Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

cafffaro t1_j0z99yq wrote

What parts were compelling? I’d be happy to discuss. I’m an archaeologist.

5

kinsarc t1_j0zby2j wrote

I’m not. Haha. I’d love to hear more so what I shouldn’t believe when they have dating technologies and things like that that place these structures before the conventional timeline.

1

cafffaro t1_j0zcrut wrote

You mean C14 dating? That can only be used to date organic materials. So if used to date a structure, you’ve got to have a pretty compelling reason why, e.g., here is a trench dug to build a wall, and inside the infill of the trench there were some carbonized seeds.

But even this only gives you a “terminus post quem.” This means the earliest POSSIBLE date. In archaeology, confusing terminus post quem with an absolute dating is a very amateurish mistake.

5

kinsarc t1_j0zdblh wrote

Fair enough. What about the seismology readings determining structures are indeed underneath that have never been acknowledged.

3

cafffaro t1_j0ze3pf wrote

That’s one of the worst ones, because this stuff is SO mundane and Graham tries to pass it off like some huge mystery or conspiracy. Look up “remote sensing.” It’s a major part of what modern archaeologists do and has nothing to do with a conspiracy.

6

kinsarc t1_j0zlvqf wrote

Also fair enough! Thanks!

3

cafffaro t1_j0zm1yo wrote

Definitely! Feel free to hit me up with any random archaeology related questions if you ever want. Happy to do my best to answer.

3

kinsarc t1_j0zv89u wrote

Appreciate that. Happy holidays!

2