Combination of the 2 (apologies ahead to janis joplin)

[Minimalist]

You have an annoying way to ask highly complicated questions in a very simple manner, you know that!

The answer of course is "no, they can't." Artifacts are what are produced by men. But what happens when the history cannot be reconciled with the artifact?

Let's take the Pokotia monolith or the Fuente Magna bowl as an example... (at the risk of having your pal foaming at the mouth.) History, as we know it, claims that there was no contact between the Americas and the Old World before Columbus. That idea has taken a few hits lately but I imagine that it is still the main theory put forward by the establishment. Could those artifacts be hoaxes? Yes. They certainly could. Is the script sumerian or even proto-sumerian? There is apparently an argument going on.

However, if the artifacts are real AND the script is in some way related to a Sumerian dialect then the historical theory must be re-written based on the artifact. Obviously, then, there would have been contact in pre-Columbian times.

[ravenwing5910]

[Who, these days, are the caretakers of lasting and ongoing knowledge?

With the concomitant stewardship of society (ex tribes) to maintain the balance, both human and natural.

john

would that be Ted Turner?

[Minimalist]

[ravenwing5910]

but why is it history and not herstory
of course the answer is that early women couldn't write]

come on Marduk, don't you know it was woman that started writing????? you know she had to give hubby his to-do list!

[Minimalist]

They certainly perfected it.

[Forum Monk]

The answer of course is "no, they can't." Artifacts are what are produced by men. But what happens when the history cannot be reconciled with the artifact?

Or what happens when the lack of artifacts can not be reconciled with history?

If an artifact can not be reconciled with history there are two possibilities:
1. Either the history is incorrect or incomplete
2. The artifact is not being interpreted correctly.

Let's take the Pokotia monolith or the Fuente Magna bowl as an example... History, as we know it, claims that there was no contact between the Americas and the Old World before Columbus. That idea has taken a few hits lately but I imagine that it is still the main theory put forward by the establishment. Could those artifacts be hoaxes? Yes. They certainly could. Is the script sumerian or even proto-sumerian? There is apparently an argument going on.

These are good examples IMO of number 2. Because I thought our 'foaming pal' did a good job of showing Epi Olmec script which closely resembled the markings on the Patokia monolith. However the Fuente Magna bowel is an anomaly, IMO.

The preclovis debate is another. Are the finds showing history wrong or are the finds being misinterpreted?

In any case, at the end of the day, for the sake of historical accuracy, is archaeological data enough to rewrite history?

[Minimalist]

Or what happens when the lack of artifacts can not be reconciled with history?

That's the King David scenario. The bible claims that Jerusalem was a capital city of a great empire but archaeology cannot find any traces of major urbanization until 200 years later.

Archaeologists say this shows the bible is wrong.

Bible-thumpers claim that archaeologists are part of some plot to discredit the bible.

Meanwhile.....there are no artifacts.

[Minimalist]

In any case, at the end of the day, for the sake of historical accuracy, is archaeological data enough to rewrite history?

It has to be because written history is too limited a universe. I read once where someone said that "if anyone finds a wrench on the moon that wasn't made in America or Russia all of history will have to be re-written."

[Forum Monk]

It has to be because written history is too limited a universe. I read once where someone said that "if anyone finds a wrench on the moon that wasn't made in America or Russia all of history will have to be re-written."

What a perfect example of archaeological delimma that would be. Had that been found in 1970, I am sure both the USA and the USSR would have wanted to control what said in the rewrite. But since USA got there first, history is written by the winners.

I wonder if anyone else has any thoughts about it. (Guess I kind of hijacked John's thread. Come on John get it on track if you don't like me exploring this.)

[ravenwing5910]

In my humble opinion, archaeology will change a lot of what is now thought of as our known history. It provides the hard evidence of what did or did not occur, and as our technology grows so will our knowledge. At least as soon as those who Think They Know are ready to let go and open their minds to new ideas that may threaten their very tentative hold on the reality they themselves have created. I don't wish to sabotage my chances for a career in my chosen field by rocking these boats. But really, they once scoffed at Autralopithicus afarensis, and originally accepted pilt-down man. They also said Homer was just a poet. All I am saying is What we KNOW now will one day be looked at as foolish, and it will be archaeology that will give us the truth.

[ravenwing5910]

[quote="Forum Monk"]
[1. Either the history is incorrect or incomplete]


Isn't it already a given that history is incorrect or incomplete?

[marduk]

They also said Homer was just a poet

but he was a poet
thats like saying that shakespeare was not just a playwright
he was
he just based his plays on history
in most cases it was pseudohistory
homer was no different
unless you believe everything he said was 100% factual
which it wasn't
and the discovery of Troy was not made by Schlieman because he read Homer
that in itself was pseudohistory

[ravenwing5910]

Shakespeare was just a playright, like Speilberg is just a producer/director. and no Schlieman found Troy II (he dug too deep) but that doesn't negate the fact that Troy VI is there. and just to give you a bit more fodder, I think there is truth in Atlantis too. The point I am trying to make is We Don't Know anything, we Think and archaeology will either prove us right or wrong.

[john]

All -

Long day. Too late to compose my thoughts, tonight. However, thanks for the thinking, and there is plenty of it from all.

I'll pick the name Heraclitus out of the mix. Wrote something translated as the "History of the Peloponnesian Wars", and was assigned the onerous titile of the inventor of history.

Why?

For his outrageous assessment that history was not a preordained congfiguration created by the pantheon of the gods, but - to quote Twain here - "A nickle plated angel". For those who have not read "Letters from the Earth", please do so.

In short, Heraclitus proposed that history was created by humans. HIS job was to record it.

You folks are running a little wider than my intention, which was to ask the question whether only written records could be considered history. Thus the exclusion of cave paintings, carved bone and stone etc. etc. as valid. Cave paintings speak to me as clearly as the written word. I had no intention of includiing "Natural History" in the thesis.

Anyway history, as written only, is a very narrow view indeed.

So. Gotta Z, blind tired. More tomorrow.


john

[Forum Monk]

Thus the exclusion of cave paintings, carved bone and stone etc. etc. as valid. Cave paintings speak to me as clearly as the written word.

Interesting thought, but I never heard of cave paintings being interpreted as historical texts (nor bone, nor stones). I tend to think of them as ceremonial (or possibly grafitti).