Started by Baruch, February 18, 2019, 06:21:11 AM
Quote from: drunkenshoe on February 18, 2019, 10:06:27 AMBiblical Archeology is an oxymoron,lol.
QuoteCorrect ... except that do we only accept methodology/arguments that match our confirmation bias?
QuotePeople believe in golden ages, why? A golden age in the future aka progress. A golden age in the past aka degeneration. Neither are historically true, they are simply a statement of the individual and social psychology of whoever we are talking about.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on February 18, 2019, 11:32:20 AMNo. Archeology is based on evidence. Anthropology does not deal with what is real or not. It deals with development of human culture. It doesn't take belief systems as 'something real'. On the contrary, it operates under the principle that human cultures have to create narratives to survive which I believe what you define as 'psychology' here, but it is a discipline, not science. The how irratonal doesn't matter part is the result of the principle. Depends on their identity. Who is missing which golden age? While for an old white male, 50s could look like a golden age to live, for an old black man, it would suck. :)
Quote from: Baruch on February 18, 2019, 12:54:25 PMArcheology requires interpretation. And generally just comparative pot fragments ;-) It is up to creative imagination, to decide what those pot shards mean.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 18, 2019, 04:04:35 PMA recurring theme for you is that history is a sort of fiction where people just take fragments of facts (and fragments of clay) and construct stories around them that merely reflect historians' biases and agendas, not whatever happened.And while it's possible that you might be 10% right about that (and hence the recipient of sporadic applause), you inexplicably seem to utterly discount the idea that history in the broad strokes is both knowable and known.In your worldview, I wonder if such a thing as truth really even exists. I suppose that if it did, it would be awfully inconvenient, so your stance seems suspiciously fortuitous.
Quote from: Baruch on February 18, 2019, 06:04:51 PMTruth? As in Plato's Forms?
QuoteInterrogate the known traitors, Washington or Franklin if you can get them on the phone.
QuoteMost writing ever made, has been lost. We have a tiny fraction of what was written at any given time.
QuoteEven with the Roman Republic, almost all we know, that is not propaganda, are the personal letters to Cicero.
QuoteI love history and biography ... as I do novels. History was invented, as an art form ... first as government propaganda (as in Rameses II "victory" at Kadesh) and for the Greeks it was invented by the people who invented drama.
QuoteSo yes, things do happen.
QuoteWe don't even "know" if they believed what they said/wrote at that time.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 18, 2019, 06:18:20 PMTruth as in reliable facts, like the Titanic sunk or Hitler shot himself.Now you're deliberately trying to provoke a reaction. Tisk tisk.You don't say.If only they had professional historians of their own. Or historians hailing from other countries.It's stuff like this that gives me my impression that you regard history as a collective fiction.Finally, something we can agree on, meagre as it is.Eh, I'm pretty sure Thomas Jefferson was kinda peeved at the British. You don't write a Declaration of Independence as a jest.
QuotePatrick Henry, arguing 5 June 1788 at the Virginia Ratification Debates against Virginia's joining the new Union.The honorable gentleman who presides told us that, to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America.A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? In what situation are we to be? The clause before you gives a power of direct taxation, unbounded and unlimited, exclusive power of legislation, in all cases whatsoever, for ten miles square, and over all places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, &c. What resistance could be made? The attempt would be madness. You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies; their garrisons will naturally be the strongest places in the country. Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan: they will therefore act as they think proper: all power will be in their own possession. You cannot force them to receive their punishment: of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the state? for, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them.Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States â€" reserving to the states, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither â€" this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory. Our situation will be deplorable indeed: nor can we ever expect to get this government amended, since I have already shown that a very small minority may prevent it, and that small minority interested in the continuance of the oppression. Will the oppressor let go the oppressed? Was there ever an instance? Can the annals of mankind exhibit one single example where rulers overcharged with power willingly let go the oppressed, though solicited and requested most earnestly?
Quote from: Minimalist on February 20, 2019, 11:37:15 AMWilliam Dever is pushing the term Syro-Palestinian archaeology as a replacement for the 19th century concept of biblical archaeology.An even newer term is turning out to be Levantine Archaeology.
Quote from: Baruch on February 22, 2019, 06:26:57 PMArcheology isn't bad, as long as confined to broken pots and stratigraphy. It is the romantic interpretation of those dumps that gets dicey.