The difficulty is that we only get snapshots from archeology (although placing many "snapshots" does begin to produce a clear "big picture"). It makes me wish I could travel back in time - be an inconspicuous "fly on the wall" (though human origins is just the first thing that would be fascinating to check out, if I had that ability ).
Oh, definitely! I studied archaeology for a couple of years at university, but I gave it up for history because I couldn't stand the frustration of not knowing, of not hearing any voices. For example, I was a wheelbarrow-pusher on a Time Team dig a few years ago, in an early Bronze Age burial ground in Fife: there were several kist burials, all of children, and some small scooped holes containing the cremated remains of very young infants. In the centre was a large boulder, which turned out to be capping a pit. In the pit was a very large kist, about 5' long, which contained a crouched skeleton of an adult male. The bones showed cut-marks, indicating that the body had been at least partially de-fleshed after death.
And that's all we know, or will ever know. There are no names. There are no traces of the obviously complex beliefs of these people. We don't know if the children died before, or after, the big man in the middle. Was he there to protect the children? Were the children there to accompany him? Were they related to him? (The condition of the bones, and the acidity of the soil, meant that DNA recovery was impossible.) Was he being revered, or punished? Was the boulder to mark his grave, or protect it, or to protect the community from him? Where were the other adults? Was the de-fleshing part of a cannibal ritual, or was it to hasten the skeletonisation of the exposed body before the bones were interred? What was the perceived qualitative difference between a dead child and a dead adult (assuming there was one)?
It can be a lot of fun, making up explanations to fit the few facts - just like it's fun making up larger planetary descriptions that expand on the one-line descriptions in Oolite. But it's just guesswork. At least once we get into historical times we can read the words that people wrote down - or at least the words that were written down about them at the time.
That is an awesome story man! Music and math are probably my biggest loves, but history/archeology are still up there as things that fascinate me. You're right about writing though; at least when we get to written history there's little guesswork and less mystery .
"I'll laser the mark all while munching a fistful of popcorn." - Markgräf von Ededleen,Marquess, Brutal Great One, Assassins' Guild Exterminator
--------------------------- At the helm of the Caduceus Omega,'Murderous Morrígan'
... at least when we get to written history there's little guesswork and less mystery
Something about that statement causes me to chuckle.
not the intention, but if you get a giggle out of it - live it up
"I'll laser the mark all while munching a fistful of popcorn." - Markgräf von Ededleen,Marquess, Brutal Great One, Assassins' Guild Exterminator
--------------------------- At the helm of the Caduceus Omega,'Murderous Morrígan'
"History is written by the Victors", so while perhaps reducing guesswork and mystery, it is still often not What Really Happened.
That is why I had said both "little" and "less", because, of course, there is still guesswork and mystery. My heritage is one that comes from the losing side, so I can easily vouch for "history is written by the victors" .
"I'll laser the mark all while munching a fistful of popcorn." - Markgräf von Ededleen,Marquess, Brutal Great One, Assassins' Guild Exterminator
--------------------------- At the helm of the Caduceus Omega,'Murderous Morrígan'
History is written by a subjective viewpoint then read by other subjective viewpoints who will formulate their own hypotheses based on those opinions rather than the facts.
It's a fact that many things previously considered to be fact are now being rethought and rewritten by contemporary "historians". As an example, there's a 15th century explorer who was revered until the 1800s then a historian used his naval service record and other loosely related bits of information to disparage his name, then the explorer was reviled. Lately another historian has gone back into the story and unearthed more stuff that he has composed an opinion on and has started to turn the tide of opinion back in favour of this explorer being a cool bloke. I can't remember the details, but it was a Wikipedia Article Of The Day some time ago (and thus obviously firmly rooted in fact).
Actually, in my opinion, Wikipedia is no more accurate or inaccurate than other sources of information.
Most of history is based on conjecture and "filling in the blanks" in often very sketchy outlines of an event.
Most history books I've read are FULL of phrases like "if we assume" or "we considered this theory in formulating our hypothesis". So it's mostly guesswork too.
I heard during the trialling on online forms here in NZ for the 2006 Census that in the first week there was a count of one "Sith Lord" response for the Religion question. I remarked at the time that we should only see one further Sith Lord turn up, then any others after that were obviously fakes
Commander Ranthe: Flying the Anaconda-class transport Atomic Annie through Galaxy 2. Combat Ranking: Dangerous
"Big ships take more booty on your interstellar flights..."
Despite how some feel, perhaps we need a new religion in Scotland to negate the anarchists.
It's okay... there are probably plenty of Pastafarians in Scotland.
I thought Haggisarians would be more plentiful, but perhaps they side with the anarchists. Too bad! Scotland was such a lovely country when last I visited.
).
.
not the intention, but if you get a giggle out of it - live it up 
.
