08-06-2010, 08:31 PM
Quote:I'm a little out of touch with academia. Is the prevailing policy still "trust the original or oldest account of an event to the ancients rather than supplant it with modern thinking"? Used to be, way bak in the 20th Century.Are we to believe that Caspian Sea was in Antiquity a gulf opening to the Arctic Ocean? Or that in the Scythian wilderness there were gold-guarding gryphons, occasionally engaging in battles with the one-eyed people trying to take their gold? Or, as Caesar wrote, that there were unicorns in the Hercynian forest? I certainly prefer my modern thinking to that, and I'm sure many others would.
My examples are some obvious fantasies. The problem however is why when something sounds verosimile (often not to everybody), then it becomes suddenly true, probably true, likely true? What can explain this sudden shift in reliability? I'm afraid a good part of it is just wishful thinking.
Nevertheless, Weber denounced the artificiality of "ethnic" groups (such as these Celts) almost a century ago. What happened meanwhile is that historians and archaeologists started to read some sociology, anthropology, etc and understand what an identity is, what a tribe is, and so on. That's mainly how and why the ancient maps of tribes become less and less believable.
Drago?
