http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ mirrored file
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
* *
*The Nature of Alternative Historians *

*/What Makes Them Tick.../ *

___________________________

Our world is littered with people who want to rewrite history. Some do
it for political reasons; some do it for profit. There are those who
rework history to support their religious convictions. Some see a
rewriting of history as their personal contribution to our understanding
of the world. I wish to categorically state that there is absolutely
nothing wrong with examining the historical record and identifying
weaknesses -- this is how good, self-correcting science works. The goal
of nearly every archaeologist in the world is /*not*/ to prove that
which is already known... but to prove something new.

There are, however, a group of authors and "outsiders" who are trying to
force changes in the historical record of our species, and they are
doing it in unorthodox fashions. Rather than gathering evidence and
proving their points to those who actually understand the intricacies of
the puzzle that is our human past... they take their message to the
public, in the form of books and television "documentaries". There, they
plead with the public for support and acceptance of their wonderous new
ideas -- their historical revisions.

These are the Alternative Historians.

From Atlantis to Creationism, these people use similar methods and
techniques to "prove" their conclusions; conclusions they have usually
reached long before they gathered any data or evidence. Their
"Histories" are really not the true alternate that they are peddling...
it is their /*alternate methodology*/ that allows them to make their
cases before the public eye. Much has been written on the lack of
scientific merit in most Alternative Historians' work. I decided it was
time to look at the Alternative Historians themselves, and see if there
was a common thread between them.

After scouring libraries and the internet, I?ve managed to come up with
a profile of the typical ?Alternative Historian?.

**

*1. The typical Alternative Historian (AH, for short) did not obtain
a degree, or even attempt to obtain an advanced degree, in history,
archaeology, anthropology, or any field related to the study of
human history. *

*2. The AH has decided to study human history as a sideline, well
after engaging him or herself in another career field. *

*3. The AH has made no meaningful or revolutionary contributions
within his/her own career field. *

*4. The AH is usually self-portrayed as some kind of
swaggering/mystical/bright-eyed outsider, just looking for simple
answers to complex questions. Sometimes, this can take on an almost
religious aspect, where the AH declares him/herself the Guardian of
the Truth, and shares it only with those who are properly initiated. *

*5. The AH?s, as a rule, display and foster a tremendous disrespect
for those who have dedicated their lives to the study of human
history. *

These are the general characteristics I have observed. What I find most
ironic, and will focus my attention on in this presentation, is trait #3
-- a person who has made no meaningful contribution in his or her own
career field takes a superficial glance at another field, finds things
that are not understood by a large portion of the population, and then
exploits that general ignorance in a way that is profitable (either
financially or emotionally), yet demonstrably incorrect.

Somehow, the field of human history is seen to be something that is wide
open to interpretation (read ?/*speculation*/?), and as such, it becomes
the grounds upon which just about anybody can consider themselves ?an
expert?. After all, we ARE all human?doesn?t that qualify us for some
special rights when it comes to writing books and creating theories on
our origin?

In actuality, the answer to that is ?absolutely /*not*/!". Dentists,
doctors, surgeons, attorneys, and even financial planners most often
consult ANOTHER professional when doing their OWN work or making their
OWN diagnosis on themselves. Psychiatrists and social workers will be
the first to tell you that practicing psychology on yourself is foolish
in the least, and dangerous at its extreme. In the same way, the study
of human history is very much open to interpretation, and often it takes
a qualified professional ? someone who has been specially trained to see
past his or her own preconceived biases ? to realistically and
accurately draw conclusions from evidence.

For example, an electrical engineer goes to Dendera and sees a
lightbulb. An egyptologist looks at the same relief and sees a lotus
blossom? just like the lotus blossoms that are portrayed in hundreds of
tombs and monuments all over Egypt. The engineer then writes a book,
showing that the ancient Egyptians had lightbulbs. He has contributed to
the knowledge base of the world, but only in his exposition of the
artwork? not in his conclusions about its interpretation. The relief is
still just a lotus blossom.

Now, I do not mean to imply that people who started off in one career
path absolutely cannot contribute anything meaningful to the
understanding of human history. However, it is not something one can
undertake without appropriate respect, understanding and appreciation
for the work that has gone before, accomplished by people who DID devote
their lives to the study of the past. We must remember that Flinder
Petrie was a surveyor. Howard Carter was an artist. Martin Isler is a
sculptor. Colin Reader is a geological engineer. These people didn?t set
out to rewrite history? /*they set out to understand it*/. In the
process of humbly studying and plodding along through copious amounts of
data, they did make a real and useful contribution to the field.

It is ironic that most AH?s have spent their entire adult lives working
in another field, have been unable to revolutionize it in any way, and
think that somehow the field of human history is different from their
own chosen field. Odds are their field of expertise -- be it
engineering, journalism, sales, computer science -- hasn?t been studied
by nearly as many people for nearly the length of time that human
history has been studied. But rather than approach the field of human
history with humility and respect, they treat the field as ?virgin turf?
and the seasoned veterans as ?closed-minded fools?.

In a recent discussion with a proponent of alternative history, I was
flabbergasted to be asked if the Tanis Stone had ever been used to help
with the understanding of hieroglyph translations. The question was
patently absurd. Budge, who has been improved and updated several times
since he did his works, wrote an entire volume on the Tanis Stone... in
*1904!* It?s akin to asking a computer engineer if he?d ever heard of
the ?Internet?. I responded with the following story, which I hope gives
a little glimpse of the level and depth of the expertise that already
exists in the field of human history, but more specifically, Egyptology.

*************

/*While in Saqqara, I was trying to get away from the "regular"
spots visited by the tourists. As I trudged out across the sands to
the southeast, I found some mounds that held new, different
structures. It wasn't "dig season", so the outer areas were devoid
of life. The only sound was the wind on the sand. My guide was well
behind me when I climbed over the dune, and walked down onto the
floor of a tomb from the fifth dynasty. It was impressive. It was
beautiful. It had an air of antiquity and solitude, well-hidden, way
out in the desert. As I turned the corner of a hallway, and went
back into one of the chambers, I realized I was not alone. There,
sitting in front of a heavily inscribed false door, was a young man,
in his early twenties. His blond hair tossled by the heat and the
sweat, he didn't even look up at me. He was sitting in a rough
wooden chair, meticulously rendering the hieroglyphs into his
notepad. Not knowing where he was from, or what language he spoke, I
stopped behind him for just a brief moment. In that moment, I
uttered one word... he understood it. */

/*I asked, "Thesis?" */

/*He said, "Yes." */

/*
Egypt and its artifacts have been scoured, studied, examined,
translated, debated, dissected and reviewed for hundreds of years.
What you see on the internet, or in books, represents only a
microscopic percentage of what is actually there. And if you go, you
will find things there that you thought didn't exist, because
they're NOT in the books or on the internet. Rooms and passages
where you've never heard of them (like the surprises I found in the
pyramid of Khufu). But they ARE known. They are well known to the
people who have made it their livelihood to know such things. */

/*Professors. Students of Egyptology. Archaeologists. Linguists. */

/*They know it's there... because that's what they do. Just like the
student I ran into out in the desert of Saqqara. The tomb was new to
me, but he had already researched the area, proposed his project
based on this specific tomb, and was out there doing his thesis
work. His livelihood... his life, revolved around the person who had
been buried in this tomb, and what was written on the false door to
this tomb. */

/*And to this date, I still couldn't even tell you the name of the
person who was buried there over four thousand years ago. */

/*Please have some respect for the amount of work that has been
done. It's not the wasteland of ignorance that the alternative
authors portray it to be. Not at all.*/

*******************

Somehow, I think the Alternative Historians? quest to rewrite human
history in their own image speaks more of a mid-life crisis then a true
desire to contribute. What I think we?re seeing is a strong desire to
immortalize /*themselves*/, and not the people they are supposedly
studying. But that?s just my attempt at delving into the field of
psychology. I could be engaging in a little projection. I don't rule out
the possibility, but having considered it, I feel confident in lessening
its likely impact on my observations. If a trained professional
psychologist/psychiatrist/social worker wishes to show me where I?m
wrong, I?ll be happy to adjust my hypothesis.

After all, revising the field of human psychology is not my goal. I just
like to understand the world in which I live.

So, you ask "what harm can come of irresponsibly rewriting history?"
Well, let me say this. It was the illogical, unevidenced rewriting of
known history that gave a certain German corporal the ability to rally a
country... and using their claimed "Lost Civilization" heritage, justify
the extermination of six-million Jews.

*He who forgets history is doomed to repeat it. He who carelessly
rewrites history dooms all of humanity.* 

______________

* (c) 2002 Anthony Sakovich *

*Sakovich at msn.com*

* *