How Much Can We Really Know about the Past?

originally posted by: mikegrouchy


The following quote is directly from the wiki page on Heinrich Schliemann

"Schliemann later claimed that at the age of 8, he had declared he would one day excavate the city of Troy."

This seems to indicate a bit more than mere optimism

I would suspect he made up the quote..what do you think?

originally posted by: Hanslune


This quote is directly from the Wiki page on Howard Carter...

"On November 4, 1922, Howard Carter's excavation group found steps Carter hoped led to Tutankhamun's tomb (subsequently designated KV62)"

This seems to indicate a bit more than a Pharaoh and a lot less than seals for

Yep, he found a Pharaoh

But reinforcing my thesis, under those objections, is irrelevant to the main discussion as outlined in the opening post. As the author of this thread has asked repeatedly, and as I am now asking again; how do your two counterstatements, in any way, answer the question "How Much Can We Really Know about the Past?" The two counterstatements seem to be saying "this is the final version... end of discussion" while failing to actually answer the question.

Yawn! the response was to your comment not the OP question go back and retread your comment

originally posted by: Hanslune

And that will mean what? Can you refute the evidence of what Schliemann did?
He did good things and bad things, it is reasonable to examine ALL that he did and not to whitewash over the bad spots, don't you agree?

Not you too Hanslune, eek I'm being double teamed here. Is there no assistance. Are there no true Englishmen left in the world.

Simply put, now you too are refusing to discuss the topic of the thread. Instead are engaging in defending the teachings-of-the-day. How hard is it really, to just answer the question.

How Much Can we Really Know about the Past?

/ puzzle
Mike Grouchy

Duplicate deleted

originally posted by: [post=18119488]mikegrouchy

How Much Can we Really Know about the Past?

/ puzzle
Mike Grouchy

Much more than you do it would seem and I for one am enjoying watching you trying to crawl out of the hole you dug. .....however here is a ladder.

To the OPs question, see my earlier post on the subject.

originally posted by: Hanslune

Much more than you do it would seem and I for one am enjoying watching you trying to crawl out of the hole you dug. .....however here is a ladder.

To the OPs question, see my earlier post on the subject.

Hanslune has written far too many brilliant threads for me to continue. I value his input. We need him. I just saddens me that even he has a party-line, and anyone who deviates from it must be characterized as "trying to crawl out of the hole (they) dug." It is obvious that even the best are not above being pitted against each other, instead of collaborating.

My final two words on the subject are Revenge, and Prediction.

These are the two things stopping us from really Knowing the past. The one because it is the motive of bad behavior by Power, and the other because it is considered Taboo by the so-called Historians, and Archaeologists.


/ the rest of the thread is yours.
Good night.
Mike Grouchy

originally posted by: mikegrouchy


Hanslune has written far too many brilliant threads for me to continue. I value his input. We need him. I just saddens me that even he has a party-line, and anyone who deviates from it must be characterized as "trying to crawl out of the hole (they) dug." It is obvious that even the best are not above being pitted against each other, instead of collaborating.

Still trying to get jabs in huh, lol, remember it was you who brought out the spade and started the tunnel to China, not I or Darth Harte.

My final two words on the subject are Revenge, and Prediction.

My final word on the subject are 'puce' for pseudo intellectual and 'burly wood' for confused thinking.

These are the two things stopping us from really Knowing the past.

#1 Lack of knowledge ...we will always need more research, and the ego of the fringe believers which comes in at # 1,234, lol




Mike Grouchy

originally posted by: mikegrouchy


The following quote is directly from the wiki page on Heinrich Schliemann

"Schliemann later claimed that at the age of 8, he had declared he would one day excavate the city of Troy."

This seems to indicate a bit more than mere optimism

originally posted by: Hanslune

I would suspect he made up the quote..what do you think?

Umm, no.
That's what this discussion (not the thread, but between Harte and I) is all about.
How do we know which history to trust, which historian, and what do we really know about the past.

I posited the test that if a Historian can follow up their theory with Archaeology then THAT is the one to consider. And that Schliemann did just that. People these days call him all kinds of dismissive names. But the fact remains. He was born into a world where ancient writings like the iliad were considered pure myth, that had no basis in reality at all, and he believed in the historical reality of places.

Before Schliemann Troy existed only in the imagination like Olympus or Zeus. But this day, we actually know where Troy was. And Schliemann was damn close in where he looked. Very damn close.

This represents a testable approach with objective results.
What some readers may be misunderstanding is what the world was like when Schliemann was growing up.
Rather like this day, where every-one-just-knows-that-confirmation-bias-destroys-all-arguments, in his day every-one-just-knew-that-all-those-old-stories-were-myth and not real.

He has been accused of many things. In this very thread he is accused of "just making it up." But the fact remains. He changed the world, and fathered modern archaeology.

Before him world history is full of myth, and archaeologists are nothing more than gold diggers. After him people start finding lost cities everywhere, and archaeologists have a sense of obligation to publish their findings.


Mike Grouchy

originally posted by: mikegrouchy

This quote is directly from the Wiki page on Howard Carter...

"On November 4, 1922, Howard Carter's excavation group found steps Carter hoped led to Tutankhamun's tomb (subsequently designated KV62)"

This seems to indicate a bit more than a Pharaoh and a lot less than seals for

originally posted by: Hanslune

Yep, he found a Pharaoh

He found steps, and somehow he already knew the name that was in there. Tutankhamun. This is a hell of a lot more than just "found a Pharaoh". How did he do that. Why are we unwilling to even look at his research and what lead him to that hope in advance. A hope that proved true.

This is not "confirmation bias." He knew. Knew there was a young Pharaoh erased from the roles, and because of that erasure his tomb may still lay ... unplundered. But how did he find it. How did he know where to dig?

All we know about Howard Carter, really, is that he wanted to take Archaeology to the next level. Less damage to the site (no blasting), more detailed recording of the finds (photography and film), meticulously cataloging each stage of the find (how everything was found, like a modern crime scene), all great advances for the day in which he lived.

But why. Why is the predictive nature of his dig location erased from all modern discussion of Archaeology. Why is it that tomb KV62 is one of only two (the other found after this one) that are oriented north south, unlike all the other tombs in the Valley. What exactly where Carters theories that were vindicated by the find he predicted.

Are these series of questions really so threatening to established Archaeology?


Mike Grouchy

a reply to: mikegrouchy

Actually we don't absolutely know for sure if that mound is Troy, the Romans thought it was, and a few years ago a hint was found in Hittite writing that aided the ID, but the Greek camp has never been found.

a reply to: mikegrouchy

...so tell us how he knew


Since you don't seem to believe the published accounts.

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: mikegrouchy

Actually we don't absolutely know for sure if that mound is Troy, the Romans thought it was, and a few years ago a hint was found in Hittite writing that aided the ID, but the Greek camp has never been found.

I can agree with this assessment. It fits with the "what can we really know" theme as well. I didn't know about the Hittite writing that aided in the ID. Cool stuff.


Mike Grouchy

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: mikegrouchy

...so tell us how he knew


Since you don't seem to believe the published accounts.

I was hoping someone could tell us. Maybe you. All we really have are a few words from Carter on it. He wrote...





"The design was certainly of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Could it be the tomb of a noble buried here by royal consent? Was it a royal cache, a hiding-place to which a mummy and its equipment had been removed for safety? Or was it actually the tomb of the king for whom I had spent so many years in search?"
- Howard Carter
- The Tomb
- Page 32





The key thing I take away from that quote is that he was prepared to fail, but hopeful to succeed. Either way, he seemed certain that the tomb had to exist, and had laid undisturbed for three thousand years. In those days, prior to him, everyone was certain that there was nothing new to be found in The Valley of The Kings.

My guess is that Carter understood Tut's erasure from history created a situation where it was unlikely it had been found by robbers over the centuries and millennia.


Mike Grouchy

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout

originally posted by: Astyanax
Reply to: BABYBULL24

"History is written by the victors."

Winston Churchill

So most of it is probably bs.
imo

But did Churchill actually say that? There is no evidence that he ever did.

What he actually said, and I may paraphrase slightly out of laziness in retrieving the exact quote, is 'History will be kind to me, because I intend to write it.' And he did, and so far, it has been.

Here's yet another quote to add to the collection:

On Aug. 8, 1974, the night Richard Nixon resigned the presidency, Henry Kissinger assured him that history would judge him to be one of America's great presidents. "That depends, Henry," Nixon replied, "on who writes the history."

After Nixon resigned he wrote books about international politics. The subjectivity of Nixon's writings makes them valuable to a certain extent. The only people who ever read those books are Nixon scholars but they are essential reading if one wants to dig deeply (nod to archeologists out there) into subject matters related to Nixon.

Nixon was especially concerned with his legacy... Napoleon and Churchill were the same way... as was the Pharaoh. The legacy itself can have a life of it's own... we can see this in the attempts of the Richard Nixon Foundation to revise and edit and supervise the Nixon story.

Here is a statement from one such Nixon scholar and I believe the statement makes sense in the context of OP's discussion.

"History is written from the perspective of the present day. We always rewrite history according to our own perspectives which is constantly in flux." - moderator of the panel, Dr. J. Brooks Flippen, Richard Nixon Foundation.

The temples and tombs that were built in ancient times are concrete objects which can be measured and recorded as they are discovered in the ground... whereas history is the "flux" surrounding that object. The problems of objectivity are not exclusive to ancient archeology.

How Much Can We Really Know about the Past? We need to know as much as we can about it just to avoid the mistakes of it.

originally posted by: mikegrouchy

originally posted by: Harte


In that sense, Schliemann failed miserably.

Name one Archaeologist before Schliemann who was
more than just a gold-digger, who advocated historic
reality of places, and believed in publishing openly to
contribute to the record of all human knowledge. One.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that you had jurisdiction over him.

Quite a lot of ego and hubris is evident in that sentence quoted above.
As though the word "failed" wasn't enough, one has to rub the salt of miserable on it.

/tsk tsk

Mike Grouchy

You suggest here, perhaps inadvertently, that Schliemann proved that the Iliad wasn't a myth, that it is a true story.
Sorry, but I think you are a bit overzealous, since you appear to have ignored the meaning of my phrase "...in that sense,,,"

Harte

originally posted by: HarteYou suggest here, perhaps inadvertently, that Schliemann proved that the Iliad wasn't a myth, that it is a true story.
Sorry, but I think you are a bit overzealous, since you appear to have ignored the meaning of my phrase "...in that sense,,,"

Harte

Fair enough.

I apologize if bristle too much in my defense of him.


Mike Grouchy

a reply to: mikegrouchy

I have outlined two obstacles to REALLY knowing the past which, to the open minded, also suggests a solution. A way forward. But once again here we are with someone dogmatically married to the historical-version they were raised with saying "no no no," while simultaneously failing to answer the actual question raised by this thread.

How Much Can We Really Know About the Past.

/disappointment

Mike is making the point that the problem is not with ordinary archeology or history or the scientific method - the problem is with people who are hopelessly married to a concrete version of history based on subjective interpretations.

Anybody can write a book (see Richard Nixon) - it is the people who read the book who build concrete foundations out of it... this is what the Richard Nixon Foundation has done with Nixon's "environmental legacy" but the fact is he only signed the EPA (clean air/clean water government agency) to take power away from his political opponents. One of the last things Nixon did in office was to veto a billion dollar spending bill for the EPA.

The fact is Nixon didn't have an environmental bone in his body. One would never know this by listening to the "experts" at the RNF... they want you to believe he was an environmental visionary. So much for history, huh?

The archeologists, the historians, the experts can still be wrong and many times they are dead wrong.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Historians report on what the people of that time said happened.

For example ... 1,000 years from now, if humans are still alive on this planet, they'll dig up information about Obama. If they dig in San Francisco they'll come to the conclusion that Obama was a fantastic guy and beloved by the people.

You may be doing historians a little injustice. True, as you say, they tell us what people said happened; but they don't necessarily take those statements as true. Propaganda, exaggeration and disinformation are all expected. This has been the case for a very long time — probably for ever, come to think of it. You're Catholic, so you'll have heard of the scandalous document known as the Donation of Constantine. It's at least seven hundred years since anyone seriously claimed it was genuine. So historians are well aware of the dangers of being too gullible. The dangers of depending too much on the authority of a source is drilled into students at university.

Reply to KilgoreTrout

The question for me is really what benefit does it serve in knowing.

It's a valid position, but it's not necessarily why historians study history, nor why people are interested in it.

I am not entirely sure though what can be concluded from one egg.

Well, there you go. Perhaps I chose an unfair example, because the speculation (which, I hasten to add, was not Hanslune's, but quoted from a linked paper) does seem a bit of a stretch from finding just one egg. Still, it shows the dangers of being too eager to forward an hypothesis.

The greater depth to which we can understand the day to day activities of the earliest settlers will help us to move forward more positively, with greater emphasis on rebuilding and maintaining the balance between us and the environments that support us.

I am most likely older than you, and have been left with fewer illusions about humanity. The same awareness of the immutability of human nature, or the power of our instinctive, animal inheritances, make me less sanguine about moving forward positively. We seem to be conforming well to the Malthusian pattern, breeding and eating ourselves to extinction as inexorably as any other species would if it were in our position. Still, I rather hope you are right and I am wrong.

a reply to: mikegrouchy

Not you too Hanslune, eek I'm being double teamed here. Is there no assistance. Are there no true Englishmen left in the world.

Simply put, now you too are refusing to discuss the topic of the thread. Instead are engaging in defending the teachings-of-the-day. How hard is it really, to just answer the question.

Speaking as the fellow who started the trouble, I must say I hadn't felt that Hans's participation in the thread was lacking in any way. As he says, he made his position clear in his very first post.

Perhaps I should have replied to that post earlier. I'll do so below.

How Much Can we Really Know about the Past?

Well, you've made your position clear. We can't trust anything archaeologists tell us, because archaeologists are all about big bucks and big egos and they all look like Indiana Jones, only with gold Rolexes and potbellies. Therefore, presumably, we can't know anything, and archaeologists don't either. But that doesn't address the question I am really asking, which is how accurately we can reconstruct the past based on the (paucity of) material that we have. Would you like to offer an answer to that? Then we can both lecture Hans on not making a substantive contribution.

a reply to: Hanslune

In the case mentioned I would say a single egg is significant as was the single finger bone that brought us the realization that the Denisovians existed

I think the two pieces of evidence are qualitatively different. The fingerbone was clear evidence for the existence of a — subspecies? ancestor species? — of H. Sapiens that had not previously been known to exist. Once this had been demonstrated, it was inarguable. What conclusions might then be drawn about the Denisovans and ourselves would depend on the specific evidence, and these would grow more or more speculative as the evidence grew less definitive, more ambiguous.

The egg in the mummy, I feel, is evidence in the Denisovan finger-bone sense only to the degree that it tells us that some people in that place and at that time were infected with biliharzia. We know it is contracted by wading in muddy fresh water, which certainly suggests irrigation channels, but that is only a suggestion. It is what I would call ambiguous evidence; it might just as well mean something else (don't ask me what). So we're talking schistosomiasis > irrigation > farming > settled communities > increase in infections disease due to settlement, proximity, poorly understood civic hygiene, etc. It almost sounds like a circular argument when I put it like that. It isn't, because we have evidence for both the disease and the community; but what we don't have is solid evidence connecting the two.

So there are some things about the past that we can know with a high degree of certainty. 'Denisovans, a type of human related to our own species, existed (in Siberia, or wherever it was) at a certain period.' 'People in another place in Syria, at a somewhat later time, suffered (at least, one did) from biliharzia.' I have no problem accepting the truth of such statements. But other statements are less certain. 'The discovery of this egg is indicative of a rise in infections as humans began to live in settled communities' is a conclusion I find it much harder to go along with. You can't do an epidemiological analysis from a sample of one.