Anne

No one can never totally trust history. As more is discovered, it  
changes. While the big picture remains, the details can alter subtly,  
or dramatically. It is an axiom that in an oral tradition, after three  
generations, then your people have always done it. There are numerous  
cases where this can be documented. For instance the Plains Indians  
always hunted on horseback. Except they couldn't until after the  
Spanish reintroduced the horse (it having gone extinct a couple of  
million years ago in the Americas). The Navajo will tell you they have  
always woven rugs, except that many of the patterns and the sheep were  
introduced by the Spanish (go to Chimayo, NM). A number of the pottery  
types sold by Pueblo Indians and other tribes while often traditional  
shapes were not made for a considerable time and were reintroduced by  
archaeologists.

One of the things I like about science is that it is not about TRUTH.  
Because new discoveries keep changing what we know. I am endlessly  
amused by the fact that almost everything I was taught about the human  
family tree in college was wrong.

The same is true about history, but to a lesser degree. For the most  
part we can trust account books, maps, plats, and diaries (and similar  
documents) to describe what actually happened. A diary is personal,  
there is no compelling reason to lie. And while survey techniques left  
something to be desired (just where is that white oak again), the  
rough outlines are accurate and the list of neighbors as well. One can  
look at numerous sources who discuss the same "happening" and it is  
possible to ferret out most of the truth of what actually took place.

No one is a totally unbiased observer. And in some cases it is  
impossible for people who took part to produce a good picture of what  
happened. But put together a number of first person narratives and you  
get awfully close. If I remember correctly, when the Royal Navy sought  
an author to write the definitive history of the naval part of the War  
of 1812, American Theatre, they finally turned to Teddy Roosevelt.  
British authors just could not deal with the fact of the Wasp, Hornet,  
Constitution, Gen. Armstrong, or Thomas Boyle. So they turned to an  
American.

As the science of archaeology progresses there are things we KNOW  
about the past. We now have the ability to pretty much tie down what  
was eaten and by whom. The same is true of things like what they ate  
off and using what, if any, utensils. Certain things we do know from  
history. Where it can be shown that there are a number of independent  
sources that essentially say the same thing about the same occurrence,  
we can be pretty sure that is what happened. Some quotes (including  
whole speeches) are known. It is only recently that politicians came  
up with the idea of not giving the speeches, just having them  
published as if they were delivered on the floor of the US House or  
Senate. Don't know if other countries have a similar system, but it  
would not surprise me.

The importance of Columbus was he was the first European to make a  
difference. Leif Ericson or St Columba may have been earlier, but they  
made no lasting impression on the Americas. The very limited NOrse  
colony (ies) were of short duration and abandoned. They became part of  
the sagas, but that was it. After Columbus came Pizzaro, Cortez,  
Smith, The Pilgrims, etc. That is why Columbus is important.

If you want TRUTH go to church.

One of the things I discovered over and over while writing my MA for  
William and Mary, was that everything I knew was wrong. It was all a  
matter of digging deep enough to find the original sources.

On Oct 21, 2008, at 12:18 AM, Anne Pemberton wrote:

> James,
>
> But if we cannot trust what is a mere 200 years old, written or not,  
> how can we trust history that goes back thousands of years? Is there  
> any history we can rely on as "factual", or is it all just one big  
> whopping guestimate? After all if Columbus wasn't the first, and  
> wasn't even the first Americans, and didn't discover anything more  
> than an island he thought was near Japan, what can we believe in  
> anymore? And Fourteen Ninety Two rhymed so well with Sailed the  
> Ocean Blue ......
>
> Anne
> Anne Pemberton
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.erols.com/apembert
> http://www.educationalsynthesis.org
> ______________________________________
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the  
> instructions at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html