That was really interesting, thank you. That space between the dykes never ceases to be fascinating when discussed too!

#ReturntheStone

There are serious problems with peer review, and there have been many studies showing this. The percentage of retractions is way too high, even for trivial research. More journals should require the presentation of raw data along with the manuscript to allow any reader to conduct a post publication peer review.

Thanks very much to you both for that exposition! Makes sense to me, certainly! Re: How one self-identifies, Howard, I think is entirely up to you! I was born in England but was christened in Hirwaun at a few weeks old. All my relatives - and they were legion! - were Welsh and I was brought up to think of myself as Welsh. So I have always identified as Welsh! My family is Welsh on both sides, from the Heads of the Valleys/Pen Cymoedd area. Basically where the Cynon Valley hits Bannau Brycheiniog (Rhigos, Hirwaun, Penderyn) and it was always known as Welsh speaking. My Dad was mainly monoglot Welsh until he was 4 in 1941 and starting Primary school loomed, his (and my!) extended family certainly spoke it amongst themselves and, as I spent a lot of time there, I picked up a bit when I was very young! Kids, huh?! In fact, although my Cymraeg is Tipyn Bach (D'win Dysgu!), I did find that the 1994 bilingual policy helped enormously in picking up a lot of vocabulary and expressions as I already had some familiarity with the language. I learned some Welsh History, too, grandmothers are great for that!❤ So studying it at University in my 30s was doubly engaging! 'Mix me a Molotov, just like Mamgu used to make!'😂 My teachers would always ask me to pronounce the place-names and, where relevant, perhaps supply slightly different nuances on some of the topics we covered in History lessons! Diolch Yn Fawr Iawn I Chi Dau🤩✊🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿!

Excellent discussion. Thank you, Howard and Liv.

Thank you for the knowledge

First time listener. Love the podcast. Rebel Rabbi sent me when she popped in my TikTok live.

Archeodeathsoup!

Hey, I know these guys🎉❤

Really enjoyed this video, very thought provoking. I live pretty much on Offa's Dyke and know the section between Treuddyn and Chirk extremely well. My biggest concern is that I struggle to understand how Offa's Dyke could basically disappear from the landscape north of Treuddyn, especially when it is so well preserved heading south. Even in built-up areas such as Johnstown and Ruabon, you can still trace it's existence. My own personal belief is that the route from Treuddyn southwards was negotiated to neatly divide the exposed minerals resources in the area. For it to be a defendable barrier, surely a route across Hope Mountain or Pen Llan y Gwr would have been identified, instead of the bottom of a valley.

Thank you for that fair and balanced account of the origin of the words "Wales" and "Welsh". Diolch.

Really interesting video guys, thanks a tonne! I've always just accepted the OE gloss I first encountered for wealh = foreigner at face value - I was never aware of the link to the Volcae - so that was a revelation. Good stuff.

OMG! Pure comedy gold!😂

Rogan is a huge conspiracy theory buff… he believed the moon landing was fake… until he came across evidence he couldn’t ignore… so that’s why he is so favorable towards Hancock

Hancock is allergic from peer review ... and cries every time he gets peer reviewed ...which he gets ... likes it or not. Hancocks "evidence" is just "it looks like" And despite Flints communicational shortcomings (he won), this shined light on how Hancock ACTUALY looks like without controlled, prepped environment ... where he cant say "CUT" lets go over that segment again .. with his script. And as others stated - he LITERALY admitted that there is no evidence for his crap .. his evidence, according to him, still is in the places we haven't looked. Which means ... what to do with his hours and hours of tv shows where he "CLEAAAARLY" (in his voice) demonstrates his CROOKED interpretation (via "it looks like") evidence? His logic is like: there must be pink unicorns playing chess somewhere in universe ... because ... we have ONLY explored tiny (x amount of %) of universe .. therefore pink unicorns.

Good stuff to know lol!

I'm starting my first public talk at a small museum in North Wales. What you have just said is true of every talk I have watched at small communities. Is there any advice for when you are running short on your allowed time limit for the talk? Should I rush it through and skip some slides, or should I just continue calmly and hope they don't notice?

What I don't understand is how there was even a debate. Graham literally admitted he had no evidence to support his theory... So what is there to debate? Hancock can't rewrite history with NO evidence.

Kayleigh History is very good

Others have done excellent tear downs of grahams new series, but no one was prepared to go on JRE, I think he start was excellent, flint explained this is how archaeology works these days and graham looked ridiculous starting with his long rant about being persecuted. Pseudo science is such a big problem we need to find ways to deal with it.

Flint and Joe also got graham to admit that he has no actual evidence for his theories

Hancock is unbearable and full of projection. One example, from the recent Rogan podcast was when he called Flint Dibble "slippery". This, coming from Hancock, a person who on one hand says "I'm not a scientist, I'm just asking questions" before going on to use scientific terms such as "my hypothesis" before acknowledging many of his bat**** ideas are not amenable to testing via appropriate archeological methodology. A person with a very rudimentary understanding of the scientific process understands a good hypothesis is one that can be tested and repeated, using appropriate methodology. Graham's ability to switch between using scientific terms e.g. hypothesis, before acknowledging many of his nonsense claims cant be tested, i believe relies on an implicit understanding that most of his audience are ignorant to the scientific process; and thus, is the action of an incredibly slipppery person.

Thank You very much for the support of Ukraine and Ukrainian archaeology!

I didn't think it was THAT bad! I watched it all and the only boring bits were when Hack-crock was talkihg his drivel. {:o:O:}

I mean if you go to one hour and 27 minutes in the podcast Hancock admits to joe that there’s no evidence of what he’s saying so I’d say give flint some props that looked extremely difficult I think flint won again I know nothing about this and I’m here because of him

I’m just going to say I think flint did good given the circumstances you have to understand he can’t control the conversation it not his place I watched the whole thing and I’m a 24 year old who knows nothing about this

Why don't you check out UncharteredX, The episode called 'scoop marks' !!!

I actually think you've got this wrong. I frequent many of the Hancock forums, and while this debate didn't change many minds as such, the general feeling among the fandom is that Hancock lost the debate. Flint did not perform perfectly, and I understand your concerns about his appearance, he did as well as I think he could be expected in the situation. He showed that Hancock actually has zero positive evidence. While that is obvious to most people, it was really exposed during the debate in the way that Flint approached it. And it is the first time that Hancock has been forced to state categorically: 'I have no evidence for my theory'. You are academics and you are probably wanting a bit more from that kind of discussion. But for the general public, it was enjoyable and educational. Edit: I think that Atun-Shei has gauged the public mood on this pretty well: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/kMxypad_xrbYZ4E.html The interview has had a bigger impact than your review suggests.

Definitely needed more context from other archaeologists about what Graham and Flint discussed. That debate was a frustrating mess, but it showed Graham is in his own bubble with his views.

Thanks for this analysis, I thought it was good to hear! To your point about Flint's representation of the archaelogical space as a monolith, I think he did/does a good job in elevating the voices of content creators in the space, he made a point to highlight a long list of folks in the JRE podcast and he does on his own channel. I think also to the point of getting more people interested in Archaeology, I saw an increase of about 2,000 subscribers to Flint's channel, including myself, and once you are subscribed to one channel about Archaeology on youtube/spotify, etc. you are recommended the accounts of other creators in the space. So while the effect may not be immediate, I believe his appearance on Rogan will open the world of REAL archaeology up to at least a small portion of Rogan's listeners which is a good thing.

I appreciate your input, I fell down the graham hancock rabbit hole for years, thanks for helping coax me outta that hole and breath some fresh air 🍻

Really good to have that insight. Thanks both.

Rogan was high lol

thats my cuz,,,

thats my cuz,,,, im so Proud,,, WELL DONE ANDY,,, Trev

This is so interesting!

Excellent interview. Can you do an interview with Zane from @liminalitytv ? He's been working on Australia's early history. It's fascinating stuff.

What a great channel! (From an anthropology student)

Hooray! Glad to see Andy here too :D

I know of a hillfort about 1 mile from Pandy, located in Llay, it runs parallel to the dyke .

I'm really enjoying this but I'm missing an introduction of your wonderful guest at the start or even the description, I'm not familiar with them?

thanks so much for wanting to do this! I was so nervous

Its different for everybody , for me it went real bad real quick

Way to go Nicole

2:45

What an interesting topic! Thank you for posting this interview.

Wonderful discussion btw

It’s important to note that even today trans and non binary people are often buried according to the family’s wishes not necessarily their own. Unless you have gone through full legal processes in the UK you can be recorded as the wrong gender on your birth certificates if the family is unaccepting. But even then there’s nothing stopping an unaccepting family dictating what clothes the deceased is buried in or what trinkets they have with them if any. Obviously modern day burials are not the same as historical or ancient ones. But tolerance of non stereo typical genders is always going to impact how any trans and non binary people are buried. We didn’t have the modern day medical advances that we do today so we can’t test whether historical remains were on hormone therapy or underwent certain surgeries like Facial Feminisation Surgery which would leave obvious marks on the skull facial bones. That said we know for sure them at trans and non binary identities did not just emerge in the past five years. It’s not a modern phenomena or a western one. I agree with the approach that we should refrain from projecting sex and gender identity. But there’s obviously a need to pin down historical cases of trans and non binary identities because how poorly trans and non binary people are treated today. There’s a need to demonstrate that it’s not some fad. But really bigoted people don’t listen to evidence anyway.

I am Tri Nary Alive Not dead may be living 1 more day