He did a just in case interview before going in to surgery before the end of June and was looking a little rough. Anyone have any updates? Would surely miss the man and his contributions to our history

We don't talk enough about ancient India and their mind bending tech.

I don't know if there are philosophers of science here who also understand archaeology and vice versa - but if yes, would love to hear more from you. For full disclosure I know nothing about archeology as a discipline. But I know about academia intimately and am a bit of a nerd about onlogology and epistemology. I just watched the Netflix series, ancient apocalypse. While I haven't done an in depth analysis of his argument, I do find his theories and reasoning interesting, particularly the comparative analyses of symbols, language, meanings etc. I wonder if part of the critiques he's faced from archeologists is related to the dominant philosophical framework archeologists scientifically engage with? Do archeologists only engage with positivism, and therefore the need for hard, measurable facts, or are there branches of archeology that are more open to other ways of knowing, like oral history/indigenous knowledge, critical realism etc? I know he's faced criticisms from indigenous people, and I acknowledge these. At the same time in his series, it sounds to me like he's validating the knowledge system of indigenous people, by listening to their story telling, and recognising these stories as legitimate form of knowledge (with important information for archeology); which many, many western scientists would be very quick to dismiss.

Ancient Harrapan Civilisation. Image By Tejavalli Reddy(1830787) CCBYSA4.0

Indo‑Roman trade may have generated one‑third of Rome’s exchequer, and Tamilakam’s crucible steel was central to that luxury market. This evidence shows the Roman phase was only one chapter in a far older Dravidian Arc maritime system.

Extract from the latest Dravidian Arc version on Graham Hancock’s website: https://grahamhancock.com/ssj1/ — where this update makes clear that the Roman phase is only one chapter within a far older, deep‑time Dravidian Arc maritime system. Section 6 — updated sub‑bullets now includes the following:

• Yavana Settlements & Cultural Exchange

Sangam texts like Pattinappalai vividly describe Yavana ships unloading gold, wine, and luxury wares at Kaveripoompattinam (Poompuhar), where Greeks, Romans, and West Asians bartered with Tamil merchants. Seasonal enclaves at Arikamedu, Alagankulam, and Poompuhar—attested by Roman amphorae, rouletted ware, and Indo‑Roman coins—bear witness to their sustained presence.

Archaeological and textual evidence indicate that some Yavanas served as mercenaries and palace guards in Madurai, while others participated in the exchange of glassware, coral ornaments, and advanced metallurgical knowledge rooted in the Southern Arc tradition. The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea charts these anchorages along the Dravidian Arc, later used by Roman merchants, and Pliny famously laments that trade with India drained one‑third of Rome’s annual wealth.

Indian Crucible Steel Export in the Roman Luxury Market

Indian crucible steel ranked alongside gems, pearls, and fine textiles in Roman luxury markets.
Its value came from extreme rarity: unlike ordinary wrought iron, ultra‑high‑carbon crucible steel could only be produced by a small number of specialised workshops in South India.

To Roman elites, this imported steel was a prestige material—exceptionally tough, capable of holding a razor‑sharp edge, and ideal for high‑status weapons and ceremonial armour. Roman customs records, including the Digest of Justinian(Book 39, Title 4, Section 16, Fragment 7, Marcianus), list Indian iron and steel in the same tax category as myrrh, frankincense, diamonds, and silk, confirming that it was treated as a luxury import, not a bulk commodity. Pliny the Elder (NH 34.41) explicitly states that of all iron circulating in the Roman Empire, the highest prize was given to the iron from the Seres—historical scholarship confirms this refers to South Asian crucible steel, ranked alongside luxury textiles and skins. Quintus Curtius Rufus (Hist. Alex. 9.8.1) records that King Porus offered Alexander (the Great) a tribute of 100 talents of “white iron,” demonstrating that Indian high‑carbon steel was already valued as a rare diplomatic gift centuries before Rome’s peak trade with Tamilakam.

Archaeometallurgical evidence now corroborates the textual record: a nail from the Chera‑period port of Pattanam (Muziris) exhibits the microstructure of ultra‑high‑carbon wootz steel (~1.5% C), as documented and scientifically corroborated by Sharada Srinivasan in Indian Iron and Steel, with Special Reference to Southern India; [for added regional context, Thelunganur AMS dating in the Dravidian Arc framework provides deep‑time evidence of advanced crucible steelmaking traditions at least a millennium before the Roman phase (c. 1435–1233 BCE, sample AA99857), even if the chronology is more complex, with one contentious earlier AMS sample (AA104832, c. 2900–2627 BCE) suggesting a possible but disputed horizon.] Together, these lines of evidence — classical testimony, fiscal records, and archaeometallurgical science — directly link Tamilakam’s metallurgical industry to the Indo‑Roman luxury trade. They leave little doubt that crucible steel was both a technological marvel and a cornerstone of Rome’s prestige economy.

On the trade side, William Dalrymple’s 'The Golden Road: How Ancient India Transformed the World ' draws on Raoul John McLaughlin’s analysis in Indian Ocean Commerce in Context (in Matthew Adam Cobb, ed., The Indian Ocean Trade in Antiquity, Oxford 2019), which argues that eastern trade — with India as the dominant component — may have generated as much as one‑third of the Roman exchequer’s income.

Together, these lines of evidence — classical testimony, fiscal records, and archaeometallurgical science — directly link Tamilakam’s metallurgical industry to the Indo‑Roman luxury trade, leaving little doubt that crucible steel was both a technological marvel and a cornerstone of Rome’s prestige economy.

Sourthern Arc: Tamilakam’s Maritime Cosmopolitanism

Tamilakam’s sophisticated dock‑works and warehousing made its ports vital hubs for manufactured exports—textiles, beads, metalwork—complementing Malabar’s spice trade at Muziris. This deep integration into transoceanic exchange, centuries before European arrival, underscores Tamilakam’s cosmopolitan maritime identity.

William Dalrymple’s The Golden Road synthesises the 1st‑century CE Indo‑Roman commercial axis—drawing on Raoul McLaughlin’s economic analysis of eastern trade—but this represents only the later phase of a much older system. Dalrymple himself notes earlier long‑distance exchange, such as Afghan lapis appearing in northern Syria in the 7th millennium BCE, while the Dravidian Arc framework extends this western trade deep‑time horizon further by presenting evidence of luxury goods in Predynastic Egyptian contexts by the mid‑5th millennium BCE. Yavana settlements, Sangam literature, and archaeological finds show that Tamilakam’s embeddedness in long‑distance maritime exchange predates Dalrymple’s narrative frame by several centuries (and, as emerging research suggests, by several millennia in the case of earlier Egypt–Red Sea and Mesopotamian routes).

By the 2nd century CE, Arrian—writing under the Roman Empire and citing Megasthenes—noted that Indian tradition preserved king‑lists extending back thousands of years, while Ptolemy’s Geographia mapped dozens of Tamilakam and Ilankai ports and charted routes both eastward and westward.

Does anyone know of some good AI models that don’t have censorship? The big ones (Claude and ChatGPT) don’t seem to like alternative archaeological theories and questions.