[RecycledEle]

I would not say there has never been a single ancient thing discovered. There are many anomalous findings in archeology.

Here are a few examples: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Hammer * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coso_artifact * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazca_Lines * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yonaguni_Monument * Parts of the Egyptian Pyramids seem to have been cut with circular saws. * Places in the ancient world seem to have been nuked, including the ancient city of Sodom. * Some ancient maps are amazingly accurate, when they should not have know the shapes of land masses.

I'm NOT saying any of this proves the Silurian Hypothesis. I looked into some of these claims, and realized how hard it is to be an archaeologist. The amount of stuff left behind is small, and you can never be sure who did what to it over the centuries.

Artifacts are not stored in hermetically sealed containers until archaeologists dig them up. Instead, artifacts mix with their environments for centuries. This mixes up the carbon and makes carbon dating iffy at best.

I classify archaeology as a pseudo-science.

[tanuki]

Aren't there lots of testible hypotheses in archaeology though? I get that you're saying that a lot of explanations feel speculative, but it feels a bit far to say the field itself is incompatible with the scientific method.

[RecycledEle]

The Scientific Method is: "Scientists (and other people) can then secure, or discard, their hypotheses by conducting suitable experiments." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

If my hypothesis is that pottery will look like this after being buried for 2,000 years, how do I test that? I don't have 2,000 years before I need to publish.