The Griffin Warrior Tomb Upends What We Know About the Roots of Mycenae(smithsonianmag.com)
smithsonianmag.com
The Griffin Warrior Tomb Upends What We Know About the Roots of Mycenae
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/golden-warrior-greek-tomb-exposes-roots-western-civilization-180961441
43 comments
That sounds kind of ridiculous. Why dont they just leave it in the ground and take pictures of it?
1. because the site is a 3D accumulation, you need to remove layers to access what's below
2. to apply laboratory tech, you're not going to bring an electron microscope or an NMR spectrometer down a pit
3. to keep the artefacts from spoiling further
4. because spoilage of the artefacts will speed up once they're uncovered and exposed to the elements
5. to avoid thefts and secreting of the artefacts in private collections
6. because the state would have to confiscate all dig sites rather than temporary make them off-limits, which people already react to quite badly (especially when the dig site is a construction site which is rather common, look up "rescue archaeology")
2. to apply laboratory tech, you're not going to bring an electron microscope or an NMR spectrometer down a pit
3. to keep the artefacts from spoiling further
4. because spoilage of the artefacts will speed up once they're uncovered and exposed to the elements
5. to avoid thefts and secreting of the artefacts in private collections
6. because the state would have to confiscate all dig sites rather than temporary make them off-limits, which people already react to quite badly (especially when the dig site is a construction site which is rather common, look up "rescue archaeology")
The artifacts left in the ground will be around longer than the one put through your laboratory. The one left in the ground will be around for thousands of years. The one brought into your lab will be around for hundreds of years or less.
What you say is only so certain. You dont seem as quick to innovate as others. Why not put a building on top of it and add to its shelter? Everyone will react poorly to eminent domain. So what? Think about the variables.
What you say is only so certain. You dont seem as quick to innovate as others. Why not put a building on top of it and add to its shelter? Everyone will react poorly to eminent domain. So what? Think about the variables.
The one left in the ground will be around for thousands of years.
This is not correct. Looters will take the items long before then, as they have for many thousands of years.
This is not correct. Looters will take the items long before then, as they have for many thousands of years.
We'll also know a lot less about them. What's the point of finding them and leaving them in the ground? You might as well not look for them in the first place.
You need physical access to the items to perform tests on them to understand where they come from and what they're made of. You also fund the further study of these objects by renting/selling pieces of the collection to museums, curators, and collectors.
If we use imaging equipment we can somehow learn more by using more spatial reasoning. Then you can make more.
Mentioned in the article, but not delved in to much, is the role that the pre-Greek Alphabet script Linear B played in our current understanding of the Mycenaeans, from the tablets found at Knossos and elsewhere. If you're interested in how this puzzle has come together over the decades, and enjoy stories about patient dedication to patterns and problem solving, John Chadwick's 'The Decipherment of Linear B' is an excellent read, documenting the work of Michael Ventris as he solved the SAT/constraint problem of mapping the Linear B script to the Greek language.
The Riddle of the Labyrinth by Margalit Fox is also a good book on this topic. It talks a lot about the people who laid the foundation for Michael Ventris, particularly Alice Kober.
I'm not even done reading this article, but it's already given me a great deal to think about. I work with technology every day, and my gaze is (understandably?) forward looking. I'm beginning to think that I don't really know anything about history. And I'm beginning to feel like that's a mistake.
Let's say I wanted to test this theory and begin to address the deficiency. Anyone have some suggestions on where to start? What should I start reading?
Let's say I wanted to test this theory and begin to address the deficiency. Anyone have some suggestions on where to start? What should I start reading?
It's a bit of an odd one, but I can't recommend Bertrand Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy' enough here. It's engaging and well written, as Russell tends to be, and its focus around the philosophical development of the Western World is a useful 'road through history'. Obviously the picture is not comprehensive, but it is a very robust facet to examine, because of the role philosophy plays in so many aspects of human life, from day-to-day existence to the nature of society and politics to the methods and proto-methods of science and religion. Plus, as a compilation/review of a massive corpus of research and writing on history, there are plenty of excellent citations to dive on if you find any particular subject matter interesting.
And of course, there are the usual concerns about Eurocentrism and Great Man History. So follows the usual solutions. Don't make it the only thing you read, and don't stop meta-analyzing.
And of course, there are the usual concerns about Eurocentrism and Great Man History. So follows the usual solutions. Don't make it the only thing you read, and don't stop meta-analyzing.
In that same vein, I plug The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps as often as I can. It is thorough, expansive, and succinct. Given how intertwined Philosophy was with government and religion there is significant background information regarding the regional context of developing Philosophical thought.
The podcast has the added benefit of being brief episodes, so you are quickly exposed to a variety of things you may want to explore more.
http://historyofphilosophy.net/
The podcast has the added benefit of being brief episodes, so you are quickly exposed to a variety of things you may want to explore more.
http://historyofphilosophy.net/
I agree that Russell's book is good, although Will Durant's Story of Philosophy is even better. :-) Of course there's no reason you can't read both.
If you want to read some ancient philosophy directly, Plato's Symposium is a fun start. It is a bunch of guys staying up all night getting drunk and sharing their theories about love. And yet it is philosophy. Of course Socrates gets the last word---sort of. Also don't miss the point that one of the speeches is by Aristophanes, a comedian.
If it's the ancient Greek world that is inspiring you, maybe read Homer or Herodotus. Some quick notes there:
The Iliad - This takes place in the ninth year of the ten-year-long Trojan War. The Greeks are a loose alliance of kings, led by Agamemnon, who have sailed to Troy and are still trying to overcome its defenses. Their best warrior, Achilles, gets mad at Agamemnon and decides to quit fighting, and everything starts to fall apart. The poem is his story, although in many ways it is broader, covering lots of other heroes. So you have simultaneously the "big picture" of the war and the "little picture" of Achilles (plus some other major figures).
Most readers find this book more challenging than the Odyssey, because there is less fun adventure. It can be monotonous. It is chapter after chapter of "And X threw his bronze spear and it struck Y between the teeth and came out the back of his neck, and he fell into the dust and his armor clashed around him." But it may not be a bad monotony. Have you listened to Symphony of Sorrowful Songs by Górecki? It is like that. But if you get to the end, and think about Achilles's story, it is so good.
The Odyssey - Now the Trojan War is over, and the heroes are going home. This is about how the Greek hero Odysseus gets lost, and spends another 10 years wandering. It spends some chapters on his wife and just-now-grown-up son, who are fending off the crowd of suitors who want to marry his wife and steal his estate. It follows Odysseus through his wild adventures---the most fun and memorable part of the book. And it tells of how he finally returns and defeats the suitors. (Contrary to what people usually remember, that is actually half the book.)
These books are striking in how opposite they are, and in many ways their style reflects their protagonist. Achilles is simple and straightforward, and the book is too. It has that monotony, and it basically starts at the beginning and plows forward to the end. Odysseus on the other hand is "wily" or "tricky", full of lies and schemes. (He was the inventor of the Trojan Horse.) And the book jumps all over, with flashbacks and stories-within-the-story. Multiple chapters are told by Odysseus himself. Coincidentally they are the most mythical, making you wonder if they are lies too. :-)
Some people even suggest that the first sentence---maybe even the first word---of each poem contains the rest of the story. For the Iliad it is Achilles's μῆνιν: wrath (or maybe sullenness---he is practically a teenager (or was when he came to Troy)). For the Odyssey it's ἄνδρα: the man: Odysseus.
For Homer there are lots of translations. Lattimore is great and close to the Greek, but I find Fitzgerald's to be the most enjoyable. He gives up some precision to get more poetry, and it's like reading to a soundtrack.
The Histories of Herodotus are fun too, but more history than literature. If you get The Landmark Herodotus, the maps and notes help a lot. I would just be aware of what you're reading: ostensibly this is a history of the Persian War, and that is the thread that connects everything together (like Achilles in the Iliad), but Herodotus's main movement is the digression. Chapter 2 is all about Egypt (its history, culture, etc.). Chapter 3 is all about the East. Chapter 4 is all about Scythia. You get the idea. It's like he is trying to catalog everything known or said about the world around him.
Herodotus was part of a "rationalist" movement in ancient Greece, along with the early philosophers. He is one of the first to write in prose instead of poetry. He is called the First Historian in part because he gives his sources. Sometimes he'll give several versions of something, and leave it up to you to decide. But that doesn't mean he is rational by our standards. There are plenty of myths and legends and wild stories. You will need some patience to finish this book, and a guide would help to draw out the gems, but it is pretty wonderful if you're paying attention.
Good luck, and enjoy your reading! :-)
If you want to read some ancient philosophy directly, Plato's Symposium is a fun start. It is a bunch of guys staying up all night getting drunk and sharing their theories about love. And yet it is philosophy. Of course Socrates gets the last word---sort of. Also don't miss the point that one of the speeches is by Aristophanes, a comedian.
If it's the ancient Greek world that is inspiring you, maybe read Homer or Herodotus. Some quick notes there:
The Iliad - This takes place in the ninth year of the ten-year-long Trojan War. The Greeks are a loose alliance of kings, led by Agamemnon, who have sailed to Troy and are still trying to overcome its defenses. Their best warrior, Achilles, gets mad at Agamemnon and decides to quit fighting, and everything starts to fall apart. The poem is his story, although in many ways it is broader, covering lots of other heroes. So you have simultaneously the "big picture" of the war and the "little picture" of Achilles (plus some other major figures).
Most readers find this book more challenging than the Odyssey, because there is less fun adventure. It can be monotonous. It is chapter after chapter of "And X threw his bronze spear and it struck Y between the teeth and came out the back of his neck, and he fell into the dust and his armor clashed around him." But it may not be a bad monotony. Have you listened to Symphony of Sorrowful Songs by Górecki? It is like that. But if you get to the end, and think about Achilles's story, it is so good.
The Odyssey - Now the Trojan War is over, and the heroes are going home. This is about how the Greek hero Odysseus gets lost, and spends another 10 years wandering. It spends some chapters on his wife and just-now-grown-up son, who are fending off the crowd of suitors who want to marry his wife and steal his estate. It follows Odysseus through his wild adventures---the most fun and memorable part of the book. And it tells of how he finally returns and defeats the suitors. (Contrary to what people usually remember, that is actually half the book.)
These books are striking in how opposite they are, and in many ways their style reflects their protagonist. Achilles is simple and straightforward, and the book is too. It has that monotony, and it basically starts at the beginning and plows forward to the end. Odysseus on the other hand is "wily" or "tricky", full of lies and schemes. (He was the inventor of the Trojan Horse.) And the book jumps all over, with flashbacks and stories-within-the-story. Multiple chapters are told by Odysseus himself. Coincidentally they are the most mythical, making you wonder if they are lies too. :-)
Some people even suggest that the first sentence---maybe even the first word---of each poem contains the rest of the story. For the Iliad it is Achilles's μῆνιν: wrath (or maybe sullenness---he is practically a teenager (or was when he came to Troy)). For the Odyssey it's ἄνδρα: the man: Odysseus.
For Homer there are lots of translations. Lattimore is great and close to the Greek, but I find Fitzgerald's to be the most enjoyable. He gives up some precision to get more poetry, and it's like reading to a soundtrack.
The Histories of Herodotus are fun too, but more history than literature. If you get The Landmark Herodotus, the maps and notes help a lot. I would just be aware of what you're reading: ostensibly this is a history of the Persian War, and that is the thread that connects everything together (like Achilles in the Iliad), but Herodotus's main movement is the digression. Chapter 2 is all about Egypt (its history, culture, etc.). Chapter 3 is all about the East. Chapter 4 is all about Scythia. You get the idea. It's like he is trying to catalog everything known or said about the world around him.
Herodotus was part of a "rationalist" movement in ancient Greece, along with the early philosophers. He is one of the first to write in prose instead of poetry. He is called the First Historian in part because he gives his sources. Sometimes he'll give several versions of something, and leave it up to you to decide. But that doesn't mean he is rational by our standards. There are plenty of myths and legends and wild stories. You will need some patience to finish this book, and a guide would help to draw out the gems, but it is pretty wonderful if you're paying attention.
Good luck, and enjoy your reading! :-)
> I agree that Russell's book is good, although Will Durant's Story of Philosophy is even better. :-) Of course there's no reason you can't read both.
I found Durant to be much drier. He also covers less material, both in the number of philosophers and the breadth of each philosopher's work. It was still OK and I'm glad I read it, but I only kept one of the two and it wasn't Durant. It is shorter and skips most of the kinda-boring scholasticism stuff that Russell covers thoroughly, though, so it's got that going for it.
One of the things I appreciated about Russell was his willingness to critically engage the philosophy he's describing. I think it's why his book catches a lot of shit for "bias", but I thought it was nice to have an expert explain where certain parts of older philosophical work had been found to be insupportable or problematic (and why), which parts lived on in viable modern philosophies, et c.
I found Durant to be much drier. He also covers less material, both in the number of philosophers and the breadth of each philosopher's work. It was still OK and I'm glad I read it, but I only kept one of the two and it wasn't Durant. It is shorter and skips most of the kinda-boring scholasticism stuff that Russell covers thoroughly, though, so it's got that going for it.
One of the things I appreciated about Russell was his willingness to critically engage the philosophy he's describing. I think it's why his book catches a lot of shit for "bias", but I thought it was nice to have an expert explain where certain parts of older philosophical work had been found to be insupportable or problematic (and why), which parts lived on in viable modern philosophies, et c.
Agreed. There is a fantastic quote from the early pages of History;
"There is, however, a more general argument against reverence, whether for the Greeks or for anyone else. In studying a philosopher, the right attitude is neither reverence nor contempt, but first a kind of hypothetical sympathy, until it is possible to know what it feels like to believe in his theories, and only then a revival of the critical attitude, which should resemble, as far as possible, the state of mind of a person abandoning opinions which he has hitherto held. Contempt interferes with the first part of this process, and reverence with the second. Two things are to be remembered: that a man whose opinions and theories are worth studying may be presumed to have had some intelligence, but that no man is likely to have arrived at complete and final truth on any subject whatever. When an intelligent man expresses a view which seems to us obviously absurd, we should not attempt to prove that it is somehow true, but we should try to understand how it ever came to seem true. This exercise of historical and psychological imagination at once enlarges the scope of our thinking, and helps us to realize how foolish many of our own cherished prejudices will seem to an age which has a different temper of mind."
"There is, however, a more general argument against reverence, whether for the Greeks or for anyone else. In studying a philosopher, the right attitude is neither reverence nor contempt, but first a kind of hypothetical sympathy, until it is possible to know what it feels like to believe in his theories, and only then a revival of the critical attitude, which should resemble, as far as possible, the state of mind of a person abandoning opinions which he has hitherto held. Contempt interferes with the first part of this process, and reverence with the second. Two things are to be remembered: that a man whose opinions and theories are worth studying may be presumed to have had some intelligence, but that no man is likely to have arrived at complete and final truth on any subject whatever. When an intelligent man expresses a view which seems to us obviously absurd, we should not attempt to prove that it is somehow true, but we should try to understand how it ever came to seem true. This exercise of historical and psychological imagination at once enlarges the scope of our thinking, and helps us to realize how foolish many of our own cherished prejudices will seem to an age which has a different temper of mind."
Thank you for this. I haven't read Russell much but I like this quote so much that I decided to put it on my reading list. In fact, I'm thinking about putting an excerpt from it on the syllabus for a history of science course I'm gearing up to teach this semester. A big part of why I'm an historian is because I really value the kind of empathy that he's talking about here.
Well, it's been almost ten years since I read Russel, and while I liked him at the time, I've done a lot of primary-source reading and I now agree that any reputation he might have for bias is very well deserved. Russell is absolutely a creature of the Western analytic tradition, seems almost incapable of taking anything else seriously, and engages in ad hominem (e.g, his section on Nietzsche) when he doesn't have anything to offer.
Reading Russell can easily give you a mistaken view of the thoughts of other philosophers, especially the more they diverge from Russell's opinions, which are by no means the indisputably correct ones.
Really, I think the OP should avoid reading the history of philosophy specifically, and focus just on general history. I'd recommend reading the classics, and always try to find the most complete works that are the most contemporary - read Herodotus, read Thucydides, read Tacitus, read Caesar, read Plutarch, read Carlyle, etc. You get a hugely different experience reading how people at the time thought and acted from their own perspective, or as close as you can get to it - at least from the perspective of someone who isn't a 20th or 21st century American with the associated values.
Reading Russell can easily give you a mistaken view of the thoughts of other philosophers, especially the more they diverge from Russell's opinions, which are by no means the indisputably correct ones.
Really, I think the OP should avoid reading the history of philosophy specifically, and focus just on general history. I'd recommend reading the classics, and always try to find the most complete works that are the most contemporary - read Herodotus, read Thucydides, read Tacitus, read Caesar, read Plutarch, read Carlyle, etc. You get a hugely different experience reading how people at the time thought and acted from their own perspective, or as close as you can get to it - at least from the perspective of someone who isn't a 20th or 21st century American with the associated values.
You'll have to be a little more specific about what you're looking for. Are you looking for world history? US history? Philosophy? History in tech?
I can't say much about world history, but I've been reading some books to get a better understanding of American politics:
- "War and Peace and War: The Rise and Fall of Empires": Interesting analysis on the rise and fall of conquering civilizations. Tons of parallels between dead empires and the US empire.
- "The Death and Life of Great American Cities": Nations are built on cities, and America's cities are very poorly built. What are we doing wrong, what could we do better?
- "The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. Standard of Living since the Civil War": Very dense, lots of data. Suggests that our current political turmoil is due to our economy and society expecting unrealistic growth, and a disconnect between reality and the expectation of citizens.
- The Origins of Totalitarianism: "Slippery slope" gets thrown around a lot w.r.t. suspicious legislation. This book provides context on past societies that slipped, and where we stand on that slope.
- "Connectography: Mapping the Future of Global Civilization": Optimistic look at the future of globalism.
- "1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed": An analysis of the cascade failure that took out almost all the great bronze-age civilizations around the Mediterranean region in 1177BC.
"Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" - I haven't read this, but this is the #1 book that pops up in conversations.
I can't say much about world history, but I've been reading some books to get a better understanding of American politics:
- "War and Peace and War: The Rise and Fall of Empires": Interesting analysis on the rise and fall of conquering civilizations. Tons of parallels between dead empires and the US empire.
- "The Death and Life of Great American Cities": Nations are built on cities, and America's cities are very poorly built. What are we doing wrong, what could we do better?
- "The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. Standard of Living since the Civil War": Very dense, lots of data. Suggests that our current political turmoil is due to our economy and society expecting unrealistic growth, and a disconnect between reality and the expectation of citizens.
- The Origins of Totalitarianism: "Slippery slope" gets thrown around a lot w.r.t. suspicious legislation. This book provides context on past societies that slipped, and where we stand on that slope.
- "Connectography: Mapping the Future of Global Civilization": Optimistic look at the future of globalism.
- "1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed": An analysis of the cascade failure that took out almost all the great bronze-age civilizations around the Mediterranean region in 1177BC.
"Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" - I haven't read this, but this is the #1 book that pops up in conversations.
Thanks for the suggestions. Regarding your questions:
I don't even know what I'm looking for. So, on some level I'm looking to begin addressing my broad ignorance of human history, and then see where that takes me.
I don't even know what I'm looking for. So, on some level I'm looking to begin addressing my broad ignorance of human history, and then see where that takes me.
Read 'Guns, Germs and Steel' then. I think its engaging and broad enough in it's scope of the development of different parts of the world to illuminate what more particular aspects of human history you're interested in. The main subject is technological development and its spread across the globe, so it may appeal to a technology-oriented person.
Seconded. I know parts of it have come under criticism, but the way the author attempted to weave a narrative based on so many sciences and studies just blew my mind.
Bill Bryson's, A Short History Of Nearly Everything.
It is literally what it says in the title. He's a travel writer so has a very narrative and readable style. Wow just thinking about it now makes me amazed at what he achieved in that book.
It is literally what it says in the title. He's a travel writer so has a very narrative and readable style. Wow just thinking about it now makes me amazed at what he achieved in that book.
I have a treat for you, please try out Carroll Quigley's works regarding civilization (and if you want major political insight, try his other works too, many of my conspiratorial leaning rants on hn come from his very academic and dry but largely unknown analysis of the world power structure).
Luckily, some have been made readily available on the internet. Here is The Evolution of Civilizations: An Introduction to Historical Analysis by him, which I think would be one of the best starting points for your type of historical curiosity.
http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Carroll-Quigley-TheEvoluti...
Luckily, some have been made readily available on the internet. Here is The Evolution of Civilizations: An Introduction to Historical Analysis by him, which I think would be one of the best starting points for your type of historical curiosity.
http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Carroll-Quigley-TheEvoluti...
What cultures and times peak your interest? It's a broad, deep, and wonderful rabbit hole to go down. I'd say, follow what you find interesting. Chase the subjects and times that interest you. Wikipedia's a great place to run wild. Other than that, try to find some definite books on the subject you want to learn about. Documentaries are also an excellent and fun way to learn. Maybe a history class at a local college.
On top of that, I'd recommend reading through r/AskHistorians posts. History is such a broad field, that it's overwhelming, and since it's so broad you find a lot of dry, broad coverage for "beginners". A lot of the folks over at AskHistorians are experts in their (sub)fields so you can find in-depth answers on small things. For me that helps make it "real".
Here's an example of one that stuck in my memory recently: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5f86lb/what_...
Here's an example of one that stuck in my memory recently: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5f86lb/what_...
I can't tell you (yet) exactly what interests me. I'm definitely concerned about my poor mental model of human civilization, particularly pre-classical Greece. I'm looking to start with something of an overview and then figure out what rabbit holes make sense!
How far down the rabbit hole? Want to start at the proto-indo-europeans?
Hmmm, maybe the book Guns, Germs, and Steel would be an interesting start. It's a beefy and detailed book, but interesting. Definitely a broad overview. Also, I think the made it into a movie. That might be more digestible.
I've always like Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast. He covers a broad range of subjects but they're ways great!
Ancient China is also really awesome to learn about. It's not studied so much in the west but they had some extraordinarily advanced civilizations and cities well before those in Europe. Japan, Egypt, the Middle East all have pretty mind-blowing histories.
I've always like Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast. He covers a broad range of subjects but they're ways great!
Ancient China is also really awesome to learn about. It's not studied so much in the west but they had some extraordinarily advanced civilizations and cities well before those in Europe. Japan, Egypt, the Middle East all have pretty mind-blowing histories.
He says he's "particularly [interested in] pre-classical Greece" but you recommend Guns, Germs, and Steel. I'm wondering why since the later is much more relevant to modern history (by modern I mean post 600 AD) than pre-classical Greek history.
The isles of Greece, the Isles of Greece!
Where burning Sappho loved and sung,
Where grew the arts of war and peace,
Where Delos rose, and Phoebus sprung!
Eternal summer gilds them yet,
But all, except their sun, is set.
Pre-classical Greece is about the earliest period of the "West" we have good documentation for, and is tremendously "romantic" to study. However beware of thinking of Greece as the wellspring of civilization; this will lead you to overlook the Arabic and Chinese civilizations.
Do you have any recommendations for reading about Arabic civilizations? I was under the impression that Arabia was, until Mohammed, an unimportant, remote backwater, vastly overshadowed and sometimes controlled by nearby (sorta) empires - Egypt, Rome, Persia, Sumeria, Lydia, Akkad, Babylonia, Assyria, et cetera.
Relevant Ask Historians books sidebar here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/books/europe#wik...
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/books/europe#wik...
I can't recommend enough 'A People’s History of the United States' by Howard Zinn.
I feel that an honest lad shouldn't touch History (What happened?) without first wrapping is head around Historiography: Who's writing That History? Is there any conflict of interest in writing process?.
I feel that an honest lad shouldn't touch History (What happened?) without first wrapping is head around Historiography: Who's writing That History? Is there any conflict of interest in writing process?.
I've found in much reading over many decades that the mind-blowing stuff comes not from facts and even movements of peoples, but changes in ideas and in our perception of the world.
To that end, the single best book I can recommend is Stephen Toulmin and June Goodfield's The Discovery of Time, published in 1965.
We take it for granted that we live in a dynamic changing universe with growth and development, but for most of human history in most cultures the opposite was true: The world was static, most change was a fall from a previous high, people's places were fixed, time was fixed, the world was fixed.
(I'm not sweeping aside creation myths, because in most myths the world was created at a specific time to be exactly as it is right now and as it will be forever or until the end, depending on the myth. Static, no change, no development.)
A few centuries ago, there began serious intellectual and philosophical investigation into the possibly of changing time, of a dynamic universe, of serious consideration of the possibility the universe had a beginning outside of religious creationism. Over time, the notion that time itself changed seeped through and into all thinking.
Without that change in perspective, Darwin and others might never have done their work....
What I find personally most interesting is trying to shift my head to imagine what it would have been like to live in a world with static time in an Earth-centric universe.
That exercise is the most eye-popping of all, IMHO.
As an aside, over the decades my interest/fascination in history has waxed and waned, in part because there is simply so much to read, so much to learn, that it can be overwhelming. Consider the simple fact of the millions of stories in WWII alone, and one can easily imagine spending a lifetime learning more and more about a single period, a single event, and never learn it all.
Every now and again I'll plunge into an area of interest, either through a maze of Wikipedia articles or a really good book (Team of Rivals; Churchill's memoirs of WWII; Paris 1919; etc.), but overall I prefer those works that challenge me to change my intellectual and artistic perspective (Age of Insight, about Vienna, is good for that).
To that end, the single best book I can recommend is Stephen Toulmin and June Goodfield's The Discovery of Time, published in 1965.
We take it for granted that we live in a dynamic changing universe with growth and development, but for most of human history in most cultures the opposite was true: The world was static, most change was a fall from a previous high, people's places were fixed, time was fixed, the world was fixed.
(I'm not sweeping aside creation myths, because in most myths the world was created at a specific time to be exactly as it is right now and as it will be forever or until the end, depending on the myth. Static, no change, no development.)
A few centuries ago, there began serious intellectual and philosophical investigation into the possibly of changing time, of a dynamic universe, of serious consideration of the possibility the universe had a beginning outside of religious creationism. Over time, the notion that time itself changed seeped through and into all thinking.
Without that change in perspective, Darwin and others might never have done their work....
What I find personally most interesting is trying to shift my head to imagine what it would have been like to live in a world with static time in an Earth-centric universe.
That exercise is the most eye-popping of all, IMHO.
As an aside, over the decades my interest/fascination in history has waxed and waned, in part because there is simply so much to read, so much to learn, that it can be overwhelming. Consider the simple fact of the millions of stories in WWII alone, and one can easily imagine spending a lifetime learning more and more about a single period, a single event, and never learn it all.
Every now and again I'll plunge into an area of interest, either through a maze of Wikipedia articles or a really good book (Team of Rivals; Churchill's memoirs of WWII; Paris 1919; etc.), but overall I prefer those works that challenge me to change my intellectual and artistic perspective (Age of Insight, about Vienna, is good for that).
Oswald Spengler's 'The Decline of the West'. The primary thesis of the author is of a cyclical development and decline of civilization (and his estimate that western civilization in particular is in the declining phase, hence perhaps the not so apt title to modern eyes). More importantly though Spengler's breadth of knowledge and culture (across science, philosophy, architecture, fine-arts, jurisprudence, literature) is just staggering and way beyond that of his contemporaries or present-day-authors.
For the high-level sweep of history in a single volume, The Penguin History of the World is hard to beat.
But realistically you have to get closer. Pick a time period, or a theme, or even an individual, and start digging. Some people like local or family history. Try to find a selection of voices to read, but beware of the pseudohistorians and pop-scientists.
But realistically you have to get closer. Pick a time period, or a theme, or even an individual, and start digging. Some people like local or family history. Try to find a selection of voices to read, but beware of the pseudohistorians and pop-scientists.
JM Roberts history of the world
Then D.C. Somervell's abridged version of Arnold Toynbee's Study of History. Don't worry that the original is controversial and you don't have to believe every word but read it for its passionate delivery and scope and that it should make you think.
From Dawn to Decadence by Jacques Barzun is a sweeping account of the past 500 years.
"There are more than 1,500 objects in all, and although the most precious items aren’t here (they are under lock-and-key elsewhere), the scale of the task she faces to preserve and publish these objects is nearly overwhelming. She surveys the room: a life’s work mapped out before her."
This is a drawing of what it looks like in the grave:
http://cdn.thinglink.me/api/image/871131223215308800/1024/10...