history vs. archaeology, redux

[john]

a general quantification of the argument, here.

archeology is direct, i.e., a spearpoint embedded in a bone, in situ.

history is indirect, i.e., a phrase embedded in a passage, provenance argueable.

now, unless one takes the position that history is just as unequivocably true as that spearpoint embedded in bone, in situ ( all those on the bible-thumper's side line up to the dexter, including all others of all other historical persuasions, whether it be the upanishads or the tao or the seemingly endless discussion of certain middle eastern texts, etc., etc.)

then it would appear to me that history - as the lawyers are fond of saying - is by definition hearsay evidence.

whereas, a spearpoint embedded in a bone, in situ, cannot be argued unless proven to be a preconceived fakery, such as piltdown man.

so, all those on the side of direct, archaeological evidence may now line up on the sinister.

so now we have two lines, dexter and sinister, to create the gauntlet (no, not the glove) of evidence - you already know my opinion about proof (a one-word oxymoron).

my particular interest is the sequence of human habitation of n and s america. and yes, we do have a tiny bit of written "language" in the mix. but that is immaterial.

what i would wish is that the participants in - for lack of a better word - the jesus forum, would form a gauntlet as described above, and settle the issue.

now i know that THAT is about as likely as pissing off the windward rail of a sailboat in a sixty knot wind with the expectation that you will be piss-free at the end of the experience, but..........


you never know, do you!


john

[Minimalist]

One must strike a balance between the two, John. In law, the phrase "preponderance of the evidence" has some meaning BUT the jury can still reach a wrong conclusion.

I fully agree that the written word is more subject to manipulation than the mute artifact because the written word can be tampered with on both sides of the equation. Firstly, the motivations of the writer can be guessed at, but, never really known assuming the writer has been dead for two to three thousand years. Secondly, given the fact that words need frequently to be translated from one language into another (sometimes with several interim steps) you must add the question of accuracy of the translation. Third, the modern historian, who evaluates the written word cannot help but do so on the basis of his own education and experience. It is a human process...which is probably why every generation can redefine the history of its predecessors. Allow me an example: Much of Modern American History repeats at length that the Civil War was about 'ending slavery.' This is a politically correct and facile interpretation which does not survive close contact with original source documents. If you were to read the journals and diaries of Southern troopers, or read the lyrics of their songs, you wouldn't see much reference to slaves. 95% of Southern soldiers did not own a single slave. Equally false is the notion that Union soldiers were fighting 'against slavery.' Some doubtless were but if you look at recruiting posters from 1861 you'll see lots of talk about "Saving the Union" or "Stopping Treason" but precious little about "Freeing the Slaves." When Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation in 1862 it is on record that entire Union regiments deserted. In 1864, during the New York Draft Riots, the Irish immigrants who formed the bulk of the ground troops in the Federal Army were so enthralled with the idea of Freeing the Slaves that they rioted and hung blacks from lamp posts in Manhattan until suppressed by troops who were brought back from Grants army. So, clearly, there has been a radical redefining of the reasons for the Civil War. It would be like saying that World War II was about stopping the Holocaust. It confuses a happy result with the war aim of the people doing the fighting.


Now, before Arch has a fit, let me anticipate his most likely comment, which is that artifacts being dug out of the ground are subject to the same interpretational stress as #3 above. This is absolutely true. They do not suffer from the first two problems; they are what they are. Thus a bronze spear point is a bronze spear point. It tells you nothing else but you can rely upon that with certainty.

Thus, the issue is not one which leads to mathematical certainty no matter how much you wish it were so. For my part, even though I trained in history, I think archaeology has advantages over the written word if for no other reason than it is less liable to misinterpretation than written history which can be changed at every step of the process.

The point is that history and archaeology can be used as a check on each other, again trying to get to that elusive concept of 'preponderance of the evidence'. In both disciplines the findings must always be provisional as each time a shovel enters the ground a new find is possible which will overturn the carefully constructed theories of the past. Certainly, in your stated preference for N and S America there have been exciting finds of late which have nearly overturned the Asian land bridge theory. It is only a matter of time before that one goes the way of the dodo.

As far as the threads you don't care for.... don't read them and you won't have to worry about them. I think everyone has figured out which ones they are by now.

[Guest]

Now, before Arch has a fit, let me anticipate his most likely comment

so now you think you can speak for me. Actually, i can agree on those three points you made, with the first so brilliantly illustrated by herodotus and his works plus the story of atlantis.and its travels from person to person.

point two, is also critical as so many languages do not have the same words for the same objects if they have them at all. i see this here in korea, where korean has had to adopt english words for things they never had a word for in their own language.

plus, as oneof my archaeological professors said, if one does not know the original language then you have to rely on the translation of the person who does and rely that he got it right.

point three is the most dangerous because you never know when a person has an axe to grind or a secret agenda plus you arenot sure what documents he had access to or if he edited as he went to fit his point of view.
as an example, i am now going to call minimalist on two of his examples; 1. the desertion of northern troops and 2. the hanging of blacks in northern cities. I have read Catton, Foote, & Macpherson and have David Herbert Donald's book 'Lincoln' right here and not one of them mention either episode. so where he got the idea from is beyond my research.

Now to artifacts. to an extent he is right but there are so many factors that come into play that it is not always easy to judge how the item ended up where it was found. thus the archaeologist has to go slowly to determine what conditions placed the artifact in that area.

the one problem that has been talked about in another thread, is the trend to label all oitems to a particular category when the evidence does not support such decision making.

all in all, archaeology is actually history it just has more data to process than historians do or admit into their studies.

As far as the threads you don't care for.... don't read them and you won't have to worry about them.

i can agree with this as well, the religious threads have just as much right to be discussed as the secular. Plus the Bible's reach is far more extensive than most non-believer's realize and to omit discussion of that ancient source just opens one up to misconceptions and false conclusions.

[Minimalist]

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/317749.html

Rioters subjected black men to the most brutal violence: torture, hanging, and burning. © Collection of the New-York Historical Society

The Confederate War, Gary Gallagher, 1998, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press:

"The Emancipation Proclamation caused a desertion crisis in the United States Army. At least 200,000 Northern soldiers deserted; another 120,000 evaded conscription; and another 90,000 Northern men fled to Canada to evade the draft, while thousands more hid in the mountains of central Pennsylvania 'where they lay beyond the easy reach of enrolling officers.'"

Shelby Foote also discussed the issue on Ken Burns "Civil War" series The Civil War. In essence, many Americans who had signed up to "Preserve the Union" were not at all interested in Freeing Slaves.

Unlike you, laddie, who can only refer to the worthless bible for backup, when it comes to history I know my shit!

[Minimalist]

PS.

It DOES take some digging to find these references. It is not politically popular to point out the northerners did not want to fight to free the slaves. Undermines the whole "Great Crusade Against Slavery" argument which is now so popular.

[Guest]

It DOES take some digging to find these references

while i will not contest your source i may contest your picture of what was being said.

In 1864, during the New York Draft Riots, the Irish immigrants who formed the bulk of the ground troops in the Federal Army were so enthralled with the idea of Freeing the Slaves that they rioted and hung blacks from lamp posts in Manhattan until suppressed by troops who were brought back from Grants army.

the above is what you said, but in reading the article that was not what was described as the root cause in the article.

But that is a side issue as this exchange illustrates another problem. not only does it show that historians leave out information because it may not pertain to the story they want to tell, but it demonstrates that the interpretation of the interpretation can lead to mis-information and misunderstandings.

the reader may be too lazy too re-tell the story exactly as it should be told and that leads to all sorts of conclusions and wrong perspectives. Now in the case above, the intentions/purpose of the rioters may have degenerated to that excuse but it was not the real reason for the riots in the first place.

As for the reason for the civil war, lincolnhimself said, it was not to free the slaves but to save the union. he would have allowed the south to retain their practice of slavery, ifit meant holding the theuniontogether.

the idea of fighting to set another man (family) free from oppression is far more romantic and far more of a motivating cause than saving the union could ever be.

[Minimalist]

It DOES take some digging to find these references

while i will not contest your source i may contest your picture of what was being said.

In 1864, during the New York Draft Riots, the Irish immigrants who formed the bulk of the ground troops in the Federal Army were so enthralled with the idea of Freeing the Slaves that they rioted and hung blacks from lamp posts in Manhattan until suppressed by troops who were brought back from Grants army.

the above is what you said, but in reading the article that was not what was described as the root cause in the article.

The caption to the picture says: Rioters subjected black men to the most brutal violence: torture, hanging, and burning. What part of that confused you?

But that is a side issue as this exchange illustrates another problem. not only does it show that historians leave out information because it may not pertain to the story they want to tell, but it demonstrates that the interpretation of the interpretation can lead to mis-information and misunderstandings.

Correct.

the reader may be too lazy too re-tell the story exactly as it should be told and that leads to all sorts of conclusions and wrong perspectives. Now in the case above, the intentions/purpose of the rioters may have degenerated to that excuse but it was not the real reason for the riots in the first place.

Correct again, for the most part. The riots began because of conscription into the army for a war which, since Jan 1, 1863 had been about Emancipation. The rioters quickly connected the dots and after burning the draft offices started attacking Blacks.

As for the reason for the civil war, lincolnhimself said, it was not to free the slaves but to save the union. he would have allowed the south to retain their practice of slavery, ifit meant holding the theuniontogether.

Correct yet again.

the idea of fighting to set another man (family) free from oppression is far more romantic and far more of a motivating cause than saving the union could ever be.

Today, perhaps....certainly not in 1861.

[Guest]

What part of that confused you?

none. maybe it was your failed attempt at hilarity.

To these New Yorkers, the Emancipation Proclamation was confirmation of their worst fears

this is a far cry from:

In 1864, during the New York Draft Riots, the Irish immigrants who formed the bulk of the ground troops in the Federal Army were so enthralled with the idea of Freeing the Slaves that they rioted and hung blacks from lamp posts in Manhattan until suppressed by troops who were brought back from Grants army.

the intial reason for the riots was the unfaurness of the law but as any riot will do, the reason got lost as blood lust took over:

The rioters' targets initially included only military and governmental buildings, symbols of the unfairness of the draft. Mobs attacked only those individuals who interfered with their actions. But by afternoon of the first day, some of the rioters had turned to attacks on black people, and on things symbolic of black political, economic, and social power.

[Minimalist]

However you wish to say it, what started out as a complaint with the government was transformed into action against black citizens of New York. To be sure, that happened because blacks were perceived to be the beneficiaries of the draft laws and because they were there.

[john]

the idea of fighting to set another man (family) free from oppression is far more romantic and far more of a motivating cause than saving the union could ever be.

wrong, sadly.


war, and its mirror image, rebellion, have always been the hell-children of economic disparity.

remember the root word. "oikos", gr. for house.

read von clausewitz.

min is right. the civil war was all about control of a huge money making machine.

the union and the confederacy were in significant disagreement about who should run the "company".

the "slavery" issue can be compared exactly to the present day "terrorist" issue as a populist moral sop to the mechanics of economic dominance.

what does this have to do with archaeology?

wherever you look, the hittites, the greeks, the romans, the scyths, the mayans, the egyptians, the ancient chinese - the list goes on forever - the handmaiden of civilization is war. and the handmaiden of war is economics, dressed in enough inflammatory socio religious garb to feed, clothe and motivate an army.

look at the roman spearpoints in the british bones at maiden castle.

j

[Minimalist]

I don't want to turn this into a civil war thread but if the North and South had wanted to fight about slavery they had 40 years to do it... ever since the Missouri Compromise set the stage. Yet, South Carolina secedes and a few months later the armies are lining up.

We have experienced gut-wrenching moral dilemmas in this country, abortion comes to mind, wherein each party digs in its heels and violence is employed by the lunatic fringe. Still, it is a long way from that to armies of 100,000 men shooting muskets and cannon at each other.

[Minimalist]

what does this have to do with archaeology?

This thread is about History v Archaeology. It's valid.

[Guest]

This thread is about History v Archaeology. It's valid.

i believe we use archaeology in digging up more information about the civil war and if one wants to be accurate, i don't see how you can divorce the two from each other.

ever since the Missouri Compromise set the stage. Yet, South Carolina secedes and a few months later the armies are lining up.

carolina was the straw that broke the back, the missouri compromise gave hope that the two philosophies could co-exist.

[john]

When Johnny comes marching home again,
Hurrah! Hurrah!
We'll give him a hearty welcome then
Hurrah! Hurrah!
The men will cheer and the boys will shout
The ladies they will all turn out
And we'll all feel gay,
When Johnny comes marching home.

The old church bell will peal with joy
Hurrah! Hurrah!
To welcome home our darling boy
Hurrah! Hurrah!
The village lads and lassies say
With roses they will strew the way,
And we'll all feel gay
When Johnny comes marching home.

Get ready for the Jubilee,
Hurrah! Hurrah!
We'll give the hero three times three,
Hurrah! Hurrah!
The laurel wreath is ready now
To place upon his loyal brow
And we'll all feel gay
When Johnny comes marching home.




j

[john]

John Brown's body lies a-mold'ring in the grave
John Brown's body lies a-mold'ring in the grave
John Brown's body lies a-mold'ring in the grave
His soul goes marching on

Glory, Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory, Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory, Glory! Hallelujah!
His soul is marching on

He captured Harper's Ferry with his nineteen men so true
He frightened old Virginia till she trembled
through and through
They hung him for a traitor, themselves the traitor crew
His soul is marching on


Glory, Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory, Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory, Glory! Hallelujah!

His soul is marching on
John Brown died that the slave might be free,
John Brown died that the slave might be free,
John Brown died that the slave might be free,
But his soul is marching on!


Glory, Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory, Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory, Glory! Hallelujah!
His soul is marching on

The stars above in Heaven are looking kindly down
The stars above in Heaven are looking kindly down
The stars above in Heaven are looking kindly down
On the grave of old John Brown

Glory, Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory, Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory, Glory! Hallelujah!
His soul is marching on




sung to the tune of the "battle hymn of the republic".

as min said, this is not a civil war thread, referring to "our" civil war.

my point is, similar songs were sung in all the "civil" wars, same motivation, same effect.

j


ps

just what exactly is "civil"

in a "civil" war?