3 ms·

Historians, not so much. They would have to believe all their primary sources were lying. Archaeologists, quite often still have the Noble Savage archetype lur

Historians, not so much. They would have to believe all their primary sources were lying. Archaeologists, quite often still have the Noble Savage archetype lurking underneath their theories, despite the massive evidence of violence among current-day hunter gatherer societies, and the extensive evidence of trauma to the remains of ancient skeletons. My aunt and uncle are archaeologists. I hear this claptrap about Native Americans living in harmony every family reunion.

quotemstr 7y ago
Historians ignore and discredit primary sources all the time. Consider ancient Carthage: after the Romans defeated Carthage in what was basically the classical world's equivalent* of WWII, Roman historians wrote that Carthage had been practicing ritual infant sacrifice --- which horrified the Romans as much as it horrifies us. In the 20th century, the "pots not people" crowd spent decades dismissing these ancient reports as mere wartime propaganda. Well, guess what archaeologists uncovered under the ruins of Carthage [1] --- pits full of hundreds of charred infant skeletons. From the article: "evidence for child sacrifice is overwhelming and that instead of dismissing it out of hand, we should try to understand it." A lot of recent historical revisionism really is shockingly wrong. I know that it's really hard to accept, but it's true, and it's the product of motivated reasoning and willful misinterpretation. Everyone is predisposed to imagine the past as a time of stupidity and ignorance and to imagine today as the height of enlightenment. Tragically, it's frequently the other way around. We have unlearned truths. [1] http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2014-01-23-ancient-carthaginians-really-did-sacrifice-their-children# http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2014-01-23-ancient-carthaginians-re... * in a surprising number of ways, actually
- thrower123 7y ago
  I agree completely, it's a little sickening. At least with history, you can mostly refute the zanier positions and the folks making mountains out of molehills. But boy there certainly seem to be some people highly opposed to the idea that the past was a violent place kicking around today.
- orhmeh09 7y ago
  For all these claims about the claims of “pots not people” people, I’ve not seen a single citation of anyone making this argument on this thread—always some professor overheard two decades ago, or an anecdote from a family member. Yet everyone is coming armed with links to demonstrate that violent things did, indeed, happen. What I don’t understand is this: whom are you calling out, and why aren’t you posting these links in the thread?
goto11 7y ago
> My aunt and uncle are archaeologists. I hear this claptrap about Native Americans living in harmony every family reunion. Have you considered this might not be completely representative of the state of archeological research?
- thrower123 7y ago
  I dunno, it jives with horse-hockey I see on Twitter all the time and what my professors tried to proclaim in the handful of archaeology courses I took in college.

quotemstr 7y ago

Historians ignore and discredit primary sources all the time. Consider ancient Carthage: after the Romans defeated Carthage in what was basically the classical world's equivalent* of WWII, Roman historians wrote that Carthage had been practicing ritual infant sacrifice --- which horrified the Romans as much as it horrifies us. In the 20th century, the "pots not people" crowd spent decades dismissing these ancient reports as mere wartime propaganda. Well, guess what archaeologists uncovered under the ruins of Carthage [1] --- pits full of hundreds of charred infant skeletons. From the article: "evidence for child sacrifice is overwhelming and that instead of dismissing it out of hand, we should try to understand it." A lot of recent historical revisionism really is shockingly wrong. I know that it's really hard to accept, but it's true, and it's the product of motivated reasoning and willful misinterpretation. Everyone is predisposed to imagine the past as a time of stupidity and ignorance and to imagine today as the height of enlightenment. Tragically, it's frequently the other way around. We have unlearned truths. [1] http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2014-01-23-ancient-carthaginians-really-did-sacrifice-their-children# http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2014-01-23-ancient-carthaginians-re... * in a surprising number of ways, actually

thrower123 7y ago
I agree completely, it's a little sickening. At least with history, you can mostly refute the zanier positions and the folks making mountains out of molehills. But boy there certainly seem to be some people highly opposed to the idea that the past was a violent place kicking around today.
orhmeh09 7y ago
For all these claims about the claims of “pots not people” people, I’ve not seen a single citation of anyone making this argument on this thread—always some professor overheard two decades ago, or an anecdote from a family member. Yet everyone is coming armed with links to demonstrate that violent things did, indeed, happen. What I don’t understand is this: whom are you calling out, and why aren’t you posting these links in the thread?

goto11 7y ago

> My aunt and uncle are archaeologists. I hear this claptrap about Native Americans living in harmony every family reunion. Have you considered this might not be completely representative of the state of archeological research?

thrower123 7y ago
I dunno, it jives with horse-hockey I see on Twitter all the time and what my professors tried to proclaim in the handful of archaeology courses I took in college.