Academic research always analyzes and sorts out specific things, such as a piece of pottery, a bronze piece, or a certain text of the Dead Sea Scroll, and sometimes it may take several years to connect the two paragraphs of Guodian Chujian's text. Of course, these studies are not intended to prove the greatness of that civilization, but rather the continuation of the academic tradition, the empirical method, the wrong method, the method of overturning the pre-evidence when new evidence is discovered. That is, the current conventional research method. As for the grand theories such as "the history of ancient Egypt is all pseudohistory" and "the history of ancient Greece is widely falsified", most of them are people who have not read enough books and are talking about it.
History and archaeology intersect, but not in the same field. Pseudo-scholarship tends to mix various disciplines together and say something that can neither be proved nor falsified.
The lotus ear is taken at the National Expo
In the historical exhibition of the National Museum, there is a ligui, from which the text of the bronze can be combined with astronomical knowledge and historical documents to determine the founding time of the Zhou Dynasty (the Battle of Makino) is 1046. This is the normal way academics open.
Lotus ear photography Guobo shangshan ancient rice grain electron microscopy under the phytosilicate
For example, some carbonized rice grains have been found, according to the condition of the vascular bundle at the location where the rice grains fall off, they can use electron microscopy to view their structure and judge the change process of wild rice to domesticated rice, and our current evidence is that about 10,000 years ago, the "Shangshan culture" in Pujiang County, Zhejiang Province, has completed the artificial domestication of rice. That is, the division between harvesting and rice cultivation. Of course, there are still many issues to be discussed here.
The above two examples are routine research, very solid, and the disciplinary cooperation is also very in-depth. The cooperation of multidisciplinary experts is required.
For example, genetic evidence can draw evolutionary trees, and most of the current evidence shows that the ancestors of humans are australopithecus from Africa, such as Lucy, Taon Ape, and Man 1470. But if new evidence disproves them, we will have to re-argue them on the basis of this. At present, there is the largest amount of evidence of a single origin, which does not mean that multiple origins in multiple places are impossible. This is normal academic discussion.
And those theories of this and that are very crude, much like the satire of netizens: the ancient corpses of children in the ancient tomb were found in Anyang, and then they said that they found Cao Cao when they were teenagers. Logic can't pass this hurdle.
I read less books, I don't do enough in learning, but I still want to express my opinions, and I hinder the country, I am brittle, and I cater to the grandstanding of the times.
If you want to reject the clay tablet book, you need to study it piece by piece, and there are indeed fakes and ancient productions, but there must be truths when there are falses, and it is impossible to make them out of nothing. Nor is cuneiform, nor is it found in one or two places. There are so many words, languages and literature around the world that they can be compared.
Screenshot of pdf literature from the Lotus Ear Library
Loeb Classical Library, Oxford Medieval Texts, Penguin Classical, many Greek, Latin and English counterparts, are now fully electronic, and universities of some size can freely consult them. So many relics around the world, museums, so many cultural relics, you can go to careful study, there is no need to lock the origin of archaeology when Schliemann is a tomb robber or archaeology, Evans is restored or created. Archaeology has developed dramatically and far beyond that era. Today's archaeological evidence, please "antiquarians" to identify them one by one, I am afraid that they have neither patience nor this strength. They just want to whisper "good deeds" that shock the sky, confuse the unknown truth and lack critical thinking.
The classics of the Commercial Press and the Zhonghua Bookstore, each of which is almost exhausted, I don't know how many people have studied in their lifetimes to get some results, it is not so cool, and it is difficult to support any grand narrative independently. Mr. He Lao, those pseudoscience and pseudo-scholars are just deceiving the world and stealing their names. These have nothing to do with academics.
(This article has been known to be the answer to the pseudohistory)
2022-01-17Yu Zhi Ignorant Xuan