Yes, history is definitely literature. I’d argue that’s its defining aspect. Archaeology is a science, one that historians use to great extent. But history has specific named characters, and a plot. Science tells us that Sumerians wore a certain type of clothing and made a particular style of art and built their houses a particular way and buried their dead in a certain way. But history tells us that King Sargon was born to a high priestess and then put into a basket and floated down the river, where a gardener found him and raised the boy who later would conquer Sumer and found the Akkadian Empire. It’s literally, like it says on the tin, a “story”. History is the stories we tell ourselves about the past. Lately, accuracy and scientific confirmation has become paramount in the field of History, but it wasn’t always that way, as the highly dubious story of Sargon’s birth illustrates. But it is still history. Herodotus and Thucydides are generally agreed to have invented history, but I’d argue literature like the Illiad and Gilgamesh were history in the same sense, just not as accurate or literal. But they were stories a culture told about itself and its past.
You can see even today how history is often about our current society’s perspective of itself than about any sort of unbiased collection of facts. Look at Columbus, for example. He was considered an American hero for centuries, and we taught our kids that he discovered America and we created a holiday in his honor. But now we’re told that Columbus was a monster, that he was racist, murderous, genocidal, slave owning scum. The facts didn’t change. But the story we tell ourselves did change. That’s history in action. Commentary about motives, personality and even morality is essential in the practice of history, while that stuff is irrelevant to a science like archaeology.
You’ve done everything but address the countless global images, industrial in size, similar in size and shape, carbon dated to 4500, documented in surveyor notes, MADE ACCESSIBLE TO YOU, to arrive at what conclusion?
That the Army Corps of Engineers was building these rectangles before the 20th century?
The Anatolian plots weren’t “industrial sized” and only vaguely rectangular, the Bolivian *andenes *were neither “industrial sized” nor “rectangle shaped” (did you mean “rectangular”? It is a word we English-speakers have.) And if you think Love’s 75-ha plots are “industrial size”, you’ve clearly never seen an actual industrial farm.
This is a warning for threats. Threats of any kind are not allowed anywhere on this board.
This is a warning for personal insults. Personal insults are only allowed in the Pit.
I recommend you familiarize yourself with the rules of the board and those of each forum. Continued violations will result in revocation of your posting privileges.
I’m closing this thread because it’s off the rails. Arguments are not a series of imgur links. At first this was about the role of government and literature in the teaching of history, but it took a quick turn into strangeness. If there is a desire to have a debate about agricultural practices throughout history, or ley lines, or whatever, open a new thread with a coherent premise for debate. If it’s more of the same those threads will be closed as well.
King of the Americas - After abusive PMs were sent, I decided to just ban you. Doesn’t really deserve a separate thread, but I figured I’d drop this note here.