Mildly Interesting

26601 readers

286 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

marcar@lemmy.world

Jimbabwe@lemmy.ml

WhatsHerBucket@lemmy.world

Zerlyna@lemmy.world

5,000 mysterious holes carved into a Peruvian hillside were an 'ancient computer' used for accounting - 10bmnews (10bmnews.com)

submitted 2 days ago by slothrop@lemmy.ca to c/mildlyinteresting@lemmy.world

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

"Alot 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.

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/

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

And aside from pulling it out of your arse, where did you get the "discredited" part from?

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I linked to the archaelogy.org article that discredited it with the relevent quote.

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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):

Their results have established that Monte Sierpe wasn’t actually the handiwork of the Inca, but of an entirely different kingdom that controlled the area before they arrived. The researchers believe the rulers of this kingdom designed the Band of Holes to serve a purpose that was vital to their success and that the Inca later expropriated it for use as a tribute depot.

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.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

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."

but that very statement

No, because there would be evidence of something military related or military adjacent. They said there was nothing.