This is not a thesis on any one specific historical event, or the history of one period. This has to do more with how we perceive history, what our perception of history means, and how that influences our thought process. It also contains a lot of speculation on my part that cannot be substantiated. This is basically my theory of history. I cannot prove any of what I am going to say, but hopefully you will find it interesting and perhaps thought provoking.
When you consider the age of our world, the pre-printing methods of recording history, and the history of printing, it seems to me that what we know about history is very limited. I believe that there are a lot of significant things that have happened over the course of time on this earth that have not been recorded, or if they were recorded, we no longer have those records.
Think with me for a moment about what we know about American history, the formation of our nation, and how limited our knowledge is even of that to which we profess to know. Before the European settlers arrived, both the North and South American continents were populated by people, the history of which we know very little about. Even knowledge of what happened with the ancient civilizations we know of is very limited. I am not saying that the knowledge is non-existent, but it only paints a very small picture of the things that transpired.
In the composition of historical narratives by any author, a process must be followed in which those events that seem most significant for the writer will be recorded, and these will be based on the purpose for which the author intends. They will serve an ideological purpose. It cannot be otherwise. We all constantly interpret everything we hear, read, think and experience, and we interpret through a set of filters. Without going into great detail about what I mean by this, since I have already addressed this issue in great length in another of my writings, (https://dannysstump.com/paradoxical-paradigm/) I will just say that these filters factor into the conclusions that we draw. The writer of any historical narrative will interpret what they deem the most significant, and then record the narrative through their own filters, or preconceptions. Because this is so, no history can be produced which is totally accurate, and without bias. This is, as the saying goes, the nature of the beast. So, every historical writing will be slanted to some extent.
It would be impossible to write any historical narrative and include everything. Events and people must be selected to suit the author’s purpose.
Another thing factors into our understanding of history; unless the history is very recent, we were not there to experience it. Anything we learn about history is from someone else’s perspective, and is influenced by their biases. I always try to take this into consideration when I am reading anything. Hopefully, that does not make me overly skeptical to the point that I do not believe anything I read, but I just try to read with this view in mind. Just like every other human being, I have my own biases and preconceptions about things that have influenced me over the course of my life. I wish I were capable of looking at everything from a totally objective perspective, but I believe that is an impossibility for anyone. This is a complicated issue.
My theory of history, partly based on some things I have read, and partly based on my own meditations and contemplations, leads me to believe that throughout the course of time, many civilizations, empires, kingdoms, etc., (whatever term you want to use) have existed that we have no knowledge of. They have risen and fell, and their records have become totally obliterated. I also believe that many of these civilizations may have been as, or more advanced, technologically than we currently are.
The premise of linear history as it is currently taught is based on the theory of evolution, and goes something like this: Mankind started out in a primitive state, and has slowly advanced, both physically and intellectually over the course of time. Mostly, in the established educational institutions, this premise is taught as if it is an indisputable, established fact. I don’t buy it. I think there are too many things that indicate otherwise. (Notice that I said “Indicate” and not “prove”. As I have already stated, I am incapable of proving this, however the staunch evolutionist is also incapable of proving their theory.)
There are countless examples of archaeological anomalies that have been discovered that bring into question the premise of linear history as it is presented by the evolutionary model of humankind developing along the trajectory of primitive to advanced. (http://www.ancient-wisdom.com/artefactshome.htm). This is a complicated matter, because, as within any field of study, there exist the real, and the fake. That is another issue that complicates the study of history. Human beings are liars, and make stuff up. As we go through life, we are always trying to navigate through a maze of fact and fantasy.
Human beings tell lies in the attempt to get themselves out of trouble, or cover something up, or perhaps for the purpose of cheating someone else out of something. There is a myriad of reasons human beings tell lies. That is the malevolent aspect of human lying. Human beings seem to be fascinated with fantasy as a form of entertainment. This is manifested in ancient stories, myths, poems, plays, theatre, movies, novels, motion pictures, etc. Fantasy is also a form of lying, even though we justify it by saying it is just entertainment. Nevertheless, it is still lying because it presents a false perception of reality. This fascination with fantasy also plays into my theory of history.
It is my contention that history is more cyclic in nature than linear. I believe that civilizations, not people, evolve from what is perceived as primitive to the more highly technologically advanced, and once they get to a certain level of technological advancement, they destroy themselves, and the process starts all over again. This has nothing to do with biological evolution. I believe that human beings have basically always been the same, and I think the Biblical account of Creation proves this. Granted there is a huge degree of variation in the human structure, and physiological makeup, but this has always been so, and the evidence of that variation is not proof that human beings have evolved, in the physical sense, over the course of time from one thing to another.
I believe human civilizations start out primitive, because they are starting over. This is obviously not the case with the very first human civilization. The very first human civilization had to start out primitive because all they were starting with was raw nature. They had to learn to manipulate the elements of nature, so in this sense, they did progress along a trajectory of technologically primitive to technologically advanced. The problem with the evolutionary model is that it consists entirely of the linear trajectory of primitive to advanced and does not take into consideration the cyclic rise and fall of highly advanced civilizations that self-destruct.
We lose touch with what is real. We build and become so focused on the self-centered, cocoon environments we isolate ourselves in that we lose touch with nature. We see nature as something to be conquered and overcome, and in the process, we are pitting ourselves against the very forces that keep us alive, forces that have been ordained by God to give us life and sustain us. We create fantasy to entertain us. We obsess over things that have no real significance, like sports for example. Maybe for us, it is football and basketball, for the ancient Romans, it was gladiator sports and chariot races. Art and creativity get dumbed down, music gets dumbed down, literature gets dumbed down. Our technology causes us to become stupid. Then we begin to experiment in areas that we were never intended to tread into; biological, anatomical, and atomic manipulation. Our insatiable curiosity opens Pandora’s Box, and we unleash the fury of God, and His creation, Nature, which we have violated, and our civilizations crumble into ruins. Then, slowly, but surely, the process starts over again…… until God brings it to a close, in His time, and His eternal kingdom, that to which all human history has been striving, is ushered in, and we see that all of our striving to build our own little kingdoms on the surface of this planet, have been futile efforts to control our own destinies, which He never intended.
Danny's Stump 