spin

I love the way you go round in circles. We have substantial evidence for Alexander and that epoch, don't we? You have grounds to talk about what is in literary narratives in the context of history. :banghead::banghead:


spin

spin

So you are just wasting our time, yours and mine.

That you have physical evidence from which to work with.

Tether.

Ummm, what did you point out exactly?

You seem to be having short term memomry problems. I didn't talk about the corona civica until you mentioned it and my comment was about you trying to make something out of it. You are talking crap.

I'll let you hang yourself here.

That which visited Washington was the original. The one you saw in Florence was probably the copy.

That's nice.

So we are left with Prima Porta and Via Labicana. What a lot of cods.

It potentially can appear any time after 29BCE, can't it?

Take your eyes out of your navel.

Falling over your received terminology isn't very convincing.

You actually cribbed up and looked at some of the available material. I've got other things to do.

Well I have looked at the major pieces available.

Back to the gospels as evidence for gospels.

You'd simply have literary traditions whose value you couldn't really evince because you couldn't ground it anywhere. You have to plant your potentially historical knowledge somewhere with some tangible means.


spin

Rick Sumner

There's nothing to be gained by determining a course of historiography that is both tenable and practical?

I don't believe I ever suggested Augustus wasn't different in that respect.

This doesn't answer me. I'd assumed the problem of having no outside source was the circularity you are doomed to without it. You suggest that isn't the problem. So what is, in your view?

That you can't use the Ara Pacis to identify Augustus' appearance. Dig the similarity his entire family bears to him? Why do you think that is?

Once again your arrogance comes to bite you in the ass. The Corona Civica is the Belivacqua Augustus. It's why I was confused by whether you meant the crown or the name of the statue.

I'll let you try and imagine how you think I'm doing so.

The copy is in the plaza. The one in the museum is the real deal. Remember the infamous attack on it in '92?


Sure can. Which is why the hair style is the capper.


And you didn't. And haven't. And consequently were never in any position to be condescending. You got caught out, that's the bottom line. Eat crow.

Good for you. That is hardly what your condescending tone implied.

But you ask for evidence from the "period in question," when what I think you mean is specific to the New Testament. Hence my confusion. Confusion that is amplified by the fact that above you suggest it isn't circularity, but here suggest it is.

You couldn't deduce anything historical from Virgil, for example? Horace takes it for granted that his books will appear in shops. Does that tell us nothing?

Rick Sumner

So what constitues evidence for "an epoch," and how far does the evidence allow us to go? They weren't rhetorical questions. I understand what you're saying just fine. I'm increasingly suspicious, however, that you haven't really thought it through beyond a rote recitation.

Put aside your near fanatical devotion to the HJ/MJ question for just one minute. Look at something outside that, solely in the light of being outside that. There is clearly a spectrum. So where, would you suggest, that spectrum begins and ends, and why? What are the markers? How far, for example, can I go from Alexander before it starts to become problematic?

spin

You can go as far as you like, Rick.


spin

Rick Sumner

For posterity's sake:

Marble bust of Octavian from the 30s BCE



And, for purely selfish reasons of my own enthrallment:

Sardonyx Cameo of Livia (c.20 BCE)



What's really neat with it isn't just the art (though the detail is incredible. The trademark double-braid has never looked so good), it's that this was clearly a collector's piece, which provides us some cultural insight. Somebody apparently thought cameos of Augustus' wife were worth collecting. Why?

Both images from Galinsky (ed) The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus electronic edition. Figs. 54 and 5 respectively.

Rick Sumner

I knew. . .I *knew* I was going to regret letting you walk with this. Knew you would pop up, referencing the thread (inaccurately) in short time, declaring yourself some sort of victor.

"Evidence, tether. . .evidence, tether." The same pat answers again, and again, and again. But when pressed for the application behind them, the actual use for "evidence" that makes a given type of evidence, well, useful, you have nothing. Except to repeat yourself again, and again, and again. Saying nothing, but pretending you've said so very much.

Lay it out for me spin, show me, right here, what you contribute oh-so-substantially to discussion of historical method. Show me, starting with evidence, ending with conclusions, how anything you've said amounts to anything more than a pat answer you memorized years ago and have never been pressed on.

Not just some over simplified nonsense--"Augustus had statues therefore Augustus lived." Let's see some real history. Extrapolate as much as you can from the evidence. Let's see how far you go, how you get there, and if you actually have anything behind beyond "Because I'd like it if it worked that way."

Take your time. I'll be away for a few days, so you can really mull it over. But from what I've seen in this thread, and from what anyone is more than welcome to scroll up and see, you have no historical method. Credit where credit is due, you're very talented with texts. Which means nothing as to what you can preform as an historian.

And you're right spin, I "gleaned from [my] readings" information about Augustan statuary. You went to a museum. Anyone so inclined can scroll up and see what worked better.

While you're here, why not scroll up and see the strawman you concocted surrounding me and the historicisty of Jesus. The one you insisted you didn't engage in.

DCHindley

Relax Rick,

I thought Spin wasn't getting what he wanted from this game, took his ball and went home.

But now I see he's baaaack, as cock-sure and dismissive as ever.

DCH

spin

This is pretty a screwed up interpretation, Rick.

A field of history needs some hard evidence to show that there is really a field of evidence. -- But Siccius doesn't need hard evidence! :banghead:



So you don't like the hard evidence from the early empire. I guess no evidence will make you happy. You'll find a Siccius.

Wot?

The statues are hard evidence. And I didn't ask you to consider them alone, but your having done so has helped show how good they are as evidence. I continue to point you to the coins, umm, coins that fit in archaeological contexts, that fit into coin sequences. Then there are inscriptions which reflect historico-archaeological contexts (such as the one at the Porta Tiburtina, a gate repaired by Titus, putting his own inscription above that of Augustus). There is hard evidence a mile for you to stick your nose up at and try to reduce to something you can ignore.

You'll get nothing more from me.

Hang on. You still have some weird idea that because you read a few articles that you've said something about the statues?

I'll admit that I haven't seen much substance for conversation from you here, Rick. I'll admit that I assumed you were trying to say something substantive, because I want to read substantive argumentation. I admit now I'm not going to get any substance from you. I also admit that I don't see what you are trying to achieve here at BC&H.


spin

spin

Sorry, DCH, but what was I supposed to respond to? When I found that Rick wasn't going to get back to the HJ/MJ content of the proxy OP, I wasn't too interested, but I went up and down a few garden paths with Rick.


spin