Why are idiots on this board so against historical reconstructions? do you not understand that archaeologists help create them? they are used in books published by actual archaeologists, in museums, on scientific websites.Why are you so boring and schizo? don't you want to know what the past actually looked like instead of looking at ugly ruins? I'm tired of the paranoia and distrust of anything that isn't directly observable on this website. Why not just merge /his/ with /x/? let's just have a bunch of flat earth threads if you don't trust anything that is directly observable or science. Also, this is a cool fun thread for historic reconstructions anyway. Ignore low iq schizos from /pol/ that aren't even interested in history or the truth.
Actually, why do you idiots trust a ruin or a photo of a helmet in a museum? its just pixels on a screen right? you're not observing it directly so its just as trustworthy using your batshit schizo "logic" as this CGI model.
Why do schizo /pol/tards come to a history board if they don't even care about or believe in history?
>>18264953>>18264954The hard to swallow truth is that most historical narratives dated to before the printing press are just some boomer's personal fantasy and or state-sponsored propaganda. Credentials are used to push this extremely detailed rundown of how things were based on a tiny fraction of tangible evidence that could be just as easily extrapolated to one side as to another. Your pretty pictures are glorified fanart. I have as much respect for historians in their respective fields as for fiction authors, in all things not demonstrated without a shadow of a doubt by hard science.
>>18264961>The hard to swallow truth is that most historical narratives dated to before the printing press are just some boomer's personal fantasyWhy are you on a history board if you don't believe in history schizo? go to >>>/x/
>>18264963I believe in some history. I'm not taking everything at face value though.
>>18264961>Your pretty pictures are glorified fanartJust accept that these are very close to reality and are supported by a lot of evidence. Nothing is perfect we need a time machine for that but they are very close to how things looked in ancient rome.Recreating the past is fun looking at ugly boring ruins and rusted junk is not. Your schizophrenia is making you a tedious bore.
>>18264966>I believe in some history.What they means is you don't care about the actual truth you selectively believe whatever you want. I guarantee you are a Christian and believe everything in the bible with no skepticism then claim these reconstructions are just fantasy lol.
I'll post roman villas
Physical model
>>18264969I somewhat agreed with you some reconstructions could be beneficial, but you are so fucking annoying I agree with him now. Fuck reconstructions and fuck you.
>>18264968History is not meant to be fun, manchild. It's a serious science, not a conduit for your personal aesthetic amusement.
I bet idiots just think these villas are made up. I can show you the plans of them and ruins all of them are real sites.
>>18264980Because you have a low iq and a schizoid personality also you're an insufferable bore that needs to fuck off to /x/.
>>18264981>History is not meant to be funWhat an absolutely dumb thing to type if it wasn't fun people wouldn't participate in reenactments. This is such a dumb statement that it's hard to retort it.>manchildYou're just an insufferable paranoid bore that believes in a skydaddy with not an ounce of skepticism like a child believing in the tooth fairy and you call me a manchild lmao.
Do any of you morons actually want to know what ancient Rome looked like? imagine yourself there? this is what I mean by insufferable bores.
You keep crying, but fail to rebut the main criticism of historical reconstructions which is that they are largely guesswork. Regardless of how much "archaeologists help to create them," they cannot ever know for certain what any given building looked like in 99% of cases.
>>18264989>they are largely guessworkBuilt on mountains of evidence. They are pretty close to how it looked.>they cannot ever know for certain what any given building looked like in 99% of cases.This is bullshit and science denial bore. An "argument" from incredulity is not an argument.
>>18264989>they cannot ever know for certain what any given building looked like in 99% of cases.The thickness of a building’s walls and the depth of its foundations can indicate how tall the structure could safely be. Romans built thicker walls for taller buildings, so archaeologists can use proportions from surviving walls. This is one method of determining the appearance of an ancient building and only in regard to height just ONE! Your incredulity is not an argument.
>>18264992>>18264996samefagging retardyou can get the dimensions and figure how safely it could be built or whatever but you don't have the same building methods knowledge, knowledge of the paints they used or what designs were on the building, etc. There's still always guesswork even if it's a pretty good guess, so most people want to err on the side of caution and not mirepresent the past just because people like you find that less boring.
Another villa
>>18264996okay some of that is true but mainly just for Roman reconstructions, in the OP you were talking about historical reconstructions in general, not one of the most heavily studied societies of all time
>>18265000>but you don't have the same building methods knowledge, knowledge of the paints they used or what designs were on the buildingThis comes from out of your ass. Your incredulity and ignorance of how archaeology and science works is not an argument.Traces of Pigments have been found on Walls and Objects, even if the color looks faded to the naked eye, microscopic analysis can detect residual pigments embedded in the plaster. X-ray fluorescence (XRF), Raman spectroscopy, and mass spectrometry identify the chemical composition of ancient pigments on walls.They know a hell of a lot about ancient roman paint you absolute retard. Red came from Cinnabar (mercury sulfide) or red ochre (iron oxide) That's one example of what they know about ancient roman painting.>samefagging retardWhat's this? gonna try an ad populum on a board filled with drooling religious idiots? Yeah that other post was from me.
>>18265000>so most people want to err on the side of cautionBecause people are scientifically ignorant paranoid idiots that don't possess basic logic. The only reconstructions that are usually grossly false are from Hollywood movies and pop culture, most of these illustrations and models you see floating around on google are actually very accurate if you know anything about archaeology. The reason why? because a lot of them are from books.
I love this one
Roman limes the border between the empire and Germania.
Roman villa from Britain
>>18265022Here's the archaeological plan for it.
>>18265030
>>18265021
>>18265008>he actually thinks that fact/fiction were separate concepts to Roman historians
I'll post illustrations of villas
Germanic warriors visit a roman villa
I'll post some cool reconstructions of Queen Cleopatras palaces. The interesting thing about her palaces is they used hybrid architecture a mix of Greek, Egyptian and Persian styles.
>>18265068
>>18265072You can see Persian influence here.
>>18265076
>>18265079
>>18265081
>>18265072>>18265076>>18265079>>18265081these most certainly looked nothing like this. here's your babel tower, bro
>>18265086Fuck off science denier >>>/x/
Strong Persian influence here.
>>18265087there's nothing scientific about those, there's no way to conclude with any relevant degree of certainty what the ornament of long gone portions of structures looked like, that weren't even present in the remains we find today.
>>18265091Fuck off science denier >>>/x/
>>18265087>>18265094can't tell if bait or retarded
>>18265100Here's your you also fuck off science denier >>>/x/>Ignore low iq schizos from /pol/ that aren't even interested in history or the truth.
>>18265105You ignore every argument while spamming the other person is a schizo /x/pol/tard science denier, you unironically behave more like a schizo than anyone else here>>18265111>This is what I imagine the Serapeum district could have looked likeWhy are you pretending this is science, not even these artists who make the shit you're posting claim it is
>>18265111>This is what I IMAGINE the Serapeum district COULD have looked like around 31 BC.>I IMAGINE the Serapeum on top of the hill>The Stadium COULD have a colonnade MAYBE in red granite>I IMAGINE an open spaceyou're a fucking retard
>>18265100This artist is a historian hahahahahaha! science denier.https://independent.academia.edu/MichaelBengtsson/CurriculumVitaehttps://independent.academia.edu/MichaelBengtssonYou're a narcissist at the peak of dunning kruger.
>>18265123And a narcissist that knows fuck all, this artist is a historian.
>>18265118>You ignore every argumentAnd destroyed every "argument" already gaslighter kys.>Why are you pretending this is scienceWhy are you pretending you know more then a historian?https://independent.academia.edu/MichaelBengtsson/CurriculumVitae
Your the one that needs to go to x, your posting literally fan fiction pictures that are so far from reality its laughable.
>>18265158I'm posting art from a historian science denier.
>>18264981>It's a serious scienceIt's not a science. It's not supposed because it's outside the boundaries of what "hard" or "soft" science.
Some interesting very modern looking roman houses.
>>18265177You know fuck all about science, history or anything go here schizo >>>/x/
The trouble is, what do you reconstruction?Take for example the Acropolis.It was originally a Mycenaen palace. Do you knock everything down and rebuild it as that? Keeping in mind we have no real idea what it looked like.It took its first recognisable form as a small temple to Athena which was burned down by the Persians and the new temple built on top of. Do you knock everything down and rebuild it as that? Again losing the iconic Parthenon and with little knowledge of what it should be like.Then it was built as the current Parthenon and associated buildings. Do you restore all those bits, including the statues and sculptures?But then it was a Christian church, for hundreds of years longer than it was a pagan temple. Do you reconstruct it as that? The current Orthodox church will be happy with that but the tourism ministry less so.Then part of it was a palace for the ruling westerners after the 4th crusade. Do you rebuild it as that, complete with tower? Noone wanted that and tore it down just over a hundred years ago.Then it was blown up by the Turks and Venetians and left in ruins for hundreds of years. That's how most people have viewed it and depicted it for hundreds of years at this point.So, which of these mutually exclusive forms do you choose? Keeping in mind we would have to destroy a sizable portion of the rest of the site and spend billions to achieve this. Just to build a Disneyland fantasy version of what people think it should look like rather than what it actually does.
>>18264989they know, they have 3d images from alien cameras
>>18264953I have never seen threads here that were against reconstructions. Only you stating so (this is the second time I have seen you do this).Outside of online circlejerks reconstructions are unattractive due to the following reasons (and probably some more):1) money is tight and reconstructions are very expensive2) people have grown to like the ruins3) the ruins themselves have often been incorporated into the living societies and have their own history. They don't exist in a vacuum. Case in point: should the Palazzo Senatorio be demolished in order to fully restore the Tabularium? >>18265210Good point. My history professor said once that historic buildings are comparable to a palimpsest - a piece of parchment that has often been scraped off in order to reuse it. Traces of the old "writing" still exist and are incorporated into the new "writing".
>>18265273Just look to Knossos for what happens when reconstructions are allowed to run wild. Half of it is total fantasy in art deco style concrete and the other half is scraps crudely mashed together to make one whole out of many smaller pieces. The "Prince of the Lillies" for instance is at least 3 people, with a mans legs facing the wrong way from a different man's body and with a woman's head dress, with a whoooole load of imagination to fill in the rest. People want to apply the same approach to whole sites...
