41–50 of 59 posts
"Analyzing how stories change in the retelling down through the generations sheds light on the history of human migration going as far back as the Paleolithic period"
archive.org because of the paywall
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I was taught is that ancient peoples did not look at history the way we look at it. When I open a book by a modern historian, I assume the book will be about things that actually happened, how they actually happened, why they actually happened, the correct order in which they actually happened, etc. I expect the historian will tell me when there is ambiguity or uncertainty. Ancient historians would think this is…
When the only means of preserving your history is to speak it truthfully, that's what you do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For just one of endless examples, do you believe the ancient Greek gods were real? Some stories may indeed have persisted for millenia. But how does one separate those from the fanciful ones? With corroboration. Because some are true does not mean all ancient stories and myths are true, and one must be careful to not impute meaning that isn't there, i.e. finding pictures in clouds.
I don't have evidence the Ancient Greek gods were/are not real. I do believe they are real in a sense. At least in collective unconscious, they will influence humankind.
> I do believe they are real in a sense.
Which ones are real, the Greek gods or the Norse gods?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a difference between a useful story and a true story. If some distant ancestors sat around making up a story of how women were created from men, then this story was certainly useful to them in some way and reflected their truth (social structure etc.), but it wasn't a true story.
Well, it depends on what you consider a true story. We think a story is true if it accurately represents what actually happened (as if a camera was filming the event). Ancient peoples would think this is ridiculous. A true story is one that gets the "true" message you want to impart across to the listeners. A person who changes names, places, events, etc. to fit their message is not a liar, they are a historian. Of c…
How would we conclude what ancient people think?
Going to go out on a personal opinion limb here, but I think we dismiss far too much in archaeology and ancient recorded history, even with the evidence all around us. I predict one day there will be a great revival in archaeology as we start to cast off our erroneous assumptions about native peoples stories of their history. A few Examples that have really stuck in my mind: The recorded history of the Egyptians says…
To be fair the local people seem pretty close-minded about the origins of Gunung Padang. The local scientific community insists most of it is natural, and that because they found later evidence of less advanced technology, it is then impossible there was a more advanced culture previously there. However, this has been known to happen over and over again, with the most known example being the Mayans. At the same time,…
There's no reason anyone who believes the accepted truth is wrong can't go do some research to prove otherwise. (Like Schliemann did.)
Expecting others to be obliged to investigate one's own crackpot theories isn't fair. Their reluctance to do so is not evidence of a conspiracy against the truth.
For example, in the 1970's a popular theory was that 100 mpg carburetors existed, and a vast conspiracy by Big Oil was suppressing all information about them. The proof of this conspiracy was, naturally, nobody was able to find any evidence of such carburetors.
Going to go out on a personal opinion limb here, but I think we dismiss far too much in archaeology and ancient recorded history, even with the evidence all around us. I predict one day there will be a great revival in archaeology as we start to cast off our erroneous assumptions about native peoples stories of their history. A few Examples that have really stuck in my mind: The recorded history of the Egyptians says…
That's true. Until it was discovered, Troy was considered to be mythical. Now most people think we have Homeric Troy.¹ But how far do we go? We practically have the specifications for Noah's ark ² - so do you expect us to find it, large enough to house every animal except dinosaurs, cruelly left out? ³ So at first I thought you made a pretty good case, but I don't know, man. There's a lot of weird stories that are su…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, it depends on what you consider a true story. We think a story is true if it accurately represents what actually happened (as if a camera was filming the event). Ancient peoples would think this is ridiculous. A true story is one that gets the "true" message you want to impart across to the listeners. A person who changes names, places, events, etc. to fit their message is not a liar, they are a historian. Of c…
> Ancient peoples would think this is ridiculous. How would we conclude what ancient people think?
Even if the general narrative were completely false in a story, some level of ‘realism’ is an almost absolute requirement for a story to be enjoyed and retold. Just yesterday, I told my two year old a story about how he was playing in the playground with his best friend T-Rex, collecting acorns, and a family of talking squirrels came down and asked if they could have some, then they invited them up to their treehouse…
Wait -- talking squirrels are real? I knew it!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair the local people seem pretty close-minded about the origins of Gunung Padang. The local scientific community insists most of it is natural, and that because they found later evidence of less advanced technology, it is then impossible there was a more advanced culture previously there. However, this has been known to happen over and over again, with the most known example being the Mayans. At the same time,…
> At the same time, for a body of scientists, they seem pretty uninterested in finding the truth. There's no reason anyone who believes the accepted truth is wrong can't go do some research to prove otherwise. (Like Schliemann did.) Expecting others to be obliged to investigate one's own crackpot theories isn't fair. Their reluctance to do so is not evidence of a conspiracy against the truth. For example, in the 1970…
It always amazes me why historians and researchers start with the assumption that any tale from the past is fanciful until proven otherwise. We have little to no proof that our very distant ancestors sat around making up stories for the fun of it and then passing them on to future generations, when they'd surely be more likely to pass on useful information that keeps the tribe alive. Yes there will be embelishments,…