Blog # 4: Misinterpreting History

When historical sites, religious or not, are examined without context, such as the Indian Mounds, they are frequently misinterpreted. The number of times that people studying the mounds jumped to incorrect conclusions was surprisingly high, and even though they had so little information to go on, they continued to project their ideas of what the mounds should be or where they should have come from (the "lost race") onto the sites.

When we consider what future civilizations might find if our race dies out and all thats left is the ruins of modern life, it is very hard to know what they might think. We discussed which of our technologies or everyday items, like televisions, might be the most useful, or helpful in demonstrating the basic principles of our culture. I believe that no matter what future generations find, if they cannot read our literature or there is no other historical recording of our culture, they are guaranteed to come to the wrong conclusions. Unless they are much better at divining the meaning behind crumbling buildings and remnants of objects, they will have as much luck at determining our ideas and beliefs as we have had with the Native Americans.

The idea of learning about an ancient civilization is a very interesting prospect, but when the chances of correctly interpreting the evidence and remains are so slim, it is discouraging. I find it amazing though, how so many people still can examine such small amounts of fossils or other remains, and assume that they can understand so much about a culture from so little evidence to back up their claims. So many people seem to think that they can so easily understand exactly what caused ancient civilizations to function the way they did. Although its frustrating to follow strict science, since the solid answers are so few, its my opinion that it's better to have a few right answers, then many wrong ones.