Comments on: My thoughts on History Channel’s “Journey to 10,000 BC”

By: Stan

Stan — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 00:59:29 +0000

Charlie, You hit the cave woman on the head! I myself just being a moderately trained ameture archeologist that worked on the dig site at Cactus Hill, Virginia. I was there when we found those tools below the clovis layer that Stanford associates with the solutrians. Through my experience with the scientific community its all about reputation and funding, not expanding our knowlege. For all the blinders on clovis first and bearing theory folks, its no use in debating with them. If you were to find a frozen early man and thaw him out and he said that he originated from Brooklyn, they would still say he is lying and he is from asia and he walked across the bearing bridge. Closed minds cant open doors. Peace.

Stan

By: Jsmith

Jsmith — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 22:00:23 +0000

I’m not sure “easier” is relevent here. Easiest course of action would be to have stayed put in Asia or Europe — they didn’t take that option. IMHO at that point the “easier” argument breaks down.

By: Christopher Zimny

Christopher Zimny — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 03:44:10 +0000

Thank you for that, I’ve read about that before but I’d forgotten it when I saw the show. Something did seem amiss about the way the people on the show described it… throwing sticks and running away while the mammoth runs around and thrashes about before dying (can’t forget head-squashing too).

By: Noman

Noman — Fri, 13 May 2011 19:04:41 +0000

I can tell you that people in 10,000/13,000 BC were comparatively smarter than the producers and researchers of this show. At least they should do more study on group hunting techniques of ancient people around the world. Since I am from Indian Sub-continent I know about ancient “Kheda” technique of hunting elephants. This involves chasing with loud noise (may include dogs) a group of few elephants to a certain man made or natural (with modification) surrounded place from where they are unable to go out (for example climbing up a slope is difficult for heavy animals), also a muddy place is ideal because their feet are stuck and mobility is reduced. Then the elephants were attacked to be killed/captured. I am sure the mammoths were hunted with similar techniques but not they way the show described that.

By: koam

koam — Sun, 07 Nov 2010 13:56:23 +0000

I got halfway through the repetitive 2-hour show and realized that it was pseudoscience.

Thanks for the comments.

By: Jasmin

Jasmin — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:22:08 +0000

I just watched the show and I’m just a normal viewer. Just a fan of history and I was really dissapointed because a lot of things seemed so fishy…
I just read all of your comments and it was really helpul with a lot of links that made me understand more.
I just hate when History doesn’t do well their job, like when I saw the one from the exodus and they tried so hard to fit events with their theories. (if I remember correctly it was the one produced by James Cameron)
:(
(sorry if I didn’t make sense, english is not my first language)

By: Kokopelau

Kokopelau — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:53:33 +0000

Take any current chart of the seas and look at the depths, deduct 400 feet from the current depths and that will give you an approximate sea level for that time period. It is easy to see that they (Paleo ?) could a still cross easier from Asia than from Europe either by boat or by walking.

By: terryt

terryt — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 08:29:23 +0000

Way back in May Stuart asked, “Does anyone know of a map of the exposed land during any of th Ice Ages?” Sorry to take so long to reply but any map that shows ocean depth will give you a good idea. Although some parts of the earth have sunk somewhat and others risen you can take as a rough guide the 100-200 metres below present sea lavel as being approximately the boundary of land during the ice ages over the last few tens of thousands of years.

By: DaveM

DaveM — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 21:36:04 +0000

Chuck said on March 21, 2008 at 9:28 pm

“A note of correction, the film said the Colombian Mammoth was the largest animal in North America since the dinosaurs, not the entire world.”

Sorry, you are wrong. I recorded the show and watched it carefully twice. It definitely says “largest animal on land” and nothing about North America.

As others have pointed out, even if they meant North America (which they clearly did NOT say), they were wrong, because Mammuthus imperator was the largest mammoth in North America, not the Columbian Mammoth.

By: A ‘Re-Review’ of Journey to 10,000 B.C. « Anthropology.net

A ‘Re-Review’ of Journey to 10,000 B.C. « Anthropology.net — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 16:40:39 +0000

[...] like a review copy. I said sure, despite the fact that I viewed the original airing of the show in March and wrote up an unfavorable review of it. But I didn’t say [...]