The best part is that archaeology is like fax machines (remember fax machines?) the more of it you do, the more valuable it becomes. New discoveries help to date and understand old discoveries. 31/52
Näytä tämä ketju
-
Consequence: almost everything about their values, culture, social organization before the Romans and Greeks start describing it is speculative. Lots of ????s - tons. What archy can tell us, we know well - we can chart the changes in their objects really well! 40/52
Näytä tämä ketju
Like 'when did they shift from shorter, pointier swords to longer, slashier swords' - can do a detailed map!
But 'what was Gallic kingship like in 350 BCE? 
LOL
best guess is to reason from Gallic kingship in 50 BCE, when we have Roman/Greek lit. texts. 41/52
-
-
Which brings us to: 6) Comparative Evidence - or (favorite Jurassic Park reference), "the frog DNA." Basically, if you don't know, fill in the blank with a similar, but more modern society which is better attested in the evidence. 42/52
Näytä tämä ketju -
Absolutely, comparative is the weakest form of evidence - it is what you use when you have nothing, but have a gap which has to be filled with *something* - comparative evidence is better than guessing... 43/52
Näytä tämä ketju -
...or in mid-19th century scholar fashion, just assuming ancient elites were just like your fellow British/French/German/American aristocrats. The good news is that comparative evidence can be brought to bear on any question. 44/52
Näytä tämä ketju -
The bad news is that societies are different! Societies separated by centuries tend to be *really* different. Comparative evidence thus works better when you have a reason to think things are less different. 45/52
Näytä tämä ketju -
For instance, subsistence patterns. Ancient people needed to eat too and had similar bodies (and thus dietary needs) to modern humans, so you can sometimes reason from early modern subsistence patterns to ancient ones (but beware tech/selective-breeding!) 46/52
Näytä tämä ketju -
Comp. evidence is easily the worst source of bad-pop-history-mistakes (that I talked about above). It goes like this: Scholar1 estimates in technical lit. something based on little bit of hard evidence and some comparative evidence. Clearly signals that this is guesswork. 47/52
Näytä tämä ketju -
That guess might be the number of mules in use by the Roman army (based on more modern army pack animal usage). It might be the direction of currency flows in the first century CE (based on modern econ. theory). But it's a guess, not firm. 48/52
Näytä tämä ketju -
Writer2 puts together general survey of question, incorporates Scholar1's guess, but text is meant for general audience, so the guess is not signaled. It looks like we *know* that fact, when we don't! 49/52
Näytä tämä ketju -
BookReviewer3 cries foul, but in a specialist publication. Meanwhile, Scholar4 (specialist in different field) reads Writer2's book and doesn't realize this is a guess, and so bases his argument on it. And now you have a scholarly argument supported by nothing but air. 50/52
Näytä tämä ketju -
And ancient historians screaming that arguments are 'built on sand' or that we 'can't know that' from the evidence and being ignored by other disciplines and breathy think pieces in the media. 51/52
Näytä tämä ketju -
That's my rant. When in doubt, ask a specialist "what is this based on?" and signal comp. evidence *clearly.* Also Check out my blog for more ancient history https://acoup.blog/ And don't worry Ath. Pol., I still love you (Narrator: "...he lied unconvincingly.") end/52
Näytä tämä ketju
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.