Calilasseia

So if a document written in an era when the wheel was high technology states that a given building was constructed 5,000 years before the present, and archaeologists later find that building and date it accurately to just 2,500 years before the present using multiple dating techniques, you would place MORE credence in the written document?

An interesting approach to history you have there.

Meanwhile:

The point is that Dave is making claims about human lifespans that are significantly at variance with known facts of biology and medical science. Therefore the burden of proof lies with him. Furthermore, he ascribes special significance to one source of texts - namely the Bible - without any reason other than that he happens to believe in its inerrancy. The rest of us expect somewhat higher standards of evidence. Given his stated positions above, if he is to be consistent with regard to written documents, then he should place equal credence in the Sumerian King List - after all, it is a written document, and according to Dave, written documents are, as the quote above says, "in a class by themselves". What we wish to make manifest by our probings in this matter is the fact (known to several of us courtesy of past encounters) that Dave does NOT consistently apply this principle, and gives privileged status to Genesis that is not ascribed elsewhere (except of course to any document that he can cite as alleged "confirmation" of its veracity).

I was recently in contact with the British Museum with respect to the dating of artefacts from Ancient Egypt and the reliance upon them as a means of determining past history. As I have stated elsewhere on this board, the various academics at the British Museum are world class in their respective fields, and attained that reputation through putting in a LOT of hard work to do so. They would probably raise their eyebrows at the above comment of yours to put it mildly, given that they have numerous solid reasons to be wary and suspciious of documents.

Furthermore, if anyone has any doubt whatsoever that documents, far from being "in a class of their own", are frequently in need of particular care and attention when dealing with them, I offer as an example the "Hitler Diaries". Which a German magazine (and the Sunday Times newspaper in the UK) paid a LOT of money to serialise, only to have them exposed as a fraud.

Meanwhile:

Wrong.

What many of us here would say, on the other hand, is that if you summarily dismiss the evidence, then you are rejecting the wonders of science. That has nothing to do whatsoever with any particular value set, insofar as that value set accepts the basic principle that evidence carries weight.

Actually, most of the 'bullying' that took place in the Victorian era was religious. Thomas Hardy's Tess of the d'Urbervilles is a particularly scathing literary critique thereof. As for children "worshipping rocks", well I don't know about the children where you live, but the ones in my part of the world, if they do manifest any desire to 'worship' something, tend to direct their admiration toward footballers and pop stars. Which is a somewhat more credible stance than offering homage to a mythical being, given that those footballers and pop stars demonstrably exist.

Roger Pearse

Good for you: tell us more. Who did you deal with? (I am a past member of the Egypt Exploration Society, you see).

I would hope so. Some might consider that those holding chairs of ancient history and classics at major universities might have some claim to respect also.

Perhaps you should ask them, rather than suppose that they endorse that view. I think that you might be surprised at what you get, even from so object-focused a group.

You see, literary sources tell us the majority of what we know about antiquity. I cannot imagine any conceivable archaeology that will give us what Pliny's letters do, for instance. How do we learn about the plotting after Caesar's death, other than from the letters exchanged at the time that we get from Cicero?

A belt-buckle cannot speak. We know so little about the beaker-folk; but Cicero is a friend, and we can all read with pleasure Pliny's remarks about Regulus, gnash our teeth with Sidonius Apollinaris at the treachery betraying his countrymen to the Goths. We may smile ruefully with the emperor Majorian when meeting with Gallic senators, as he finds that they are interested only in honours that are about to vanish with the empire itself.

Such things cannot be recovered from digs. I remember digging out a piece of Samian ware on a dig. It was marvellous to hold it! But it could not speak, not like a letter. A tablet from Vindolanda reading "send more beer" brings us closer to those frozen legionaries than any amount of pottery.

I say nothing that we don't know, I'm sure. But it is worth reiterating.

Archaeology is valuable, and I wouldn't want people to suppose that I was setting the two up as enemies -- on the contrary -- but then no one disputes that. Something that is hard and testable and definite is of inestimable value.

But to discard the texts -- as has been said here -- is to get things thoroughly upside down. It is to lose most of the data that we have.

That ancient writers do not give us the whole picture is true -- neither does a find of a beaker. An ancient writer will be biased, may be mistaken, will write in accordance with the canons of his time. But... he lives there. Even if he is wrong about something, just the fact that he says so has evidential value in a lot of cases; it has to be something that is at least possible to say in his culture.

I would encourage anyone who supposes that they can write a history of ancient Rome without using literary sources to attempt it. Or, perhaps more reasonably, to ask a professional.

I remember the case well. Indeed I remember that an eminent modern historian, Trevor-Roper, authenticated them. In the humanities it is generally best to remember that authorities are merely human.

Epigraphic forgeries can also command substantial sums, and that their production is co-extensive with the modern world. But this is where stratigraphic archaeology scores.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Occam's Aftershave

Dave, I just finished reading Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang.

Can you give me a good method for telling if it was factual or merely fictional? It certainly mentioned some real places, like London and Dover.

Should I assume it's factual until proven otherwise? London and Dover are authentic, right?

Think carefully, then please give us your answers Dave.

deadman_932

While we wait for Dave to provide any supporting evidence for his beliefs outside of the vague and tenuous references of Josephus, I'd like to state that -- as a professional archaeologist specializing in prehistory -- I disagree with this notion that archaeology, oral and written histories need be ranked in some heirarchy of relative value to understanding/knowing the past. Any of these methods can trump/strengthen/destroy the others depending on the circumstance and each has flaws that have been brought to light.

These matters have been the subject of intense debate in archaeology, particularly from the advent of the "New Archaeology" in the 1960's to the current fascination with "Post-Processualism" today. A standard starting point on how histories (oral and written) and archaeology interact is the work of R.G. Collingwood. This should be supplemented with an understanding of Hempel, Lewis Binford and then onwards into processualism. Post-processualist works influenced by structuralism and lit-crit include Ian Hodder, Bruce Trigger, Shanks & Tilley. There is a synthesis emerging from all of this today, which I leave to readers to discover.

Given that the vast majority of human past is prehistory, I have, of course, biases here, but I think that the notion that archaeology is somehow the "handmaiden of history" reflects an overly-simplistic and frankly anachronistic Victorian view of what archaeological theory and method is today.

The Evil One

No one has said that. No one has come close to saying that.

If you genuinely thought we were saying that then I can sympathise with your expressions of disagreement.

All that has been said by me, Calilasseia and others, is that when texts and physical evidence{*} tell us two different stories, physical evidence wins.

You are absolutely correct that the majority of what we know, we know from texts. It doesn't change the fact that the textual evidence is weaker than the physical evidence. All it means that the majority of what we know (based solely on texts) is less solidly founded than the minority of what we know (based on physical evidence as well as texts).

I cannot believe you are unaware of this. You have displayed yourself well aware of the need to handle texts with a critical eye. You have attempted to explain the long lives reported of the ancients, not by suggesting that our knowledge of human physiology and biology is wrong, but by suggesting mistranslation or miscalculation -- ie you yourself are allowing physical evidence to trump the text where they conflict.

In summary none of us is suggesting an approach to texts vs. physical evidence any more radical than the approach that you yourself have used in this very thread.

In other words, on the substantive issue of the thread -- when texts and physical evidence disagree, what do we follow? -- you agree with us and disagree with afdave, when push comes to shove.

Unless of course I'm badly misreading you. In which case feel free to unburden me of my confusion.


------
ETA: {*} by which, deadman, I mean the evidence of biology and physics as much as or more than archaeology, when we are dealing in possibilities and impossibilities.

Roger Pearse

You might have gathered that your desire to pick a fight with afdave is of limited interest -- to me, at any rate.

Now surely the numerals in ancient texts must be considered as a group, and not merely those in the bible? You introduced the sumerian king list, and I am quite happy to run with it! Until we know what the numbers mean, how can one discuss them?

You're welcome to ignore my posts, of course. You will appreciate that your case doesn't gather merit thereby.

But we cannot determine that the text is inaccurate until we know what it says, tho, and what its authors intend it to say. Otherwise all we are doing is setting up a strawman.

It would probably be better to find out, tho.

Do we know this for fact, tho? The translations I saw varied. If so, isn't that interesting all of itself?

Yet I did not ask whether ancient literary testimony that contradicted a physical object should be accepted anyway. You suggested -- certainly as far as I understood you -- that literary testimony was valueless. If you retract that, then of course we are in agreement.

Now I think that using 'weighty' in such a sense is to play games with words. As far as I am aware, you are not proposing to produce some ante-diluvian skeletons to argue from. In fact you merely propose to keep asserting what is the state of play of human nature today.

This, as I remarked earlier, is to waste time by asserting what no-one debates; that these ante-diluvians were not like us. That they lived for vast periods shows that.

In short, as I remarked, that these comments have no content once properly analysed, in that they merely state what no-one disputes, rather than address the issue. I know that you haven't quite grasped the point that I am making, but I'll attempt it again.

I think you suggested that by 'no content' I really meant 'content that I disagree with.' I'm not sure why you suppose that people would not be willing to disagree with you openly, tho. Please accept my assurances that I am quite willing to send my servants round to thrash you for impudence, if it will make you more comfortable! But I think that some of your positions really do not say what you think they do, and do indeed mean nothing -- literally nothing either way -- when critically examined.

On the other hand, your opinions are your business, surely?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

I am glad to hear it. You certainly sounded as if you were saying this! Your less-educated coreligionists say it often.

Surely, so long as by 'physical evidence' you do not mean what you say you do -- that the laws of physics and biology cannot and never have changed. That may or may not be so -- how do we tell? -- but a denial of it is the point at issue, and for your argument to hold water you'd need to demonstrate it, not presume it.

Actually I am expressing no opinion on the issue of whether the ante-diluvians were extraordinarily long-lived. Sorry! I'm open-minded.

Rather I was interested in this question of what the numerals mean in the texts. I'm translating Eusebius at the moment, and the issue is one he is addressing. If the sumerian king-lists are the ultimate source of Berossus' information, then I want to know what terms they use, etc.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

I agree, as an amateur interested in antiquity.

If archaeology could tell us the jokes that Cicero cracked in the senate to humiliate Clodius, then we might take such a view. Sadly it cannot.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

deadman_932

Many archaeologists, esp. post-processualist archaeologists ( I am not one of them) consider artifacts to BE "texts." This was largely the focus of Ian Hodder's "Reading the Past."

Sauron

[QUOTE=Roger Pearse;4596331]Not sure why that is relevant. The Egypt Exploration Society is an organization with open membership to anyone interested in that particular topic. Rather like the National Geographic Society and Smithsonian Institution. Unless there's more to this statement of yours?

Generally, yes. But you've produced no evidence that these esteemed people holding chairs of history and classics have said anything *close* to what you're claiming here re: the primacy of written texts as sources of history. So I'm not sure what respecting their expertise does for your argument.

Excuse me? Cal was just repeating your argument. You were the first one to claim that they held such a viewpoint; burden of proof is on your back, not anywhere else.

Go ask them and find out for us - not only will it force you to do the homework for your own claim, it might also be illuminating.

Repetition of a previous claim is not proof.

The problem is that we don't know these details happened the way they were recorded. So to claim that we "know" such and such from ancient history ignores the problems already cited with solitary reliance upon texts.

Yes, it can - if you know how to read the information on it. Forensic archaeology and policework both rely upon inanimate objects being able to tell significant amounts of data.

But without external verification of these items, the most we can say is that "Cicero says...." or "Pliny says....". If there is no a priori reason to doubt what they say, then we usually let their claim or comment pass, provisionally speaking.

But if there is a good reason to doubt what they're saying -- such as when Herodotus tells us about flying serpents, or when the Old Testament mentions 1,000 year lifespans -- then we don't hesitate to jettison the prima facie claim as utter nonsense. We do this regardless of what the source text is - Greek myths, Hebrew myths, or even ancient historians.

This approach to evaluating ancient texts is sound, it is even-handed, and it is harmonious with everything we know about science, history, medicine, archaeology, etc. I fail to see why you object to this process. I'm pretty sure I already know why you object; but I doubt you have the courage to be honest and admit it.

Utter nonsense. I've heard archaeologists speak with the same excitement about being able to touch the same fabric that the ancient Incans wove by their own hands 600 years ago. Or, to open a tomb in Egypt that hadn't seen the light of day in over 2,000 years. Or to examine the stomach contents of a mummified dead person's last meal from 1,000 years ago in a peat bog. The claim "this brings us closer", like the claim of beauty, is entirely in the eye of the beholder.

This affectation is merely your personal favoritism at work; you have dabbled in texts over other forms of evidence, and it is biasing you in that same direction. As far as the evidentiary value goes, however, the physical artifact does not suffer from mistranslation, deliberate lying, or other failings of ancient texts. It is testable and can be validated without appeals to authority - all of which make a physical object superior to a written text as evidence.

No one has said that here. What is being discarded is the prima facie claim. The claim may have some other meaning behind it, one that doesn't violate the laws of medicine, biology, or the rest of what we know about science.

Impossible, since we have no data to support a claim of 1,000 year lifespans.