In Re Ancient Sources.

[Gaius Octavius]

I am not trying to be a bad boy. I am serious. So, don't anyone get their knickers in a twist.

 

If ancient sources are the only reliable sources, what is the point of any new work?

 

When do ancient sources come to an end?

 

Who is the last ancient source?

[Melvadius]

I am not trying to be a bad boy. I am serious. So, don't anyone get their knickers in a twist.

 

If ancient sources are the only reliable sources, what is the point of any new work?

 

When do ancient sources come to an end?

 

Who is the last ancient source?

 

The question of who the last ancient source is one I couldn't try to answer but as to the point of them I can think of a few of answers.

 

Advances in technology are beginning to make it possible to read ancient documents that previously were illegible or impossible to reform into a readable format. Here I am thinking of writing tablets like those from Vindolanda where the ink has faded but can now be at least partially deciphered with infra-red photographs. A similar technology being used with the carbonized papyrii from the Villa of the Papyrii but also the papyrus sheets that have been formed into masks for mummies and been over painted that scientists believe they may be able to read using electronic scanning technology.

 

As to what can be done with existing texts one of my old tutors has been rereading some texts written in Greek about one of the major battles between the Romans and the Parthians. He beleives that he has found a mistranslation as several words in Greek cn have more than one meaning. He has re-interpreted the text on the basis of the possible different meanings and comparing those to the actual landscape they describe and is currently preparing an expedition to confirm his findings.

 

If he is correct he will have identified not just the battlefield but a whole series of defencive structures in the area which up to now have been unknown.

[docoflove1974]

Another way to add to the question is this: what do the texts tell us now?

 

Texts from any area do many things: they are snapshots of the language of a group of people at a given time; they tell us how the society represented viewed the world in which they lived; they give first-hand accounts of topics and events and sentiments which we cannot 'recreate' now; they help us to understand the person (or perhaps group of people) who wrote the document, and their personality and prejudices. When we read 'first-hand accounts' and ancient texts, various disciplines view them from various angles.

 

Furthermore, remember that every single 'researcher' (I use the term in single quotes, so as to include the various interpretations from scholars through the ages) has their own bias and opinions, which will always influence their analysis, regardless of the area. This is true of any author, regardless of it being the first-hand account or the later interpretation. Additionally, because scholars and researchers are constantly finding new evidence, new texts, and new sources, it's necessary to re-visit topics with fresh eyes, as well as 'fresh' data, to further understand what happened in the past. So it is important to read not only a 'current' (aka 'academically accepted') interpretation of a given text, but also previous interpretations and the first-hand accounts.

 

Think of it as a jigsaw puzzle: the various interpretations, as well as the first-hand accounts, are the individual pieces...when one puts the pieces together in the correct assemblage, only then is one able to view the whole picture. However, unlike that jigsaw puzzle, we'll never fully know what happened...there area always pieces missing, but we always find new ones.

Edited December 6, 2007 by docoflove1974

[M. Porcius Cato]

I think the jigsaw puzzle analogy is right. I'd just add that the pieces of the puzzle aren't just ancient texts, but also ancient coins, inscriptions, and all the patterned data that arises from the archeology of everyday goods (e.g., number of pots found in location A at time 1 versus time 2 and in location B at time 1 versus time 2; number of roof tiles found in ...).

 

Moreover, new data doesn't just ADD to and SUBTRACT from the number of possible new interpretations, some new data MULTIPLIES the number of possible new interpretations and other new data DIVIDES the number of possible interpretations. Consequently, the possibilities for new scholars remains vast in proportion to the accumulated scholarship of prior generations.

[Gaius Octavius]

A good job is being done on Question #1.

 

I've got so much spinning around in my head, so please excuse me. Should I take it that the pieces themselves are 'fluid' as Melvadius says about words, i.e., their meaning then and along the way to now? (I have felt this way about the Bible.) Doc and MPC have hit me with monkey wrenches. How, when, and where can one trust the veracity of a writing, or the evidence of 'things'? (I am not trying to be cynical, paranoid, nor a nihilist.) As between accredited and differing scholars in the same time period, how would one know who to accept?

 

I am presented with another problem. The alleged recorded speeches of the great men. I think (have read) that they are to some degree the fabrications of authors.

 

Please also work on the other two questions, and thanks for your help.

[docoflove1974]

I believe that we've all also answered your 2nd question, GO...if not, perhaps you can guide us?

 

I've got so much spinning around in my head, so please excuse me. Should I take it that the pieces themselves are 'fluid' as Melvadius says about words, i.e., their meaning then and along the way to now? (I have felt this way about the Bible.) Doc and MPC have hit me with monkey wrenches. How, when, and where can one trust the veracity of a writing, or the evidence of 'things'? (I am not trying to be cynical, paranoid, nor a nihilist.) As between accredited and differing scholars in the same time period, how would one know who to accept?

 

Well, to be honest...when reading *anything*, one must be somewhat cynical. Every author, be they ancient or modern, has a bias...this is something which should be tatooed on every school child's brain, yet it's sorely missing. Furthermore, bias is not a bad thing: it means that the author/speaker has a point they wish to get across, they have an opinion, and they are trying to convince you of their point. Personally, I see bias as a good thing; otherwise we're pretty boring.

 

How do you know what to believe? Well, follow your gut and your common sense, and use some logic. Keep an open mind; this is something that most everyone needs to be reminded of. Bottom line, believe what makes sense to you...and be understanding and critical (yes, you can do both) of all research which is presented. Think about it, mull it over, wrestle with it, and make your own opinions. It seems like a daunting task...but it's one everyone can do.

 

All of the above is especially true in the humanities and social sciences; when one has "cold hard facts," things get a little different, but the same reasoning processes apply.

 

There, my $0.02.