CCCToad on 10/3/2010 at 00:23
So I was watching some History Channel recently, and they were discussing (among other things), the discovery of the Baghdad Battery. For this, (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_Battery) wikipedia will suffice Its a device that generates a small electrical current.
Inline Image:
http://www.virtuescience.com/battery.jpg This got me thinking. Aren't we often too harsh in our judgement of older civilizations and previous eras? In my opinion, we are much too harsh on them. We like to lampoon them for believing that the Earth was flat, but the ancient American civilizations, Aristotle, and medieval scholars knew for the most part knew that Earth was round. This isn't restricted to just science. I've seen peers speek with a sneering condescension towards Medieval government while they talk about how they believed in the divine right of kings as an absolute tyranny. The reality is that the divine right of kings is a newer concept introduced by the Anglican Church to solidify their power. Most medieval nations believed strongly in checks and balances on the king's power. Guilds provided legal protections for craftsmen similar to those provided by modern day unions. One of the least known factors was women's rights, which actually declined after the middle ages (read (
http://www.amazon.com/Those-Terrible-Middle-Ages-Debunking/dp/0898707811/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top/182-9706063-2042821) this book)
So, do we living in the 21st century judge our forebears too harshly? And if we do, do we do it out of malice or is it simple ignorance?
Thief13x on 10/3/2010 at 00:41
Quote Posted by CCCToad
We like to lampoon them for believing that the Earth was flat
we do?
Al_B on 10/3/2010 at 00:57
Either I'm completely missing the satire or that link doesn't lead to where you think it leads to.
CCCToad on 10/3/2010 at 01:00
Fixed the link.
And, yeah, we do like to mock the middle ages for "flat earth". Fragony's climate thread had one person(names omitted for their benefit) who was comparing global warming consensus to the "consensus" middle age people had that the earth was flat.
Fingernail on 10/3/2010 at 01:01
thank god there wasn't anything more incriminating in the clipboard, eh?
And yeah, we sort of know this already - I mean, empires come and go, times change, technology advances in certain directions (although the overall trend is certainly towards advancement in general - although who knows what might be lost come the end of oil/ice age/nuclear winter/lol end of civilization scenario?), socially a myriad of situations exist throughout the world, although we particularly have a penchant for focusing on the western or at least "westernised" world - but people have always been people, after all.
Trance on 10/3/2010 at 01:07
"Baghdad Better"?
Martin Karne on 10/3/2010 at 01:16
Put several of those batteries in series and do electroplating for metals, or in parallel for electrical soldering.
Mmmh amperes.... yummy...
Thief13x on 10/3/2010 at 01:22
Quote Posted by CCCToad
Fixed the link.
And, yeah, we do like to mock the middle ages for "flat earth". Fragony's climate thread had one person(names omitted for their benefit) who was comparing global warming consensus to the "consensus" middle age people had that the earth was flat.
oh give me a break dude, that's not LAMPOONING anyone, that's simply saying that consensus doesn't equate to fact.
are you sure the rampant 'lampooning' is as prevalent as you think? because I still have no idea what you're talking about
Nicker on 10/3/2010 at 01:53
Quote Posted by Trance
"Baghdad Better"?
Not since the occupation. (ba-dump pshhh!)
fett on 10/3/2010 at 01:59
YES WE ARE TOO HARD ON THEM.
This was the one recurring fact that pissed me off when I used to teach Semitic history and ancient Israel courses. We always assume the ancients were stupid when they in fact knew a lot, and with very little resources or bedrock with which to discover it.
I spent many years teaching on Abraham and Noah. Now, obviously, the only record of these two individuals is in the Bible, but I don't think they were fictional or merely legends because their stories are repeated often in ancient Middle-Eastern traditions with stunning consistency. The specific characters aside, I did tons of research into the ancient city of Ur (which was destroyed in a flood), the geography and archaeology of the Dead Sea area where Sodom would have stood, and a variety of other "pre-history" Biblical locations like Jericho, Tyre, etc. What stood out to me most is how at ease and progressive many of these cultures were. They had libraries, organized sports and governments, celebrities, a cosmetic and music industry, etc. Most scholars and geologists believe that many of these civilizations were wiped out in a local flood (Biblical scholars of course point to a universal flood, which I lean toward myself). It seems that afterward, civilization started over from the ground up, and the artifacts from that/those periods are much more primitive than what we see prior to a cataclysmic flood. The Biblical record supports this as well because it speaks of man having too much time for "revelry" prior to Noah's flood, with allusions to a highly commercialized food, music, and clothing "industry." There is wide evidence of countless plays, novels, non-fiction works, and even hints of copyright laws regarding such. There is evidence of extensive understanding of both biology and zoology that disappeared or became obscured with later more "advanced" cultures. I think the Biblical record is extremely accurate when it says that, "The world that came before (the flood) was undone." Archaeology supports this idea, going way back before Socrates and even the "ancient" Egyptians (I quote "ancient" because most of our Egyptian history is not technically ancient by comparison to other Mesopotamian/Semetic or even Asian cultures. We just ignore those because they're not as exciting. Fucking History Channel...)
