Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 34

Thread: Menyelidiki akurasi pencatatan sejarah

  1. #1
    Barista AsLan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    9,288

    Menyelidiki akurasi pencatatan sejarah

    Just as an Arms Race raged between the super-powers in the 1960s, so an Age Race raged among the ancient civilizations in the centuries before Christ’s birth. Each claimed to have the oldest history. While some writers seemed interested in the truth, others were playing a game to see who could spin the biggest and most convincing yarn about the antiquity of their nation.
    Greece’s history supposedly went back eighteen hundred years; Egypt’s, eleven thousand years; and Babylon’s, a whopping 730,000 years (par. 193–194).1
    In the first centuries after Christ, Christians like Eusebius (the “father of church history”) tried to reconstruct an accurate world chronology, reconciling the Bible with pagan chronologies, but with little success. The ancient king lists had been so doctored that it proved impossible to sort out the truth. Ever since, Christians and non-Christians have been trying to make sense of ancient chronologies, with equal frustration.
    Isaac Newton to the Rescue
    No less a person than Isaac Newton, sometimes called “the greatest mind of all time,” dabbled in this topic throughout his life. He eventually collected his thoughts into a book, The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended (1728), published a year after he died.
    Though he did not have the advantage of modern archaeology, Newton was so well read in the classical Greek and Latin writers that he was able to detect serious problems in the dating of ancient records before 700 BC.
    His basic claims are solid:
    God’s Word is correct in every detail, including its history, so it must be our starting point (par. 410–415).
    Except for the Bible itself, the other histories of early nations were not recorded until well after the events had passed (par. 483–484). For example, the first historian to write about ancient Egypt (apart from Moses) was Herodotus (c. 484–425 BC).
    Most records of early history were lost or distorted as a result of repeated foreign invasions (par. 517).
    Ancient peoples were not averse to making big assumptions to fill in the gaps (par. 193).
    Newton alludes to the Persian invasion of Egypt as an example. In 525–523 BC the Persians under Cambyses invaded Egypt and destroyed most of the historical records that the Assyrians and other previous nations had missed. The Egyptian priests were left to reconstruct most of their history from memory, and their efforts were not without guile.
    Newton explains, “After Cambyses had carried away the records of Egypt, the priests were daily feigning new kings, to make their gods and nation look more ancient” (par. 517). When Herodotus visited Egypt in the mid-fifth century BC, the priests had constructed a list of 341 Egyptian kings reigning some 11,340 years! Even Herodotus was dubious.
    Fishy Figures
    Newton points out that except for biblical history, early historians did not use absolute dates until around 250 BC. Before that time, they usually marked time by the reign of kings. The Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians assumed that an average of three kings reigned for every century, and they pigeonholed dates accordingly (par. 204).
    Newton asked himself, “Is this reasonable?” He then analyzed the dynasties of a dozen other known kingdoms, such as the English monarchs. To his surprise the average reign was only eighteen to twenty years, about half of what ancient pagan historians had claimed. Even in biblical times, the kings of the Southern Kingdom ruled an average of a little over twenty-one years each, while those of the Northern Kingdom reigned about seventeen years each.
    Newton was particularly interested in Greek history because the Greeks were the first to record their history, and they connected many events to the Olympiads, which were held every four years. By pinning down important dates in Greece’s history, such as Jason’s expedition with the Argonauts, Newton believed he could easily connect this fixed date to events in other countries.
    Applying what he learned about the average length of a king’s reign, half of Greece’s recorded history before 700 BC evaporated! For example, the Trojan War and Argonaut expedition were much more recent than is usually assumed, Newton argued. He also found that other king lists, such as the list of Roman kings, had exaggerated the length of their reigns, and so the lists should be cut in half.
    Newton then proceeded to look at the histories of other nations, such as Egypt, rejecting any fictitious names or mythological eras. By his reckoning, based on the information available in his day, he calculated that only twenty-two names reflected real kings in ancient Egypt (par. 486).
    Putting Together the Pieces
    As Alexander’s empire splintered into warring kingdoms, each had a vested interest in promoting its own history. A veritable “cottage industry” of fabricated histories flourished, as each competed to spin the biggest yarn.
    Few historical accounts have survived from authors who lived before Alexander the Great (356–323 BC) led his Greek army across the “known world,” conquering the former domains of Babylonia/Assyria/Persia, Egypt, and India. Older histories are sometimes quoted by later authors, but the works themselves do not survive. So we must rely on the later authors.
    The problem is that, as Alexander’s empire splintered into warring factions ruled by his generals, each kingdom had a vested interest in promoting its own history.
    Manetho’s History of Egypt—
    A veritable “cottage industry” of fabricated histories flourished after Alexander’s death. Possibly most famous of these new historians was Manetho (third century BC), who lived in Egypt. He recorded a long series of Egyptian dynasties that the priests told him about. But his history shared little in common with what Herodotus had recorded two hundred years earlier.
    Two centuries after Manetho, a Greek historian named Diodorus Siculus wrote a new version of Egyptian history. He ignored the dynasties of Manetho and reduced the number of Egyptian kings back down to only a handful of men, as Herodotus had done. But he also rejected Herodotus and other older writers “who deliberately preferred to the truth the telling of marvelous tales and the invention of myths for the delectation [delight] of their readers.”2
    What a mess! Newton rejected the work of Manetho and tried instead to reconcile the histories of Diodorus and Herodotus. While he acknowledged that other kings’ names in Manetho’s list might be confirmed, he believed the final list would be nowhere near as long as Manetho’s (par. 515).
    Berossus’s History of Babylonia—
    Over the centuries, the priests in Babylon had produced their own fabulous lists of kings, along with many myths. Using these sources, a Babylonian astronomer named Berossus wrote a three-book History of Babylonia (c. 290–278 BC). His version of Babylonian history includes legendary kings from creation to the mythical Babylonian flood, spanning hundreds of thousands of years.
    Greek Histories of Various City-States—
    The jealous city-states of Greece also got into the war of histories. Since Greece did not have historical records of its ancient kings, as Egypt and Babylon did, they began to make them up. For example, the “historian” Castor of Rhodes (first century BC) invented early dates for the Greek gods and made up a long list of kings, beginning with Aegialeus, the supposed founder of Sicyon. Argos invented its own king Inachus, and Athens got a king named Ogyges.3
    The Lesson for Today
    This confusion about ancient chronology has profound implications for us today. The ultimate goal in studying ancient dates, obviously, is accuracy; and accuracy demands that the dates coincide perfectly with Scripture.4
    Yet today almost all dating of ancient history is based on a foundation of sand, not the rock of Scripture. Modern secular historians have a deep bias against Scripture, and they interpret history with a “hermeneutic of suspicion,” as Egyptologist James K. Hoffmeier writes.5 Even theologians sometimes try to expand the chronologies in Genesis 5 and 11 to accommodate the supposed history of other ancient cultures. The biblical text is assumed to be inaccurate right out of the gate.
    Isaac Newton had the right approach. Nothing in ancient history (when properly understood) can possibly conflict with biblical history.

    ---------- Post Merged at 11:12 PM ----------

    Sori panjang dan bahasa inggris.

    Tapi intinya adalah sejarah yg tertulis sangat tidak akurat karena para penulis sejarah punya agenda masing2.

    Beberapa ilmuwan berusaha menyelidiki kebenaran, walaupun jauh dari berhasil.

    Maka kalau kita bicara tentang masa lalu, jangan membuatnya seperti absolut, misalnya berkata bahwa budaya mesir sudah ada sejak puluhan ribu tahun yg lalu dsb...
    Last edited by AsLan; 13-01-2014 at 11:16 PM.

  2. #2
    Chief Cook ndableg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    5,910
    Jangankan yg ribuan tauh. Yg kemaren2 tuh, sejarah mencatat pelaku 911 adalah afghanistan.

  3. #3
    Barista AsLan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    9,288
    Betul,tapi dijaman sekarang banyak data2 yg bisa dikumpulkan dan dibandingkan.

  4. #4
    Chief Cook ndableg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    5,910
    untuk data2 yg dipublished, nah yg deleted, gimane dapetnya.

  5. #5
    So yesterdays. Ujung2nya mempromosikan faham Young Earth Creasionist. Dengan menelan semua tulisan Newton tanpa kritis, maka memproklamirkan bahwa usia planet bumi hanya 5000 tahun. Jadi, apapun penemuan arkeologis dan geologis yang berusia di atas tsb harus ditolak karena tidak mungkin ada benda di bumi yang lebih tua dari 5000 tahun (tergantung tulisan mana yang dicatut, angkanya berkisar 5000-6000 tahun).

    Dengan kata lain, astronomi, geologi, fisika kuantum, evolusi, arkeologi, biokimia, paleontologi, meteorologi, mineralogi, oseanografi, glasiologi, geomorphologi, speleologi, sedimentologi, radiologi, petrologi, volcanologi, geokimia, kosmologi, tephrokronologi, palynologi, limnologi, klimatologi, dan aneka cabang sains anakan tentang bumi dan semesta yang lebih tua mestilah ditolak. Kalau perlu teori relativitas Einstein juga.


  6. #6
    Barista AsLan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    9,288
    Baca dulu baik2 tanpa emosi.

  7. #7
    pelanggan tetap purba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,672
    Quote Originally Posted by AsLan View Post
    Tapi intinya adalah sejarah yg tertulis sangat tidak akurat karena para penulis sejarah punya agenda masing2.
    Kalo ente bisa bilang tidak akurat, berarti ente punya pembanding. Apa pembanding yg ente punya? Kalo agenda penulis sejarah, itu bukan pembanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by AsLan View Post
    Beberapa ilmuwan berusaha menyelidiki kebenaran, walaupun jauh dari berhasil.
    Kalo ente bisa bilang ilmuwan jauh dari berhasil, berarti ente juga punya pembanding. Apa pembanding yg ente punya?

    Quote Originally Posted by AsLan View Post
    Maka kalau kita bicara tentang masa lalu, jangan membuatnya seperti absolut, misalnya berkata bahwa budaya mesir sudah ada sejak puluhan ribu tahun yg lalu dsb...
    Memang tidak ada yg absolut, selain kenisbian itu sendiri. Trus, apa yg mau ente diskusikan dgn topik ini?


  8. #8
    pelanggan setia neofio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,689
    baru kemarin buka2 website tentang A.Hitler

    seperti misteri kematian Adolf hitler.... dia masih hidup saat nazi kalah dari sekutu dan melarikan diri keluar jerman atau hitler saat itu juga bunuh diri

    Spoiler for 1945: HITLER--DEAD OR ALIVE?:
    Our story begins with what, under other circumstances, might have been a happy occasion--the wedding of Adolf Hitler and his longtime mistress Eva Braun. Following the reception, just after midnight on April 30, "with a faraway expression," Hitler "went down the hall, shaking hands. Several said a few words, but he did not answer, moving his lips inaudibly."

    After awakening later in the morning, Hitler conferred with his SS adjutant Otto Günsche, his servant Heinz Linge and his chauffeur Erich Kempka. Günsche brought cyanide capsules to the anteroom that served as the Führer's makeshift office, and Hitler had him feed one to his pet Alsatian dog.

    Curiously, Hitler, who loved dogs, showed no emotion as he watched the animal die during the next hour. He seemed only interested in how long the cyanide took to take effect.

    Why did Hitler have his dog poisoned?

    Could it be that Hitler realizes that fooling the bystanders with a replacement corpse is going to be much easier than fooling his faithful pet?

    Late in the forenoon, the military conference took place as usual. Hitler received the information that the Soviet (Russian) forces had by now occupied the Tiergarten, Potsdamer Platz and the subway in the Volkstrasse, in the immediate vicinity of the chancellery.Then he ordered the delivery of 200 liters of gasoline.

    At 2 p.m., Hitler received Generals Burgdorf and Krebs, Nazi Party Secretary Martin Bormann and Propaganda Minister Josef Göbbels and advised them to "break out the best way you can -in small groups."

    Then he had a very strange conversation with his personal pilot, Hans Baur.

    As they clasped hands, Baur begged him to escape by plane to Argentina, to Japan, or to one of the Arab countries, where his anti-Semitism had made him such staunch friends. But the Führer would not have it.

    "You must have the courage to face the consequences," Hitler told Baur, "I am ending my earthly stay. I know that by tomorrow millions of people will curse me, but Fate wanted it that way."

    Why did he say "earthly stay" instead of "life?" Was he speaking of himself in a religious sense as the Teutonic Messiah? Or was he planning to flee into space?

    Between 2:30 and 3 p.m., the phone rang. It was Günsche again. 'I need two hundred liters of gasoline immediately,' he said huskily. Kempka thought it was some kind of joke and wanted to know why he needed so much. Günsche could not tell him on the phone. 'I want it at the entrance of the Führerbunker without fail.'

    Note that it was Günsche and not Hitler who made this phone call, even though it was Hitler himself who originally ordered the gasoline. Why didn't Hitler pick up the phone?

    Because he was no longer in the Bunker?

    Around 3:15 p.m., Traudl Junge was telling the Göbbels children a fairy story to keep them from going downstairs when a shot echoed through the damp concrete. Young Helmut (Göbbels) thought it was an enemy bomb and said, 'Bull's-eye!'


    Nobody heard the shot that killed Hitler...

    Witnesses who were standing by the double doors to Hitler's study, which were thick enough to muzzle such a sound, claimed they heard nothing.

    Those who did make this claim in 1945 withdrew it, saying Allied interrogators pressured them into saying it.

    Some people who claim to have heard a shot were not even present at the scene.


    At this point there are wildly varying versions of what happened. Günsche said he was in the conference room with Göbbels and Bormann when he heard the shot, and they rushed to the anteroom with Göbbels in the lead.

    But Rattenhuber, commander of Hitler's SS guards, claimed that Günsche was already in the anteroom when he arrived.

    One version has Hitler and wife Eva sitting together on the bloodstained couch. But Kempka's first words when he walked in were "Where's Eva?"

    Other versions had Hitler shot in the right temple, in the left temple, or in the mouth. Hitler lying slumped back in the couch. Hitler pitched forward with his face at rest on the coffee table.

    Never was there a more confused crime scene.

    The most common version goes like this: "the Führer on the couch, sprawled face down across a low table, and Eva, slumped over the armrest, her lips slightly closed in death, discolored by cyanide. Her dress was wet.

    Most homicide detectives, upon viewing this crime scene, would have turned to Günsche and said, "Why did you kill him?"

    Someone got shot. But was it Hitler?

    Rattenhuber ordered the bodies (of Hitler and Eva) to be taken into the courtyard. There he had the gasoline poured over them and invited the mourners to come up. No sooner had they assembled than Russian shelling drove them back to the bunker entrance. Hitler's SS adjutant Otto Günsche thereupon tossed a burning rag upon both corpses, and when the leaping flames swathed the bodies, everyone stood at attention and gave the Nazi salute.

    German historian Werner Maser wrote in his biography Adolf Hitler that

    The charred body (Hitler’s)….. there was nothing left of the face and only a horribly burnt remnant of the shattered skull- was pushed on to a tarpaulin, lowered into a shell crater in the vast graveyard around the chancellery and, under heavy soviet artillery fire, covered with earth, which was then stamped down with a wooden stamper.

    Maser cited Otto Günsche’s testimony. But when asked in 1994 Günsche said that he didn’t known Maser and that he had never said anything like what Maser cited in his book. This quote from Otto Günsche was used in a biography on Hitler by Joachim C Fest, newspapers and many other books. This shows how myths and legends are born and perpetuated in literature by reputable historians and journalists.

    It's possible that Hitler might have faked his own death. It seems strange that Eva's body was "slumped over the armrest," as if someone had dropped it there. And why did she spill that Tokay wine on her dress?

    Suppose Hitler had decided earlier to fake his own death. It would have been a simple matter for the SS to find a "double" for the Führer among the thousands of prisoners in the Nazi concentration camps.

    Hitler already has his exit prepared. That may explain his unusual sang-froid when Baur proposes a last-minute flight out of embattled Berlin.

    A live Hitler would have brought the Allies into howling pursuit. But who's going to search diligently for a "dead man?"

    After Baur leaves, Hitler invites Eva to join him for a glass of Tokay wine. But Eva's glass contains an ampoule of cyanide--one of the capsules Hitler was experimenting with that morning. Eva takes the fatal sip, then topples to the floor, spilling the wine on her dress. Hitler picks her up and drops her over the armrest. His new wife has become "stage scenery" for his great death scene.

    After shaking hands with his co-conspirator Günsche, Hitler is out the door.

    He had ordered that no-one was to enter the "Death Room" until 10 minutes after the shot was heard - Why? Because that was the time needed to carry the already dead double in. The vase with roses in it was knocked over and that was too far away to be hit by anyone in their death throes. He was slumped forward, hands on knees, leaning to the right slightly- against logic because the bullet was IN the right temple and the gun he fired was on his left and he was not left-handed. NOT ONE witness there mentioned the smell of cordite from a gun; but all recognised the smell of cyanide. Bormann carried Eva on his own and she was described as "hanging like a wet dishrag" whereas not even Günsche could carry Hitler and 3 people had to carry his ALREADY STIFF body to the chancellery garden. after 10 minutes his body was already stiff.

    So, did Hitler really shoot himself? Or did he, with Günsche's help, pull off an escape worthy of Harry Houdini?

    No bullet was ever found. But that does not matter. The blood stains on the sofa were reportedly of the wrong blood-type. But such details need not concern us. Hitler's entire body apparently vanished into thin air.

    In 1952 there was a proper proceeding at the Federal Court in Berchtesgaden to declare Hitler’s dead and to determine the exact time of his death.

    It could not be concluded because no body has ever been found identifying Hitler.

    Hitler’s chauffeur Erich Kempka and former Reich Youth leader Artur Axmann, had both testified under oath in Nuremberg that on 30 April 1945 they had seen a body being carried out of the Führer’s bunker which was wrapped in a blanket and was dressed in Hitler’s trousers, shoes and socks. Nevertheless the Berlin records office did not consider this to be proof that Hitler was dead maintaining that this could have been any corpse dressed in Hitler’s trousers and shoes.

    Is there any credible evidence that there was ever a Hitler "double" recruited and trained by Germans to act in Hitler's place?

    a) No documentation has ever come into the public light detailing any programs, initiatives, payments, personnel involved with a doubles program;

    b) Peter Hoffmann, one of the foremost experts on Hitler's private security, makes no mention of doubles in his book Hitler's Personal Security;

    c) No one need bother drag out yet again the grainy, out of focus black and white photograph of the so-called Hitler double found by the Soviets. It is nothing more than an image of a cadaver that was misidentified as Hitler by the Soviets in their initial rush to find the body. They worked it up a bit to make it look more like Hitler. A day or two later, they found the real Hitler corpse, rather than admit their mistake, the Soviets covered themselves by calling it "Hitler's double".

    The fact that a maid admitted seeing a Hitler look-alike confined to the bunker's kitchen area was not considered to be of great consequence, and the murder of the Doppelgänger was just another war technicality.





    Russian photo of "Hitler Corpse"
    May 2, 1945
    (note bullet hole in forehead)


    Western sources have reported that the dead body in the photo was Hitler's double (or Doppelgänger), a man called Gustav who was executed with a gunshot to the forehead. Some give his name as Gustav Weber, while other say he was Gustav Weler.

    99% of Google hits will just contain a single sentence:

    Gustav Weler was employed as Hitler's body-double, a political decoy who was shot in the forehead after Hitler's suicide, and his corpse put in a water cistern where it was discovered and photographed by Soviets who mistook him for Hitler.

    He was known around Berlin for his amazing resemblance to Hitler. In prewar Berlin he was repeatedly arrested by Gestapo for impersonating Hitler and at one point ordered to remove the moustache.

    Martin Bormann introduced Weler to Hitler at the Berghof, but the Führer was enraged and ordered that he never wanted to see the Doppelgänger again and that he was to be imprisoned in a concentration camp.

    Bormann, sensing that Weler could prove to be useful, disobeyed Hitler's order and hid Weler away in Munich.

    During the last year of the war Gustav Weler was again arrested and disappeared.

    The body discovered in the water tower of the Berlin Führerbunker in May 1945 has been wrongly reported as that of Gustav Weler. However, this is not the case. Hugh Thomas's 1996 book Doppelgängers reports that Weler was indeed a Hitler lookalike but was located and interviewed by Allied forces after Hitler's death.

    Who could it be then?

    Reports now circulate in Russia that an actor, Andreas Kronstädt, was the impersonator who had volunteered to die in Hitler's place. This was the theme of the 1996 film, Conversation with the Beast, directed by one of Fassbinder's followers, Armin Müller-Stahl.

    Meanwhile, in Germany some suspicion still points to Julius Schreck, who was Hitler's favorite driver and party member from 1921. He occasionally acted as Hitler's double because of their resemblance.



    An attack on Hitler motivated by Röhm's assassination was brought forward by Otto Strasser in his book Flight from Terror (NY 1943). A SA man named Heinrich Grunow, who had not swallowed Ernst Röhm's murder, got in touch with Otto Strasser, head of the Black Front opposition movement to Hitler, and set up a plan to kill Hitler while the Führer was driven to his beloved Berchtesgarten retreat. Grunow was a member of the close guard protecting Hitler at Berchtesgarten and knew that at some spot on the road the car had to slow down to less than 15mph and argued to Strasser that it would be a propitious location to shot at Hitler. Strasser agreed to the plot and Grunow went to execute his murderous task.

    Unfortunately, according to Strasser, Hitler had taken the wheel on this day and Grunow shot the driver in the back seat while Hitler escaped alive. The irony is that Grunow, persuaded that he had succeeded in his attack, committed suicide on the spot while Hitler-the-driver scared to death rushed out of the car that he had put to a sudden halt. Hitler's chauffeur, Julius Schreck, was hit in the chest, the jaw and his right temple. Officially he died of a tooth infection.


    According to some reports, Schreck died in a traffic accident in 1936. Other reports say that he died from an abscessed tooth fever. To confuse matters more, Time magazine once wrote that Hitler's alleged double was Heinrich Bergner who was killed when Colonel Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg planted a bomb under Hitler's chair on July 20, 1944, at his headquarters in East Prussia. Some sources have oddly suggested that the burnt corpse found in the Chancellery garden was that of SS-Gruppenführer Hermann Fegelein, husband of Eva Braun's sister, Gretl, who was stripped of his rank for committing treason and shot outside the Berlin bunker two days before Hitler's suicide.



  9. #9
    Barista AsLan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    9,288
    Quote Originally Posted by purba View Post
    Kalo ente bisa bilang tidak akurat, berarti ente punya pembanding. Apa pembanding yg ente punya? Kalo agenda penulis sejarah, itu bukan pembanding.



    Kalo ente bisa bilang ilmuwan jauh dari berhasil, berarti ente juga punya pembanding. Apa pembanding yg ente punya?



    Memang tidak ada yg absolut, selain kenisbian itu sendiri. Trus, apa yg mau ente diskusikan dgn topik ini?


    Kalo lu nemu 5 buku, tiap buku menulis tentang hal yg kontradiksi:

    Buku 1 mengatakan A adalah 20
    Buku 2 mengatakan A adalah 30
    ...
    Buku 5 mengatakan A adalah 60

    Maka kita bisa mengatakan bahwa buku2 yg kita temukan itu memberikan data yg tidak akurat.
    Kalau ditanya, A yg benar berapa?, kita tidak tahu.

    Tidak tahu mana yg benar koq bisa tahu bahwa buku2 tidak akurat ? Pikir sendiri.

  10. #10
    pelanggan setia neofio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,689
    di WW2 yg masuk pertama kali ke Berlin adalah tentara merah (Rusia) dan Polandia, ceritanya akan lain bila yg masuk pertama kali ke berlin adalah tentara sekutu (USA, Inggris, etc)

    berarti ada keterlibatan pelaku sejarah juga

    ---------- Post Merged at 02:51 PM ----------

    di WW2 yg masuk pertama kali ke Berlin adalah tentara merah (Rusia) dan Polandia, ceritanya akan lain bila yg masuk pertama kali ke berlin adalah tentara sekutu (USA, Inggris, etc)

    berarti ada keterlibatan pelaku sejarah juga

  11. #11
    pelanggan tetap Alip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,635
    Yang namanya sejarah memang begitu, sebagian besar merupakan interpretasi dan itu sah-sah saja. Ahli sejarah yang satu berbeda pendapat dengan ahli sejarah yang lain juga kejadian yang wajar.

    Mungkin ahli sejarah beberapa ratus tahun mendatang akan lebih beruntung karena mereka memiliki jutaan dokumen yang terpelihara, baik dari sumber resmi seperti dari pemerintah, maupun dari sumber lain. Malah diduga mereka akan punya sumber yang ultra lengkap dari ribuan blog dan memoar yang ditulis oleh orang biasa dari berbagai penjuru dunia. Bisa jadi diskusi di KM ini akan dijadikan acuan juga tentang kondisi sosio-kultural abad 21 oleh para arkeolog di abad 30.

    Saya sendiri suka banget dengan memoar dan sejenisnya...

    ---------- Post Merged at 03:43 PM ----------

    Sorry keputus... ngangkat jemuran dulu...

    Adapun sejarah masa lalu yang masih belum ada catatan tertulis... ya kita harus sangat sangat sangat paham bahwa periode itu selamanya akan jadi periode interpretasi dan spekulasi... yang penting adalah apa yang kita pelajari dari sejarah. Kalau memang ada versi sejarah yang berbeda, tinggal kita memahami apa implikasi masing-masing versi itu bagi kita sekarang ini, tanpa menganggap versi tertentu sebagai "agama kebenaran".
    "Mille millions de mille milliards de mille sabords!"

  12. #12
    pelanggan tetap purba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,672
    Quote Originally Posted by AsLan View Post
    Kalo lu nemu 5 buku, tiap buku menulis tentang hal yg kontradiksi:

    Buku 1 mengatakan A adalah 20
    Buku 2 mengatakan A adalah 30
    ...
    Buku 5 mengatakan A adalah 60

    Maka kita bisa mengatakan bahwa buku2 yg kita temukan itu memberikan data yg tidak akurat.
    Kalau ditanya, A yg benar berapa?, kita tidak tahu.

    Tidak tahu mana yg benar koq bisa tahu bahwa buku2 tidak akurat ? Pikir sendiri.
    Lha kalo nature dari A memang begitu, mau apa?

    Paham gak maksud ane?

    Ente selalu membayangkan hanya ada satu A yg benar. Buat ane, ini namanya blind faith effect.

    Misalkan ada dewa yg mukanya empat (polimuka). Setiap orang menceritakan satu muka. Trus, ente bilang: Ceritaan lu gak ada yg akurat, beda-beda semua.

    Padahal nature dari obyek yg diceritakan memang punya empat muka. Alih-alih tidak akurat, justru cerita empat orang tsb adalah sebuah keakuratan.


  13. #13
    Barista AsLan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    9,288
    Jaelah maksa bener.
    Naturnya A itu cuma 1 macem, kalo ada yg bilang beda2 artinya banyak yg ga bener.

    Ini maksudnya, di mesir banyak dinasti2. Tiap penulis istana berusaha menulis bahwa dinastinya yg paling hebat dan paling lama.
    Maka ada yg nulis dinasti A 10 tahun ada yg nulis dinasti A 1000 tahun, para penulis ini tidak menulis sejarah berdasarkan fakta tapi berupa propaganda.

  14. #14
    pelanggan tetap Alip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,635
    Ada gitu yang nulis sejarah sampe segitu jauh bedanya? Kan bisa ada penelitian siapa aja yang jadi raja selama 10 atau 1000 tahun itu, bisa dibandingkan dengan klaim scriber yang lain, bisa dibandingkan dengan catatan sejarah negara tetangga, dan seteterusrusnya...

    sejarah baru akan berarti kalau kita bisa melihat dinamika sebab akibat atau psikologi dibalik kejadian sejarah itu... karena dari situlah kita bisa belajar sesuatu... kalau sekedar fakta kejadian (10 atau 1000 tahun), cuma jadi hapalan kosong.
    "Mille millions de mille milliards de mille sabords!"

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by AsLan View Post
    Baca dulu baik2 tanpa emosi.
    sudah baca kakak. Makanya saya berkesimpulan demikian.

    Saya tidak menggunakan Google, tapi dengan membaca paragraf pertama saja sudah yakin 104% kalau tulisan ini disalin-tempel dari situs AIG (kalau pun tidak, pasti dari blog yang menyalin ulang dari AIG).

    Dan di atas segalanya, too many logical fallacies found here. Penuh klaim dan syak wasangka.penulis artikelnya sendiri hanya menyandarkan opininya pada tulisan Newton, Padahal sains (atau lebih relevannya lagi cabang sejarah yang disebut Egyptology) pada masa Newton masih amat-amat mentah atau malah belum ada. Penemuan arkeologis ttg Mesir masih teramat minim untuk melakukan verifikasi.

    Dan laiknya semua tulisan di AIG, tulisan yg di post di atas penuh penolakan ttg apapun yang menyatakan sesuatu di bumi yang lebih tua dari 5000-an tahun. Sesuai klaim mereka bahwa penciptaan alam semesta terjadi pada lima sampai enam millennium lampau. TS-nya pun sudah langsung loncat pada kesimpulan kalau semuanya usaha ilmuwan jauh dari berhasil. Atau mungkin lebih tepatnya 'jauh berbeda dengan penafsiran alkitab versi saya'.

    Bahasa Inggris saya memang jeblok. Tapi bagian favorit pas SMP adalah bagian comprehensive reading, terutama pas soal "kesimpulan/tujuan dari bacaan di atas adalah...."

    Kesimpulan saya bisa keliru jika tulisan di atas bukan diambil dari AIG atau situs sejenis yang berafiliasi. Dan juga kalau ternyata TS memiliki pemikiran yang sama kalau usia bumi lebih tua dari 6000an tahun. (Setidaknya lebih tua dari 10672 tahun). Mohon maaf jika dua asumsi saya ini keliru.
    Last edited by E = mc²; 15-01-2014 at 05:36 PM.

  16. #16
    Barista AsLan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    9,288
    Quote Originally Posted by Alip View Post
    Yang namanya sejarah memang begitu, sebagian besar merupakan interpretasi dan itu sah-sah saja. Ahli sejarah yang satu berbeda pendapat dengan ahli sejarah yang lain juga kejadian yang wajar.

    Mungkin ahli sejarah beberapa ratus tahun mendatang akan lebih beruntung karena mereka memiliki jutaan dokumen yang terpelihara, baik dari sumber resmi seperti dari pemerintah, maupun dari sumber lain. Malah diduga mereka akan punya sumber yang ultra lengkap dari ribuan blog dan memoar yang ditulis oleh orang biasa dari berbagai penjuru dunia. Bisa jadi diskusi di KM ini akan dijadikan acuan juga tentang kondisi sosio-kultural abad 21 oleh para arkeolog di abad 30.

    Saya sendiri suka banget dengan memoar dan sejenisnya...

    ---------- Post Merged at 03:43 PM ----------

    Sorry keputus... ngangkat jemuran dulu...

    Adapun sejarah masa lalu yang masih belum ada catatan tertulis... ya kita harus sangat sangat sangat paham bahwa periode itu selamanya akan jadi periode interpretasi dan spekulasi... yang penting adalah apa yang kita pelajari dari sejarah. Kalau memang ada versi sejarah yang berbeda, tinggal kita memahami apa implikasi masing-masing versi itu bagi kita sekarang ini, tanpa menganggap versi tertentu sebagai "agama kebenaran".
    Ya, ahli sejarah masa depan punya lebih banyak catatan2 yg bisa diselidiki dan dibandingkan.

    Namun kita yg ingin menyelidiki masa lalu harus puas dengan data tertulis yg sangat sedikit.
    Bahkan sampai2 beberapa kalimat yg tertulis di dinding atau piring kuno bisa jadi sangat berharga.

    Contohnya, manuskrip tentang Julius Caesar itu kalau tidak salah cuma ditemukan beberapa kata.
    Lalu para pujangga membuat fiksi tentang Julius Caesar sehingga kita dijaman ini bisa membayangkan beliau.

    Semakin jauh suatu jaman, semakin besar penyimpangan yg bisa terjadi.
    Misalnya beberapa tahun yg lalu Dan Brown membuat fiksi tentang Yesus menikahi Maria Magdalena dan punya anak, banyak orang kemudian percaya.
    Padahal dijaman Yesus dan setelah matinyapun tidak pernah ada yg memikirkan hal ini. 300 tahun setelah Yesus mati ada orsng menulis Yesus mencium ... Maria Magdalena.
    Kalimat ini diambil oleh Dan Brown, ... ditambah dengan kisah pernikahan dll.

    Apslagi menyelidiki Mesir, sebuah bangsa yg sudah punah.

    Jaman dulu sering Raja2 memerintahkan pembakaran buku dan pembunuhan cendikiawan, misalnya pembakaran versi2 Quran dan pembantaian cendikiawan jaman shihuangti. Para raja ini kemudian menulis ulang sejarah sesuai keinginannya.

    Hal ini juga terjadi di mesir. Tiap raja menulis atau menyuruh pembantunya menulis sejarah dengan versi berbeda2.


    Mengapa kita menggali hasil penyelidikan Newton dan Herodotus ?
    Itu karena kita percaya kredibilitas orang2 semacam ini.
    Mereka hidup dimasa lalu sehingga mungkin memiliki data2 yg relatif belum terlalu menyimpang. Belum terlalu banyak Dan Brown2 diantara jaman mereka dan jaman yg diselidiki.

    Tapi nyatanya sejak awal kejadian pun penulisan srjarah sudah di fabrikasi.

  17. #17
    pelanggan tetap Alip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,635
    Perlu dipahami bahwa sejarah bukanlah ilmu pasti. Namanya sendiri dalam bahasa latin "historia" mengandung arti penyelidikan tentang masa lampau, emphasis added. Hasilnya bisa sangat beragam dan malah sangat diharapkan untuk beragam, dengan demikian kita bisa mendekati keobyektifan dengan menolak untuk mengikuti satu interpretasi "resmi" yang mungkin difabrikasi penulis sejarah terdahulu.

    Saya tidak sependapat kalau dikatakan orang terdahulu yang lebih dekat dengan periode tertentu akan menulis sejarah yang lebih obyektif. Justru kita di jaman yang sudah memiliki perlengkapan keilmuan yang lebih baik, seperti misalnya psikologi, antropologi, uji karbon, dll. mungkin bisa berspekulasi secara lebih jernih.

    Saya tidak melihat Dan Brown sebagai cacat dalam penulisan sejarah, dia hanya memberi sebuah alternatif yang bisa diterima atau ditolak. Lagipula dia seorang penulis fiksi, bukan sejarawan. Adapun kisah Yesus dalam novel-nya diambil dari tulisan studi sejarah dengan tema "the historical Jesus" yang sejak dulu sudah hadir mendampingi sejarah dengan tema "the divine Jesus"... jadi sebenarnya bukan barang baru dan justru contoh baik bagaimana penulisan sejarah memiliki versi yang berbeda ...

    ---------- Post Merged at 10:26 PM ----------

    Agak aneh kalau Julius Cesar dianggap banyak fiksi... Aslan dapat sumber darimana? Periode Romawi di jaman triumviraat adalah masa yang justru terekam dengan baik, karenanya orang modern sekarang bisa membuat fiksi yang cukup rinci.
    "Mille millions de mille milliards de mille sabords!"

  18. #18
    pelanggan tetap 234's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    737
    Ada dua kemungkinan yg bisa menyebabkan "penyimpangan" yg muncul dlm catatan sejarah, yaitu "ketidak-tahuan" (otak) dan "ketidak-jujuran" (hati), atau ke-dua2nya.

    Celakanya, menurutku, menilai/menguji niat dan kejujuran seseorang itu jauh lebih "sulit" dibandingkan menilai pengetahuan orang ybs, apalagi jika orang ybs udah ndak ada lagi alias udah meninggal. So, terlalu naif kalo mau menyelidiki keakuratan catatan sejarah dgn mengandalkan niat dan kejujuran, baik itu niat/kejujuran pencatat sejarah maupun niat/kejujuran penilai catatan sejarah itu sendiri.

    "Pada tanggal sekian bulan sekian tahun sekian telah terjadi peristiwa dimana Bulan dimakan oleh Raksasa bernama Betara Kala sehingga Bulan menjadi berbentuk seperti buah apel yg tergigit sebagian. Orang2 pun lalu be-ramai2 memukul tetabuhan untuk me-nakut2i Betara Kala sehingga akhirnya Sang Betara Kala melepaskan gigitannya dan Bulan pun kembali ke bentuknya semula," demikian menurut sebuah catatan yg tertulis di dinding gua.

    Benarkah pada saat itu Bulan terlihat seperti bentuk buah apel yg tergigit? Benarkah orang2 saat itu be-ramai2 memukul tetabuhan? Benarkah setelah itu Bulan kembali ke bentuk semula yg bulat utuh? Jawabannya bisa YA bisa TIDAK, tergantung kejujuran si penulis yg membuat catatan di gua tsb. Dan siapa yg bisa menentukan jujur tidaknya si penulis diding gua tsb? Ndak ada, kecuali orang itu sendiri!

    Benarkah saat itu Bulan digigit oleh Betara Kala? Benarkah kembalinya bentuk Bulan yg bulat utuh tsb akibat Sang Betara Kala melepaskan gigitannya karena takut bunyi tetabuhan yg dilakukan oleh orang2 secara be-ramai2 tsb? Jika penulis dinding gua pembohong, maka jawaban pertanyaan tsb adalah: TIDAK. Jika penulis gua orang jujur, maka jawabannya tetap: TIDAK. Hanya orang "bodoh" (baca: tidak tahu) yg akan menjawab YA.

    Benarkah "wanita (awalnya) tercipta dari tulang rusuk pria?" Siapapun yg menyatakan hal tsb, orang jujur ataupun ndak jujur, tetap aja jawaban saya adalah TIDAK. Hanya orang...

    So, benar-salah itu tolok ukurnya adalah "otak" (pengetahuan), bukan "hati" (niat dan kejujuran), terlepas dari "otak" (pengetahuan) itu bisa saja salah. Untuk itulah pengetahuan selalu berubah, berkembang, ndak stagnan, ndak asal pokoke, dst.

    Gusti iku dumunung ing atine wong kang becik, mulo iku diarani Gusti... Bagusing Ati.

  19. #19
    Barista AsLan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    9,288
    Quote Originally Posted by Alip View Post
    Perlu dipahami bahwa sejarah bukanlah ilmu pasti. Namanya sendiri dalam bahasa latin "historia" mengandung arti penyelidikan tentang masa lampau, emphasis added. Hasilnya bisa sangat beragam dan malah sangat diharapkan untuk beragam, dengan demikian kita bisa mendekati keobyektifan dengan menolak untuk mengikuti satu interpretasi "resmi" yang mungkin difabrikasi penulis sejarah terdahulu.

    Saya tidak sependapat kalau dikatakan orang terdahulu yang lebih dekat dengan periode tertentu akan menulis sejarah yang lebih obyektif. Justru kita di jaman yang sudah memiliki perlengkapan keilmuan yang lebih baik, seperti misalnya psikologi, antropologi, uji karbon, dll. mungkin bisa berspekulasi secara lebih jernih.

    Saya tidak melihat Dan Brown sebagai cacat dalam penulisan sejarah, dia hanya memberi sebuah alternatif yang bisa diterima atau ditolak. Lagipula dia seorang penulis fiksi, bukan sejarawan. Adapun kisah Yesus dalam novel-nya diambil dari tulisan studi sejarah dengan tema "the historical Jesus" yang sejak dulu sudah hadir mendampingi sejarah dengan tema "the divine Jesus"... jadi sebenarnya bukan barang baru dan justru contoh baik bagaimana penulisan sejarah memiliki versi yang berbeda ...

    ---------- Post Merged at 10:26 PM ----------

    Agak aneh kalau Julius Cesar dianggap banyak fiksi... Aslan dapat sumber darimana? Periode Romawi di jaman triumviraat adalah masa yang justru terekam dengan baik, karenanya orang modern sekarang bisa membuat fiksi yang cukup rinci.

    Dan brown itu penulis fiksi, kita tahu karena kita sejaman dengannya.
    Tapi kalau 2000 tahun lagi penggalian arkeologi menemukan sepotong kertas tulisan dan brown tentang yesus, hal itu bisa jadi masalah.

    Mengenai Julius Caesar, yg gw maksud itu manuskrip original yg masih tersisa, sangat sedikit.
    Yg banyak adalah tulisan2 tentang Julius Caesar yg sudah ditulis ulang oleh para penulis secara berantai, copy mengcopy.

  20. #20
    pelanggan tetap purba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,672
    Quote Originally Posted by AsLan View Post
    Jaelah maksa bener.
    Naturnya A itu cuma 1 macem, kalo ada yg bilang beda2 artinya banyak yg ga bener.
    Sekali lagi. Ini masalah mind set. Ane bisa paham, kenapa mind set ente seperti itu.

    Ini maksudnya, di mesir banyak dinasti2. Tiap penulis istana berusaha menulis bahwa dinastinya yg paling hebat dan paling lama.
    Maka ada yg nulis dinasti A 10 tahun ada yg nulis dinasti A 1000 tahun, para penulis ini tidak menulis sejarah berdasarkan fakta tapi berupa propaganda.
    Sejarahwan juga tahu bahwa setiap potongan informasi yg diterimanya tidak ditelan begitu saja, tapi perlu investigasi lebih dalam dan menyeluruh, utk sampai pada suatu kesimpulan. Jadi, ketika seorang sejarahwan mendapatkan informasi yg berbeda-beda ttg sebuah peristiwa, dia tidak mengatakan informasi tsb tidak akurat, tetapi malah memperlakukannya seperti potongan-potongan puzzle yg harus diletakkan di tempat yg semestinya, sehingga didapatkan gambaran yg lebih utuh.

    Misalnya seorang sejarahwan mendapatkan satu sumber menuliskan dinasti A berkuasa 10 tahun, sumber lain 100 tahun, lainnya lagi 1000 tahun. Ane yakin, dia tidak akan mengatakan sumber-sumber tsb tidak akurat, tapi malah menggali lebih lanjut mengapa itu berbeda-beda, menyelidiki lebih dalam mengapa yg ini bilang 10 tahun yg itu 100 tahun, dst.

    Lain dengan sejarahwan "gadungan" yg sudah punya prejudice, misalnya kisah dalam Bible adalah benar. Dia menggunakan Bible sebagai standar utk menilai informasi dari sumber-sumber lain. Ini ane percaya, jika datang bermacam-macam informasi yg berbeda-beda ttg dinasti A, sejarahwan macam begini akan mengatakan itu informasi yg tidak akurat.


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •