Interpreting Our Past Is More Than a Historical Question

Distortions of the Past, Humanity’s Ontological Self-Understanding, and the Possibility of a Shared Future

Interpreting our past is more than a historical question, because the picture we form of ourselves, the origins of humanity, the emergence of languages and cultures, and the development of human civilization fundamentally determines what we consider possible, what we regard as natural, and what kind of future we are even capable of imagining for ourselves. History is not merely a collection of events left behind us; it is one of the most important foundations of human self-understanding, upon which societies, national identities, religious worldviews, and political systems all construct their own narratives of origin, using them to justify their present positions, privileges, and aspirations, and at times even to determine who is considered part of their world and who is placed beyond the boundaries they themselves have drawn.

As an ontologist, I see the matter this way: if fundamental elements of our understanding of humanity’s past have been distorted, remain incomplete, or have developed in accordance with particular interests, the consequences extend far beyond internal debates within historiography or linguistics, because in such cases we are not merely misinterpreting a few facts; the entire framework through which we understand human existence, the relationships between cultures, the nature of development, and the possibilities of the future may be resting on false foundations. If we force humanity’s history into a narrow, predetermined narrative, we may find ourselves no longer trying to understand the past, but instead fitting everything we are willing to recognize about it into a worldview we have already accepted.

This is precisely why it matters what assumptions we begin with when interpreting history, what evidence we accept, what questions we allow ourselves to ask, and which questions we dismiss from the outset as impossible or unscientific. The purpose of historical inquiry is not to validate our existing ideas at all costs, but to refine what we believe on the basis of the available evidence and, when necessary, fundamentally revise what we once considered true.

Humanity Confined Within a Short Chronology

One important question in the historical thinking of recent centuries is the extent to which religious accounts of origins have influenced our interpretation of the past, particularly biblical creation chronologies that place the history of humanity within a time frame of only a few thousand years. The approximately six-thousand-year worldview has played a significant role in certain religious interpretations, and in my view, serious questions arise about how such time frames have influenced our understanding of the age of humanity, the antiquity of civilization, and the development of human cultures.

As I see it, there is strong reason to suspect that some interpretations of the past have been shaped not exclusively by the available evidence, but also by particular religious, institutional, and ideological interests that may have found it important to ensure that the accepted account of humanity’s origins and history remained consistent with a previously established worldview. I do not mean this as a claim that all religions, or all religious communities, have acted as a single, coordinated entity, but rather as a question concerning the possible interaction of different interests and influences arising in different historical periods and institutional settings, some of which can be documented while others require further investigation.

The traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam relate to creation, human origins, and time in different ways, and should therefore not be treated as a single homogeneous bloc. Nevertheless, it is entirely legitimate to ask when and under what circumstances literal or chronologically specific interpretations of sacred texts became constraints on scientific inquiry, or influenced the institutions responsible for defining the accepted boundaries of historical knowledge. Respect for religious traditions does not require us to accept every religious account of origins as historical or scientific evidence, just as the cultural significance of religious teachings does not entitle anyone to disregard evidence that contradicts them.

Modern geology, archaeology, and evolutionary biology have long worked with time scales extending far beyond a few thousand years, so it would be inaccurate to claim that international science over the past two hundred years uniformly accepted a six-thousand-year worldview. The real question is more complex and, in my view, considerably more important: how can assumptions that once shaped the thinking of a particular era survive even after newly discovered evidence makes it necessary to revise earlier interpretations, and what forces may prevent such revision from taking place in a timely manner and with sufficient depth?

The development of scientific thought is not demonstrated by its never making mistakes, but by its ability to recognize them without treating earlier authorities as an unquestionable power standing above reality itself. When an old theory, an established historical narrative, or an institutionally protected interpretation becomes untouchable despite conflicting evidence, scientific inquiry risks losing one of its most important qualities: the ability to recognize and overcome its own limitations.

When Archaeological Discoveries Challenge Established Ideas

The history of archaeology contains numerous discoveries that have transformed earlier assumptions, and among them, Göbekli Tepe and other ancient sites in present-day Türkiye occupy a particularly important place. The monumental stone structures at Göbekli Tepe date approximately to the tenth and ninth millennia BCE, a period that many earlier models associated with substantially different social and cultural conditions. The site has therefore raised fundamental questions about the organization of hunter-gatherer communities, the emergence of monumental architecture, the role of ritual activities, and the social conditions that made the construction of such structures possible. The UNESCO World Heritage Centre also recognizes the site’s significance, emphasizing the early date of the structures and the architectural achievements of the communities that built them.

The true significance of this discovery, in my view, is not that a single archaeological site by itself disproves the entire previous scientific worldview, but that it clearly demonstrates why our understanding of the organization and cultural capabilities of human communities cannot be permanently closed to revision. The finds compel us to reconsider the relationships that may have existed between communal cooperation, ritual activity, architecture, the organization of labor, and settlement patterns, and to ask whether these phenomena always emerged in the sequence previously assumed.

The underground city of Derinkuyu also reminds us that interpreting archaeological remains requires more than assigning a site to a single period or community and then attributing the entire structure to that one source. Sites of this kind may have been expanded over long periods, altered, given new functions, and used by different historical communities. In the case of Derinkuyu, the beginnings of the underground complex, the use of its various sections, and its later extensions do not necessarily belong to the same period; its history must therefore be approached through an examination of multiple phases.

As an ontologist, I see these discoveries as significant not only for archaeology but also for the way we think, because they remind us that the past is under no obligation to conform to the categories we have constructed in the present. When new evidence does not fit the familiar narrative, the evidence is not necessarily at fault; our interpretive framework may also be what needs to change. The real question, then, is not whether every new discovery requires us to discard everything we previously learned, but whether we are willing to examine consistently what that discovery reveals about the assumptions on which our earlier ideas were based.

Accumulated Interpretive Problems in Linguistics

One of the most sensitive areas in our understanding of the past is linguistics, because our conclusions about the relationships, development, age, and interconnections of languages also have a significant influence on how we interpret population movements, the emergence of cultural contacts, and the interactions between civilizations. Linguistics has developed numerous methods that allow us to draw conclusions about language states that predate surviving written records, but such reconstructions are not equivalent to directly preserved material evidence, and their reliability depends on the data from which they are derived, the regularities identified, and the assumptions used to reach them.

I consider the determination of sound values and the interpretation of ancient writing systems particularly important issues, because in the study of cuneiform, hieroglyphs, and other ancient scripts, surviving signs, linguistic context, comparative evidence, and scholarly inference interact in complex ways. The graphic form of a sign does not, by itself, necessarily reveal precisely what sound, word, or meaning it carried in every historical period. The assumptions and parallels used during decipherment can therefore have a decisive influence on the resulting interpretation. When interpreting ancient writing systems, we must distinguish between readings supported by several independent lines of evidence, probable interpretations, and reconstructions that still leave considerable uncertainty.

In my view, linguistics also needs a systematic reassessment of the evidence underlying certain traditionally accepted sound values, etymologies, and linguistic relationships, particularly where interpretations differ substantially or where the authority of an older reconstruction may itself influence the thinking of later researchers. An interpretation should not become unquestionable merely because it has long appeared in the scholarly literature. At the same time, it would be equally mistaken to regard every alternative reading as equally valid, because a consistent comparison of the evidence is precisely what enables us to distinguish genuinely well-founded new insights from merely possible or erroneous ideas.

Phonetic resemblance alone does not prove that two words share a common origin, just as a linguistic relationship between two peoples does not automatically mean that their histories, cultural identities, or biological origins are identical in every respect. Blurring these distinctions can produce distortions just as readily as fitting linguistic evidence to a previously accepted historical theory. Linguistic and archaeological conclusions must therefore be examined in relation to one another, without allowing either discipline to substitute for the other.

Investigating accumulated problems in linguistics does not mean rejecting the discipline as a whole. It means recognizing that scientific findings rest on specific data, interpretive procedures, and human decisions that must be periodically reconsidered. Where an interpretation is uncertain, that uncertainty must be made visible; where several readings are possible, the alternatives and their supporting evidence must be presented; and where a previously accepted conclusion proves to have been based on faulty assumptions, correcting it should not be regarded as a defeat for science, but as a natural and necessary part of the pursuit of knowledge.

Scientific Authority and the Question of Interests

Science does not operate in a vacuum. It functions in a human world of institutions, universities, research centers, funding systems, and professional communities, where genuine curiosity and the pursuit of knowledge may coexist with habit, prestige, institutional self-protection, political influence, and financial interests. This does not, by itself, mean that scientific findings are generally manipulated. It does mean, however, that scientific authority must never be confused with infallibility, and that we cannot accept a question as closed merely because an institution or research community has already established its position on it.

In my considered view, there is strong reason to suspect that the persistence of certain historical, linguistic, and cultural interpretations may have been influenced not only by the weighing of evidence, but also by established professional hierarchies, ideological assumptions, and institutional interests. It is therefore legitimate to investigate why certain new findings receive immediate attention while others remain at the margins of scientific discussion for long periods, and under what conditions a debatable theory can become an almost compulsory starting point for subsequent research. Deliberate falsification, the intentional suppression of data, and the manipulation of evidence are serious allegations that require concrete proof in specific cases. Precisely for that reason, however, such possibilities should not be ruled out in advance; instead, we need a transparent research environment in which misconduct can be identified and cannot simply be dismissed by appealing to the authority of the institution concerned.

Distortions in the interpretation of history become particularly dangerous when a single narrative ceases to be presented as one possible explanation and instead becomes a boundary imposed on thought, beyond which every other question is automatically classified as meaningless, unacceptable, or dangerous. In such circumstances, humanity may lose sight not only of certain parts of its past, but also of the possibility of discovering new connections by moving beyond the limits of current knowledge. The interpretation of the past can then cease to serve shared inquiry and become an instrument for preserving existing structures of power and institutional influence.

Ontological Consequences and the Need for Intellectual Liberation

As an ontologist, I see the distortion of the past as a problem not merely because it can perpetuate incorrect data and mistaken historical conclusions, but because it can narrow humanity’s understanding of itself and create intellectual constraints that also determine the possibilities of the future. If a society learns that its history can be understood only through a single, unquestionable account of origins, it may easily reject insights emerging from other cultures, traditions, or new scientific discoveries. Diversity then becomes a perceived threat rather than an opportunity for understanding.

The peoples and cultures of the world are not merely custodians of separate historical narratives; they also preserve a wide range of human experiences, observations, forms of thought, and bodies of knowledge. No single culture or institution can therefore claim the exclusive right to interpret the past of all humanity from its own perspective. Ancient traditions, oral histories, myths, sacred texts, and philosophical systems may preserve important information about how people understood their world, interpreted nature, and identified the questions they considered fundamental. Yet these sources should not automatically be treated as literal historical accounts, just as they should not be dismissed simply because they were not formulated in the language of modern science.

The world must finally free itself from the suffocating grip of religious authority wherever that authority prevents free inquiry, the examination of evidence, and open comparison between different interpretations of the world. This does not mean, however, that ancient philosophical approaches, cultural memory, or the richness of human experience should be discarded. Intellectual liberation does not mean replacing one unquestionable authority with another; it means ensuring that no religious, political, or scientific institution possesses an exclusive mandate to determine humanity’s past and future.

Genuine openness does not mean accepting every claim as true. It means refusing to exempt any claim from examination merely because it is familiar, comforting, or sanctioned by authority. Equally, a new theory does not become more truthful simply because it opposes an official position; old and new interpretations alike must be judged by their evidence, the consistency of their reasoning, and their verifiability. What we need is not another unquestionable narrative, but a shared body of knowledge in which recognizing an error is not a disgrace, making a correction is not a defeat, and the confrontation of different viewpoints is understood not as hostility, but as a natural part of discovery.

The Need for an International, Interdisciplinary Research Platform

On this basis, I believe that renewing humanity’s historical and cultural self-understanding cannot be accomplished within the boundaries of a single academic discipline, nor can it be entrusted to an institutional system in which the participation of the world’s peoples, cultures, and researchers is merely a formal possibility. We need an international, interdisciplinary research platform through which archaeology, history, linguistics, anthropology, genetics, geology, climate science, and other relevant fields can investigate questions about humanity’s past in cooperation with one another, while local communities, Indigenous peoples, smaller cultures, and custodians of traditional knowledge are also included in the shared endeavor.

The purpose of such a platform would not be to create a single new historical narrative that everyone must accept, but to establish the conditions for comparing different interpretations, examining evidence collectively, discussing disputed questions openly, and revising earlier conclusions whenever necessary. Research findings should be accessible and verifiable, the relationship between the data used and the conclusions drawn should be clearly demonstrated, and a distinction must be maintained between directly observable facts, inferences derived from them, hypotheses that remain under investigation, and open questions. No claim should become unquestionable merely because an influential institution or professional community has accepted it.

The aim of international cooperation should not be to force all participants into an artificially unified position, because genuine scientific and cultural dialogue must leave room for different interpretations, provided that their evidential foundations, conclusions, and limits of validity can be clearly stated. A shared position should not be predetermined; it should emerge through investigation wherever the evidence genuinely allows agreement. Differences that remain unresolved should not be erased, but preserved as questions worthy of further research.

I consider it especially important that this platform should not seek to establish yet another closed scientific elite, but should instead develop a transparent framework for international cooperation in which participation, professional criticism, and the verification of results do not depend exclusively on existing institutional connections or the approval of traditional authorities. The freedom of research can become a genuine value only when the formulation of new questions, the questioning of previous conclusions, and the inclusion of different cultural perspectives are not merely permitted in theory, but genuinely supported in practice.

Restoring Access to the Future

Ultimately, the stakes in understanding the past extend beyond whether we can determine the age of an ancient structure more accurately, correctly interpret an old inscription, or revise a previously accepted historical theory. They also concern whether humanity can free itself from the intellectual constraints that prevent it from recognizing the full range of its own possibilities. If the interpretation of the past becomes captive to present-day interests, the future can easily become captive to the ideas those interests consider desirable. If, however, we treat the past as an open body of knowledge that can be continually examined and corrected when necessary, we gain more opportunities to shape the future not through inherited errors, but through an increasingly profound understanding of reality.

As an ontologist, I believe humanity does not need another exclusive truth, another unquestionable authority, or another narrative elevated above all others. What it needs is a shared space for inquiry in which the peoples of the world can contribute their knowledge, experience, and cultural heritage as equal participants in the effort to understand humanity’s past and future. For this reason, I am initiating the establishment of an international, interdisciplinary research platform, and I intend to take responsibility for ensuring its founding, because I consider this the reassuring path that can give the peoples of the world a genuine opportunity to shape their future through shared knowledge rather than in opposition to one another.

I am convinced that liberating the interpretation of the past does not mean denying history, rejecting science, or discarding ancient wisdom. It means recognizing that no human system has the right to close off the possibility of understanding reality once and for all. The purpose of shared research should therefore not be to provide an immediate and final answer to every question, but to restore humanity’s freedom to ask questions, its access to its own past, and its ability to ensure that the future is not determined by inherited assumptions that have never been properly examined.

The peoples of the world must regain access to a more beautiful, more open, and ontologically clearer future! This requires, first, the courage to re-examine what we have so far believed to be true about the past, and the responsibility, integrity, and willingness to cooperate needed to ensure that the facts we discover are not placed in the service of our own interests, but are used for the common good of humanity!