We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Is history wrong?
adrian_indy
Posts: 1,444 Member
I've been doing a lot of reading over the last few years, and the huge variety of topics I want to tackle in a debate like this is so vast I don't know if I can even coherently try. But there is a rising tide of scientific and archeological opinons that everything we know about mankinds history could in fact be wrong. More specifically, our pre-history. Most scientific minds have a very neat theory that ties almost every aspect of our earlies ancestors together. We descended from an animal and branched off from the beings that would become chimps and the apes. We then slowly migrated out of africa, and our earliest civilizations sprang forth in mesopotamia.
But what if we were older than that? What if we had advanced civlizations well before the Summerians and what we thought were the precursors to every great civilization of antiquity we know of today? While I personally do believe that the theory of evolution best describes how live on this planet has carried on, do you think it is possible that it is flawed in certain instances? Is it fatally flawed? The church of the dark ages was so total in it's dominance of power, much of free thought, of doubt, of uncertainty about these questions of antiquity and origins, that all dissenting opinions were crushed for hundreds of years. But has science taken the reigns of enlightenment and become the new priesthood, as rigid and inflexible as the holy men of old?
We look at Egypt for example. Egyptologists have long contended that they know who built the pyramids, who built the Sphinx, when, if not how exactly. But in the 90s, reknowned geologist Robert Schock studied the weathering on the Sphinx, and now collaborated by others, has found that the weathering was caused by large amounts of rain. The problem with this is that rain had not fallen like that in Egypt for thousands of years BEFORE the Sphinx was supposedly constructed. Also, now different archeologists and scientists who were were and still are considered to be on the fringe contend that several sturctures in Egypt are much older than we first thought, that their construction styles do not even match eachother suggesting differnt builders at different times (carbon testing, to my knowledge has yet to be done).
The problem with all of this is profound. When looking at an Sphinx thousands of years older than previously expected, with growing speculation that monuments and cities in South and Central America are much older than previously thought due to their alignement to astrological occurences correspoding to dates thousands upon thousands of years ago, with evidence of a sucken city found of the coast of Cuba 2,000 feet below the surface, with the finding of an ancient city off the coast of India that was supposed to be a myth, can we conclude that maybe our current model on the evolution of men, not only genetically, but our evolution of civlization might be off?
I would also like to point to to almost every cultures flood and catastrophy stories, biblical, greek, Indian, Native American, Mayan. And many of these cultures, including the Asians speak of far ancient and sophisticated cultures such as Lemuria and Atlantis. Do we not think it a little odd that the Olmec, the Egyptians, and many cultures all over the world spring up, almost all constructing pryamid like structures? Do we also not find it odd that in almost every case, these cultures seem to spring up from almost nothing and create some of their greates enigeering feats at the inception of their civilization and then their skill seem to decline?
I know that is a lot, so feel free to tackle it from any angle you would like, archeology, history, evolution. But are we right. Is modern history the be all end alll of the start of humanity, are they wrong, or are many people out their just wishful thinkers that would like to find something spectacular?
But what if we were older than that? What if we had advanced civlizations well before the Summerians and what we thought were the precursors to every great civilization of antiquity we know of today? While I personally do believe that the theory of evolution best describes how live on this planet has carried on, do you think it is possible that it is flawed in certain instances? Is it fatally flawed? The church of the dark ages was so total in it's dominance of power, much of free thought, of doubt, of uncertainty about these questions of antiquity and origins, that all dissenting opinions were crushed for hundreds of years. But has science taken the reigns of enlightenment and become the new priesthood, as rigid and inflexible as the holy men of old?
We look at Egypt for example. Egyptologists have long contended that they know who built the pyramids, who built the Sphinx, when, if not how exactly. But in the 90s, reknowned geologist Robert Schock studied the weathering on the Sphinx, and now collaborated by others, has found that the weathering was caused by large amounts of rain. The problem with this is that rain had not fallen like that in Egypt for thousands of years BEFORE the Sphinx was supposedly constructed. Also, now different archeologists and scientists who were were and still are considered to be on the fringe contend that several sturctures in Egypt are much older than we first thought, that their construction styles do not even match eachother suggesting differnt builders at different times (carbon testing, to my knowledge has yet to be done).
The problem with all of this is profound. When looking at an Sphinx thousands of years older than previously expected, with growing speculation that monuments and cities in South and Central America are much older than previously thought due to their alignement to astrological occurences correspoding to dates thousands upon thousands of years ago, with evidence of a sucken city found of the coast of Cuba 2,000 feet below the surface, with the finding of an ancient city off the coast of India that was supposed to be a myth, can we conclude that maybe our current model on the evolution of men, not only genetically, but our evolution of civlization might be off?
I would also like to point to to almost every cultures flood and catastrophy stories, biblical, greek, Indian, Native American, Mayan. And many of these cultures, including the Asians speak of far ancient and sophisticated cultures such as Lemuria and Atlantis. Do we not think it a little odd that the Olmec, the Egyptians, and many cultures all over the world spring up, almost all constructing pryamid like structures? Do we also not find it odd that in almost every case, these cultures seem to spring up from almost nothing and create some of their greates enigeering feats at the inception of their civilization and then their skill seem to decline?
I know that is a lot, so feel free to tackle it from any angle you would like, archeology, history, evolution. But are we right. Is modern history the be all end alll of the start of humanity, are they wrong, or are many people out their just wishful thinkers that would like to find something spectacular?
0
Replies
-
History constantly runs into two problems. The first is that it is not subject to the scientific process. I can't conduct a repeatable experiment with a control group to prove to you that George Washington existed, let alone to prove why he made such-and-such a military decision. The second problem is that, the farther back you go, the less information there is. You can reasonably assume George Washington existed, but there is not enough information to prove that King David existed. In fact, there is not enough evidence to come to a reasonable supposition that King David DIDN'T exist simply because almost no writings remain from that time.
Both of these problems come into play in a huge way when we talk about ancient and pre-historic civilizations. Take, for example, the cocaine mummies. Researches found high levels of cocaine in some ancient Egyptian mummies. However, coca is a New World plant, so for the Pharaohs to have access to it would have revolutionized our entire understanding of world history. Turns out that it was just contamination from when the mummies were put on display for elite [cocaine-snorting, careless with ancient artifacts] Europeans.
By the way, this happens in much smaller ways all the time. In the debate on how much weight to give the Bible as a historical text, archaeologists noted that the Bible talks about camels in Egypt before there were camels in Egypt. Later, archaeologists found out that there were in fact camels in Egypt far earlier than had been previously thought. The only thing that changed was the amount of evidence available.0 -
History constantly runs into two problems. The first is that it is not subject to the scientific process. I can't conduct a repeatable experiment with a control group to prove to you that George Washington existed, let alone to prove why he made such-and-such a military decision. The second problem is that, the farther back you go, the less information there is. You can reasonably assume George Washington existed, but there is not enough information to prove that King David existed. In fact, there is not enough evidence to come to a reasonable supposition that King David DIDN'T exist simply because almost no writings remain from that time.
Both of these problems come into play in a huge way when we talk about ancient and pre-historic civilizations. Take, for example, the cocaine mummies. Researches found high levels of cocaine in some ancient Egyptian mummies. However, coca is a New World plant, so for the Pharaohs to have access to it would have revolutionized our entire understanding of world history. Turns out that it was just contamination from when the mummies were put on display for elite [cocaine-snorting, careless with ancient artifacts] Europeans.
By the way, this happens in much smaller ways all the time. In the debate on how much weight to give the Bible as a historical text, archaeologists noted that the Bible talks about camels in Egypt before there were camels in Egypt. Later, archaeologists found out that there were in fact camels in Egypt far earlier than had been previously thought. The only thing that changed was the amount of evidence available.
I think scientists have always been reluctant to attribute any truth to not only the historcial accuracy of the bible, but to many cultures supposed myths. It is no news to any body on the debate forums that I am not a believer in the biblical god or the supernatural, but historically I think the bible has been correct in many ways. I have no problem with the fact a Moses, or Jesus actually existed. I also think that a global flood or catastrophy more than likely did occur since so many different cultures talk about it. I think there is also evidence of Sodom and Gamorra being real. What I differ on is what caused these events to take place. While ancient man was sophisticated in many ways, in many ways they weren't. They often interpretted anything they could not explain as a supernatural event.
Look at Homer and Plato. For centuries we were told that everything they talked about was in fact a myth. They spoke of giants, heros, cyclops, gods and godlings, so the whole of everything they ever spoke of was thrown by the wayside. Not to mention that they also became victims of later religons who did not like their versions of history since an Atlantis thousands of years old would predate what the Dark Age christian priesthood considered the beginning of the earth. But if you take away the mythical aspects of these stories and look at it for what it was, they were actually right about alot of things. They wrote of Atlanits, of the Troy and the Trojan War, of a mythical spring that came from the earth in one of the Main temples in Greece and it was all shunned. But now we have found Troy, we know the war happened. The spring in the temple which was previously un-rediscovered came to light when an earthquake revealed it exactly where the ancient greek historians said it was.
I don't mean to say this in an offensive way, but it almost seems the the enlighened people of their day, whether it was greek, hebrew or Egyptian dumbed dpwn, streamlined, or maybe even spiced up historical events to make more palatbable to the audience of their day. And that is not only a knock at religions new and old. Look at the damage evolutionists did to themselves with the dumbind down of their theory to make it more accessible to the uneducated. We have all seen the famous picture of Darwins evolution, the ape slowly transforming until he is an upright walking man.
That is nowhere near what evolution really states. It never said we descended from apes. It said we and the apes descended from a common ancestor. But now, whether it is waiting in a doctors office and being cornered by some dumb hill billy, the fundamentalist christian, or just the uninformed, almost always they dismiss evolution with the line "Well if we descended from apes then why are their still apes!" You just want to pull your own hair out.0 -
I did a lot of work on early North American pre-history and have some thoughts to share, but I have to run for the moment. Will respond later.0
-
as a research scientist, I experience science itself always evolving. Of course some past calculations are incorrect. As technology progresses, adjustments are made to early scientific findings. This is in regards to everything; Cosmos, Anthropology, etc.
Take radio carbon dating: Scientists know everything that is carbon dated will need to be readjusted in the future when better dating technology is available.
Science discovered the earth is not flat, and that we are not the center of the universe. When science changes, history will change.0 -
I like this quote, and I use it every time a student quotes history as though it is factual. "History is a collection of possibly true stories as told by the victor"
We tend to look at the archaelogical record as though it is complete. That's a major flaw in thinking. Most items made of anything except stone/metal have disappeared/decayed away over the aeons. Our ideas about the oldest items which still remain are almost pure conjecture. We also tend to think of the ancients as very serious people. What if the Egyptian heiroglyphs are a huge comic book? I'm being flippant, I know they're not, but we don't think outside our own paradigm very often. We find an item buried with a mummy and we decide Oh, this must be so significant or religiously affiliated. What if that dead guy just liked that item?
One example, earlier you asked why pyramid shaped building seemed to "pop up everywhere at once?" Do you imagine that the shape of that building is significant? Why? If archaeologists were to examine our cities in the far-distant future, they may conclude we all worshipped rectangles because nearly every building looks like one. Maybe pyramid-shaped buildings just withstand the test of time better, and so they are left for us to see while other buildings have crumbled. Maybe it was fashionable. We will always be guessing when we come to "conclusions" about the far past.0 -
We actually know why pyramids are so common. Because they are really easy to build.
I'd like to add a quote to LuckyLeprechaun's. My grad school adviser once said to us, "Only winners write revisionist histories."0 -
as a research scientist, I experience science itself always evolving. Of course some past calculations are incorrect. As technology progresses, adjustments are made to early scientific findings. This is in regards to everything; Cosmos, Anthropology, etc.
Take radio carbon dating: Scientists know everything that is carbon dated will need to be readjusted in the future when better dating technology is available.
Science discovered the earth is not flat, and that we are not the center of the universe. When science changes, history will change.
I agree with this. We can only know scientifically what can be proven at the time and with the technology that we currently have available to us. As our ability to reach further back is improved then our views must also evolve. So this being the case I wouldn't say that history is 'wrong' only that it remains to be fully proven/disproved. Of course the things that are blatantly wrong will always be wrong - ie. the age of the earth will never be 6000 years :P0 -
People are very good at discounting what doesn't fit their ideas of how the world should be, was or will be. Very few people truly have the ability to work 'outside the box'. Yes, history is wrong. To what extent? Who knows. Will it ever be correct? Probably not.0
-
You all bring up some very interesting points. As far what you said Lucky, it makes some sense. I am willing to concede that the pyramid shape might in fact been popular in several civliazations because it was just the best thing they could come up with at the time. But more than just the shape, I find it interesting that almost all of them have astrological significance and the pure awesomeness of the undertaking is still a mystery.
I was listening to someone I really respect and often agree with and they were debating one of the "Ancient Aliens" crowd. He said, "Aliens, why, ancient man couldn't pile rocks?" Now, I am not endorsing that aliens built these monuments. But the flippant attitude of a lot of people to the pure magnitude of these monuments is what annoys me. Most rocks at the Giza Pyramids weigh at least 2.5 tons, but the largest, espcially the ones on top of the great hall, weigh several hundred TONS. And they are 25 feet up in the air. Not to mention the Obelisk at Luxor which weighs 400 tons. I just don't see how people can sit buy and passively accept that ancient man did this with primitive tools and ropes. No one has been able to explain this to my knowledge. And what is really odd to me is that so many of these great civlizations seem to rise up out of the desert out of no where, and achieve their greatest engineering feats at the BEGINNING of their reign. After that it becomes a decline in building techniques. It would be the equivalent of if the USA won the revolution against the British and then built the Empire State building the next year.
I was reading an account of when the Spanish first saw the huge pyramids near present day Mexico city, which the locals always refered to as the city of the gods. When the spanish asked if they had built it, the natives laughed. "We don't know who built it." Then went on to tell the spanish how a great Aztec (I think it was Aztec, it's been a while since I read this) decided to build a grand monument of his own. He used something in the ballpark of 17,000 warriors to pul some gigantic slab down a mountain path wear it at been quarried, and the ropes snapped and 2,000 warriors died. They never tried again.0 -
I'm not sure why people think that ancient people were incapable of moving large rocks. Wikipedia lists several methods, including sledges and ramps, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques. Given a choice between saying that the pyramids were built using physics and that the pyramids were built using aliens, I will go with physics. Especially since most modern construction machinery is just a fancier version of the simple machines (levers, ramps, pulleys, Archimedes screws, etc.).0
-
I firmly believe that we have lost so much knowledge through the ages that we will never know half of what the ancient people's did. We are just recently starting to 're-discover' some of that knowledge. For instance, batteries were not a recent creation. Things like the "Baghdad Battery" were being used thousands of years ago. There are countless examples of things that we think of as 'recent' inventions that really aren't.
So if you relate this to things like the Pyramids or Stonehenge, I don't think we need to look as far as aliens either. I think we have just lost those techniques and eventually someone will re-discover them just like we have been doing with other things. I don't think 'Atlantis' was a myth either, I just don't think we have the technology to find it yet
0 -
I don't know if I was clear enough. I don't discount the possiblity of aliens existing in the universe, it's a big place, but I have never seen anything that would make me think that they indeed helped early man out. Of all the probablities out their, I would see that is the least probable.
As far as what main stream theories on how the ancients built the pyramids in Egypt, I know what they think happened, but there is a number of scientists, and it is growing, who think that much of what they have proposed itsn't possible. Most modern attempts at trying to mimic the techniques of the anicents have not really meant with success. I was just reading about how a group of westerners on the first day couldn't quarry anything with the tools the eqyptians supposedly used, so they had to bring in Jackhammers which I think failed as well.
As far as in the americas go, and you will have to forgive me if I get the site or the tribes wrong, it was a long night and my brain is a little slow this morning.. but sites like ancient Puma Punku have stones as large as the pyramids, several tons up to 100 tons, and it's very intricate and made out of diarite stone (sp). Problem with this is that main stream historians claim that the the natives who built it had no written language. You take that with the fact that the quarries were very far away, and that the constuction site is very high above sea level you start wondering things. How did they transport these stones? If it was massive manpower, what was used to feed them at altitudes where sustainable food doesn't grow. More interestingly, How did they cut a stone so hard that the only known tools that we know of that could do it would have to be diamond tipped, and how did they get the designs so intricate?
The Ancient Aliens show is one of my guilty pleasures, and while I find it entertaining, after the first few episodes when it finally did become a series, any objective person can see, while they have some intersting evidence, they attribute a strange smelling fart to aliens.
As far as what you said Koldriana, I whole heartedly agree about a possible Atlantis, but modern politics and nationalism that sort of infects archeology today make it very difficult for anyone to do good work on the subject. Personally, I thought one of the most interesting things I ever heard was continetal drift theory pioneered by Charles Hapgood and supported by Einstein, and now a lot of people are suggesting that Antartica used to be a lof farther north and had temperate climates on the northern half. which all ended roughly 11,000 years ago when we think some time of catastrophe might of occured.0 -
Atlantis was a hypothetical city created by Plato for intellectual discussion purposes, which is why the only ancient text to mention Atlantis ever is Timaeus. Also, continents don't sink; that's not how plate tectonics works.0
-
Atlantis was a hypothetical city created by Plato for intellectual discussion purposes, which is why the only ancient text to mention Atlantis ever is Timaeus. Also, continents don't sink; that's not how plate tectonics works.
I believe that Plato's Atlantis was based on the more ancient writings of a greek named Solon, who got much of his information from the visiting the Eyptians, or so the theory goes. They also said that the Trojan was was a myth as well, until they actually found Troy in Turkey and now know that the war really happened. As far as continents not sinking, I agree. So where is it? My favorite theory is continental drift theory by Hapgood.
There is growing evidence that a global catastrophe of sorts happened in roughly 9600 BC. In Siberia they have found a lot of animals like Mammoths flash frozen in place, they know this because when disected they found green grass still digesting in their stomachs which wouldn't have been there if they were indeed eating in a tundra. It's controversial, but if you take the descriptions of what Plato said about Atlantis, an island continent with a warm, temperate climate in the north, and ice in the south, which was surrouned on all sides by the worlds oceans the only one that fits the bill is Antartica. If Hapgood is right, and Antartica used to be farther north and had temperate climates in the north, it would also explain how the Turkish Admiral Piri Reis had a map based on more ancient maps that not only showed an accurate coastline for South America, but an accurate representaion of Antartica which seems to be ice free, a contienent previously thought to have been sighted for the first time in like 1820.
Or these people could be nuts. I don't know.0 -
Lots of very interesting questions and not much time right now - I will reply fully tomorrow. Just want to chime in with Lucky's observation about history being written by the victors. Many so-called myths, legends and commonly-held 'facts' are either distortions of the truth or complete fabrications designed by a victorious power to exculpate themselves, raise support in their communities or solidify a power base. A more recent example, and therefore more easily verifiable, is the demonisation of King Richard III by the victorious Tudor dynasty, and its' playwrites, historians et al. The slurs on Richard's character and physical appearance created to solidify public support for the new regime and to exonerate a newly-crowned regicidal dynasty are generally accepted as 'fact' today amongst the general public, and have been for some time.0
-
what is really odd to me is that so many of these great civlizations seem to rise up out of the desert out of no where, and achieve their greatest engineering feats at the BEGINNING of their reign. After that it becomes a decline in building techniques. It would be the equivalent of if the USA won the revolution against the British and then built the Empire State building the next year.
What if their earlier feats or attempts, or even failures were just wiped out from existence/recorded history? I don't recall the details, but I saw a show that went into great detail about the pyramids and the difficulties encountered in their construction, one of them had angles which were too steep and halfway through construction they had to adjust for a shallower angle.0 -
Lots of very interesting questions and not much time right now - I will reply fully tomorrow. Just want to chime in with Lucky's observation about history being written by the victors. Many so-called myths, legends and commonly-held 'facts' are either distortions of the truth or complete fabrications designed by a victorious power to exculpate themselves, raise support in their communities or solidify a power base. A more recent example, and therefore more easily verifiable, is the demonisation of King Richard III by the victorious Tudor dynasty, and its' playwrites, historians et al. The slurs on Richard's character and physical appearance created to solidify public support for the new regime and to exonerate a newly-crowned regicidal dynasty are generally accepted as 'fact' today amongst the general public, and have been for some time.
Yeah, I am in agreement with Lucky about the victors part.0 -
what is really odd to me is that so many of these great civlizations seem to rise up out of the desert out of no where, and achieve their greatest engineering feats at the BEGINNING of their reign. After that it becomes a decline in building techniques. It would be the equivalent of if the USA won the revolution against the British and then built the Empire State building the next year.
What if their earlier feats or attempts, or even failures were just wiped out from existence/recorded history? I don't recall the details, but I saw a show that went into great detail about the pyramids and the difficulties encountered in their construction, one of them had angles which were too steep and halfway through construction they had to adjust for a shallower angle.
And that's a possiblity. As a matter of fact, I think their is also some evidence that the sites the pyramids are on might have been older structures that might have eroded or been destroyed, or maybe just added too or renovated. It's a possiblity the reason we don't see traces of a more ancient empire of Egypt from what we know now is quite simply that they might have kept renovating their own monuments with every passing generation. Good point.0 -
Ok first of all I love this topic. My friends and I will discuss things like this for hours. The most interesting thing about history is it is not a science. Its more like a collage students thesis that never get finished. More and more information is constantly brought to light shifting previous perceptions and changing lines of thought. I remember when I was in elementry school I wanted to be an archeologist or palentologist. I read alot of stuff which made my teacher look at me like I was nuts. We used to be taught the Neanderthals were a direct ansestor to Homo sapiens, now however the shifting consesus is that they are another branch on the evolutionary tree that we may have interbreeded with after killing off the males but that homo sapiens most likely eradicated..
. Also in regards to the pyramids I would just like to point out a little structure in homestead/ south florida called Coral Castle. Look it up online. The man who built it in the 20's (i think) was an immigrant with an elementary school education. Its built out of coral rock and various little odd and ends. It has a coral door that ways over a ton. It took him 20 some odd years to build. When questioned on how he built it he told people he used a perpetual motion holder (my ex used to work there). You used to be able to open the door by pushing on it with 1 finger. In the 90's the hinge on the door broke (its was made from a coke or pepsi can). We couldnt put the door back on the same way. With all of our machinery and knowledge we could not get the door to open the same was. Its close (you know have to use both hands and push) but not the same and know one has been able to explain it. Teenagers who snuck in and watched him build it claimed he made the several ton rocks move like air ballons.
No one has been able to explain it. The best part is after he built it all he supposedly moved the whole structure in 1 night to a new property. BTW I've been in the place its really pretty0
This discussion has been closed.