Orthodox archaeology infuriates me.
There was almost a literal land bridge between Australia and Asia during the Pleistocene.
The one common factor among archaeologists is furious denial in the absence of evidence which proves them wrong.
And they call that ‘science’...
That would be “rigorous discussion”. The exchanges of “FU!” and “FU BACK!” are kept for the drinking that happens later in the evening.
No, there wasn’t, which is why the question of which water route was taken has been relevant.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Global_sea_levels_during_the_last_Ice_Age.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_history_of_Australia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Line
There was almost a literal land bridge between Australia and Asia during the Pleistocene.
Even if there wasn't a land bridge, water is the easiest way to travel, a couple strokes of a paddle and you and all your possessions and supplies glide a couple yards.
Much easier that schlepping everything on foot, and you don't have to chop your way through the undergrowth!
Yet in academe's ivory towers, a river, a lake, or a sea is an insurmountable barrier!
(upgraded tagline)
What about Protestant archaeology? Are they any better?
