World of Antiquity is a channel dedicated to education about ancient civilizations, cultures, and peoples.
CHANNEL HISTORY 1 Jul 2019: first video uploaded. 28 Aug 2019: 100 subscribers reached. 2 Nov 2019: "The Lost City of Atlantis" becomes 1st video to reach 1,000 views. 14 Mar 2020: 1,000 subscribers reached. 14 May 2020: 4,000 public watch hours reached. 18 May 2020: Channel accepted into RU-vid Partner Program. 21 Sep 2020: "Mystery of the Sumerian Handbags Solved" becomes 1st video to reach 10,000 views. 10 Nov 2020: 100,000 views reached. 26 May 2021: 10,000 subscribers reached. 8 Nov 2021: 100th video published. 18 Nov 2021: "Ancient Advanced Machining" becomes 1st video to reach 100,000 views. 13 Dec 2021: 1,000,000 views reached. 1 Nov 2022: 100,000 subscribers reached. 2 Nov 2022: "Could Primitive Tools Have Made Ancient Monuments?" (short) becomes 1st video to reach 1,000,000 views.
He didn’t mention aliens because the aliens and them were friends and it was so normal to Be friends with aliens that it was unremarkable. Hope this helps!
Well, Pliny was aware of levitation technology, created by the harmonic interference of their throat singing (similar to Tibetan) and he simply took it for granted. There was nothing new or unique about it because it was widely accepted and not even worth mentioning. See, it’s important to include context.
As someone who's involved in Archaeology, i was out of the loop for 15 years , Carbon dating and gps etc were relativley new. When i returned to the subject it was amazing how much things had changed. i had to get revising and up to date pretty quick.
As a trans woman myself, thank you. I love history and while I do have an internal bias. Acknowledging that being trans and gay Is biologically based can lead to some great speculation on previous topics only considered from a neurotypical view. It’s just finally great to see someone acknowledge with certainty that me existing is not a political belief. It’s something that is utterly heart wrenching when your very life is considered to be in service of some greater political entity. So I just wanna say thank you for dispelling that belief in your video.
@@unrated156 the sailing isn’t the puzzling part. The physics isn’t linear. 2 ton is less than half as difficult as 4 ton, which is less than half as difficult to move as 8 ton, and so on. Once you get to the 800 ton blocks, it gets very hard to explain how they did it, since modern attempts with simple tools has failed miserably. I’m not claiming aliens. I’m claiming it’s a puzzle that we forgot how to solve. Add the machining of inside corners in stone that’s an 8 or 9 on the Mohs scale of material hardness, and it becomes clear that before the dynastic Egyptians there was a technologically savvy culture that created objects that were inherited by the later Egyptian civilization. There are depictions of construction methods by that civilization that are incapable of producing many of the object we find. Having an engineering degree helps in understanding the vast difference between handmade items and machined items older than 3000 BCE.
I think you're forgetting the time factor with the build. Its too quick for the amount of people they used for labour. Youd have to have the whole channel packed with boats. Sounds like a logistical nightmare
No it’s not- because most of the blocks came from the quarries on the Giza plateau. Besides the inner blocks are not as big, well carved and polished as the last layer.
Most aren't even aware of the Nile river and transporting things with ships/barges. They think they dragged them 500miles across the desert. See comments like that all the time.
Yup. Long ago i guessed that. What is so difficult to believe or figure out? Im not a physicist or a magician..but im also not a believer of ancient high tech..I believe they were an absolutely amazing civilization and they had the impetus and will...they succeeded in most things they set out to do...will amazing results ❤❤❤❤❤❤
Complete Nonsense! According to Vayu Purana 2.2.10 Prithu (an incarnation of Vishnu) invented the castes through the invention of agriculture. This is confirmed by Bhagavad Gita 4, 3 according to which Krishna invented the castes. That means, the first caste were the Vaishyas and the caste was connected with the birth because of the land property. This explains also why the Brahmins according to Rigveda 10.90.13 were invented later (after the defeat of the Daityas by the Devas) and why the second caste is called Rajanja (rulers) in Rigveda 10.90.12 which means that the kshatryas (warriors) was no existing caste at this time.
Hahaha I love when nameless nobody's try to become not nameless by attacking other people's theories.....how about you come up with your own hypnosis instead of just petteling the same shit your heard some 80 year old teach you on collage 10 years ago 😂
The Romans stole about a dozen obelisks from Egypt, transported them to Rome and then re-erected them there (some weighing up to 400 tons). This was long after any so-called "pre-flood" technologies were allegedly lost. Ancient peoples moved a lot of stone, they moved it for thousands of years, they knew what they were doing.
Please don't call alt-history people skeptics, they are not skeptics, they are deniers. Skeptics want evidence or at least logic, deniers don't care about evidence, facts, truth, logic, reason, reality, etc.
Man, that closing statement. The sheer brillance of comparing Graham's work with postmodern deconstructivism. To associate a guy who's admired by Joe Rogan as a postmodernis. Irony at its best.
I'm so glad I found your video here. On a (unrelated video) someone confronted me, by stating my Christian views, are based of The Egyptian views of a god called Horus. So the first video , I watched, was about who Horus is,...the second video, was your video here,... But your video here...explains so much, how someone is twisting origin stories and saying that Christian views, have their origin mixed in with Egyptian Gods. However you seem to debunk this assertion. But the other video (you mentioned) seems to explain why others are saying, Christian views, are based on Horus, ect. Clearly, twisted by the (other person) you mentioned. Thanks
😳Hancock says: "I strongly resist that archeology is a science. [...] "It's an attempt to interpret the past based on rather flimsy and limited evidence." Later on: "Then I start drinking Ayahuasca in 2003, and I encounter SEEMLESSLY CONVINCING parallel realms inhabited by intelligent beings..." So, he doesn't trust archeologists, but when he's high on psychedelics, then he finds something "seamlessly convincing?" 🤷♀️ Really?
Professor Miano is like my aunt (a school principal) I admired so much. She never lost her cool while suffering fools on all sides. I would shake my head in awe at her restraint and her calm apprehension of the depths of human stupidity.
Do you know what the first Christian empire was doing before 1755? On the entirety of the Globe? They were hunting slaves like crazy, tons of them, not only in Africa, but in the whole world, there's a figure down here called the Bandeirantes, these bandeirantes were slave hunters in South America, but among the tribes in africa, on that period of time, the tribes used to trade these small demon statues, and guess who were these demons, carrying a musket, a sword and a head shield? They were not buying them(victims), they were actually hunting them all, and what empire that is know in history, that did the same thing a long time before that, but on the same scale? Not only on the mediterranean sea, but on the whole GLOBE. And these are the christians that we're talking about.
His logic is that the greatest civilization in the world was flooded out by suprise. These people had world maps, ocean going vessels, and scientific knowledge nobody else had. So when the sea levels started to rise they just stayed and died. 😂😂😂
Nice! Well, I don’t think you fixed the part about pissing them off with the description of how they do what they do, but God bless you for being as fun as you are in what you did do. I would also say there are some red flags that can help here. Your skits actually highlighted one or two. Any time someone goes off about “The Establishment,” when they launch into their explanation is probably someone you don’t want to listen to. With anti-intellectualism reaching a fever pitch these days, I shudder to think how long it’s going to take us to course correct back to a rational approach to information. Maybe it’s time to see if Denmark will let me move back.
Wrong about the Sphinx The idea that the Sphinx was under water until around 5500 BC is not widely supported by mainstream archaeology or geology. However, the Giza Plateau, where the Sphinx is located, has experienced significant geological and climatic changes over millennia. Key Points on the Geological History of the Sphinx and Giza Plateau Location and Elevation: The Sphinx is situated on the Giza Plateau, which is about 20 meters (66 feet) above the current floodplain of the Nile. This elevation makes it unlikely that the Sphinx itself was submerged by the Nile's floodwaters during the Holocene. Climatic and Hydrological Changes: During the African Humid Period (approximately 14,000 to 5,000 years ago), North Africa, including the Nile Valley, experienced much wetter conditions. This period saw higher river levels and more extensive floodplains. Despite these wetter conditions, it is not widely accepted that the Nile’s floodwaters reached the elevation of the Giza Plateau to submerge the Sphinx. Most evidence suggests that the Nile floods were more extensive but still constrained within the lower floodplains. There is no substantial evidence in the form of sediment or watermarks that would indicate the Sphinx was submerged by Nile floodwaters up until 5500 BC. Sources and Further Reading Shaw, I. (2003). The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford University Press. Provides a comprehensive overview of Egyptian history, including the environmental conditions that shaped the development of ancient Egyptian civilization. Schoch, R. M. (1992). "Redating the Great Sphinx of Giza". KMT: A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt. Discusses the controversial theory of water erosion on the Sphinx, suggesting a much older date for its construction. Hassan, F. A. (1997). "Nile Floods and Political Disorder in Early Egypt". In Dalfes, H. N., Kukla, G., & Weiss, H. Third Millennium BC Climate Change and Old World Collapse. Springer. Explores the climatic conditions of ancient Egypt and their impact on civilization, including discussions on Nile flooding. Lehner, M. (1997). The Complete Pyramids. Thames & Hudson. Offers detailed archaeological insights into the construction and history of the pyramids and the Sphinx, supporting the traditional dating and context of these structures. In conclusion, while the Nile’s floods were extensive during certain periods, the specific claim that the Sphinx was under water until 5500 BC is not supported by mainstream archaeological or geological evidence. The Giza Plateau's elevation and the geological context suggest that it remained above the floodplain of the Nile.
*The idea that the Sphinx was under water until around 5500 BC is not widely supported by mainstream archaeology or geology.* I got it from "mainstream" geological papers. *The Sphinx is situated on the Giza Plateau, which is about 20 meters (66 feet) above the current floodplain of the Nile. This elevation makes it unlikely that the Sphinx itself was submerged by the Nile's floodwaters during the Holocene.* You're mixed up. The Sphinx is 20 meters (66 feet) tall, not 20 meters above the floodplain of the Nile. The Sphinx is sitting IN the Nile floodplain. *There is no substantial evidence in the form of sediment or watermarks that would indicate the Sphinx was submerged by Nile floodwaters up until 5500 BC.* Exactly. Which means there was no Sphinx.
@@WorldofAntiquity Historical records and geological studies suggest that the annual Nile floods (inundations) during ancient times were extensive, but typically the flood levels reached up to around 8-9 meters above the river's normal flow, not exceeding 15-20 meters above sea level. This suggests that even during the most extensive floods, the water levels would have been significantly lower than the elevation of the Sphinx's base. The area where the Sphinx is located appears to be marked with a color corresponding to approximately 70-80 meters above sea level. Sphinx Elevation: The Sphinx itself is indeed approximately 20 meters high, but it is situated at an elevation of about 75 meters above sea level based on the topographic map. Nile Floodplain: The floodplain of the Nile is typically much lower, closer to the river's level, which ranges from 20-30 meters above sea level in the region near Cairo. The map shows the lower areas adjacent to the Nile, depicted in blue and green shades, indicating elevations around 15-30 meters. The base of the Sphinx, as is the Giza plateau is and was the past 14000 years quite above water levels, I cannot find material that supports . Please, because you are so sure of your claim, that the Sphinx could only be carved out after 5500BC because only then it’s base remained emerged above the Nile waters, could you quote your source ? PS - I checked the sea level with www.mapcoordinates.net , and I also see that there the 25 m get confirmed which puts this part of the Giza plateau into the floodplains. - please, if you have sources that research the question if that part was often under water before 5500BC I would appreciate that. Because the sealevels of the Mediterranean Sea before 5500BC were also lower , the question is what supports that the Sphinx’s bedrock was submerged before.
An additional note: the filmmaker refers to Horus as "prodigal". He means to say PRODIGIOUS. Prodigal comes from a Latin word meaning "wasteful, lavish".
Hi. I think a lot of people would appreciate you doing a video of the origins of the conflict in the Middle East. I find it all so confusing, I’m sure I’m not the only one.
Your videos are by far the most precise and comprehensive analysis of the age and origin of Vedic civilization, I have come across on RU-vid. I used to be on the fence about the Aryan migration theory. I can see now that this is the most empirically precise theory about the origin of Vedic civilization so far (in the light of all the genetic evidence explained by you so clearly in another video). Although understanding of the linguistic evidence still eludes me, given that I have very limited knowledge of this field.
The example at 46.54 happened to me in reverse. My mother told me to offer some little girls playing nearby some of my sweets. She knows I'm gentle and harmless but she has a blindspot, other people just see a big hairy man offering sweets to little girls. I got her to share them instead.
Oh yeah, for example, in the Ukraine they've got their history being totally artificial and therefore crooked. They have built an anti-scientific belief that, e.g., "ancient Ukrs" have dug the Black Sea and that all of the modern day UA are the direct descendants of Tripolye Culture people. Sure enough, all of this if totally fake, but their regime doesn't care about truth, they care about radical Ukrainian nationalism and shout to each other "Ukraiina po-nad use" which means "Ukraine is above all (other countries)". But fake myths do not make them superior to others!
He's not being scientific he's a Salesman for that company they get $99 to give you a b******* assessment of your heritage and if you do it over and over you get a different result every time pay the real money and get your blood drawn and do your mother's mitochondria DNA
Regarding the example near the end about the ancient history of Queer People, I think my reaction would be slightly more meta: my assumption would be that someone has picked and chosen bits from history to prove an agenda that they have by using those things to justify a preconceived narrative. I don’t doubt that there’s plenty of references to what people now would call various sexualities. I think the trouble is that many of these topics are written about in a pop history genre that almost always comes with the writer’s bias and agenda and most people don’t realize when they’re reading these books that they’re not necessarily reading objective historical facts.
So he first says he won’t be expressing a political bias, that everyone on both sides of the aisle does it but then lists four ways this is done ... three of which were right wing.
I must make one small correction here: There is no effective "left" in American politics. The two sides are the extreme RW and the moderately conservative liberals. There are some few social democrats, but they are only moderately leftish. I love your channel, and I generally agree with you.
