this post was submitted on 19 May 2026
73 points (92.0% liked)
Mildly Interesting
26601 readers
609 users here now
This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.
This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?
Just post some stuff and don't spam.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I did. Read my comment. I never said they were randomly dug, its very well documented that pit barriers are dug in specific patterns to minimize the navigable terrain.
Eh, it's still just wild guesses.
All we really know is that someone(s) dug holes in a pattern, and possibly stored some maize and other materials in those holes.
It's even possible that the storage purpose was way after the holes were created. What if at first they were made to slow down the enemy, then both people fighting in the area left, someone else came, saw some cool holes in a pattern and was like "awesome, we got this shitton of corn and reeds and whatnot, these holes will be perfect to store them in!", and bam, now scientists are correlating the two because of the evidence being somewhat blurred.
A lot of archaeology is coming up with wild ideas supported by often very limited facts, and looking at other relevant sources that may or may not support the theory. This is especially true for sites that have little to no written confirmation of the purpose.
Yet that is exactly what you are doing by suggesting a discredited idea.
"But no evidence of strife—much less an adjacent settlement to defend—has been found at Monte Sierpe."
https://archaeology.org/issues/march-april-2026/features/return-to-serpent-mountain/
And aside from pulling it out of your arse, where did you get the "discredited" part from?
I linked to the archaelogy.org article that discredited it with the relevent quote.
Ah, the link you've added AFTER my comment. Because nothing screams more fairness in a debate than going back and modifying your argument.
Also, the very article you quote does the polar opposite of what you claim. It does not discredit but actually support my "armchair archaeologist" theory (which wasn't even a theory, just an example of how things COULD be misappropriated due to archaeological evidence generally being scarce):
Arguably I've only gotten haflway through the article as it's 2:30am here, but that very statement seems to suggest that said "discrediting" didn't really happen.
I added the link within a minute of posting and long before you replied. You must be on another instance to not have seen the change before you replied.
BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER. YOU MADE THE ASSERTION THAT SCIENTISTS ARE WRONG. IT IS YOUR JOB TO DEFEND YOUR ASSERTION, NOT MINE.
You are like Ben Carson declaring that, "Pyramids were built to be granerys, prove me wrong."
No, because there would be evidence of something military related or military adjacent. They said there was nothing.
No, scientific method says we collect evidence, then try to find reason, get to some conclusion. Yes, it's an educated guess, but based on some evidence. Unlike your bullshitting: "I think that in my armchair 5000 km away, I must be right, and the archeologists on site are wrong"
Educated guess, based on very little evidence. Just like the above linked article where they found some broken bowl pieces, determined that the pieces are ~500 years old, thus the holes must be too... Only to be proven otherwise just a few years later because apparently considering the fact that maybe the bowls got there AFTER the holes were dug, is an outlandish idea.
Besides, my bullshitting was a theoretical example focusing not on being right, but showing how archaeologists can be wrong by assuming things that are very loosely supported by evidence. But that clearly went above both your heads...