[OT] How much of history do we really know?

[shilsen]

All I can add is there is a vast difference between not knowing everything and not knowing anything.

To assume we know nothing of history is ridiculous and arrogant; to know we don't know everything that happened is correct.

I'm with Wombat (can't recall last time I said that).

 

[MerakSpielman]

Indeed.

We know something, which is definately more than nothing, but definately less than everything.

 

[Particle_Man]

Apologies -- it was "green slime" talking about the holocaust and whether or not 6 million jews were gassed. I just assumed it was about you because I assumed that was the reason that the thread was split off, and your name was top of the new thread.

My bad.

-Particle_Man

umm.. where do you get off spreading misinformation like this, without even checking on it?!

Thank you for pointing me to the right thread (i believe it was the Warrior Woman thread) - I looked at it, and since the original post in chronological order has been removed, I think I posted in reply to this:I might have replied to one after that, but that's basically the context.

I NEVER mentioned Nazis, and I'm not happy that you would say that I did.
I only posted once to that thread, bringing up the discussion of "what do we really know about history", and everbody else went the interesting directions they did with it.

Now, on to Henry's actions (he who split the thread without posting that he did here):
If you're going to split off a thread, please don't misrepresent my post by not telling the reader how it came to be.
By starting an OT thread in my name, and only posting an out-of-context statement of mine, it really looks different than was intended, and I don't appreciate that little move.
I understand why you did it, but next time, please add in a Moderator's note about it, at the least.

Thx for listening.

 

[tarchon]

We can deduce a lot from the trace evidence we have found, but that doesn't mean we're right.

Like I said, it's impossible to quantify the amount we don't know. For example, we have found fossil evidence for thousands of species of dinosaur. This data can never tell us how many species left no fossil record because their natural environment was not conducive to the formation of fossils. We jump to conclusions all the time. If we find an herbavore with the remains of several predators, we deduce the predators must hunt in packs. For all we know, the predators were scavanging and fighting with each other over the remains. Perhaps all the animals were fleeing a larger animal or a forest fire, and simply injured each other in the course of trying to escape. There could be dozens of reasons for the find other than the conclusion they arrive at. We should not be too confident in our own abilities to deduce.

Imagine humanity 30,000 years ago.

How sophisticated was verbal language? How elaborate was the social structure? When did we begin giving names to individuals? Did religious beliefs vary greatly between different groups? Were there few enough resourses to fight over (i.e, was there warfare)? Did most groups migrate over a set pattern or just pick a direction and go? How did they decide which way to go? Was there agriculture (It is perfectly possible that agriculture was discovered and lost multiple times over the millenia)? Was leadership heriditary? In what year did humans first develop a system of religion/spirituality/mysticism? When did humans learn to swim? How many of these answers had significant variations between different groups of people, and how many were universal?

I assume a lot of you could make up answers to these questions, and there might even be a couple of questions up there that somebody can "deduce" the answer to, but really they can't be known with any degree of certainty. Somebody could probably answer all of these questions and sound very intellignent and thoughtful about doing it, but anything anybody says is little more than an educated guess, and is almost certainly wrong to some degree.

Again, all you're demonstrating is that our understanding of the past is incomplete. To which I think anyone would answer "well, duh."

Some things we do know about humanity 30,000 years ago:

They existed and had settled in parts of Europe, Southern Asia, Africa, and Australia.
They were anatomically very similar to us, and in many cases the individual characteristics of their skeletal remains lie in the range of variation of today's humans.
They had graphic, representational, and decorative art.
They hunted large game.
They at least sometimes buried their dead, often with distinct funerary practices.
They were capable of crossing open seas, presumably by boat, though since you deny the validity of such deductions, we can leave open the possibilities that they swam to Australia or flew over on helicopters.
They were capable of surviving in climates ranging from the equatorial to the sub-arctic.
They cared for their elderly and disabled.
They had functional stone tools.
Regional cultures had distinctive local toolkits, a peculiarity which was just beginning to appear at the time.

 

[Azlan]

For instance looking at your WW2 example, we could examine why Hitler attacked at Kursk. Some would say because he felt needed a victory politically, to woo Turkey. Some would say it was for the home front. Others suggest it was megalomania. But the only people who could possibly answer this are dead, so we can only speculate.

Although we don't know with 100% accuracy all the reasons why, exactly, Hitler attacked at Kursk, we can still make a pretty accurate assement that, given Hitler's overall personal history, that his megalomania had a awful lot to do with it. And, surely, that clouded his decision-making process, even to the point where any other reasons he might have had for attacking at Kursk (a political victory, to woo Turkey, etc.) were not as significant, at least not in the big picture of things.

And, IMHO, much of history can be accurately re-assembled and examined, that way.

 

[green slime]

Again, all you're demonstrating is that our understanding of the past is incomplete. To which I think anyone would answer "well, duh."

Some things we do know about humanity 30,000 years ago:

They existed and had settled in parts of Europe, Southern Asia, Africa, and Australia.
They were anatomically very similar to us, and in many cases the individual characteristics of their skeletal remains lie in the range of variation of today's humans.
They had graphic, representational, and decorative art.
They hunted large game.
They at least sometimes buried their dead, often with distinct funerary practices.
They were capable of crossing open seas, presumably by boat, though since you deny the validity of such deductions, we can leave open the possibilities that they swam to Australia or flew over on helicopters.
They were capable of surviving in climates ranging from the equatorial to the sub-arctic.
They cared for their elderly and disabled.
They had functional stone tools.
Regional cultures had distinctive local toolkits, a peculiarity which was just beginning to appear at the time.

A very snide remark about the migration to Australia. We are not certain as to how or even when they got to Australia. The variation of "when" is in the tune of 20,000 yearsor more, according to who you read. Rather a large span of time. Hunting large game has been disputed by some, but I'll agree with you. But you must agree that what we do know about these peoples is very, very little.

 

[green slime]

Although we don't know with 100% accuracy all the reasons why, exactly, Hitler attacked at Kursk, we can still make a pretty accurate assement that, given Hitler's overall personal history, that his megalomania had a awful lot to do with it. And, surely, that clouded his decision-making process, even to the point where any other reasons he might have had for attacking at Kursk (a political victory, to woo Turkey, etc.) were not as significant, at least not in the big picture of things.

And yet I'd disagree with your conclusion.

 

[Azlan]

And yet I'd disagree with your conclusion.

Hey, it's not my conclusion; it's that of just about every history book I've ever read on Hitler's campaigns in WWII -- and I've read lots.

 

[tarchon]

A very snide remark about the migration to Australia. We are not certain as to how or even when they got to Australia. The variation of "when" is in the tune of 20,000 yearsor more, according to who you read. Rather a large span of time. Hunting large game has been disputed by some, but I'll agree with you. But you must agree that what we do know about these peoples is very, very little.

I wouldn't say snide so much as sarcastic. The idea I'm lampooning is the idea that deduction is somehow an invalid way of analyzing the past. If that doesn't deserve some sarcasm, what does? I mean, come on. Deduction is such a basic element of thought that disqualifying information derived from deduction is like disqualifying a runner from a race because he used his feet. If you can think of a way to conduct rational thought that doesn't involve deduction, I'd certainly be glad to hear this intriguing new theory of logic.

As to uncertainty over "when," have you ever heard of Kow Swamp, Lake Mungo? Yeah, it's uncertain when people first arrived - it always is. You have an earliest specimen, and that tells you at least how long people have been there. (Oooh - look out - it's deduction!) How long before that, who knows? However, some Kow specimens are at least 13000 and Mungo Man was dated to 28000 by radiocarbon and 62000 by several other techniques (http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Mungo_Man.html), which easily puts us well into the 30000 age, especially when you consider the mtDNA evidence, and various other specimens. Are the exact dates uncertain? Once again, "well, duh." We will never know every date down to the last nanosecond - that doesn't mean appriximate dates and limit dates don't tell us important things.

And uncertainty over how they got there - what alternatives do you propose to watercraft in the Upper Paleolithic? Or do you propose that the aborigines (or whoever they were) are autochthonous? (Yes, I do note the etymological irony there )

Perhaps you think the information that human beings more than 60000 years ago somehow figured out how to cross the ocean with a technology that was at least 50000 years away from the invention of the bow and arrow is "very, very little," but I personally find it to be an astounding bit of information that I'm privileged to have been let in on. I'd like to see you guys do that with a pile of chert and some animal sinews.

 

[green slime]

Tarchon I was merely pointing out that a span of 20,000 years is somewhat larger than the nanosecond you claim me to expect. We were talking knowledge, and the date of "mungo man's" presumed existence spans some 34,000 years...

Neither did I suggest that even those very rough dates cannot tell us anything, just that it is a very, very rough date, for when people came to Australia. And the Gulf of Carpentia is hardly an "ocean". With a myriad of small islands and reeflets, and treacherous currents it requires no stretch of the imagination to see how fishers could deliberately or inadvertantly arrive on the coast of Australia in small crafts.

Growing up in Australia, I was taught that they arrived some 20,000 - 40,000 years ago, with most emphasis on 20,000 years. This was in the '80's. That was "fact" then. The whole point being, that "fact" is revised as new evidence is brought to light. What we know is constantly under revision. Which is a Good Thing (tm)

We have yet to adequately explain the origin of Tasmanian aborigines, who were aparently, quite different from those on mainland Australia. Unless there has been some more recent theories proposed, I can't claim to have taken the effort to keep track of the progress of the study of prehistory in Australia. The Tasman Sea is another undertaking altogether from the Gulf of Carpentia.