"Oh, we’re rewriting history again? 🙄" Topic

link

Sorry, Tango. Beat you to it!

Every time I see the annoying headline about "rewriting history", all it means is that "they" got it wrong the first time.
Harrumph.

How you dare…!? (smile)

Armand

Stupid historians, letting new information change their conclusions.

What next, do we discover The Humours don't cause the pox?

???

The article doesn't apply any negative connotations to "rewrite." Nor does the word itself have such connotations, except in a political setting, which this article is not. It's a factual piece, and the term "rewrite" merely being a fancier stand-in for "changing" or "improving" with a dash of significance.

Nothing to see here, aside from the interesting development in our understanding of ancient Egypt.

Of course if you're among the "aliens must have done it" crowd, no one here can help you.

It's the clickbait title.

History is what the present finds useful to remember about the past. It is constantly being rewritten.

More a case of the scientific method of a hypothesis being reevaluated in the face of new data.

I agree with John, the title is clickbait. The article mentions the pyramids in passing, there is no grand revelation as to how the pyramids were built. At best, the revelation relates to the fact that advanced building techniques originated earlier than thought. Is this really earth shattering? I imagine that the ancients didn't decide to build the pyramids using new and untested techniques. I remember when newspaper reporters and editors actually knew how to write. For example, do the newly discovered tombs predate the "remarkably similar" tombs of the First Dynasty rulers? Regardless, is it that out of the question to find two contemporaneously constructed burial structures using similar building techniques? Egypt was a unified political entity, I am sure that there were building inspectors taking bribes from people all over the country wanting to build tombs.

But what does the Scorpion king have to do with it?

History is always rewritten in article headlines because "New Finds Fill in Details" doesn't get a lot of clicks.

Headlines are not articles. I learned that long ago in journalism class in high school— though we were taught to at least make them relevant to the article content. "Rewrite" is charged, yes, but actually in context isn't inappropriate unless one intentionally reads political stances into it which aren't present. The irony is that the imagined political-clicker would read the article and find themselves learning something. While, of course, the anti-headlne person gets hung up on that same assumed political-clicker and doesn't apparently learn anything from the article at all.

Also, there are a lot of qualifiers in the article. When you see words like,

could, might, should, suggests etc.

be on guard!

I take exception to your taking exception to the rewriting of history, which has already been rewritten several times. How dare they change our accepted notions of the past.

What I dislike is that something is "discovered."
Someone dug up a cache of coins from Samarkand in Scotland.
Or an alternate translation of the Elder Edda has a new take on Viking women.
Hmmm… interesting.
But the clickbait headline shrieks "This new discovery will rewrite history!"

Am I not allowed to be annoyed? Why?

Has anyone ever stopped you being annoyed? ?

Should we arrange a visit from the empathy police?

If the study of history has a point it is almost certainly that it can be reinterpreted.

What "annoys" me is the clickbait headline. 🙄

What do you expect from the Daily Mail anyhow?