Fake History

[Agent327]

An interesting book review I came across on Ronald H. Fritze, Invented Knowledge: False History, Fake Science and Pseudo-Religions. Reaktion Books, ISBN 978 1 86189 430 4.

In 2002 former Royal Navy man Gavin Menzies published 1421 The Year China Discovered America, in which he claimed a fleet of Chinese ships sailed around the world and discovered America. (Partly true, a Chinese flottila did sail halfway around Asia.) Menzies' book was a bestseller, mixing history, novel, travelogue and detective, with Menzies as its prime character. A catching book, and Menzies presented a wealth of evidence - which was thereafter slaughtered by historians and archaeologists, calling him incompetent, dishonest, or both. Menzies, undeterred, published another book last year, claiming the Chinese were responsible for the Renaissance as well. Books like these are typical examples of pseudo-history, American history professor Ronald H. Fritze argues. In an attempt to explain the tenacity of such subjects as the lost civilization of Atlantis, the African foundations of ancient Greek civilization (the Black Athena-hypothesis) and the search for the Holy Grail. By discussing them simultaneously, he shows concurrences between such myths and their reception and the tricks used in their distribution. For instance, pseudohistorians rather use the lacunae in knowledge to assert their claims rather than viewing historic facts in their entirety. Which is exactly what Fritze does do. Not only does he give the most likely theory on the original inhabitants of the Americas and their later 'discovery', he also shows how, according to pseudohistorians, various peoples beat Columbus to it.

(Source: NRC Handelsblad, Science section, November 14, 2009. A more detailed review can be found here: http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/paper/allchindresp.html)

 

[Dachs]

That actually looks really cool. I should see about getting that in the next few months.

Nice find.

 

[LightSpectra]

I thought the pseudoarchaeological thesis that the three pyramids in Giza were aligned with Orion's belt when they were built, and the Sphinx correlates to the astrological sign Leo, was kind of interesting. Repeatedly discredited and impossible, but still worth a pondering.

That's probably the only exception I can think of, though. Conspiracy theorists, hippies, and bigoted revisionists are very irritating. Especially Immanuel Velikovsky. The sheer absurdity in reverting to pre-Newtonian physics to prove the literal interpretation of an amalgamation of various primitive and contradictory mythologies is amusing, until it becomes apparent that people have read these tracts religiously and will argue to to the death for them.

 

[Plotinus]

At an early stage in its composition I was rather tentatively offered the chance to work on Menzies' book (basically putting his vast but disordered array of notes into order and working out all the references). Nothing came of that but I rather wish it had, now.

Anyway, it's interesting how the wild theories of today end up becoming the popular fact of tomorrow. I've had cause in the past to bemoan the anti-religious propaganda of revisionist historians of the nineteenth century, such as John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White, who argued that Christianity had done its best to oppress science and free thought for all of its existence, and illustrated this with "examples" such as the medieval insistence that the earth is flat, the medieval witch hunts, the opposition to Columbus, and the persecution of Galileo - all examples that were either grossly misinterpreted to fit the thesis or simply invented. Despite the repeated discrediting not only of the individual examples but of the whole thesis, it's still central to modern culture.

Less central but still very pervasive bad history also includes the claims of certain nineteenth- and early twentieth-century historians of religion that everything in Christianity comes from paganism, and specifically that all the things that were said of Jesus were originally said of Mithras, Horus, or some other pagan deity. These claims have also been long debunked, but they have not only survived but expanded in the popular mind, which is why you can find on the Internet (and even in print) long lists of the supposed parallels between Jesus and various pagan gods that are completely fictional and go well beyond anything Cumont or the others said.

The fact is, of course, that the popularity or otherwise of an idea has relatively little to do with its truth or falsity, or even its justifiability, and much to do with how much it supports the narratives that people tell about the world and themselves and what they want to believe.

 

[Agent327]

Wow! Plotinus does use a lot of moisturizer these days... (BTW, what does the WWCD? stand for? Or is that to remain a mystery?) But seriously, that's interesting to hear you were (almost) a part of Menzies' book. (And indeed I do seem to remember having read something of Cumont's - although it was quite a while ago; it may just have been an article, not a book.)

That actually looks really cool. I should see about getting that in the next few months.

Nice find.

You're welcome.

I thought the pseudoarchaeological thesis that the three pyramids in Giza were aligned with Orion's belt when they were built, and the Sphinx correlates to the astrological sign Leo, was kind of interesting. Repeatedly discredited and impossible, but still worth a pondering.

That's probably the only exception I can think of, though. Conspiracy theorists, hippies, and bigoted revisionists are very irritating. Especially Immanuel Velikovsky. The sheer absurdity in reverting to pre-Newtonian physics to prove the literal interpretation of an amalgamation of various primitive and contradictory mythologies is amusing, until it becomes apparent that people have read these tracts religiously and will argue to to the death for them.

Velikovsky is dicussed, indeed. And the Orion's Belt theory was (positively!) discussed in a docu I saw some time ago. (Don't remember if it was NatGeo or discovery though...)

 

[Cynovolans]

I'm not really interested in pseudo-history or anything like that. I think that one Russian mathematician who claimed all history before the Middle Ages was false ruined pseudo-history for me. I have read 1421 but I didn't see this "wealth of evidence" or convincing evidence.

 

[Agent327]

Because there is none. As Fritze argues, pseudohistorians mainly employ the lack of evidence to support their wild theories. In the case of 1421 his "evidence" was basically non-existant; in the case of his Renaissance-book, Fritze rightly dryly remarks that his "Chinese fleet sailing to Italy" remained remarkably unnoticed by the wealth of observers there at the time. (This is not in his book, but in an interview he gave on it.)

 

[Cynovolans]

Looking back I now remember that Gavin Menzies used things that were unknown as evidence towards his theory. Like saying the Falkland Islands Wolf was a hybrid of chinese dogs and foxes, years ago the Falkand Wolf was a complete mystery with nothing known about it so he used it as "evidence". He also claimed that drawings of people with dog heads were actually drawings of giant sloths living in South America.

Now I just learned Mr. Menzies has a second book published. 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance. I gotta read that.

 

[innonimatu]

At an early stage in its composition I was rather tentatively offered the chance to work on Menzies' book (basically putting his vast but disordered array of notes into order and working out all the references). Nothing came of that but I rather wish it had, now.

Yes, think of what you've lost: to have your name possibly associated with that masterpiece.

Now I just learned Mr. Menzies has a second book published. 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance. I gotta read that.

No! Don't feed the troll!

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Lmao, I used to believe that 1421 crap

EDIT: @Plotinus: Related to your comment, Bill Maher includes the Jesus = Horus thing in his movie Religulous.

 

[Plotinus]

When you say "includes", do you mean he reports it as if it's true? Which would be sad.

 

[Luckymoose]

Lmao, I used to believe that 1421 crap

EDIT: @Plotinus: Related to your comment, Bill Maher includes the Jesus = Horus thing in his movie Religulous.

Everything we've ever read about history was written by someone else, so we have absolutely no clue if its true or false. The masses could just as easily be lied to as told the real history.

 

[Plotinus]

Everything we've ever read about history was written by someone else, so we have absolutely no clue if its true or false. The masses could just as easily be lied to as told the real history.

No, the whole point of responsible history is that you do have a clue, because there is evidence. You may not be able to prove with 100% certainty that something did or did not happen, but you can still assess the probability that it did by examining the evidence rationally and critically.

Evidence, incidentally, is anything whose probability would be higher given the truth of your hypothesis than it would be given the falsity of your hypothesis. That is, the probability of (E|H) (finding evidence E, given that hypothesis H is true) is higher than the probability of (E|not-H) (finding evidence E, given that hypothesis H is not true).

Even if you rely solely upon secondary sources for your knowledge of history, you are still capable of assessing the evidence that the author provides for her claims, and you are capable of evaluating whether (E|H) is indeed greater than (E|not-H), at least to some degree. That is why you are not simply at the mercy of what she chooses to tell you, because any responsible historian will explain why she tells you this rather than that, and you can consider whether you think her reasons are good. If the historian you're reading doesn't do this, then either she's writing a general overview or introduction to the subject where appeal to primary sources is out of place (in which case, if you are interested, you should go on to read something more in depth) or she's just not writing a reliable book (in which case you should look for something else).

One of the surest signs that someone's spinning a conspiracy theory rather than a reasonable hypothesis is that the "evidence" they present for it is only consistent with the theory. They do not give any E such that (E|H) is higher than (E|not-H). Rather, they give some E such that H and E form a consistent set. The fact that not-H and E also form a consistent set seems not to worry them, and they do not explain why E should be more expected given H than given not-H - indeed they may not even seem to realise that this is important. If your author does this without acknowledging the weakness of the argument then you can be sure it's not a reliable text.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

When you say "includes", do you mean he reports it as if it's true? Which would be sad.

Yes, that is what I mean.

 

[Lord Baal]

That actually looks really cool. I should see about getting that in the next few months.

Nice find.

Agreed. This interests me greatly. As does this discussion, so cheap subscription post here.

 

[Supermath]

The fact is, of course, that the popularity or otherwise of an idea has relatively little to do with its truth or falsity, or even its justifiability, and much to do with how much it supports the narratives that people tell about the world and themselves and what they want to believe.

Can I sig that?

 

[Plotinus]

Of course.

 

[North King]

Everything we've ever read about history was written by someone else, so we have absolutely no clue if its true or false. The masses could just as easily be lied to as told the real history.

The amount of effort that would be required to produce the number of documents necessary to falsify history and make historians (who have this really annoying habit of demanding primary sources) believe that false history is staggering. People are far too lazy to wipe out history.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

There are some cases where a single source constitutes the entirety of our first-hand knowledge of peoples' lives, such as Vasari's Lives.

 

[Agent327]

There are some cases where a single source constitutes the entirety of our first-hand knowledge of peoples' lives.

Obviously. But what Plotinus, in his usual eloquence, posted still holds true.