] comes back with them and said, "Hey, [17:26] this is what God said." [17:27] >> Yeah. I mean, I I think there it's [17:29] clearly the case that ancient cultures, [17:32] not just in South America, but across [17:35] the world were using psychedelic [17:37] substances. And yeah, that's [17:39] interesting. I mean the theory of [17:41] whether that caused agriculture or [17:43] whether that led to civilization or [17:45] anything like that. I mean I don't know [17:46] but it's certainly interesting that [17:49] human beings seem to have been [17:50] experimenting with psychoactive [17:52] substances for a long long long long [17:54] time. Um and yeah that's fascinating. [17:57] Yeah. And much like uh in our culture [17:59] today and you know especially what [18:02] happened in 1970 where all that stuff [18:05] was demonized and put on schedule one [18:07] back then during the Illinian mysteries. [18:09] The reason why those mysteries stopped [18:11] is cuz the powers that be were like hey [18:14] these guys are a [ __ ] problem. These [18:16] trippy dudes with their weird ideas who [18:18] uh invented democracy uh they're going [18:20] to [ __ ] this whole thing up. We're not [18:22] going to be able to run it and tell [18:23] everybody what to do and force them into [18:24] going into war. [18:26] Yeah, I know. Yeah, but the powers that [18:27] be always want to restrict any kind of [18:29] like thought that's outside of the uh [18:31] what they want people to think. They [18:32] don't want people to think uh as freely [18:34] as as they can. And I guess [18:36] >> anything that limits their control. [18:37] >> Yeah. [18:38] >> Um you know, cuz everybody wants [18:40] control. And there's always new groups [18:41] that say, "You don't know what the [ __ ] [18:42] you're doing. Let me take the realm." [18:44] And that's always been the case. um [18:47] which is probably good for people you [18:51] know it probably is what leads to I mean [18:53] not the war part of it but probably [18:56] these new ideas is what leads to an [18:58] advancement of civilization rather than [19:00] stagnation that we find in some places [19:02] in the world where they haven't had a [19:04] chance to do that [19:06] >> you know like my friends that have been [19:07] to Afghanistan um they had to serve over [19:10] there essentially saying that like this [19:13] they're living like people lived [19:15] thousands of years ago there's warlords [19:17] and they they control regions and uh [19:21] that's how they've always done it and [19:23] they they live this weird nomadic [19:25] lifestyle in the mountains and it's not [19:27] much different than the way it was [19:29] thousands and thousands of years ago. [19:31] >> Very clan-like uh living. Yeah. [19:33] >> And if you don't have if that guy and [19:36] the these groups just stay in control [19:38] forever, like it's like there's no [19:40] motivation for them to change and evolve [19:42] and grow. Nothing. [19:43] >> There's no innovation or anything like [19:44] that. [19:44] >> Nothing's happening. Also, they're stuck [19:46] in the mountains. So, it's like you're [19:47] just trying to live. [19:48] >> Yeah. [19:49] >> But, you know, when you we think of [19:50] these places, these very fertile places [19:52] on Earth where like particularly Turkey, [19:55] Turkeyy's fascinating, [19:57] >> you know, and um many people are now [20:00] speculating that that if there is a [20:02] singular place that but that might have [20:04] been one of the birthplaces of true [20:07] civilization. This episode is brought to [20:09] you by Blue Chew. Man, let's talk about [20:12] Blue Chew. They're already the number [20:14] one brand for better sex, but what [20:16] they're doing with Bluetooth Gold is [20:18] completely next level. Gold is a 4in-one [20:21] formula designed to make your bedroom [20:24] noisy again. Obviously, it gets you hard [20:27] like you're back in your 20s and [20:30] everything is handled 100% online. But [20:32] Gold boosts your arousal, getting you [20:35] ready for sex physically and mentally. [20:38] Plus, it dissolves under your tongue for [20:40] faster absorption. So, you get that [20:42] spontaneous energy back. Look at the [20:45] stats. Gold is three times stronger, [20:48] five times faster, and eight times [20:50] longerlasting than old school methods. [20:53] Blue Chew Gold is the real deal. Right [20:56] now, buy two months of Blue Chew Gold [20:58] and get the third free with my code [21:01] Rogan. You will also receive free [21:03] overnight shipping. Head over to [21:05] bluechw.com for details and important [21:08] safety information. Check it out. This [21:11] ad and the products being advertised are [21:13] intended for a United States audience. [21:16] Yeah, I mean I think it undoubtly is. I [21:18] think Tashtapella, which is in modern [21:20] day Turkey, is the earliest evidence in [21:22] my view of something akin to [21:23] civilization. And now archaeologists [21:25] will say it's not civilization because [21:27] it doesn't quite tick off every check [21:29] part of the checklist. But I I think [21:31] that's neither here nor there. But I [21:33] think it's clearly a very sophisticated [21:34] culture. I mean, you have like 14 sites [21:36] there that are now clearly shown to be [21:39] interlin, shared symbolism, shared [21:41] religious traditions, same architectural [21:42] styles, very impressive architecture, [21:45] clearly organized labor, stratified [21:47] society because how do you achieve that [21:49] without someone at the top and someone [21:51] below? And these are all things that we [21:53] used to think were civilization, right? [21:55] And yet people aren't happy with us [21:57] calling Tashapella a civilization. But I [22:00] think it will get there. But don't you [22:01] think that's just because of them trying [22:03] to protect their timeline that they've [22:05] been teaching? [22:06] >> Yeah. And I think it will change. I [22:07] think it will change with [22:08] >> I don't think there's any other [22:09] explanation other than that. I mean, it [22:11] fits, as you said, all the criteria for [22:13] civilization that we used to apply. And [22:15] the fact that they are moving the [22:17] goalposts just because they didn't know [22:19] it existed. [22:19] >> And they're finding residential [22:20] buildings at Gletly now. And that was [22:22] always one that used to say, look, [22:23] people didn't live there. They must have [22:24] migrated there. But now they're finding [22:25] that people did live there like I guess [22:27] permanently or at least [22:28] semi-permanmanently. Look. Yeah, there's [22:29] all the sites. And [22:31] >> quite a vast area all connected. And so [22:34] the only ones they haven't got now is is [22:36] writing. And there's an interesting uh [22:39] discovery regarding writing at GBCE and [22:41] agriculture. [22:42] >> Yeah, we talked about that yesterday. [22:43] >> The the earthing thing. Yes. So yeah, [22:46] really interesting. So are those where [22:48] you see those pillars are those sites [22:50] where you have like the those concentric [22:52] circles? [22:53] >> I assume so. Those are the famous ones [22:56] anyway. Kahan, Gabbecley, Safete, those [22:58] are the biggest ones. [23:00] >> And only 5% of Gobeclete currently has [23:04] even been excavated, right? [23:06] >> Which is pretty crazy when you think [23:09] like, well, okay, how many of them are [23:12] also still underground? Like, how many [23:14] do we know only exist because of ground [23:16] penetrating radar and all the other [23:18] techniques? [23:19] >> Yeah, I mean, it's wild. Like, Gbecepe, [23:20] if all of it was excavated, is something [23:22] like 50 times larger than Stonehenge. [23:24] Stonehenge is obviously an incredibly [23:26] famous site and yet it's so much bigger [23:28] and like like to be clear it is standard [23:31] ar um archaeological practice to not [23:34] excavate too much of a site. But [23:36] >> what are we what are we looking at here? [23:37] >> That's Quebec. [23:38] >> And what are we looking at in terms of [23:40] these these grids? [23:42] >> I think maybe that's the kind of [23:44] archaeological I think. I'm not 100% [23:47] sure. [23:47] >> It seems like it right because it seems [23:49] like the grids go on top of these [23:50] circles which doesn't make any sense. So [23:55] obviously they have to go very slowly. [23:56] The the risk of destroying some [24:00] incredible find some beautiful ancient [24:03] thing because you're using tractors or [24:05] something like that is too big. [24:06] >> It's valid. It is valid. But I would [24:08] argue and I've said this before is that [24:10] Gabbec is a site that has such important [24:13] ramifications for our understanding of [24:15] civilization and the origins of [24:17] civilization that it should receive [24:19] special treatment. Right? because it is [24:21] the oldest site that looks like [24:23] civilization. So I always think that [24:25] maybe we should not obviously you want [24:28] to be careful when you go in and you [24:29] want to follow correct archaeological [24:30] procedure, but at the same time what if [24:33] a relic like equivalent to the Rosetta [24:35] Stone, the the one stone that we found [24:37] that completely translated Egyptian [24:39] hieroglyphs and opened up ancient Egypt [24:41] to our understanding. What if some kind [24:43] of equivalent artifact is hiding in the [24:45] unexavated 95% of Quebec? That could be [24:49] waiting for there to for us to find. [24:50] >> I talked about this boar before, Joe. [24:53] >> Yeah, [24:53] >> I don't remember ever seeing it, but [24:55] it's not new, but it was also found at [24:58] Gobec. It was painted. [25:00] >> Oh, [25:00] >> I think like some of the mouth was [25:01] painted red. [25:03] >> It's crazy looking. [25:05] >> It's life. I'm pretty close to life [25:07] size. [25:09] The whole thing is really fascinating [25:11] because it's also I think it's the first [25:13] evidence of 3D carving in stone too. [25:17] >> Yeah. Raised relief I think it's called. [25:19] Yeah. Or that's the statue. But [25:20] >> what what we're saying about that is in [25:22] like these boores and snakes and all [25:24] these different animals that are on [25:25] these incredible pillars. [25:27] >> They're not carved into it. The the [25:29] stone is carved around it which is [25:32] advanced. That's, you know, it it takes [25:35] sophisticated use of tools and an [25:38] understanding of how to work stone to be [25:39] able to do something like that. [25:41] >> And crucially, specialization, right? [25:43] That's someone's job. They're not out [25:44] there gathering food. That that's their [25:46] job. That's their how they spend their [25:48] time. [25:48] >> And it's also, hey, how did you move [25:51] those? [25:52] >> What? Those stones are huge. What? The [25:55] biggest ones are like how many how [25:56] heavy? [25:57] >> I think most of them are like 10 tons, [25:58] but they f I think they found one that [26:00] hadn't been moved by the quarry that was [26:01] something like 50 tons. And obviously [26:02] they would have um assumed that they [26:05] would have had a method to move that [26:06] otherwise they wouldn't have carved it [26:07] out. [26:07] >> Yeah. 50 tons is high and um stubby [26:11] little peckers. [26:13] >> Says clutching [26:14] >> clutching their peckers. Yeah. [26:17] >> Okay. [26:19] >> Whatever you're into, bro. Must have [26:21] been a weird world back then. And then [26:23] the real question is, is this the oldest [26:26] civilization or is this the oldest [26:29] reboot of civilization that was [26:31] destroyed by the great flood and by the [26:34] younger dus impact and whatever the [ __ ] [26:36] could could have happened to whatever [26:38] civilization previously existed. That's [26:40] where things get real squirrely. [26:42] >> Yeah. Well, exactly. Because if if that [26:44] is a civilization, which I think it's [26:45] becoming clear that it is, and it [26:47] doesn't really matter how you define [26:48] civilization, it's clearly incredibly [26:49] sophisticated. Like it's a very [26:51] sophisticated [26:51] >> Yeah. That word is a problem. [26:52] >> Yeah. Exactly. Just like who cares? It's [26:54] clearly very sophisticated culture. It's [26:56] >> like when Fouchi was talking about gain [26:57] of function like hey [ __ ] [27:00] >> you know what we're talking about. [27:01] >> Exactly. Exactly. But but yeah that [27:03] means that [27:05] >> you know the timeline of civilization [27:06] whatever you want to call it has doubled [27:08] from 6,000 years to 12,000 years. So [27:10] then the question becomes how much [27:12] further back does it go? Because clearly [27:14] Tashapella Gbeclete it's not the first [27:17] thing these people built. They didn't [27:18] they weren't starting from scratch. They [27:19] weren't just hunter gatherers that [27:20] thought, let's try something new and [27:22] build this. Like it's clear there's [27:23] clearly a long procedure up to that [27:25] point. So how far back does that go? [27:27] That's [27:27] >> and for people that don't know, we [27:29] should probably explain that one of the [27:31] reasons why they're able to accurately [27:33] carbon test Gobeclete [27:36] is because, and this is where it gets [27:38] really weird, the dirt is uniform in [27:41] that it was intentionally covered. So [27:44] these sites weren't covered, you know, [27:47] just over time like maybe the Sphinx was [27:50] in Egypt. They were covered [27:52] intentionally and they were covered [27:53] 11,600ish [27:55] years ago. So how old were they before [27:59] they were covered? [28:00] >> Yeah, of course. I mean that's only the [28:01] the earliest date we have, but that [28:03] doesn't mean it's the date that they [28:04] were constructed. [28:05] >> And why were they covered? [28:06] >> Yeah, I mean there is debate over that, [28:07] but that's what Claus Schmidt thought. [28:08] The original [28:09] >> What is the debate? Well, some people [28:11] say it wasn't intentionally covered and [28:12] it was just kind of like a a landslide [28:14] over [28:14] >> like a crazy landslide that all happen [28:16] at once [28:16] >> because I mean it's really hard to prove [28:17] and [28:18] >> what an amazing landslide that covers [28:19] everything. [28:20] >> Yeah. I mean I don't know. I I would [28:22] still lean towards the original [28:24] interpretation from the original [28:26] archaeologist Claus Schmidt. But [28:27] obviously [28:28] >> and why did he think they covered it? [28:30] >> I don't know. [28:30] >> A conquering civilization or like [ __ ] [28:33] these people and their beautiful [28:34] pillars. No, I think he thought the [28:36] people that built it covered it or I [28:38] guess he can't you can't tell, can you? [28:40] And that's the thing with so much of [28:41] this stuff is that no one knows. And [28:44] especially the further back you get in [28:46] time. Anyone that talks with any [28:47] confidence around the past and this is [28:48] one of my main bug bears with [28:50] archaeology. Like I I love archaeology [28:52] and I have a huge respect for the for [28:54] archaeologists and I think they do [28:55] amazing work. But one of my main bug [28:57] bears is the confidence in which people [28:59] talk about the past and ruling out other [29:01] possibilities. Because at the end of the [29:03] day, none of us know what happened in [29:05] the deep, deep past. Especially when you [29:07] start getting back to these crazy time [29:09] scales. It's all speculation. And it [29:10] doesn't matter if you're a YouTuber like [29:12] me or if you're a professor. We're all [29:14] just speculating based on the very [29:16] limited evidence that we have. And so I [29:18] don't like it when people say definitive [29:20] things. I always try and say maybe this [29:22] is the case or maybe that's the case. We [29:24] don't know. And I think everyone should [29:25] approach history with that mindset. And [29:27] that's kind of that if I can get any [29:30] message across to people, it's that that [29:32] is the message. Like we don't know and [29:34] here's a possibility and here's a [29:35] possibility and here's the evidence that [29:37] we think is true. But you know, it's [29:40] really hard to tell. [29:41] >> But it also does stand to reason that [29:43] biology and archaeology as they expand [29:46] the timeline as biology has expanded the [29:48] timeline, archaeology should probably [29:50] tag along. Well, that's yeah, that's [29:52] what I mean about the fact that the [29:53] rug's kind of been pulled out from [29:54] underneath us. [29:56] >> Uh, what on purpose means here? There's [29:58] good reason to think humans [29:59] intentionally deposit at least some of [30:01] the fill. [30:02] >> Uh, ex enclosure D alone contained [30:05] roughly 500 cubic meters of rubble and [30:08] cultural debris, and particular items, [30:11] including broken anthropomorphic [30:13] sculpture heads, appear to have been [30:14] deliberately placed near pillars during [30:16] refilling. But archaeologists do not [30:18] have definitive evidence for the often [30:20] repeated popular claim that its builders [30:23] intentionally buried the entire site at [30:26] once to hide it, preserve it, or mark a [30:28] single ritual closure. The mound is [30:31] man-made in the sense that it consists [30:33] of accumulated archaeological deposits, [30:35] but its formation involve both human [30:38] actions and natural sediment movement [30:41] ending around 8,000 BCE. Yo, [30:45] that's a long [ __ ] time ago. I don't [30:48] think people even really can wrap their [30:49] head around how long we're talking, you [30:51] know, especially that's the other thing [30:54] about um one of the things that I loved [30:57] about uh your your whole video series [31:00] was the one where you were talking about [31:02] what would be left if there was a human [31:05] civilization a 100,000 or more years [31:07] ago. And that's not unreasonable. [31:11] if this biology [31:15] assessment is correct is that there have [31:17] been humans far longer than we used to [31:21] think. So if that's the case because if [31:23] we used to think it was 50,000 years I [31:25] think when I was in high school they [31:26] were talking they were they were saying [31:27] the homo sapiens were like 50,000 years [31:29] old or maybe 100 right and now the [31:32] conventional estimate is like what three [31:35] so the oldest fossils we have of [31:37] anatomically modern humans are 315 to 30 [31:41] 60 uh,000 years old. I mean, that's it's [31:44] the same fossil set from Jabellarud in [31:46] Morocco. And but this obviously is [31:47] really hard to date accurately, but it's [31:49] between 300 and 350,000 years. [31:51] >> And then I think it's really important [31:52] to note that the fossil record is [31:55] incredibly incomplete because most [31:58] people don't leave a fossil. Oh, [31:59] >> it's so hard to like it's so unlikely [32:01] that you'd fossilize. It's something [32:02] like one in a million. So, it's such a [32:04] crazy metric to like try to figure out [32:08] what the past is from these tiny scraps. [32:12] It's like trying to read a book by a [32:15] single shard of a piece of paper with a [32:17] half a sentence in it and you're like, [32:19] "What do you think this book was about?" [32:20] Like, [ __ ] [32:21] >> Exactly. [32:21] >> There's not much evidence. That's the [32:23] problem. But the evidence that they do [32:25] find is pushing the timeline way back. [32:29] Way back. And um that alone, you would [32:32] think archaeology would go, "Well, hey [32:34] guys, in light of this new evidence, [32:37] maybe we should consider the possibility [32:39] that civilizations quite a bit older [32:41] than we think. If they are the same [32:43] exact animal, what would take them [32:46] 300,000 years to uh develop complex [32:50] civilization and agriculture and all [32:52] these different things? Like why why [32:53] would it take so long? And is it [32:55] possible that given the [32:59] I mean the incredible possibilities in [33:02] terms of like what kind of n natural [33:05] disasters took place just asteroid [33:08] impacts that we know we find them all [33:10] over the earth. All over the earth. And [33:13] some of them are 20,000 years old 50,000 [33:16] years old. We find them everywhere. And [33:17] like what kind of an impact would that [33:19] have had? What would be left of those [33:21] civilizations? and all those questions [33:23] again guys like you are are the ones [33:25] proposing them and and putting them out [33:27] there and it's a really good question. [33:30] It's especially in light of you know [33:33] what we understand about humans [33:34] biologically like wouldn't doesn't it [33:36] make sense that these people these just [33:39] as like anatomically [33:43] completely like us like why would it [33:45] take them hundreds of thousands of years [33:48] to figure out a roof? [33:50] >> Yeah, exactly. But I think it's it's um [33:53] I think we have clear evidence now that [33:55] what we call modern intelligence, [33:58] behavioral modernity, goes back so so so [34:02] much further than we think. Like I would [34:04] argue back over a million years in light [34:07] of a couple of papers that have come out [34:09] in the last 12 months. Um [34:11] >> what are these papers? [34:12] >> So I mean there's been two really [34:14] significant papers I think since we last [34:16] spoke. Um, one of them I think has [34:20] really big ramifications for human [34:22] intelligence and that's a paper that [34:23] came out regarding the island of Sulowi [34:27] which is in Indonesia and this is in [34:29] relation to human seaf fairing. So [34:32] seafaring was always thought to be an [34:34] exclusively sapient trait, exclusively [34:36] modern human trait because it's a really [34:38] hard thing to do, right? you need to be [34:39] quite clever to build a boat, to build [34:41] something that's sophisticated enough to [34:44] be seaorthy to get across ocean [34:46] boundaries and to to reach isolated land [34:48] masses. And we always thought that was [34:50] only sapiens until very recently, but a [34:53] paper came out uh in August last year. [34:55] You actually sent it to me. I don't [34:57] think you sent me a post that was about [34:59] um stone tools that was found and I was [35:01] like, "That's interesting." I clicked on [35:02] the paper and then I was like, "Oh, wow. [35:04] Look where these stone tools were [35:05] found." And it was really really [35:07] interesting because they were found on [35:08] Silowi. And Silowacei is an island that [35:13] crucially sits east of something called [35:15] the Wallace line which is a [35:16] biogeographic boundary which means that [35:18] it has been an island and separated from [35:20] the mainland for tens of millions of [35:23] years and separated by deep ocean [35:24] channels that are between depending on [35:27] the sea the fluctuating sea levels at [35:29] the time between 50 and 100 kilometers [35:32] across. So, it's always been an island. [35:34] And yet, in August 2025, archaeologists [35:37] at a site called Calio found stone tools [35:40] on Sulowi. And that means that some type [35:42] of human, probably not sapiens, but I [35:44] guess you never know. Some type of human [35:46] managed to cross that ocean boundary and [35:49] reach Silowi. And that's fascinating. [35:52] But it's worth saying that it's not the [35:54] only piece of evidence in the region. [35:56] There's also a few a decade or so ago, [35:59] we found stone tools on Flores, which is [36:01] just below Silhouia. It's another island [36:03] and crucially again east of the Wallace [36:05] line. So again, you have to cross an [36:07] ocean boundary to get to Flores. And [36:09] they found stone tools there that are [36:12] 1.02 million years old. And I didn't [36:14] even say the Silhoui tools are 1.04 to [36:18] 1.4 million years a years old. So over a [36:21] million years ago, some type of human [36:22] was crossing ocean boundaries to get to [36:24] these islands. And there's also Luzon [36:26] which is just above Silowi, same region. [36:29] They found stone tools there which are [36:31] 700,000 years old. Now the theory always [36:35] was that this was an accident. When we [36:37] just had Flores, the uh the theory was [36:40] that it was accidental drift. So and a [36:42] couple of humans were swept out to sea [36:44] and somehow survived the the stormy [36:47] ocean and the tropical sun clinging to [36:48] some driftwood and and made it to to [36:50] Flores and and somehow survived and [36:53] colonized the island. But now that we've [36:54] got Flores, Luzon, and Silowi, three [36:58] islands all in the same region, all [36:59] separated by this ocean boundary, I [37:02] think it's starting to point less [37:03] towards accident and more towards [37:06] behavior, right? more towards a [37:07] deliberate sea crossing because to to [37:11] colonize I was I was doing some research [37:14] because of these discoveries and there's [37:16] actually been a few papers from NASA on [37:18] how many humans you need to colonize an [37:22] isolated land mass because NASA were [37:23] doing it for like if you're going to [37:24] Mars or something and you you need a [37:27] certain amount of humans of breeding age [37:31] to not um have like genetic problems in [37:34] the population to so you need a a [37:36] certain amount of humans of a of a [37:37] breeding age to to ensure viability, [37:40] right? Because otherwise you're going to [37:41] inbreed and you're all going to die out [37:42] because of genetic issues. And they said [37:44] it was something like um you need 160 [37:47] people at least and that is with strict [37:50] breeding controls and genetic testing. [37:52] We can probably assume they weren't [37:54] doing genetic testing on themselves. And [37:56] so then the numbers somewhere near 500. [37:58] So, what are the chances that 500 [38:00] individuals were all swept out to sea at [38:03] the same time, all survived the the [38:04] crossing and all landed on an island and [38:07] colonized it? That's that's a huge [38:09] amount of humans for for an accident. Do [38:11] you know what I mean? And then three [38:13] times in three separate islands, all in [38:15] the same region, at what point does [38:17] accident start looking like behavior? Do [38:19] you know what I mean? Because that is [38:21] how what are the chances of 500 [38:23] individuals all being swept out to sea, [38:25] all surviving, all reaching these [38:26] islands and all colonizing in three [38:28] separate occasions all around about a [38:30] million years ago. [38:32] >> I think it's not it's not a high chance, [38:34] is it? And I I think if we apply Okam's [38:36] razor to it, which is, you know, the [38:38] simplest explanation wins, [38:39] >> I think the simplest explanation is that [38:41] these humans were intelligent enough to [38:43] build boats. Right. [38:46] >> Right. [38:46] >> And that's I mean, and that is a [38:47] controversial opinion that's not [38:49] accepted. It's accepted that the humans [38:50] reached these islands. That that's not [38:52] that's not controversial. Humans were on [38:54] these islands a million years ago, 700k. [38:56] >> It's just not accepted that it was [38:57] intentional. [38:57] >> Yeah. It's not accepted that they built. [38:59] >> That seems silly. [38:59] >> But I think it's it's [39:00] >> it doesn't make any sense. It's not 500 [39:03] of them make it over by floating and [39:05] surviving. [39:06] >> Yeah. [39:06] >> What? [39:07] >> Exactly. [39:07] >> All at the same time. [39:08] >> Exactly. And this is what I mean about [39:10] taking data points from different kind [39:11] of science. So [39:13] >> because I'm looking into what NASA is [39:15] saying about humans colonizing somewhere [39:17] >> and I'm saying well look 500 people or [39:20] more than 500 people of breeding age as [39:22] well not just people [39:23] >> all reaching an island on three separate [39:26] occasions all in the same region. Are we [39:28] sure this wasn't deliberate? So I think [39:30] that has huge ramifications for human [39:32] intelligence because that was always [39:35] thought to be exclusively sapiens thing [39:37] building a boat because that's really [39:39] hard to build a boat. You have to have [39:40] planning you have to have foresight. You [39:42] have to be good enough at carpentry to [39:44] to construct something that's seaorthy. [39:46] You have to [39:47] >> trial and error. [39:48] >> Yeah. Trial and error. And you have to [39:49] have the imagination as well to dream [39:51] about what's on the other side of the [39:53] horizon. And the bravery and the [39:55] incredible reckless courage to go for it [39:58] and to go out there across the horizon [39:59] and reach an island and [40:01] >> and possibly navigate through the stars [40:03] like they knew how to do that. [40:05] >> Maybe. [40:06] >> Maybe they otherwise why would you sit [40:08] out, you know? [40:08] >> Right. And how would you repeat it? [40:11] >> Exactly. Yeah. How are you? Do you [40:12] remember which way you went? That way. [40:14] You're like, how do you [40:15] >> some [ __ ] dude with a giant brow [40:18] ridge, furry face is telling you, I I [40:21] remember going this way. Like, are you [40:22] [ __ ] sure? [40:23] >> How are you doing? Are you using the [40:25] stars? Like, what are you doing? [40:26] >> And but humans weren't even meant to [40:28] have complex language back then. They [40:29] weren't meant to they weren't meant to [40:30] be capable of this. I mean, we're seeing [40:32] these things. [40:33] >> Organization. There has to be some sort [40:34] of organization. Mhm. [40:36] >> If you're getting a group of people to [40:37] agree to get in the boat, if they can't [40:39] communicate with each other, that seems [40:41] ridicul that seems even more ridiculous [40:43] cuz let's say at the the minimum of 50 [40:46] km, how long does it take you to row 50 [40:48] km? Seems like it would be days. [40:50] >> It would be tough, wouldn't it? An ocean [40:52] as well, like a tough, [40:54] >> right? If you even survive, [40:56] >> how long is it going to take before you [40:57] get across? I mean, maybe they figured [40:59] out when the stormy season was and they [41:01] time it for when it's not so stormy, but [41:04] I mean, now, how are they doing that? Do [41:05] they have a calendar a million years [41:07] ago? [41:08] >> Whatever they were doing, if if it was [41:10] deliberate, which I think the evidence [41:11] points towards, it's a clear sign of [41:13] what we call modern intelligence [41:16] >> and organization and most likely [41:18] communication. [41:18] >> Mhm. Which we always used to think only [41:20] emerged 50,000 years ago. [41:22] >> That's crazy. And so now if it's over a [41:24] million years old, you know, that's like [41:25] a that is a 20 times and it could be [41:27] 1.4. The solar waste tools are dated to [41:30] 1.04 to 1.4. So that's I don't know [41:32] what's that like 25 times older than we [41:34] think. [41:34] >> That's so funny that that point4 that's [41:36] a lot. [41:37] >> It's huge. It's absolutely gigantic. [41:39] Yeah. And this is what you were saying [41:40] about like people can't get their heads [41:42] around the sheer enormity of these time [41:44] scales that we're talking about. Like [41:45] it's so long. [41:46] >> It's so long. Well, uh, another weird [41:49] one that that's come up fairly recently, [41:52] um, that I know you've talked about is [41:53] the copper mining. [41:55] >> Oh, yeah. [41:55] >> In North America, [41:57] >> that one blew me away. Just the volume [42:00] of copper that was removed. [42:03] >> Mhm. Yeah. They had a whole copper [42:05] industry in North America 9,000 years [42:08] ago, which is [42:09] >> Just listen to that again. Say that one [42:12] more time. [42:12] >> A whole copper industry in North America [42:14] 9,000 years ago. And that's the same as [42:16] the earliest date anywhere else in the [42:18] world. [42:19] >> And the volume, this is where this is [42:21] what's going to freak people out. Tell [42:23] them how much copper was removed. [42:25] >> I don't know off the top of my head, but [42:26] it's a lot. And to be fair, there's lots [42:28] of natural copper. I think it's in the [42:30] kind of northern parts of the United [42:31] States as it is now. I don't know how [42:33] much they removed off the top of my [42:34] head, but it is a lot of copper. And [42:37] >> like a commercial copper mine volume. [42:40] >> Yeah, that's why I said industry like [42:42] it's big. It's big. [42:43] >> It It's It's so crazy. And I don't [42:46] understand how they determined the [42:47] amount of copper that was removed. But [42:49] if that is correct, that seems to [42:52] indicate that there was some sort of [42:55] sophisticated metallurgy going on [42:57] >> in North America 9,000 years ago. [43:01] >> Yeah. Which is as as early as anywhere [43:04] else in the world. And that completely [43:05] flies in the face of what we used to [43:07] think about people in North America. [43:10] And it's interesting because what the [43:13] evidence appears to show is that they [43:14] did this for a few thousand years, but [43:16] then they dropped it and they stopped [43:18] doing it. Now, I don't know what that [43:19] suggests, but either it suggests [43:21] something happened to them or they [43:23] decided they didn't want to do it [43:24] anymore. But either way, it kind of goes [43:26] against this idea that we've always kind [43:28] of assumed that technology is like an [43:30] escalator, right? We always assume that [43:32] technology is an Yeah, there you go. 1.5 [43:34] billion pounds of copper. [43:36] >> What? So wrap your head around this [43:39] folks. Archaeology and date mining and [43:41] copper tool use, but it's generally [43:44] cannot calculate annual or century [43:46] specific production 9,500 [43:50] years ago. One older broad estimate puts [43:53] a total archaic period extraction in the [43:56] Lake Superior region at up to about 1.5 [44:00] billion pounds of copper, roughly [44:03] 680,000 [44:06] metric tons, but that covers many [44:09] millennia, not the century, 9,500 years [44:12] ago. So that means that they were doing [44:14] it for thousands of years. [44:19] Is it? They're saying it covers many [44:20] millennia. [44:21] >> Yeah, they were doing it for Yeah. As it [44:23] says, the peak between 7,000 and 5,000 [44:25] years ago. [44:26] >> That's crazy. [44:28] That's crazy. So, at least 9,500 years [44:33] ago, they started doing this somewhere [44:35] around there. And they did it for [44:37] thousands of years. They removed copper [44:40] for thousands of years. [44:41] >> A bunch of was just sitting on the top. [44:43] They called it float copper. I think [44:46] >> like that. Like float. Here you go. [44:47] Float. That's probably how they first [44:48] started finding it and then they [44:50] probably started digging. Isn't it [44:51] interesting how [44:53] >> like precious what we call precious [44:55] metals just they exist in weird [44:58] deposits. It's like erratic. It's all [45:00] over the place. It's like come find me. [45:03] >> Yeah. [45:04] >> And these people uh use this stuff for [45:07] weapons. They use this stuff for [45:10] jewelry. They used it for all kinds of [45:12] things. Arrow points. I'm sure they [45:14] probably used it for all sorts of [45:15] things. They had to use it for weapons, [45:17] right? [45:17] >> Probably. Yeah. I think they found like [45:19] spear points and stuff. [45:20] >> Yeah, maybe it makes sense. [45:21] >> But then they dropped it and then they [45:22] just they stopped doing it and we don't [45:24] know why they did that. But [45:26] >> as I was kind of there's the copper head [45:29] uh arrow. [45:30] >> It goes against this idea that we have [45:32] that that technology is like an [45:34] escalator and you just take one level of [45:35] technology and you keep going up. It [45:37] shows that people can invent something [45:38] or discover something and then stop [45:40] doing it and forget about it. And that I [45:41] think that has implications for how we [45:43] look at prehistory as a whole because it [45:45] suggests that people, [45:46] >> you know, rather than just going [45:47] straight line, this linear path upwards. [45:49] Yeah. [45:49] >> We can go up and down and forget things [45:51] and rediscover things and [45:53] >> Right. And that's what the um this is [45:56] the alternative theory is that we're [45:58] we're a reinvention of civilization [46:01] currently that we're the most advanced [46:03] reinvention that we're aware of. But it [46:06] doesn't mean that there hasn't been some [46:08] sort of a civilization before us that [46:10] perhaps reached heights where we are or [46:14] greater in a completely different [46:16] direction. [46:17] >> And I think when you look at some of the [46:19] stone structures that exist, those are [46:20] the best evidence because they're so [46:22] perplexing. The stones in Lebanon, what [46:26] are they called? The trilithon stones. [46:27] >> Yeah. Balbeck. Yeah. [46:28] >> Yeah. Those are crazy. Like what [46:30] happened there? How what how did you get [46:32] them up there? It's weird because [46:34] they're attributed to the Romans, right? [46:36] But there's no Roman records of [46:38] >> them doing that. And it's and that's not [46:40] particularly weird in itself until you [46:42] realize that it's a bigger engineering [46:44] project than anything the Romans did [46:47] anywhere. I mean, the coliseum is [46:49] obviously an incredible thing, but the [46:50] blocks aren't as big as these blocks at [46:52] Balbeck, and yet they don't mention it [46:54] anywhere. And you'd think that, you [46:55] know, a civilization that documented as [46:58] much the Romans would at least mention [47:00] their biggest engineering project [47:01] somewhere, you know. And I mean that [47:03] doesn't mean it wasn't the Romans, but [47:04] it's just a weird thing. Like [47:05] >> it's very weird. It's very weird. And [47:08] it's also weird that the like many [47:10] places the structures that are on top of [47:13] it are not as sophisticated, not as [47:16] difficult to do. [47:16] >> Mhm. [47:17] >> That's that's how it is over and over [47:18] and over again. That's Sakai Wan. That's [47:20] a lot of these places you see the base, [47:23] the oldest stuff. It seems like they [47:25] find stuff and they build on top of [47:26] stuff that was already there. And then [47:28] you're dealing with thousands and [47:30] thousands of years of civilization where [47:32] people don't even remember who built it. [47:34] >> You know, they're like, uh, the gods, [47:36] the gods put these rocks here. [47:37] >> It happens all over the world. [47:38] >> Yeah. [47:39] >> People build on old sites because often [47:41] the sites are the best site in the [47:42] region because that's why someone's [47:43] built there originally. So, makes sense [47:45] to reuse them, but that doesn't mean [47:46] that the latest civilization that used [47:48] it was the first. I mean, they could be, [47:50] but it also doesn't mean that they are [47:52] definitively, but often that's how we [47:54] take it. And yeah, that's uh not [47:56] necessarily the best way of looking at [47:58] them. I think [47:58] >> I think what you said earlier is really [48:00] important that [48:02] we can't possibly know and to make these [48:05] definitive statements about things where [48:08] you just don't have enough evidence. You [48:10] don't have enough facts. You you can't [48:12] really say definitively, we know. And [48:16] that drives experts crazy because they [48:18] don't like to do that. They don't like [48:20] to let that go. Especially humans, [48:23] especially men. They love, you know, the [48:26] ego that comes with being the one who [48:28] has the information, the expert opinion [48:31] that appeal to authority that I'm the [48:33] one who could tell you, "Oh, this is [48:35] nonsense. These Michael Buttons on [48:38] YouTube with their [ __ ] their [48:41] archaeological bullshit." They love [48:44] doing that. But no one's listening to [48:45] them. That's what's cute. [48:47] >> Yeah. And um Yeah. I mean, I'm grateful [48:50] that a lot of people listen to me. [48:52] >> Like I said, you're really good at it. [48:53] And it is undeniably just based on what [48:56] we've said so far. This is undeniably [48:58] strange. It's undeniably weird and it's [49:01] undeniably at least to me and you [49:03] interesting, [49:05] >> you know, and that's uh that's why the [49:07] subject will, you know, hopefully will [49:10] continue the pathway that it's on [49:12] because there's so many people like you [49:14] now that are looking at this stuff and [49:16] they're very credible people who are [49:17] very objective. The the Ben van [49:19] Kirkwicks of the world and Jimmy [49:21] Corsetes, all these people that are [49:22] looking at stuff and go, "Hey, there's a [49:24] lot going on here, people. There's a [49:27] lot." Yeah. I think it's interesting [49:29] that it see like the more we uncover, [49:31] the more we discover, the more new [49:33] evidence that comes out. I think what [49:34] we're starting to realize is that the [49:37] limits on our own knowledge are vastly [49:41] bigger than we ever used to think. Like [49:43] we used to think we kind of had it [49:44] figured out. And this is what I'm [49:45] talking about with those three questions [49:46] I mentioned mentioned at the start. Like [49:48] we used to think we had the answer to [49:50] these big questions, but with each new [49:52] discovery, we're starting to realize [49:54] just how vast the unknown is. I think I [49:57] think you I think there's two subjects [49:59] where this kind of applies. I think the [50:00] first is physics. And obviously I'm not [50:02] smart enough or clever enough to talk [50:04] about physics in any meaningful [50:05] capacity. But I think it's fair to say [50:07] that the more we learn about the nature [50:08] of reality and the universe, the more we [50:10] realize just how big it is and how crazy [50:12] it is and how little we understand about [50:13] our place in it. And but I think the [50:15] other subject is history. I think the [50:17] more we learn about history, the more we [50:20] realize how huge the amount of time [50:22] humans have been on this planet is. How [50:24] long a mind like ours has been on this [50:25] planet. How long humans that are very [50:27] similar to us have been on this planet [50:30] is. And I think it's a vital thing [50:32] because it's physics is kind of the [50:34] question of where are we, but history is [50:37] kind of the question of who are we and [50:39] where did we come from? And that's why [50:41] I'm so interested in it because it's a [50:45] it's a fundamental question to [50:46] civilization and to who we are. And I [50:48] think it's really important. And so [50:50] that's why I talk about this stuff. [50:52] >> Yeah. And and also it's cool. [50:54] >> It's very cool. It's so fascinating, [50:55] man. I love it. And I know you love it, [50:57] too. And it's it's great. [50:58] >> Well, it's it's it's so weird, you know? [51:01] It's so it's so weird to think like what [51:03] was it like thousands and thousands of [51:06] years ago? What what did they know? [51:08] Where did they learn it? And was are [51:12] these stories, these flood myths that [51:14] exist in all these ancient cultures? Is [51:17] this an echo of uh a historical record [51:20] of people trying to keep track of this [51:24] event that took place that crushed us [51:27] and brought us down to, you know, a few [51:28] thousand people all over the world and [51:30] we had to rebuild. And that's if it's [51:33] also when you you go back thousands of [51:36] years in the conventional timeline, [51:38] people were so barbaric. They were so [51:41] horrible just a few thousand years ago. [51:44] If they were capable 5,000 years ago of [51:46] building ancient Egypt or probably [51:49] earlier than that, but if Why were they [51:51] so brutal 2,000 years ago? Cuz I think [51:54] those are the people that survived. [51:56] >> I think the people that survived were [51:57] probably [ __ ] terrible [52:00] >> cuz they had to be. You know, if there's [52:01] only like we know that like the Toba [52:04] volcano, which was like um is that [52:07] Indonesia [52:09] >> um 70,000 years ago got us down to what [52:12] just a few thousand people globally? [52:15] >> Yeah. Yeah. [52:16] >> Imagine that life. [52:18] >> It would have been Imagine what you had [52:20] to do to stay alive. Imagine even the [52:21] thought of raising children in a world [52:24] where there's only 7,000 people left and [52:26] limited amounts of food and you know [52:30] most of the population of Earth is dead. [52:33] >> What? [52:34] >> Yeah. [52:34] >> Like this is crazy. [52:35] >> We've been through some crazy things as [52:37] a species. [52:38] >> Yeah. You did a didn't you do a video of [52:41] um there there's some ev evidence that [52:46] at some point in history most people [52:48] were killed off in war. Yeah. So that is [52:51] related to what you were just saying [52:53] about so just after the agricultural [52:55] revolution [52:56] the theory is that because humans then [52:59] had like property and were kind of [53:01] defending things that people got a lot [53:03] more violent. And there's a lot of [53:05] evidence that around 6,000 years ago, [53:10] basically all the men died. There's like [53:12] evidence that 95% of male bloodlines [53:14] were removed. And we can see this from [53:15] the the Y chromosome in in genetics. And [53:19] there's a massive drop off of the [53:20] diversity, the genetic diversity in male [53:22] bloodlines. And something like 95% went. [53:26] And no one quite knows why this is, but [53:27] we see lots of mass graves around this [53:29] time and violent graves. And like all [53:31] these people were killing each other. It [53:33] might not have been that, but it's weird [53:34] that it only affected men because if it [53:36] was a natural disaster, it would, you [53:37] know, it wouldn't be specific to e [53:39] either gender, but it's only men. So, [53:42] some people think it's like a big amount [53:43] of violence and but no one really knows. [53:45] But it's really interesting. [53:47] >> Well, doesn't it make sense though? I [53:49] mean, think if you go from hunter and [53:51] gathering where you're constantly moving [53:53] nomadic tribes, people, bunch of people [53:55] that stick together, you're in tents or [53:57] whatever, and then all of a sudden [53:59] you're stationary and uh you've [54:02] developed agriculture and you stay put [54:04] and then there's huntergatherer tribes [54:05] that still exist because guess what? [54:06] They still exist today. So, it's not [54:08] like it was a uniform discovery of [54:10] agriculture. Everybody adopted it and [54:12] there was no more huntergatherer tribes [54:14] and there's no more tribes of wandering [54:16] marauders. Mhm. [54:17] >> So there's still these tribes of [54:19] wandering marauders and so now you have [54:20] to defend this spot because you're stuck [54:23] there [54:23] >> cuz you're you're dumbass built a house. [54:26] Well, like the Mongols used to make fun [54:28] of people that lived in houses. They, [54:29] you know, they they thought they were [54:31] fools and they they lived in felt tents, [54:34] period. That's how you're supposed to [54:35] live. Keep moving. And this idea staying [54:38] put. Like look at these idiots. Like [54:39] we're just going to go sack their city. [54:41] Like they really had no respect for [54:43] people that were so stupid that they [54:44] they stuck themselves behind walls. was [54:46] like, "You [ __ ] can't even run away. [54:48] We're going to launch lit human beings [54:50] on fire with catapults onto your [54:52] thatched roofs and set everything [54:54] ablaze." [54:55] You know, turns out people are like [54:57] really good at starting fires when you [54:59] light them on fire cuz we're fatty. [55:00] >> Yeah, [55:02] >> Mongols figured out a lot of cute stuff. [55:04] But, you know, I mean, makes sense that [55:06] that's when war would become ubiquitous. [55:09] This episode is brought to you by Ketone [55:12] IQ. I've tried a lot of supplements, but [55:14] for years has been one thing that I've [55:16] been obsessed with to keep my brain [55:18] locked in, and that's ketones. An energy [55:20] molecule our brains naturally create [55:22] when pushed to our limits. Ketones used [55:25] to cost thousands of dollars a shot and [55:27] were only used by super elite people. [55:30] But now, thanks to a $6 million research [55:32] contract with the military, Ketone IQ [55:35] had a breakthrough. And you can finally [55:37] get ketones online on Amazon or at [55:40] Target for $5 a shot. They don't taste [55:44] good, but damn do they work. Trust me, [55:46] if you rely on your brain for your [55:48] day-to-day success like I do, take [55:51] Ketone IQ. I take it and I love it. I [55:53] feel sharper. I make better decisions. I [55:55] have faster memory recall and I'm more [55:58] productive. Your brain thrives on [56:00] ketones. Go to ketone.com/rogan [56:03] for 30% off your subscription order or [56:06] find ketone IQ at Target stores [56:08] nationwide in the protein and [56:10] electrolyte aisle and get your first [56:13] shot free. They're so confident in it [56:15] that they even offer a 60-day money back [56:19] guarantee. So go ahead and take your [56:21] shot. [56:21] >> Yeah. Once we settle down or once we [56:23] owned [56:24] >> you stay put. You become a target. [56:26] >> Exactly. And you have something to [56:27] defend with be it livestock or crops or [56:29] houses as you say. and and so yeah, [56:31] there's quite a lot of evidence that [56:32] violence did increase massively as we [56:34] entered the kind of agricultural age [56:36] that we're we're still in. Um so that is [56:39] interesting. [56:40] >> It's very interesting and it also is [56:42] logical. It's a logical progression of [56:44] how people would behave given the fact [56:46] that now all of a sudden they have [56:47] resources that they've accumulated. They [56:49] have a very specific location. They have [56:51] to defend that location. That's when [56:53] people figure out walls and and some [56:55] bigger, you know, whatever. The weird [56:58] thing is the the Great Wall of China [57:02] like the arrow turrets are facing the [57:04] wrong way. [57:05] >> Are they? [57:06] >> Yeah. I don't know. [57:07] >> Yeah. A lot of it a lot of the Great [57:09] Wall the arrows are facing inward [57:12] >> to try and keep people in rather than [57:13] out or [57:14] >> or try to keep people from China [57:17] >> escaping [57:17] >> going to wherever whatever's on the [57:19] other side. It might have been some [57:21] sections of it weren't constructed by [57:24] the people that we think were con [57:25] constructed it. You never seen that? [57:27] >> No, I never seen that. [57:28] >> It's very weird. Like people have [57:30] pondered like why do the arrow because [57:32] there's these um slots where they can be [57:35] protected but shoot arrows through [57:37] >> but they're facing towards China. [57:39] >> Yeah. [57:39] >> They're not like China defending the [57:41] wall against the Huns. [57:43] >> It's weird. [57:44] >> That is strange. That is strange. See if [57:46] you can find some of that. [57:47] >> I'm looking it up. It doesn't It's not a [57:50] not a really great answer in this. [57:53] >> So part of it is and part of it isn't. [57:55] Uh mostly the Great Wall's defensive [57:57] features face north outward towards the [57:59] step, the usual direction of major rays [58:01] innovation. But many surviving sections [58:04] have arrow slits and parapets facing [58:06] both north and south, including [58:08] seemingly inward towards China. Why face [58:12] inward? Defense after a breach of [58:14] attackers crossed the wall or captured a [58:16] tower so they prepared to be invaded. H [58:20] Chinese garrisons needed to shoot and [58:22] counterattack from the south side as [58:24] well. control of movement both ways. The [58:26] wall was a network of forts, gates, [58:28] signals, roads, not just a one-sided [58:30] barrier. Also regulated border [58:31] crossings, trade, and movement. It is [58:34] crazy that they've invented a wall that [58:37] you could see from space. I know it's [58:39] wild. It's like one of the biggest [58:40] engineering projects ever. [58:42] >> Like, how long is that? Is it like like [58:44] a thousand miles or something crazy? [58:45] >> I have no idea, but it's big. [58:46] >> How long is the Great Wall of China? [58:51] Take a guess. I say 1,000 miles. It's [58:54] probably more [58:54] >> easily. I have China is so big in itself [58:57] and the fact it's the whole like [58:58] >> Yeah. What do you think, Jamie? Tell you [58:59] guys [59:00] >> 6,000 kilometers. [59:01] >> 6,000? [59:02] >> Yeah. [59:02] >> Wow. Jesus, Jamie. [59:04] >> Huh? [59:06] >> You would uh be really good on the Price [59:08] is Right. [59:10] >> Yeah. I'm not [59:11] >> Oh my god. [59:12] >> 21,000 kilometers. [59:14] >> Holy [ __ ] [59:17] >> Oh my god. Oh my god. 13,171 [59:23] miles, [59:24] [ __ ] That's crazy. [59:28] >> Have you ever been there? [59:29] >> No. [59:29] >> I've been there. It's crazy. It's It's [59:31] amazing. It's so beautiful. The whole [59:33] region around there. I mean, obviously, [59:34] it's really long, but [59:35] >> the famous continuous looking Ming era [59:38] wall that most visitors picture is much [59:40] shorter. Still, 8,850 [59:43] km when associated structures and [59:46] natural barriers are included. UNESCO [59:49] describes the overall Great Wall complex [59:51] as more than 20,000 kilometers long. So, [59:54] at the very least, the part that you [59:56] visit, the uh Ming era wall, 8,850 [60:01] kilometers, which is [ __ ] wild. That [60:05] is so much wall. [60:08] >> Yeah. [60:09] >> Like, what were they doing? So, it was [60:11] built over 2,000 years uh from early [60:14] walls in the 5th to 3rd centuries B.C.E. [60:18] through major work in the Ming dynasty [60:20] which ended in 1644. Have you ever seen [60:23] some of the stuff that uh Cassie [60:25] Coppersmith has uh talked about in [60:28] regards to uh ancient technology [60:31] evidence from China? [60:33] >> Not specifically her stuff, but there's [60:35] a lots of weird weird lots of weird [60:38] things in ancient China. [60:39] >> Yeah. weird stuff like jade artifacts [60:42] that seem to be machined that don't make [60:44] any sense that are like super old [60:47] >> and that seemed to be artifacts that [60:49] were passed down from generation to [60:51] generation and the you know thousands of [60:53] years uh ago the this civilization that [60:56] was in possession of them their current [60:59] ability to make artifacts was like much [61:02] crudder. Mhm. [61:03] >> So it seems like this was older stuff [61:05] that they had somehow or another [61:06] acquired [61:07] >> and they lost their knowledge. [61:08] >> Wafer thin jade, highly polished, seemed [61:12] to be machined, like weird weird stuff. [61:16] >> I haven't seen that specifically, but [61:18] that Yeah, that's interesting. I I don't [61:20] know about that. Yeah, it's it seems [61:22] like a [61:24] like a really clear pattern that exists [61:27] everywhere that there was something like [61:30] the these ancient voses that they find [61:32] in Egypt. Yeah. [61:33] >> That they find these in these old sites [61:36] >> and that these things that were carved [61:38] out of diorite, which is insanely hard [61:40] stone, and carved to, you know, within [61:44] less than a human hair of variance. Not [61:47] only that, if it was on a lathe, how do [61:50] you account for the fact that it has [61:51] these handles on the side? Like, how the [61:53] [ __ ] did they do this? And this was all [61:56] stuff that was like really, really old [61:59] by the time these people had it. And [62:02] that these people, their current state [62:04] of pottery and sculpture and much [62:07] crudder than this stuff. So, it seems [62:09] like these are like really old things [62:11] that are artifacts of a time where [62:13] things are more sophisticated. So it's [62:16] more evidence of this [62:17] >> up and down nature nature. [62:19] >> Yeah. I mean it's logical right that [62:20] people learn things, discover things, [62:22] excel at them and then later people [62:24] forget them. [62:25] >> Of course, especially when you take into [62:26] consideration natural disasters, natural [62:29] disasters, wars, things along those [62:31] lines, you know, like Baghdad before the [62:35] the Mongols got there was like the [62:36] center of science in the world. [62:38] >> Yeah. Yeah. The Arabs. Yeah. They were [62:40] incredible at science. And then it's [62:42] just the natural cycle of civilizations [62:43] and we see that throughout recorded [62:45] history. So why would it not be the case [62:46] for human beings in the much much much [62:48] much much much larger period of time [62:50] which is prehistory. Um but it's not [62:52] just thing is it's not just like natural [62:55] disasters and things and obviously that [62:57] plays a part but it's also just the [62:59] sheer nature of preservation right such [63:01] a long amount of time that we've been [63:03] around human beings on this planet [63:05] >> there just it's just almost impossible [63:07] for things to survive when we talk about [63:09] these 100,000 years 200,000 years it's [63:11] so hard for things to survive that long [63:14] >> right any objects any things that would [63:17] be left over like you know I'm sure [63:20] you've seen those uh AI depictions of [63:22] what New York City would look like in [63:23] just a thousand years. It's like [63:25] nothing. Everything's crumbling, gone. [63:27] >> It's mental. [63:28] >> No buildings, no glass. Everything gets [63:30] absorbed in the earth. You got a jungle [63:32] where Manhattan is. And maybe you would [63:34] stumble upon a piece of metal one day. [63:36] >> Yeah. But even then, like I mean, I've [63:37] done quite a lot of research on material [63:39] degradation. And almost all our modern [63:40] materials other than stone are gone in a [63:43] few millennia. And a few millennia is a [63:45] long time, but not compared to these [63:46] time scales that we're talking about. [63:47] >> No. If these time scales are accurate in [63:50] terms of the human brain, in terms of [63:53] the ability to logically like view the [63:57] world, invent things, creativity, if [64:00] they possessed this 300,000 years ago, [64:03] like why why wouldn't they have figured [64:07] a lot of this stuff out? [64:08] >> They definitely did. That's the thing. [64:09] Like the seafaring thing over 1 million [64:12] years ago, okay, you can debate it. It [64:13] could have been an accident, I suppose. [64:14] I don't think it is, but you can debate [64:16] it. But I think that we have completely [64:18] undisputable evidence that human beings [64:20] were this intelligent 500,000 years ago [64:23] with the Columbbo structure which we [64:25] spoke about a lot last time. Like that [64:26] is undeniable evidence that some kind of [64:29] human was unbelievably smart 500 or [64:33] 476,000 years ago. [64:35] >> Yeah. Was building houses. [64:37] >> Mhm. Or building something [64:38] >> some sort of structure. [64:39] >> Whatever that is requires incredible [64:41] levels of intelligence. It is clear [64:43] evidence of what we define as modern [64:45] behavior. Right. And it probably wasn't [64:46] a one-off. [64:47] >> Definitely not. [64:48] >> And so this is what you found. So then [64:50] it means were they teaching each other? [64:53] >> Did did So okay, so if they were [64:55] teaching each other, what kind of [64:56] language do they have? What what kind of [64:58] concepts could could they grasp? [65:00] >> You're not doing that without abstract [65:02] thinking, without symbolic intelligence, [65:04] >> right? And how far did it go? Because if [65:07] it's very rare that we find a piece of [65:09] wood from that long ago that we can [65:11] carbonate and that we can test. So, how [65:14] much how much do we not find? Most of [65:16] it. [65:17] >> Yeah. Almost all of it because the [65:18] chances of that surviving is so [65:21] unbelievably unlikely. [65:24] >> I'm a [ __ ] but uh I had a thought. Uh [65:27] my thought was if AI can get so [65:32] intelligent that it can do an accurate [65:37] account of all of the objects on Earth, [65:41] all of the people on Earth, all of the [65:44] things on Earth, essentially every [65:45] molecule that exists on Earth, and then [65:49] extrapolate back to how they got in that [65:52] position in the first place, whether [65:54] through natural ore deposits It's [65:57] natural disasters, volcanoes, all these [65:59] different things. Like I wonder what [66:03] kind of a version of a timeline we would [66:08] be able to construct with like a super [66:10] advanced artificial intelligence. I [66:12] wonder if it's possible to get a [66:14] framework that is much more definitive [66:18] than what we're looking at now. I don't [66:20] know if it's pos I mean you'd have to [66:22] have enough technology that you would be [66:24] able to literally like scan the entire [66:26] outer crust of the earth which seems [66:29] daunting today but ground penetrating [66:33] radar seemed ridiculous 500 years ago [66:35] right so as we continue to expand [66:38] >> I mean AI is solving math equations that [66:42] have perplexed mathematicians for 50 [66:45] years they're solving it like that so [66:46] this is a new thing it's it's very very [66:49] rapidly ly emerging thing. [66:52] I wonder what kind of a ver what kind of [66:54] a version what kind of a a map of [66:56] history at least in terms of like rough [66:59] timelines of things we'll be able to [67:01] get. [67:03] >> That's the great hope for archaeology, [67:04] right? Is that modern technology allows [67:06] us to discover things that we previously [67:09] would not have been able to discover. [67:10] And as you say, LAR is the the current [67:12] example of that. But if you just [67:13] extrapolate forward, what else could we [67:15] possibly [67:16] >> use to to discover things that we [67:17] haven't? Of course, something like that [67:19] will emerge because nobody even [67:22] considered life again. 500 years ago, [67:24] what are you talking about? 500 years [67:26] from now, who the [ __ ] knows? Who knows? [67:28] We we literally can't imagine what kind [67:31] of breakthroughs are available. [67:33] >> Mhm. [67:34] >> That's the hope. But um but again, I [67:37] think [67:38] >> part of what makes me um think that [67:40] perhaps we're not going to discover [67:42] stuff is this preservation problem [67:44] because so much of it is just gone. I [67:47] mean, I guess if like what you say, if [67:48] we can like somehow extract or time [67:50] machines. [67:50] >> Yeah. I mean, [67:51] >> they could figure out a time machine [67:53] that that'll throw the whole monkey [67:54] wrench right into the gears. [67:57] >> Well, I think that whatever happens, our [68:00] current understanding of history, that's [68:03] that cannot be the the kind of end point [68:06] that what we currently think about [68:07] history is is just there's no way that [68:09] we've like reached the [68:11] >> there's no way we're done. And that's [68:12] why it frustrates me so much when people [68:14] are so definitive about it because it's [68:15] like you really think that we're not [68:17] going to adv because I mean that's the [68:19] science is always advancing in every [68:21] single field all the time and we we're [68:22] never at the point where we've [68:24] discovered everything and yet there's [68:25] always people in every period of history [68:27] that think this is the kind of upper [68:28] limit. [68:30] >> What would be around from 300,000 years [68:33] ago [68:35] other than what we found so far? Stone [68:37] tools, [ __ ] like that. Like metal would [68:40] all be gone. [68:40] >> Well, that's the thing. everything would [68:42] be gone unless it's like incredibly [68:43] unlikely preservation like the Columbbo [68:45] structure like incredibly unlikely for [68:47] it to happen. But I mean there could be [68:49] other things like that out there and [68:50] there almost certainly is but [68:52] >> most things exciting. It's like God you [68:54] don't want to dig up the whole world but [68:56] you kind of do. [68:57] >> Yeah it's not that old but this is a [68:59] jade sword with or sorry the handle's [69:02] jade. The sword would have been probably [69:03] metal that's why the metal is all [ __ ] [69:07] up but the handle is not. [69:09] >> Wow. So, anything with cool rocks or [69:10] crystals or [69:12] >> Right. Right. The handle. [69:14] >> Yeah, the handle is kind of all that's [69:15] left. The sword is a rotten piece of [69:18] [ __ ] [69:18] >> There's a few other old uh [69:21] See, [69:22] >> yeah, that's the one. These these discs [69:25] were really weird. [69:26] >> 3000 BC to 2000 BC. [69:30] >> But they have I was just doing the [69:32] research up until the Ming dynasty. I [69:34] think it was like 16. They have a book [69:37] someone wrote about how they were doing [69:39] this. [69:39] >> Oo. [69:39] >> But this that's that's in 1600. [69:42] >> What did they do? [69:43] >> I mean various various things. Um [69:45] >> in 1600. But some of these are 3,000 [69:47] years older than that [69:48] >> which is weird. [69:51] >> Jade artifacts. [69:52] >> Wow. [69:54] >> Um weird. [69:56] >> This is the cooler [ __ ] though. [69:57] Nefright. [69:58] >> Oo. [70:00] But the description on how they did [70:01] this. almost not I'm I'm I have to take [70:04] it as they say it, but like the [70:05] description of how they did it was like [70:07] they would put abrasives on string and [70:12] slowly wear away the jade part. [70:15] >> How did they do these three-dimensional [70:17] little carvings? [70:18] >> Yeah, it's just like they would put [70:20] they'd get this slurry of water and [70:23] >> that kind of makes sense. That one that [70:24] you just showed, how old is that one? [70:26] >> I don't I don't even know what it is. [70:27] >> That's [ __ ] weird. It says, "How did [70:31] ancient Chinese carve?" What's the word? [70:34] >> That's the question I asked. [70:35] >> Without metal tools? [70:36] >> This is the link, I think. [70:38] >> What is that image? [70:40] >> That is crazy, man. What's that [70:43] >> right? [70:45] >> Where's that from? [70:46] >> Carving. [70:47] >> What year is that? [70:50] >> Oh, that's a modern master. [70:52] >> Okay, that makes sense. That makes sense [70:54] cuz I was like, how how could you do [70:55] that? That's like the flower petals and [70:58] everything like that. That seems like [70:59] you need metal tools. Oh, so this is [71:01] just an article on the evolution of [71:02] Chinese jade carving. [71:03] >> Yeah, that is so this is a modern Okay, [71:06] that's why it's other stuff. That's [71:08] older. [71:09] >> Yeah, [71:10] >> a griffin. [71:12] Um, obviously older. [71:16] >> Some of these are drills, like these [71:17] little holes that if you look and zoom [71:19] in real close, you can see evidence of [71:21] drills, but that's not, you know, [71:23] >> you could have hand drills. [71:25] >> Okay. [71:25] >> Yeah. I mean, you could have harder [71:27] stone that you've figured out how to [71:30] work into a position and you could have [71:32] sand and there's a bunch of things they [71:34] could use. [71:35] >> So, I guess something like this, I mean, [71:37] it's very crude. [71:38] >> Mhm. Yeah. I mean, all that is like you [71:41] could attribute that to ingenuity and, [71:44] you know, craftsman with years of [71:46] learning how to work these different [71:47] things. It's when you get to large stuff [71:50] that you're like, "Okay, [71:51] >> yeah. [71:52] >> How'd you get these stones from Aswan? [71:54] How'd you uh how'd you get a 50tonon [71:58] block of granite and move it through the [72:01] mountains with no roads? Help me out. [72:03] >> Yeah, but they rolled it apparently. [72:05] >> How'd you get hundreds of them? [72:06] Thousands of them, millions of them. [72:08] How' you do it? [72:11] >> Wild. [72:11] >> Yeah, it is very wild. And uh it and [72:15] like some of these things I I'll send [72:17] you the Cassie Coppermith episode that I [72:19] did with her [72:20] >> cuz some of the stuff is like it's very [72:22] confusing cuz the timeline's pretty [72:24] clear that this is older stuff and the [72:26] older stuff is more complex and more [72:27] difficult to create [72:28] >> and it seems to indicate the use of [72:31] machinery. You know, one of the things [72:33] she pointed out was this crazy um statue [72:37] of a Buddha. Is that in India? [72:40] uh where the guy achieved enlightenment [72:42] by standing still [72:44] >> and it's [72:45] >> how tall was it? Is it 90 feet tall? [72:48] >> Oh yeah, I remember the one sticking out [72:49] of the [72:50] >> largest individual standing statue [72:53] thousands of years old. Um looks like [72:55] it's machined. [72:56] >> Mhm. [72:57] >> Like really weird. Like really weird [73:00] statue. [73:01] >> There's so much weird stuff in India. [73:02] >> And how did they get it there? Did you [73:04] guys did you move it there or carve it [73:06] out of there? [73:07] >> Or was it a stone that you said, "hm, [73:09] wouldn't it be dope if we just Yeah, [73:11] look at that [ __ ] with a big giant [73:12] hog." [73:14] >> But I mean, it's really detailed. It's [73:17] like See if you can find a good image of [73:18] it, young Jimmy. [73:21] >> There's some uh [73:22] >> her photos still on my computer. [73:24] >> Yeah, it's really wild. And she said, [73:27] "You see it from a long way away." [73:30] >> Somebody put their watermark right over [73:31] his dong. How rude. Yeah, that's insane. [73:34] >> They knew you going to be looking right [73:35] there. [73:36] >> Me? [73:37] >> No, everybody. Humans. [73:39] >> There's also like the the Kalasa temple [73:42] thing. The one they carve, right? Yeah. [73:43] Carve right down somehow. Uh hammer and [73:46] chisel apparently. [73:47] >> Yeah. [73:49] >> Who knows? It's incredible. [73:50] >> The one where they an army went to try [73:52] to destroy it and they tried for years [73:55] and they came up. [73:56] >> Really? [73:56] >> Yeah. They barely put a [ __ ] dent in [73:59] it. They scratched a few things up, but [74:01] they they worked on it for years to try [74:02] to destroy it. [74:03] >> Why? [74:04] >> Because some new guy came along and [74:05] said, "Fuck these people in the temple." [74:07] >> Yeah. This isn't my like religion. This [74:08] doesn't suit my story. [74:09] >> Like what the Taliban did to those [74:10] ancient [74:11] >> they blew them up. [74:12] >> Yeah. [74:12] >> I mean, there's over a thousand years [74:14] old. And they're like [74:15] >> an ISIS to Palmira. [74:16] >> Yeah. [74:17] >> Sad, man. [74:18] >> I know. It's really sad. And if that's [74:20] human inclination to do that kind of [74:22] stuff, like how long [74:24] >> how long have we been doing that? [74:26] >> Like how much how much stuff is Yeah. [74:29] But this stuff is not around anymore [74:30] because some [ __ ] came along and [74:32] wanted it removed. [74:33] >> Yeah. Because it doesn't suit your [74:34] narrative. And it doesn't because [74:35] everyone's always building a story. [74:37] Humans have always done that. Built a [74:38] story around [74:39] >> to legitimize uh power and rule. And if [74:42] it doesn't suit your story, you destroy [74:43] it and then [74:45] >> Yeah, [74:45] >> exactly. [74:46] >> Would I be able to have some of that [74:47] coffee? [74:47] >> Hell yeah, dog. Get on in there. [74:50] >> Thank you. I got to wake myself up. [74:53] >> Yeah, you're uh jetlagged. Trip across [74:56] the pond. [74:56] >> Yes, exactly. Uh, here he is. This is [74:59] what it looks like. Isn't that wild, [75:01] dude? [75:02] >> That's incredible. [75:03] >> Yeah. [75:03] >> What's the um date on this? The [75:05] conventional date. Do we know? [75:08] >> That's a good question. [75:10] >> They're going to have to carbon date his [75:11] dong. [75:12] >> We don't know, but I'm sure it's known. [75:14] >> Uh, there's a guess, right? Like, what [75:16] is the guess of the timeline? [75:19] Whatever it is, it's very perplexing. [75:21] It's a 57 feet tall monolithic statue of [75:25] Lord Bahubali. [75:29] Uh [75:30] >> 106 983. [75:31] >> Okay. So 983 [75:34] CE. [75:36] >> That's they believe AD. Yeah. [75:37] >> Yeah. AD current era. [75:39] >> Uh regard as the tallest Jane statue [75:43] until 2016. Construction of the statues [75:45] commissioned by the Ganga dynasty [75:48] minister. Okay. So, how how'd you make [75:51] that? Where'd you get it? How'd you get [75:53] it there? You did that what? You did [75:56] that over a thousand years ago. [75:58] And how do you how do we know that? [76:00] That's the timeline. [76:02] I mean, [76:04] >> it's weird. It's weird because it looks [76:07] machined when you look at it. Go back to [76:10] uh some of the images, please. When you [76:13] look at like the detail of the fingers [76:15] and the toes and the uniformity of the [76:18] face, it's [ __ ] weird, man. [76:23] It's like these people had a lot of [76:26] [ __ ] resources. Look at the size of [76:27] that dude standing next to it. Like for [76:30] real, how do you get that if you if [76:32] that's not a big giant contiguous block [76:35] that was sitting there? What is it made [76:37] out of? [76:38] >> Granite, I think. So, if that's not a [76:40] just a giant perfect slab of granite [76:42] that happens to be roughly in the shape [76:44] of a guy and you're like, "Wouldn't that [76:45] be dope if we made a dude out of that [76:48] with a giant dong and just had him just [76:51] staring over our kingdom?" [76:53] >> But we don't do that anymore. That's [76:55] what's weird. We don't No one's building [76:56] things like this anymore. [76:57] >> Certainly not out of stone. [76:59] >> No. [76:59] >> Yeah. Because we like to make money and [77:01] it takes too much time to do a [ __ ] [77:03] pyramid when you can make a nice [77:05] skyscraper in just a couple of years and [77:07] put a big trump on the roof. [77:09] >> Yeah. [77:11] >> Uh no surviving technical manual records [77:15] uh records rather the exact construction [77:17] procedure. Archaeological and art [77:19] historical understanding is that the [77:21] artisans shaped the statue in situ, [77:24] removing stone around the intended [77:26] figure, roughing out the body, then [77:28] refining the face, limbs, hair, and [77:30] distinctive vines, climbing the legs. [77:32] Imagine if you [ __ ] that up. [77:34] This approach avoided the near [77:36] impossible task of quaring, [77:38] transporting, and raising a 17 meter [77:41] finished sculpture onto a hill. Yeah. So [77:44] if they moved it, if there was [77:45] definitive proof that it was moved [77:46] there, then the there's another monkey [77:48] wrench gets thrown into the whole thing [77:50] and then you have to go, okay, how? [77:53] >> But it does make much more sense if you [77:55] just carved it out. But also like how [77:57] long would that take? [77:59] >> What kind of tools are we talking about? [78:01] What kind of shitty ass tools did people [78:03] have at 900 CE? [78:06] >> Well, then here's the rest of, you know, [78:08] stuff they did in India. They did weird [78:10] stuff in India where they just carve [78:12] stuff right out of the stone. Like what [78:14] what was the motivation to build these [78:16] temples? Just carve them right out of [78:18] volcanic stone. [78:20] >> It's insane. [78:21] >> Crazy. [78:22] >> So detailed as well. [78:23] >> And insanely detailed. And also some of [78:26] the sculptures are three-dimensional. [78:28] Like how did you get behind them and [78:29] carve that out? And how did you make all [78:31] these like weird things? Or have you [78:33] ever seen some of them where they go [78:34] over it with a light and you could see [78:36] how threedimensional? [78:37] >> Yeah. And of the Barabar caves, do you [78:39] know about them also in India where it's [78:41] like completely mirror polish surfaces? [78:43] And yet the conventional explanation for [78:45] that is that they were just shelters, [78:47] >> right? [78:47] >> But why are they so precise? They're [78:49] like completely precise and they've got [78:50] this weird mirror polishing. [78:51] >> Yeah. [78:52] >> You don't need that if you're just [78:53] building a shelter. [78:54] >> And how about those pillars that look [78:55] like they were cut on lathes? [78:57] >> Mhm. [78:57] >> Yeah. Like what? How did you What's [79:02] going on, guys? [79:03] >> I know. [79:04] >> What did you We're missing so much. [79:07] We're missing so many details about the [79:09] past. It's it's so frustrating if you're [79:11] really interested in it because it's [79:13] like [79:14] >> how much do we know versus how much are [79:16] we just assuming? [79:18] >> Well, that's the thing. We're assuming [79:19] so much. And that's why it bugs me when [79:21] it's presented as fact or presented as [79:24] we have the all the answers because we [79:25] clearly don't. [79:26] >> Yeah. Um what are the other papers that [79:28] have come out that have been um [79:30] >> so there was the paper about the 1 [79:32] million year old skull, human skull that [79:34] was found in China uh last year. Um, and [79:37] this is super interesting because this [79:39] is a a human with a modern sized brain, [79:41] but that was found a million years ago. [79:44] And so again, that has implications for [79:46] what was really going on a million years [79:47] ago. And if you link that to the what I [79:50] would argue is modern behavior with the [79:52] seafaring in Southeast Asia, then you [79:54] have a million-y old skull found in [79:56] China in in Northeast Asia. um [80:00] you know, put those two things together [80:02] and you suddenly got human beings with [80:05] modern brains doing modern things a [80:07] million years ago and I think it's [80:08] fascinating. So I mean the paper came [80:10] out uh I think in October last year and [80:14] what they did was they took there these [80:16] fossils from a place called Yungian in [80:18] China. Uh and they were discovered [80:20] actually in the 1990s I think it was [80:22] 1989 and 1990. There's two skulls Yung [80:25] Xan one and Yung Shang 2. Um, but they [80:27] were badly deformed. Yeah, there you go, [80:29] Jamie. Right on Q. Um, badly badly [80:31] deformed. And they were always thought [80:33] to be homoerectus because of where they [80:35] were found, China, and how old they [80:37] were, over a million years old, because [80:39] that was the only type of human that [80:40] should have been in China or in that [80:42] area at that time at that at that age. [80:45] They always assumed to be uh [80:46] homoerectus. But a few researchers from [80:48] a university in China along with uh the [80:51] natural history museum in London, a [80:53] professor named professor Chris [80:54] Stringer, they applied modern [80:56] reconstruction techniques to Yung Xang [80:58] 2, the second skull. And uh so they use [81:01] something called CT scanning to [81:03] reconstruct it. And what they discovered [81:04] was that they think it's actually uh a [81:07] homongi skull, which is this part of the [81:09] same clad as Denisan, Dennisovven. And [81:12] why that's important is that Dennisovven [81:14] is kind of like a sister. [81:15] >> How do you say it? Do you say Denisovven [81:17] or Denise? I say Dennisovven, but I keep [81:20] hearing Denise. My I'm trying to change [81:22] it. [81:22] >> Yeah. All the scientists say Denise, but [81:26] the cave is Dennisova cave. So it should [81:28] be Denisovven, you would think. [81:29] >> [ __ ] the scientist. [81:30] >> It doesn't matter. Dennisovven, Denise, [81:32] whatever. Either way that these [81:33] scientists think this skull is um is [81:35] homolongi which is a cloud of denisphan [81:37] which is crucially a sister species to [81:39] Neanderthal and us sapiens which means [81:42] that if this skull is a million years [81:44] old and if it is homolongi that means [81:46] that the divergence of our species must [81:49] have happened before then so when humans [81:52] split into neanderthal denisan and homo [81:55] sapiion if this human was already [81:57] walking around 1 million years ago that [81:59] means that whatever became us had [82:01] already diverted at that point. So, we [82:03] were already a distinct species, Homo [82:05] sapiens, 1 million years ago, which is a [82:08] staggeringly long amount of time and so [82:10] much older than what we thought before. [82:11] We used to think this was around 500,000 [82:14] years ago. So, it's like a 400,000 or [82:16] more than that jump from what we thought [82:17] before. Have you heard the theory about [82:19] Neanderls that they believe that [82:21] Neanderls were not just a separate um [82:25] group of human, but were actually [82:26] created by humans interbreeding with [82:28] other ancient primates? [82:31] Um, how do you mean? [82:33] >> So, instead of Neandertols existing [82:36] previously, that homo sapiens pre-date [82:39] Neandertols and that homo sapiens [82:42] breeding with some other ancient [82:45] primate, some other one of these created [82:48] Neandertols, [82:50] >> maybe. I haven't heard that. I don't I [82:51] don't know. [82:52] >> Yeah. Um, I don't know if it's right. I [82:54] I read it and I was like, what? I was [82:56] like, okay, this is this is a crazy [82:58] theory. Yeah. And it's um you know [83:01] because the the thought is that Neander [83:02] dolls were bred out with you know that [83:05] there was interbreeding between humans [83:06] and Neandertols but that might have [83:10] actually like predated Neanderls [83:12] themselves like it might be the cause of [83:14] Neandertols is that humans homo sapiens [83:17] bred with something else. [83:19] >> Well we definitely bred with [83:20] Neanderthals and probably Denisven and [83:23] Neanderthals and Denise bred together as [83:25] well. We're all so similar. The fact [83:27] that we can have kids together is [83:28] incredible. They actually recently found [83:30] evidence of uh [83:31] >> humans and as in sapiens and [83:33] Neanderthalss actually coexisting for a [83:35] long long time in the same place and [83:37] like living in the same place. And [83:38] because you could always argue before [83:40] that perhaps it was, you know, [83:41] non-conensual uh breeding, right, [83:43] >> between like a Neanderthal male, a [83:45] sapion woman, but now we have evidence [83:46] that we did live like alongside each [83:48] other cooperatively. I can't remember [83:49] where the site is, but that was found [83:52] recently. So yeah, that's interesting as [83:54] well because [83:55] >> see if you can find any what whatever [83:57] the hell I found about um Neanderls [84:00] possibly a result of humans breeding [84:03] with other primates [84:04] >> with other primates. So is it not even [84:05] >> I mean not other other humans. [84:08] >> That's what it said [84:09] >> were not created by modern humans. They [84:11] were closely related extinct branch of [84:13] the human family. [84:14] >> This is a very recent proposal. Yeah, I [84:17] might have asked the question too in a [84:18] different way than ask that Neonil is [84:21] created by humans, which isn't really [84:22] what you said. [84:23] >> No. Um, [84:27] see if the if you search is there, put [84:31] this in. [84:33] Is there a theory [84:36] that Neanderthalss [84:38] were a result [84:42] of human uh maybe we see Homo sapiens? [84:46] Homo sapiens. Homo sapiens [84:50] breeding [84:54] with other [84:57] >> primates. [84:58] >> Primates. I guess you wouldn't say [85:00] primates though because that's a monkey. [85:02] Other [85:03] >> homos. [85:05] >> Other homos. [85:08] Other ancient humans. Write that. [85:10] Ancient humans. [85:12] >> Ancient human species. [85:14] Let's see what Perplexity has to say [85:16] about this. [85:18] I wish I'd saved that [85:23] because it was really interesting. It [85:25] says no, not as the main scientific [85:28] explan. That's but that I don't mean the [85:30] main scientific explanation. I'm saying [85:33] is there a theory? I want to know if [85:36] there's a theory. [85:38] >> Uh well then that has to now I mean [85:40] that's about how we're using this actual [85:41] thing because I'm using it in a general [85:42] way, [85:43] >> right? But not as the main scientific [85:45] explanation. Absolutely. But is there a [85:48] theory? Has anyone has anyone theorized [85:52] that this is possible? Ask that. [85:56] >> All right. Um [85:57] >> theorized [85:59] that this is possible. [86:02] >> It's going to have to crawl if it's new. [86:03] I mean, it has to crawl the websites to [86:05] find that information. You know, it [86:07] might not have [86:07] >> I wanted to crawl. [86:08] >> I'm out. We can't make it crawl. That's [86:10] >> crawl, [ __ ] [86:12] They're going to take over, man. They're [86:13] going to ruin the problem. [86:14] >> Yes. Here it goes. Researchers have [86:16] proposed hybridizationbased ideas, but [86:19] generally not the exact claim that [86:20] Neandertos originally formed from Homo [86:22] sapiens plus another species. What has [86:24] been proposed? Paleolontologists [86:26] proposed that particularly late [86:27] Neandertol or early modern human fossils [86:29] might be Neanderthal homo sapien hybrids [86:31] or descendants of populations that mix [86:34] repeatedly. No, this is not quite what [86:36] I'm saying. [86:37] This is what's [ __ ] up when you watch [86:39] too many videos and you read too many [86:40] articles and you don't save them [86:43] >> because this was quite a few months ago [86:44] too. [86:45] >> Let me ask [86:47] it. [86:47] >> Um the the Dennis Oven thing is weird [86:51] because um there's recent proposals. So, [86:54] I think there's a a paper I sent it sent [86:56] you in um a podcast where they're [86:58] discussing this paper that as of August, [87:01] like this month, there's some [87:04] speculation about the height of the [87:06] Dennisovvens and that they think they [87:08] might have been much larger than Homo [87:10] sapiens at the time. [87:11] >> Yeah, they found a bone. They found a [87:12] bone, a thigh bone, I think, under the [87:14] sea. Uh suggest that Dennisovvens and [87:17] everything we found about Dennisovvens [87:19] is um that they were bigger than us. So [87:21] the teeth we found, we haven't got much [87:23] from them, but the tooth is bigger, the [87:25] jawbone is bigger, the dragon man skull, [87:27] which is being classified as very [87:29] similar to Dennisovven, is bigger, and [87:31] then they found this uh thigh bone that [87:33] suggests that they were considerably [87:35] over six foot tall. Now, obviously [87:36] that's not like a massive giant, but [87:38] compared to, you know, the average [87:40] height of a human today is something [87:42] like a male human is something like 5'8 [87:45] or 5'9. And so a Denise of being over [87:48] six foot is like quite a considerable [87:49] jump from that. So, it's not like a [87:50] mythical giant, but it's still bigger [87:53] than you'd expect an ancient human to [87:55] be. [87:55] >> And it's also, we're going with a [87:57] limited amount of fossils, right? [87:58] >> So limited. So limited. [88:00] >> So just from what we know, they existed [88:04] and with larger skulls. Uh gen recent [88:08] genetic research confirms that modern [88:10] humans, homo sapiens, and repeatedly [88:12] interbred across a period spanning [88:13] roughly 200,000 to 250,000 years ago. [88:17] While it's long believed that [88:18] interbreeding occurred during a brief [88:20] window of about 50 to 60,000 years ago, [88:23] advanced genomic mapping shows multiple [88:26] waves of contact occurred much earlier. [88:30] 200,000 to 250,000 years ago, an early [88:33] wave of homo sapiens migrating out of [88:35] Africa encountered and mated with [88:37] Neandertols in Eurasia. So what this guy [88:40] was saying was that it might not have [88:43] been that but that even earlier than [88:46] this Neanderls were a result of human [88:51] beings interbreeding with others [88:54] or homo sapiens interbreeding with [88:57] others. [88:59] >> I don't know. Thank you though. [89:00] >> Sure. [89:00] >> Um [89:02] where we just at? Oh, Denov Denisovvens. [89:05] So just that one alone was way bigger [89:08] than most humans at the time. And just [89:10] even the size of the head, the bones are [89:12] bigger. It's a bigger brow. It's it's it [89:14] seems like a more robust, larger version [89:17] of a human. And then when you take into [89:20] account the range and size of human [89:23] beings given the um the correct amount [89:26] of resources and food and protein, like [89:28] we got seven foot plus humans that are [89:31] all over the place today. And imagine if [89:35] these Dennisovven skulls, which seem to [89:37] be like a completely different structure [89:39] than a homo sapiens, we might this the [89:42] might be the giants of the Bible is the [89:44] point. Yeah. [89:44] >> Like this might be what they were [89:46] talking about. Like there might have [89:47] been a race of much larger people that [89:49] were physically dominant over homo [89:50] sapiens. [89:51] >> Mhm. They could have been they could [89:52] have been considerably bigger. And they [89:54] don't even need to be that big for the [89:55] the myths to kind of perpetuate. Do you [89:57] know what I like someone to be a little [89:59] bit bigger and you encounter a group of [90:01] them and you're like a small homo sapien [90:03] community, [90:04] >> you're going to remember that as [90:05] >> well whenever I do the UFC weighins and [90:08] I'm standing next to massive [ __ ] you [90:11] know these huge heavyweights [90:15] >> like some of these guys are just [90:16] gigantic humans, you know, [90:18] >> 6'7, 6'9, 265 pounds and they have to [90:22] cut weight to make 265. These are giant [90:24] people. [90:25] >> Yeah. You know, and then you think this [90:28] is, you know, whatever percentage of [90:31] people that are around today that are [90:32] that big. If the Dennisovvens, if we [90:35] just have a limit, we might have caught [90:37] just a a few small ones. [90:38] >> Oh, yeah. [90:39] >> I mean, that's all we don't know. I [90:40] mean, I wonder what the [ __ ] would [90:42] happen if they found some bones that [90:45] indicated there was a man that was 9 ft [90:47] tall. [90:47] >> And we know that primates can get that [90:49] big. And obviously, we're a primate. I [90:51] can't remember what it's called, but [90:53] >> that's the one. Yeah. absolutely [90:54] gigantic as as per the name. [90:57] >> Yeah. [90:57] >> So they can primates our kind of line of [91:01] of of animals can get really big. So [91:03] >> and that along the same lines of like [91:06] the the timeline of discovery of that is [91:08] fascinating too cuz I think it was in [91:10] the 1920s an archaeologist was in a in [91:13] an apothecary shop in China and he found [91:16] molers that were from a primate that [91:18] didn't make any sense. They were really [91:20] big. [91:20] >> Yeah. Huge. He's like, "Where did you [91:22] get this?" [91:23] >> And he went there and then that's where [91:25] they found jawbones and things. So, [91:27] there's some um we used to think that [91:28] they were bipedal cuz I I've read that [91:31] before, but now they're thinking that [91:33] not not necessarily and that they might [91:36] have been cuz like a lot of people [91:37] thought that's Bigfoot, you know, that [91:40] there's this [91:41] >> myth that persists throughout Native [91:44] American cultures for everywhere else. [91:46] Yeah. I think it might have been an [91:47] enormous [91:49] uh orangutan [91:51] like that movie. What was it? The Jungle [91:52] Book. [91:53] >> Jungle Book. Yeah. [91:53] >> Yeah. [91:56] So, a 10-ft tall orangutan. Like, what? [92:02] >> I mean, it just makes sense if there's [92:04] the people you you brought up Flores [92:06] before. Now, we also know about those [92:08] little hobbit people that lived on the [92:10] island of Flores that were these three [92:11] foot tall tiny little people. So the [92:14] island dwarfism and then there's they're [92:17] they're a totally different version of [92:19] human beings of of you know the human [92:21] chain the human tree who knows who knows [92:24] what these doans look like [92:26] >> and island gigantism is also a thing in [92:28] nature we see that and we see reptiles [92:30] right so it could apply to to primates [92:33] and to humans [92:34] >> sure as long as they had enough food. [92:35] >> Yeah. [92:36] >> Yeah. It's just um the idea of a Dennis [92:39] Oven. I mean, they they only discovered [92:42] them in 2010, right? [92:43] >> Oh, yeah. So, and we have hardly [92:45] anything about them. So, [92:46] >> how many are we missing? You know what I [92:48] mean? [92:49] >> We literally have like a tooth, a [92:50] jawbone, and this thigh bone and a few [92:52] other [92:52] >> Right. And how many other versions of [92:54] humans are we missing? [92:55] >> Yeah, there's ghost populations in our [92:57] DNA. We know we're missing humans. Like, [92:58] there are other types of humans that we [93:00] just have nothing for. And [93:01] >> yeah, that's weird. [93:03] >> That's so weird. [93:03] >> That show Human, have you ever seen that [93:05] show? It's on um God, is it a BBC show? [93:08] >> Oh, yeah. No, I watched that. Yeah. [93:09] Yeah. [93:09] >> Very interesting. [93:10] >> It's good. [93:10] >> Um but she was on a podcast recently [93:12] talking about um this ghost DNA and how [93:16] weird it is that a few hundred thousand [93:18] years ago [93:19] >> some something happened and there's this [93:21] DNA that's in there that's like what is [93:23] this? What's this stuff? [93:25] >> Yeah. There's so many populations of [93:27] humans that we think existed because of [93:29] our DNA, but we don't know who they [93:30] were. We've never found them. And they [93:32] could be, you know, very close to us but [93:35] also with significant differences. And [93:37] it's just it's all up in the air. And [93:40] same with so much of prehistory. We just [93:42] we don't know. [93:43] >> Yeah. And I wonder like what kind of a [93:46] society what kind of if do do they find [93:49] stone tools with Dennisovvens? Do they [93:52] know that yet? [93:53] >> It's really hard to attribute stone [93:54] tools to anything because if you just [93:56] have the tools, you you don't know what [93:57] human used them, what human made them, [93:59] right? because you have to find like a [94:01] skeleton and it's so hard to find a [94:03] skeleton next to the tools and even then [94:04] you don't actually know if it was that [94:06] that made the tools. So, we don't know. [94:10] >> Yeah. Um, what else has been fascinating [94:12] for you recently? [94:14] Um, so I think the question that I [94:17] mentioned at the start, the one like [94:19] when did humans reach isolated land [94:21] masses such as uh America and Australia [94:24] is a really interesting question because [94:29] again the old ideas we have have proven [94:33] to be incorrect and I think especially [94:35] in the case of the Americas I think it's [94:36] super interesting because obviously as [94:38] you know we used to think it was Clovis [94:40] first 13,000 years ago but so many sites [94:43] now seem to be pushing that back much [94:45] much much much older into the past. Um, [94:49] >> so yeah, that's a really interesting [94:50] question. I mean, obviously now we know [94:53] that humans have been in the Americas [94:54] for at least 22,000 years with white [94:57] sands footprints, which I'm sure you've [94:59] you've heard of that, right? [95:00] >> 22,000 years. It's crazy. So that's the [95:02] oldest accepted evidence, but I think [95:04] there's loads of interesting sites that [95:06] potentially push it quite a lot further [95:07] back than that, which are a bit more [95:09] controversial, but when you take them [95:10] all together, the kind of Yeah, there's [95:11] white sands. So that's now accepted, I [95:14] think, uh, by most archaeologists. And [95:17] what why that's important is it because [95:19] it kind of opens it all up again because [95:22] because of when the the kind of the [95:24] glacial maximums happen, it kind of the [95:25] the opening of the the corridor because [95:27] that's pre that. It means that we now [95:30] don't know how long humans have been in [95:31] the Americas. It could go back way [95:33] further. And then you start looking at [95:34] these other sites and you think maybe [95:35] it's a lot lot older. So there's one in [95:39] Mexico called Chikawita Cave. Uh [95:42] apologies for the pronunciation. It's [95:44] probably wrong, but this is uh 33,000 [95:48] years old. And high in the mountains of [95:50] northern Mexico, they found like 2,000 [95:52] stone tools. Um [95:55] and they did like 50 separate dates. And [95:58] the date isn't controversial. What's [96:00] controversial is if they were humanmade [96:02] tools. Um, but the scientists working at [96:05] the site think that this is evidence of [96:07] humans in the Americas 33,000 years ago. [96:09] Then there's a site in Brazil called [96:11] Pedra Farada which is 50,000 years old. [96:15] Um, is that Chikaw? [96:18] >> Yeah. [96:21] >> Yeah, exactly. So, I mean it looks just [96:22] like a tool, but I mean people argue [96:24] that they're natural. Um, so it's up in [96:26] the air. It's not accepted yet, but I [96:28] think that's the [96:30] probably the most uh the least [96:32] controversial. Um [96:34] >> 26,000 years ago. [96:36] >> Yeah. But it goes up to it's like 30 to [96:38] 33,000 years I think. Um but yeah, [96:41] there's a site called Pedra Furada in [96:42] Brazil where they found uh hearthlike [96:45] structures. So people making fire, they [96:47] found charcoal, they found blackened [96:48] stones, uh heated stones rather. Uh and [96:52] that they dated that to like 50 or [96:54] 60,000 years ago. So that's like a lot [96:57] older than than White Sands obviously. [96:59] Um so that's a really interesting site. [97:01] Again, not fully accepted by [97:03] archaeologists, but the people working [97:05] there are quite convinced that it's [97:07] evidence of human presence in Brazil, [97:09] which is obviously quite far south. Um [97:11] 50 over 50,000 years ago. Um but the [97:14] thing is you can't prove it because you [97:16] haven't they need so many things to say [97:19] it for sure. They need like a a fossil [97:21] of a human basically because otherwise [97:22] you can say it's natural. Yeah. Uh I [97:26] don't know what those paintings are. I'm [97:28] assuming they're more recent because [97:29] otherwise that would be pretty clear [97:30] evidence. Um but I think the the [97:33] hearthlike structures and the the the [97:36] heated stones and the charcoal are dated [97:38] to over 50,000 years ago. [97:40] >> Crazy. Go back to that last one, please. [97:43] >> Right there. That is wild. [97:45] >> That is wild. I'm assuming that is much [97:47] more recent because otherwise that would [97:48] be very clear evidence of human [97:49] presence. [97:51] But I think the oldest layers go back I [97:54] think it's been continuously or they [97:56] think it's been continuously inhabited [97:58] for for thousands and thousands of years [97:59] with the oldest being over 50,000 years [98:01] old. [98:06] Yeah. Are they the tools? They might be [98:07] the tools that because so so critics say [98:09] that it's natural, right? Um but [98:14] >> that those are natural things, not [98:15] tools. [98:16] >> Yeah. But a paper came out in 2023 that [98:18] really made the case that it's it's [98:20] human presence. So [98:21] >> napping. Yeah. [98:23] >> Yeah. Um and I I think it it's I think [98:26] it's leaning that way, but it's just so [98:28] hard to prove it, right? So it's not [98:29] accepted yet. But [98:31] >> Jamie, uh I just sent you a link that I [98:33] found yesterday. I thought it was pretty [98:34] bizarre. A completely different part of [98:36] the world, but also really interesting. [98:39] >> It's a link to an Instagram video. [98:43] There's so much of this stuff now. [98:44] That's what's so cool. It's like, and if [98:46] you're in a good algorithm, [98:48] you get inundated. Give me some volume [98:50] on this [98:55] jurian Sahara with 5,000 rooms and we [98:59] still haven't seen all of them. It's [99:01] called Sephar. No roads lead to it. No [99:03] vehicle can reach it. The only way in is [99:06] on foot through a maze of stone pathways [99:08] that all look identical. On the walls [99:11] inside, there are 15,000 paintings, [99:14] animals that no longer exist here, [99:16] rivers that dried up thousands of years [99:18] ago, and then things no one can [99:20] identify. Floating figures with no [99:23] faces, beings with round heads wearing [99:25] what looks like suits. A figure over 3 m [99:28] tall that the man who discovered it [99:30] simply called a god. Most of Sephar is [99:33] still unmapped. Whatever else is in [99:35] there, no one's seen it yet. I could do [99:38] without I could do without that guy's [99:40] voice. [99:41] >> He's a little ridiculous. [99:42] >> I gota take the radio head out. [99:43] >> Yeah. Settle down, putty. It sounds like [99:45] a AI voice, right? Like a super [99:47] enthusiastic AI voice. Is that what it [99:49] is? [99:49] >> Well, uh it could be. It very well could [99:52] be. It definitely is going to be in the [99:54] future, but [99:56] um I don't What was it called? I don't [99:59] >> I don't remember. [100:00] >> Sephar. [100:01] >> It's just uh Yeah. [100:02] >> Okay. Let's try to look it up. [100:04] >> See if you can look it up. And um [100:06] subsaharan Africa is another weird one, [100:08] right? Because [100:10] >> especially the the Sahara itself, like [100:12] that used to be vast green grassy trees, [100:16] jungle, like who knows what it was. And [100:19] now no one's really has really any [100:23] understanding of what's under that sand. [100:25] >> Yeah. But it was fertile and green right [100:27] up until literally right up until the [100:29] point that the conventional timeline has [100:32] civilization starting like around 4,000 [100:34] BC is when it flipped to to desert. Um [100:38] so yeah, I mean I'm sure there's there [100:40] there has been archaeological work done [100:41] in the Sahara, but compared to the size [100:43] of the Sahara, there's there's just got [100:45] to be loads of stuff under there that [100:47] could potentially change our [100:48] understanding of [100:49] >> the origins of civilization for sure. [100:51] Um, very interesting region, but yeah, [100:53] extremely hard to excavate for many [100:55] reasons such as the climate and also [100:57] political instability. A lot of those [100:59] countries are pretty [ __ ] up, so it's [101:00] hard to like go in there and do [101:02] archaeology, but very interesting region [101:04] of the world and obviously that is where [101:06] Egypt emerged just after this period. [101:09] So, you know, what were the people that [101:10] kind of went to the Nile River doing [101:12] before? There's many interesting things. [101:14] There's um what's it called? There's an [101:16] interesting site, Naplier, I think it's [101:18] called. [101:18] >> Yeah, it's going to be a little hard to [101:20] get to. It's the middle of the Sahara [101:22] Desert. Boy, in Algeria. [101:25] Gez. Buried. [101:28] Oh, yeah. I have heard of this actually. [101:30] Somewhere in there. [ __ ] [101:36] Imagine you're an archaeologist and you [101:39] you're tasked with uh you know, someone [101:41] gives you some funding. Hey, [101:43] >> Sahara Desert, bro. [101:44] >> We want you to get in there and uh go [101:46] look around. [101:48] >> What? [101:48] >> Yeah. you. It's probably not the ideal [101:50] place to go. [101:50] >> You can't even go without getting [101:51] killed. [101:51] >> Yeah. You don't want to get shot. [101:52] >> You could literally die. [101:54] >> So, no. [101:56] >> Yeah. [101:57] >> Imagine just imagine if you found [101:58] something cool. Imagine you found a [102:01] bunch of cool [ __ ] [102:01] >> Yeah. You go. [102:02] >> Good luck. [102:03] >> Just good luck taking it out. They're [102:04] like, "Oh, where'd you get that?" Yeah. [102:06] >> Exactly. [102:06] >> Thank you. Thank you. [102:08] >> Exactly. They'll kill you. That was also [102:10] my thought. I was going to bring that up [102:11] about Gobecape about if they bring in [102:14] more archaeologists, more people to dig, [102:16] if they really truly expand, they really [102:17] have to keep track of what they find [102:19] because the amount of money that someone [102:21] can get for an artifact on the black [102:24] market is pretty incredible. This is an [102:26] issue with Egypt, right? [102:28] >> And South America. [102:29] >> Yeah. [102:29] >> Yes. And South America. But Egypt in [102:31] particular, there's some inconsistencies [102:33] with uh Zahi Hawas's versions of like [102:36] what was discovered in some places, [102:38] whether or not a skeleton was in a [102:40] sarcophagus versus what he said later, [102:44] >> you know, like in the older versions [102:46] there was a skeleton. And the newer [102:48] versions, they didn't find anything. So [102:50] like, did you sell a skeleton? Because [102:52] people sell I'm not saying he did, but [102:54] did somebody sell a skeleton? Because [102:56] people sell skeletons. And if you are [102:59] some rich guy who lives in some other [103:01] country and you're a billionaire from [103:03] oil and you're like, "Uh, you know what [103:05] I'd like?" You got a guy. He's like, [103:06] you've got everything. You got a all the [103:08] Ferrari. Like, you know what I want? I [103:10] want Egyptian skeleton. Get me that. Go [103:14] get me a mummy. I want a [ __ ] mummy. [103:16] >> Or any kind of artifact or anything like [103:18] >> Yeah. [103:18] >> Yeah. [103:19] >> Especially something gold. Some ancient [103:21] gold. All that stuff was stolen out of [103:23] there. So, was it melted down? Like for [103:26] grave robbers, like that must have been [103:28] an incredible place to be before [103:30] everybody discovered all those tombs [103:33] because we know like with King Tut, [103:35] which was preserved. Luckily, nobody got [103:38] into that until [103:39] >> what what year was that they found it? [103:42] >> Tuton Commons. [103:43] >> I'm not sure, but within the last couple [103:45] decades, I think. I'm not sure. [103:48] >> Whatever it was, it was I think it was a [103:49] little longer than that. But the point [103:51] is, it's like fantastic gold sarcophagus [103:54] cover and massive [ __ ] treasure trove [103:57] of jewels and and things like how much [104:00] of that stuff is scattered in private [104:02] collections in the world, you know? [104:05] >> Yeah. And in South America, like because [104:08] they spent like underneath Cusco, [104:10] there's all these tunnels, right? And [104:11] people have known about them for a long [104:13] long time, but it took a long time for [104:15] archaeology to kind of accept that they [104:17] were there. But people have been going [104:18] like people had like uh tours and stuff [104:21] down into the tunnels before it was like [104:22] widely accepted. And back then it's just [104:24] rife for people selling off to the black [104:26] market because there's no control over [104:27] it. There's no kind of institutional [104:29] >> control over it. So people could just [104:31] kind of do what they want until [104:33] >> it actually finally got like uh you know [104:36] controlled by the authorities. So [104:38] >> yeah, [104:38] >> who knows what went and all over the [104:40] world as you say uh yeah there could be [104:42] stuff that is really interesting that is [104:44] just out there. And then there's the [104:47] elongated skulls, the weird [ __ ] [104:50] skulls, and a long history of people [104:53] discovering those. Like, how many people [104:54] got the good ones? How many of them were [104:56] removed a long time ago and sit [104:58] somewhere? [104:59] >> Mhm. [105:00] >> It's almost like you have to go raid all [105:01] the rich guys of the world. [105:03] >> See what you got hiding in your [105:04] basement. [105:05] >> Find some guy like what's your Google [105:07] search like? [105:10] >> Let's let's find out who's got the [105:12] stuff. Cuz I mean, if you're a person [105:14] with a private museum, if you if you got [105:16] that kind of money and like there's [105:18] people in the world that have private [105:19] zoos, right? So they have so much money [105:21] in other countries that they've, you [105:23] know, they have basically the wild [105:26] kingdom [105:27] >> in their backyard, [105:29] >> you know, and that guy's like, "Well, I [105:30] got that. Now I want [105:33] >> I want something even more weird." Yeah. [105:35] >> I want you to build like I went to the [105:37] Cairo Museum once and I I like the way [105:39] it looks. I want that in my house, you [105:42] know? [105:43] There's got to be people like that in [105:44] the world. [105:45] >> This guy, [105:47] >> he's one of them. [105:48] >> There he goes. [105:48] >> 91y old Don Miller from Indiana. [105:51] >> He had thousands of artifacts removed [105:53] from his house. [105:55] >> Oh, wow. [105:55] >> I think he had Egyptian mummies. [105:58] >> Whoa. [105:59] >> I'm trying to find the good pictures in [106:00] the list of [106:01] >> psycho. So, they seized his stuff. How'd [106:04] they find out about Did he Was he on [106:06] Instagram? [106:09] A delegation from China went to Indiana [106:11] to claim their [106:12] >> Whoa. A delegation from China. I wonder [106:15] if they showed up with guns. Give me [106:16] your ship back. FBI raided a 91year-old [106:19] missionaries home and found thousands of [106:22] stolen Native American bones. Whoa. [106:25] >> Amazon River canoe. [106:28] >> Wow. The Ming Dynasty jade an Egyptian [106:31] sarcophagus and a dugout canoe that had [106:33] traveled down the Amazon River. [106:36] Wow. [106:37] >> Just in his house. There's a picture of [106:39] his house and another thing I had. [106:40] Imagine it's just all [106:42] >> How' this guy get the scratch? Where's [106:44] he getting the money for all this? What' [106:46] this guy do? [106:47] >> I don't know why there's not a movie [106:48] about him. [106:48] >> After 10 years, FBI returned 7,000 rare [106:52] artifacts [106:53] looted by Indiana grave robber. Oh, he's [106:56] a grave robber. [106:57] >> That's, you know, [106:58] >> that's what they call him. [106:59] >> So, it's just a a dude who is a [107:01] collector. He's might not necessarily be [107:04] a grave robber. [107:06] >> I don't think this is the same guy. They [107:07] found FBI found 42,000 relics and 2,000 [107:11] human bones in a man's home. [107:15] >> What is that? [107:17] >> Whoa. What the [107:18] >> What is that? A horse? [107:19] >> Maybe like a pengalin or something. [107:20] >> A sloth. Yeah, it looks like a pengalin, [107:23] right? [107:24] >> 42,000 relics. [107:27] >> Oh, same guy. [107:28] >> No, [107:29] >> Don Miller. [107:30] >> Whoa, it is the same guy. That's crazy. [107:36] Oh, this guy's a nut. He died in 2015. [107:39] Too bad. [107:41] Uh, he was 91 when agents first knocked [107:43] on his door in 2014. Wow, he only lived [107:45] a year later. The 42,000 artifacts [107:48] hoarded by Miller represent what may be [107:50] the largest ever seizure from a private [107:52] collection. So, this is what's [107:54] interesting. It's like how are they [107:57] saying that he's not allowed to acquire [107:59] them? Like do we have rules in terms of [108:02] like say if you found some stuff? [108:05] >> I know we have rules about Native [108:07] Americans, right? [108:09] >> FBI became involved when they learned [108:10] thousands of items were obtained in [108:13] violation of antiquities laws and [108:15] federal and state statutes. According to [108:17] the FBI, Miller went on digs around the [108:20] world and illegally brought his fines [108:22] home to the United States. I think Nick [108:25] Cage had to give back that skull he [108:26] bought because it was stolen from [108:28] somewhere or something. [108:30] >> He bought a skull. [108:30] >> Uh like a T-Rex skull. [108:32] >> Oh, you didn't hear about that? [108:35] >> Oh, he had to give back his T-Rex. [108:37] >> I think so cuz they found out that it [108:38] was like stolen [108:40] so gave it back. I don't know what [108:41] happened with the money, but [108:43] >> Whoa. [108:44] >> Um [108:46] >> how much is the T-Rex cost? [108:47] >> Also, I was thinking this guy got [108:49] >> [ __ ] [108:49] >> They found this guy. There's got to be [108:51] we just I brought him up because I knew [108:53] about it. Uh he, you know, probably [108:56] talked about it at the bar and all that [108:58] kind of [ __ ] [108:58] >> Yeah. [108:59] >> What about the people who don't? [109:00] >> He's on Facebook. [109:01] >> Yeah. What about the people who don't? [109:02] >> Those old dudes are all on Facebook. Um [109:04] have you seen the dinosaur that way to [109:06] Well has [109:08] >> Yeah. [109:08] >> Ways to Well legally purchased a [109:11] dinosaur. [109:12] >> What? Like a [109:12] >> So they have a like a dinosaur bone, [109:14] some aquatic dinosaur that they have [109:17] suspended in their ceiling. [109:18] >> Really? [109:19] >> Yeah. You can buy dinosaur bones. Um, [109:22] >> he bought a skull for $276,000. [109:25] >> Mongolian government. [109:27] >> Wow. [109:28] >> The Gobi Desert. [109:29] >> He voluntarily returned the fossil to [109:31] the Mongolian government after US [109:33] authorities found it was smuggled. [109:35] >> Oh no. [109:36] >> Wow. Um, see if you can find the ways to [109:39] weld dinosaur. [109:42] >> Yeah, you can buy dinosaur bones. [109:43] >> That's pretty cool. [109:44] >> There's a lot of people that don't [109:45] believe in dinosaurs lately. This is [109:48] very confusing. [109:49] >> Why? What? What's their reasoning? [109:50] >> Oh, just they've been lied to about [109:52] everything. Maybe dinosaurs, too. And [109:54] there's people that think that dinosaurs [109:55] were actually the dragons of ancient [109:57] history [109:58] >> and that that's uh that's all [ __ ] [110:01] >> It's the dumbest theories. I mean, like, [110:03] you know, we have I there there's the [110:05] waste world dinosaur. That's what it [110:07] looks like. [110:08] >> That's pretty dope. [110:08] >> Yeah, it's pretty sick. Some sort of an [110:10] aquatic dinosaur. Uh how much of that is [110:14] actual bone and how much of is replica? [110:16] I don't know. Some of them are replica. [110:17] I think that's actual bone. But like uh [110:20] they have t T T T T T T T T T T T T T T [110:21] T T T T T T-rexes. I think the most [110:22] complete T-Rex is [110:28] I want to say 80%. What is the most [110:31] complete T-Rex skeleton ever found? [110:34] >> That one just sold um recently [110:37] uh at an auction. [110:38] >> Oh, yeah. [110:39] >> Yeah, it was 62% complete. [110:41] >> Is that the most complete one ever? [110:42] >> Pretty sure. [110:44] I thought there was a [110:45] >> Oh, there's one that's 90%. Sorry. [110:47] >> There you go. [110:47] >> Well, discovered with 90% of it skeleton [110:50] recovered. [110:52] >> Yeah, we know a lot, folks. This idea [110:54] that dinosaurs aren't real is is really [110:56] silly. [110:57] >> Definitely real. [110:58] >> Sue. [110:59] >> Yeah. [110:59] >> Whoa. Okay, so that's real. Guys, [111:03] stop. That's a real skull. The the [111:06] problem is there's been deception. And [111:09] one of the one of the big pieces of [111:10] deception is when you go to a lot of [111:13] museums and you see a dinosaur skeleton, [111:16] you assume that's how they found it and [111:18] they put it back together again. Whereas [111:19] a lot of the pieces of those bones are [111:22] not real. A lot of the pieces are [111:24] recreations and entire entire um some [111:28] entire skeletons that are in museums are [111:31] all a recreation. There's no actual bone [111:33] that you're actually looking at. And so [111:35] then people are like, "Hey, [111:39] >> it's the same with uh it's the same with [111:40] ancient sites though. [111:41] >> 67 million years old, 80% intact." So [111:44] like just that alone, 80% of that is [111:47] real. [111:48] >> Um that's amazing. [111:49] >> They are real. It's a [ __ ] a real [111:52] thing that existed just like [ __ ] [111:54] crocodiles are still real today. There [111:56] was a real group of large reptiles that [112:00] roamed the earth [112:01] >> for a long time. But the crazy thing, I [112:02] think dinosaurs really highlight the the [112:05] kind of fragmentaryary nature of the [112:06] fossil record, right? Because [112:08] >> they existed for 160 million years or [112:11] something like that, but we only have [112:12] like a few thousand [112:14] >> fossils from that huge amount of time. [112:17] >> Exactly. [112:17] >> And it just shows how little survives, [112:19] right? [112:20] >> Yeah. Exactly. And that the fossil [112:22] record is just really weird. It's a It [112:25] takes a lot to make a fossil. So we have [112:27] a tiny fraction of the actual data [112:30] >> and we have to extrapolate out from from [112:32] that and just that's our understanding [112:34] and that's why it's we do not know what [112:36] happened in the deep past. We're just [112:37] >> Isn't it [ __ ] cool? [112:38] >> It's so cool. I love it. That's why I do [112:40] what I do, man. I I [ __ ] love it. [112:42] >> Yeah. I don't know anybody who when you [112:44] first learn about this stuff, anybody [112:46] that I want to talk to, when you first [112:47] learn about this stuff, you don't go [112:48] whoa, [112:50] >> you know, because it's it is so [112:52] interesting. And um that's why to me the [112:56] um reaction to Graham Hancock's ne [112:58] Netflix series was so strange, like so [113:01] unhinged, like why why are you guys [113:04] freaking out about this and calling it [113:05] the most dangerous show? [113:07] >> Yeah. I mean, I've experienced this [113:09] firsthand now because I mean, last time [113:10] I was here, I wasn't really known about, [113:12] but now I'm a kind of people know who I [113:15] am and I get so much hate. Like so much [113:17] hate and it's it's weird because people [113:19] like paint me out to be something I'm [113:20] not like. And it's just so strange [113:22] because I'm me and I know what I think [113:23] and I know what I believe and yet [113:25] obviously you've like experienced that [113:26] on a whole different level. But [113:27] >> yeah, I've experienced it from the [113:29] government. [113:30] >> Yeah, exactly. [113:31] >> But it's just wild. It's so weird how [113:33] when people like paint you out to be [113:35] someone that you're not and put words in [113:36] your mouth and like it's strange, but [113:39] >> you'll get used to it. Um the the key is [113:42] just don't read it. [113:43] >> That's the key. Like you're going to be [113:44] aware of enough of it peripherally. [113:47] people will bring it to your attention [113:48] if it's really important or if it's like [113:51] significant, [113:52] >> none of it's gonna really be important. [113:53] But as long as and you're a very [113:55] conscientious guy and you do a really [113:57] good job, like I said, of being [113:58] objective and measured and that's all [114:00] you need to do. Just keep doing that. [114:02] Just don't read the comments. [114:03] >> Yeah. [114:03] >> Cuz there's a bunch of people out there [114:07] that are just very unhappy, period. No [114:10] matter what. And when someone is getting [114:12] a lot of attention, they're very angry [114:14] always. And there's whatever that number [114:16] is, one out of a hundred, one out of a [114:18] thousand, it doesn't matter. When they [114:20] reach you, that negativity is never good [114:23] for you. It's only bad for [114:24] >> and it sits with you a little bit more. [114:25] Like you get all the positive comments, [114:26] but you don't really [ __ ] you don't like [114:28] and then the negative one sticks in your [114:30] brain. But you know what's really [114:30] interesting is like people have done [114:33] like hit pieces on me and [ __ ] but and [114:35] obviously loads of negative stuff comes [114:36] through, but also I've had like actual [114:38] archaeologists and actual people working [114:40] in actual institutions reach out to me [114:42] and say like, you know, these are like [114:44] actual archaeologists and they're saying [114:45] like, "Michael, we we value your work [114:47] and like we actually think you're an [114:48] important voice and stuff like that." [114:49] And I I find that really encouraging [114:51] because these are, you know, it's easy [114:53] for us to think about archaeologists as [114:54] like a kind of bogey man that like want [114:57] to suppress all this stuff, but they're [114:58] not all like that. [114:59] >> No. Some of them are open to these [115:00] things, [115:01] >> particularly the young ones, [115:02] particularly people that are coming up [115:04] that really the reason why they got into [115:05] this in the first place is because it's [115:07] such a fascinating subject. And like you [115:10] when you've you've spoken on this when [115:12] you were um in school and you were [115:16] getting your degree, uh you were [115:18] confused as to why these alternative [115:20] perspectives weren't entertained. [115:23] >> And I think there's a lot of young [115:24] people that feel confined by the [115:27] gatekeepers. they can they feel confined [115:30] by the career academics that are sort of [115:34] in charge of who gets tenure, who gets [115:37] jobs, who gets grants, and it's a very [115:40] confusing thing. You don't want to [115:41] ruffle any feathers or step on any toes. [115:43] And so you feel constrained in your [115:45] ability to be, you know, curious. And [115:49] that's that seems insane for something [115:51] that is so inherently curious, [115:54] >> curiosity driven, [115:55] >> so inherently unknown as well that we do [115:58] not know as we keep saying. [116:00] >> Right. Right. Right. We're not talking [116:01] about stuff that's like, you know, [116:04] established science where you can [116:05] clearly, [116:06] >> you know, it's not mathematics. This is [116:08] something like weird. This, you know, [116:10] you're you're you're looking at hints of [116:12] the past. And um the more we look, the [116:16] more we find older stuff. It's like [116:18] Graham always says, stuff just keeps [116:21] getting older. [116:21] >> Mhm. [116:22] >> Yeah. [116:24] >> It's crazy. [116:24] >> Well, it's just so cool that you're out [116:26] there making videos and that you could [116:27] do that for a living now. [116:29] >> I know. It's wild. I feel I feel so [116:30] lucky that I get to uh do something I'm [116:33] so interested in and talk about these [116:35] topics and also to like create not to to [116:40] kind of like inspire this thinking in [116:41] other people. That's really what I want [116:43] to try and do is to get people thinking [116:45] about history from this different [116:46] perspective and to think about the [116:48] unknown and think about the potential [116:50] that what humans could have been doing [116:51] now that we know that a mind like ours [116:54] could have existed for a million years [116:56] that humans like us could have inhabited [116:57] this planet for such a vastly longer [117:00] length of time than we used to believe [117:01] and all the possibilities that throws up [117:03] more than anything. That's what I want [117:05] people to to think about when they watch [117:07] my work. I don't want to tell them to [117:09] believe this or tell them to believe [117:10] that. I just want them to kind of think [117:12] about it themselves and open their minds [117:14] to the possibilities that could have [117:16] occurred. And that doesn't mean that [117:18] like people always say that I like [117:20] saying that there's like advanced [117:21] civilizations in prehistory. I'm not [117:23] saying that. I'm just saying [117:25] there's a lot more on the table than we [117:26] used to think. And I think that's really [117:29] fascinating. I wish more people would uh [117:30] kind of take that possibility seriously. [117:32] Um, and that's why I get encouraged when [117:35] I get these emails from people that [117:36] actually in the institutions because [117:37] they're the people that are going to [117:39] rewrite the textbooks. Like I can say [117:40] what I want. Like I'm just a YouTuber, [117:42] but we need the people that are actually [117:44] working in the institutions to think in [117:45] this way. And then [117:46] >> then I think we we might uh update our [117:48] thinking on these things. [117:50] >> I think there's a lot of those young [117:52] folks that are coming up now in [117:54] archaeology that um do have alternative [117:57] perspectives whether or not they're [117:59] being suppressed. And it's also very [118:00] encouraging for them to see a pathway [118:03] outside of academics academia like what [118:06] you're pursuing and to see like not only [118:08] is this viable, but you can do it with [118:10] the the proper approach like the way [118:13] that you're doing it where you're not [118:15] making crazy claims, not saying the [118:16] aliens did it. You're not saying [118:18] anything nutty. You're just saying, [118:19] "Hey, um there's uh there's a lot going [118:22] on here and to pretend that we have an [118:25] accurate map of the territory seems [118:27] silly." [118:28] >> Yeah. I think I just think there's so [118:30] much more on the table now than there [118:31] used to be only a few decades ago. And I [118:33] think that's so exciting when we look at [118:34] our past because as I say, it's the [118:36] reason we're all here, right? It's the [118:38] reason we live in this civilization is [118:39] the answer to these questions and we [118:41] don't know the answer to these questions [118:42] anymore. So, let's uh let's talk about [118:45] it, you know. [118:45] >> Yeah. What else have you found recently [118:47] that's interesting? [118:49] >> Um yeah, so I mean I was still there's [118:50] still um there's older American sites. [118:52] So um so there's obviously the Seri [118:55] Maston site which is 130,000 years old [118:58] which is controversial but I think [118:59] people [119:00] >> the mastadon bones where they appeared [119:02] to be it's appears signs of human [119:05] smashing the bones to get the marrow. [119:07] >> Yeah. Just after like fresh freshly [119:09] smashed after the animal had died and [119:10] they found like these anvils like these [119:12] things that look like tools next to the [119:14] bones. And [119:15] >> it's controversial because we can't [119:16] prove that that was human activity but [119:18] it looks like human activity. It was [119:20] even published in Nature in 2017. So, [119:23] you know, it's another little data point [119:24] that pushes back human presence in the [119:26] America potentially to over a 100,000 [119:28] years ago. And there's even more. [119:30] There's a site called uh Calico where I [119:32] think this one's a little bit I don't I [119:34] don't really buy this one, but a very [119:35] famous archaeologist called Lewis Leaky [119:38] who was like one of the top names in the [119:40] archaeology in the 20th century. He [119:41] believed that Calico showed evidence of [119:44] human presence in the Americas over [119:46] 100,000 years ago as well. So, so [119:49] another data point and then there's um [119:50] then there's way at Larco which um I [119:52] think you've heard of. Have you heard of [119:54] way at Laco? It's this site in Mexico [119:55] where they had this volcanic ash over [119:58] these human tools and they dated the ash [120:00] to like crazy numbers. I'm talking like [120:03] 300,000 400,000 500,000 years ago and [120:06] the tools were below this layer. [120:08] >> What? [120:08] >> Yeah. So, [120:09] >> no, I'm not aware of that one. So in the [120:12] 1950s [120:14] there was a a Mexican archaeologist who [120:16] was doing some work in the Vasculo basin [120:18] in Mexico near the city of Pubella and [120:21] he was finding all these extinct pleaene [120:23] animal remains there alongside human [120:24] activity. So he called in some American [120:26] archaeologists and they did some work [120:28] and they identified this site called [120:30] wayco which is an archaeological site [120:33] there and they found these very [120:34] sophisticated stone tools. They're like [120:36] bacial stone tools which means they've [120:38] been worked on on two sides and it's [120:40] quite a sophisticated level of tool. And [120:42] so they found this and they were like [120:43] okay this is an interesting site. Let's [120:45] bring in some geologists. So the [120:46] geologists came in and they were [120:48] expecting to date the kind of sediment [120:50] around the tools to around 8,000 to [120:53] 10,000 years ago because they knew about [120:55] a volcanic eruption that had happened at [120:57] that time and so they expected the [120:58] volcanic ash to be from that. So they [121:00] did all this testing, but then they [121:02] found that the ash was giving these [121:05] crazy dates like 200,000 300,000 up to [121:08] 600,000 years old. And that was [121:10] completely mental because the tools were [121:12] below this layer of ash. And then they [121:15] dated a a camel pelvis, I think, that [121:18] was um insitu with the tools. And that [121:21] camel pelvis came back to 250,000 [121:24] years old as well. And that was in the [121:26] same layer of the tools. So they kind of [121:27] brought all their different dating meth [121:29] methods together. And there's multiple [121:31] kind of uh geological dating methods on [121:33] the sediment, the ash, and and also the [121:35] camel pelvis. And they kind of collected [121:37] all this to a date of 250,000 years ago [121:41] for this site for where these tools were [121:44] found. And um yeah, so they tried to [121:47] publish this and um they received like [121:50] immense push back because obviously this [121:52] was the the time of the Clovis first [121:54] paradigm and you know people weren't [121:57] ready for Clovis to be broken let alone [121:59] by such a huge margin like hundreds and [122:02] hundreds of thousands of years old and [122:04] they couldn't publish for like 20 years [122:06] and by that time many of the artifacts [122:08] had gone missing and they they didn't [122:10] know where they were and the site [122:12] actually got raised like it kind of [122:15] removed. Yeah. And I don't and I'm not [122:16] trying to say that's like some [122:17] conspiracy or anything, but it just [122:19] means that you can't really prove it, [122:21] but they did eventually publish and they [122:22] the geologists have always stuck by this [122:24] date. And there's multiple lines of [122:25] evidence that suggests that the tools [122:28] were found below this layer of roughly [122:31] 250,000 years old. And that's obviously [122:33] like hugely older than we think humans [122:35] have been in the Americas. So, it's a [122:37] very interesting site. Um, [122:40] uh, I want to give a shout out to Will [122:41] Brown, uh, who's got a channel called [122:42] Incredible History. he's actually been [122:44] to the site and he kind of like nudged [122:46] me in the direction of looking into this [122:47] one. Uh he's got a great channel. Um but [122:50] yeah, it's it's super interesting [122:51] because we can't prove it because the [122:54] tools have gone missing. The site no [122:56] longer exists, but there's a paper out [122:58] there written by serious scientists [123:00] saying that, you know, there could be [123:02] human presence in the Americas over [123:04] 200,000 years ago, potentially even [123:06] older than that. And that would just [123:08] radically change our understanding of [123:10] humans in America. So then when you put [123:12] all these sites together, so obviously [123:13] White Sands is the earliest at 22,000, [123:15] but then when you add that to Chikuete [123:18] Cave as I mentioned earlier, 33,000, [123:20] Pedra Furada in Brazil over 50,000. Seri [123:23] Mastadon 130,000. [123:26] I don't really think Calico is I I think [123:28] that's natural. But then Larco at [123:30] 250,000, you know, it only takes one of [123:32] them to be right for our understanding [123:34] of when humans reached America to [123:36] radically shift. And I think it's only [123:38] logical that humans were in America a [123:41] lot longer than we think because, you [123:43] know, when we're talking about the vast [123:44] span of time that we've been on this [123:46] planet, why couldn't we have reached [123:47] these places? [123:48] >> Right? And then the question is how did [123:50] we reach them and from where? [123:52] >> Mhm. [123:54] >> You know, from where [123:55] >> exactly [123:56] >> that's the the weird thing is some of [123:57] the when you look at like pyramid [124:00] structures for instance, like where did [124:03] that idea come from? How did that idea [124:05] make it to the Aztecs? Mhm. All over the [124:07] world we find pyramids. Yeah. [124:08] >> Weird. It [124:09] >> is weird. I mean, you could say that [124:11] it's just like a a logical way of [124:13] building things, but [124:15] >> maybe [124:16] >> who knows. [124:17] >> Well, there's also the weirdness in the [124:18] fact that the Aztecs themselves didn't [124:20] build build the pyramids. [124:22] >> Oh, some of them. Yeah. like uh Teot [124:24] Touakan was there before and they said [124:27] it was they the name literally means [124:28] place where the gods lived and they [124:30] found it there [124:32] >> and uh so it was before them and they [124:34] don't know who built it, [124:35] >> right? [124:36] >> They gave us lots of our names. They g [124:37] they gave us the name. Almech means uh [124:39] the rubber people uh because they knew [124:42] about themes. They knew they existed [124:43] before them but they didn't really know [124:45] who they were but they just called them [124:46] the rubber people. [124:47] >> Is it because they lived around rubber [124:49] trees? [124:49] >> I think it's cuz they use rubber or [124:51] something. I'm not 100% sure. Um, [124:54] >> so what's the conventional theory about [124:56] who built these Aztec temples? [124:59] >> Um, I think the theory is that it was a [125:01] a culture that came just before the [125:03] Aztecs um that we don't have a name for, [125:08] but they don't I mean they don't know. [125:09] They don't know. [125:10] >> Imagine you don't know anything about [125:11] them. You don't have a name for them. [125:12] But they made insanely sophisticated [125:16] >> architecture with stone. [125:18] >> Mhm. [125:19] >> That mirrored the cosmos. [125:20] >> Yeah. And no one knows who built the [125:21] pyramid of the sun. I think that's what [125:23] it's called at Teuakan. But it's it's [125:25] ginormous and it's incredible and it's [125:27] all these different layers to it and [125:29] incredibly sophisticated. We don't know [125:31] who built it. We don't really know when [125:32] they built it. I mean, we think we know [125:34] kind of the region, but [125:36] we don't know. As is the case with so [125:39] much of this stuff, we do not know. [125:40] >> Is there a conventional timeline? [125:44] >> Yeah. Did they like and what are they [125:46] basing it on? Um, [125:48] >> if they think it came right before the [125:49] Aztecs, because I had read as as long as [125:52] a thousand years before them. [125:53] >> Yeah. I mean, that's kind of what I mean [125:55] by right before because I'm thinking in [125:56] these big long it's a long time. Yeah. [125:58] >> The United States is not even 300 years [126:00] old. [126:01] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Of course. But um [126:03] Yeah. But what I'm trying to say is I [126:05] don't think it's like, you know, way way [126:07] >> right. Right. Right. So somewhere around [126:09] a thousand years before, but that's the [126:11] thing. is like how many of these things [126:13] happened where there was some sort of a [126:16] civilization and then it collapsed [126:18] >> and then new people came along. [126:20] >> Like the idea that you would have a [126:22] civilization that was capable of [126:24] building something as fantastic as some [126:28] of those Aztec constructions [126:30] and then they would just go away. [126:31] >> We just lost all memory of it. All [126:33] memory of it. And then people just [126:35] wandered up there one day, the Aztecs, [126:36] and they're like, "Whoa, what is this?" [126:38] You know, like [126:39] >> And it was probably covered with jungle. [126:41] Mhm. [126:41] >> Right. [126:42] >> Mhm. [126:42] >> Yeah. [126:43] >> I mean, how many of those things were [126:45] just absorbed by, you know, the just the [126:49] just nature? [126:50] >> It's no wonder that they think it was [126:52] built by gods, right? Because you see it [126:54] and you're like, that is incredible. Who [126:55] built this? It must have been the gods [126:57] >> and there's no one living in it. [126:58] >> Mhm. [126:59] >> [ __ ] [127:00] >> And just so show shows how easily human [127:02] civilizations can reach a really high [127:04] peak level of sophistication and then go [127:06] down again and collapse and just all [127:08] memory of them is gone. [127:09] >> Yeah. [127:10] Um, any other cool things you've [127:13] discovered recently? [127:14] >> Well, there's also the question of when [127:15] humans reached Australia, which I think [127:16] is another really interesting question [127:18] because the conventional time is is [127:20] 65,000 years ago. Uh, and there's a site [127:23] called Majed Bay in Northern Australia [127:25] and that's the earliest accepted site in [127:27] Australia. And that's right in the north [127:28] of the country. And it makes sense [127:30] because you have to you have to cross [127:32] water to get to Australia. You have to [127:33] build boats and cross water. But there's [127:35] another really interesting site that's [127:37] right in the south of Australia where [127:40] archaeologists found um blackened stones [127:44] again and charcoal and hearthlike [127:46] structures. And they dated this site to [127:49] 120,000 years ago, which is double just [127:52] about double the time that we think [127:54] humans were in Australia. And it's in [127:55] the very south of the country. And the [127:57] archaeologists that have working there [128:00] actually wrote in their paper that the [128:02] evidence supports a cultural origin over [128:04] a natural origin. So they think that [128:06] it's cultural as in human rather than [128:09] natural, but they can't prove it because [128:11] there's no associated artifacts and no [128:14] associated skeletons, but they think [128:16] that it it kind of leans towards being a [128:19] a cultural origin. Uh, and obviously if [128:22] that's correct, that means human beings [128:24] weren't only in Australia twice as long [128:26] as we thought, but also had inhabited [128:28] the entire continent. Well, not [128:29] inhabited, but had gone through the [128:31] entire continent right down to the very [128:33] south of the country twice as old as we [128:36] thought. And it's just another thing [128:37] that's like pushing it older and older [128:38] and older. And it's not accepted, but [128:40] it's so hard to prove these things [128:42] because we can't find skeletons or we [128:45] can find skeletons, but it's extremely [128:46] rare. So the the bar is so high for for [128:49] proof. But this site uh called Moyel [128:53] 120,000 years ago is uh I think very [128:56] strong suggestive evidence that human [128:58] beings have been in Australia twice as [129:00] long as we think. And obviously that [129:02] means that they had to have got there by [129:03] boat. And uh [129:05] >> yeah, there another interesting Was [129:07] there something that was done on the [129:10] genetic connection between uh Australian [129:14] Aboriginal people and uh Dennis Sovvens? [129:17] >> Yeah. Yeah. They think that maybe there [129:18] was different migrationary uh pathways [129:20] and different human species potentially [129:22] also reached Australia. And it's not [129:23] that wild because if you think back to [129:25] the the seaf fairing thing we were [129:26] talking about earlier, if people were [129:28] reaching islands over a million years [129:29] ago, then why couldn't they have reached [129:31] Australia much earlier than we think? [129:32] >> Yeah. Because if we had that capability [129:34] for so long, [129:36] >> why not? [129:38] >> Um, when they do this, is this uh I mean [129:40] because obviously they didn't even know [129:42] about Dennis Ovenans until 2010. So is [129:45] this like uh genetic analysis? And if if [129:49] so, like do they have genes? Like how [129:53] how do they get genetic uh material from [129:56] these Dennisovven skeletons? [129:58] >> I think you can take it from [130:01] or something. I'm not quite sure, but I [130:02] think you can. I think they know the [130:03] kind of genetic makeup of of the [130:05] different human species. And [130:07] >> so I think you can tell that way if you [130:08] if you've got like a trace of the the [130:10] DNA. [130:10] >> Yeah, that's what I was saying. Like if [130:12] it's fossilized, do they have actual DNA [130:15] from Dennis Ovenans? And if they do, [130:17] like how are they how are they guessing [130:19] that people uh Aboriginal people in [130:22] Australia have some traces of it just [130:25] like Europeans have traces of [130:26] Neanderthal? [130:27] >> Yeah. And also people in uh uh I think [130:30] like Nepal and these high altitude [130:32] places they have quite high traces of [130:33] Denisan DNA and that's what they think [130:36] allows them to live in high altitude [130:38] environments. They think that Denise are [130:40] more robust than uh modern humans and [130:42] can live in more extreme environments [130:45] >> and they think that people that live in [130:46] uh those kind of high altitude regions [130:48] of the Himalayas and stuff have that uh [130:51] kind of gene if you like. I'm not sure [130:53] that's the science behind it, but they [130:55] think they have the traces of of that [130:56] and that's what allows them to live in [130:58] these more isolated uh high altitude [131:00] environments. [131:00] >> So, they think Dennisovven's lived in [131:02] high altitude mostly. [131:04] >> Maybe. They don't know. [131:05] >> They don't know, but [131:06] >> well, there's only a few bones, right? [131:08] >> Exactly. So, it's really hard to tell. [131:10] >> So [ __ ] interesting, man. [131:12] >> And also in that region, they they found [131:14] recently the old the oldest evidence of [131:17] advanced surgery, which is like way [131:18] older than we think. It's like 31,000 [131:20] years ago. They found some surgery. uh [131:23] in Borneo which is again in this same [131:25] region. I think Indonesia is such a [131:26] fascinating region because it's the [131:28] place of where the Sunda shelf was where [131:30] obviously the sea levels risen have [131:33] covered a huge expanse of land that used [131:35] to be land um but now no longer is. So [131:38] many interesting discoveries here, but [131:39] they had this surgery thing is um they [131:41] found uh the skeleton of a child that [131:45] had had his leg amputated and but had [131:49] lived for many many many years [131:51] afterwards and his his whole like lower [131:53] leg had been amputated off and but had [131:56] like healed like completely and he' [131:57] lived like or she I think it was a girl [131:59] lived like a lot longer after that and [132:01] obviously that's quite an advanced thing [132:03] to to do, right? because you have to [132:05] understand how to prevent infection. You [132:07] have to It's a very humid place as well, [132:09] so it's very hard to survive. Probably [132:11] was very painful for that individual. [132:12] But this pushed back our understanding [132:14] of surgery by like 20,000 No, maybe not [132:17] quite that long. I can't remember what I [132:18] think it was like 7,000 years ago. So [132:20] yeah, by a long way because this is [132:22] 31,000 years ago. So again, it's showing [132:24] prehistoric humans to be far more [132:25] sophisticated than we think. They were [132:26] performing surgery 31,000 years ago and [132:29] surviving and living for years [132:32] afterwards. And [132:32] >> that is insane. Mhm. [132:34] >> I wonder if they had any pharmacological [132:37] interventions like to deal with the [132:39] pain. [132:39] >> Well, I think they would have used wild [132:41] plants because we've got so much [132:42] evidence now of other human species and [132:44] our human species using wild plants to [132:47] uh as medic for medicinal purposes, [132:50] right? [132:50] >> We see Neanderthalss doing that a long [132:52] long time ago, like cultivating wild [132:54] plants and using them as painkillers and [132:56] stuff like that. [132:56] >> What what's going to kill the pain of a [132:58] [ __ ] amputation? [133:00] >> Well, probably not much, but [133:01] >> of a bone saw. [133:02] >> I know. [133:04] Right? And like what kind of tools did [133:06] they have? Like what were they doing it [133:07] with? How how' they stitch people up? [133:10] Did they have needles? Did they have [133:11] thread? Did they just leave the wound [133:13] open? Like what did they do? But [133:14] whatever they did, it worked and they [133:16] were sophisticated enough to to keep [133:18] that person alive and to care for them [133:20] and for them to live years afterwards. [133:22] >> Excuse me. [133:23] >> It's wild. It's wild. So it's yet more [133:25] evidence of people being just super [133:27] sophisticated so much longer in time [133:28] than we thought. And uh it all pointed [133:30] in one direction, man, which is humans [133:32] have been here longer. They've been more [133:33] intelligent than we thought for a long, [133:35] long time. [133:36] >> If you had a guess, what do you think is [133:38] the oldest real true civilization? [133:43] >> H [133:44] >> how long when do you think it started? [133:46] So I think in terms of like what we call [133:49] civilization in terms of our current [133:51] like cycle of it if you like I think it [133:53] is tashapella and whatever came before [133:56] that but I don't think it would probably [133:57] been that far further before that but I [134:00] think that from the onset of the holene [134:01] I think we basically started right away [134:03] all over the globe and you know uh [134:06] developed civilization because it [134:08] happens everywhere right back to [134:09] question one why did it happen [134:10] everywhere all over the time because I [134:11] think that's what humans do I think once [134:13] we get a stable period of climate we we [134:17] innovate because agriculture and [134:19] civilization can't have been a very hard [134:21] invention to do because everyone did it. [134:25] It happened everywhere all over the [134:26] world. So, it's not like a really unique [134:28] hard thing to do because people did it [134:30] everywhere. So, that makes me think what [134:32] about all the other periods of stable [134:34] climate that we've had. And now that we [134:35] know that human beings have been around [134:36] for so long, we've had it's something [134:38] like four stable warm periods in the [134:40] time that we have modern sapient [134:42] fossils. So, 300,000 years. But then if [134:44] you extrapolate that out to this [134:46] million-year time scale of modernized [134:49] brains and modern behavior with the [134:50] seafaring, it's something like 11 warm [134:53] periods that we've lived through of [134:55] stable climate conditions that have [134:56] lasted for over 10,000 years. So you [134:59] look at each of those warm periods and [135:00] you think if agriculture and [135:03] civilization isn't that, you know, hard [135:06] seismic of an invention to to do, why [135:08] couldn't it have happened in those [135:09] previous warm periods, 11 of them going [135:11] back to a million years and possibly [135:13] beyond? There's also that very weird [135:15] phenomenon when when someone somewhere [135:18] figure something out even if people [135:20] aren't connected other places in the [135:22] world people figure it out at the same [135:23] time that we know that to be the case [135:25] today. [135:26] >> Rupert Sheldrake has a term for it. I [135:29] think it's called is it morphic [135:30] resonance? So his his term is is also [135:34] based around theories that they've done [135:36] with uh rats and mazes that if you teach [135:39] a rat a maze on the east coast, rats on [135:42] the west coast learn it quicker. [135:43] >> Really? [135:44] >> Yeah. [135:46] >> Yeah. He's got lots of interesting work, [135:47] hasn't he? About kind of [135:49] >> almost telepathic [135:50] >> Yeah. Weird stuff. [135:51] >> Yeah. very [135:51] >> that there's probably some sort of [135:54] aashic record that there's probably some [135:56] sort of shared field of information that [136:00] whether or not it's tangible and you [136:01] can, you know, write it down verbatim or [136:03] whether or not it's some sort of implied [136:05] concepts and ideas that are transmitted [136:08] through the species. [136:09] >> Mhm. [136:10] >> That like creativity itself is almost [136:14] like something that we tap into like [136:17] uniformly [136:18] >> as a species. It's like you can like [136:20] almost like we're in an antenna or [136:21] something. [136:22] >> Yeah. [136:22] >> And that like when Michael Button [136:24] figures something out, someone on the [136:25] other part of the world is like, "Oh, I [136:28] feel it." [136:28] >> Yeah. [136:29] >> Which is very weird. It's a very weird [136:31] idea. [136:32] >> Yeah. [136:32] >> You know, and it's it's impossible to [136:35] prove or I mean you can you can imply it [136:37] and the rap thing is very interesting [136:39] and I think they've done them with some [136:40] other things as well. [136:42] >> Mhm. You know, so it's uh it's [136:45] it's interesting because like if that's [136:48] not the case, then what do you have a [136:50] seaf fairing civilization that travels [136:51] the entire globe? Do you have something [136:53] that that so [136:56] so advanced they figured out how to [136:57] traverse continents and they're bringing [136:59] all this information with them? Is it [137:01] one group? No. It seems like they all [137:03] kind of figured out the same time or [137:05] roughly. [137:06] >> Mhm. [137:06] >> Roughly. [137:06] >> But it is pretty much the same time in [137:08] comparison to the amount of time that [137:09] we've been on the planet. Right. It's [137:10] not a coincidence. It's an explosion. [137:12] >> Exactly. Yeah. So why because the the [137:14] reason given is the climate. That's the [137:17] old reason. But I think that is the [137:18] reason because you know the climate got [137:20] warmer. So agriculture civilization and [137:22] yeah that makes sense. But then why not [137:23] before? Why not in all of these 11 warm [137:25] periods where humans have been here and [137:27] been smart? If it's such a common [137:29] invention, why didn't it happen before? [137:31] >> Right? [137:31] >> Maybe it did. [137:32] >> Maybe it did. It's also interesting how [137:34] much stuff like if you think about the [137:37] global temperature, like where is it [137:39] always warm? Well, it's always warm [137:41] around the equator. Kind of always stays [137:42] warm around there. [137:44] >> And well, what's around there? Well, the [137:46] Amazon. [137:47] >> Yeah, exactly. And even in periods of [137:49] Yeah. Like the fully glaciated periods. [137:51] Some places on the Earth were perfectly [137:53] habitable, [137:54] >> right? [137:54] >> So, who knows? But then I mean, and that [137:58] goes back into like you say the Amazon, [137:59] it goes into the question of how long [138:01] have humans been in America because if [138:02] we've been in America and the Americas [138:04] for a lot longer than we think, then [138:06] people have been in the Amazon a lot [138:07] longer, we think. And then you look at [138:08] the discoveries in the Amazon and how [138:10] there's been civilizations there a lot [138:12] further back in time than we thought. [138:14] Well, how far back in time? Obviously, [138:15] the evidence we've seen so far doesn't [138:17] point like crazy back in time, but we [138:19] don't know. [138:19] >> Well, there's so little evidence. That's [138:21] the problem. I mean, they're just [138:23] recently discovering these grids, right? [138:25] And so, how much archaeological work has [138:27] been done on all these grids? [138:29] >> Oh, yeah. Exactly. It's so hard. And [138:30] also the the rainforest is such like a [138:32] extreme recycling kind of natural [138:35] machine that it's going to destroy [138:37] anything that's that's older than than [138:39] uh a few thousand years ago. So [138:41] >> it doesn't mean there's not stuff that's [138:43] older than a few thousand years ago. It [138:44] just means there's nothing left. [138:46] >> Mhm. And they could have built in [138:47] organic materials that have just decayed [138:49] and you would never see it. [138:51] >> And they could have been doing that [138:52] hundreds of thousands of years ago and [138:53] who knows. [138:55] So it's wild, man. It's so wild. Uh, and [138:57] I think this the potential is enormous. [139:00] Just absolutely enormous. And that's why [139:02] I do what I do because I think it's so [139:04] fascinating and I love talking about it [139:06] and I love uh getting other people to [139:09] think about it. And that's the great [139:10] privilege of me being able to do this [139:12] job. Um, so yeah. Well, it's an [139:16] important job. It really is because [139:19] those videos although they are, you [139:20] know, just YouTube and they're [139:22] entertaining. They're just, you know, [139:24] something that anyone can digest, [139:25] there's so much valid, fascinating [139:28] information on them and so many valid [139:30] questions [139:31] >> that we really can't quite answer and [139:34] expands the like when people watch them, [139:37] you get this understanding like, oh wow, [139:40] this is a big puzzle. This this thing is [139:42] really complicated. Like it's a lot more [139:44] complicated than we've been told, [139:46] especially by, you know, people that [139:48] want you to believe that they have they [139:50] have the answers. [139:51] >> Yeah. That's why I just I hate it. I [139:53] hate the certainty that people talk [139:54] about the past cuz I never talk about [139:55] with certainty. I'm not saying this is [139:57] necessarily true. I'm just saying, you [139:59] know, poss possibilities everywhere. So [140:01] many different possibilities. And uh [140:03] yeah, everything we seem to discover [140:05] pushes it in one direction that's older [140:06] and more intelligence back in time. And [140:09] yeah, there's there's so many [140:10] interesting things. Um, and we haven't [140:12] even we barely scratched the surface [140:14] today. [140:15] >> I know. Well, we could do this for days. [140:16] Um, before we wrap it up, though. Is [140:18] there any any other really interesting [140:20] ones that you'd like to talk about? [140:22] >> Yeah, there was something interesting [140:23] that came out uh in regards to writing. [140:25] There's a couple of interesting things [140:26] regarding writing. So, obviously writing [140:28] is the kind of marker of civilization. [140:31] like writing began, civilization began, [140:33] but we're starting to see evidence of [140:35] symbolic [140:37] meaning being transmitted through [140:39] symbolic notation like way back further [140:41] in time than we believe. So obviously [140:43] the earliest writing is still thought to [140:44] be about 4,000 BC with the ancient [140:47] Mesopotamian ununiform and stuff like [140:49] that. But as you mentioned fin the the [140:52] kind of idea regarding Tashapella having [140:54] a similar thing and that's 12,000 years [140:56] ago but there's much much older evidence [140:58] of humans conveying information in a [141:00] symbolic fashion. So there's um an [141:03] archaeologist called Genev Genevie [141:06] Vonettzinger I believe she's called and [141:08] she found evidence that on all these ice [141:10] age paintings that we find in Europe [141:13] with all these incredible like bulls and [141:15] bison and stuff and you've probably seen [141:16] them. But next to them is like this kind [141:18] of symbol of notation that people have [141:20] kind of overlooked for years. But she [141:22] found 32 recurring signs across a period [141:27] of 30,000 years all across the [141:29] continent. And these signs she thinks [141:31] are like a not a language as such but a [141:34] kind of a a system of encoding meaning. [141:36] Yeah, there you go. There are the signs. [141:38] >> And she kind of makes the argument that [141:40] these signs are um [141:44] not a language as such but a kind of [141:46] tradition of conveying information that [141:49] lasted for 30,000 years. And that is [141:52] such a long length of time. Like if you [141:53] think about the oldest language today, [141:56] it's I think it's ancient Chinese and [141:57] that's only a few thousand years old. [141:59] And yet these signs appear all across [142:01] the continent of Europe across a time [142:03] span of 30,000 years and pretty much [142:06] exactly the same and just these signs. [142:08] And they also find them in other [142:10] continents as well. And she doesn't say [142:12] there's any connection there. And I'm [142:13] not sure there is any connection there, [142:15] but [142:15] >> the spirals are really weird. [142:18] They find spirals all over the place, [142:20] right? [142:21] >> Yeah. They find these signs all over the [142:23] world that Jamie, you might be able to [142:24] find uh [142:26] >> all over the world. [142:27] >> Yeah. There's like a cool map where they [142:28] kind of point where where it's all [142:30] found. If you scroll down a little bit [142:32] >> uh on the left uh that one. Yeah. You [142:35] see that? That's really blurry. [142:40] >> Yeah. Once it loads, but it's it's all [142:41] over the world. There you go. And it's [142:43] the same signs. Wow. [142:47] That's crazy. So the same signs in [142:50] Europe, North America, Central Africa, [142:53] South America, Southern Africa, [142:56] Australia, Malaysia, East Africa, New [142:59] Guinea. Wow. [143:02] Borneo, [143:03] Myanmar. [143:05] And she thinks it's like a a much older [143:08] symbolic tradition that humans have kind [143:09] of carried with them in the kind of [143:12] migratory roots. And it actually goes [143:13] back much older than the the ice age art [143:15] date of like 40,000 years, but actually [143:17] comes from when humans first reached [143:19] Europe out of Africa and spreading [143:21] across the world. And we've kind of kept [143:23] the same tradition of conveying [143:26] information. And again, this has massive [143:27] implications for human intelligence [143:29] because even though it's not a full [143:31] language, the ability to convey [143:34] information in a symbolic way is a is a [143:36] marker of of really sophisticated [143:37] intelligence. And so it's another really [143:39] interesting discovery that kind of [143:41] points towards intelligence and also the [143:43] the kind of the to maintain that [143:46] tradition over such a long length of [143:47] time is really interesting because we [143:50] don't really do that like as I say the [143:51] oldest language is ancient Chinese and [143:53] it's only a few thousand years old and [143:55] yet these people somehow managed to pass [143:57] on this language quote unquote for [144:00] 30,000 years. Have you ever heard [144:03] anybody discuss the concept that human [144:05] beings might have had some sort of [144:08] some sort of telepathy [144:11] that atrophied when we started using [144:14] language and writing and communicating [144:16] with words? [144:17] >> Well, what's really interesting is the [144:19] human brain size has decreased since [144:22] civilization began. [144:24] >> Uhhuh. [144:24] >> Which is strange because because and it [144:26] makes sense because if everything was [144:27] oral before, you need more of your brain [144:30] to hold all the information. But once [144:32] you can kind of outsource it to physical [144:35] objects, [144:36] >> you don't need so much brain like size [144:39] and space. [144:40] >> How much has it decreased? [144:41] >> I can't remember off the top of my head, [144:42] but it's I don't think that's even [144:44] controversial. I think there's quite a [144:45] lot of evidence that the human brain [144:47] size has decreased a little bit in the [144:49] last 10,000 years or whatever. Well, [144:51] what weren't like there was some ancient [144:54] people that thought writing was a bad [144:56] idea and that you should uh you should [144:58] remember everything [145:00] >> and that writing and writing things down [145:02] was actually going to degrade your [145:03] memory. [145:04] >> Well, I think it certainly does because [145:06] you don't need that brain like part of [145:09] your brain anymore if if you're not [145:10] memorizing all the information you have [145:12] like and it makes us smart as a whole as [145:14] a civilization but [145:15] >> and if you extrapolate so to hard [145:17] drives. [145:17] >> Exactly. Well, it's happening on an even [145:19] bigger scale now with AI and stuff like [145:21] that. [145:22] >> Exactly. Same process though. Like [145:24] people have talked about chat GPT [145:25] decreasing people's intelligence. [145:26] >> Well, because it's it outsources [145:28] thinking itself which is a crazy step [145:30] and [145:30] >> and we're going to just go like a [145:32] raisin. [145:33] >> Exactly. So I mean it's Yeah. So I mean [145:36] maybe we're regressing but I think as a [145:38] civilization we're we're learning more [145:39] and [145:40] >> yes collectively but as the individual [145:42] >> maybe we're regressing [145:43] >> and our potential to learn and just [145:46] remember things like when I just from [145:48] when I was a boy I knew everybody's [145:49] phone number. [145:50] >> Yeah. Yeah. [145:50] >> And now I don't know any I know like [145:52] three people's phone numbers [145:53] >> because we don't have to memorize [145:54] anymore. [145:55] >> Exactly. [145:55] >> It's wild. [145:56] >> Yeah. [145:57] >> Yeah. And there was also another paper [145:59] that came out regarding language uh [146:00] which is they found um over 200 objects [146:04] and this around the same date around [146:05] 40,000 years ago and they basically [146:08] found like a protoriting script that had [146:09] the same level of complexity as the [146:11] early Sumerian scripts from 3,000 BC but [146:14] from 40,000 years ago in Ice Age Europe [146:18] again. So it's it's like another kind of [146:19] proto language symbolic uh thinking and [146:23] and conveying meaning through symbols. I [146:26] don't know if may I can't quite remember [146:27] off the top of my head, Jamie, but if [146:28] you type in like it was this year, so if [146:31] you type in PNAS protoiting [146:34] uh 40,000 years ago or something, they [146:38] found it loads of like symbols engraved [146:40] on bones and they argued that it was the [146:42] same level of complexity as the early [146:44] Sumerian scripts. And again, this was [146:46] the marker of civilization 3000 BC, but [146:50] now it's this capability is so much [146:52] older now because of these new [146:53] discoveries. [146:54] >> Yeah, I saw that. It's really weird like [146:56] when you're looking at the writing like [146:57] okay what are they like the little [146:58] scratches on the bones and clay and [147:01] whatever it is [147:02] >> like what are they what are they [147:03] conveying? Do we even understand what [147:05] they're conveying or just assume they're [147:07] conveying something? [147:08] >> Well, I think they they categorized it [147:10] and they they seem to think it is a a [147:12] kind of protocript. [147:15] >> [ __ ] weird man. Like that's a script. [147:19] >> Well, a pro Yeah, like a protocript. So [147:20] like the kind of thing that became [147:22] language but [147:23] >> right so there had to be a precursor to [147:24] language [147:25] >> but if it a written language but if it [147:27] um if it existed 40,000 years ago it's [147:30] so much older than we used to think this [147:31] capability emerged. [147:32] >> Yeah. [147:32] >> And what does that what does that kind [147:34] of entail? [147:35] >> Can I see that again Jamie the images? [147:37] How weird. [147:39] And so at the bottom that looks a lot [147:40] like ununiform. [147:41] >> I think the I think these ones are [147:43] examples of more advanced but they're [147:44] saying it's at the same level as this [147:47] >> but 40,000 years ago [147:48] >> which is vastly older than kuniform. [147:55] >> It's so interesting. [147:57] I'm sure you've seen the we talked about [147:59] this yesterday as well. The Italian um [148:02] guy who came up with this concept of um [148:05] erosion dating. [148:08] Yeah. Yeah. That's that's another weird [148:10] one. It's like at the high end he thinks [148:12] it might be 20 plus thousand years old. [148:14] It's like okay what? [148:16] >> Yeah. Yeah. Because he compared the [148:18] erosion because there was an earthquake [148:19] like 500 years ago that kind of shook [148:20] all these casing stones off [148:22] >> and he compared the erosion [148:24] uh with the blocks that had always been [148:26] exposed with the ones that had recently [148:27] become exposed. And yeah, he got this [148:29] data. I mean [148:30] >> I'd like to see that method like tried [148:32] and tested on sites we know the age of [148:34] and you know proven that way before I [148:36] take that too seriously. But, you know, [148:37] it's interesting and [148:39] >> it's all interesting. [148:41] >> Listen, your show's super interesting. [148:43] I'm so glad you're around. I'm so glad [148:45] that someone like you that's willing to [148:46] do that kind of work because obviously [148:48] Jamie and I are not going to do it. [148:51] >> Not this week, [148:52] >> but we're super happy to have you in [148:54] anytime you've got some new stuff you [148:56] want to talk about. And I'm really [148:58] excited that your channel just keeps [148:59] growing because it's really good, man. [149:01] It could you could really tell you put [149:02] in so much work and so much effort and [149:04] research and it's just excellent. It's [149:06] super entertaining and it's right up my [149:08] alley. So, [149:09] >> I appreciate it, Joe. [149:10] >> Thanks for being the [ __ ] man. [149:12] >> Thank you, man. Well, straight back at [149:13] you and I really appreciate like all the [149:15] support you've shown me. Like, it [149:16] doesn't go unnoticed, man. Like, it it [149:18] it really means a lot. And uh yeah, if I [149:21] could just do a little self plug real [149:22] quick, like I've got my channel, Michael [149:24] Button. Search it up, everyone, and [149:27] check me out. But I've also I just [149:28] started a second channel uh called [149:30] Patterns of History because I'm really [149:32] interested in once we move into recorded [149:34] history. It's really interesting to see [149:36] how when the silence lifts and we have [149:38] these ruins we can cross-check and these [149:41] dates we can kind of match to different [149:43] civilizations. It's so interesting how [149:45] civilizations seem to follow the same [149:47] patterns all over the world of rise, [149:49] collapse, fall and things like that. And [149:52] it applies today. I think we see the [149:54] same patterns happening and [149:56] civilizations always think that they're [149:58] more advanced and there we go. Thanks. [150:01] and better than the ones before. But [150:03] >> I mean, it's another [ __ ] I could go [150:05] on for another 3 hours on that, but it's [150:07] so it's so interesting how we see the [150:09] same recurring patterns happen [150:11] throughout civilizations across recorded [150:13] history as well. So, that's like another [150:14] little project that I'm I'm working on, [150:16] but I'm still uh I'm still going to go [150:18] as hard as I possibly can on the kind of [150:20] archaeological lost history side. [150:22] >> Well, it's beautiful that you have so [150:23] much time to do two different channels, [150:26] too. It's awesome. [150:26] >> Yeah. Well, I'm trying my best. [150:28] >> Well, you're kicking ass, dude. [150:29] Congratulations. It's awesome. Always [150:31] great to have you. Thank you for being [150:32] here. Uh, one more time, people want to [150:35] see your channel. They want to find you. [150:36] What's the best place? I know you're on [150:38] Spotify now as well, right? So, just [150:40] audio. [150:40] >> Yeah. Well, it's the videos as well. [150:42] Yeah. I just put them up there so people [150:43] can if people some people prefer to [150:45] listen. They let me know that. So, I put [150:46] it out there. Um, [150:47] >> so yeah, I've got both my channels. I'm [150:49] also about to make some music. People [150:50] should check out my music. Really? Yeah. [150:52] I'm in a band. This is my band. [150:53] >> Oh, that's the alien head. [150:54] >> That's why I keep wearing the alien [150:55] head. Yeah. [150:56] >> Oh, what's the name of your band? [150:58] >> We're called Headache. Uh, if people You [151:00] get it? It's like the the headache. [151:02] Yeah. Um, so people want to check that [151:04] out as well. [151:04] >> What kind of music? [151:05] >> Punk rock. [151:06] >> Oh, you're a [ __ ] punk rocker. [151:07] >> Yeah, punk rocker, bro. We used I used [151:09] to do that all the time and then co kind [151:10] of [ __ ] us up and we couldn't perform [151:12] live and our drummer moved to Australia. [151:14] Um, but we're going to try to make some [151:16] music again in the near future. So, [151:18] >> that's awesome. [151:18] >> This is headache.com if people want to [151:20] check that out. Um, but yeah, [151:22] >> check it out. All right, Michael. Thank [151:24] you. [151:24] >> Appreciate it, Joe. Look at that. [151:26] >> There you go. [151:27] >> Moody looking [ __ ] [151:28] >> The boys. Yeah, the blue guy in the [151:29] back. Get your hair out of your eye, [151:31] bro. Can't see you like that. All right, [151:34] bye everybody.