Official vs. Alternative Ancient History

[Debi]

Ancient Civilisations: Six Great Enigmas That Baffle Mainstream Scholars

We stand today at an unprecedented turning point in human history. In recent years two versions of ancient history have formed. One, we shall call ‘alternative’ history, the other we shall refer to as ‘official’ history. The former ponders over a variety of anomalies and tries to make sense out...

anomalien.com

 

[Lynne]

A great article. Great find Debi. This really shone the light on the fact that ancient histoey is really just theory. Nobody can explain the ancient ruins or the out of time objects found there. The genesis of dogs was very interesting. Not being able to identify how we have the breeds we have today is a mystery. Really there is only theory. I wish scientists and archeologists would just admit they are such and stop trying to make the facts fit their own decided history.

 

[titch2k6]

I find the tale of the Baghdad Battery fascinating and comes under the realm of this topic.

'Official' history tells us that the first battery was invented in 1799 by a chap named Alessandro Volta. It consisted of discs of two different metals, such as copper and zinc, separated by cardboard soaked in brine. His battery was given by Volta to Michael Faraday when he and Humphry Davy visited Milan in June 1814. Davy was inspired by Volta's ideas and built his own batteries to experiment with. He created the process now called electrolysis and made several important discoveries. Faraday followed up on this work and went on to alter Davy's ideas about the relationship between electricity and chemistry.

'Alternative' history tells us that this may not be so and actually, the first battery may have been invented 2000 years ago (there are some that may even date back by 4000 years). It was in 1938, while working in Khujut Rabu just outside Baghdad in modern-day Iraq, that German archaeologist Wilhelm Konig unearthed a five-inch-long (13 cm) clay jar containing a copper cylinder that encased an iron rod. The vessel showed signs of corrosion, and early tests revealed that an acidic agent, such as vinegar or wine had been present. It was hypothesized, based on the various components, that it was a type of battery possibly used in electroplating metals. Since then, a number of other similar items have been discovered across the globe, as well as resembling pictations in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics.

Scientists argued that they could not be batteries, as humans at that time could not have had the knowledge to do so, and that they were very unlikely to produce any charge and, as such, came up with an alternative idea on what they were used for.

However, in 2005 the Mythbusters team proved this claim wrong and demonstrated how the Baghdad Battery could not only produce electricity using wine but also produce larger voltages if a number of them were joined together. This experiment has been repeated by others who have all had the same results:



History is not what scientists say it is. History is more diverse than we imagine and there are things from our historical past which continue to perplex us now, and potentially, will do for years to come.

 

[GoneWestUtah]

I can appreciate everyone's attitude, but science never pronounces things as "fact". The Scientific Method allows us to deduce something based on evidence- until other evidence displaces that deduction. Science is a constantly-refined attempt to explain the natural world.

It's religion that pronounces things as set, forever, and that's that. Science only says "this is our best idea based on the hard evidence we have at present".

The problem with those espousing "alternative histories" is that they are only saying "look, this could have been the truth", and don't actually provide any testable evidence. Science calls these "Just So" stories and I must agree. I am trained as a scientist and I always test paradigms. That is what Science is, not a Big Book of Facts. The quicker people lose that attitude, the quicker they will start to understand science and stop fearing or resenting it.

I can make working batteries from just about any fruit or vegetable and two dissimilar metals. It's not out of the realm of possibility that someone else discovered that during the bronze age, for instance.

I wish a lot of people pushing alternative theories would publish a reviewed paper, instead of just throwing stuff out on the internet. The general public are really crappy critical thinkers.

 

[GoneWestUtah]

BTW, a magnetic compass is worthless in determining direction precisely. Using astronomical sightings can easily provide the necessary accuracy, with nothing but stone-age tools. I could lay out a 300 foot long line accurate to a quarter of an inch in direction and level, with zero modern technology. The writer may be amazed at such a feat that is actually not technically difficult; clearly he needs to do some research on known methods, himself.

 

[titch2k6]

BTW, a magnetic compass is worthless in determining direction precisely.

Totally agree.

There are a lot of factors that need to be factored in when using a compass to determine a precise direction. And as you rightly say, it still isn't that precise. Seven years in the military taught me that - especially if you give an Officer a map and compass

I have attended orientation events in the past where people didn't even account for magnetic variation in relation to their grid reference points! See y'all later once you find out where you actually are.......

 

[Paintman]

Utah not to disagree with your views on science..... in a perfect world. But it can always be politicized and monetized and always has been.
Exhibit A - Piltdown man was supposedly The Missing Link. It was supposedly discovered in a Scottish Pete bog in the 1800 s. Instead it was put together with human bones and orangutan bones by an anthropologist who wanted to make a name for himself.
Exhibit B - when the Shroud of Turin was carbon dated, it really never wasn't in 1979. The keepers of the shroud knew that the scientist from Cambridge who was leading the study had a very wealthy benefactor who wanted it to be declared a medieval forgery. The scientists went along with it because he thought this test would lead him to being promoted to head of his Department.
Add to this that the Italian scientist were blocked out of this research and were mad.
Now the Shroud is owned by the parish in Turin, under the guidance of the local Bishop. So the Italian scientist gave the English scientist what they absolutely knew was a repair done in the Early Middle Ages. The Italians knew this because there is a lot of documentation of repairs, the cloth was woven differently, and it was made with cotton.
So the upshot is the Shroud of Turin was never carbon-dated.
Exhibit C is Gobleki Tepe, and the current disputes over the age of the Shpinx. That throws a whole monkey wrench into the accepted timelines.
Exhibit D was something that came out when I was in grad school and it was a big thing. In the 1800 a French scientist declared that brain cells cannot regenerate. Well it turned out that everybody took this for granted until an MIT student published her doctoral thesis that in fact brain cells can regenerate. So this pretty much illustrates that scientists don't often check the work of previous scientists. When they do there is a lot of bureaucratic resistance like the MIT student found out.
I always felt that real science includes the words " I don't know."

 

[GoneWestUtah]

Paint, the problem is when people DON'T follow the Scientific Method, which is what most of your examples cite.

Those- especially the Shroud of Turin (a joke to me, and I was raised Catholic. I firmly believe it is NOT a holy relic at all) are examples of human weakness, not science failing. You cannot blame science as a practice, you have to blame the individuals involved.

I also think it unfair to compare the "science" of barely-industrialized humanity with modern techniques, and attitudes, especially.

A handful of data points that don't fit the accepted narrative are usually not sufficient to change a theory. There's got to be a lot more evidence before anybody can conclusively state that, for example, aliens had a hand in building the pyramids. It's too early to consider re-writing the history books. Sorry.

 

[crux]

Unfortunately, in the REAL world, the methods of business, profit, and maintenance of the status quo trump Scientific Method.

 

[GoneWestUtah]

I really don't understand that statement.

Ultimately, most people believe whatever fits their narative.