Interesting Take On Ancient Constructions - 'Presentism'

[AnonyJ]

Hi all

I've been listening to some very interesting audiobook academic lectures from The Modern Scholar series [US University academics in recorded lectures in 30 minute sections, for home study etc]

One series, about 8 hours long 'Myths and Mysteries in Archaeology' by Susan A. Johnston gave me much food for thought. She is an archaeologist specialising in ancient Irish sites but seems to be very knowledgeable about the general field of early human history.

Several of her lectures debunk some of the crazier Von Danniken kind of explanations that have gained popular traction and one of her points is how 'presentism' and also a cultural/racial bias shades our judgement: For example, why do we have no trouble believing that the Parthenon in Greece was built by humans in prehistory/early history but that some of the Maya constructions couldn't have been? That Stonehenge was erected by early Britons but that the people who created the Easter Island statues, Pyramids or Sphinx had help from aliens?

According to Wikipedia "In literary and historical analysis, presentism is the anachronistic introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past. Some modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they consider it a form of cultural bias, and believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter"

She points out a rather unpleasant European-centred view of ancient monuments and buildings that is sometimes exhibited by believers that ancient people in south America and Africa must have had help from mysterious 'others'. She also argues that by believing in such theories without basis in the archaeological facts (so far) is actually to try to deny these ancient people their achievements. For example, European cathedrals of the 12th century were built at the same time as the wonderful Easter Island moai but no-one questions the cathedrals as mysterious. Similar motivations for building them both seem likely.

I found it very sensible and rational, drawing entirely on archaeological evidence. I liked the section on the pyramids of Giza and the descriptions of the excavated workers' villages and burials, plus workers' grafitti carved into the inward-facing surfaces of the blocks! And no, they weren't Hebrew slaves either

 

[Coal]

Fascinating. Used to the cultural bias in (say) psychology, but that's a new slant all together and kind of obvious once you consider it.

 

[OneWingedBird]

Nice find, thanks for sharing that.

 

[Zeke Newbold]

Hi all

I've been listening to some very interesting audiobook academic lectures from The Modern Scholar series [US University academics in recorded lectures in 30 minute sections, for home study etc]

One series, about 8 hours long 'Myths and Mysteries in Archaeology' by Susan A. Johnston gave me much food for thought. She is an archaeologist specialising in ancient Irish sites but seems to be very knowledgeable about the general field of early human history.

Several of her lectures debunk some of the crazier Von Danniken kind of explanations that have gained popular traction and one of her points is how 'presentism' and also a cultural/racial bias shades our judgement: For example, why do we have no trouble believing that the Parthenon in Greece was built by humans in prehistory/early history but that some of the Maya constructions couldn't have been? That Stonehenge was erected by early Britons but that the people who created the Easter Island statues, Pyramids or Sphinx had help from aliens?

According to Wikipedia "In literary and historical analysis, presentism is the anachronistic introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past. Some modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they consider it a form of cultural bias, and believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter"

She points out a rather unpleasant European-centred view of ancient monuments and buildings that is sometimes exhibited by believers that ancient people in south America and Africa must have had help from mysterious 'others'. She also argues that by believing in such theories without basis in the archaeological facts (so far) is actually to try to deny these ancient people their achievements. For example, European cathedrals of the 12th century were built at the same time as the wonderful Easter Island moai but no-one questions the cathedrals as mysterious. Similar motivations for building them both seem likely.

I found it very sensible and rational, drawing entirely on archaeological evidence. I liked the section on the pyramids of Giza and the descriptions of the excavated workers' villages and burials, plus workers' grafitti carved into the inward-facing surfaces of the blocks! And no, they weren't Hebrew slaves either

Interesting and significant stuff (although hardly new) I'm not sure, however, that the racism aspect of it really fits.

As far as I know there as just as many wacky theories as to the origins of Stonehenge, some involving extraterrestrial technology, as there are about Easter Island or the Mayans.

Plus I believe that Daniken has indeed -more recently - turned his attention to the ancient Greeks and has been making the same kind of claims concerning space-god interference in their affairs as with other cultures. Besides, even long before that, there were many Atlantean-civilisation theories that sought to explain the brilliance of the Greeks in a very similar way.

And, try as I might, I fail to see how pointing out that the Nazca lines can only be appreciated from above (and how peculiar this fact is) could be an example of this `presentism` - or if it is, then it is a form of presentism that is kind of forced on us by the bare facts

 

[oldrover]

Interesting post. I agree with the idea of presentism, and the idea that concepts of race have influenced the way some have looked at non European civilisations.

 

[AnonyJ]

........And, try as I might, I fail to see how pointing out that the Nazca lines can only be appreciated from above (and how peculiar this fact is) could be an example of this `presentism` - or if it is, then it is a form of presentism that is kind of forced on us by the bare facts

The Nazca lines are an amazing feat of art/culture, very striking and beautiful. I have wondered if they were constructed to present an image to someone/something in the heavens above - similar to the way some mediaeval churches & cathedrals were contructed in a crucifix shape that couldn't be seen unless from a high point above, although not as high as you'd have to be to see the Nazca formations in their entirety. It's an excellent mystery

 

[Coal]

And, try as I might, I fail to see how pointing out that the Nazca lines can only be appreciated from above (and how peculiar this fact is) could be an example of this `presentism` - or if it is, then it is a form of presentism that is kind of forced on us by the bare facts

Is it the idea that they are therefore 'to be viewed by aliens' (as opposed to just 'well laid out and constructed')

 

[Ermintruder]

but no-one questions the cathedrals as mysterious

There are some fascinating canons of revisionism that do indeed question key aspects of this significantly-more contemporary past (at least in part, and in the absence of there being much exploitable evidence).

(If only I had more hours in the day.....I'm lucky if I ever manage to post even a tenth of what I'd want to do.....

 

[Frideswide]

'Myths and Mysteries in Archaeology' by Susan A. Johnston

excellent! really excellent!

 

[escargot]

similar to the way some mediaeval churches & cathedrals were contructed in a crucifix shape that couldn't be seen unless from a high point above

There's a building in my home town which is sometimes mentioned on conspiracy sites because of its cruciform layout. It's not a church, it's a commercial gym with a central glass roof.

On Google Earth though it looks like a cathedral so the pattern-seekers go a bit nuts over it. All is not always as it seems!

 

[Ermintruder]

There is an inescapable aspect of form-following-function, when it comes to old churches, though. I don't have time right now to properly-expound that explanation (many here will already be aware, I'm sure) I've just remembered where I should be right now (and it's not church....)

This type of mundane architectural prime driver will win over how a building appears to gods/satellites/bombers every time.

 

[Zeke Newbold]

Is it the idea that they are therefore 'to be viewed by aliens' (as opposed to just 'well laid out and constructed')

It is very difficult to find a precedent or a parallel for any other human work of art which can only be viewed from above - and a considerable distance above at that (they were only discovered by the West in the 1920s , I believe,when planes began to fly over the area). People have made an analogy with certain churches which are crucifix in form when seen from above, and so on. However these are not really apt comparisons as the builders involved in their construction could surely have seen their handiwork - from the vantage point tops of spires or from scaffolding.

The oddity of it is such that mainstream paleontologists have felt obliged to posit the possibilty that the ancient Peruvians possessed balloon technology with which to view their handiwork - despite lack of any pictorial or physical evidence for such an assertion.

The Nazca lines are unique and an ongoing enigma.The paleo-SETI thesis, despite being hampered with clumsy spokespeople is not inherently dumb - a fact understood by Carl Sagan, among some others.

 

[Zeke Newbold]

• The U.S Naval Amphibious Base, Coronado

 

[Mungoman]

There is an inescapable aspect of form-following-function, when it comes to old churches, though. I don't have time right now to properly-expound that explanation (many here will already be aware, I'm sure) I've just remembered where I should be right now (and it's not church....)

This type of mundane architectural prime driver will win over how a building appears to gods/satellites/bombers every time.

...

 

[Ermintruder]

Praise be to God! It's a miracle!

He must've told his followers he needed a (non-conventional) sign... note that the listed GoogleEarth address is Church that Looks Like a Penis. Appropriately, it's located in Dixon.

 

[Coal]

Is it the idea that they are therefore 'to be viewed by aliens' (as opposed to just 'well laid out and constructed')

It is very difficult to find a precedent or a parallel for any other human work of art which can only be viewed from above - and a considerable distance above at that (they were only discovered by the West in the 1920s , I believe,when planes began to fly over the area). People have made an analogy with certain churches which are crucifix in form when seen from above, and so on. However these are not really apt comparisons as the builders involved in their construction could surely have seen their handiwork - from the vantage point tops of spires or from scaffolding.

The oddity of it is such that mainstream paleontologists have felt obliged to posit the possibilty that the ancient Peruvians possessed balloon technology with which to view their handiwork - despite lack of any pictorial or physical evidence for such an assertion.

The Nazca lines are unique and an ongoing enigma.The paleo-SETI thesis, despite being hampered with clumsy spokespeople is not inherently dumb - a fact understood by Carl Sagan, among some others.

It's possible that Nazcan had some powered flight and even possible aliens were viewing them, but it does seem more likely that they are simply well laid out to be viewed from the heavens.

There doesn't have to be anything more significant than that. "The gods 'come from/live in' the sky, so we'll make these symbols visible from the sky."

As to the layout, any small drawing can be scaled up without significant distortion with the smart use of sticks, rope and simple multiplication. The Nazca lines don't require any left-field explanation, which isn't to say that there might not be one. But if it's a 'sample size of one' as you intimate, the likelihood is still with the 'mundane'.

They're fascinating figures, even unique, but I don't see there's any need or firm evidence for mystification.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Though not invoking the specific label 'presentism', I've been railing against such biases since the early 1970's. I referred to 'biases' (plural) because IMHO there are multiple distinguishable dimensions to such prejudicial orientations - not all of which are equally evident in one or another case. It's proven useful (at least for me ... ) to keep these distinct aspects separable and to avoid blurring them together. Here are some off-the-cuff illustrations ...

The first subclass is (what I'll label ... ) interpretive presentism - the presumptuous projection of latter- or current-day ascriptions or orientations in characterizing what artifact X is, means, or represents in the first place. A golden bauble that resembles a modern aircraft must therefore be an aircraft; a seated Mayan figure enclosed among complex iconographic elements must be a pilot or astronaut in his cockpit; large-scale lines laid out across a relatively level plain like an airport / spaceport must be an airport / spaceport, etc.

This element of projecting the contemporary onto the past is the subclass most properly termed 'presentism', and it arguably intersects the related concept of 'historian's fallacy'.

The second subclass is (what I'll label ... ) capability presentism - an undue / naive adoption of today's technical capabilities as the criterion for whether ancients could have conceived, let alone achieved, artifact X on their own. IMHO this is the subclass that has engendered most of the claims the ancients obviously had externally-directed motivations or externally-supplied aid in their endeavors.

To date, the most commonly encountered examples of capability presentism involve constructions of scale - most specifically the quarrying, transport, and assembly of massive stone components. If the average layperson only knows of such capabilities in modern terms, he / she is all too amenable to believing such things were beyond the reach of ancients. (This exemplifies the related concept of 'chronological snobbery'.)

If there's a single dominant factor in play within this subclass, it's the modern failure to recognize that sufficient willpower, muscle-power, and time can achieve such marvels. Modern folks can't imagine hundreds or thousands of people coordinating their efforts for decades to build anything. They overlook something best illustrated with an old line from the Firesign Theater:

"If you push something hard enough, it will fall over."

IMHO these two subclasses are distinct from a third subclass that prejudicially compares and / or categorizes things across places and cultures rather than back-and-forth along a linear timeline. This third subclass is the sort of bias that made Euro-centric writers extol the Egyptians for their pyramids but presume the Zimbabwe complex couldn't have been done by locals.

 

[AnonyJ]

........If there's a single dominant factor in play within this subclass, it's the modern failure to recognize that sufficient willpower, muscle-power, and time can achieve such marvels. Modern folks can't imagine hundreds or thousands of people coordinating their efforts for decades to build anything.........

Well said

Which was also the point returned to several times in this excellent audio learning lecture, along with the importance of archaeological context.

 

[Frasier Buddolph]

I keep coming back to this thread, can't decide whether the OP raises a serious point or is mostly just the standard anti-eurocentrism rant.

Being an archaeologist must be frustrating. Even the best scholarship in the field is just educated guesswork. Unless you've got decipherable texts from the period saying "Here's how we did it and why", you have to interpret fragmentary evidence from a modern point of view-- it's inescapable. The archaeologists who get into fistfights over whether Montezuma wore red suspenders or green don't seem to grasp that their vision is limited and may be badly skewed. Not to say that they shouldn't try to interpret the evidence, but they need to be a lot more humble about their conclusions.

 

[AnonyJ]

I keep coming back to this thread, can't decide whether the OP raises a serious point or is mostly just the standard anti-eurocentrism rant......

Trying to raise a serious point I try not to rant!

 

[EnolaGaia]

I keep coming back to this thread, can't decide whether the OP raises a serious point or is mostly just the standard anti-eurocentrism rant.

It's a very serious point that's plagued Fortean studies all along. The common focus on Euro-centrism has at least a partially substantive basis, insofar as it was / is the 'Euro' or 'Euro-derived' cultural complex that first propagated and entrenched itself worldwide.

Being an archaeologist must be frustrating. Even the best scholarship in the field is just educated guesswork. Unless you've got decipherable texts from the period saying "Here's how we did it and why", you have to interpret fragmentary evidence from a modern point of view-- it's inescapable. The archaeologists who get into fistfights over whether Montezuma wore red suspenders or green don't seem to grasp that their vision is limited and may be badly skewed. Not to say that they shouldn't try to interpret the evidence, but they need to be a lot more humble about their conclusions.

Decades ago archaeology was routinely wedded with anthropology (in terms of practitioners, academics, and institutional affiliations). Since then, the interrelationship between digging up the past and being attuned to cultural idiosyncrasies has diminished.

I agree that one cannot wholly escape one's own context. The problem the OP referenced was one of degree - i.e., recognizing when one is going too far in reading modern presumptions into ancient findings.

The allusion to 'findings' brings me to another aspect of the problem that doesn't get the recognition it deserves. What we know about ancient peoples is based on what we've found so far. Everyone seems to ignore the fact that the evidentiary base is fragmentary by definition, dynamic for so long as we keep searching and digging, and hence incomplete and tentative ...

 

[Frasier Buddolph]

Your pardon, Joolz. My remark was aimed at Johnston, not your worthy self

 

[Vardoger]

Thinking about all of those acient alien researchers I've come a cross through books, films and the internet, I haven't noticed anyone of them being racist of any sort. I've noticed they are in awe over what they describe when being there.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... One series, about 8 hours long 'Myths and Mysteries in Archaeology' by Susan A. Johnston gave me much food for thought. She is an archaeologist specialising in ancient Irish sites but seems to be very knowledgeable about the general field of early human history. ...

If you have a Scribd subscription, or want to exploit Scribd's 30-day free trial period offer, you can read and / or download the published syllabus (print / text companion) for Johnston's series:

https://www.scribd.com/document/146166181/00-Susan-Johnston-Myths-and-Mysteries-in-Archaeology-pdf

 

[EnolaGaia]

Interesting and significant stuff (although hardly new) I'm not sure, however, that the racism aspect of it really fits. ...

The specific topic of racism in interpreting the past is more focally discussed in relation to the "ancient aliens" stuff in this other thread:

Pseudo-Archaeology & The Racism Behind Ancient Aliens
https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...ism-behind-ancient-aliens.64984/#post-1801015

 

[Kondoru]

Im not so sure about racism, though there certainly was loads...Most by folk who were flakey political sorts and not scholars.

Faucett was looking for stone constructions in the Amazon, -Eurocentric bias, (and lazy archaeology).

(Of course there have been perfectly European civilisations who were not builders...Like the Spartans...)

Herodotus believed the pyramids were built by slaves, because he knew that people would not make such huge buildings just for one person willingly.

There were many strange theories about Zimbabwe, until it was pointed out that the Arabs/Greeks/Ten Lost Tribes/Theory of the Month just didnt build that way....maybe it was the locals?

(But did the locals have arational oral history?)

 

[Tin]

Im not so sure about racism, though there certainly was loads...Most by folk who were flakey political sorts and not scholars.

Faucett was looking for stone constructions in the Amazon, -Eurocentric bias, (and lazy archaeology).

(Of course there have been perfectly European civilisations who were not builders...Like the Spartans...)

Herodotus believed the pyramids were built by slaves, because he knew that people would not make such huge buildings just for one person willingly.

There were many strange theories about Zimbabwe, until it was pointed out that the Arabs/Greeks/Ten Lost Tribes/Theory of the Month just didnt build that way....maybe it was the locals?

(But did the locals have arational oral history?)

Lt. Col. Fawcett was actually proved right though - there were large settlements and sign of civilization in the Amazon basin.

 

[Kondoru]

Yes...But they didnt build in stone. (Much).

The sub Saharan Africans as a rule were not stone masons either.

Yet they had many civilisations