For nearly a century, thousands of strange holes carved into a barren Peruvian hillside puzzled archaeologists, historians, and even conspiracy theorists.
"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.”
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.
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.
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?
For all the downvoters: genius above only linked the article after I called them out. Take my comment as if there was no link.
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.
Honestly just block the guy and move on. He’s being an intentionally obtuse idiot so he’s probably a troll.