Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Alexander, cuneiform sources, Cartledge
#1
In another thread, Conon394 wrote the following, and I open a new topic because I am digressing too much.
Quote:
Quote:and if you can not read cuneiform (and even ignore translations), you must not publish about the ancient Near East.
That seems a tad harsh, not everyone is a polymath; perhaps just make sure you have a collaborator who can; and acknowledge and address or deal with the relevant scholarship?
To use the English expression I learned today, from your message: "I’m of two minds on that score."

Of course you are right, not everyone is a polymath and one can ask a colleague. My point is that everybody knows this, and nobody actually does it. That is like writing about Judaism in the first century, and ignoring the Scrolls of the Dead Sea.

Cartledge is not the only one who ought to have done better. Here is a review of an Alexander book, in which I have summarized some discoveries from the past thirty years. (The Macedonian language part has been challenged, but I understand that some Greek linguists, although reasonably denying my first conclusion, have accepted the proposal to study cuneiform sources for the pronounciation of Greek and Macedonian/Macedonian Greek, and now agree that there is something odd.)

The main conclusion of the cuneiform studies must be that the battle of Gaugamela never was a real battle. If this sounds bold, read this. I also think that is now possible to describe the final days of Alexander from a Babylonian perspective.

If you are interested in Hellenistic history, this Babylonian tablet will tell something new about Ptolemy III.

I admit that I have a bias. I wrote a book about Alexander myself, for which I traveled all the way to Pakistan, and learned myself the relevant languages. Then there was this Oliver Stone movie, and I had to see that academics writing bad books took over the field. Worse, I received a hostile review from a man about whom I learned that he had wanted to write a book on the subject himself, and whose own writings not only betray ignorance about cuneiform, but also ignorance of articles published after 2000.

There is no denying that I feel frustrated. It is not a disaster that I am not employed by the university; although I would have like to, I can live with it, for many academicians know a lot more than I will ever know. A man like our Jasper, who has the job I have been dreaming about, also has the necessary patience and is obviously more qualified than I am.

But what I do not accept is that people in that beautiful, privileged position, make a mess of it. So finally, here are some thoughts about Robin Lane Fox, who, more than Paul Cartledge, has something to explain.
Jona Lendering
Relevance is the enemy of history
My website
Reply
#2
Greetings,
(in answer to Conon's comment)
yes, I agree that any author writing with a historical perspective, needs to have thoroughly studied their subject/period and should use certified evidence.
However, not everyone is lucky enough to be able to afford, financially or physically, to travel to carry out further researches.
In that case, they have to rely on information gleaned from other publications, along with new evidence, integrated with theories of their own...
Not everything regarding Alexander, for instance, can be found in Cuneiform and not everybody has the ability to read it, as much as they may like to... the same can be said for ancient Greek or Macedonian :wink:
regards
Arthes
Cristina
The Hoplite Association
[url:n2diviuq]http://www.hoplites.org[/url]
The enemy is less likely to get wind of an advance of cavalry, if the orders for march were passed from mouth to mouth rather than announced by voice of herald, or public notice. Xenophon
-
Reply
#3
Quote:In that case, they have to rely on information gleaned from other publications, along with new evidence, integrated with theories of their own...
Unfortunately, this does not happen. Here you will find Waldemar Heckel's online bibliography of Alexander the Great. Not a single article on Near Eastern sources. This is substandard scholarship. Thirty years after the publication of Grayson's Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, there is no excuse for ignorance.
Quote:not everyone is lucky enough to be able to afford, financially or physically, to travel to carry out further researches.
If you are employed by a university, there are no financial objections. There is simply no excuse for not visiting Pakistan or Iran. Afghanistan perhaps is a different matter.
Jona Lendering
Relevance is the enemy of history
My website
Reply
#4
Greetings,
i've just read the Ptolemy III Chronicle....there seems to be quite an emphasis on the iron weapons and 'iron panoply' which leaves me wondering what this consists of....Vergina style panoply or cuirass....?
regards
Arthes
Cristina
The Hoplite Association
[url:n2diviuq]http://www.hoplites.org[/url]
The enemy is less likely to get wind of an advance of cavalry, if the orders for march were passed from mouth to mouth rather than announced by voice of herald, or public notice. Xenophon
-
Reply
#5
Quote:Vergina style panoply or cuirass....?
My personal opinion is that "Hanaean troops, who did not fear the gods, who were clad in iron panoply" is a poetic metaphor, something like "fearless, iron-clad Macedonians". Cf. the remark of an Egyptian who saw his first Greek hoplite: "men of bronze".
Jona Lendering
Relevance is the enemy of history
My website
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Sources for Hellenistic warfare after Alexander Sean Manning 8 3,210 10-15-2006, 11:57 AM
Last Post: Muzzaguchi

Forum Jump: