What does this sign mean?

[Ratman_tf]

There are lots of reasons why archeoligists could delude themselves, fudge the evidence or even downright fabricate it!.

I give you 'Piltdown Man'.

Indeed. But I don't have much truck with letting the uncertain nature of history paralyze me into inactivity.

You just aknowledge the margin for error and move on, open to new data in the future.

Are you suggesting academic paralyzation since we can't know the past (or anything, for that matter) with 100% certainty?

 

[CFLarsen]

How can you be sure the Roman coin was not located there in recent times? How can you be sure of the authenticity? Do you accept some things and not others, because of your own beliefs in what is and what is not acceptable, to you?

You're not listening. I said we can never be sure, but we can work towards an increased certainty.

If we dig down, and haven't found any other sign that people have been there in recent times, then we can say with as much certainty as we can possibly achieve that the coin was placed there at the time when the other artifacts were also placed there.

As for authenticity, we have plenty of Roman coins to compare with. Can we find similar coins in the countries between Rome and Denmark? Does the evidence support other evidence? If so, then it strengthens the evidence.

Digging in a bog is not like digging in a sand dune: It leaves tracks.

There are lots of reasons why archeoligists could delude themselves, fudge the evidence or even downright fabricate it!.

I give you 'Piltdown Man'.

Thanks for proving my point! The PM was puzzling because he didn't fit the sequence of evolution. And when scrutinized, it turned out that PM was a dud.

That some scientists are crooks does not invalidate the whole field.

Indeed. This why I say that history is in a constant form of change.

That doesn't make it a figment of the imagination.

You might check out the eminently readable, and Sainted, P. V. Glob for a nice introduction to Northern Archeology. His book, The Bog People" is really wonderful.

Glob is certainly worth the effort.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Indeed. This why I say that history is in a constant form of change.

History itself is not in constant change. What happened, happened and there is no changing it. Our understanding of history, though, is subject to constant revision.

As Earhtborn said, history is not an exact science. It's more like detective work. Just as sometimes a police detective finds a new piece of evidence that changes his idea of how a crime was commited or who did it, a historian finds new clues that changes his view of how a historical event happened. In neither case did any of the FACTS change, only the interpretation of those facts.

Like with science, though, the ability to adapt to revise theories as new evidence comes to light is a good thing, because that is how both disciplines correct themselves

 

[Nyarlathotep]

And this is my point: Can we, over time, accept a change in the meaning of symbols, and if so, when should we do it?

In this case, the change seems not to have been deliberate, but is it possible to use, say, the Swastika in some other form, changing the meaning it has today? The Swastika was merely an old sun sign, before Hitler chose it as a symbol for his movement.

Well, I don't think that it is a matter of whether we accept it or not. The change in the meaning of the symbol sort of happens without most people consciously deciding that the symbols meaning is going to change. Over time more and more people just assume the new meaning rather than the old one and, eventually the symbol assumes the new meaning witht he old meaning only being remembered by historians and those with an interest in the subject. the peace/nuclear disarmament symbol is well along that process.

I don't know that there is a magic threshold where x% of the population assumes the new meaning and thus the symbol now officially means the new meaning, but given enough time for the new meaning meme to spread, the symbol will eventually come to be associated with its new meaning rather than the old one

 

[CFLarsen]

Nyarlathotep,

I agree, but it's the "transition process" I find interesting. There isn't such a huge gap between a TND sign and a Peace sign, but it would sure take a lot of cases where the swastika was used for its original purpose (or who knows - perhaps a brand new purpose?), before the new meaning would be accepted.

 

[Ed]

There are lots of reasons why archeoligists could delude themselves, fudge the evidence or even downright fabricate it!.

I give you 'Piltdown Man'.

An exception that proves the rule I'm afraid. I'm sure that it happens, occasionally. In India evidentially a group of Archeologists have been suborned into supporting that a temple site (currently occupied by a Mosque) has ancient Hindu roots. Not unlike that fraud Targ subverting her integrity because of a belief system supportable only by lies.

Real science, however, tends toward self correcting. Those who lie are disgraced, in woosearch, they write books. That is the major difference I think. The "peer" group in paranormal circles are all unindited co-conspiritors.

 

[Ed]

There are lots of reasons why archeoligists could delude themselves, fudge the evidence or even downright fabricate it!.

I give you 'Piltdown Man'.

An exception that proves the rule I'm afraid. I'm sure that it happens, occasionally. In India evidentially a group of Archeologists have been suborned into supporting that a temple site (currently occupied by a Mosque) has ancient Hindu roots. Not unlike that fraud Targ subverting her integrity because of a belief system supportable only by lies.

Real science, however, tends toward self correcting. Those who lie are disgraced, in woosearch, they write books. That is the major difference I think. The "peer" group in paranormal circles are all unindited co-conspiritors.

 

[Bikewer]

As I recall from reading Gould about the Piltdown Man fraud, the fabricator only displayed the artifact briefly, then scrupulously hid it away from the scientific community. He knew it would not stand close scrutiny.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Nyarlathotep,

I agree, but it's the "transition process" I find interesting. There isn't such a huge gap between a TND sign and a Peace sign, but it would sure take a lot of cases where the swastika was used for its original purpose (or who knows - perhaps a brand new purpose?), before the new meaning would be accepted.

I also think that there are other factors besides how many people are using it for what purpose. The swastika is a good example, it has a very emotionally charged meaning for most people. I don't think any attempt to change its meaning could ever succeed until enough time has passed that the Nazis become just a bad incident in the history books rarther thatn sometihg that living breathing people either lived through or heard stories about from their parents, grandparents etc. A good couple of generations are going to have to pass, I think, before the swastika will cease to carry the emotional weight it has now and could ever mean anything besides "Nazi" in people's minds.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Claus, it's a bit like calling yourself a 'skeptic'. People will tend to think a skeptic is a dishonest liar.

 

[Dancing David]

An exception that proves the rule I'm afraid. I'm sure that it happens, occasionally. In India evidentially a group of Archeologists have been suborned into supporting that a temple site (currently occupied by a Mosque) has ancient Hindu roots. Not unlike that fraud Targ subverting her integrity because of a belief system supportable only by lies.

Do you mean Ayodha?

There is a hindu temple under the wreckage of the mosque.

Even better is the number of Buddhist sites that have been claimed by the followers of Shiwa.

 

[Ed]

Do you mean Ayodha?

There is a hindu temple under the wreckage of the mosque.

Even better is the number of Buddhist sites that have been claimed by the followers of Shiwa.

Gotta look it up, it was in Archeology for Idiots last month....

It sure sounded (if we are talking about the same place) that the Gvt. sponcered guys were playing a bit fast and loost with the truth .... I'll find the article this evening. In any event it is a scandal a brewing.

 

[Z]

interesting history - some claim it was adopted by the CND from earlier 'hate symbols' - indeed, this generic emblem in one form or another has existed for centuries, but was only known as the Peace Symbol from the 1960s onward in the U.S.

It's a lot like other significant symbols - the origin of the Swastika, the Cross, the Star of David, the Pentagram/Pentacle... all symbols perverted or distorted at some point to take on a new meaning... all symbols that make us think things now that they may never have intended.

Kinda like flicking the middle finger at someone. Is that a universal insult, BTW? Since we obviously have international voices here, is the Bird now an international insult?

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Kinda like flicking the middle finger at someone. Is that a universal insult, BTW? Since we obviously have international voices here, is the Bird now an international insult?

No. Although I have noticed the classic "V" sign (not V for Victory from WW2) seems to be sadly in decline and today's youth seems to be adopting the one finger version.

 

[CFLarsen]

A good couple of generations are going to have to pass, I think, before the swastika will cease to carry the emotional weight it has now and could ever mean anything besides "Nazi" in people's minds.

I'm trying to remember if there is a symbol that has dramatically changed meaning over a relatively short period of time. Hmmm.....

Claus, it's a bit like calling yourself a 'skeptic'. People will tend to think a skeptic is a dishonest liar.

Back to the insults, the smears, the lies, eh? Fool.

 

[richardm]

I'm trying to remember if there is a symbol that has dramatically changed meaning over a relatively short period of time. Hmmm.....

Well, the swastika itself changed meaning over a few years back in the 1930s

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, the swastika itself changed meaning over a few years back in the 1930s

...why, yes! Good example!

That's going "good-to-bad". Any examples of going "bad-to-good"? Perhaps we are more prone to let a symbol stay "bad"?

 

[richardm]

Perhaps. It's certainly hard to think of one that's gone the other way! It's interesting also that some symbols appear to remain neutral - I'm thinking of the fasces, here, which was heavily co-opted by the Italian Fascists, but which still remains on the wall of the US Senate. I wonder if a swastika would have survived if they'd happened to have had one of those as part of the interior decor?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I'm trying to remember if there is a symbol that has dramatically changed meaning over a relatively short period of time. Hmmm.....

But when the swastika got co-opted by the nazis it didn't carry all the "baggage" it has now. I couldn't say for certain but I am willing to bet it didn't really have ANY meaning to the average person prior to the rise of the Nazis.

 

[The Don]

Perhaps. It's certainly hard to think of one that's gone the other way! It's interesting also that some symbols appear to remain neutral - I'm thinking of the fasces, here, which was heavily co-opted by the Italian Fascists, but which still remains on the wall of the US Senate. I wonder if a swastika would have survived if they'd happened to have had one of those as part of the interior decor?

Well there's a Swastika on the side on one of the elephants at the Carlsberg Brewery..

http://www.mykreeve.net/copenhagen/other_areas/carlsberg_brewery/ (picture of the elephants is at the bottom)