The Odissey: a Baltic tale?

[Razgovory]

I think you're underestimating the way historians use combinations of the material record, written sources, and oral histories in their work.

I gave you a criteria for oral sources.  Someone claiming that indigenous people's could give accurate descriptions of the coastline 10,000 year ago doesn't fit them.

[Josquius]

Surely there is a measurement inherent in saying "The X boundary runs along the course of Y stream until Z hill".
There would of course be some debate in where exactly the hill starts, does it mean through the middle of the stream or edge, etc... but we've seen this problem time and again in western societies drawing boundaries.

As to  archaeology proving invisible lines on a map... lots of places where that could easily be done in Europe if we somehow forgot the continuous written records that we have. The Danelaw for instance.

or if the stream changed course, or if it disappeared, or people changed the name, or two people call it by other names or if two people argue over whether it is the same stream...

They are indeed problems that arise but thats why you don't lock yourself into a single source.
If a border runs along a stream but it moved for instance, it's very possible to study and find out where it ran historically.
I suspect there'd be a legal debate with two sides arguing different ways about whether it's a set historic course or a continuously changing one that matters.
But again,something doesn't have to be absolutely bullet proof and perfect to be useful

Can you use archeology to prove  invisible lines on a map?  If so what are the borders of the polity that built stone henge?

Not an era I know much about. But archaeologists do this all the time. Different burial practices, different pottery, etc... Are all things that mark different people.

Though you should remember "invisible lines on a map" is a way of looking at the world very particular to the past few hundred years.

[Razgovory]

If they do this all the time then you will have no problem finding the borders of the polity that built Stone Henge.

[The Minsky Moment]

That the Mesopotamians would be into stories about floods is a given. But its really curious the story would spread and become so foundational to the Jews and others whose life is less based around mammoth flood prone river systems.
I wonder if there's any evidence if the Jews picked it up in Babylon or they already had it before then?

Flood stories spread wide across the region; there is another version found in Ugarit (coastal Syria).  The book of Genesis is a pastiche of different stories from different regional traditions so it could have come from anywhere.  Whatever group of people that was responsible for writing it all down would have been: (a) literate and (b) very likely to have exposure to broader Mesopotamian culture. But whatever the answer, it's pretty obvious the story wasn't originally from out of Judah.  And that's true for a lot of stuff in Genesis.

[Barrister]

So it's cool I sparked a conversation about the use of oral histories.

Here's the story I was thinking about when I mentioned the reliability of them:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/franklin-find-proves-inuit-oral-history-is-strong-louie-kamookak-1.2761362

I think in the past western historians completely discounted native oral histories, which was clearly a mistake.

But yes - when even written histories (like in the Bible) can rightly be questioned, oral histories can be questioned twice over.  The story of the Franklin expedition was only from less than 200 years ago after all, not 10,000 years.

[Razgovory]

If I recall, some explorer went to talk to the Innuit while looking for Franklin's ship and was able to peace together most of the story.  This was like 20 years after it.

I would like to point out that the Innuit aren't an isolated people now... there's no reason that they haven't read book on Franklin's expedition or watched TV shows on it.  So their oral histories could easily have been affected by what they read.

[Josquius]

If they do this all the time then you will have no problem finding the borders of the polity that built Stone Henge.

I don't get why you keep attempting gotchas here.
You know the stone Henge builders are well known for not being particularly well understood yeah?
Quite a different thing to groups Europeans had a lot of contact with a few hundred years ago.
Even still with a quick Google you find a lot of stuff about the origins of the stone Henge builders, what happened to them, how widely spread they were, and so on.
https://www.aboutstonehenge.info/who-built-stonehenge/

[Razgovory]

If they do this all the time then you will have no problem finding the borders of the polity that built Stone Henge.

I don't get why you keep attempting gotchas here.
You know the stone Henge builders are well known for not being particularly well understood yeah?
Quite a different thing to groups Europeans had a lot of contact with a few hundred years ago.
Even still with a quick Google you find a lot of stuff about the origins of the stone Henge builders, what happened to them, how widely spread they were, and so on.
https://www.aboutstonehenge.info/who-built-stonehenge/

Because you said that 

As to  archaeology proving invisible lines on a map... lots of places where that could easily be done in Europe if we somehow forgot the continuous written records that we have. The Danelaw for instance.

So I simply asked for an example.  Obviously Europeans had contact with Britain at the time.  Stonehenge is hardly an obscure site and it's your country, so show me the borders of the polity that built Stonehenge.  Or if you like you could show me the political boundaries Ireland 600 BC.  Or you can simply concede that, no, archeology can't show political boundaries of preliterate peoples.

[Jacob]

You can compare it to archeology, but that is really hit and miss.  Finding a site is hard, correctly attributing to a particular tribe is even harder and a site is only going to give you limited amount of information anyway.  You can't locate where a tribe was 1000 years ago, or even if the tribe existed at that time.

Yet... if:

1) Group A's oral tradition says "these are our ancestral lands, from [natural feature 1] to [natural feature 2]", and...

2) The archeological record shows a consistent distribution of a particular grouping of artifacts within the area bounded by natural features 1 and 2, and...

3) There are archaeological sites in the same area that are consistent with the practices of group A according to their oral traditions, and...

4) DNA samples from old bones found in the area show a high level of continuity with the DNA of the modern inhabitants of group A, and...

5) Group B's oral history says "Our border with Group A runs along [natural feature 1]" in a way that matches what Group A says, and ...

6) There is a recognizable stylistic continuity between some archaeological artifacts and modern artifacts of the the modern cultural artifacts of Group A, and...

7) Various snippets of oral histories turn out to line up pretty well with contemporary written sources and geographical features, even if the keepers of the oral histories didn't have any real way of knowing those things...

... then it's not unreasonable to conclude that the oral history is in fact pretty accurate.

When it comes to oral histories of First Nations in BC, my understanding is that is the context. Where other sources come up, there seems to be a high degree of corroboration and very little in the way of contradiction; therefore it's been generally agreed that the oral histories themselves are compelling evidence on their own. Furthermore, at this point the oral histories are fairly well documented, so it's not like people can change them willy-nilly.

My - less detailed - understanding regarding Australian Aboriginal oral history is that it tends to be remarkably consistent with other forms of evidence as it emerges.

[viper37]

If I recall, some explorer went to talk to the Innuit while looking for Franklin's ship and was able to peace together most of the story.  This was like 20 years after it.

Raz is right:

By 1849, Rae was in charge of the Mackenzie River district at Fort Simpson. While exploring the Boothia Peninsula in 1854, Rae made contact with local Inuit, from whom he obtained much information about the fate of the Franklin expedition.^[5][6] His report to the Admiralty carried shocking and unwelcome evidence that cannibalism had been a last resort for some of the survivors. When it was leaked to the press, Franklin's widow Lady Jane Franklin was outraged and recruited many important supporters, among them Charles Dickens, who wrote several pamphlets condemning Rae for daring to suggest Royal Navy sailors would have resorted to cannibalism. In return, Dickens argued – from analogy – that the Inuit, whom he viewed very negatively, as evidenced by his writings, are more likely to have killed the expedition's survivors.
Franklin's fate

"The Fate of Sir John Franklin"
by John Rae, 1854
Duration: 5 minutes and 46 seconds.5:46
00:05:45 (text)
Problems playing this file? See media help.
Rae headed south to Fort Chipewyan in Alberta, waited for a hard freeze, travelled by snowshoe to Fort Garry in Winnipeg, took the Crow Wing Trail to Saint Paul, Minnesota, and then travelled to Chicago, then Hamilton, Ontario, New York, and London, which he reached in late March 1852. In England he proposed to return to Boothia and complete his attempt to link Hudson Bay to the Arctic coast by dragging a boat to the Back River. He went to New York, Montreal, and then Sault Ste. Marie by steamer, Fort William by canoe, and reached York Factory on 18 June 1853, where he picked up his two boats.
He left on 24 June and reached Chesterfield Inlet on 17 July. Finding a previously unknown river, he followed it for 210 miles (340 km) before it became too small to use. Judging that it was too late to drag the boat north to the Back River, he turned back and wintered at his old camp on Repulse Bay. He left Repulse Bay on 31 March 1854. Near Pelly Bay he met some Inuit, one of whom had a gold cap-band. Asked where he got it, he replied that it came from a place 10 to 12 days away where 35 or so kabloonat had starved to death. Rae bought the cap-band and said he would buy anything similar.
On 27 April, he reached frozen salt-water south of what is now called Rae Strait. A few miles west, on the south side of the bay, he reached what he believed was the Castor and Pollux River, which Simpson had reached from the west in 1839. He then turned north along the western portion of the Boothia Peninsula, the last uncharted coast of North America, hoping to reach Bellot Strait and so close the last gap in the line from Bering Strait to Hudson Bay. The coast continued north instead of swinging west to form the south shore of King William Land.
On 6 May, he reached his furthest north, which he named Point de la Guiche after an obscure French traveller he had met in New York. It appeared that King William Land was an island and the coast to the north was the same as had been seen by James Clark Ross in 1831. Author Ken McGoogan has claimed^[7] that Rae here effectively discovered the final link in the Northwest Passage as followed in the following century by Roald Amundsen, although Arctic historian William Barr has disputed that claim,^[8] citing the uncharted 240 kilometres (150 mi) between Ross's discoveries and the Bellot Strait.
With only two men fit for heavy travel, Rae turned back. Reaching Repulse Bay on 26 May, he found several Inuit families who had come to trade relics. They said that four winters ago some other Inuit had met at least 40 kabloonat who were dragging a boat south. Their leader was a tall, stout man with a telescope, thought to be Francis Crozier, Franklin's second-in-command. They communicated by gestures that their ships had been crushed by ice and that they were going south to hunt deer. When the Inuit returned the following spring they found about 30 corpses and signs of cannibalism. One of the artefacts Rae bought was a small silver plate. Engraved on the back was "Sir John Franklin, K.C.H". With this important information, Rae chose not to continue exploring. He left Repulse Bay on 4 August 1854, as soon as the ice cleared.
Upon his return to Britain, Rae made two reports on his findings: one for the public, which omitted any mention of cannibalism, and another for the British Admiralty, which included it. However, the Admiralty mistakenly released the second report to the press, and the reference to cannibalism caused great outcry in Victorian society. Franklin's widow Lady Jane enlisted author Charles Dickens, who wrote a tirade against Rae in his magazine Household Words deriding the report as "the wild tales of savages", and later attacked Rae and the Inuit further in his 1856 play The Frozen Deep. Arctic explorer Sir George Richardson joined them, stating that cannibalism could not be the action of Englishmen but surely the Inuit themselves. This campaign likely prevented Rae from receiving a knighthood for his efforts. 20th century archaeology efforts in King William Island later confirmed that Franklin Expedition members had resorted to cannibalism.^[9]

[Razgovory]

That's a lot of "ifs".

1) 1) Group A's oral tradition says "these are our ancestral lands, from [natural feature 1] to [natural feature 2]", and...  This should probably be recorded prior to the people's introduction to maps and the like. 

2)  The archeological record shows a consistent exclusive distribution of a particular grouping of artifacts within the area bounded by natural features 1 and 2, and...  This part is really hard.  Since artifacts are going to be similar over hundred perhaps thousands to miles.  For instance the Eastern Woodlands culture group covers half the US.

3) There are archaeological sites in the same area that are consistent with the exclusive practices of group A according to their oral traditions, and...  Again, these people will share the same rock chipping techniques as their neighbors.

4) 4) DNA samples from old bones found in the area show a high level of continuity with the DNA of the modern inhabitants of group A, and...  DNA is going to be very similar.  Most Native Americans are derived from a very small founder base.  And people are going to be close related to their neighbors

5) Group B's oral history says "Our border with Group A runs along [natural feature 1]" in a way that matches what Group A says, and ...  Again these claims should ideally be recorded in the past before the people could see maps.

6) There is a recognizable stylistic continuity between some archaeological artifacts and modern artifacts of the the modern cultural artifacts of Group A, and...  Yeah, their artifacts are going to change when learn English and become Christian or whatever.

7) Various snippets of oral histories turn out to line up pretty well with contemporary written sources and geographical features, even if the keepers of the oral histories didn't have any real way of knowing those things...  One of the Sioux tribes, I think they are Yankton Dakota, have a myth how they born out of a local cave.  The Dakota didn't live there until after 1800, when they driven out by the Chippewa near the Great Lakes hundred of miles away.  How did they know about the cave hundreds of miles away?  Obviously they didn't.  The myth was made up recently.  If they readily make up myths so quickly, how can they be trusted?

[Josquius]

If they do this all the time then you will have no problem finding the borders of the polity that built Stone Henge.

I don't get why you keep attempting gotchas here.
You know the stone Henge builders are well known for not being particularly well understood yeah?
Quite a different thing to groups Europeans had a lot of contact with a few hundred years ago.
Even still with a quick Google you find a lot of stuff about the origins of the stone Henge builders, what happened to them, how widely spread they were, and so on.
https://www.aboutstonehenge.info/who-built-stonehenge/

Because you said that

As to  archaeology proving invisible lines on a map... lots of places where that could easily be done in Europe if we somehow forgot the continuous written records that we have. The Danelaw for instance.

So I simply asked for an example.  Obviously Europeans had contact with Britain at the time.  Stonehenge is hardly an obscure site and it's your country, so show me the borders of the polity that built Stonehenge.  Or if you like you could show me the political boundaries Ireland 600 BC.  Or you can simply concede that, no, archeology can't show political boundaries of preliterate peoples.

No. I said there are lots of examples and you asked about a particular case which is particularly famous for being little understood.
It's like if I'd said "lots of animals are vegetarians" and you said "what about tigers then? Dont they disprove this? "

17th century Europeans had contact with pre celtic Britain? Really? Amazing. I had no idea time portals were ever a real thing.

I already gave you a link about the stone Henge cultures borders however. And again to underline - believing in strict invisible lines on maps is not a universal to humanity. Quite unique to certain times and places that are the exception rather than the norm.

[Razgovory]

Okay, so you give me an example of using solely archeology to delineate political boundaries of an illiterate people.

Also, nobody said anything about 17th century Europe.  And the beaker culture mentioned in the link you provided me covers over half of Europe and some of North Africa.  Not great on telling me which polity built stonehenge.

Remember, this came from CC talking about using oral histories in a court case to delineate legal boundaries of a tribe.  That is to say, lines on a map.  He said archeology proves it.  I said archeology really can't do things like that.  You said archeologists do that all the time.  I simply picked a well researched, and famous archeological site and said prove it.

[crazy canuck]

Okay, so you give me an example of using solely archeology to delineate political boundaries of an illiterate people.

Also, nobody said anything about 17th century Europe.  And the beaker culture mentioned in the link you provided me covers over half of Europe and some of North Africa.  Not great on telling me which polity built stonehenge.

Remember, this came from CC talking about using oral histories in a court case to delineate legal boundaries of a tribe.  That is to say, lines on a map.  He said archeology proves it.  I said archeology really can't do things like that.  You said archeologists do that all the time.  I simply picked a well researched, and famous archeological site and said prove it.

Raz, you asked me for an example and I gave it.  There are many more examples in BC.

You seem to have become an expert in this, no doubt having spent many many minutes of google searching.  But you will appreciate that I am more persuaded by the reasoning of the BC Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada, both of whom have relied on oral histories of indigenous peoples to establish claims to exclusive use of land going back thousands of years.

Try doing some google searching about why the courts have found those oral histories to be persuasive and if you see some holes in logic there, come back and lets talk. 

You should really tell them they all got it wrong.  I am sure they will acknowledge your insistence that it cannot be relied upon because nobody has yet found a map with lines on it, nor references to latitude nor longitude.

[Razgovory]

CC, I didn't ask you for an example.  I asked Jos for an example.  I did ask you how you knew about it if it was never recorded?  How do you know the oral historian didn't just look at a map?  I did ask how archeology does give legal boundaries for one group a people but not for any others.  You answer seems to be The supreme court says so.