Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Great Debates (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Shouldn't History be paired with Literature, rather than Government? (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=879665)

King of the Americas 07-31-2019 12:23 PM

Shouldn't History be paired with Literature, rather than Government?
 
Is there any History that is absent biased, and thus inaccuracies? Moreover, are we losing History by abandoning Literature to Mythology?

My BS in in Criminal Justice and Legal Studies, wherein History was paired with Government, and rather than investigating sources for accuracy or searching to discover actual truth, it was much more about memorizing dates and stories.

My MA thesis was based on my re-discovery that Amerindians both owned land and had subdivided the entire North American continent before Columbus ever got off the boat. I was told that Jefferson's Rectangle Survey System was not an acceptable topic.

Undeterred I continued my research, looking into French and Spanish incursions into the Western Territories for evidence of this land division when I ran across this- https://imgur.com/gallery/9la21bh

It is a quote from Coronado about seeing great signal fires atop mountains...

When I read it, I envision "the beacons of Gondor are lit!"

*That's a discussion for another time...

But, here and now, isn't History really Literature, or shouldn't it at least be treated as such?

Kobal2 07-31-2019 12:44 PM

History started out as a subset of Literature. Then it became a science. We do our level best to be unbiased and accurate, analyse our sources critically (both as text/image and as a historical object in and of itself) and so on. There's a method to a historian's madness.


Which is not to say it has wholly left its roots behind - many historians write damn well, which is pleasant when they cover horribly dry material.

Kobal2 07-31-2019 12:49 PM

Maybe I should add : that's how we do it in France anyway, ever since Langlois & Seignobos. I don't know American historiography quite as well.

MrDibble 07-31-2019 01:07 PM

No. When history was literature, it was terrible. That's how you get ultra-nationalism, for one thing....

Buck Godot 07-31-2019 01:18 PM

At my Alma Mater, Reed, they were taught together as a course in Humanities which covered a combination of history, art, literature and philosophy.

Exapno Mapcase 07-31-2019 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King of the Americas (Post 21781225)
My BS in in Criminal Justice and Legal Studies, wherein History was paired with Government, and rather than investigating sources for accuracy or searching to discover actual truth, it was much more about memorizing dates and stories.

You seem to be generalizing off of a terrible experience. Memorizing dates and stories? That's what turns people off in high school, and has no place in a college curriculum.

Even 50 years ago, when I minored in history, we had revisionist historians who were taking apart the older stories and trying to investigate and discover deeper and more accurate versions of what took place. There were also professors in the department who were pioneering new techniques to broaden history from just historic documents and diaries.

Good history is exactly research, placed into the context of its times, and then examined and re-examined through the various lenses of hindsight. It certainly is much more than mere government; history is everything that ever happened in society. That's the way it's studied and taught today. Yet history is not literature either. It shines as a thing on its own that can be paired with all other disciplines, since every one of them has a past to illuminate.

I find your experiences baffling.

Little Nemo 07-31-2019 01:47 PM

We should not treat history as a form of fiction. There are people who really lived and events that really occurred; they are the proper foundation for history.

King of the Americas 07-31-2019 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buck Godot (Post 21781404)
At my Alma Mater, Reed, they were taught together as a course in Humanities which covered a combination of history, art, literature and philosophy.

I like this combo.

I think regardless of the source, there's interpretation required.

King of the Americas 07-31-2019 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase (Post 21781451)
...

I find your experiences baffling.

Imagine a graduate course wherein your only assignment is to review house inventories from the 1700's (taken of a person's belongings after they died, often done by neighbors). There are hundreds of such inventories, we were to choose 20 of a like and kind, and then recreate the documents to group items together in rooms.

After relisting scores of items we were to write a paper as to how "gentile" the owners of these items were. No research, no new information found, or old data confirmed. Just speculation, based on incomplete information. (*One guy just 4 casks of wine, and a dozen goblets....that's it no clothes, furniture, or stuff to eat with.)

It wasn't just this course, but how it was combined with Government, and how everything was set in stone, unquestionable.

Ever heard of the Rectangle Survey System?

King of the Americas 07-31-2019 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Nemo (Post 21781500)
We should not treat history as a form of fiction. There are people who really lived and events that really occurred; they are the proper foundation for history.

Agreed.

asahi 07-31-2019 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrDibble (Post 21781363)
No. When history was literature, it was terrible. That's how you get ultra-nationalism, for one thing....

Absolutely spot on.

Kobal2 07-31-2019 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buck Godot (Post 21781404)
At my Alma Mater, Reed, they were taught together as a course in Humanities which covered a combination of history, art, literature and philosophy.


*nod* those are the traditional big 4s (sometimes paired with music as well). My own university (*cough* the Sorbonne *cough* *) gives History majors a choice between philosophy, sociology & anthropology, art history, geography and law as the "Other Big Topic" to study alongside the 4 History courses ; plus a smattering of electives. None of which include literature.

That being said, back when I was studying English we also had a bunch of US & UK history courses alongside phonology, translation, literature, linguistics etc..., since it's important context for the literature.


Quote:

Originally Posted by King of the Americas
After relisting scores of items we were to write a paper as to how "gentile" the owners of these items were. No research, no new information found, or old data confirmed. Just speculation, based on incomplete information. (*One guy just 4 casks of wine, and a dozen goblets....that's it no clothes, furniture, or stuff to eat with.)


Heh. Brother, you ever find complete historical information, do let us know. We've been working with lists, inventories, parish records and so on all along, man. Because in most places, that's all there is. And of course it's worse and worse the further up in time you're looking.



* it's really much less prestigious than its reputation/name-recognition. Any asshole can get in, honestly :). Nice digs though.


Exapno Mapcase 07-31-2019 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King of the Americas (Post 21781530)
Ever heard of the Rectangle Survey System?

Yes, of course I have. I've read whole books on it.

When and where did you go to college?

thorny locust 07-31-2019 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King of the Americas (Post 21781225)
My MA thesis was based on my re-discovery that Amerindians both owned land and had subdivided the entire North American continent before Columbus ever got off the boat.

What on earth are they teaching in schools in Texas these days? Or was it just yours?

My elementary and high school education back in the 1950's and 60's left out a whole lot of stuff, including nearly everything unpleasant about Columbus' behavior. But I certainly learned that specific tribes owned land in specific areas before Columbus got here. You got clear to your MA thesis not knowing that?

King of the Americas 07-31-2019 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase (Post 21781654)
Yes, of course I have. I've read whole books on it.

When and where did you go to college?

TWU, graduated with my B.S. about 3 years ago.

Ever seen this?

https://imgur.com/gallery/ZdAatPO

It proves that Amerindians both owned land and subsidized the continent.

My thesis advisor tossed it back, told me it was unacceptable. I applied to Tulsa University, which has an Amerindian Program. They told me not just "No, but don't bother re-applying."

If you can find me a history program willing to call Thomas Jefferson a liar and a thief, point me to it.

King of the Americas 07-31-2019 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thorny locust (Post 21781704)
What on earth are they teaching in schools in Texas these days? Or was it just yours?

My elementary and high school education back in the 1950's and 60's left out a whole lot of stuff, including nearly everything unpleasant about Columbus' behavior. But I certainly learned that specific tribes owned land in specific areas before Columbus got here. You got clear to your MA thesis not knowing that?

I was taught, they owned land, "as a tribe"...not individually.

On that note, Overton Love, a Chickasaw Amerindian, owned over 5000 acres...until the Dawes Act.

King of the Americas 07-31-2019 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kobal2 (Post 21781585)
...

Heh. Brother, you ever find complete historical information, do let us know. We've been working with lists, inventories, parish records and so on all along, man. Because in most places, that's all there is. And of course it's worse and worse the further up in time you're looking.



* it's really much less prestigious than its reputation/name-recognition. Any asshole can get in, honestly :). Nice digs though.


Re-creating lists isn't history... Why not task us with researching the individuals, their families, look into MORE than inventories...locate the house, look for the context to tell us more than speculation.

I spent over 40 hours just re-typing this stuff to add a column for the room.

It wasn't investigative enough for me... Again, I come for Criminal Justice & Legal Studies.

History should be a search for what's missing, not acceptance of a Government issued History book.

King of the Americas 07-31-2019 03:26 PM

^*That should be subdivided, not subsidized...^

Kobal2 07-31-2019 04:51 PM

bug

King of the Americas 07-31-2019 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kobal2 (Post 21781902)
bug

Profound.

Kobal2 07-31-2019 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King of the Americas (Post 21781725)
Re-creating lists isn't history...


What do you think history IS ? Might as well start there.


Quote:

Why not task us with researching the individuals, their families, look into MORE than inventories...locate the house, look for the context to tell us more than speculation.

Well, I ain't your former teacher so I can't speak to their pedagogical plan, but most likely : because that's all there *is*. That's literally the only proof we have that Joe Dirt, died 1732, existed : a list of what shit he had, to be divided among his next of kin. If you're *very* lucky you can maybe match it with a DOB or baptismal record. But more likely, nobody knows who the fuck that was. Nor where his house was (it very, very, VERY likely isn't there anymore, at best you could maybe find signs that earth was moved, post holes, filled foundations... that's of course if you even knew where to look in the first place). We were already lucky enough to find his executor's records.



Quote:

I spent over 40 hours just re-typing this stuff to add a column for the room.

Yup. And that's what historian work is : collating lists, and inventories, and edicts and charters ; trying to find something interesting to say about them. Poring over blindingly boring data, trying to find patterns worth talking about. You have to understand, I wasn't being merely facetious about the "complete history" stuff. Even for something as thoroughly investigated, thoroughly documented as WW2 there are innumerable shadows and doubts and inaccuracies and plain "we don't know, we can't tell".

I'll even give you an example : the famous Assault on Brécourt Manor. It's a small engagement of D-Day that got ultra famous because it was Dick Winters' first real command, and he did brilliantly, and to this day it's pored over in most every military academy as "successful assault tactics 101". Today even civilians kind of know about it thanks to Band of Brothers. And, again, it's thoroughly documented : we know exactly how many Americans were there, from which company, we know their names, some of them are even still alive to talk about it.
But to my knowledge, there is not a single German account of that battle. Not a report, not a witness, not a survivor. We don't know why they did the shit they did. We don't really know who was there, who commanded them, I'm not even sure we're 100% on which unit(s) were guarding them 88s at that time on that day.


And again, this is WW2 - a war with a paper trail a mile long, with survivors still out there to talk about it, with personal journals not molded away, with fucking photos.


How accurately do you think we can talk about Napoleon's wars, comparatively ?


Quote:

It wasn't investigative enough for me... Again, I come for Criminal Justice & Legal Studies.

History by and large isn't. You'd have been better served doing archaeo - which is more "hands on". Despite how intuitive it feels, historians and archaeologists have only very recently started talking with each other and collating notes. Crazy, I know - but the disciplines come from very different backgrounds, have very different aims and methods.


Quote:

History should be a search for what's missing, not acceptance of a Government issued History book.
Sure - and there are plenty of grad students and budding PhDs out there trying to amass Data or tasked with sorting through it. But what isn't there... just isn't there, you know ? And so we try to find ways to bring light into those shadows, through various means. In many, many cases, we can only bring sensible speculation and extrapolations to the table.


That being said, and judging by what I think is what you'd wanna read about, I can only suggest you look into microhistory. The seminal work there is Ginsburg's The Cheese and the Worms - interesting read, if a bit repetitive.

Exapno Mapcase 07-31-2019 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King of the Americas (Post 21781711)
TWU, graduated with my B.S. about 3 years ago.

Ever seen this?

https://imgur.com/gallery/ZdAatPO

It proves that Amerindians both owned land and subsidized the continent.

My thesis advisor tossed it back, told me it was unacceptable. I applied to Tulsa University, which has an Amerindian Program. They told me not just "No, but don't bother re-applying."

If you can find me a history program willing to call Thomas Jefferson a liar and a thief, point me to it.

That image dates from 1846, so it says nothing about pre-Columbian America. If you are calling that proof of anything, I can understand why a master's program might think twice about taking you on.

King of the Americas 07-31-2019 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase (Post 21782031)
That image dates from 1846, so it says nothing about pre-Columbian America. If you are calling that proof of anything, I can understand why a master's program might think twice about taking you on.

The proof is that the borders existed BEFORE the Survey...

UltraVires 07-31-2019 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King of the Americas (Post 21782084)
The proof is that the borders existed BEFORE the Survey...

What proof is that?

Exapno Mapcase 07-31-2019 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King of the Americas (Post 21782084)
The proof is that the borders existed BEFORE the Survey...

Huh? The document talks about Indian Territory, which probably refers to the territories established by the Indian Intercourse Act of 1834. Those were the creations of the U.S. government, areas to which Indians were forced to go and forced to adopt mainstream, i.e., white, customs. Such areas are the exact opposite of what conditions might theoretically have been like before the U.S. existed, much less before Columbus.

Kimstu 07-31-2019 10:25 PM

Is the OP perhaps thinking that because the 1846 surveyor's affidavit form he linked to refers to the "Indian Meridian", that that somehow proves that the Indians had already surveyed the region?

The linked image is followed by this remark from the poster:
Quote:

The operational phrase therein is "Indian Meridian"...the western territories weren't settled, or tamed. THEY were stolen.

Kimstu 07-31-2019 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase (Post 21782031)
That image dates from 1846

Actually, now that I look at it more closely, it doesn't. It's a surveyor's affidavit form printed for the years 189x, as can be seen on the subscription line ending "189" and followed by a dotted line for writing in the last digit of the year number.

The text of the form refers to an "Act of Congress" passed in 1846, which is what momentarily confused both of us, and appears to have confused the OP even more.

Little Nemo 07-31-2019 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King of the Americas (Post 21781725)
Re-creating lists isn't history... Why not task us with researching the individuals, their families, look into MORE than inventories...locate the house, look for the context to tell us more than speculation.

I spent over 40 hours just re-typing this stuff to add a column for the room.

It wasn't investigative enough for me... Again, I come for Criminal Justice & Legal Studies.

History should be a search for what's missing, not acceptance of a Government issued History book.

You were a student. This is the kind of boring project professors assign to their students.

If you had been in some science or engineering field, they'd have had you spending hundreds of hours performing a long series of repetitive experiments and recording the results.

Johnny Bravo 08-01-2019 12:05 AM

The Indian meridian was established in 1870 and was chosen arbitrarily.

Your picture shows a form letter pulled verbatim from the Manual of Surveying Instructions for the Survey of the Public Lands of the United States and Private Land Claims, written in 1890.

I have no idea what you think you proved.

Sunny Daze 08-01-2019 12:34 AM

I do think I can see why you were not admitted to that graduate program.

Have you considered that history is not just one thing? Military history, for example, is different than examinations of the life of peasants after the Black Death.

MrDibble 08-01-2019 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King of the Americas (Post 21781725)
Re-creating lists isn't history... Why not task us with researching the individuals, their families, look into MORE than inventories...locate the house, look for the context to tell us more than speculation.

I think you may be confusing history and archaeology.

King of the Americas 08-01-2019 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase (Post 21782529)
Huh? The document talks about Indian Territory, which probably refers to the territories established by the Indian Intercourse Act of 1834. Those were the creations of the U.S. government, areas to which Indians were forced to go and forced to adopt mainstream, i.e., white, customs. Such areas are the exact opposite of what conditions might theoretically have been like before the U.S. existed, much less before Columbus.

Nah.

Rectangles were created by Amerindians. The Rectangle Survey System, cut them into square townships.

Here's a set I have spent extensive time studying.

https://imgur.com/gallery/Fr1gxXh

King of the Americas 08-01-2019 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimstu (Post 21782533)
Is the OP perhaps thinking that because the 1846 surveyor's affidavit form he linked to refers to the "Indian Meridian", that that somehow proves that the Indians had already surveyed the region?

The linked image is followed by this remark from the poster:

Not exactly.

Indian Meridians are actual lines, "meander lines" that surveyors followed to find and destroy markers, and re-create new ones.

You can use Google Earth to see their existence in uninhabited places.

Examine Long Island, and look at the area in-between the eastern barrier reef and the island itself...rectangles, everywhere.

The surveyed notes were just my primary source data. I used Google Earth to make the discovery.

King of the Americas 08-01-2019 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimstu (Post 21782544)
Actually, now that I look at it more closely, it doesn't. It's a surveyor's affidavit form printed for the years 189x, as can be seen on the subscription line ending "189" and followed by a dotted line for writing in the last digit of the year number.

The text of the form refers to an "Act of Congress" passed in 1846, which is what momentarily confused both of us, and appears to have confused the OP even more.

Ummm, No. The only confusion here is yours.

This was my MA thesis, I've spent over two years researching this topic, and I can confidently state unequivocally - "Amerindians both owned land, and had subdivided the entire continent before Europeans arrived."

King of the Americas 08-01-2019 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrDibble (Post 21782685)
I think you may be confusing history and archaeology.

Oh, I definitely did that!

I had no idea that History only begins with written/primary sourced data. Anything before this is of course Archaeology.

So you can literally make it impossible to study someone's history, by burning it. Poof, they never existed.

I found these land divisions using Google Earth, but I managed to turn it into history when I found the original surveys. Let me find my presentation...

King of the Americas 08-01-2019 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunny Daze (Post 21782660)
I do think I can see why you were not admitted to that graduate program.

Have you considered that history is not just one thing? Military history, for example, is different than examinations of the life of peasants after the Black Death.

Was it my 3.82 undergrad gpa, or my 4.0 graduate gpa?

History is a "pursuit" not static acceptance. It is a constant search for what's missing, more context to what is already known. One "does" History, not just by reading but by deciphering what really happened through the bias of the story teller. You learn History by looking for it.

King of the Americas 08-01-2019 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Nemo (Post 21782545)
You were a student. This is the kind of boring project professors assign to their students.

If you had been in some science or engineering field, they'd have had you spending hundreds of hours performing a long series of repetitive experiments and recording the results.

Re-creating documents to add another field is Media Production, not History. I didn't learn any History performing this busywork. It was a pointless exercise to talk about furniture, rather than talk about the economic turmoil the Earthquake of 1751 caused.

Imagine an event that causes the Mississippi River to run backwards and relocate 100 miles. The devastation would have re-made this world! Not a single mention of it in any of my Colonial studies...

MrDibble 08-01-2019 05:28 AM

I'm sorry, are you saying the pre-Columbian natives subdivided Great South Bay along ownership lines?

King of the Americas 08-01-2019 05:30 AM

Does this link work- https://prezi.com/qza1jbt9xzdj/?utm_...tm_medium=copy

This was part of an oral presentation, so I was speaking as I flipped through the slides.

MrDibble 08-01-2019 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King of the Americas (Post 21782802)
I had no idea that History only begins with written/primary sourced data. Anything before this is of course Archaeology.

There is no "before" and "after" - plenty of archaeology gets done on literate societies. It's a case of only mildly-overlapping magisteria.

King of the Americas 08-01-2019 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrDibble (Post 21782819)
I'm sorry, are you saying the pre-Columbian natives subdivided Great South Bay along ownership lines?

Yes, it is very likely this is true.

Got an address, I'll Google Earth it!

---

ETA: Okay, look further South, where it narrows to wetlands.

King of the Americas 08-01-2019 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrDibble (Post 21782822)
There is no "before" and "after" - plenty of archaeology gets done on literate societies. It's a case of only mildly-overlapping magisteria.

Well, if there are documents, it's "History" not Archaeology, no?

MrDibble 08-01-2019 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King of the Americas (Post 21782834)
Well, if there are documents, it's "History" not Archaeology, no?

You were talking about going to a house etc...

And no need to go to Google Earth, I assume you're talking about the drainage channels on the barrier islands. The modern mosquito control drainage channels.

Kobal2 08-01-2019 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King of the Americas
I had no idea that History only begins with written/primary sourced data. Anything before this is of course Archaeology.


You're missing the point. History with a big H (which could be loosely defined as "that collective sum of knowledge and data points about how past humans lived, what they did and possibly why") includes archaeology as a matter of course ; history with a small h (the academic scientific discipline) however is very primarily based on textual analysis, yes. Some representations as well, but mostly the written word, by definition.

That's why we used to call everything that came before the first clay tablets "pre-history" and thus implicitly not-history, although prehistorians have been salty about that for long enough that new terminology is used these days. Historians by and large don't work on the ground, that sounds horribly like legwork which we're more than happy to leave to the archaeo department. We work in comfy armchairs with the air conditioning on, thank you very much.



Quote:

Re-creating documents to add another field is Media Production, not History. I didn't learn any History performing this busywork. It was a pointless exercise to talk about furniture, rather than talk about the economic turmoil the Earthquake of 1751 caused.
Imagine an event that causes the Mississippi River to run backwards and relocate 100 miles. The devastation would have re-made this world! Not a single mention of it in any of my Colonial studies...
Perhaps that's because some other professor was working on economic history but your own rightfully found that shit incredibly dull and uninteresting. Or because everything to be said about it has been discussed already, barring new discoveries - a large amount of "teaching history" involves putting a large amount of students in the general proximity of a large amount of books and sort of assume some osmotic transfer of knowledge is going to happen at the organic level :D, so maybe if you were interested in that you should have spent more evenings at the library.


Again, I can't speak for your specific teacher(s) or their methodology ; but there's nothing "pointless" about the material history exercise you describe, and work of that nature is done all over the globe to degrees you would be baffled by. I still love that example for its ostensible absurdity, but my third year Contemporary History TA was working on a thesis about "sleep patterns and disruptions of sleep during the Commune de Paris". Try and find a narrower field than that ! Obviously she wasn't only interested in that, and it was just her angle to analyze the Commune itself... but that's history for you. Poring over picayune details, establishing typologies, drawing up statistical charts. They all add up to lives lived.

MrDibble 08-01-2019 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King of the Americas (Post 21782828)
ETA: Okay, look further South, where it narrows to wetlands.

Yep, I was right.

Look, I'll be honest with you - if your research abilities are so poor that you didn't find out pretty quickly that those channels were created in the 30s by the Civilian Conservation Corps (something I, half a world away, could ascertain in 30 seconds via just the internet, no Uni library reading needed) then I would seriously question if you belong in a History Masters program in the first place.

King of the Americas 08-01-2019 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrDibble (Post 21782858)
Yep, I was right.

Look, I'll be honest with you - if your research abilities are so poor that you didn't find out pretty quickly that those channels were created in the 30s by the Civilian Conservation Corps (something I, half a world away, could ascertain in 30 seconds via just the internet, no Uni library reading needed) then I would seriously question if you belong in a History Masters program in the first place.

That's hilarious...

That pattern is EVERYWHERE, and places we STILL have not been. Later editions of the Surveyors' Manual dictate that satellite imagery can be used to identify other meander lines, and thus claim more Public Lands.

Buddy, you have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

King of the Americas 08-01-2019 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrDibble (Post 21782839)
You were talking about going to a house etc...

And no need to go to Google Earth, I assume you're talking about the drainage channels on the barrier islands. The modern mosquito control drainage channels.

Within the scope of that exercise, we 'could' have looked for the location of the actual house...examine the area for historical context...ask Why did these people have these items, what place or function did they have or serve in their society.

Yeah, we didn't build those canals...they are pre-columbian.

They are everywhere, including South America, Asia, Europe. I've found them on remote islands. My discovery was of an ancient global civilization that collapsed 4500 -5500 years ago, but my advisors demanded I make it a North American study.

Johnny Bravo 08-01-2019 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King of the Americas (Post 21782886)
My discovery was of an ancient global civilization that collapsed 4500 -5500 years ago, but my advisors demanded I make it a North American study.

There it is.

King of the Americas 08-01-2019 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kobal2 (Post 21782848)
You're missing the point.

...

They all add up to lives lived.

Agreed, which is why it should have been about MORE than these inventories...

Can we agree History is a pursuit, not a static thing?

King of the Americas 08-01-2019 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Bravo (Post 21782889)
There it is.

Yes, almost everywhere one can point to, there is evidence of "grid gardens and or fluvial fields"...

---

These same formations were found and dated in Bolivia to 4700- https://imgur.com/gallery/RfWqVP0

An ancient society was REALLY into farming...


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.