Welcome to Gaia! :: Ancient Civilizations

I firmly believe we aren't being close to whole story...think of the 1970s(not ancient I know). But, it was the middle of a sexual revolution with weed yet almost everyone was wearing clothes that would gurantee they wouldn't get laid and easily caught fire. I amazed anyone came out alive. How many historians/parents tell you that?

But you get the concept..if it happens today then it happened then. I recently saw an article about how the Spartans may have been gay.

It's common knowledge to historians and classical scholars that the Spartans encouraged homosexual relationships with younger men, although being exclusively gay was seldom a viable option (the older lover was expected to help in selecting a wife for the younger). This isn't information that was at any time lost or unknown, but you're right in that historians at different times placed different emphasis at such things. For example, if you read decent translations of ancient Greek works, you'll find (for example) that their plays commonly had sexually explicit humor, and even the highbrow cogitations of Socrates are sometimes sprinkled with a homoerotic image or two. Older, esp. Victorian-era, translations tended to either mangle the text with obfuscated imagery at those points and provide footnotes in a completely different language, usually Latin, but sometimes others (like Italian), so that the delicate sensibilities of the readers would not be harmed.

In what sense do you think we are not "being told everything"? Sure, in the trivial sense, it's completely true--when a historian or classical scholar writes a book, he or she won't include "everything" from the original sources. If you mean that he or she may have some personal bias and (perhaps subconscious) agenda when they interpret those sources, that's also true. And the sources themselves may have questionable accuracy--this is the case not just for ancient history, but even yesterday's newspaper articles. This is particularly problematic for ancient history, however, since so much has been lost that any possible contrary sources have been lost (unlike more modern articles), and also complicated by simply different factual standards. For example, Herodotus wrote that over a hundred thousand slaves worked on the great pyramid, whereas modern analysis shows maybe twenty to thirty thousand. But it's probably not his fault--he recorded hearsay long after the fact.

So yes, regarding the past we see though a glass darkly, but overall this seems to be not a matter of being "not told everything" (by whom?), but rather there not being enough information in the first place.

Well, define "precise astronomy." What do you mean by that, precisely?

And what other "evidence" are you talking about? If it's been erased, how could be know about it, and if we know aboutit, it isn't erased. Please be specific so we can discuss actual things and not just idle speculation.

VorpalNeko, sir, I adore you so much.

I would argue, Alucard, that we do know more than that, if not much. Archaeological evidence can give some clear evidence, despite the obvious problems (ie, not having much evidence to start with or misinterpretation, as previously mentioned).

I think archaeologists of the 1800's and early 1900's really messed things up since they were not so objective in their 'science'. Most of them were treasure hunters looking for fame, not important revelations. They also tended to screw information up without true evidence. I also think today most people underestimate how intelligent our ancestors were, resulting in all those theories about how aliens built the pyramids and other great man made things. There are still things the ancients did we don't how to do today, and we want to believe we are smarter than them since we think of ourselves as more advanced with all the computers. We have a lot to work on if we truly want to be greater than the ancients.