It must be consistency of data. There's a very good reason to want that if your goal is a finding. If your goal is wide observation then it's bad. But there's no conclusion in a data set that is too broad. There just isn't. And they're aiming for what rather than what if.
It's one thing for us or random amateurs to say "I dunno, something's weird" and play with ideas. It's entirely another thing for an educated professional in the field to expect to be given money in order to study ancient dirt just so that he can say, "Somethings weird, I dunno". And there aren't that many people that are able to do it professionally. The ones that do often pay for the opportunity.
It's like those migration maps. They're obviously fucked up, but they were stitched together to fit the evidence.
As more evidence comes in I do think it'll start changing to reflect that, and you'll get wider sampling. It wasn't that long ago, 60 years or so, that everyone was convinced the Mayans were a peaceful empire full of noble savages and the Aztecs were the Blood God assholes who wrekt'em. Just because ONE DUDE who went to south america and studied ruins said so. Because that notion appealed to him. Ultimately, it doesn't fit the evidence. And we know these days that mexicans have ALWAYS been bloodthirsty dirt people.
published studies and data are faked up / manipulated all the time in academia, both in the hard and soft sciences, for a variety of reasons (a lot relating to funding, prestige and poison data (factual data that will get you booted from the field if published)). I didn't respond to brutal because the answer was obvious and I think he was hoping for me to be like "hur dur conspiracy".
- 3