Use of Sources

[Anonymous]

This new thread was inspired by discussions in other threads and I wanted to begin a new discussion.<br>
<br>
<br>
I have questioned the reliability of some of the most commonly used ancient sources because I have little confidence in the information as presented. This is based to a certain extent on modern academic methods that have been criticised and yet continue to be used in many publications. I think that there needs to be a more cautious approach much like caveat emptor. To assume any writer has a better understanding is dangerous, particularly if the ancient sources were not among the best and brightest by modern standards.<br>
<br>
One example of this presentation is taken from “The fall of the Roman Empire: A Reappraisalâ€ÂÂ

[Praefectusclassis]

Pfoooh, that is quite a question there. I think you're touching the exact heart of academic study. What they try to teach students their is how to decide which argument in modern literature is valid (by checking the way they argue and support their arguments) and how to make up your own mind on the reliability of ancient sources (for instance by checking out the context and viewpoint of the ancient author, trying to find corroborating sources, be they literary or otherwise, and learning to never pull anything out of its context).<br>
Interestingly, some of the authors you mentioned there (Grant, Dixon and Southern) are not known for the quality of their work in academic circles.<br>
<p>Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper</p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Jasper,<br>
<br>
I am interested in learning more about the perceptions among the academics on these authors. I was not aware that Dr Grant was less than a giant among modern Roman historians.<br>
<br>
I do not have any ties with universities and my access to academic journals such as the Journal of Roman Studies is limited. Most of what I have collected for my private collection in terms of articles, book reviews and papers is derived from sources other than universities and academic web sites. In fact, this is one of the few web sites that I have found useful.<br>
<br>
Perry <p></p><i></i>

[Vincula]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>Sometimes the issue is clouded by the differences in opinion expressed by historians, who are supposedly experts.<hr><br>
So what do you think makes an "expert" ?<br>
Why is Luttwak less of an expert than Potter? Why do you assume Elton is bad-mouthing Southern & Dixon? Where does a historical novelist like Colleen McCullough figure in this?!<br>
Have you considered that there might be good books and not-so-good books written by knowledgeable and not-so-knowledgeable authors? And it might be the job of the reviewer to point these out (if she can)? <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Very interesting subject<br>
I will like to make some comments<br>
<br>
I am an "Ancient History doctor", that really means only grecoroman history, I have just an average to low knowledge of other ancient history cultures, but even my command of the classic world has many flaws. When I was writting my Ph D (on roman coinage from Vespasianus to Hadrianus) I knew I was writing for very few people, even within the academic comunity. Academic papers are full of personal references, because fields of research are so specialized very few people actually master them, and they know each other if not directly, by reference.<br>
Numismatic, like military, is a subject with a wide public outside academic world, however there is little connection between this 2 levels.<br>
Then, there is the problem of ancient sourcess, when you are studying a subject within a long period of time the problems are multiplied. Most authors are not able to read the originals and rely either on translations, or more frequently on second hand quotes, and bibliography not in english is usually disregarded, and if the philological critic problems are not enough, the archaelogical investigation is another world, many times not connected to classical research even within the same university.<br>
To sum up, in popular subjects like this of military history, we have popular authors writing about very extensive subjects without an adequate command, however the academic research is usually so specialized as to lack any interest except for those who are researching in depth those same fields. In the case you quote of the Hunic army, I am sure there will be a lot of archaeological research (but in hungarian or russian) that could be useful but is not noticed. Whenever I read a genral book on a field I have researched in depth I am amazed to see how old and scarce is usually the bibliography used. <p></p><i></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

Quite right Aryaman. Things get horribly specialized. <p>Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper</p><i></i>

[hansvl]

Hi,<br>
<br>
The times of the <em>homo universalis</em> like Da Vinci are long gone. Specialisation is an inevitable process, started several decades ago. But that's not really that astonishing. The real concern is the lack of ability to consult (secondary) sources of these specialised research items. Especially for non-academic researchers. It's hard to keep up with the latest of the latest when you are not or no longer (as in my case) in the academic field. Lack of resources, time and sometimes the necessary funds is all to familiar for the 'amateur' researcher. The Internet is - to a certain extent - a useful tool to keep up with the bibliography in specialized research areas, but that doesn't mean you are capable of first locating that source you need mentioned in that bibliography (where is it available), and secondly to get to it once you located it.<br>
<br>
Like the Rolling Stones already knew: You can't always get what you want. (But if you try...)<br>
<br>
Hans <p></p><i></i>

[Goffredo]

I do not think specialization is an inevitable thing. Some near-future historian of History might even have something interesting to say about this phenomenon.<br>
But I do hope someone in History will soon have again the balls to try making sweeping, multipdisciplinary, theories for I personally believe in unity and connections. Isolated knowledge is useless and sterile.<br>
Connections is the name of the real game and its reevaluation is already is happening in other fields. I do not encourage the acceptance of this specialization status quo in History.<br>
<br>
Regards the use/abuse of SOURCES I do think there is a style/fashion in writing papers, in all fields. If the standard paper format requires a certain number of footnotes and references to standard sources, then the average writer will do what the standard format requires.<br>
When people say, without thinking, doing what is fashionable, "If it ain't got a standard bibliography, then it's worthless!", then you mustn't be surprised that abuses occurs. No need to read the sources. Just list the standard ones so that the idiots are content, those idiots that go FIRST to see if the format is standard, and then maybe to read the INTRODUCTION or the CONCLUSIONS. After all form is not content! Then maybe content can take different forms. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

I agree that connections and multidisciplinar approach is the key, but I don´t think it is possible for a single person to master fields that have becomed so specialized. Books about general theories are in general easily discredited by specialists just to point out the unavoidable mistakes in their particluar fields. The only answer is interdisciplinar teams, that is a common fact in aachaeology, not so in history, where most works are made by individual, or at most a team specialized in a narrow field. However I think that should be the future of historical research.<br>
BTW I totally agree on the footnotes, too many people value artcles on account of their number, and too many writers have not read their own bibliography. I am especially upset when I read a quote of an ancient author and the footnote point to a modern scholar that quoted that, not to the original source. <p></p><i></i>