The Accuracies and Inaccuracies of 10,000 BC (Part 1)

[@anniesearle6181]

"Which likely had some sort of religious significance" is archaeologist speak for "we have no clue what it was for"

[@Neoplasie1900]

This reminds me of someone I heard years back speculating how future archologists will dig out all our branded plastic bags. They'll probably try to reconstitute the religious history of Walmartism.

[@anniesearle6181]

@Star Trek Theory Um, what on earth are you talking about? Every culture in history had some sort of religious belief and any object with no visible function was likely religious in some form or another. Your reaction, regardless of your faith or lack of faith, suggests your worldview is entrenched in Abrahamic ideology and please refrain from talking about what you know nothing about

[@akeleven]

@@anniesearle6181 just because you don't know what it was used for doesn't mean that it has "no purpose". It could have been a teenager prayer for a wife. Or a doll for a young girl.

[@anniesearle6181]

@@akeleven That's not at all what I meant. Of course I know that, I'm an archaeologist. It's an archaeology joke

[@abby__7867]

But they were just trying to survive lol I never understood why they tried to deem things religious when the biggest worry was survival

[@n9nex19]

They should've just filmed it during 10,000 BC to avoid the inaccuracies

[@Lauth3]

Cant, there wernt colour camera's back then

[@ChiefBloodrain]

@@Lauth3 That's alright, they could have kept it black and white.

[@patstaysuckafreeboss8006]

@@Lauth3 they could've coloured it in afterwards

[@wisemankugelmemicus1701]

@@ChiefBloodrain I actually watched the behind the scenes where they said they couldn't film back then because the ancient humans kept poking them real hard.

[@ndz9818]

Agreed, less studio interference back then

[@davidfiore4677]

Another inaccuracy with the mammoths was that they were depicted as galloping as they ran. In real life mammoths couldn’t do that because they weren’t designed for galloping. Instead they would have done a very pace or trot to run. Similar to modern elephants.

[@Tareltonlives]

*evolved

[@VincentGonzalezVeg]

@@nooneer by natural selection those ones were designed by people with computers

[@TheLucasFross]

In the south america native have had blonds, red hair, blue or green Eyed. If u lookt like that u were like a God they build pyramids fore you. I think they migrated from the East also. Looong before the Portuguese. Untill the european came around 1400... and showed the Native how white fokes really Are. They took all and claim it theirs.

[@mattihaapoja8203]

@@TheLucasFross Yeah the only race ever to wage wars of conquest? Read up on the aztects and why everyone in the region hated them.

[@unknowndane4754]

@@mattihaapoja8203 It is kinda enteraining, "Oh you've come to screw over the Aztecs? Count me in" Ofc later they then got screwed over themselves.

[@averynelson1186]

Just imagine the enormous amount of work involved with processing an entire mammoth when you're a nomadic people.

[@afrochickenboy]

"WHO HAS THE GOOD SHARP FLINT??? I gotta cut around the giant bladder for the next 4 hours :("

[@shiblyalrahaman1425]

That's one mammoth task

[@averynelson1186]

@@shiblyalrahaman1425 😏

[@LordSeth-hf8ew]

i feel like they either used it all or wasted half of it

[@yuixan763]

@@LordSeth-hf8ew they prob either got sun dried meat or stinky meat.

[@ChimpFromSpace]

Early humans saved all the good makeup for their lead actors.

[@JameEmbo]

I wouldn’t call that good make up lol

[@haman_k]

yeah because there was not abundance of makeup material back then

[@viveka2994]

@@haman_k They couldn't make any, makeup emerged during Bronze Age, when they could make it via tools

[@RushGamma]

@@viveka2994 Idk i feel like some ancient stone tribal women probably had some sort of primative makeup, more likely closer to a war paint style than "makeup" most likely though.

[@viveka2994]

@@RushGamma maybe... was probably for the most respected elders and hunters to show dominance not for beauty, but idk, primitive humans are just like us.

[@CrazyPangolinLady]

“You play the Neanderthal. No prosthetics necessary.” “Oh... thanks.”

[@robertayoder2063]

@@nwomaimun821 both our idiots

[@SBrown-ti8xe]

@@nwomaimun821 She is not. Neanderthals are from Northern Europe not the Caucasus not from Africa or related to any African species in anyway.

[@SwedishSalmonbox]

@@SBrown-ti8xe "African species" jeez, that missuse of words makes it sound... very bad

[@urdnal]

@@SBrown-ti8xe What, did neanderthals sprout out of the ground like mushrooms?

[@Bruh-hq1hx]

@@SwedishSalmonbox but there was multiple human species when the neanderthal existed

[@te0nani]

So when did the Blue-Eyes White Dragon first appear in Egypt?

[@dramonkiller18]

The blue Eyed White woman

[@dev7415]

@@dramonkiller18 named karen

[@anthonyc4138]

@@dev7415 lol

[@somethingwildd]

You’re just dark magician

[@Tareltonlives]

Wait, did you just summon a bunch of Roland Emmerich movies in one turn?

[@Oldcoyoteblues34]

No disrespect implied, but there’s a man who lives in my neighborhood who has a forehead which resembles Neanderthals that I usually see.

[@shokdraco2479]

I believe that if you have 5 percent of a species or race you have the chance of a genetic trait appearing physically

[@Zulfburht]

Do you happen to live in Alabama, or anywhere near it?

[@eds1942]

Lol, I saw someone recently who I swear looked like the cave man from those old Geico commercials. Phenotype rather than genotype.

[@Oldcoyoteblues34]

Zulfburht no I happen to live in Chicago.

[@NauticalCoffin2404]

A visitor. He'll probably go back to his time when he sees how much his cousins have f*cked up the world.

[@rf8754]

It's funny how that woman had make up and trimmed her eyebrows in 10 000 bc.

[@gustavosanches3454]

Yet her hair was a historically accurate mess, 10/10 for accuracy

[@avanconia]

I'd beat it

[@marieke.g]

i always wondered if people from the past weren't covered in zits and stuff. like i don't ever touch my face without disinfecting my hands bcs i don't want to break out 😂

[@theweeknd970_4]

neen yuh I wondered that as well

[@starsfalldown1234567]

Not to mention having no body hair

[@ThePhilosorpheus]

My main interest in prehistory is language. How far back can you go and still find a related root for a word still existing today? In any language, I mean

[@guilhemnavarette9310]

"papa" and "mama" exists in most of the modern language

[@war.neverchanges]

Humans started in africa, if u wanna find the oldest things about humans, its africa. The oldest human to be found was black woman in africa

[@gustavosanches3454]

@@EtanoS24 video covers ethnicity and race of early humans as well as neanderthals, OP questions how far back we can learn about ancient languages and his reply is about the earliest signs of civilization we know, which is in Africa and then you bitch and whine about people "forcing race" into "everything"? Are you crazy or just an imbecile?

[@gustavosanches3454]

@@EtanoS24 OK Karen. You sound too triggered about reading the words "Africa" and "black woman" even though they are still well within the context of the topic. Thanks for contributing absolutely nothing other than your bias (no one asked for) for the conversation.

[@shmeatloaf]

Ethan Staubach cornball 🤦🏽‍♂️

[@DJl3iohazord]

So when this movie came out I went to see it with my friend who was a professor of anthropology. It was fun watching him point out all the inaccuracies of this movie.

[@geodav5700]

Try 300...sigh.

[@lemmingscanfly5]

@@geodav5700 300 basically made us all view Spartans as noble superhumans when they were really brutal slavers...

[@geodav5700]

@@lemmingscanfly5 300 was bs that fed into neo facist identity idioms. No one who watched it knew learnt anything apart feom how to be more dumb

[@geodav5700]

@@lemmingscanfly5 ps Im Looking at U

[@geodav5700]

You r looking at me i am rewatching the x files.....#blessed

[@bazookaace]

Before watching this I'd like to say that woman is wearing sephora makeup from the oldest mall in history, that is accurate.

[@cheese4746]

*B O R N I N T H E W R O N G G E N E R A T I O N*

[@Honken1995]

I had no idea that women had makeup back then.

[@stefanhensel8611]

War is Hell: I'm quite sure make-up was one of the first human inventions not directly related to survival. However, it probably looked quite different from what we see today.

[@xxXthekevXxx]

They probably did have some form or makeup or paint, but likely nothing as clean and sophisticated as what we had today.

[@yoursexualizedgrandparents6929]

If I wiped shit on my face, if it was considered an upgrade I'd think that'd be considered makeup.

[@garganrose]

Perhaps back then some random cavewoman was putting together a cave painting and some of it accidentally got on her face and she just thought to her self hey that looks good. And overtime it just sort of evolved into we have today. 

[@StartWithAnE]

No gar, i'm pretty sure something like makeup they wouldn't accidently have discovered :D I mean they had more sophisticated stuff

[@twentyonescooters6469]

I honestly feel like “B.C” and “B.C.E” is personal preference. They’re both mean the same thing when talking about time.

[@your-oven-is-still-on1292]

I know... "10,000 B.C would've taken place in 10,000 B.CE". ??

[@hengineer]

Not necessarily.

[@twentyonescooters6469]

@@hengineer 10,000 BC is the same as 10,000 BCE

[@lilyliao9521]

@@hengineer its B.C as in before christ or B.C.E as in before common era

[@NefariousKoel]

They are the same. "BC" was used in the past until recent years when someone decided to make it more politically correct, in a worldwide religious sense, by changing the words. They both still measure from the exact same point in time. I'm old enough to have learned it as BC through my educational years. Didn't start hearing "BCE" until the past decade or two. It's the same thing, and used in the exact same way. Just fluffed for what was apparently considered tender ears.

[@snoopabop3439]

why the hell does that lady have plucked, perfectly filled in eyebrows??

[@mattmorgan2525]

skye w you don't think people groomed themselves in prehistory?

[@TeensierPython]

How do you know they wouldnt find plucked eyebrows beautiful?

[@mattmorgan2525]

Maybe not exactly the same but I'm sure people in that period (just like now) would have taken pride in their appearance to some extent. So it's plausible a woman would have fiddled with her eyebrows or hair or whatever else. It's just unlikely rather than impossible or even implausible like so many other things in the movie so I reckon you could give it a pass on the eyebrow front

[@hoosierhiver]

and perfect skin

[@nomduclavier]

skye w Let's check her legs and pits

[@StixFerryMan]

I liked the movie for what it was: a cool fantasy.

[@marylagasse8108]

I do too , it's a good movie so why take it apart like this.

[@marylagasse8108]

@Õ_Õ Shy Guy , the movie was just a fantasy like " Lord of the Rings, Twilight, " and others. There is nothing real about it, so why compare it to real life. Why pick the movie apart to find fault when everything about it is wrong.

[@cosmic-creep1384]

@@marylagasse8108must be a bible thumper

[@ConnanTheCivilized]

This children’s movie was what it advertised to be, an adventure movie much like 300 and Conan The Barbarian. It was silly and corny throughout. There were no hints that the elder was from a different species (obviously her people= her tribe not a species.) This guy is lowering himself to get views dissecting movies Cinemasins style now. Is he going to give the Ice Age and Land Before Time movies for toddlers the same act? Explain that “Little Foot” and “Sharp Tooth” aren’t real species names? That the main characters should be dead by now? Also please don’t pretend that people in the past had access to the same data/culture as us. The Flinstones was depicting Stone Age “Americans” eating at burger joints and was written for segregation era audiences. Of course it had “dated” ways of doing things. Jurassic Park used the most recently accepted scientific positions in the early/mid 90s (including the raptor height they used.). People can’t claim they have better standards when they can use our current understanding of genetics to determine hair and skin of fossils (a very recent breakthrough.)

[@ConnanTheCivilized]

I do agree that this film is broken by its inability to stick to a time period. Did I see a compass and printed map in that shot at the end? “Embarrassing” doesn’t even begin to cover it. And the plot was just copy/pasted from movies such as Conan The Barbarian (the 20th century movie.). Again the trailers admit to being B movie quality and for kids.

[@NewMexico1912]

The girl from 10,000 BC is the same little from lost world who was attacked by coelophysis in the beginning

[@tuuri2102]

Compys*

[@dude999642]

I knew that, but I never connected the two films in my mind.....good catch, sir.

[@ladisneyprincesse]

Yep. Camilla Belle who also was in Rip Girls and When a Stranger Calls?

[@jdstar6352]

A small budget movie came out in I think the 80s, give or take, that begins with a predatory raid by one tribe of prehistory humans on another. The scene is arctic night, in deep snow. The raiders kill or kidnap everyone in the victim tribe except for one boy who sees it happen from a distance. The boy must then undertake a survival trek through the snow to reach another, related tribe. Somehow there's a love story, as I vaguely recall. At the time it seemed a surprisingly accurate depiction of prehistoric people to me, although I don't know how well it would stand up to our more sophisticated modern understanding. I wish I could remember the name of the film. If anyone can identify it I would be grateful.

[@danf7411]

Bump

[@miguelmalvina5200]

did you found it yet?

[@mclovin7000]

Conan

[@oldsoldier3535]

Quest for Fire

[@realityhelix564]

Yeah, everyone seems to think Woolly Mammoths were much larger than they actually were. I've seen the skeleton of the largest one yet found, and it was only fourteen feet high. Well, I say "only", seeing such an animal in life, it would be sufficiently huge enough to be terrifying.

[@Novusod]

Where the Mammoths oversized or maybe the people were just small? Poor nutrition leads to stunting of growth.

[@sebascruz7762]

Novusod Great question man.

[@Rafael_Peixoto]

I think this movie portrays mammoth as huge beasts because that's what the humans at the time thought they were

[@wewenang5167]

Mammoth during human arrival are not that big, the big woolly mammoth only exist when human was not exist yet. So the mammoth in 10 000 bc are actually just a few feet bigger than African elephants, but they would look big because they got so much wool and fur. You can clearly see their corpses in Russia, it was mummified in the glacier. So we know their real size.

[@cambyses1529]

@@Novusod Exactly. a 1.9m human in this era is very likely "oversized" as well.

[@markwuahlbuargg4780]

Of course! The mammoths built the pyramids! It all makes sense now.

[@elpoodoo3099]

Mark Wuahlbuargg no..

[@TheLiam14141]

5:20 ignore the sexy lady, Ringo Starr was a god dammed caveman? this explains everything

[@muskeldundret]

Im swedish and I've never hears the name Motala prounounced like that. It gave me a little chuckle. Great video and a very interesting topic! Been binging your videos for some time now.

[@luciferangelica]

accuracy: humans lived 12,000 ya. inaccuracies: everything else

[@n0body550]

Early humans lived at least 200,000 years ago

[@blockobutter]

@@n0body550 If humans lived at least 200,000 years ago, it means humans lived 12,000 ya. That's what he said. That's accurate.

[@FPSIreland2]

But the bible says the earth was created only 6000ya??????

[@Joanbueller007]

@@FPSIreland2 and?

[@FPSIreland2]

Joan Martin I’ll leave you to figure it out Joan..

[@justsomecreatureofthisearth]

10:46 Don't worry, you got the Romanian pronunciation right. By the way, Oase means "bones" in Romanian, so the names given to these partial skeletons were "Bones 1" and "Bones 2". The baptism must have been funny: [Oase 1 was confirmed to be a male] "-We found an ancient dude's bones. -Let's give him a name. What should we call him? -We'll call him bones." :D

[@jellyfish0311]

They gave him a name fitting for a skinny house pet lol

[@Aczie042]

Regarding the wooly mammoths, I also think they depict at them as taller, than they actually were, was also to depict humans as being short.

[@godzillakingofthemonsters5812]

During the Pleistocene, people were more or less the same height. The groups were pretty small and they mostly ate high calorie foods like meat, so they would only be a few inches off from people today.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

@@godzillakingofthemonsters5812 yes, I saw a graph that was U shaped, with the shortest people coming maybe 1000 years ago and the tallest were moderns and really old ones

[@S....]

@@godzillakingofthemonsters5812 Few inches is what makes the differance between short and tall.

[@dreddykrugernew]

@@godzillakingofthemonsters5812 the people of the ice age where much taller, around 2 metres the ones who followed the herds on the Steppe. Its these people who migrated across the north of the Eurasian continent and down into to Norway who gave them their giant genes....

[@MrAndersson579]

@@dreddykrugernew source

[@ArnLPs]

I would love to hear from you about the accuracies and inaccuracies of the Ice Age franchise.

[@81leadbelly]

Oh yes please, make more!!! I had a fantastic laugh when I first watched this movie with a roommate. I studied elephants in university and I thank you for your wonderfully researched and presented bit on elephant/mammoth social behaviour!! Thumbs up! I wanted to also give credit where it is due (though limited) to the film makers because with the opening tribe, I noticed that they trained the actors in a consistent accent that doesn't really resemble anything I have heard before. Really added to the believability and I commend them for that detail! Look forward to more 😊

[@oreste8570]

B.C.= before Christ B.C.E= before common era

[@vidaett]

And the common era is based on Christ, so it`s the same thing just stupidly ignoring Christianity and forcing political correctness down our throat.

[@draskobozic4976]

>there is no evidence for Christ HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

[@Pomon60]

"Christianity isn't even the largest religion in the world" Yes it is.

[@abird6217]

FugustoGamer Christianity is by far the largest religion in the world, and it is political correctness because even if they change the name, the time when they distinguish between BC and AD (or BCE and CE) is still only that time because of Christianity. If it wasn’t for Christianity then the year we perceive as ‘0’ wouldn’t exist and it would just be a random forgotten year in history

[@s.waldron8532]

nur mehmet papadopol one based on reality, and one based on a fictional bronze age desert character...

[@Mr.56Goldtop]

The last of the Neanderthals didn't die out 40,000 years ago. Remains have been found around Gibraltar, by Spain, that were dated at 25 - 28 thousand years ago.

[@roberthofmann8403]

It went from 40,000 to 30,000. Give it a few years and they'll say 20,000, then 10,000. Before you know it, they'll say, 'Holy crap, they're still alive; They are us." Oh, wait... That already happened. Hi. My name is Robert and I identify as Neanderthal. It's not an arbitrary identification. Science backs me up. I'm am 4% Neanderthal.

[@michalsafarik929]

This is really outdated information. when i started study history, we was also learning this. But nowadays, this fact is mostly debunked. we actually have not neanderthal fossil younger that 40 000 bce. We have only indirect proofs, like same tools (but now its belived, that these tools didnt belong to neanderthals at all. Yougest neand. remains were found (i think in 1991) in Giblartar and were dated 33 000 - 36 000 bce. But later (in 2016-17?) has been proven, that remains were at least 8000 y older. p.s. sorry for my english.

[@Chris-kh2vi]

The Neanderthals didnt really die out, they were actually assimilated by Homo Sapiens Sapiens. They didnt have near as Close to the Numbers that H. S.S had back then and so they mingled and what was once a separat Species got swallowed by us. Happens all the Time.And yep, the info in here is outdated, because it is referencing stuff from when "archeologists" still thought that the Clovis People of the American Continent were the earliest Humans there. Which has been proven wrong by 100tsd years I think...

[@thnkng]

@@roberthofmann8403 well the intelligence matches

[@assassin3003]

Skeletons found in the middle east dating back around 14 thousand years ago of a man with blue eyes, white skin, European features, and straight brown hair was found and his grandfather was a red headed neanderthal.

[@Lelybee85]

Ok, so because I live in Mississippi I find (even before COVID) that I have to do alot of homeschooling with my kids. So, because of this I've spent a lot of time following homeschool moms and watching homeschool curriculum reviews on YT. That said....dude...if you made even a mediocre kids curriculum covering really any time periods before 1492...you would make bank in the homeschool community. I can't seem to find things that are comprehensive enough yet consumable enough for elementary-aged kids. Social studies curriculums either focus more on civics and less on history or focus way too much on history after 1492 treating anything that came before it as only worthy of 1 chapter's worth of info. It's been so frustrating! Look, I'm Catholic, so a lot of the curriculum the YT algorithm feeds me is Christian, but my faith doesn't forbid me from believing in evolution or having a more fluid and anchored in scientific fact world view of history because it is of no threat to my Catholic beliefs. So says the Church. Anyway, Christian currrculum is sorely lacking and has such a strong Anglo Saxon and Judeo Christian world view that it ignores way too much of what I want my kids to know about. Anyway...back to the point I was trying to make....you have a TON of experience explaining things plainly to people because of your channel. You could translate this into a viable side hustle with your academic credentials by making homeschool curriculum. I know I would buy it and I would tell my friends about it! People with far fewer credentials than you write curriculum all the time and are quite lucrative. The Good and the Beautiful comes to mind. There are alot of different schools of thought in the homeschool world, so you will have to do some research and find where you fit in...unless you want to start your own niche. Anyway. the broad schools of thought on homeschooling are the traditionals, the unschoolers, the classicals, the charlotte masoners, the ecclectics , and the gameschoolers. There seems to be many more faith based curriculums than there are secular, so your work would be very much needed. I love using Christian curriculum for everything EXCEPT science and history. Many moms feel this way. Ok, so I hope I planted a seed here! God bless!

[@bettievw]

I hope you've been doing well through this pandemic, you seem like a great parent! I love that you're teaching your kids about history!

[@virelaifou278]

The unfortunate issue is that "history" as a concrete and linear timeline begins shortly before 1492. The first records of anno domini are cited back this far, but has only been used syncreticly since the 15/16thce. All of our 'primary' sources of history come from writings not records preserved in libraries, but 'letters' allegedly written by ancient Romans. However, their written "Latin" linguistically reflects contemporary Italo-German influences from the times of Roman forgery under the Popes. Also, Latin was probably never a spoken language and instead a mutually communicable written language for the people of the Empire. In reality, most of them spoke Greek, or local dialects ("Vulgar Latin"). Most Romans, in fact, were 'Greek', or Hellenic in culture. Most 'history' before the 1500s greatly appeases the Catholic Church. Simply put, it was re-written via Papal forgeries to dilate the length of Christianity's ('Roman' Catholicism) leadership, and very existence, over Europe. This period was known as the Renaissance, which followed the Latin (Italian, German, French, Spainish, etc.) invasion of Byzantium (known as Rome by it's inhabitants, neighbors, and enemies-- except Latins, who named them 'Byzantines.') There, the Latins slaughtered every Greek of high or noble birth, desecrated banks, churches, latrines, homes, and pillaged hundreds of years worth of wealth and artifacts. In Europe, specifically Italy, then follows the Renaissance where a majority of Latin 'history' was canonized-- after an influx of tremendous wealth, ancient writings, and more. Michaelangelo was originally a forgerer, not an artist. Though that distinction isn't really for me to make. When it comes to history, teach your children not 'when.' But instead: 'why?' God bless!

[@calum5975]

@@virelaifou278 Hello, as someone who has studied early-medieval European History and has a Bachelors degree in the field, no, just no. You put far too much weight on the Latin Empire's conquest of the Eastern Roman Empire. When you say "Byzantium" what are you referring to? The historic city we know as Byzantium was supplanted by Constantinople centuries before the various sackings and fall of Constantinople. No one calls this city Byzantium past the edicts of Constantine which founded Constantinople on the sight of the former city of Byzantium. The Empire isn't known as "Byzantium" either - it is the Byzantine Empire or Eastern Roman Empire. Byzantium can be used at a stretch to refer to the Empire, yet it's poor form and rather confusing due to the preceding city i've already mentioned. And to add to this, no one in the East referred to the city of Constantinople as "Rome". They regarded themselves to be Romans, yet not in the sense that they hailed from the city of Rome, yet belonging to the Roman Empire. Constantinople was mostly known as "Polis", simply "the city" as it was the predominant city in the Empire. You also seem to be confusing "Latin" with "the Latin Empire", which was not Latin at all but a short lived rump state founded by the crusaders and that would become entirely irrelevant within a short space of time. No one in Europe referred to themselves as "Latins". Your missunderstanding of the Latin language is also poignant. The Latin we find in historical texts from the Roman Empire are not some forgery as you state, and the language used is entirely in line with historical evidence. "Vulgar Latin" took time to develop, it was an offshoot, and importantly was a vernacular language, not a literary one. The various Vulgar Latins were spoken by most people (once they had time to develop, a process which was gradual and changed greatly over time) yet these people would still write in a somewhat standardized Latin. We can trace this Latin well, we can see the evolution in literary Latin from the Republic to the fall of the Empire. We can see how Kings in France slowly began to embrace the Vulgar Latin spoken there and use it more and more in court documents, the same in Spain. Greek was the most spoken language, yes, so what? You state yourself that Latin was the mutually communicable written language. The fact they spoke Greek was irrelevant. They wrote sources in Latin even if they did not speak Latin day to day as Latin was the language of business and political conduct until the splitting of the Empire.

[@virelaifou278]

@@calum5975 Though I suppose it is fair to parse my language, instead of point, I don't think it's quite the right light to head off with- fresh after an appeal to authority. You've stated your degrees- what if mine mirror yours, or worse off, are far superior in credential? Would you immediately concede? Anyway! There is no misunderstanding on my end of the Latin-language groupings. There are in fact, zero contiguously preserved documents from the Roman Empire which are written in Latin. The majority of them come from later dates and taken from the ever-forthright abbies dotted throughout Europe. Of course, often times, at the behest of the Papacy (who is decidedly, the most anti-Greek faction in Christendom.) In many corners and crevices of the world, you can find shadows and glimpses of ancient languages. In some cases, in full preservation. Across Northern Africa, Sicily and Mainland Italy, and more- Greek language remains spoken in some form. Not one area in Europe has one single village of proud Roman citizenry who preserved Latin language. Yet the other, primary Roman language, Greek, remains intact still to this day. By mutually communicable, I did not mean: "Used in casual conversation." Latin would have started as a language in Latium, likely some combination of Etruscan and Lydian. Meanwhile, for hundreds of years previous, the Mediterranean would have spoken either Greek or Paleo-Hebrew (Pheonician.) Latium commanding the Western portions of the Med. after the fall of Carthage in totality (150bc?). Therefor, for the rest of the native population of Rome, Greek would be the local language, indigenous persons and local dialects permitting (CLARIFICATION: Comparing colonies where the rulers and locals were Greek, compared to colonies where the locals were indigenous and the nobles were Greek, Thracian, Illyrian, Italic, etc.) Not being contentious here- genuinely curious. Which documents are you referring to when you mention slow transition of "Vulgar Latin", to Germanic Latin, to Romantic Languages? There then would be more comparative information on this drastic linguistic deviation not seen anywhere else in history. Also, I'd like to see if/when they were either carbon dated and their markers for stratigraphy. You've made the claim that no one in the West referred to themselves as Latin. The same is said for the Greeks, who at no point referred to themselves as Byzantine. They were Roman, or Romaioi. Their neighbors called them Roman. According to conventional chronology, the remainder of the Romans were killed and replace by Germanic hordes- Spain, Italy (not the Greek South?), France, England, Illyria, Pannonnia, etc. Therefore, with the majority of Eastern and Southern Romans replaced by Berber, Arab, or Iranic groups- wouldn't that leave the Greco-Romans the last of an uninterrupted population? I think that claim is rendered unnecessary and the burden of proof for legitimacy is then on the Catholic West. They disagreed with the Church who's bibles were in Greek, disagreed with their superiors in Constantinople (Rome was long unused at this point, Milan was out and Ravenna was near-death) who spoke Greek, and finally, the Donation of Constantine is now declared a proven forgery. There is no, nor was there, ever a legitimate Catholic Church in Rome. Just a few really big ones, all of course, built in pagan architecture save for a few crosses (like the Hagia Sophia.) >>>>Constantinople was mostly known as "Polis", simply "the city" as it was the predominant city in the Empire. Absolutely. Is it not concerning to you that before this equally ancient and splendorous city- it has very little recorded history? And where it does, it mirrors the later-told tales of the early days of Rome the city? Curious on your thoughts & knowledge'd input. Cheers!

[@calum5975]

@@virelaifou278 I would argue that yes, in a case such as this an appeal to authority has some credibility. Of course, you're welcome to demonstrate your own advanced knowledge, perhaps outranking my own in the field. Of course you can demonstrate a decent grasp of history without having to demonstrate your credibility, yet it certainly does help. Appealing to credibility also does nothing to decredit you. If the other person wishes to take into account your academic credentials, that's all well, if not, hopefull your writing can sway them. I'd first like to adress the evolution of the 'vulgar latin's into what we can distinguish today as languages such as Old French. In fact, it's an incredibly interesting topic for me personally and i'd be happy to share what I know. Firstly, and possibly most evident to this, many languages actually refered to themselves as "Latin" up until fairly recently. Portuguese was, for example, not known as Portuguese yet by "common tongue" in Portuguese up until the 1200s, with writers at this time considering it to be nothing more than an offshoot of latin. French too, a language that wasn't regarded as a language as such up until the 800s, yet merely a form of Latin. We actually see this living in the historical texts, with a particular problem arising in early-medieval France as the clergy attempted to impress a "reformed" historical latin pronounciation which was unintelligable to the common people, who spoke a language that while written largely similar, was actually pronounced entirely differently. We see with the Oaths of Strasbourg of 842 that there was an attempt at the time for people to create a specifically French spelling system to reflect the unique pronounciation of Latin that was alive during France in the 800s, a development which could very well could mark the shift from "Vulgar Latin" to "Old French". Of course, it's in reaity a continium, and we mustn't think that these changes happened across all of France at the same time - France is a very linguistically diverse country (well it was up until the 1800s) with some languages remaining more akin to Latin and others breaking away earlier and adopting specific non-Roman identities. It is worth noting that the Oaths of Strasbourg are manuscripts that were copied around the turn of the millenia. No, I don't think this implies they are faked and to claim that they are faked simply due to this is simply rash. There's no reason to doubt their historical integrity, many historians and linguists who know far much more than you or I have studied them, and they fit perfectly fine inthe historical record and linguistic record. Old French wasn't known as "French" or "Francais" either, speakers of Old French kept on calling it "Romanz" - literally "Roman". To them, this language was merely an evolution of centuries of the Roman Latin language. I do take issue with "the remainder of the Romans were killed and replace by Germanic hordes- Spain, Italy (not the Greek South?), France, England, Illyria, Pannonnia, etc" - this isn't strictly true. In some areas, yes, migrating Germanic hordes did indeed wipe out or displace the local romano-whatever populations, yet only in some, and even then, it is debated just how much. In most, such as Spain, Portugal and France, the elites were replaced by these invading hordes, while the common man remained "roman", or rather they spoke a vulgar latin variety. The elites would quickly adopt the common language (while possibly infusing in some of their own words), yet the local roman population wasn't displaced or destroyed. In France for example, the Franks didn't destroy the local Romano-Gauls. In fact, the Franks became Romano-Gauls, adopting their vulgar-latin language which would become French in time. In Britain, yes, the Romano-Britons were pushed into what is today Wales, Brittany and Scotland, while others simply adopted the Germanic languages spoken by the invaders.

[@rizkymaulana2002]

Trey howcome you forgot one of the most innaccurate part of the mammoths ? THEY SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GALLOP IN HIGH SPEED!!!

[@ariochiv]

Red hair dates back at least as far as the Neanderthals. To suggest it's a recent development seems way off.

[@catg714]

Half of what this guy says is WAY off! The Neanderthals were few in number but were still around 10,000 bce... I had to shut this off half way thru...

[@weslleyfj]

Cat G dude he put a lot of references to support what he's saying, so you better have something other than arrogance to support what you're saying

[@Tareltonlives]

Neanderthals, not OUR species. And they were extinct by 10,000 BC.

[@TheSonic1685]

Like blue eyes, red hair was a mutation. I don't know about the connection to Neanderthals but it being recent isn't an extraordinary claim and if you bothered to check the description you could find the sources to back him up.

[@jett2688]

Cat G Neanderthals were not around 10000 years ago you fucking moron lmao 😂

[@dragonslayerx28]

I've been waiting for a new video for ever I'm so hyped!

[@TREYtheExplainer]

^^

[@beckytodd7210]

Viento Gris I agree the Smilodon is not accurate to the real animal because it has stripes like a tiger and its tail is way to long and it was to big than the humans

[@Andrew-mo8cn]

Bro. I thought they didn’t have cameras back then

[@waterbottle4542]

They didn’t you moron They clearly used time travel

[@AlexanderCovfefe]

I love how this needs more than one part

[@adub92199]

I think you’re getting confused with 10,000 years ago

[@Dunkle0steus]

When you said "all humans were dark skinned and probably descended from an ancestor that looked like this" you showed a picture of H. erectus, which was not only the last common ancestor or all modern humans, but also Neanderthals, Denisovans and likely H. floresiensis as well. While true, it's not a very good example.

[@ronjayrose9706]

You do realise that it's being proven that not all Neanderthals had light skin redhair and blue eyes right? some neanderthals had brown skin and brown hair and brown or dark eyes(such a the ones living in the Mediterranean) while some had pale skin blue/green eyes black, brown,orange,red and blonde hair with freckled faces (such as the ones living in the northern parts of Eurasia) heck some of them even had dark skin(such is the case for those living in the Middle East and the Levant region) so the next time you come with this all Neanderthals had light skin state you're sources and maybe then you can make an argument

[@assassin3003]

@@ronjayrose9706 a skeleton of a man found in the middle east dating back 14K years had white skin slightly tanned, blue eyes, light brown hair and his grandfather was a red headed neanderthal

[@tostie3110]

@@ronjayrose9706 Not that I don't believe you, but it's true you can see it as the same as humans, right? Neanderthals could be black and white just as any other species of homo if they had enough numbers to populate multiple continents and climates.

[@ronjayrose9706]

@@assassin3003 most likely due to homo sapien and neanderthal interbreeding in Eurasian region and these homo sapiens with Neanderthal DNA began moving southward

[@Stroggoii]

@@tostie3110 Neither neanderthal nor homo sapiens were "black" or "white", those were derived adaptations from their living conditions, their baseline complexion was something else and likely closer to native american pigmentation.

[@generalmortars7557]

"Venus figurines, which likely had some sort of religious significance" - Er, that was their fap stash.

[@Gamerkat10]

boi u dumb as shit

[@tinypencils]

It wasn’t.

[@redgreen2453]

This is a top tier comment

[@brianstewart23]

Yep. Stone Age porn.

[@MrChickennugget360]

@@brianstewart23 literally.

[@Thane3999]

"video talks about skin color and racial divisions" *sort by controversial*

[@wolfkitty42]

@Poika This is years old and somewhat outdated. Don’t expect it to magically update with new discoveries.

[@alexcapon3620]

4:04 Experimental archaeology concluded that H.Neanderthalensis' spears were too bulky and unwieldy to have been used effectively as missiles. The commonly accepted theory is that Neanderthals preferred to hunt in close quarters in densley-wooded terrain.

[@petersmythe6462]

Alex Capon Did they account for possibly-superior throwing abilities? I'm fairly sure Neanderthals were descended from throwers.

[@hamzaahmadshaikh7648]

It appears Trey was citing this paper: www.academia.edu/5909464/MUSSI_M._VILLA_P._2008._Single_carcass_of_Mammuthus_primigenius_with_lithic_artifacts_in_the_Upper_Pleistocene_of_northern_Italy._Journal_of_Archaeological_Science_35_2606_2613 Though, after a quick skim, there doesn't appear to be any mention of projectile weapons in said paper. This paper would have been better to cite regarding this issue, though, as far as I can tell, projectile weapons in the Mousterian are quite controversial: citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.453.29&rep=rep1&type=pdf

[@jondreauxlaing]

This is just speculation, but I remember hearing that H Sapiens and H Neanderthalensis learned from each other. That is, they took the best parts of each other's technology and adapted it. Maybe later H Neanderthalenses developed throwing technology from adapting H Sapiens technology.

[@mysticx0]

you must have seen that video where the guy was throwing spears at hanging pig bodies and it didnt penetrate. worst experiment ever and you shouldnt base your thoughts on THAT.

[@jondreauxlaing]

@The Martial Lord of Loyalty There are other examples of separate species that can interbreed and create fertile offspring. Fertile hybrids are a thing. That's a kind of reductive way to look at taxonomy anyway, no?

[@bertalanpollak6548]

Please do mind, that Hungarians we know today moved from Ural to their current residence, circa 800-900

[@sebastianjasper2308]

Hungary is genetically a verry interesting country. The language is of uralic origin, but the ethnic features are much more divers. In the hungarian planes (alföld) you see many uralic and asian features but in the western and northern part of the country germanic, celtic and slavic features are more dominant. But that said, you should also consider, that there was always much ethnic exchange in the carpatian basin: celtic, roman, german, slavic, many different uralic tribes, turks, jewish and these are only the major influences. I am hungarian too, but I grew up in germany, and many did point out, that I do have asian/ uralic features as well as european.

[@viveka2994]

They come from Hunnic lands I'm pretty sure.

[@taglicherirrsinn5926]

@@viveka2994 a lot of them. Attila ruled in hungary.

[@xanshen9011]

@@viveka2994 They came from modern day Bashkortostan in Russia.

[@eckohelmick1710]

You should review movies in general, especially historic ones. Because you have a great eye for detail and I definitely love this series you did for 10,000 BC (which I liked, it kept me interested enough?).

[@autonomousthought4106]

"It has been suggested that WHGs had dark skin and blue eyes.[9] However, Mesolithic hunter-gatherers of the eastern Baltic, who were mostly of WHG ancestry, display high frequencies of the derived alleles for SLC45A2 and SLC24A5, which code for light skin.[b]"

[@adelynncollier4222]

There is no proof that ancient European side dark skin that study was literally done by biased scientists with an ideological agenda

[@cthonisprincess4011]

The trait of light-coloured eyes became prevalent within several hunter-gatherer groups from around 10,000 years ago (8,000 BCE), two thousand years after this movie was meant to be set.

[@ITSSKUDDUMMY]

Holy crap I laughed so hard at the echo when you said *WHITE*

[@scourgi5274]

@Jasta 2 I've been looking for around the internet quite a while and I haven't found any recent articles that spoke about race in prehistory (specifically, times like 10,000 bce). Could you share an article or something? Everything I've read so far only talks about first humans or super ancient humans.

[@ConnanTheCivilized]

Don’t watch ancient television if you don’t want to see cookie-cutter white people. Or offensive attempts to depict “minorities.” Also how dare this guy act like he doesn’t live in a country where the scientific community is almost entirely rich white people, and that he’s naturally better than his evil ignorant ancestors. He cherry picks and deliberately misquotes data based on agenda just like everyone else. To be biased and flawed is to be human. I think this would be a informative and fun analysis if he wasn’t so high and mighty about a movie people know is fantasy.

[@dangersnail5839]

@@ConnanTheCivilized what? In confused on what your saying

[@qualityshitposter9314]

@@dangersnail5839 Translation: Stop ruining our fun NERD!

[@robertmartin8907]

@Jasta Yildirim well that's the info that allows him to be the most racist so he takes it.

[@lambeorolfe2009]

You didn't mention how the mammoths galloped? That was the weirdest part for me' we don't see elephants galloping, so why are these oversized woolies galloping?

[@richardsorgo8600]

What about the fact the mammoths in the movie gallop, which is a gait modern elephants struggle with.

[@Thagomizer]

That bothered me too. I kept thinking, "Can't they get the elephants gait right?" Mammoths are elephants, after all. Not elephant ancestors. Extinct elephants.

[@richardsorgo8600]

true, but smaller elephant species such as the African forest elephant show little evidence of galloping.

[@AlexAnder-xr4sb]

It was 2 types a mastodon is smaller than an elephant. The mammoth was slightly bigger

[@tompatompsson]

I was absolutely in love with that woman as a kid.

[@n0body550]

Oooh, this can be read in multiple ways

[@brandonlinnane9830]

FBI OPEN UP!!!!!!

[@tdog652041]

Bit of trivia , she was the little girl attacked by dinosaurs in the beginning of Jurassic park lost world, Kathy.

[@wereshark6921]

Hhhhhmmmmmm

[@tristansoendergaard7867]

Ara Ara

[@willjohn1117]

When I first read the title, I laughed thinking there was nothing historically accurate about it. Nice video on one of my favorite guilty pleasures.

[@ginkgothestink-o6949]

Ancient history seems like mythology. It’s so interesting.

[@power279]

so much we don't know about our past..damn..we really need a time machine

[@Ecclessia]

@@power279 i can hardly think about what it would of been like if we get to reincarnate into any time period imma go back to then even if they experienced huge hardships

[@Zulfburht]

It basically is, something that once existed. But we know so little about. To us is mystical.

[@eds1942]

Recorded history began with civilization. Unfortunately, we also had a lot mythology, legends and misconceptions to shift through with most ancient accounts going back at least to the medieval period.

[@ginkgothestink-o6949]

Ed S it keeps things interesting, at least

[@cocopud]

Even the actress who played the blue eyed girl does not have blue eyes 😜 Google Camilla Belle and you will see her eyes are very definitely brown. Doh!

[@TREYtheExplainer]

Yeah, I noticed that. They must have made her wear contacts or something. I'm not sure plot-wise they made her have blue eyes

[@sithpurebloodqueen4812]

TREY the Explainer 10,000 years ago Blue eyes came into existence

[@LookzA]

Sith Pure Blood Queen Blue eyes, YES White Skin, NO

[@johnwillow9546]

the modern human is believed to had come at 75,000 BC, by 10,000 BC Even if we came out of Africa it would had been LONG BEFORE the major ice age, and we would had already mixed with Neanderthals for MANY THOUSANDS OF YEARS... in 10,000 BC the neanderthal was right on the edge of extinction, and the last ice age was on its way to ending already. there has been 4 ice ages we know of, and every ice age lasts 100,000 years and recedes for around 20,000 years until it comes back... we are already do for the next ice age..

[@OK-yy6qz]

​@@johnwillow9546by your calculations we would have at least another 8000 years before the Next Ice Age

[@lynneparks9247]

This movie was sometimes accurate? wow, you learn something new everyday

[@maxcooke3142]

"I applaud the diversity of the cast" 2 minutes later "The cast is way too diverse, the whole tribe would have looked the same."

[@maxrivera38]

Im happy someone else saw this too, like that right there made me not like the video, its just such a massive contradiction and he seems to not even notice. Then again someone who praises a show for having people of different skin colors on it probably isnt the brightest

[@marsrocket]

Those two things aren’t contradictory. The diversity made it impossible to complain about the tribe being all white, or Asian, or whatever. But it’s not historically accurate. So he’s saying “I like that the cast is diverse, but it’s not very accurate. “

[@MrChickennugget360]

i would never applause a story set during this time period for being diverse. people were much more homogeneous back then. If anything make them look what people think those people would have looked like.

[@novatrue1135]

@@marsrocket nice clarification

[@HYMystique]

He didn't phrase it well but he meant to say - humans would have been hard to pinpoint as a specific race back then, so having a cast of only ethnic asians or africans or europeans would have been very inaccurate. The diversity of the cast was meant to reflect that they would likely have looked more obviously racially ambiguous than we're used to. At the same time, tribe members would have looked very similar to each other, like a family. So the whole tribe would have looked related to each other, but quite racially ambiguous.

[@ifureadthis_urgay]

Trey made a new vid YOU ALREADY KNOW THIS SHITS GONNA BE GOOD!!!

[@antelmotrevizo3317]

YEAH

[@naturegnatiggy]

How does a ceratopsian use a keyboard?

[@antelmotrevizo3317]

i don't know

[@antelmotrevizo3317]

Triceratops Prorsus ok?

[@clay10chance88]

Triceratops Prorsus true

[@purplerathalos7226]

Can't wait for part two. I have watched only parts of the movie, but, from what I have seen, it is a paleontologist's nightmare. There's grizzly-sized Smilodon hunting gazelle in the Old World, terror birds that live in the jungle and..... well, the pyramids being built by men with whips that are controlling herds of woolly mammoths in a desert environment speaks for itself.

[@ryiashi5600]

I've so glad trey takes time to make these videos, if I've ever come across a content creator that cares, its ya boi, basking shark

[@chrisv36]

“ua-se” is a pretty accurate pronunciation of oase (bones)! we could make a fluent romanian out of you yet

[@alexanderrahl7034]

I remember seeing an elephant at a fair last year. It was an African elephant about 8 years old. It looked so damn small compared to what I expected and was only maybe a foot taller than me. I remember thinking " this was the beast that that brought low the legions of early Rome? "

[@cosmicpaddlefish9748]

Spud Bud The ones the Romans fought were likely to be African forest elephants, which were much smaller. The Romans also developed techniques to counter elephants.

[@alexanderrahl7034]

Cosmic Paddlefish yes I'm aware of Hannibal's part in the inception of Romes triplex Acies formation. I just thought they'd be bigger lol

[@trequor]

8 years old isnt done growing yet

[@TimeToMine830]

You were expecting it to be huge at 8 years old? Its not a dog or cat, it takes time to grow, like humans.

[@FireBird826]

i mean if i was an ancient italian who's never seen an elephant before regardless of size I would be scared shitless

[@proxbox3995]

"Oh muh **GAWWWWWWWWWWD**-so embarrassing.." -Trey the Explainer 2k17 quote of the year

[@mrjaz666]

16:20 I think it is safe to say the 1.90m actor was playing a shorter person, and the mammoths were scaled accordingly.

[@docauch5938]

Even if it wasn’t accurate enough to be educational, I wish more people would take creative takes on historical periods. It’s not like all movies about modern era are realistic, it’s just fun seeing new approaches from different timelines.

[@edgeofthedanklord2263]

In the future, people will refere to the era before rage memes became a thing as the Before Dank Meme Era, B.D.M.E

[@edicsonavelar4329]

do the Cambrian explosion next

[@edicsonavelar4329]

Max Johnson ok

[@petersmythe6462]

Edicson Avelar It's the caaambrian explosion!

[@edicsonavelar4329]

Peter Smythe ok

[@LennyLenward]

Peter Smythe the sun is a deadly lazer

[@samuraijackoff5354]

Lenny Is A Carrot Nevermind I'm Steve.

[@gagegordon2240]

I've never clicked on a video so fast before. Except the other times Trey has uploaded.

[@flavsdepadua8516]

Biggest inaccuracie: HOW THE CHARACTERS HAVE PERFECT EYEBROWNS

[@paleopython5478]

I really like these types of videos, so I have some ideas for videos you could make. 1. Prehistoric park inaccuracies 2. Far cry primal inaccuracies 3. Ark survival evolved inaccuracies And it doesn't have to just be inaccuracies, maybe point out some of the accuracies they put in the movie/game

[@admiralcat3809]

But ark doesn't have any accuracy...

[@paleopython5478]

He can point out the inaccuracies, and maybe talk about some stuff they did right like give the yutyrannus feathers.

[@raptorcell6633]

Muffin the Snek Ark isnt meant to be accurate. Half the dinos in the game are either Hybrids or inspired by Jurassic Park

[@RPM1776]

Far cry primal has like magic and stuff

[@greatvideosguy6234]

Muffin the Snek i

[@TaiganTundra]

Great video, would love to see more videos on early man and other hominids.

[@TREYtheExplainer]

Great! :)

[@jondreauxlaing]

I second that. I'm a huge fan of the study of human evolution!

[@jovileavitt8865]

me to

[@brown22sugar25]

Okay but Ringo definitely looks like he could fit the time

[@Brandon-dy8us]

They could most definitely have had blue eyes. Just because no one has found a mummified corpse with blue eyes doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[@TheAlienmorph]

Also yes, it'd definately be interesting to see more videos like these! Perhaps you could take a look at Far Cry Primal or at some of the various primitive men docu-fictions that have been made over the years, if you want to talk more of stone age humans?

[@nicosy282]

I remember watching 10,000 B.C.

[@ohyeahgamer3736]

Nico Sy I seen it when I was 7

[@Wolfen443]

I saw it too, I found it amusing decent at least the first half but then it got really weird like a History Channel Ancient Aliens Episode in the Second Half. They seemed to borrow a lot form Stargate at the end too.

[@GnarledStaff]

I don’t.

[@arthas640]

i know i saw it but i dont remember much besides the sabertooth tiger scenes, and since i saw Apocalypto at the same time parts of that movie blended into my memory.

[@cameronvanhook7388]

I know I watched it, but can't remember anything from it.

[@billcipherfankamenvorvanov9208]

Yes, yes, yes please do more of these.

[@TREYtheExplainer]

Great!

[@pariszaimis601]

I find the movie more closely related to the Zagros Mountains Gutians (light-colored barbarians from the icy cold Zagros Mountains) and the advanced civilizations of Sumer & Akkad. Some historical Context: Sumerians were generally believed to be black-haired people with arabic-like complexity and light colored eyes, unlike any other race in Mesopotamia. They invented the first cities, religious pantheon, wheel, irrigation and writing (between 5000BC - 3500 BC). Sumerian cities were centered around a temple or ziggurat and expanded upon. Akkadians were semitic people in middle mesopotamia and amorites were semitic people in northern mesopotamia. Along the persian gulf and south of the Zagros mountains, lied the brutal Elamite centres, rich in minerals, copper and tin and dry land and little agricultural advancement. There were occasions of Elamites raiding the Zagros mountains people to get meat and slaves for their mines. Elamites also raided Mesopotamia for the agricultural goods and slaves. Urban Sumerian centres were initially administered by a Lugal or high priest of the temple (Uruk or early sumerian period 4100 BC - 2900 BC). This was followed by the Early Dynastic period (2900 BC - 2400 BC) where kings were made in city stated and empires were born. Akkadians, a semitic people in middle mesopotamia conquered the sumerians of southern mesopotamia, and amorite states of northern mesopotamia. They ruled for 180 years and were smashed by the Gutians, who through the centuries formed large tribes from simple groups. For the Movie: Given the context, I feel this could be the Zagros mountain Gutians being raided by the Elamites of the Anshan. Chronologically, this could be placed between 3500BC - 2500BC.

[@Tarbtano]

I will compliment the film on one regard. The very out of geographical place Terror Bird scene was well down regardless and is probably the closest thing we'll get to an 'accurate' dinosaur on human attack in a movie. While we're on the wrong continent, there is some evidence now that some Phorusrachids might have survived long enough for early American Paleoindians to bump into them, as the extinction date for Terror Birds moves forward and the colonization of the New World moves backwards.

[@SuperPredator1]

10:48 You actually spelled it corect.Btw it means bones, I guess the guys who found the skull had a huge brainstorming gathering to find the perfect name for what is probably the most important thing they ever discovered

[@brobot500]

Why are the comments of the Cthulhu video disabled?

[@BenBanned]

Brobot 500 it's the end of times

[@thedoruk6324]

Brobot 500 Trey Went to 'the Dark side' & Fully embraced the one & only True prophecy of the mighty Alien DarkGod Lord; The Cthulhu ! The Cthulhu & his Spawn're divine and they'll save Us ! (LoL)

[@eggroll3055]

Too many incantations.

[@shiperobin]

This video has been in my recommended for years now. Time to watch

[@thenerdbeast7375]

I don't know if you do games, but could you do a video on Far Cry Primal?

[@Sammedine]

The Nerd Beast www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/7i72m0/far_cry_primal_is_a_far_cry_from_an_accurate

[@lordhoskinz4885]

That I wanna see

[@hellomynameis3922]

Seven Days - Do you believe in God?

[@rogerstone3068]

@Seven After the expansion into Europe; living in northern latitudes favoured lighter skin in order to absorb the limited sunlight and convert vitamin D.

[@manospondylus]

I always just assumed that the movie played in a kind of fantasy-universe similar to Conan the Barbarian.

[@tonyferguson3675]

Hey Trey you should do top 10 inaccurate representations of Tyrannosaurus rex

[@anthonylezama1645]

QUESTION! Difference between Native and Indigenous. Google says "Indigenous" is something that originates/occurs naturally in a given space. With the term Native, it states "a person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not." A person born in California (causcasian, african, asian, pacific islander) can be a Cali "Native" for that is their birthright, but to say they are Cali "Indigenous" would be incorrect given that their lineage did not originate there. An Indigenous Californian would be someone (assuming their blood is mostly pure) of, say; Yurok, Pomo, Maidu, etc. descent. However, if we look at the origins of human evolution, we evidently see that the global takeover of Earth did not happen with sparce populations of humans magically originating on every continent (except Antarctica). Rather, we see Migration and Genetic exchange tracing back all the way to the cradle of human origins in Africa. Knowing that, we can say that for a time, the rest of the planet was foreign land to our long distant ancestors: Our first peoples (Homo Sapiens), that would inevitably lead to me and you. In a way, we can say that the only true Indigenous home to our species is the African continent. So why do we consider people from various parts of the world as Indigenous if going back even further we find that no one was truly Indigenous to any other part of the globe aside from Africa. We could argue that these early humans became adapted to their environments leading to the distinction of various features, culture, and characteristics. Perhaps that is the Genesis point for Indigenous communities, the very "birth" of a people could merely imply the beginning of ethnic/minor genetic distinction resulting in them becoming "Indigenous". Given that these wandering communities of early humans had settled down and adapted over thousands of year to a specific location they've chosen to situate themselves in, this could've lead to specializations of various kinds (i.e. naturally higher body fat, limb proportions, skin color, pathogen immunity). - My ultimate question is, how long does a population have to be in a given place until they are considered Indigenous to the area? - Is it until they develop features and customs influenced by the environment on a genetic level or other...? - Is Indigenous even valid if we consider all humans to be Indigenous to the Earth itself? - Or does "Indigenous" merely serve as a tool of distinction in a world that is becoming more Cosmopolitan? (i may have some things wrong, or might even be jumping the shark on some things, but i would appreciate a serious and thoughtful opinion on this). with respect of course.

[@garman1966]

I got stuck here on the idea that the mammoth wound on the back was from a spear that "Had to have been thrown from a distance, ...and more likely boulders were thrown....etc" These people were in top shape compared with our chair oriented slugs of today. Leaping on the mammoth's back when badly injured or dying would have been easy for them, and a death blow to the spine is maybe what was intended.

[@alchemists4443]

Good point! Still, they probably would have thrown things from a distance because mammoths are big and can trample them easily haha But a killing blow as it is dying makes sense, because of how far the spear or rock went into the mammoth skin

[@terrariamaestro5990]

Part of the reason why humans developed throwing weapons is because we couldn’t do that.

[@zuraorokamono204]

10:46 Actually, you're one of the few foreigners that I heard pronouncing that right.

[@JoesWebPresence]

@6:40 " . . from Hungaria," Is that in Canadia? No wait! It's in centralian Europe! Loved the video. Don't mind me, I'm a nit picker. : )

[@Senovitj]

Great reviews, all three parts! Not sure about the statement of BCE being more accurate than BC. BCE is about religious neutrality, not about being anymore scientific than BC. I was going to watch the movie for getting ideas for my book, but watching these reviews helped me a lot more.

[@kirbyfanos123]

"like oh mah gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawd" - Trey 2017 edit: holy crap thanks for the likes!

[@TREYtheExplainer]

XD

[@gojiramusprimus9088]

TREY the Explainer Can You Do A Scientific Analysis On My Favorite Prehistoric Mammal Of All Time Gigantopithecus?

[@CatAT0N1_C]

Gojiramus Primus Stop Uppercasing Every Single Word You Fool

[@TrReach]

tfw nobody got the RLM refference..

[@thewolfofcomedy5966]

Surprised you didn't mention that the mammoths were GALLOPING

[@paulgirtu2463]

18:39 "as the films goes on, it seems like it gets progressively more inaccurate, and how do I say this, *_shlocky over time. I mean OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD how embarassin'_* " best line ever xD

[@jasonhare8540]

Accurate; humans did exist in 10,000 BC . Inaccurate; everything else

[@baranguirus]

Dayum! This is gonna be good! I'd love to see you tackle Disney's Dinosaur next.

[@johanbakker4463]

baranguirus noooo my childhood! , that d'be awesome

[@BookWonder]

Please do a video about the evolution of the skin coloration of our species! I was not expecting this video but it's very fascinating. I want to know more. Also, would it be AT ALL possible for someone to be born with blue or green eyes as far back as 200 thousand years ago? As a genetic mutation, one-time thing?

[@croatianwarmaster7872]

john willow exactly

[@doctorbird4326]

(I am early to a Trey The Explainer Video Well) TREY DO OSTAFRIKASAURUS IN PALEO PROFILE. It is a lesser Know Spinosaur and is *only* found in Jurassic World the Game and is *kinda* accurate within it.

[@thedoruk6324]

Shadow and Yu Its most likely the earliest known Spinosaur species; kinda accurate ? The 'evolving things' up made every (hybrid chimera monster; and most likely no dinosaur at all) jurassic world 'dinosaurs' very unlikely/inaccurate However what's up with this 'accuracy' thing ? I didn't see nobody complained when how Tyranno depicted as The 'Undefeatable Hulk' in Jurassic World/Park series Liked your comment however; I want to see the Profile :)

[@doctorbird4326]

Yes Even More Reason for Trey to do it By Accurate I mean it has a Spine at all times and sure Because Jurassic park it is Innaccurate but more Accurate then the T. Rex and I do not look at The Evolving Mechanic unless it looks like the Real Thing (Kinda) like Ostafrikasaurus just take a Brief comparison and think of the Games Art Style

[@thedoruk6324]

Shadow and Yu Understood.

[@johnbiever4204]

Shadow and Yu it's not that accurate. Also it's way oversized.

[@thedoruk6324]

The Mantis Shrimp Every Dinosaur in JurassicWorldPark is kinda oversized tbh

[@OzMate79]

Your theory of early humans being above the mammoths and throwing spears downward is correct. The mammoths would use certain large boulders to rub against and relieve itches etc...the early ppl would just hide on top and wait then attack from above

[@brannythefrenchie8847]

Did Trey just make a new vid? The Decomposing Basking Sharks have blessed us!

[@manospondylus]

Fluffy Dasher You mean the Owl God, you infidel!

[@TheGreatWolfYT]

Your Romanian is ok. Fun fact: oase means bones, and os means bone.

[@OK-GV888OD]

ossa means bones

[@italianpc4119]

Olliver Kahlbrock VIVA L'ITALIA

[@sugapula4920]

Olliver Kahlbrock in Romanian is oase :)

[@marilyn3583]

Os=Osteoporosis.

[@crumb167]

romanian really is so similar to other romance languages :)

[@seamusmcboon558]

Yo, I had already subscribed, but I fell in love at 18:50 with the RLM reference.

[@theodorebreedlove8419]

First you say red or blond hair did not exist for another 4k years or so then say neanderthals had red or blond hair and point out the fact that we descended from them making it more likely to have red or blond hair at that time.

[@MultiSciGeek]

This movie was anything but accurate. Good job on this in depth explanation, you should do more of these!

[@praisethesun.praisedeussol6051]

It wasen't meant to be

[@jarkkorosti9119]

From the thumbnail i tough it was pirates of the carribian.... dont asknme why

[@wakawakawakawaka8804]

GamingWil ! wut

[@visemarraellaeris3644]

Yes, the historical inaccuracies of Pirates of the Caribbean.

[@adrianagflores5587]

Is it cause your high ??

[@Quasimodo-mq8tw]

Saw the title. Started laughing.

[@thedoruk6324]

Quasimodo 1848 The movie pretty much watchable thought; it was entertaining to see at least

[@autisticspaceman9397]

the movie looks like a new earth creatianist's wet dream

[@autisticspaceman9397]

the movie has raptors and mammoths building pyramids for fuck sake

[@TheStonehammerFiles]

no raptors, just terror birds.

[@andrewoid4711]

Autism in Space wait seriously?

[@leodefine86]

It is bizarre that the girl in the movie looks like a top model with perfect skin tone and and thin eyebrows like a glamorous pin up from world war 2 lol