The computer or spreadsheet idea is a bit ridiculous to me on account of even ancient humans could devise the same method in a smaller scale without the backbreaking 5,000 holes being dug. Every other idea presented by the article makes sense to me.
this post was submitted on 19 May 2026
118 points (94.7% liked)
Mildly Interesting
28414 readers
207 users here now
This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.
This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?
Just post some stuff and don't spam.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Ancient humans were kind of known for building things big af though. Pyramids, petroglyphs, henges.
Khufu’s pyramid has like 2 million blocks. 5000 holes is a rounding error.
Those were big because they had religious meaning.
That is very different from an accounting system, that is supposed to be practical.
Unless ancient humans were all Matt Parkers, it makes no sense to me that they'd make a gigantic counting system.
"Hey, we have 6 more livestock now"
"GATHER THE MEN, we're adding rocks to the hill!"
You're talking about a time that could be pre-numbering system so instead of "i have 6 sheep" it's more like "I have this many sheep" and you point to your hole which has 6 of whatever the thing is that they were using. maybe kernels of corn? Then you make sure you have one kernel for each sheep. But I'm just guessing.
Stuff like this gives me that Minecraft creative mode vibe. Just crazy shit built out in the open.
Before the server became P2W and filled with overenthusiastic moderators.
What on Earth are you on about? My server is kickin' just fine and I am still the only mod/admin.
Have they ruled out agricultural use? In land reclamation we use a pit-and-mound system on slopes to capture more water, provide microsites for plants and shelter them from wind.
They are using them in Africa too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU39jN0WEZg
This is a bit different than what land rec does but the principle is the same.
They also found maize and organic matter in the pits according to the article.
making food seems.. slightly more sensible than maths
It sounds more like a measurement system than a computer as we think of it.
I wonder if my hole is there....
Ancient computer sounds so dumb.
They found that cool Greek analouge sort of computer in the Mediterranean from bc era.
This article I think is full of shit by the way and this is not cool at all for use as a computer, you think the computers in the 60s were big.
Anyway I think this is the Greek thing.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism
I know about that one. And yes, it was more advanced than the technology of the age seemed suggest.
So that's where mancala comes from.
I wonder if it wasn't some sort of "bank," from the pre-currency barter days. You could exchange your extra grain for credits that you could use to buy fabric, or arrowheads. The pits are where the items would be stored, sort of like a neolithic shopping mall.
Or maybe each pit belonged to a specific person, and they could store their personal valuables, where they were covered, and guarded.
Its just a barrier. Humans have been digging these structures for thousands of years all over the world. Its a lot easier and quicker to just dig a bunch of closely packed holes than it is to build a structurally sound wall. Neither will stop people so the goal is to slow them down.
Read the article.
"Researchers noticed that the pits were arranged in repeating numerical patterns and grouped into sections, suggesting a deliberate organisational system rather than random digging."
"Band of Holes may have operated like an enormous outdoor spreadsheet or inventory system."
I did. Read my comment. I never said they were randomly dug, its very well documented that pit barriers are dug in specific patterns to minimize the navigable terrain.
Scientists analysed sediments collected from several pits and discovered traces of maize pollen, plant fibres, reeds, and organic material associated with human storage and transport activities.The maize evidence was especially important because maize pollen does not naturally spread far through the wind in large quantities. Researchers say this strongly suggests crops or goods were intentionally placed inside the holes.The discovery supports the idea that the pits were connected to trade, storage, or taxation activities rather than ceremonial use.
Eh, it's still just wild guesses.
All we really know is that someone(s) dug holes in a pattern, and possibly stored some maize and other materials in those holes.
It's even possible that the storage purpose was way after the holes were created. What if at first they were made to slow down the enemy, then both people fighting in the area left, someone else came, saw some cool holes in a pattern and was like "awesome, we got this shitton of corn and reeds and whatnot, these holes will be perfect to store them in!", and bam, now scientists are correlating the two because of the evidence being somewhat blurred.
A lot of archaeology is coming up with wild ideas supported by often very limited facts, and looking at other relevant sources that may or may not support the theory. This is especially true for sites that have little to no written confirmation of the purpose.
"Alot of archaeology is coming up with wild ideas supported by often very limited facts, and looking at other relevant sources that may or may not support the theory.
Yet that is exactly what you are doing by suggesting a discredited idea.
"But no evidence of strife—much less an adjacent settlement to defend—has been found at Monte Sierpe."
https://archaeology.org/issues/march-april-2026/features/return-to-serpent-mountain/
And aside from pulling it out of your arse, where did you get the "discredited" part from?
For all the downvoters: genius above only linked the article after I called them out. Take my comment as if there was no link.
I linked to the archaelogy.org article that discredited it with the relevent quote.
Ah, the link you've added AFTER my comment. Because nothing screams more fairness in a debate than going back and modifying your argument.
Also, the very article you quote does the polar opposite of what you claim. It does not discredit but actually support my "armchair archaeologist" theory (which wasn't even a theory, just an example of how things COULD be misappropriated due to archaeological evidence generally being scarce):
Their results have established that Monte Sierpe wasn’t actually the handiwork of the Inca, but of an entirely different kingdom that controlled the area before they arrived. The researchers believe the rulers of this kingdom designed the Band of Holes to serve a purpose that was vital to their success and that the Inca later expropriated it for use as a tribute depot.
Arguably I've only gotten haflway through the article as it's 2:30am here, but that very statement seems to suggest that said "discrediting" didn't really happen.
I added the link within a minute of posting and long before you replied. You must be on another instance to not have seen the change before you replied.
BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER. YOU MADE THE ASSERTION THAT SCIENTISTS ARE WRONG. IT IS YOUR JOB TO DEFEND YOUR ASSERTION, NOT MINE.
You are like Ben Carson declaring that, "Pyramids were built to be granerys, prove me wrong."
but that very statement
No, because there would be evidence of something military related or military adjacent. They said there was nothing.
Honestly just block the guy and move on. He’s being an intentionally obtuse idiot so he’s probably a troll.
No, scientific method says we collect evidence, then try to find reason, get to some conclusion. Yes, it's an educated guess, but based on some evidence. Unlike your bullshitting: "I think that in my armchair 5000 km away, I must be right, and the archeologists on site are wrong"
Educated guess, based on very little evidence. Just like the above linked article where they found some broken bowl pieces, determined that the pieces are ~500 years old, thus the holes must be too... Only to be proven otherwise just a few years later because apparently considering the fact that maybe the bowls got there AFTER the holes were dug, is an outlandish idea.
Besides, my bullshitting was a theoretical example focusing not on being right, but showing how archaeologists can be wrong by assuming things that are very loosely supported by evidence. But that clearly went above both your heads...
Welcome to Camp Green Lake