AncientHistoryIAMA

Superb question. I believe that Alexander the Great's conquests really ruined a lot of data that we could have used today to better understand past civilizations. But that's what conquerers do, and I'm okay with it. If I really had to pick... As much as it's outside of my area of expertise, it'd be the Mongol invasions of Asia. Unlike Alexander, Khan would pillage, rape, and erase villages like you'd do in a video game. He was absolutely ruthless and had no class or restraint. This is why we idolize Alexander and not Genghis. Awesome question. You rock.

Good question, friend... Let me tell you a series of statements:

• houses are built with doors on the roof only, and the rooftops are used as walkways
• every house in the settlement is identical (no rich, no poor)
• figurines of women being portrayed as deities are found in many of these houses
• the dead are buried near (often under) the houses
• the houses are kept in immaculate shape
• herbs and spices and vegetables reside in old pots and pans near a once roaring fire

What can you infer about this settlement?

Paleocontact is something I love to indulge myself in. I know that the odds are unlikely, but I still like to hope. The Oannes aren't what I believe to be the best examples of paleocontact. As cliché as it sounds, I think that the pyramids of Egypt are the best case you could make for paleocontact. Like I said: I don't necessarily believe it, but I do like to indulge every once in a while. Thank you so much for your question.

Oh, goodness, yes. Ever hear of Cyrus the Great? Maybe not, but I bet you've heard of Alexander the Great! Cyrus was the vanguard of human rights; he formulated the first declaration of human rights way back in 500 BC. He started the beautiful country of Iran, and was extremely kind to his conquered subjects. He'd let them practice whatever religion they wanted, and would free slaves on a whim. Superbly amazing guy! 2000 years ahead of his time.

Not rude at all. Thank you so much for your question. No, it doesn't. In fact, I think that my agnosticism makes me objective!