Replies

I suspect one major reason has to do with the fact that archaelogy started in, and was focused on, the roots of western civilization, which pretty much means it took place in the neighborhood of the Mediterranean.

I think that's true to some extent. Also, don't underestimate the impact of politics. From the beginning of WWII until the end of the Cold War, approximtely 50 years, technology like satellites and underwater gear were being developed that makes these new theories possible. Yet during the same time vast areas of the globe were out-of-bounds for archaeological research.

Simultaneously, the politically correct 'out-of-Africa' theory was being hatched. Most tenured American archaeologists were blindered by the 'religion' of certain prevailing belief models that prevented them from considering any evidence that went counter to their credo. I don't personally presume to say whether that credo is right or wrong, but real evidence has a way of not going away (unless it can be be destroyed for political reasons as in the attempts on the remains of Kennewick Man). A whole lot of interesting evidence is beginning to pile up, and if the archaeologists in the old guard don't deal with it, a new generation will.

>Most tenured American archaeologists were blindered by the 'religion' of certain prevailing belief models that prevented them from considering any evidence that went counter to their credo.

That nicely worded statement fits a thousand different historical / archeological situations. It also applies perfectly to THIS ONE.

A whole lot of interesting evidence is beginning to pile up, and if the archaeologists in the old guard don't deal with it, a new generation will.

Anticipating similar confusion 10,000 years from now, I'm leaving sticky-notes on all the stuff at my house to help the future archaeologists identify it when they dig it up. If they're lucky, maybe the 10 cent deposit on bottles and cans will have increased in that time also.......