FACTS IN THE GROUND: Keep Digging For Historical Truth.

History is more often just related to what people tell themselves their past was, not what the actual facts were. In every sense there is even more truth in this perception when you factor the interpretation of findings.
The scholarly field must have a strict adherence to ethics to overcome the human tendencies toward biases, personal ideologies, or personal profit, when producing their works. If we have difficulties interpreting the evidence in relatively recent events, let's say, just a couple centuries removed from our present, like finding the exact events and facts on the process of the American Revolution, and the thinking of its protagonists beyond the bare Declaration of the Independence, the Constitution that emerged from the process, and the subsequent Amendments, consider these other aspects.
How was the reality of the organized power in the Revolutionary camp, and its incidence in the life and commerce of the communities involved in the Revolution. The truth is that there was not an instant in which spontaneously and simultaneously every one of the thirteen original colonies selected their delegates and got them together to craft the resolutions that shaped our history. There were many more individuals that had relevant participation in the slow process that coalesced in the group of signatories of the Declaration of Independence, and many more that influenced the temporary organization that evolved in the aftermath of the signing. All the scholar work and research done on this subject since then still is not certain of having inventoried every detail of the process and there might be substantial aspects which haven't been addressed which could alter our perception of the chain of events.
Then, when we want to examine the more ancient events, say like the development, rise and fall of the fortunes of Cartage's quasi-empire, or the Roman Empire built over its ashes (and the Etruscan ashes as well) while cannibalizing the feudal type remains of Alexander's empire, we got ourselves into real troubles. Letters, narratives, and even those works claiming to report history, were written with a purpose in mind, that of shaping the thought of those to whom the work was addressed and therefore reflecting the intents, ideologies, and personal or institutional objectives of the authors. Before we interpret such evidence, even if we can connect the told events to actual remains found in the stage on which they evolved, we must get a clear idea what those intents, ideologies, and personal and institutional objectives of the purported authors were, plus, given the fact that little of the originals ever reached us, the same considerations were given to the copyists, and the copyists of the copyists, that made such works be known by us.
And we need to perform our task with a clear understanding of the epistemology of the wider field that encompasses History, Archaeology, and even Anthropology. Sadly, we have to concede that such epistemology as yet it is not completely developed and too many grey areas leave scholars with the freedom to inject their own personal aims in the creative work they undertake. What hardly can give us assurance that we would ever know what the true history of the past was. But a scholar's fortune is built upon this ground.

Frank Rommey ©2007
Blog: http://rommey-onthebridge.blogspot.com/
http://groups.msn.com/NatureandSpirit/