SO, The other day, pseudoscience claimed SCYTHIANS arrived in Virginia, and I had to explain why this was not the case, and what would be the result their presence in the Americas would be in respect to how history would have been different. One of the things I pointed out is that the Scythians would have brought their horses, considering the Scythians were horse nomads, and this started something.
The horses in the Americas conversation, and just like that, I am no longer going to talk about it.
There are a number of reasons why, but as it stands, I simply am not comfortable talking about it, because if I have observed anything on the internet, TikTok especially, things take a dive real quick and I'd rather avoid it.
That said, I do not want to leave my followers empty handed:
So I have put together two resources for everyone's
consideration. One is a professional paper, and the other is an article being
critical of that paper. understand that this is how academia works:
people write papers and conduct work and studies and present their findings,
and then their peers look at their findings with a critical eye.
This is why professional archaeologists takes so long to
present findings from archaeological sites, why we don't make grandiose claims
until we have the evidence to prove those claims and why We are so insistent
about citing sources and having that information to show our work to make sure our
don't Plagiarize or misinterpret or present false information.
This is also how archaeologists and historians and
anthropologists and all of the other sciences, really, create and put forth our
hypotheses, present new ideas, and consider an integrate new ideas into what is
already known. We run down all of the avenues, testing each thing and comparing
it to the evidence and findings, to make sure that there is nothing else that
is likely or could have effected what was found.
How does a roman coin make it to New Jersey? Instead of
saying the Romans did it, ask what else could have caused it and come up with
the answer while addressing all the factors as to why the romans DIDN’T.
In fact, the process
that I'm speaking of is the exact thing that people like Graham Hancock tell
you that we don't do: the reality of that being that Graham Hancock either will
not present his findings in this fashion, or all of the professionals looked at
his work and said “hey here's all of the problems with this”. We wouldn’t confirm what he came up with, and
wont say what he wants us to say, so he has, naturally, slandered the field and
made bold claims that we don’t accept new ideas or anything like that.
All that aside, this is already too long of an article. Im posting the link to the paper in question,
and the critique article (WHICH CITED ITS SOURCES). I ask that you read them, absorb and
consider the information, and come to your own conclusions.
Cheers.
Paper
https://scholarworks.alaska.edu/handle/11122/7592
Article
https://ahotcupofjoe.net/2019/07/pseudoarchaeological-claims-of-horses-in-the-americas/
No comments:
Post a Comment