Time destroys real History

People often think that there has to have been some intervention for something even remotely close to our technology level to have been built before what we consider to be "high society". This bothers me for many reasons.

The main problem I have with this line of thought in general is that we assume that because we haven't found any advanced tools that they simply didn't exist. We used metal hammers in the 1600's and yet have very few left to show the world, but they were there and that was only a scant few hundred years of time for them to be lost, re-forged into something else, or to have simply decayed into nothing.

This is because some materials that tools/artifacts are made from decay more quickly than others.
If they had steel tools to work with, we would likely never know it. Even as recently as the building of the pyramids, those tools could easily have been lost in the sand, of which there is an abundance, or found by some other, less historically conscious civilization(of which there were many) and turned into something else.

An example of this is the gold jewelry and sculptures given to the Conquistadores. All they saw was gold, and gave little to no thought to the historical value of the objects. Many and more books have been destroyed for religious or oppressive purposes, which is why we have a pitiable amount of hard evidence toward ancient writing systems. Realistically, for all we know, we may have been writing and recording since the last ice age, but none of it survived.

Paintings in caves are nice, but again, not a practical means to portray much other than art. My argument for this is why would you spend a grandiose amount of time writing history on a wall that for all you know may not be found again in time for it to be relevant. I personally have never seen a textbook on a wall in place of a mural. Something like that is infinitely more useful if it is portable, and for simpler subjects, word of mouth is a spectacular medium. Unfortunately, this can lead to verbal plagiarism.

As a for instance, you, after years of hard work, discover methods of agriculture or animal husbandry, and around 3000 years later, someone who is better known in society decides to put it on paper that they were the one who came up with the idea of agriculture or animal husbandry, nobody in that time period would contest it and that becomes accepted fact for those of us who find that claim a few thousand years after that. It is that simple and we don't have any realistic way to fact check such a thing except for obscure sites that hint at this discipline existing before then.

Another thing I would like to bring to light on this is that there are a few examples out there of something that was in all likelihood a very common practice, and that is building on the ruins of other societies. Whether they preceded the newcomers by centuries or took over and built anew as the product of conquest, it historically happens a lot. Istanbul/Constantinople is a great modern example of this, and there is little of the recent former city left. Even places like New York City or San Francisco, which have had calamities have built on the ruins of their own 'civilization'. Seattle did this literally, as there are large portions of "underground Seattle" that have yet to be opened up.

Building on another's ruins is also rarely a historically conscious effort. Often times, it is easier and cheaper to repurpose the old materials and foundations than it is to bring in new material for the sake of conservation of history. If conquerors cared about the history of the people they intended to massacre, enslave and assimilate, they wouldn't overwrite it with their own. Lying is not a modern concept and it is inconceivable for me to think that at least some of ancient history is not a well crafted lie by the civilizations writing it.

After all, if you say that your city has been around for longer than it has, it lends credence to your other societal histories and legends.
Just a thought for you all on this subject, with the exception of the references I've given (I didn't cite them as I feel the majority are common knowledge) it is just me thinking outside the box, but I would like others opinions on it.

Thanks for reading.

reply to post by Jekka


People lie, People screw other people over, its just a matter of "time" before they do to us aswell.....again

I like your thread. There is a lot of truth and insight in it. Most of the metals of the past were remelted to form more metal, the people of our recorded history did not have backhoes and dumptrucks. A good axe lasted many lifetimes before it was remelted into new tools. Any metal objects found by our ancestors were recycled and any steel objects left would have been turned back to earth and stone.

People are under the impression that metal tools are the best. A composite axe is very good, it is as good as a metal axe usually if you don't hit it into rocks. A composite axe is similar to a man made stone axe.

The present trend is if there is no evidence, it didn't exist. That is flawed philosophy. We can't jump to conclusions without some proof though. We can call it a possibility or probability though.

S&F

Tlexlapoca, in this there isn't really an "Us vs. Them" situation, realistically, TPTB have no better way of knowing about that point in history than we do, though yes, the pattern of lies in humanity is staggering, it is also a part of history that we have to accept.

Rickymouse, I agree that evidence is nice to have, but in this case, the evidence may be in the framework of some building somewhere or just as you said, dust in the wind. The reason we have so little is because the only things that have stood the test of time have done so through careful preservation or just dumb luck, and the same goes for written history as we know it.