I misunderstood your motives. I see what you are trying to do now. Debunking any standard archaeological theory is easy. I am an archaeologist. Arch. is a soft science that allows for many different view points. Being an archaeologist means being able to stand down anyone who disagrees with you. This causes alot of ego clashes in the business and arguments like I'm having with this guy on my pyramids/baalbek post. He follows me around the net and harasses me.

I digress. If you want to debunk look at the site practically. Archaeologists usually foucus on what they are interested in like pottery or faunal remains etc. Often the obvious is overlooked. If you just make a rational supposition based on the facts it has as much legitimacy as anything they say. Often they are the only "authority" on the subject at hand. This lends to how P.o'd they get when you challenge them on the b.s. This is why I am no longer an archaeologist and to be honest i've seen it from both sides. So just dive right in stay rational and don't be afraid to suppose what might have been based on what you are seeing and reading.