Re: Bad Archaeology

Having said all of that, I do understand the need for hard "just the
facts" archeology. My problem is with how ruthlessly ideas that make
alot of sense are attacked by mainstream archeologists, and how the
rebuttals and ooparts are ignored.

For instance, It seems to me that we must not really have the
technology to determine how long a stone structure was built, because
they usually cite circumstancial evidence. Tihuanaco I think is dated
by the pottery around it, I believe. Everywhere I look I get a
different date for the Sphinx. That's just naming two of them. This
leads me to believe that they must not have a good method of dating
stone structures. So why do they act like these dates are fact?


.

Quantcast