Видео

Thank you

Thank you for your kind comment on this documentary made available to you free of charge on RUclips so that everyone can see what we did in Kenya. Thank you also for your mistrust expressed clearly in your one sentence, which is always very pleasant. Let me reassure you, so that you sleep better and perhaps have a better opinion of archaeologists (some of them, anyway): yes, the artifacts have been returned to Kenya.

Et oui c'est plus ce que c'était l'archéologie! 😁

Dear Mr. Penney, I was curious about your comment and went checked on these North American bird statuettes you mention. I also looked at your recent videos on your channel, looked at them carefully (the pictures are really nice, congratulations of your photographic skills) and show them to some colleagues. I must say that we all agree with the archaeologist your interviewed on this parking that the stones you present in your videos are natural rocks. Flint cobbles can take many shapes (some links at the end of this answer), and can be naturally polished in clays or by the wind if they remain on the surface of the ground in cold climate for a long time. You present the selection of stones you think are birds (as I could show a selection of pictures of clouds with the shape of dogss and do not show any other picture of other clouds), but you do not present any of the field work you say you're doing 40 hours a week. Where are the other rocks which are not supposedly birds? Where are the field minutes? What is the context, the stratrigaphic units, are these rocks only on the surface of the field, or in archaeological layers? What are the other types of artifacts that one would probably find and that would help to characterize the archaeological occupation? Or did this site was only dedicated to bird figurines production? Showing rocks totally out of context is not how archaeological science is supposed to be done in order to prove what is apparently, in your opinion, disturbing evidence for the close-minded archaeologists. The bird statuette we presented in this peer-review paper was the first of its kind, but we published it in peer-review journal, and the close-minded archaeologist you consistently mention accepted to publish it because we had good arguments : this object comes from an archaeological site studied with multiple specialists of geology, stone tools, fauna identification, zooarchaeologists, dating specialists, that was all studied and published as field minutes first and then as peer-review papers, and we added here microscopic examination of the artifact showing striations and other marks of human work that have created multiple facets on the object (the peer-reviewed paper that goes with this video in freely accessible here: journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0233370). Human in North America have produced amazing artifacts, but the polished and non-polished stones that you show in your videos are not human made. I hope you can consider this answer as not too close-minded (I looked at tens of minutes of your videos and answered to your comment with , which is not really what I call close-minded). All the best. Links to some flint nodules images, some even still in the limestone : craies.crihan.fr/wp-content/uploads/silex1.jpg c8.alamy.com/compfr/2anr71y/close-up-de-nodules-de-silex-sur-l-estran-de-la-tamise-greenwich-londres-2anr71y.jpg tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.kZ3FuKPWFF-DfnzecTPDKQHaFs&pid=Api encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR7Zwa6Q9_y4Sm8c8erkNK_N69UPZMQMZPmhg&usqp=CAU just search for "nodules flint" in google and you will find hundreds of photos of strange shaped flint nodules which can become the polished shapes you showed to this archaeoogist in your last video. I hope this helps.

@@paceaqueffelec6559 I absolutely disagree with you and would be happy to send you some of these items as photos and videos are not an absolute method to determine whether or not these are artifacts. What I can tell you are many are made using fired clay. Fired clay requires a human. Many which are made of chert exhibit pressure flaking and conchoidal fractures In addition, the figures were found at sites that produced pottery, projectile points and other artifacts-from the late archaic and early woodland era. A bone fragment was found at a site and sent to a lab for c-14 dating, however, this method proved to be unreliable as the bone found at the same layer as a Meadowoods (early woodland) projectile point produced a date in the range of 1960-'s to 1970's. Meadowoods points were made 1,200 to 3,500 years ago. The intent of this quest is to highlight these types of artifacts which are found by thousands of us and highlight archaeologists complete denial. To your point, I have photos and videos of layers of earth where these were found. I have artifacts found at the same location that even archaeologists can identify. We have interviews with geologists confirming fired clay. Before you make assertions about my competence, research portable rock art. Look at the Portable Rock Art museum. its clear ancient cultures made crude figures with rocks. We are also aware of the fine polished effigies made by native Americans-most of what you're referring were made by later cultures in the Mississippian era. These artifacts you deny share common characteristics and patterns that cannot be denied. If you find 20 of these figures at an archaeological site which all display tail, wing, eyes, etc. the probability nature created these patterns is minimal. There are many items which depict human profiles as well as mammoth and mastodons. As far as 40-hours-a week-yes, I spend this time digging my sites, analyzing the finds under magnification and high resolution photography, consulting with colleagues in north America and Europe as well as shooting and editing flim clips which are part of a full length documentary film which I am producing on this topic. Based upon this and my full time job, no I am not writing papers and submitting them to archaeologists for review. I know the position of Archaeology on Portable Rock Art. Its arrogant to think Archaeology has never been wrong-just like the Clovis first theory.

So glad you found this. Do not hesitate to share with family and friends in Kilifi!

Yes there are other interesting things! Sure! Thanks! But some in French that's true. But isn't it part of the trip to hear another language? :)

Thank you for the recommendation.

Thanks Milo

He clearly likes it!

Thanks for recommending Stefan. Your videos got me fascinated in pre-history about 6 months ago, but I’m learning virtually from scratch and there’s so much nonsense content around. The guidance is appreciated 👍🏻

The man. The myth. The legend Stefan Milo

Merci à vous 😊

I guess the information is in the article just published in Science about the content of the cave, here: science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6505/863/tab-figures-data

Non il sont pas cannibales c des os d'ours

Bonjour, cette chaîne compile les vidéos des chercheurs de notre laboratoire de recherche. Je transmets donc votre commentaire à mes collègues qui ont fait cette vidéo. Toutefois, quant au ton employé, je pense que c'est voulu, car ça colle avec la musique. C'est le but je pense de faire quelque chose de calme et posé. C'est sûr, ça change du RUclips game actuel... :)

it's possible, if he was there I hope he was happy with the work we've been doing! ;)

I'm sure he was very pleased as we all are.