Luyện nói tiếng Anh bằng Shadowing qua video: Controversial theory about Göbekli Tepe | Irving Finkel and Lex Fridman

Do you think it's possible we might find much, much older cuneiform-type tablets?

Or pictographic-type tablets, but before the cuneiform and the drawing type.

And I'll tell you why.

Because there's this marvelous site in Turkey called Göbekli Tepe.

Do you know about Göbekli Tepe?

Well, everybody knows about the buildings and the architecture and the skull.

Everybody knows about it.

If you go all the way through the photographs, which the archaeologists unwisely put online,

you will find in the middle of one colour plate with lots of other things, a round green stone like a scarab from Egypt.

That's to say, it has an arched back and a flat bottom.

And on the flat bottom, there are hieroglyphic signs carved in the stone.

No one said anything about it at all.

But it's clear to me, A, that this was a stamp

to ratify where the carvings of the signs on clay or some other sealing material would leave an impression.

It must be that.

So this is about 9000 BC.

Now, when I was a boy at university, my professor said to me that the reason writing evolved in Mesopotamia

because they had complex cities with ziggurats and big buildings and lots of people and they had to organize everything.

And so they invented writing to cope with it.

Well, if they had to cope with that in Sumer in 3000 BC, they sure as hell had to do it at Gebekli Tepe

because they hardly even begun to finish excavating the sites of Gebekli Tepe.

They go on and on like Manchester and Newcastle United.

And really, the old rule would be you could not have architecture like that,

that planned and built according to principle with all the different people.

You couldn't have that without writing in southern Iraq.

So how come suddenly, 7,000 years earlier, they do it there?

And that green stone shows that they had writing.

That was an official who sealed this, got the stuff, or whatever it was, or it was his dad's name, or whatever it is, got a wiggly snake and a wiggly this.

That is pictographic writing.

Maybe even as phonetic, I don't know, but it was writing thousands of years before in the South.

And that's what I think it is.

People came with metal or precious stones from Anatolia.

They knew that in the South they had lots and lots of stuff.

They wanted to trade.

They had to communicate.

And it's basically like having a cigarette with an X through the middle.

Everybody in the world knows what that means they don't know what the word for cigarette is in this language, or cancer, or filter, or tobacco.

It doesn't matter.

That's pictographic writing.

We still use it.

And it's above all kinds of mess.

And I think that was the pervading system, because I honestly believe that the people at this time were not stupid.

They weren't gorillas.

They weren't less advanced than we are.

They were probably indistinguishable from what we are.

So you have merchants and wanderers and people who say, let's go down the river and see where We end up and people were looking for money, looking for women, looking for everything.

But that's surely how it was.

But if you look at those Gobekli buildings with a skeptical eye, how it could be.

I mean, the finish of it is astonishing.

The structure of it, the vision of it.

So the workforce and the tools and the organization, you know, what do they do?

It with a megaphone, your breakfast and all that kind of thing.

No way.

So that's a really controversial statement.

It is really controversial.

At the time of Gubekli Tepe, they may have been already a writing system.

There was.

Because the thing is about it, that it's a seal to ratify.

It's not just a squiggle on a pot and you can say, oh, that's just a piece of debt.

This is a finished thing with a flat surface.

You press it down.

So you have some contract.

You have some building arrangement, some paying for these bricks, whatever it was.

And the official person had to squash it down.

And it leaves the impression.

I mean, I'm a great believer in Sherlock Holmes as a teaching system for intelligence and rationality and logic and thinking.

I read those stories a million times when I was a kid.

And the thing about them, one of the things which impresses me most of all, was this point quoted by Holmes,

not original to him, that it is theoretically possible to infer the Niagara Falls from a raindrop.

That's a powerful statement.

It's a powerful statement.

Well, that seal from Gobekli Tepe is a raindrop from which I infer writing.

And it's perfectly possible they all wrote on flat leaves, carved through, and in many parts of the world, that's what happens.

So, for example, in the Indus Valley, people write the most abject nonsense about the Indus Valley writing system.

But all we have is seals, basically.

So they are also for ratification purposes.

And they have the name of the owner in three or four or maybe five signs.

and it's probably me son of my dad or milkman

or whatever it is and it's obvious it's obvious

that they had writing on a perishable material they can't just have had inscribed stone seals

and many parts of india today write on palm leaf why should it be any different

so people think you know well just because it's now it wouldn't be then but actually that argument is utterly utterly fallacious,

because the process of evolution is stymied, left, right, and center, by inertia.

Inertia is nearly as strong as evolution.

And this is something that the people who talk about progress and ideas have no idea about.

First of all, your whole line of work, you're making me realize, is a kind of like Sherlock Holmes type of process.

The deciphering of the language, archaeology, of taking those pieces of evidence and trying to reconstruct a vision of that world.

And now you're making me realize

that even all the cuneiform tablets we have is just a raindrop compared to the waterfall of thousands of years of humans.

We have a lot, but it's nothing in comparison with what existed.

But not only that, see, we don't have to decipher anymore.

We can read Akkadian or Babylonian Sumerian pretty well fluently.

That's not a problem.

So the information which you can get from these sources, especially three millennia of sources, is very, very substantial.

Very substantial.

But it means that Assyriologists have the inbuilt idea that what we have is something like all there ever was, which is absurd.

For example, there's a period called the Earth-free period, where people lived in city-states.

They wrote very small account tablets by the thousand, and there were two or three major cities where this is the way they lived.

100

People had to bring tithes and offerings, and everything was recorded by what I always refer to and people sympathize with as the ancestors of the inland revenue.

101

Because everything had to be written down so that some schmuck could check it and fill out the ledger, and some other schmuck above him could okay it so there was no funny business or no mistakes.

102

Now, the thing is, there are thousands of those tablets written in about 2100 to 2000 BC.

103

Thousands of them, about the size of a box of matches.

104

So people like to generalize about the Sumerians at this time of the world.

105

But they probably all came out of two rooms.

106

Because they were dumped when they were no longer needed in some kind of room.

107

The archaeologists in the 19th century came down on these, and then all the locals came and they dug them up and they sold them all over the place, and they've gone all over the world, thousands and thousands of them,

108

out of probably two storage rooms, which is not a whole culture, or a whole country, or their whole history, or their belief systems.

109

So our view of it is slewed by the nature of the material.

110

Sometimes the material is opulent and benevolent, but not always.

111

And sometimes the people who work with slewed material don't even realize how slewed it is.

112

I mean, you know, it's quite remarkable.

113

So you, in all your time of studying cuneiform tablets, do you sometimes, late at night, get a glimpse of the waterfall?

114

Can you imagine?

115

Yes, I can imagine.

116

I can imagine easily.

117

Because once in a while, a library is discovered.

118

In the 1850s, at Nineveh, which was the Assyrian capital, there was a fat king, king of the world, called Ashurbanipal.

119

And he had a fantastic library.

120

And he promoted it.

121

He impounded tablets.

122

He had them brought in.

123

He wanted all the pervading knowledge, and all knowledge from before, under one roof.

124

It was a kind of like Alexandria thing.

125

So he was a trained scholar, and this is what he did.

126

And they found it in the 19th century.

127

They dug it up, Layard and those people.

128

So what did they find?

129

They found the tablets higgledy-piggledy all over the floor of a huge room in the corridors and everything, and lots of them broken, and lots of them burned.

130

So, ever since then, until really quite recently, Assyriologists have spent all their people who work on these Nineveh tablets, all the time joining the bits together.

131

And you have the story about Gilgamesh, and the goddess who falls in love with him in the garden, and she wants to seduce him, and dot, dot, dot, you can't find the bit.

132

So you look for another bit, and you look for another bit.

133

And gradually, they piece together the literature.

134

And the assumption has always been that if you put them all together again, you'll have the whole library.

135

But it's the absolute opposite.

136

Because what happened was that the Babylonians in the south, in my opinion, they worked hand in glove with the Elamites from Iran.

137

They had a pincer movement, and they beat Assyria.

138

They conquered Assyria.

139

They ran through the capital, and they set fire to everything, pinched all the women, and took all the jewelry and all the gold.

140

And people say that in a fit of peak they destroyed the library

141

but they wouldn't destroy the library because it was the giant brain from

142

which the assyrians ran a world empire

143

and it had all the knowledge in the world they destroyed

144

that they spoke the same language they had the same writing

145

system they'd have taken them all safely home cart after cart after cart

146

and i think what's left there is duplicates and broken things the things that got drops and everything.

147

And that's what everyone thinks is it.

148

So this is also a controversial point.

149

You just knocked off.

150

It's starting trouble.

151

It's common sense.

152

You're going to get both of us canceled today.

153

But you see the thing.

154

You see the thing.

155

It's predicated on the assumption that what we have is only what there was.

156

And this is such a fallacy.

157

It needs to be attacked left, right, and center.

158

Thank you.

Phương Pháp Shadowing Là Gì?

Shadowing là kỹ thuật học ngôn ngữ có cơ sở khoa học, ban đầu được phát triển cho chương trình đào tạo phiên dịch viên chuyên nghiệp và được phổ biến rộng rãi bởi nhà đa ngôn ngữ học Dr. Alexander Arguelles. Nguyên lý cốt lõi đơn giản nhưng cực kỳ hiệu quả: bạn nghe tiếng Anh của người bản xứ và lặp lại to ngay lập tức — như một "cái bóng" (shadow) đuổi theo người nói với độ trễ chỉ 1–2 giây. Khác với luyện ngữ pháp hay học từ vựng bị động, Shadowing buộc não bộ và cơ miệng phải đồng thời xử lý và tái tạo ngôn ngữ thực tế. Các nghiên cứu khoa học xác nhận phương pháp này cải thiện đáng kể phát âm, ngữ điệu, nhịp điệu, nối âm, kỹ năng nghe và độ lưu loát khi nói — đặc biệt hiệu quả cho người luyện IELTS Speaking và muốn giao tiếp tiếng Anh tự nhiên như người bản ngữ.

Luyện nói tiếng Anh bằng Shadowing qua video: Controversial theory about Göbekli Tepe | Irving Finkel and Lex Fridman

Giới Thiệu Bài Học Này

Từ Vựng & Cụm Từ Chính

Mẹo Luyện Tập

Phương Pháp Shadowing Là Gì?