Quote:
Uh-Nu-Buh said:
Newton's works on gravity and mathematics are over 70 years old.
Darwin's works are over 70 years old.
Herodotus' Histories are also over 70 years old.
Frankly, I am amazed you have a limit of 70 years.
|
I pointed out that the citations were old because archeology is a young science. As you indicate from your choices of people, the sciences advance. Newton's physics, while perfectly good for many things, falls apart for very small things and very large or fast things. Darwins's core ideas of evolution are right, but he guessed at many of the details and has been shown wrong. Herodotus is no longer the authority he once was.
In the '20s, archeology was a new field, still struggling with 19th century notions of history, some of which were badly confused. When Schliemann went looking for Troy and Mycenae (1870s), some well-educated people thought he was a fool, as the Trojan War was "just a myth". Others believed the cities to be real, but thought the Illiad's descriptions were fanciful, and they'd be of no help in find them. Likewise, many of Arthur Evans' reconstructions of Knossos (1900) were silly, and many modern archeologists believe his attempts damaged the site. While things were better by the '20s, scientists at the time still didn't know how to balance skepticism of ancient sources with evidence indicating some were right on target.
In the 20s, chemistry was of no help to archeology; carbon dating wouldn't be invented until 1947. Climatology was not very advanced either, so claims about inadeqate water for ancient armies are dubious. Even archeology itself has advanced -- early stratigraphy had problems. That's why I'm dismissive of work from '29 and '30.
Quote:
I'll also pick on your childish eye rolling. To me, that immediately means you are a dick. No matter how correct you are, you are still a dick. You could be 100% right, but you would still be a dick.
|
Keep in mind that personal attacks are not permitted on this forum.
If a poster wants to convince his audience that he knows what scholarly citation is, he should provide references to studies backing up his points. It's like having a Phoenix cast Wind Guide and Flaming Arrows on the 500 archers he brought with him to a battle. It doesn't guarantee victory, but it shows that the player knows the game.