A Conversation on History, Myth, and Reality
Introduction
In this thought-provoking dialogue, Beezone, a research-focused scribe Ed Reither, director of Beezone Library, engages in conversation with an eminent scholar from a local university who, while passionate about exploring the intricacies of ancient history, prefers to remain anonymous. Beezone Library, found at Beezone.com, serves as a non-profit platform dedicated to uncovering and preserving the nuances of spiritual and philosophical traditions across time. The conversation delves into the complexities of interpreting early civilizations, challenging the often simplistic timelines presented in historical scholarship. Through this exchange, Beezone and the scholar question the very foundations of historical narratives, myths, and cultural beliefs, drawing attention to the delicate balance between truth and story—a balance that shapes both the past we imagine and the present we live.
***
“The paradox of human culture is…we rely on…stories to make sense of life, the rigidity with which we defend them can prevent us from engaging with the evolving”
Beezone: I’m a researcher and self-described “scribe,” as well as the director of Beezone Library at Beezone.com. I have a question for you about ancient civilizations. Every time I read about early cultures, I find myself overwhelmed. There are so many—Persians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Babylonians, Hittites, Greeks, Romans, Gauls, and more. Historians seem to present this orderly timeline, as if history unfolded in a clean sequence, like one well-organized march through time. But can anyone really capture even one or two of these cultures and claim they “know” something definitive about them? To me, it all feels rather presumptuous—maybe even pompous. What are your thoughts on this?
Scholar: You’re certainly not alone in feeling that way. It’s a familiar concern among scholars who immerse themselves in ancient history. The so-called “coherent timeline” you mention is often misleading. Historians simplify complex histories, threading them into narratives to make them digestible. This approach risks glossing over the interactions, migrations, conflicts, and exchanges that defined these civilizations. Real history wasn’t orderly; it was more like an intricate web, constantly being woven and rewoven.
Historical records, artifacts, and inscriptions are often incomplete and open to interpretation. Scholars essentially make “best guesses” based on what we currently understand, but these conclusions are by no means final. History is layered, complex, and fluid—much more interwoven than linear. Yet, in the attempt to “tell a story,” scholars sometimes risk portraying these ancient worlds in ways that simplify their inherent complexity. In a way, this approach can be seen as presumptuous, as you rightly noted, but it also reflects the challenges of reconstructing the past with limited evidence.
Beezone: This idea of history as a “best guess” resonates with me, especially when I think about how scholars often contradict each other, each claiming to know the “truth.” But there’s something more unsettling about it—how myths become foundational beliefs. We teach children stories like “George Washington never told a lie” or that “Moses talked to God,” and these stories become cultural cornerstones, fiercely defended. It’s as if we’re living in a storybook world, but the stakes are real—sometimes leading even to war. Isn’t it a bit insane to defend these narratives as if they’re absolute truths?
Scholar: You’ve hit on a deep and troubling paradox. Much of what we consider “truth” is, as you say, a carefully curated narrative—a combination of myths, values, and selective facts. We’re raised on these stories, and they shape everything from our morals to our national identity. But when we unpack them, they often reveal themselves as symbolic “truths” rather than literal ones. Stories about Washington or Moses weren’t intended to be historical records. They were meant to inspire or unify, to give people something to hold onto.
Take the cherry tree tale of Washington. It’s a fabrication, but it conveys a value—a model of honesty. It’s harmless as folklore, but when presented as historical fact, it can blur the line between fable and reality. Similarly, stories of Moses or Jesus are profound but intended to convey spiritual truths rather than literal events.
These myths have incredible power; they shape individual beliefs and entire societies. Once people attach themselves to a “truth” that they believe is absolute, they’re often willing to defend it at any cost, even violently. Wars have been fought and cultures divided over differing interpretations of these foundational stories. They may start as “just stories,” but they embed themselves in the collective psyche, becoming truths immune to questioning.
Beezone: So, in a sense, we’re bound by these stories, living in a kind of storybook reality with real consequences.
Scholar:
Exactly. We do live in a storybook world, but one with a powerful grip on our identity and values. The paradox of human culture is that while we rely on these stories to make sense of life, the rigidity with which we defend them can prevent us from engaging with the evolving, multifaceted nature of reality. Embracing uncertainty—and seeing these stories for what they are, myths layered with meaning—could be the first step toward a more open, flexible approach to understanding history and ourselves.