Pritanoi (and Casse) Generals-Innacurate?

[SlickNicaG69]

What is the

methodology of ancient history

?

When you read ancient history you can tell, given our advanced state of knowledge, what is readily acceptable and what is not; thus, the primary use of the source. For example, the statue of Athena in the Parthenon can be accepted because it was possible for people make such large objects even in that day. Just because archaeology doesn't prove it doesn't disprove it. However, if the source states it would stand up and greet every person that came to pay it respect, we can readily say that is untrue and disproven by, once again, noting that such things were impossible during that day. Much the same, just because there existed a statue of Remus and Romulus, doesn't mean they actually existed. There is little need for archaeology in terms of history. To me, archaeology is only useful for discovery, like finding a new dinosaur that existed, not to re-evaluate or find the truth.

[Moros]

First of all you seem to assume that Archeology and Ancient historiography are the sole sources of information? What about papyrology, epigraphy, numismatics,...
Secondly archaeological evidence just like historical evidence isn't just accepted as is. It's subject to internal and external source criticism. Archaeology is one aid to make a reconstruction of the past, which due to the limited amount of historical evidence holds a more important role in ancient history than modern history. However just like with historical and other sources, every single source of information needs to be evaluated before usage. But the again these are some of the basic principles of historical methodology.

What is the historical methodology? Well of course there are some minor different accents and all within the Academic world on the practice of history. But in general the basic modern principles on practising history are the same. For a good basic understanding and introduction to the historical methodology I'll refer you to the excellent History in practice by Jordanova. There's actually a very nice quote in it on Archaeology and Ancient history. Sadly I don't have it at hand now. I'll get you that quote this weekend when at campus.

[SlickNicaG69]

First of all you seem to assume that Archeology and Ancient historiography are the sole sources of information? What about papyrology, epigraphy, numismatics,...
Secondly archaeological evidence just like historical evidence isn't just accepted as is. It's subject to internal and external source criticism. Archaeology is one aid to make a reconstruction of the past, which due to the limited amount of historical evidence holds a more important role in ancient history than modern history. However just like with historical and other sources, every single source of information needs to be evaluated before usage. But the again these are some of the basic principles of historical methodology.

What is the historical methodology? Well of course there are some minor different accents and all within the Academic world on the practice of history. But in general the basic modern principles on practising history are the same. For a good basic understanding and introduction to the historical methodology I'll refer you to the excellent History in practice by Jordanova. There's actually a very nice quote in it on Archaeology and Ancient history. Sadly I don't have it at hand now. I'll get you that quote this weekend when at campus.

Actually I was being sort of sarcastic, because the only "methodology" to writing history is writing about what is happening, is it not Moros?

[Skullheadhq]

Actually I was being sort of sarcastic, because the only "methodology" to writing history is writing about what is happening, is it not Moros?

Propaganda, Romans used that

[SlickNicaG69]

Propaganda, Romans used that

Kinda like the Yellow Journalism of our day right? But even such propaganda can't ever blot out the sun. What did propaganda do for the telling of the Teutoberg Forest? What did it do for the Sacks of Rome? If anything, it "justified" Rome, but it never lied.

[Moros]

Actually I was being sort of sarcastic, because the only "methodology" to writing history is writing about what is happening, is it not Moros?

No, it is not. Writing history is about source evaluation, analysis, synthesis,... to get a reconstruction of the past.

[SlickNicaG69]

No, it is not. Writing history is about source evaluation, analysis, synthesis,... to get a reconstruction of the past.

I disagree Moros. History can only be written by contemporaries. That which is not real is not history and the subsequent deletion of such insertions is just, to continue my allegory, the Sun finally shining through.

[Tellos Athenaios]

There is a distinctive difference in writing what (according to you) is/was happening, and writing history. History does not merely seek to establish what is/has happening, it seeks to establish understanding of what is/was happening (causes, consequences and context).

Your version of history is like a Mathematician observing that prime numbers larger than two are never even, not troubling to prove why this is so.

[vartan]

Your version of history is like a Mathematician observing that prime numbers larger than two are never even, not troubling to prove why this is so.

+rep @ Maths analogy. Possibly one of the best ways to imagine your idea!

[Moros]

I disagree Moros. History can only be written by contemporaries. That which is not real is not history and the subsequent deletion of such insertions is just, to continue my allegory, the Sun finally shining through.

History written by contemporaries still is synthesis and analysis and evaluation of sources,... unless you're talking about a diary? And amazingly you're still writing a reconstruction of the past.

You seem to be thinking in very simple, not to call idiotic, ways it seems...

[oudysseos]

There is little need for archaeology in terms of history. To me, archaeology is only useful for discovery, like finding a new dinosaur that existed, not to re-evaluate or find the truth.

This is one of the most bizarre statements that I have ever seen.

It is becoming increasingly clear that EB2 is not a mod that caters to your (frankly odd) tastes. Well, I suppose we'll just have to live with not having you as a fan.

[bobbin]

This is one of the most bizarre statements that I have ever seen.

Too right! I can't think of many archeologists that go around discovering dinosaurs all the time.

[Blxz]

Too right! I can't think of many archeologists that go around discovering dinosaurs all the time.

I beleive that is paleotology.(sp?)

I get both archeology and paleotology attibuted to me all the time when I say i study geology. People remark how "fun it must be digging up ancient dinosaurs and civilizations everyday". "Actually, no, I just learn how to rip ore from the ground..."

[Moros]

Paleontology is the study of prehistoric life, if that's what you're after. Haven't you ever seen a Jurrasic Parc?

[Ibrahim]

To me, archaeology is only useful for discovery, like finding a new dinosaur that existed, not to re-evaluate or find the truth.

u alright bro?

Too right! I can't think of many archeologists that go around discovering dinosaurs all the time.

I wonder if that's Kirk Cameron in disguise, based on that comment.

@ 1:00

srsly people:

this guy (Ibrahim), is a paleontology student. his job, if he graduates is to dig for fossil life-specifically animals-then study them. the operative word here is "study them"

an archeologist, like say Indiana Jones or the fellows who work on Mayan cities, dig up ancient human artifacts to study. the operative word here is, again, "study them"

is it really this ******* hard to understand the difference?!

[Moros]

Nope.

[Ibrahim]

Nope.

good. now to see if the person who screwed up does as well

[oudysseos]

Probably not, given past examples.

[Brennus]

an archeologist, like say Indiana Jones or the fellows who work on Mayan cities, dig up ancient human artifacts to study. the operative word here is, again, "study them"

Is it true that archaeologists are some of the most wonderful people in the world, attractive, friendly, well liked etc?

[vartan]

Is it true that archaeologists are some of the most wonderful people in the world, attractive, friendly, well liked etc?

It's true. One of my friends is learning to be an archaeologist and she's been wonderful, attractive (read: hot), friendly and well-liked (read this however you will, LOL) for as long as I can remember.

[Ibrahim]

Is it true that archaeologists are some of the most wonderful people in the world, attractive, friendly, well liked etc?

some of, but not the most.

Geologists (and by extension, Paleontologists*) are the most

*its technically a branch of Geology-it is a historical science-though in reality its on the border between Biology and Geology.

anyways, how on earth did we all get into this? we're supposed to be correcting some guy on Chariot use in Britain.

[bobbin]

anyways, how on earth did we all get into this? we're supposed to be correcting some guy on Chariot use in Britain.

I believe it was this little gem of a statement that started the ball rolling.

To me, archaeology is only useful for discovery, like finding a new dinosaur that existed, not to re-evaluate or find the truth.

[Brennus]

some of, but not the most.

Geologists (and by extension, Paleontologists*) are the most

anyways, how on earth did we all get into this? we're supposed to be correcting some guy on Chariot use in Britain.

lol, I will admit I always wanted to be a palaeontologist.

Aye that guy was me, I was only thinking about burial evidence when I posted this thread, I forgot about chariot fittings found at sites.