The Western Way of History?

[Erpingham]

Erpingham suggests we have a separate thread on cultural influences , are you up for that?
Roy

Oh, steady on   I will come clean and say I'm trying to move us towards safer ground.  I really am not comfortable with some aspects of what is being discussed here because I think they are intrinsically political, and we avoid politics here.  That said, we could veer toward the philosophical - the nature of the historical and archaeological art/science (this is one of those moments where German comes to the fore archaeologicheskunst maybe?).  To what degree can we be objective and how do we do it, noting that historical sources themselves are rarely objective?  What levels of subjectivity are acceptable?  Sometimes I like a bit of opinion in my history books, especially if I agree with it.

That, I hope takes away from dead babies and sandal-wearing conspiracies (classical or Guardian-reading) and into something that might help us with our study of the military history of the ancient and medieval worlds (and yes, I'm aware that the medieval timeperiod is a Western cultural artefact ).

[Patrick Waterson]

If we tread carefully we might be able to assess 'political' influences on the interpretation of history without getting into a political argument (including a 'they did/they didn't' one) but I suggest the keynote be the observing of cultural influences on the way history is interpreted.

[Prufrock]

Culture takes centre stage of course, right from what constitutes history through to acceptable methods of argument, admissible evidence, appropriate format, diction and so on.

If we stand outside of the tradition we are reduced to talk of systemic bias, but if we work from inside it we can perhaps hope to judge objectivity by how well an author combs, selects, uses and presents evidence, whether his or her arguments are based on logic or rhetoric, how he or she deals with other theories, and whether the text attempts to persuade through form or through content.

Unfortunately, if readers do not have expertise in the area under discussion, objectivity must be taken or rejected on trust and this will inevitably be informed by our own preconceptions and predispositions.

In short, it's a minefield!

[Imperial Dave]

(whispers quietly)

dont start a debate about the histories of the nations comprising the UK (currently). Now that's a minefield!

[Justin Swanton]

Oh, you mean about how the English conquered the Scots?

Or was it the other way round?

Me, I'm just a colonial. 

[Patrick Waterson]

The original intent of the thread seems to have been to note how the perceptions of scholars/academics and historians colour the way they perceive and analyse the past.  The immediate cause, or pretext, was the matter of how Carthaginian infant sacrifice, described in some sources, has been treated by academia, with the underlying observation - right or wrong - that the rejection of source accounts was coloured by cultural bias rather than historical analysis, and pseudo-historical analysis was used to rewrite the story in favour of individual (or collective) cultural values.  The argu - I mean discussion  - also touched upon the tendency of some academics to rewrite history so that the barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire were reinterpreted as gradual and/or peaceful infiltration rather than invasion and conquest.

The nub of the matter seems to be: when does interpretation of history cease to be understanding and instead become imposition of the individual's own cultural values?

Case studies (by which I mean examples) welcome.

[Justin Swanton]

It might be to the point to mention that academics are under a pressure that has nothing to do with politics. Our respect - and continuing financial support - for clever folks who write books comes from a respect for the scientific method whereby hypothesis, followed by experimentation, followed by theory, followed by more experimentation, eventually produces new facts. It works well in physics, biology, astronomy and archaeology, but it does not work in straight history, where the available documentary evidence is fixed and cannot grow, no matter how many test tubes you boil it in.

Barring the sparse and intermittent increase in archaeological evidence (which I imagine has the historian falling on his knees in tearful gratitude), historians, to justify their existence, are forced to formulate new theories with insufficient factual evidence. They have to produce a steady supply of books, articles, etc. which purportedly bring some new light on their subject. Since their store of evidence has already been thoroughly sifted for solid facts, they have no choice but to speculate, and when you are speculating your own worldview and values system inevitably has its effect.

What is ironic about this is that the quest for new and original theories can lead them to question the solid facts they do have, resulting in historical certitude regressing rather than progressing. Patrick, I'm sure, could say something on this subject. 

[aligern]

A couple of years back I attended two days of lectures at the Ashmolean on Archaeology and the Military History of the Late Antique world. As commentary on Justin's post I would say that it showed that archaeology threw relatively little light on the subject, re enactment threw light but was very dangerous, reinterpreting History was actually quite useful.
Archaeology offered a minor reinterpretation of the battles of Daras, potentially showing that the battle had taken place further from the city than Procopius suggests. I think work in the Deserts if the Maghreb has also shown much more about how the Oman desert Frontier worked.
The difficulty for archaeology is that if there is no History associated with it then there are often quite radically different interpretations available and those are open to political and other influence. For example, when looking at the material remains of settlement in areas that we are told were Goth or Herul or Gepid there is no real difference and it is not discernible that this culture moves from the Baltic to the Black Sea. At that point you can choose to say that these peoples were created on the frontier with Rome or that the material culture just is not elevated enough to show such differences and movement.
Similarly in the. UK the migration of the Saxons does not show up in the archaeology in the way that the history would expect. if the Britons are driven out why is there not a slew of settlements with burning layers, why when the skeletons of settlers in AS cemeteries are examined for Mineral deposits in the tooth enamel does it overwhelmingly show that the occupants are born locally. All that the archaeologists find is fact, but it is very messy and not conclusive.
it is very difficult to look at the migrations without a political slant. That has spawned lots of interpretative work on ethnogenesis which has been really useful in re looking at the period, but behind the reinterpretations do lie some political imperatives.
Sadly there was no archaeological information on the Gothic camps around Rome... not one has been securely found.
At the Ashmolean some reenactors  presented and their most striking conclusion was that plumbata had been thrown underarm because that was the way they worked best. I was astonished. Here was a piece of research entirely in search of sensationalism. they had to accept that the research was carried out without an opponent advancing toward them throwing back deadly missiles and holding shields to the front , oh and several hundred on both sides. There was no real answer to how the back ranks in a closed up deep formation threw underarm .
The historians were very high quality, Elton, Haldon Kennedy, very good indeed, and not limited by the bulk of the evidence having been around for a long time.
However, there was an element in the presentations that would chime with one of Justins points. I think all the historians would have accepted that the high numbers in Ancient sources are nearly all wrong, so Attila does not have half a million men at Chalons, more like 20-30,000. I happen to agree with that  but if you were a literalist you would say that there was an element of group thinking there.

[aligern]

Just an addendum on the effect of archaelogiy on History. The archaeologists seem to have a confidence based upon what they find being substantive. If you find a damned great fort it does say that there was a fort there and they can date it so pkacing the Roman frontier in the IVth century becomes highly do able as does proving trade with India. Where it all got difficult was when the time needed to. be accurately determined which is important for historians . The easy certainties that x or y graves are Gepids have been removed and there is a danger that less is proven now than was once thoought.
Lastly because archaeology deals well with fortifications  and cemeteries it can skew work and thought into these areas. So burial custom becomes important and meaningful because that is what is dug up.
Fortifications skew our idea of what say Rome was like because they are impressive and diggable. Field armies thus leave very few remains.
Roy

[Erpingham]

What is ironic about this is that the quest for new and original theories can lead them to question the solid facts they do have, resulting in historical certitude regressing rather than progressing. Patrick, I'm sure, could say something on this subject. 

Many would argue I think that the more critical view of history in the post WWII era has shown up many certainties as anything but There is some truth I think to the argument that history as a profession (and academic as opposed to field archaeology ) is driven along by a need to provide fresh insights because they do make a mark and raise the scholar's profile.  Education and "popularising" the past has a lower academic credibility.  I've read amusing comments by several academics about making TV series where their peers have taken a superior "purist" approach which owes something jealousy

As to cliques and fashions in history, without doubt they exist.    If you are a mere workaday academic, you fit into the prevailing paradigms  if you want to make a career for yourself. Yes, there are mavericks but they need enough individuality to create a profile.  But doubtless, things were similar, if not worse, in the days when we "schools of thought" rather than paradigms.

[Erpingham]

Just an addendum on the effect of archaelogiy on History. The archaeologists seem to have a confidence based upon what they find being substantive.

Good point.  Archaeologists can look down on historians because archaeologists deal in physical evidence - as you say an object is there in the ground or it isn't.  However, a huge amount of archeology is interpretation - without interpretation often all you've got are layers of slightly different colours of brown soil.  So, to choose a military example, what are hillforts for?  The evidence of the spade can only take you so far.  They did take a huge amount of labour to construct, many were extended in their lifetimes. They were occupied, some densely others less so.  Some of them were definitely attacked.    To try and make sense of this, there are several theories which all contain subjectivity.  Some modern theories see them as continuations of the major landscape projects of earlier times - a largely symbolic approach about prestige.  Some see them as proto-towns.  Some still see them as having a castle-like role - defensive refuges and seats of military power.  Yet others see them having two or more of these purposes.   

[Patrick Waterson]

If the Britons are driven out why is there not a slew of settlements with burning layers, why when the skeletons of settlers in AS cemeteries are examined for Mineral deposits in the tooth enamel does it overwhelmingly show that the occupants are born locally. All that the archaeologists find is fact, but it is very messy and not conclusive.

The tooth enamel study was an amusing case in point: it simply proved that anyone born locally had drunk the local water, be he the progeny of a Briton or a Saxon.  As a means of establishing ethnicity, it ranks among the more hilarious historical howlers.

The lack of burning layers in settlements might be explained by the Saxons' tactics: if they wanted to take over the real estate rather than burn everything down and build afresh, simply slaughtering the occupants would have sufficed - torching the place was an optional and perhaps undesirable extra.  We have an archetype of barbarian activity as burn, pillage, rape and slaughter.  However if a Saxon band is coming to settle rather than raid they may wish to limit destruction of property and just slaughter the present occupants (who might even simply flee if they get sufficient warning).  This is conjectural, but suggests that looking for burn layers might not always be an infallible guide to conquest.

[Erpingham]

The tooth enamel study was an amusing case in point: it simply proved that anyone born locally had drunk the local water, be he the progeny of a Briton or a Saxon.  As a means of establishing ethnicity, it ranks among the more hilarious historical howlers.

That is not, however, what Roy said.  They were born locally i.e. they were not "in-comers" as they say in some parts.  For their biological roots we would need DNA.  And then, we don't know whether a British person born locally might have traded biological ethnicity for political belonging

The lack of burning layers in settlements might be explained by the Saxons' tactics: if they wanted to take over the real estate rather than burn everything down and build afresh, simply slaughtering the occupants would have sufficed - torching the place was an optional and perhaps undesirable extra.  We have an archetype of barbarian activity as burn, pillage, rape and slaughter.  However if a Saxon band is coming to settle rather than raid they may wish to limit destruction of property and just slaughter the present occupants (who might even simply flee if they get sufficient warning).  This is conjectural, but suggests that looking for burn layers might not always be an infallible guide to conquest.

Burnt layers are usually equivocal in archaeology, because houses burn down for a variety of reasons, innocent and malign.  Saxons taking over going concerns while slaughtering the inhabitants ( a neutron-bomb approach )?  When I was at Uni, there was quite a bit of interest in landscape continuity and several studies of how you could (a bit speculatively) trace villa boundaries by their ghosts in more modern forms of landholding.  These were mainly in the West country, IIRC.  But a lot of villa sites (i.e. the prestige landholdings) show abandonment before any reoccupation.  So, either the inhabitants had been slaughter and their property left empty or they had given up and gone elsewhere because the property was no longer viable (no working economy, coloni running off, security situation declining - the usual).  If there had been slaughter, we might expect traces but the others ?

[aligern]

I tend to the view that the priests caused their flocks to flee Westwards and then abroad. We know that the Saxons are aggressive pagans and probably killed priests for fun. We see sites like Silchester move very quickly to being abandoned.  without signs of rapine and pillage, whereas Colchester, attacked by Boudicca 400 years before has a thick burnt layer.
Whichever way we view it the story of the move from Roman Britain to Anglo Saxon England is fraught

If it is taught as violent conquest then Welsh people are going to feel dispossessed. if it is taught as immigrants just arriving and peacefully taking over then how is the host community to today's mass immigration going to feel.  If we say that those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it then there is a downside corollary that the lessons of the past need to be very carefully drawn or there will be a problem or two.

To take an example. Spain was under at least partial Arab/Moslem control for 800 years. To one view of history it means that it should be returned to that control, to another that it took an 800 year fightback to get their country back.  That's an extreme case, but the past is full of potential justifications.
Roy

[Erpingham]

Case in point, I was watching Ken Burn's series on the American Civil War and there was an interview with a historian teaching at Harvard. The historian stated that she did not believe it was wrong to judge the past by current values. I was surprised that a historian from one of the most highly regarded universities in America would espouse such a belief. Unfortunately, this is not the only such incident I have since noticed in history, archeology, or anthropology.

Sorry to be importing things from one thread to another (memo to self - next time you produce a fork, advertise it in the original thread) but this comment by Chuck Cochran is an interesting one.

The query here to me is what is this woman doing that is wrong?  Is she just being honest and acknowledging that looking at history and pretending objectivity is worse than owning up to the fact that we can't dissociate ourselves from our times?  Or is she saying we should abandon any attempt at objectivity?  I would agree with the first and roundly condemn the second.  All we can do is recognise our subjectivity and seek our most objective view in that light.

I have found the recent Richard III thing very interesting because we've had to face up to the physical fact that Richard III had a disability.  If we judge this by the attitudes of his contemporaries, this would lead to us believe he was touched by sin.  If we judge by modern attitudes, his physical attributes had no moral basis and we should judge him (if at all) by his actions.  Is application of a modern filter wrong in this case?