How Much Can We Really Know about the Past?

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.

Prior to widespread literacy, records were only kept by those who could write, and the further you go back, part and parcel of conquest was the destruction of the record of the previous incumbent. Later, when great civilisations were leveled by the 'barbarian' hoards, records were simply destroyed because the conquerors had no use for written records, that is, until they realised what was entailed in managing an 'empire'. Multi-faceted accounts of events, showing the positive and the negative, as well as the in between, only became a factor in the middle ages, facilitated by the 'medieval literacy drive'. Up until then, every written record reflects the perspective of the ruling elite, as does the none verbal, artistic expression. While it is possible to remove this subtext, it only offers a limited view of 'life' in those times and a skewed one at that. But, that is why archaeology is wonderful, as well as the scientific developments that can be applied to such discoveries, they aid in the application of context. Most of what we learn is from the dead, and unlike written records, death does not discriminate.

originally posted by: Astyanax
If people can make up things and pass them off as history, aren't we in urgent need of reliable documentation and evidence if we are to know anything at all about what happened in the past?

There is plenty of information available, you simply have to weigh through the chaff to get to the wheat. We live in a very exciting time. Archaeology is still a relatively new science, and one that is vulnerable to the fashions and tastes of the time. Sensationalism is tied into attracting interest, and therefore, funding. The great discoveries of archaeology, in the past, were derived from individuals, privately funded, having a passion. Nowadays, much like everything else, red tape and bureaucracy drive discovery and research. Hence, thing move much slower, and in order to gain momentum, interest needs to be garnered from those with funds to throw at such projects.

Either way, it is a growth. If, as I do, you like to read old history and archeaology books you will be amazed at the expansion of our understanding over the last hundred years. Combine into that athropological studies of societies, and we know a vast amount that we can retrospectively apply in terms of behaviourialism. We may never know the details, but we can extract enough of what is important to know how to move forward. The rest is merely a matter of patience. One parasitic egg does not, to my mind, determine that settlement caused an increase in disease, however, it does indicate that there was a relationship between settlement and certain diseases, one that may explain why so many settlements were abandoned and destroyed.

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

One parasitic egg does not, to my mind, determine that settlement caused an increase in disease, however, it does indicate that there was a relationship between settlement and certain diseases

Thank you for a thoughtful reply. Why do you feel the latter indication is valid and not the former?

There are two things standing in our way, preventing us from fully realizing information about the ancient past, these are prediction and revenge.

When the Normans conquered England they created an accurate census of all the peoples, lands, and livestock for tax and levie purposes. The indigenous population of the England never forgave the Normans for this, and the book is called The Doomsday Book to this day. It seems that every time authority gains accurate information about the peoples of their own period that information is immediately used to fill ranks for a war or confiscate wealth. People hate accurate public records and prefer privacy.

We can call this obstacle revenge. Just look at all the mass killings of people by their governments in the twentieth century. Look at every new empire in China and how the writings of the previous empire were burned, sometimes the scholars along with them. This trend is evident all over the Earth and all through history.

It seems that when ever some group gains power over people they want to count them, and then they want to use them for their own purposes. To fill the ranks of the military, press ganged onto ships, forced into labor, or just plain taxed. And worst of all, if a group comes to power and feels they have accurate records they frequently take revenge on behalf of their ancestors.

People have learned. Better to keep everything secret than to trust rulers. The lesson of history is clear. If someone counts you or your property they expect to do something with you or your property. And this trend is evident in all of the ancient writings while simultaneously still being true to this day. Gilgamesh weighed the weapons of his warriors, then took then on an adventure from which only two returned. The Egyptians ordered all the Hebrew children thrown in the river, Herod ordered all the first born slain, Mao ordered all the teachers killed, etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseam. Which brings us to the second obstacle, prediction.



Information about the past is subject to debate, what findings mean are debatable, even how that information is interpreted is debated (take this thread for instance), but what is beyond debate are those rare cases where someone predicted what they would find. Here are two examples, Howard Carter and Heinrich Schleimann.

Howard Carter announced that he had found the Tomb of a pharaoh BEFORE he opened the tomb. Heinrich Schleimann announced that the story of Troy might not be pure myth BEFORE he found the country of its ruins. When a historian or archeologist has information and an understanding of the past that allows them to make accurate predictions, they are worth considering above and beyond the average historian. Historians say many things. But how many of them are able to make predictions?

With physics one can make predictions about how far a bullet will fly, how much load a structure can bear, and how much acceleration is required to achieve orbit. But where is the predictability of historical discovery? Isn't it true that in the current zeitgeist this is viewed as a crime against science. That if someone were to say "these two cultures traded with each other," that "the trade route must have gone through there," that "there should be a trading post right here," and then goes out to discover the ruins of a trading post in the deserts of the old silk road, exactly where they predicted; they will be accused of finding facts to support their theory. That the ruins don't prove their theory. That quote good science unquote looks at data and only then does it make a theory, not the other way around.

But we are _not_ discussing the future here, but the past. To advance science, yes; observations, data, and only then interpretation. But to test the value of information about the past this approach is an obstacle. The inability of modern academia to recognize this, even admit it, is a major block.

In the opening post of this thread the finding of a single parasite is cited as being over interpreted. The real question is who, if anyone, predicted such a parasite and what is their understanding of the historical information. The person who is making the wild interpretations or the person who predicted it's discovery. Did the over interpreter have anything to do with it's discovery In a predictive sense. Or not?


CONCLUSION: I see the well educated children of America being conditioned to believe in experts. For all kinds of reasons. I do not see the well educated being given the tools to determine what makes an expert. This is doubly true for historical information.

Second CONCLUSION: the thread title is terrible. History is "information", there is no such thing as historical "knowledge."



Mike Grouchy

Mainstream 'scholars' tend to jump to the closest conclusion that fits their already pre-packaged view of history, at times. So, while some times there may be enough evidence to clarify such exact things, other times archaeologists will just go off of their own thread based off of some trace evidence and deem it as what best fits mainstream history and their views..

originally posted by: TheIceQueen
Mainstream 'scholars' tend to jump to the closest conclusion that fits their already pre-packaged view of history,

Who or what pre-packaged it?

So, while some times there may be enough evidence to clarify such exact things, other times archaeologists will just go off of their own thread based off of some trace evidence and deem it as what best fits mainstream history and their views..

Sorry that doesn't make sense, the basis of what you might call the orthodox view has changed dramatically, over the last two hundred years, if everything was pre-packaged how could their be constant change?

originally posted by: mikegrouchy
There are two things standing in our way, preventing us from fully realizing information about the ancient past, these are prediction and revenge.

John Carter announced that he had found the Tomb of a pharaoh BEFORE he opened the tomb. Heinrich Schleimann announced that the story of Troy might not be pure myth BEFORE he found the country of its ruins. When a historian or archeologist has information and an understanding of the past that allows them to make accurate predictions, they are worth considering above and beyond the average historian. Historians say many things. But how many of them are able to make predictions?

Schleimann was being optimistic not knowledgeable, when he arrived in Turkey he found Frank Calvert sitting on the site he had found and is probably Troy. Schleimann didn't find it FC did. S just provided the money and got the credit.

Carter found a tomb in a royal cemetery for Pharaohs built in the manner of a royal tomb with the appropriate seals for a Pharaoh what else would he announce?

CONCLUSION: I see the well educated children of America being conditioned to believe in experts.

When and where were children not educated to believe in experts? Partly that is due to specialization, do you seem conspiracy in what you said?

originally posted by: Hanslune


Schleimann was being optimistic not knowledgeable, when he arrived in Turkey he found Frank Calvert sitting on the site he had found and is probably Troy. Schleimann didn't find it FC did. S just provided the money and got the credit.

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

Carter found a tomb in a royal cemetery for Pharaohs built in the manner of a royal tomb with the appropriate seals for a Pharaoh what else would he announce?

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.




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.




To put it another way; the OP wasn't asking for any particular fact or another, not even for a particular interpretation or another, but HOW MUCH can we KNOW. About the past. I object to the choice of the word "Know" and give some light sketches of what I have learned about history. You reinterpret my statements, but in no way actually contribute to the discussion. How much can we know about the past.


Mike Grouchy

Scientist and historians found a way to make a living by analyzing our history past. The outlandish theories some of these people make in long drawn out "hot air" debates etc..... makes me laugh.

Simply put PhD behind someone's name and puff - whatever rambles comes out their mouth must be a fact! This is the number one reason why our history is so screwed up by letting these fools say whatever they want and then allow them to put their trash into print. Don't believe me then take a look at our children's school books this should be enough proof.

I know a few PhD and some can not even write so other people can read their words. It is like putting a pencil in a chickens claw.

originally posted by: Astyanax
the reliability of statements about the past made by archaeologists and historians.

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. If they dig in Texas they'll come to the conclusion that Obama was a closet muslim who did everything in his power to destroy America from within. It all depends on what they dig up and who wrote the information that they dug up.

Take Exodus for example. There may have been a guy named Moses and he may have been with a small band of people who left Egypt. But historic records and archeology from Egypt and the desert do not support the Jewish folklore that Moses escaped Egypt with two million Hebrews and that they lived in the desert for 40 years.

Story telling back then got a lot of spin depending on who told it ... just like today.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: KilgoreTrout

One parasitic egg does not, to my mind, determine that settlement caused an increase in disease, however, it does indicate that there was a relationship between settlement and certain diseases

Thank you for a thoughtful reply. Why do you feel the latter indication is valid and not the former?

Do you know, thinking on it, after I had written that, I don't necessarily, nor do I think that the former is necessarily invalid. The question for me is really what benefit does it serve in knowing. In the case of both, common sense simply applied would determine that by living in close proximity to both other humans and animals would expose us to infections at a greater rate than previously experienced, not to mention living in close proximity to our own waste products. We don't need to really have proof that this happened in the past, as we have living proof of that 'fact'. What would perhaps be more useful to know is at what point such diseases, particularly those caused by parasitic infections, mutated sufficiently in order to be received by us as hosts. I am not entirely sure though what can be concluded from one egg, comparative DNA studies with samples taken from living hosts may derive some interesting and useful data, and the development of the parasite can then be timelined etc.

As we become increasingly overcrowded, and water, in some regions, becomes increasingly scarce, we need to be more efficient in the ways in which hygiene is dealt with. And this is where my interest lies, and why I perhaps have more interest in the latter relationship, of humans, settlement and when certain diseases/infections/symbiotics entered into the equation given our evolving immune system. Taken in conjunction with ritualistic behavioural patterns where hygiene and medicine are heavily integrated into early belief systems, such information could provide further clues as to what necessitated human movements once life became more sedentary and this can be utilised in conjunction with social anthropology to form strategies for the future for managing disease.

For me there is a simplicity in essence, we have not, as a species, changed all that much in 200,000 years, I, as a woman, can easily imagine what it was like to be a woman back then, especially as a mother, what thoughts and processes would have been predominant to that life. Our present, past and future are entwined, and what we know about 100 years ago, in terms of human behaviour, or even 10 years ago, can easily be applied to 200,000 years ago, the details merely enhanced that perspective and commonality of basic experience, adding colour to it. Pre-Anatomically Modern Human is another matter all together, but then again as a mother, I often find I have more in common, instinct and process wise, with mothers of the animal kingdom than I do with most men of my own species.

The real significance of what archaeology, and anthropology allows us to do is to trace our steps and regain significant gaps in our understanding of why we do certain things. Our belief systems represent remnants of important rituals that aided in our health, well being and cultural development on a functional level based upon the specific environments in which those rituals were developed. Successive syncretic movements have served to erode those very functional rituals to the detriment of the environments that we inhabit, to the extent that some of those environments are no longer suitable for human habitation. 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. We can never know every detail, but nor do we need to, we just need context.

originally posted by: mikegrouchy

originally posted by: Hanslune


Schleimann was being optimistic not knowledgeable, when he arrived in Turkey he found Frank Calvert sitting on the site he had found and is probably Troy. Schleimann didn't find it FC did. S just provided the money and got the credit.

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."

Rather shows his confirmation bias, which was the subject critics ridiculed about Schliemann:

Priam’s Treasure is a cache of gold and other artifacts discovered by classical archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann. Schliemann claimed the site to be that of ancient Troy, and assigned the artifacts to the Homeric king Priam. This assignment is now thought to be a result of Schliemann's zeal to find sites and objects mentioned in the Homeric epics. At the time the stratigraphy at Troy had not been solidified, which was done subsequently by the archaeologist Carl Blegen. The layer in which Priam's Treasure was alleged to have been found was assigned to Troy II, whereas Priam would have been king of Troy VI or VII, occupied hundreds of years later.

Schliemann claimed to have discovered many things that were mentioned in Homer.
IOW, he was prone to overstatement and he would certainly have identified any reasonable site he found in the area as "Troy."

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: mikegrouchy

originally posted by: Hanslune


Schleimann was being optimistic not knowledgeable, when he arrived in Turkey he found Frank Calvert sitting on the site he had found and is probably Troy. Schleimann didn't find it FC did. S just provided the money and got the credit.

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."

Rather shows his confirmation bias, which was the subject critics ridiculed about Schliemann:

Priam’s Treasure is a cache of gold and other artifacts discovered by classical archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann. Schliemann claimed the site to be that of ancient Troy, and assigned the artifacts to the Homeric king Priam. This assignment is now thought to be a result of Schliemann's zeal to find sites and objects mentioned in the Homeric epics. At the time the stratigraphy at Troy had not been solidified, which was done subsequently by the archaeologist Carl Blegen. The layer in which Priam's Treasure was alleged to have been found was assigned to Troy II, whereas Priam would have been king of Troy VI or VII, occupied hundreds of years later.

Schliemann claimed to have discovered many things that were mentioned in Homer.
IOW, he was prone to overstatement and he would certainly have identified any reasonable site he found in the area as "Troy."

Harte

I'm pleased that this has been mentioned. This is exactly what I am talking about. The current historical world view is full of this kind of ... what's the word ... tripe. So many critics, so many circles of self reinforcing smugness, so much dismissiveness.

When Schliemann was young he heard the myth of the iliad. Was told that it was just a myth. Full of gods and legends. Not real at all. He set out to prove them wrong. Why? A sense of history being erased or rewritten in his own time, an instinct for questioning such absolutist opinions, or some insight to human nature? We don't really know.

But what ever the reason, authority, Authorities, and those in power (see my first post about the traditions of power to erase history), have been relentless in trying to erase what he did. Called him the father of Archaeology briefly, and them moved on to congratulate themselves for not being so naïve. Smug in the sense that modern archaeologists are trained to be much better than him. But are they. Are they really.


Mike Grouchy

originally posted by: mikegrouchy

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: mikegrouchy

originally posted by: Hanslune


Schleimann was being optimistic not knowledgeable, when he arrived in Turkey he found Frank Calvert sitting on the site he had found and is probably Troy. Schleimann didn't find it FC did. S just provided the money and got the credit.

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."

Rather shows his confirmation bias, which was the subject critics ridiculed about Schliemann:

Priam’s Treasure is a cache of gold and other artifacts discovered by classical archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann. Schliemann claimed the site to be that of ancient Troy, and assigned the artifacts to the Homeric king Priam. This assignment is now thought to be a result of Schliemann's zeal to find sites and objects mentioned in the Homeric epics. At the time the stratigraphy at Troy had not been solidified, which was done subsequently by the archaeologist Carl Blegen. The layer in which Priam's Treasure was alleged to have been found was assigned to Troy II, whereas Priam would have been king of Troy VI or VII, occupied hundreds of years later.

Schliemann claimed to have discovered many things that were mentioned in Homer.
IOW, he was prone to overstatement and he would certainly have identified any reasonable site he found in the area as "Troy."

Harte

I'm pleased that this has been mentioned. This is exactly what I am talking about. The current historical world view is full of this kind of ... what's the word ... tripe. So many critics, so many circles of self reinforcing smugness, so much dismissiveness.

When Schliemann was young he heard the myth of the iliad. Was told that it was just a myth. Full of gods and legends. Not real at all. He set out to prove them wrong. Why? A sense of history being erased or rewritten in his own time, an instinct for questioning such absolutist opinions, or some insight to human nature? We don't really know.

In that sense, Schliemann failed miserably.

Finding a treasure cache and stating it was Priam's doesn't make it Priam's treasure.

He also claimed to have found Agamemnon's grave, and a gold mask from the site is still referred to as "The Mask of Agamemnon."

Guy was a crackpot. The Troy site was discovered by Frank Calvert, but he didn't have the money to excavate.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: mikegrouchy

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: mikegrouchy

originally posted by: Hanslune


Schleimann was being optimistic not knowledgeable, when he arrived in Turkey he found Frank Calvert sitting on the site he had found and is probably Troy. Schleimann didn't find it FC did. S just provided the money and got the credit.

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."

Rather shows his confirmation bias, which was the subject critics ridiculed about Schliemann:

Priam’s Treasure is a cache of gold and other artifacts discovered by classical archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann. Schliemann claimed the site to be that of ancient Troy, and assigned the artifacts to the Homeric king Priam. This assignment is now thought to be a result of Schliemann's zeal to find sites and objects mentioned in the Homeric epics. At the time the stratigraphy at Troy had not been solidified, which was done subsequently by the archaeologist Carl Blegen. The layer in which Priam's Treasure was alleged to have been found was assigned to Troy II, whereas Priam would have been king of Troy VI or VII, occupied hundreds of years later.

Schliemann claimed to have discovered many things that were mentioned in Homer.
IOW, he was prone to overstatement and he would certainly have identified any reasonable site he found in the area as "Troy."

Harte

I'm pleased that this has been mentioned. This is exactly what I am talking about. The current historical world view is full of this kind of ... what's the word ... tripe. So many critics, so many circles of self reinforcing smugness, so much dismissiveness.

When Schliemann was young he heard the myth of the iliad. Was told that it was just a myth. Full of gods and legends. Not real at all. He set out to prove them wrong. Why? A sense of history being erased or rewritten in his own time, an instinct for questioning such absolutist opinions, or some insight to human nature? We don't really know.

In that sense, Schliemann failed miserably.

Finding a treasure cache and stating it was Priam's doesn't make it Priam's treasure.

He also claimed to have found Agamemnon's grave, and a gold mask from the site is still referred to as "The Mask of Agamemnon."

Guy was a crackpot. The Troy site was discovered by Frank Calvert, but he didn't have the money to excavate.

Harte

Well, if there wasn't anyone to challenge him on his findings, then there would have been problems. Everything seems to have been sorted out and the colorful charm he brought to the field helped in the long run could be a position to take from todays perspective. Unless he destroyed a lot of stuff while excavating, what's the harm in someone having a passionate drive? It could be asked if Calvert, lacking the same passion, was the reason he came short of funding?

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: mikegrouchy

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: mikegrouchy

originally posted by: Hanslune


Schleimann was being optimistic not knowledgeable, when he arrived in Turkey he found Frank Calvert sitting on the site he had found and is probably Troy. Schleimann didn't find it FC did. S just provided the money and got the credit.

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."

Rather shows his confirmation bias, which was the subject critics ridiculed about Schliemann:

Priam’s Treasure is a cache of gold and other artifacts discovered by classical archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann. Schliemann claimed the site to be that of ancient Troy, and assigned the artifacts to the Homeric king Priam. This assignment is now thought to be a result of Schliemann's zeal to find sites and objects mentioned in the Homeric epics. At the time the stratigraphy at Troy had not been solidified, which was done subsequently by the archaeologist Carl Blegen. The layer in which Priam's Treasure was alleged to have been found was assigned to Troy II, whereas Priam would have been king of Troy VI or VII, occupied hundreds of years later.

Schliemann claimed to have discovered many things that were mentioned in Homer.
IOW, he was prone to overstatement and he would certainly have identified any reasonable site he found in the area as "Troy."

Harte

I'm pleased that this has been mentioned. This is exactly what I am talking about. The current historical world view is full of this kind of ... what's the word ... tripe. So many critics, so many circles of self reinforcing smugness, so much dismissiveness.

When Schliemann was young he heard the myth of the iliad. Was told that it was just a myth. Full of gods and legends. Not real at all. He set out to prove them wrong. Why? A sense of history being erased or rewritten in his own time, an instinct for questioning such absolutist opinions, or some insight to human nature? We don't really know.

In that sense, Schliemann failed miserably.

Finding a treasure cache and stating it was Priam's doesn't make it Priam's treasure.

He also claimed to have found Agamemnon's grave, and a gold mask from the site is still referred to as "The Mask of Agamemnon."

Guy was a crackpot. The Troy site was discovered by Frank Calvert, but he didn't have the money to excavate.

Harte

Well, if there wasn't anyone to challenge him on his findings, then there would have been problems. Everything seems to have been sorted out and the colorful charm he brought to the field helped in the long run could be a position to take from todays perspective.

I wouldn't call him "charming":

Schliemann went to California in early 1851 and started a bank in Sacramento buying and reselling over a million dollars of gold dust in just six months. When the local Rothschild agent complained about short-weight consignments he left California, pretending it was because of illness.[8] While he was there, California became the 31st state in September 1850 and Schliemann acquired United States citizenship.

According to his memoirs, before arriving in California he dined in Washington with President Millard Fillmore and his family,[9] but Eric Cline says that he didn't attend but simply read about it in the papers. He also published what he said was an eyewitness account of the San Francisco fire of 1851 which he said was in June although it took place in May. At the time he was actually in Sacramento and used the report of the fire in the Sacramento Daily Journal to write his report.

Wiki

Examples of his pathological penchant for fabrication abound. Although he did make his own fortune and didn't inherit it, whatever nefarious means he may have used.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Unless he destroyed a lot of stuff while excavating,...

I wouldn't hold that against him. That's how it was done in his day.

originally posted by: TinfoilTPwhat's the harm in someone having a passionate drive? It could be asked if Calvert, lacking the same passion, was the reason he came short of funding?

Schliemann was rich. Much of his wealth seems to have come from cheating people, but he was rich.

Calvert was a consular official of moderate means, and was more concerned in aiding the careers of his brothers. One of his brothers was the British Consul to Turkey and owned the land where the site is. Calvert was self-educated and really an amateur part-timer, whereas Schliemann had plenty of dough for the rest of his life and could spend all his time at the site, not having to maintain a job.

He worked with Calvert, though, and spent a bit of money doing so.

Harte

We have a very limited notion of what's going on right now. What we know of the past is limited by what survives over the years enough for us to study. Even then, we're placing our own perspectives on it, because that's all we have. We can't write from somebody else's perspective, or anticipate what people 1,000 years from now will think about anything.

So what we get is a kind of "streamlined" version of the past that we slowly add small details to. But without actually existing at that time, there's no way we can know what it would be like to actually live at that time. What it felt like to be alive, and what would be going on in the heads of the people who were alive.

Shadows and ghosts and hunger and fear of crazy gods, maybe.

a reply to: Harte
Well he didn't horde away his ill gotten booty, he spent it on his interests one of which was finding Troy, so I won't hold that against him.

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

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
I know what is being said, and I know those answers would pass the current college courses, but they were taught to us not discovered by us. Taught by whom? And more importantly why? When did the term "confirmation bias" become the most powerful thought in the world? I expect more from the reader. Much more.

There has to be a way to objectively test Historical Theories. Making predictions on finds is one of them. A dismissed one, as far as methods go. A criticized one. One completely out of favor these days. But a method of falsification / verification NONE THE LESS.

Schliemann and Carter are two prime examples of predictive archaeology. Why are there none since. Is it because all the so-called learned academics say it is a bias? Who are we really carrying water for, and why. Don't we _want_ to find out how much information about the past there really is. Or are we here just to stop anyone else from succeeding. Ask yourself.



Mike Grouchy

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.

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?

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

What an odd and meaningless statement, lol

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.

Hmmmm, you do seem to be spending a large number of words to avoid the fact that you were wrong about Schliemann.

Tsk tsk