Do you think that modern scholars use modern ideas to interpret and explain ancient thinking?

Question

Do you think that it is true that scholars have used modern sensibilities and ideas to interpret and explain some of the unknown uses and thinking behind ancient buildings.

I often read that some of the uses for the different parts of ancient Egyptian temple and pyramid complexes are not known. Zawi Hawas the director of Egyptian antiquites had said that since the remains of pyramid construction workers were found on the Giza plateau they could not have been slaves because the king would never have allowed slaves to be buried near his monument. How can anyone know this. Modern abhorrence of slavery tends to make some people think that it was always held in such high contempt. To me this a case of modern thinking used to present a case for something that is not known.

Answer 1

It's one of the problems of modern interpretations of history. The historicists are being laughed back to the 19th century while revisionists (bless their hearts for being right once in a while) are starting to speak of history in a teleological manner again. Teleology is the idea that history is going somewhere. So when they talk about what's happened, they regard it in terms of whether or not its working toward the end or against it (not to be political - I'm a Canadian anyway - but George Bush speaks of history in a very teleological manner, i.e. anything that happens is either working in "freedom's favour" or in the "terrorists' favour"). Now to address your point, what you have described is called Presentism. Presentism is very useful for those who think of history teleologically and for people who just plain don't have the capicity to realize that things simply were not the same. These are the people who ask questions on here like "Why were people racists in the 1960's" or "Why didn't people notice in the 1500's that...". These are people who can't fathom that people didn't think the same things we think now, and that that doesn't make them monsters or ignorant or whatever word you want to stick on them to imply that we're somehow better (all working toward that teleological end, remember?). That's when presentist thinking comes in. Your example of slave graves is a good one. Maybe the Pharaoh's LOVED their slaves. Who knows? Simply making the assumption that someone felt the same way about another someone as we would today, thousands of years later, is kind of a stretch. Unless there is some evidence (maybe a letter where the pharaoh talks about his "#&@^# slaves" perhaps, or even a later record that would suggest a good probability that that's how the pharaoh felt about his slaves, you have to be honest and admit that you do not know the answer. The problem with history is that it is gone forever and never coming back. It's up to the historian to make primary sources speak for the history. If there is no source to back up a theory, a theory is must remain (although some theories are pretty well established as fact, some are just stretches of the imagination!). If you want to know more about this subject try reading von Ranke, often considered the father of modern historicism. Hope this helps.

Good luck!

Answer 2

We can only think in our own criteria. The way we understand history is coverd by ours age point of view. To try to do it going (mentally) to the way those thoughts were made would enrich our conclusions. But that it is almost impossible.

Answer 3

I think it is quite impossible not to take some of ourselves into our studies. The best we can hope for is a thought experiment, trying to place ourselves in the place of a person of the time studied and trying to keep our personal biases in mind.