Reply #160: Honestly, I am not a big fan of anthropologists or archaeologists.

[Zorra]

Many, or most, of their conclusions are based on assumptions and I take them all with a grain of salt, and believe some theories have more validity than others.

And I really, really have a profound dislike of the fact that people poke around in my ancestors' graves. It is very rude.

That said, I think that the conclusions drawn by the anthros/archies here are as reasonable as most conclusions drawn by any anthros/archies are in many instances.

If you examine methods of deduction, gathered evidence, and conclusions, it seems clear that the bulk of knowledge gleaned from the endeavors of prehistoric Anthropolology and Archaeology is actually based on the theory that "if it walks like a duck, acts like a duck, has a bill, and quacks, it probably is a duck.

Because all we have is what the "duck cultures" (prehistoric cultures) left behind, along with reasonable comparisons we can make to similar "duck cultures" (modern tribal cultures) that exist today or that we have credible historical knowledge of from the past. And historical knowledge is often determined/invented/relayed by invading conquerors.

Best not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and totally dismiss the conclusions of anthros/archies though; most all science is based on probability and predictability, and as "truth" is gathered scientific "knowledge" rearranges accordingly (hopefully).