Ancient and ArchaeologyÌý permalink
Ancient Written Sources
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by OrganettoBoy (U3734614) on Monday, 27th November 2006
How do historians go about relying (or otherwise) on historic written sources. Some sources seem to be dimissed out of hand whilst other seem to be taken as "gospel". What do historians look at to decide what is fantasy and what is truth?
For example a number of years ago there was a series about great commanders on TV. Alexander the Great featured and numerous sources were quoted depicting his successes. Another in the series was Julius Ceasar but this episode seemed to exclusively use Ceasar's own writings (which seemed a bit dubious to me at the time). Ceasar's writings were taken as fact and not backed up with other reports.
I've also seen some arguments where written records from about a 100 years after the event were taken as better evidence than records written even later. Why? Although closer a 100 years is at least one generation earlier than the writer could have personally known.
How do you gauge the veracity of an ancient text? -
Message 2
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Monday, 27th November 2006
NOt an historian bit a writer using many sources - this is ever a problem.... analogy read andy 6 daily newspapers and are you ever sure you have the truth?
As you have in my opinion, rightly judged, Caesar's own accounts are spunn to suit his needs - so what one does then is try to find out what the current climate is for pitching his aims.
There are many historians whose opinion you come to trust - especially when they give source references in depth with translations. Those with a strong agenda are taken with circumspection... and yet more research. There are contributors on this board who are very knowledgable and balanced in their fields... read and learn.
Sometimes, when they surface to respond in contention, becomes enthralling for those who follow the discussions. Long may such minds enrich ours.
As ever, not the sort of reply you wanted but as I see it from my small corner of the tapestry.
Regards P. -
Message 3
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Monday, 27th November 2006
Also remember to edit a response before posting - ugh! Sorry for the errors. Have been away too long.
P. -
Message 4
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 27th November 2006
Welcome back priscilla.
Caesar's writings are indeed a great source for his activities. He was guilty of huge bias in his own favour but generally was reporting back to base about how he was spending the tax-payers' money on his rampage through Gaul. His accounts therefore are rather accurate, it is presumed, with regard to places, durations and peoples identified in them, as well as warfare techniques and diplomatic initiatives (ie. bribes etc) used to smooth or effect the advance of his legions. Subjective opinions regarding his own fortitude and his men's however (as well as the 'worth' of his opponents) can be taken with a little scepticism since they were designed primarily to remind Rome of his prestige and if possible enhance it in his absence.
Alexander had accounts written as he went along as well. Unfortunately however his motives had little to do with accountability and all to do with self-aggrandisement, so they serve as pointers rather than sources of verification. -
Message 5
Posted by jllb0221 (U3587794) on Monday, 27th November 2006
I always wondered if historians picked & chose what they saw in the ancients' writings. For example, we all know how prudish the Victorians were so when they read something that was, in their day, considered risque, did they mistranslate it, ignore it, burn it or hide it? In other words, the ancients lived in a totally different culture than ours so how can we accurately interpret their writings?
-
Message 6
Posted by adwCymru (U6568136) on Monday, 27th November 2006
Firstly, I would very much hope that no historians take any sources as "gospel". Sources are not generally written off in their entirety.
More often, what they say about a specific thing can be written off. For instance if it is contradicted by the archaeological record. A good example of this is Josephus' claim that Romans soldiers drew their sword from a scabbard on their left. There is sufficient archaeological evidence to discount this for the period in question.
There are works that are completely written off as anything like historical fact. Xenophon's Cyropedia is a good example of this - it is a bit bizzare, made up one could say.
Most sources are more tricky. Arrian's account of Alexander's campaign is, of course much later than the events described. However, as with so many ancient works, one must take into account the possibility that the author was working from an earlier account - the author of which could have himself worked from an even earlier account much closer to the period in question.
Thus Time is, as you pointed out, a problematic means of determining veracity.
Caesar's works are an interesting case. We know he had his agenda. We can assume his works were not composed for consumption by gullible idiots - on the contrary - a critical audience.
So, what we should not do is rubbish everything he says. What we should do is ask ourselves why would he lie about this or that. Did he have any reason to lie about certain things - such as Gaulish tribal structures?
There is also the matter of the questions we ask. Should we really be asking whether Caesar was a 'great general' - and base our discussion on his account?!
Historians tend to be interested in questions other than 'greatness' in the twenty first century. We can learn a lot from Caesar's account - from Roman methods of castramentation, use of fieldworks on the battle field (the African war), and the importance of logistics and supplies(the war in spain is one great tussle for both one's logistical security, and to deprive the enemy of his - water etc.).
Oh, and there are to my knowledge no reports but Caesar's...
The best thing to do is to read his accounts, including those concerning africa and spain (one was actually not written by Caesar, but by a less erudite follower), and think for one's self with regards to the values and limitations.
Technically, of course, there is little difference between a work that is 200 years after the events described, and a work 300, or perhaps even 150 or 100 years after the events described.
The thing is that these accounts are very interesting in their own right because of what they can tell us about THAT age. For instance, Appian, writing in the 3rd century AD (following a period of civil war and strife) viewed with hostility anything he saw as acting to the detriment of stability - in his analysis of Republican Rome.
So I suppose what I am saying is that there is so much to think about - and that this is a very interesting topic in its own right.
Perhaps you might like to consider Polybius' work... -
Message 7
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 27th November 2006
Hi OrganettoBoy,
Judging the reliability of texts is a major historical skill. Some evidence may be internal to the text concerned. How close in time is the text to the events described? Is the writer a primary source, that is a witness to the events described, or at least a contemporary of witnesses? What was the purpose of the work concerned? A woman in Norfolk writing a family letter to her husband in London may be misinformed about current political events but is most unlikely to lie. A historian publishing a book about the same events 25 years later might well be better informed but could easily be ‘economical with the truth’ to accommodate to the contemporary political climate.
Does the author have an axe to grind? As we have heard Caesar was a witness to the events in his Gallic War, but was unlikely to include much that cast a doubt on his generalship or political ability. Tacitus is a reliable historian, but his experiences in the reign of Domitian rather prejudiced him against the caprices of emperors. Also his ‘eve of battle speeches’ are not seriously intended to be the record of words actually spoken. Bede was one of the most careful historians who ever lived but his own sources were very limited, and he really didn’t like people who celebrated Easter on the wrong day!
Few ancient writers are represented by more that a few manuscripts of their works. It is reasonable to ask how accurate the copy we have might be? Are there portions clearly missing? Are there portions of the text that clearly post-date the original author and were therefore added by copyists. Were the copyists speaking the same language as the original author? A Norman monk might copy the Anglo-Saxon chronicle which contains Welsh names. It would be amazing if the Welsh names were correctly transcribed.
The accuracy of a text may be testable against other authors, other evidence (like coin legends), or archaeological findings. As I have mentioned in another thread ancient authors differed in their accounts of the origin of Hadrian’s Wall. Only the discovery of stones inscribed by the construction gangs proved that it was actually built in the reign of Hadrian.
The most difficult manuscripts are those written by authors whose primary intention was not to help us with historical facts, and whose work is a virtually unique source for the period concerned. The gospel of St Luke must be one of the most influential books ever written but is it a reliable source of historical information about the life of Jesus (as opposed to his ethical teaching)? The monk Gildas wrote a small book in an attempt to shame his contemporaries into a semblance of decent behaviour. He was not attempting to describe the international relations of Saxon and Celtic states in Britain; should we interpret his words in this way?
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 8
Posted by OrganettoBoy (U3734614) on Thursday, 30th November 2006
Thanks for the info everyone. Very interesting.
-
Message 9
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 3rd December 2006
It is a case of emphasis and its relevance to other data.
For example, personally I dislike Caesar as he seems to me to be a ranting oaf with a too good opinion of himself: a bit like one or two managing-directors I have come across in my life. However when Caesar's word is tested against other phenomena, such as the archaeolgical record, he does seem to be reporting actual events. In that case we have to accept that what he is saying is true but he is spinning it for his own ends: so we can amend our opinion accordingly.
I do a lot of work with medieval charters and, given that these relate to property and people working that property, we can be certain that these represent objective criteria. However, often we do not know the why and the wherefore these refer to and so we have to record and `park' the information for later reference or analysis.
All you can do is build up the available data, layer on layer - or even make a great heap as Nennius did - and seek to match or compare events and reportage. Gradually you can build up a clear interpretation of events and circumstances. The important thing is not to restrict your sources and struggle to reconcile the apparently irreconcileable.
By the way, the Victorians were not all prudish. We have some horrendously frank information about Victorian society. We have to accept that the Victorians had to clean up the mess left behind from the massive social disruption caused by the Industrial Revolution. Much of that was not nice at all. -
Message 10
Posted by jllb0221 (U3587794) on Friday, 8th December 2006
Very interesting about the Victorians! My grandmother (who was a child during the tail end of that era) was enamored by everything Victorian & I always suspected that they were a bit randier than she portrayed.
I also want to point out that how history is taught in each era influences historians. When I went to school here in the States, we were taught that the Vikings were ruthless thugs who preyed upon abbeys & monastaries for their gold & wealth. Whenever anyone asked why the Vikings would want this wealth if there was nowhere to spend it, the teacher couldn't answer. Now we find out (or it has been brought to light) that the Vikings had a thriving culture & weren't the meanies that earlier history books portrayed. It seems history is now giving a more balanced view of the past.
I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that a historian's present culture influences his/her interpretations of history. I often wonder, now that books are readily available, what interpretations future historians will make about us. How will they balance and weigh the present world events? -
Message 11
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 8th December 2006
...we were taught that the Vikings were ruthless thugs who preyed upon abbeys & monastaries for their gold & wealth...
Ìý
Broadly speaking that is the truth. But they did indeed have many ways of disposing of the wealth accrued also, and your teacher should have been aware of at least some of them. The quoted reputation is one they derived from their activities in Britain and Ireland, their reputation in areas of Eastern Europe (and even into Asia) was of shrewd and mercenary businessmen with the added bonus of a well oiled (in every sense) military machine at their disposal that was not to be sneezed at. In Central and Western continental Europe they concentrated a little more on 'rough diplomacy', and managed to integrate themselves pretty well into the upper echelons of power in many states, most notably the northern French territories which they made very much their own. Such acquisitions can not be achieved by longboats, sword blades and a devil-may-care attitude to mortality alone. They were the result of complex and sustained political strategy, and, more importantly in the context of the point your teacher failed to address, cost money.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.