evidence of Vikings in Italy is not comparable. that's a seafaring society, known for migration, unbound by a time period. now if you found evidence of some con

evidence of Vikings in Italy is not comparable. that's a seafaring society, known for migration, unbound by a time period. now if you found evidence of some connection between the Vikings and the big pyramid at Giza, then that would be more comparable, but still geographically and temporally closer, by at least double. by Tamils in Australia, do you mean the bell they found in New Zealand? I couldn't find anything significant pointing to evidence of Tamils in Australia from a search, but I'd be interested to read about it if there is? >more and more we are understanding that our modern perspective has grossly underestimated people of the past. while I completely agree with the sentiment, this is such a classic pseudo-archaeological buzzphrase. even the way you phrased it specifically sounds like it's coming from someone trying to sell me books. the connotations of it are off-the-charts levels of off-putting