Forum

Roger DAltavilla

A mass burial of Polish soldiers was found near Katyn, which is just over 60 years old; at the time of its discovery, it was even younger. The debates about how to interpret this find constantly flare up when someone wants to portray us in a negative light, twisting and manipulating the information to suit their agenda. And yet, you claim that it is possible to draw definitive conclusions based on finds that are over five hundred years old. Bold.

Populists and other small-minded individuals want to use history to paint us in a bad light. For historians, Katyn is a very clear and unambiguous event.

Added 31 minutes later

There should be a little less pathos and a little more specifics. If you are familiar with the university course on the methodology of history, it will not be difficult for you to illustrate with a couple of specific examples how it is possible to confirm, without using written sources, only through archaeological research:

- the allied relations between A and B
- the regular payment of tribute from A to B
- the existence of direct authority of B over A

It's easy, but I'm lazy. So, just one example. Moreover, I will manage without written sources, and even without archaeological research.

So - the regular payment of tribute from A to B.
Do you know what started the study (I would even say the discovery) of the Norman conquest of England? It started with the fact that one scholar noticed that in the English language, the names of domestic animals have Saxon origins, and the names of meat from these animals have French origins.
pig - pig
pork - pork
sheep - sheep
lamb - lamb
calf - calf
veal - veal
One people raised the animals, and another ate them. :)
Of course, one fact did not prove anything, but it was added to another fact, then another, and finally, the English realized that England had a glorious history even before William the Conqueror.

P.S. I specifically gave the simplest examples, as in Russian, the name of an animal and meat does not always coincide (beef - cow, bull)
P.P.S. I did not claim that history does not rely on written sources; I claimed that written sources are always verified by archaeology. And the data from archaeology is more eloquent and reliable than any chronicle.