Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek
|
To me, the theory that you can explain much of the issues with ancient archaeology with an "ancient astronaut" theory does not actually answer any questions. Because you are solving questions about how these ancient people did things that we can do today, but only with modern technology by saying ancient astronauts did it, and in so doing you bring in technology that we don't have -- interstellar space travel.
That said, I don't think that positing a wild theory like that is any more bad archaelogy than someone who says the Egyptians could have cut, transported and set stone blocks weighing several tons apiece to as much as 60 tons at a rate of one stone every three minutes for 30 years non stop by using slaves, ropes, and extremely rudimentary cutting tools. Although you might be able to demonstrate any individual step in this process, no one has even come close to demonstrating that this theory was feasible.
After all, how do you feed, clothe and house your army of slaves to do this? No doubt you would need an equally formidable army of guards. And of course you would need another army going out, fighting wars, and bringing back a steady stream of slaves. Surely they didn't have a tax base of hundreds of millions like the US, and we get complain after 5 or 6 years of wartime debt. Historians estimate they had a population around 2 million, that is less than 1% of US population. Also, they didn't have modern agriculture, so the productivity of their farms was probably a fraction of what we get today.
So I feel there are many, many unanswered questions that "bad archaelogists" ignore, avoid, or just plain close their eyes to. Also, as wild a theory as astronauts might seem, this theory is based on ancient texts. Previously the accepted interpretation was that the people were speaking mythology, or dreams, or visions, or speaking of Gods. But no one can deny the actual Hindu texts are describing an aerial battle. I dislike someone saying that these theories are "bad archaeology" when they have no plausible theory to replace it with.