I’m a history nerd who also happens to be Korean. And if you know anything about Korean history, you know they loved to write everything down. Just so you get an idea, Korean archaeologists recently identified a medieval firearm with 28 letters denoting the weapon’s name, weight, serial number, who manufactured it and when, and the name and status of the official overseeing the initiative. Too much? Maybe. Useful? Absolutely.

Archaeologists actually suspected that a weapon like this exists, thanks to numerous manuscripts from the era alluding to the firearm. But they weren’t able to find one in the flesh, which was why the discovery was a big deal—and that brings us to this week’s Giz Asks.

Scholars of the prehistoric and ancient worlds must grapple with the fact that they’re dealing with imperfect evidence: damaged buildings, surviving objects, incomplete records, and scattered human remains. But even if the physical evidence is scarce, the “traces” of human history are still out there—there are patterns to be drawn from different sources. And, thanks to record-loving people like the Koreans, historical manuscripts can tell us how things were back then.

So, like most things in science, it’s complicated—and that’s why we asked the experts. What are some seemingly “obvious” ideas about the prehistoric and ancient world that we assume are true, even though the evidence either doesn’t exist or could be stronger? Are these assumptions a reasonable benchmark or a serious flaw? What would it take for these ideas to find firmer scientific footing?

Source link