/r/HistoryWhatIf is what you're looking for :)

Weren't humans smaller back then too so they needed less calories, let alone meat protein being far less consumed in general up until the 20th c?

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

It'd be very difficult to do a proper, well-researched documentary on the collapses at the end of the Late Bronze Age, I think. Most lectures and documentaries on the topic are far less nuanced than they ought to be.

There was not a singular collapse that affected all regions to the same degree; the end of the Late Bronze Age affected different regions in different ways over slightly different periods of time. Some cities and kingdoms were destroyed and never regained their prominence (e.g. Ugarit and Emar), some simply moved locations (e.g. Enkomi to Salamis, Alalakh to Tell Tayinat), and others were scarcely affected by the end of the Bronze Age at all (e.g. Carchemish, Byblos, Paphos). It has become increasingly clear that we must look not at the overall picture – the entirety of the eastern Mediterranean and Near East did not experience collapse – but rather specific places at specific times to understand how each of the great powers (and especially each of the regions within them) collapsed, survived, or even thrived from 1150-950 BCE. Unfortunately, this sort of nuanced analysis does not lend itself well to a documentary format.

To take the Hittite empire as an example, some of the southern parts of the empire like Tarḫuntašša and Malatya (Išuwa in the Bronze Age) essentially split off and became de facto independent states toward the end of the Bronze Age. These kingdoms preserved aspects of Hittite culture until the Neo-Assyrian conquests of the 8th/7th centuries BCE – religious beliefs and practices, Luwian and the Anatolian hieroglyphic writing system, architectural and artistic styles, administrative titles, Hittite royal names like Šuppiluliuma and Ḫattušili, etc.

The collapse of the Hittite heartland in central Anatolia was due partly to the loss of these outlying regions (the Hittite imperial core was always short on manpower and grain), but also from pressures unique to the Hittite empire, such as raids from the Kaška who lived in northern Anatolia. I discussed this more in How did the civilizations fall in the end of the Bronze Age? and When and how did we learn that the bronze age had really collapsed and was a thing and not just an imaginary folk idea like Atlantis?

Meh. Prehistory is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as the period of time before the use of writing. There was no writing before ancient Sumer, thus, anything before ancient Sumer is prehistory, regardless of where you are.

that's so true. i would have much preferred an actual documentary. but then again i watched and enjoyed the Weird Al Yankovich movie as well ..... so that tells alot about me i suppose....

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

it's generally accepted to be a regional term. prehistory in mesopotamia is not the same as prehistory in europe

Absolutely, his assertations make for tantalizing day dreams but they sorely lack the evidence to back them up. Hey, the guy has sold more books than I have lolol.

it's really just a shame that they gave him a platform instead of finding an actual archeologist or historian

it's not like his narrative is what makes those places interesting

People want to believe shite. It's ni different than conspiracy theories like QAnon. It makes them feel smart and special without challenging their intellect at all.

The specific reason that they single out "mainstream" academia is that if you actually research the archeology, you see how Hancock's claims are ridiculous. The "mainstream narrative" is actually based on thousand of pieces of independent evidence, hard science.

I'm not dogmatic about it. For example the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis is perfectly debatable and has some evidence for it that merits further study. But Hancock is selling a fantasy story as if it's science, and he knows it's bullshit.

I made the mistake of reading the comments at the end of this article. Very depressing. The Enlightenment is dead.

I’d argue it means before Sumer personally since that’s when written records can first be established.

i watched all 8 and found it fascinating. that video series had some great camera angles, stunning shots, and in all honesty i didn't know some of those places existed. that series sent me on a wikipedia reading expedition.

from episode one i suspected this would be conspiracy theory fodder much like "The Pyramid Code" but it gave me an opportunity to really learn about some places around the world i was unaware of once i started reading about these places.

all i had to do was put up with his narrative for a few hours. lol

umm I'm not playing fast and loose with the truth. You only think I'm doing that because you have a clear ideological bias. You do realise that I couldn't quote every single aspect of the sources mentioned because reddit has a limit in terms of how much content you can place in an OP right? I had to be selective in terms of what I quoted out of the vast information I was reading on the topic. And the things I quoted were in line with the facts of the situation.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]