It is not that they are aggressively pursuing the under-aged, but do have this uncanny tendency to select the barely viable younger age within a given time range. Not by 10.000 years, but often several centuries
For example, the Carbon14 dating for the organic material in the Pyramids points out to an average 2 centuries older construction dates than the timeline for the kings.
[carbon dating for the pyramids make them look older](https://preview.redd.it/4zx4zmxa6v9d1.jpg?width=602&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1026e711172929d1e895fcfbe379948860b3f595)
Or another one, the rubble stones on top of fine polygonal constructions in Machu Picchu date the collapse of the Inca empire and the end of the polygonal construction to be at least 50 years before the conquest by the Spanish.
[cheap work on top of fine one makes it look older](https://preview.redd.it/ga8uts9f6v9d1.jpg?width=450&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=13eebabe3245f66230b8136774160ea5d8421613)
In an exaggerated example, it is as if finding a plastic bottle on the ground, the building is dated from the 1970s, instead of “before the 1970s” or even, “much older than that”.
This tendency to prefer dating young enables speculation with lost ancient civilizations and others. Because what’s to say that this dating preference is not a sign of a deeper urge?
Something like, if the “official” timeline for the pyramids is so obviously out of sync with the evidence, what else could be buried by this need to be with younger dates?
Why do you think archeologists prefer younger dates?
Here’s some other examples
[https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKwIrwES8a6njZCGR9lqhAaxP8EN3WjtH](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKwIrwES8a6njZCGR9lqhAaxP8EN3WjtH)
by Entire_Brother2257