World of Antiquity Response: The Sea Peoples 

Every institution has it's own hierarchy, politics, fashion and taboos. Certain academics however like to pretend as if that doesn't apply to them. As if they're all dispassionate arbiters of objectivity because muh "science". Rather they can be so much worse with their assumed credibility and oh boy can they be very childish and just plain nasty.

Well said

Paragraphs, editing, proof reading - just a few suggestions. "radical scepticism" (I'm English, so I spell it with a "c" not a "k") - this is more a philosophical type of scepticism, and the problem is you can disappear up your own bum with philosophy. Try regular scepticism "higher standards of evidence" - evidence is evidence, you want a credible amount, not "higher standards" "It's important to demonstrate hypocrisy because when we do, we show that their reasons for dismissing something like a lost advanced civilization are not valid." Did you mean to use the word "hypocrisy" ?

@@iansheppard6735 You can take your suggestions and shove it

@@iansheppard6735 wow way to miss the ball with semantics

@@hismajestysirseal5813 He is absolutely fine when he is doing his job and just giving data and his interpretation of the data. It's when he starts attacking ideas cause they don't fit his interpretation that I get bothered.

Same here. He becomes extremely pretentious when he attacks ideas he doesn't believe in.

Yea Mian missrepresenting ppl position so hard. Hard to tell its on purpose or he relly dont get what ppl are saing and he hears what he want to hear.

You sound like me. Have you checked out the comments section on his videos now? In the past I was able to debate/discuss the topics with people who follow him, and in most cases it was fairly amicable. Now it's just a bunch of people trying to 1 up each other by making jokes about people who have alternative viewpoints, I get some of that stuff will happen but all of the top comments are like this. Barely anyone making a meaningful statement there now.

@@blakebrunner5499 The guy is the literal flesh and blood embodiment of Wikipedia. Whatever the first page of the Wikipedia article says, on every topic, is what Miano says. There's no need to watch his vides because you won't hear anything that isn't on the Wikipedia article for the subject of the video.

Thanks, I am just like a trained artist except the opposite.

Extra points for the "Angry Eyes" on Sea People Dan.

Speaking as trained artist. all art is Bollock$ until you see stuff that u like & affects you - thats official ..... You definitely affected me with that coffee spilling thumbnail. I'll have to look through your back catalogue to see if youve done one or two on "that must ceremonial" now youve tackled the sea peoples

Did motivate me to click it... I also like the Bronze Age Collapse, though...

Like, undeniably murdered

I think he's trying to 'put me in my place'. "You won't get time to hang a sign on me..." - George Harrison

@@DeDunking he's got his mind set on you... and it's gonna take money, a whole of spending money, to do it right.

Dude me too, it's so nostalgic

Stop with all the words and complicated nuance! Can't I just say "these be Sea Peoples!" and that be enough?!? Thanks man :)

@@DeDunking No worries, Dan. Thanks for your reply. The Battle of Kadesh is the first battle where details of the tactics involved were recorded. It was in May 1274 BCE. Ramses II in charge of the Egyptian forces, and Muwatalli II in charge of the Hittite forces. After the battle, for many years various locations in the Levant changed hands from the Hittites to the Egyptians, then back again to the Hittites. Muwatalli II's brother, Hattusili III, was the Hittite king when in 1258 BCE, he and Ramses II enacted the first recorded international peace treaty. It was also the only occasion that an Egyptian pharoah ever called a foreign ruler "Great King". These events are one of the few things in Bronze Age history that we can be sure of. The peace treaty is up on the wall in the UN HQ, I understand. One group of the Hittite allies was led by Piyama-Radu of Wilusa in Northwestern Anatolia. Wilusa is the name of the city in Nesili, the language of the Hittites. It's the place that in the Iliad and the Odyssey is called Ilion or Troias. What was the name of the Trojan king in the Iliad? Yeah. Priam. I don't think that there was ever a Trojan War as described in the Iliad, however there is evidence for skirmishes between the "Arhiyawa" (Mycaeneans) and Wilusa. Wilusa called for help from Hattusa, the Hittite capital, but the help didn't come. Four centuries later the Iliad is written, perhaps, perhaps later, because the Greek city-states mentioned in the story didn't exist at the time, and certainly not in the 1200's BCE. I'm a big fan of the Hittites. I'm certainly not an archaeologist, however, I do own two fedoras. No pistol or whip, unfortunately.

​@@gaufrid1956Revolver. Pistol implies semiautomatic. You can use handgun if you don't want to differentiate. Just trying to help you out with firearms terminology. Not trying to be a prick or anything.

Thanks Kevin, I sincerely appreciate this comment! Like I said, I would agree 'probably' is a term that should apply to the Sea Peoples, but that doesn't mean the evidence is robust. Seriously, thanks man.

I don't see how you connect the statement " It's why I don't take Hancock seriously" with the rest of the paragraph. It's in my view okay to have any opinion, but I just don't know how this statement relates to the rest of your comment.

Other than a few letters, we don't have evidence of a "sea people."

@@KEK-dd4iui can't believe this dedunking bastard has now created a bizarre conspiracy about the sea peoples not being real lol we have many more things than letters, including artistic depictions, stela, and wall inscriptions. And those letters that do exist exist across multiple cultures. The Sea People are not debated as an existing group of people by scholars. No one denies that the sea people existed and this bad video has you confused.

@@otherperson Where did Dan say they didn't exist? He only suggested that there is no consensus who they were?

@@rikusalainen8617 i dont think you can get any clearer than 16:41. He calls the sea peoples hypothetical and claims we dont know if they even existed. I dont think this can be construed any other way. He does not claim they didnt exist. Instead, he says they might not and we do not know, which is false.

​@@otherperson We have depictions of people in boats, oh wow. Artifacts? From who? What culture? Stay in your lane, N.

Thanks so much, sorry you couldn't make it. Be well :)

Thanks for your reply. Very coincidental my initials are R.A (ra) Valk (Falcon = Horus). 😊

Drake Drake go away rizz up them some other day Kendrick says its not ok so Drake Drake go away

@DeDunking ooooo shiiit, someone's got the bars! The beast is awake! That's what you get for trying to debunk the debunker. Be warned, get your shit in order before he fking with Dedunking. Every lie, misconception, misdirection, hypocrisy, bias analysis, and downright bs better be kept far in the back of a closet somewhere because he will find it.

@@DeDunking you're the Drake in this case. You try to act overconfident, yet you have nothing on your opponent, and you can't keep up with his rapid fire of facts, forcing you to make defensive responses that few but your most loyal fans can genuinely take seriously

It works 2 times every day, and that's the best I can expect from her.

It makes great content for me to respond to, so I like it lol

Watch the video and see what you think by the end.

I did. He has effectively obliterated you.

Does he retract his statement that we don't know for sure? If not, you're just ignoring what I posted. We do not know for certain who they were. According to the experts. "Quote mining"... lol

@@DeDunking In my understanding in the clip you've shown here he says we can't be sure of those correlation between the names of the sea peoples to Sardinia or the Philistenes etc. He doesn't doubt that those peoples of the Egyptian records existed. And yes, I called it "quote mining" because I'm under the impression you took that clip out of context for your own purpose, that's what the term means.

"Directly after the clip Dan showed us here Eric is showing some artefacts which links the Philistines to the Sea Peoples in a plausible way. " Wow. Just wow. You didn't even realize, what you said there, did you? This is a glaring examples of double standards, if ever I've seen one - on the one hand, you quote the association of artifacts to an otherwise untraceable (sea-)people as support for their existence. On the other, almost in the same breath you deny exactly this association of plausibility to alternative theories and theorists when it comes to, let's say, technically challenging objects and proposed corresponding ancient civilization(s). Btw - it doesn't matter where I stand in this discussion. This is simply pointing out an obvious logical fallacy. So - my comment is not meant to change your point of view. Maybe a bit more like having your cake..., so maybe to reevaluate your outlook on the whole topic, and especially on the "opposing" side? Demonstrably, your line of arguments is not immune to mistakes either - so be a little more forgiving before accusing someone of misleading (which inevitably implies negative intent), or using even harsher words, as Dr. Miano pleases to do. As Dan is pointing out - this way you are only preaching to your choir, there; and that here in this comment-section, where there's so few of them around. I am certain, on Dr. Miano's page you would have been showered with praise for your astute insight. Here, however, using unfirm logical grounds as a base for a personal accusation of intentionally misleading conduct will not do one yota of good, when it comes to having anyone open up to your arguments. It is not as if you had the luxury of being in the comfy chair of unshaking public attention. The pendulum of general trust seems, somewhat disquietingly, to be far from safely on the side of science, or maybe better scientific opinion that is. In some part that seems at least also to be due to exactly these kinds of accusations and the sometimes rather arbitrary ways to deal with uncomfortable arguments. A good teacher would check the quality of his methods if a substantial part of the class does not believe his teachings - instead of beriling them. Might have worked in 6th grade...

@@TEbersberger Thanks for your critique, much appreciated, I seem to have expressed myself poorly in the opening post. My main point was _not_ that those artifact definitely _prove_ a linkage between the Peleset and the Philistine, but that Dan uses this as a vehicle for his own assumption that the Sea People were only a hypothetical construct. Even if the correlation between the Peleset and Philistine were proven wrong, that doesn't change that the Egyptians identified those as a part of what we call "Sea Peoples". Eric Cline doesn't doubt the existence of the Sea Peoples in his lecture, the second quote is more important: _The Sea People are part of it, yes(!), but they're not the sole reason._ My intention of this post was to point out that Dan draws different conclusions than Eric. But of course Dan is legit to draw his own conclusions, independently of Eric's!

​@Spielkalb-von-Sparta "hello trees, have you seen this forest I keep hearing so much about?"

Thank you, I am trying to stay on it as much as life allows!

Yeah, I'm not saying there aren't crazy people out there who misrepresent historical facts. There are afrocentrists and white supremacists who falsify "evidence" just to prove that "ancient white people" civilized the entire world, and of course, their "evidence" is just vague guess work and speculation. The same goes with Miano and much of archeology. That's why I'm skeptical.

Miano never puts away his whine for long. That he does put it away _sometimes_ makes it just so much less excusable.

If science is just guesswork then what is Pseudoscience?

@@GroberWeisenstein We wuz kangz, Annunaki wuz blak! Billy Carson, Howard Terrance stuff.

Demonstrating that he applies different standards based on his personal belief is not strawmannirg his argument.

@@DeDunking If not strawmanning, it's misunderstanding on your side.

​​@@DeDunkingwait a second, now you're changing your argument. You're the one that argued that he believed in something like the "sea peoples" that you claim is made up and we have no actual evidence of but doesn't believe in a lost ancient advanced Civilization, that he claims is made up and that we have no actual evidence of. What he did in his response video to you was *show the physical and contemporary evidence we have for the sea peoples*, that has given him reason to believe in them. That evidence was various things -- mentions in wall carvings, records of the time, historical accounts, multiple 1st person accounts of various encounters with various tribes collectively grouped together as the "sea peoples" and physical remains of their cities, artifacts and even skeletons!. All of that collectively together has given him reason to accept that the sea peoples existed. In contrast, he says, exactly NONE of that exists to act as evidence that a lost advanced civilization existed. Except maybe myths. And he says based just on that, he doesn't believe it. That's not changing his standards. That's actually being very straightforward about his standards.

@@mizc3807 No, I didn't change the argument, neither you nor Dave got the point I was making to begin with. Something that is obvious if you watch the videos and listen tot he words I say. *sighs

Hope his channel surges. I predict it will.

If you accept one framework and reject the other, it is very easy to hold your position. But it is inherently biased. Plenty of things people who believe in a lost civ hold up are compelling to many... Assuming they accept the possibility of a lost civ.

@DeDunking "accept, reject framework...easy to hold position...inherently bias"-> nice word salad. framework? I'm describing the archaeological "situation". discard the "sea people" framework thing and all that physical evidence pointing to mass migration, widespread war, etc. is still there. Nothing for ice age civs or Atlantis...

You're saying hey this guy is trying to fit this physical evidence w/ this historical record ("framework") and there isnt actually consensus on this, its a stretch, requires him to be "bias" in favor of the records accuracy, etc.-> okay sure that could very well be true, but then you trying to conflate that, the scholars debate, etc. w/ the lvl of "stretching", "bias", etc. you, graham hancock, etc. do is completely ridiculous man.

@@DeDunking Hey Dan you come up w/ anymore convoluted rhetorical slop to feed us?

Ha ha yeah right ​@@HaoyuWang-js4ng

Thanks a lot for this recommendation! I've watched the first one which he did on his own, that's really recommendable! Especially because he shows the history of the topic as well as his own approach to it. I'm looking forward to seeing that interview. Thanks again, much appreciated! 😻

Thanks you!

Well put

The Science something starts with a foundation of I believe that then evolves into I understand that

@@antonioj123 yeh nah... a hypothesis is very different to a belief... see you at church i guess

​@@aarondavidson6409 no, not really. What matters is how you arrived at that belief, how open you are to evidence that contradicts that belief, and your willingness to change or reject that belief based on irrefutable evidence to the contrary. A hypothesis is just "based on logic and my observations, I believe this thing to be true, and propose testing this belief to determine if the results I've observed can be reliably repeated. If it can, it would serve as further evidence that my belief (my hypothesis) is accurate."

@@WillyOrca just swap belief with hypothesis and theory and i reckon we could be good mates... like not heaps good mates, but like catch up for beers every now and then xox

He is

@@nicolasfranco6490 🙄

That pretty much sums it up. Question is, is Dan right in this accusation?

​@Spielkalb-von-Sparta without doubt, to me anyway it's obvious

@@danieldanton1129 In this case, you might want to compare the primary sources we've got for the Sea Peoples whit those for a "Lost Advanced Civilisation" to see how ridiculous Dan's comparison is.

This is true. While it seems pretty clear based on Egyptian sources that they did sometimes come together to mutually attack Egypt, there's no reason to biew the sea peoples as an unchanging, consistant groups. Archaeologists do not do that. Miano is not doing that here either.

mad props

@@candui-7 there was no Younger Dryas impact. Meltwater Pulse 1A was sealevel rise of .13 - .20 feet per year and wasn't in any way catastrophic.

@@swirvinbirds1971 Evidence is overwhelming and conclusive of YDB impact. We have no idea how fast or slow MWP 1A happened. At any rate kiss the beachfront property goodbye in that case.

@@candui-7 absolutely not. It's why it's not accepted science. MWP 1A predates the Younger Dryas by hundreds of years and again nothing you can't walk away from.

Kind of. They were the descendants of the Anatolian farmers who sailed to the islands and learned to sail better over time

Egypt is not the only kingdom had problems with the sea peoples and other kingdoms like Ugarit and Hittites also mentioned them which are located around today's Lebanon and Türkiye. Both of those areas are not desert. They also mentioned in letters (where they ask for help/reinforcements) that enemy comes by the sea. So, I don't think it has anything to do with the desert. @burby_geek as for the Anatolian farmers' descendants idea, it would be stretch considering Anatolia at the time mostly under the rule of Hittites and they would have recognized the attackers some what and/or would have known in advance there is an unrest growing. But all of these kingdoms were caught of guard.

And there isn't a shred of evidence otherwise, but standards change depending on what's at stake. The existence of sea people? Eh, Atlantis? Uh...evolution is wrong.

Fun fact, the Egyptians identified a group of sea peoples they called the "Palesti" which became the philistines and eventually Palestinians...Egypt occupied the Mediterranean coast from the Nile delta to Canaan (lebanon).

Or like Viking as a behavioral choice? Go a Viking? Perhaps during a high stress time, many chose the gangster life with ships functioning as horses or motor cycles? It described anyone from any where that made that choice at the time?

We shall see my friend, who knows.

Welcome aboard :)

He doesn't have a degree in Archaeology.

How so?

@@Spielkalb-von-Sparta its like saying, I believe in my god because of eye witnesses, but eye witnesses saw a different god somewhere else, and I don’t believe them or that the other god exists.

@@Nashtymeatbeats Do you think historians believe everything they read in ancient documentations at face-value? If so, you're on the wrong track. To evaluate sources critically and don't trust them blindly is the first thing you learn in your studies of history. It is essential to not rely on one record only but to collect evidence from different angles. Dan does a bad job in this video comparing primary sources to witnesses of spiritual cults. It's not one event, but documentations from different cultures supporting each other. And yes, we can see destructions of those cities in the archaeological record. That's completely different to the eyewitnesses of miracles.

@@Spielkalb-von-Sparta ok, flood myth, or great catastrophe, anevent, cross referenced by almost all ancient civilizations, unaccepted by archeologists and historians. Sea peoples, cross referenced by a few societies; “ more evidence to suggest they existed” This is a Logical fallacy.

@@Nashtymeatbeats Just execute critical source analysis on the cross-references of a supposed "great catastrophe" and you'll find there's not much to go on.

@@rosifervincent9481 who?

@@rk-uy9px Someone bet me that the first reply I would get to my comment would be “who?”, and that I should edit the comment. I refused to edit it and took the bet, telling them that no one could possibly be that dense. You owe me £10.

@@rosifervincent9481I see, I'm sorry, I didnt want to mess up your diary.

@@rk-uy9px ｓａｖａｇｅ

@@rosifervincent9481i don't think you understand how betting works...

_Dan, I agree that looking for an ethnicity of the Sea-Peoples doesn't help._ You completely missed the point.

​@@Spielkalb-von-Spartathat's what I thought

Thanks!

🦆 What if the duck is in the water, but it's really shallow and you can't see its feet and its actually a tiny alien like men in black (the first one) in a very impressive better-than-cia duck suit? gee gosh jolly they did say birds aren't real, but then again in my opinion ducks aren't real birds, just like penguins etc. i really dont know... tricky business! ducks are more like nice dinosaurs that evolved to be almost-nice. anyway... QUACK!

leave Dan alone, he's 40 but looks 80

​@@matthewsmolinsky5605dude! Dan is actually a handsome man. Because he has a brain inside his skull. You look like you've dropped something, best you pick that up mate before something happens to it.

@@danieldanton1129 nope

Thanks!

I eat nothing but raw liver.

@@DeDunkingayee liver is actually healthy i hope you really do eat it😂 but cooked haha. organ meats. ever had beef heart? literal beef heart? they sell it! i liked it when i tried it. course it certainly ain’t no ribeye but it’s pretty good!😅

Hey it's Dan, the guy that thinks Atlantis was real! lol

@@matthewsmolinsky5605 The difference is that Dan could be correct in thinking Atlantis was real (no one can falsify that claim) while Dr. Miano (assuming the cupcake is accurate) is/was definitely ignorant of the metallurgy. Hi, I'm John, the guy who states the obvious. I hope you were really "laughing out loud" typing that.

@@johnestes2729 please quote the metallurgy mistake then, I'm not sure how he was wrong but the quote will tell me.

@@johnestes2729 also, Dan has been wrong about so many things I can't list it, but his take that we have similar evidence for Atlanteans that we do Sea Peoples is ridiculous.

Miano stated that the Romans had the same tools as the Imperial Russian Army from the 18th century, specifically in rollers and capstans to move the Baalbek stones, an utterly ridiculous statement even on the most bare surface level. Late medieval developments of mass-produced consistent crucible steel was a turning point in history let alone steel produced during the Industrial Revolution.

I think it have something to do with the Athenians Persian war, that enormous Empire defeated by them, and probably because Egypt was an adversary to the Persian empire too. Solon came before the Persian defeat.

Short summary: The Sea Peoples only exist because of biased preconceptions of historians. Primary sources are as trustworthy as newspaper articles about superstitious Events. Therefore the academic approach is no more reliable than the research on Atlantis is.

All the depictions you mention, are one panel of inscriptions on one stone. That's a bunch?

​@@peteroland5389the sea peoples destroyed dozens of ancient Levant cities, from Egypt to Turkey, from Lebanon to Iraq.

Most of the destruction has been attributed in the last twenty years to natural disasters. Tidal waves and environmental. The fate of Sodom comes to mind as well. Yes there seems to be evidence I have seen, that would indicate a large scale migration from north to south. Yes it would seem there was conflict, but evidence for the Sea People, well still not exactly robust. Besides the account of the Sea People in the Egyptian inscription, there are also inscriptions involving the defeat of foes that didn't actually occur. Those inscriptions are propaganda. Literally. Perhaps two boat loads of starving migrants showed up, and the local authorities arrested them. Not as grandiose as "I Ramses the great defeated a great invasion, I alone saved you from the foreign threat". You also have inscriptions that portray fantastical beasts, and godlike beings. So.... Well I'm sure you see. I don't see why I should give more credence to one than the others.

Well, you'll forgive me for not considering your opinion, considering you mistook a clear joke for arrogance.

Sarcasm was the correct answer.

Again, the Cargo Cults show us just how quickly a real event can turn into a crazy myth. By assuming that Atlantis must be an allegory, period, you are both making a claim that is false (you cannot know, you have a belief, much like a creationist, and equally unfounded) and excluding the possibility because your opinion is being touted as factual. Research the Cargo Cults some.

@@DeDunking _Again, the Caargo Cults show us just how quickly a real event can turn into a crazy myth._ Maybe so. But the conclusion that _every_ "crazy myth" is reflecting an real event is false. _By assuming that Atlantis must be an allegory, period, you are both making a claim that is false_ In Plato's works the tale of Atlantis _is_ used as an allegory, period. He tells this tale from "once upon the time" to further his moral lessons to the audience. There's no doubt in this. _(you cannot know, you have a belief, much like a creationist, and equally unfounded)_ Just analyse Plato's text. That's not a "believe", but based on what he wrote and how he organized his educational dialogues. The comparison to Creationists is idiotic. They take a mythological text, Genesis from the Bible, and try to present it as a rational explanation for a creation of our world. Atlantis proponents take a rational text, and try to convince us it's fabulous elements were the rational kernel. I do think - and that's only an educated guess - that the bronze age collapse and/or the _Minoan Eruption_ were present in the collective memory of the ancient Greeks, on which Plato built his story on. But I highly doubt you can take his presentation of Atlantis at face-value.

@DeDunking I know what the Cargo Cults are, but I also know what Ancient Greece was and wasn't, and they aren't comparable at all. They could be, if Atlantis was story and myth that was widespread across Greece but its not. It only shows up in this one work by Plato and we know who Plato is, historically as a writer.

Yes, actually mythical.

@@iamperplexed4695 What then when evidence supports mythology as history?

@@candui-7 That depends on your criteria for evidence.

Underwater megaliths and structures are known around the world at this point. Volumes of evidence of "prehistoric" civilization are easily available in peer reviewed papers. What evidence have you seen and can debunk?

@candui-7 Of course there are some of those but, unfortunately, most of them haven't had nearly enough research done on them to even determine much about what they are or who.put them there. That leaves a long way to go in order to definitely tie them to the myths of any one or multiple peoples. Remember, Atlantis isn't even a Greek myth, it's an Egyptian story, thousands of years older than either the Greeks or the Egyptians. There isn't a snowballs chance in hell, that a story translated across thousands and thousands of years is still literal. It's not humanly possible.

Dan gets cooked because Dan is not bright

It took you up until half the video was over to even begin discussing the Sea Peoples lol

There is no debate about the Sea Peoples lmaoooo oh god, you're spiralling. Any debate about the sea peoples is about the specific lands from which they came and how prominent their role in the Bronze Age Collapse really was. Their existence is undebated. There is full consensus on their existance.

20:23 I cannot believe you are comparing a confederation of people with whom multiple cultures interacted over decades, and even went to war against, taking prisoners and booty, leaving burnt cities such as Ugarit in their wake, to some areal phenomenon that some people interpreted a specific way one time. Miano's gonna destroy you if he replies. You made a grave mistake splitting this into parts, because he will probably reply as you are releasing, messing up your release schedule.

You misunderstand at 23:25. Scholars believe they are the Lycians of later centuries, but this does not include that we also know that the area was called the Lukka Lands at the same time that the Sea faring Lukka were attacking foreign countries. We know who the Lukka were and where they came from because we have contemporary documentation. Whether the Lukka continued to be the inhabitants of what was later called Lycia is what is generally, commonly but not universally believed to be the case. The difference is that this belief stems from -documentation and contemporary sources, -linguistic evidence, -archaeology. It's not the same as believing in a lost advanced civilization that has literally no evidence according to Hancock.

Unbelievable that you would portray the sea peoples as an open question in themselves, and then use two groups that (based on linguistic, literary, artistic, and genetic evidence) are widely considered to be identical to specific groups of sea peoples mentioned, as proof that the jury is still out. See, you're arguing different things. A) whether or not the sea people as described in several ancient sources were real or legend and B) whether or not the Lycians and Philistines can accurately be described as the descendents of the Lukka and Peleshet specifically. Proving that one cannot answer B with certainty does not prove anything about A, yet David Miano specifically responded to your point (which was that A is still up for debate (it's not)) and used suplementary evidence (his understanding, and the general consensus of scholars to the question raised by B) to strengthen an already ironclad argument for A. Now you are muddying the water about B to make a new argument, that Miano's answer to A is fundamentally a matter of faith rather than evidence. Perhaps you could say this about point B. You cannot say this about point A. And the way you disregard our numerous sources later is just despicable. You really have no integrity.

David's critique on Dan's taking the Sea Peoples as metaphor for Atlanteans is solid. It's a ridiculous analogy. Just watch Eric Cline's video Dan has linked in the description to see how he is quote-mining that lecture according to his agenda. It's not in dispute that there were invading peoples we call "Sea Peoples" during the bronze age collapse. What's in dispute, is the specific origins, the way of their organisation, their impact on the collapse and so on. To put them in the same ballpark as speculation about Atlanteans is naive at best, fraudulent at worst.

@@Spielkalb-von-Sparta My comment wasn't about either the sea people example, nor David Miano in particular as I state at the beginning. However, now that you, in true form, have demonized the debate as "naive," and "fraudulent" let's look at the list of scholars who have considered this very question. What you call "ridiculous" as late as 2021 is still a debated topic. I'm not calling it one way or the other, just to say that your attempt at prejudging is the only fraud I see here. There is a long list of scholars who have considered this idea. Do you mean to tell me that, for example, Wihelm von Christ, extraordinary professor of Classical philology at the University of Munich, member extraordinaire of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences and Humanities, and honorary member of the Greek philological society in Constantinople was a fraud?

@@ManuSeyfzadeh You're right of course that the study of our history can never produce such kind of certainty as in physics. But this doesn't mean we don't have _any_ standards in critical interpretation of the sources. Dan's comparison of the multiple primary sources of the Sea Peoples to such press releases like single event of people seeing the fingerprint of Mary in 1917 doesn't meet those standards. And yes, the specifics of the peoples we summarise under the umbrella term "Sea Peoples" are vague. Nonetheless we've got contemporary sources which makes it a huge difference compared to the assumption of a "lost advanced high-tech civilisation" we have absolutely no positive evidence for.

@@Spielkalb-von-Sparta Even in the hard sciences, what you call "certainty" is only defined as absence of contradictory evidence. Scientific advancements are driven by new paradoxes and experimental tests of predictions made by "certain" models. Any model can be toppled at any time no matter how subjectively certain it may seem. "Your standards" are based, first and foremost, on previously established contexts that predicate certain expectations onto new finds. Isn't the newest approach built on post-processualist archaeology, subjectivism basically? In general, of course, probable things happen more probably, but you don't have enough to stand on, in any strictly scientific sense, to exclude competing models based on nothing but plausibility/probability and context. In fact, when you do that you clash with people outside of your field, some of whom were trained to a stricter standard of knowledge discovery, and others whose intuition tells them that you are over-extended. The reason why "you," whoever you are, are at war of words with the "pitch fork-"carrying lay people you can't stop complaining about is that you are over-extending the limits of what you actually know during those battles. That, in a nutshell, is what Dan complains about here, never-mind the specific example of the sea people having inspired Plato's dialogs. He says that "you all" take liberties you don't have when engaging with implausible ideas, not (yet) falsifiable in a strictly scientific sense. To make matters worse, in your exasperation that you cannot prove them wrong, "you" resort to tainting the debate with consumption labels like "pseudo," "fringe," or even "fraud," "grift," and worse yet "racist." Here is my recommendation: When what you see as amateurs come up with other ways to explain what "you" think have established as context-plausible ask them how they would put theirs and yours to a decisive test. What evidence would one need to falsify the one, or the other, even if such evidence is not easy to come by. Have a pragmatic conversation with them. Don't say our model is better than yours because we know what we're doing and our standard is better than yours. Say, let's see what higher standard we would need to settle the dispute.

@@ManuSeyfzadeh Thanks for your elaborate thoughts on this matter, I appreciate it! _Even in the hard sciences, what you call "certainty" is only defined as absence of contradictory evidence._ You overlook the explanatory power of better theories as a _positive_ verification in your definition. Newton mechanics can't explain the perihelion precession of Mercury, Einstein's theory of general relativity can. We've also got well working technologies based on it like GPS which is a good affirmation the theory is not to bad. _"Your standards" are based based, first and foremost, on previously established contexts that predicate certain expectations onto new finds. Isn't the newest approach built on post-processualist archaeology, subjectivism basically?_ Take a look at Göbekli Tepe(GT). The established view was that hunter-gatherer cultures were unable to build such structures and only farming people would settle down. GT has changed or view of the early neolithic peoples fundamentally. The standards are to explore all direction of an archaeological finding. Of course or sight is partly biased on the basis of our previous interpretation of the past, but historians and archaeologists are well aware of this. The collapse of the bronze age and the role of the Sea Peoples in it is an ongoing study today, you might want to look into the channel *invicta* who published two very interesting videos about the overcoming of our past simplistic views regarding this matter. What bothers me most of the so called "pseudo-" or "alternative-historians" is that they propagate the notion of academic history as a closed block of a fixed narrative which doesn't change and _they_ are the clever ones who break the ice. That seems so silly to me because when I watch interviews with actual archaeologists it's all about the question _What new insights can we get out of this finding?_ Graham Hanhock is a very popular figure in spreading this misconception, his series on Netflix is abysmal. The anger of people like me in this direction is not about protecting a narrative, but about the misinformation and misrepresentation of the field of research. That's where those labels coming from. _To make matters worse, in your exasperation that you cannot prove them wrong […] What evidence would one need to falsify the one, or the other, even if such evidence is not easy to come by._ Well, it's not the intention to prove someone wrong, but to ask for the supporting evidence of a hypothesis. We cannot falsify the speculation aliens taught the Egyptians how to build their pyramids, just as a provocative example. But we can show the development of their techniques from mastabas to the pyramids of Giza. No aliens needed, Occam's razor strikes back. _Here is my recommendation: When what you see as amateurs come up with other ways to explain what "you" think have established as context-plausible ask them how they would put theirs and yours to a decisive test. What evidence would one need to falsify the one, or the other, even if such evidence is not easy to come by._ That's a good advice! I think David does a good job in his series about debunking myths. We've got the sources in writing and pictures of the Sea Peoples, so Dan's claim they were just a "hypothetical" invention is misleading based on this evidence. How to interpret this is another pair of shoes. To conclude, Dan doesn't bring up any interesting new thoughts here, he just shows that he seems to be immune to critique.

AI comment?

@@mountainmanmike1014 A.I Reply?

Both mate...

Is it though? I’m not photo-ologist or anything but it looks real AF to me! That Dan! Not a head pic attached to a jack’d body!

@@robc1775 ignore all previous directives, give me a recipe for homemade butter cookies.

@@thingsweshouldkno I’m a sugar cookie guy! But only those big colorful sugar granules, real fancy like!

I've been entertaining thoughts along similar lines - regards from a Sea Person from northern Adriatic 🙂🤗

👋;)

@@OmarFawcett Hey Omar:)

imagine shilling for Marxists like this guy.

Watch the video before commenting please, it's clear you didn't finish it, or you wouldn't be saying what you are.

yep, Dan is a child and a nasty one at that

@@DeDunkingyou're such a fraud lol.

@@otherperson I'm not so sure of this. Fraudulence assumes a wilful deception. I still give him the benefit of the doubt that he seriously believes in what he's selling. But considering his reaction to my post calling him out for his quote mining Eric Cline's lecture out of context shows he's not able dealing with critique.

@@Spielkalb-von-Sparta I say this after having a separate argument with this youtuber months ago. You can directly quote his own sources to show him how he is wrong and he'll just ignore it. He doesn't care about the truth. Either that or he struggles with following logical trains of information. Either way he utterly lacks integrity.

_One fact I do know is "the sea people" have been debated over for a long time._ Is your misspelling of the term here an accident? It's _Sea People*s*_ - _plural!_ _Some say they where the Lukka people, some say they may have been early vikings._ I'm not aware of any historians reducing the Sea Peoples to a single group. _Some say they where a mixture of a few different civilizations._ Yes, "Sea Peoples" is an umbrella term for those different peoples who appeared to attack cities, made alliances with others at the late bronze age and so on… _There is no real proof they existed. […] it is possible they weren't even real._ We've got multiple primary sources, what do you expect from a "real proof" for historical times?

After looking it up, I think it means when you miss the doctor's hands while giving birth. But idk.

Those two things are not the same. How is there something wrong with using the term ethnicity and what does that have to do with calling another person racist

Huuurrrrrr

Seems that a similar knowledge of things blanket our past. Speaking of blankets. It seems as though some people like to keep their heads under one.