It's a thin reasoning. But it's a fun read, nonetheless. I like the conclusion of the author. :P
https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/baltic-odyssey/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us
Quote- The Iliad and Odyssey, Homer's twin epics, seem to contain signature details suggesting these stories took place in particular settings.
- Where? Not the Mediterranean but the Baltic, writes an Italian amateur historian.
- So, is mythical Ithaca really the Danish island of Lyø? Other explanations are available.
The conclusion:
QuoteSo, did Ulysses sail the Baltic and North Atlantic on his long journey home? Perhaps the best reply to that question is a saying popular in Vinci's native Italian: Se non è vero, è ben trovato (even if it's not true, it's a good story).
I'm gonna keep this saying in mind for the future. :D
I thought that it was the black sea was widely understood. Why say not the med.
Weird this guy can get publicity with such lunacy.
What would it take to get say, that Boudica was really a swedish invader, copied for people's amusement?
Sweden is Atlantis, so why not?
https://www.ustc.ac.uk/news/swedish-visions-of-atlantis-olof-rudbeck-the-elders-atlantica
Is it a good story? I don't know how it being in the Baltic improves anything. I mean this is a fictional story.
Quote from: Josquius on March 04, 2024, 03:16:21 PMI thought that it was the black sea was widely understood. Why say not the med.
Can you translate this Gibberish to English? Google Translate cannot.
The Greeks didn't even know where any of these places were. They were real fuzzy on northern Europe. According to this guy the events of the Trojan war would have occurred over 7,000 years ago, which predates the Greek language by quite a bit. It also predates Proto-Indo-European which is the mother language of Greek. And the domestication of the horse. And the use of bronze. Etc, etc,
Quote from: viper37 on March 04, 2024, 02:41:10 PMIt's a thin reasoning. But it's a fun read, nonetheless. I like the conclusion of the author. :P
https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/baltic-odyssey/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us
Quote- The Iliad and Odyssey, Homer's twin epics, seem to contain signature details suggesting these stories took place in particular settings.
- Where? Not the Mediterranean but the Baltic, writes an Italian amateur historian.
- So, is mythical Ithaca really the Danish island of Lyø? Other explanations are available.
The conclusion:
QuoteSo, did Ulysses sail the Baltic and North Atlantic on his long journey home? Perhaps the best reply to that question is a saying popular in Vinci's native Italian: Se non è vero, è ben trovato (even if it's not true, it's a good story).
I'm gonna keep this saying in mind for the future. :D
I seem to recall someone publishing a similar idea about 10 or 20 years ago.
Could very well be. I've heard Ireland and England as possible destinations too.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 04, 2024, 05:14:56 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 04, 2024, 02:41:10 PMIt's a thin reasoning. But it's a fun read, nonetheless. I like the conclusion of the author. :P
https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/baltic-odyssey/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us
Quote- The Iliad and Odyssey, Homer's twin epics, seem to contain signature details suggesting these stories took place in particular settings.
- Where? Not the Mediterranean but the Baltic, writes an Italian amateur historian.
- So, is mythical Ithaca really the Danish island of Lyø? Other explanations are available.
The conclusion:
QuoteSo, did Ulysses sail the Baltic and North Atlantic on his long journey home? Perhaps the best reply to that question is a saying popular in Vinci's native Italian: Se non è vero, è ben trovato (even if it's not true, it's a good story).
I'm gonna keep this saying in mind for the future. :D
I seem to recall someone publishing a similar idea about 10 or 20 years ago.
Yeah, those theories (including Troy being somewhere in Britain) had a resurgence in the 90s, but they go back to at least the 19th century.
Quote from: Maladict on March 04, 2024, 10:25:08 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 04, 2024, 05:14:56 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 04, 2024, 02:41:10 PMIt's a thin reasoning. But it's a fun read, nonetheless. I like the conclusion of the author. :P
https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/baltic-odyssey/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us
Quote- The Iliad and Odyssey, Homer's twin epics, seem to contain signature details suggesting these stories took place in particular settings.
- Where? Not the Mediterranean but the Baltic, writes an Italian amateur historian.
- So, is mythical Ithaca really the Danish island of Lyø? Other explanations are available.
The conclusion:
QuoteSo, did Ulysses sail the Baltic and North Atlantic on his long journey home? Perhaps the best reply to that question is a saying popular in Vinci's native Italian: Se non è vero, è ben trovato (even if it's not true, it's a good story).
I'm gonna keep this saying in mind for the future. :D
I seem to recall someone publishing a similar idea about 10 or 20 years ago.
Yeah, those theories (including Troy being somewhere in Britain) had a resurgence in the 90s, but they go back to at least the 19th century.
Well, Rome was founded by Trojan refugees, so... :sleep:
Quote from: viper37 on March 04, 2024, 11:47:25 PMQuote from: Maladict on March 04, 2024, 10:25:08 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 04, 2024, 05:14:56 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 04, 2024, 02:41:10 PMIt's a thin reasoning. But it's a fun read, nonetheless. I like the conclusion of the author. :P
https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/baltic-odyssey/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us
Quote- The Iliad and Odyssey, Homer's twin epics, seem to contain signature details suggesting these stories took place in particular settings.
- Where? Not the Mediterranean but the Baltic, writes an Italian amateur historian.
- So, is mythical Ithaca really the Danish island of Lyø? Other explanations are available.
The conclusion:
QuoteSo, did Ulysses sail the Baltic and North Atlantic on his long journey home? Perhaps the best reply to that question is a saying popular in Vinci's native Italian: Se non è vero, è ben trovato (even if it's not true, it's a good story).
I'm gonna keep this saying in mind for the future. :D
I seem to recall someone publishing a similar idea about 10 or 20 years ago.
Yeah, those theories (including Troy being somewhere in Britain) had a resurgence in the 90s, but they go back to at least the 19th century.
Well, Rome was founded by Trojan refugees, so... :sleep:
OK Elon.
Obviously the reason for such silly theories is that otherwise your national pride must face the reality of your ancestors being unremarkable subsistence farmers at the same time the Greeks were inventing modern civilisation.
The dude is
Quotea nuclear engineer by training and an amateur historian by passion
which raises all kinds of red flags.
"This imaginary story actually took place in XXXX and not in YYYY" is possibly the supidest subgenre of conspiracy theories. See: Atlantis.
Quote from: celedhring on March 05, 2024, 11:01:13 AM"This imaginary story actually took place in XXXX and not in YYYY" is possibly the supidest subgenre of conspiracy theories. See: Atlantis.
Yes, but it is consistent with people thinking the imaginary stories that took place in the Bible actually took place in this or that location.
Think about the arguments over where the garden of Eden was actually located, or the numerous trips to find the remains of Noah's ark.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2024, 11:11:56 AMQuote from: celedhring on March 05, 2024, 11:01:13 AM"This imaginary story actually took place in XXXX and not in YYYY" is possibly the supidest subgenre of conspiracy theories. See: Atlantis.
Yes, but it is consistent with people thinking the imaginary stories that took place in the Bible actually took place in this or that location.
Think about the arguments over where the garden of Eden was actually located, or the numerous trips to find the remains of Noah's ark.
I dunno, I really find all this "What are the origins of bible stories" stuff really fascinating. Some of them do have actual historic basis. Noah's Ark is a folk memory of some sort of flood is interesting- the Black Sea deluge one is unlikely but super cool.
Plus its a nice area where the irreligious and sensible people of the book can unite and stare in disgust at the literalist nuts.
Quote from: The Brain on March 05, 2024, 08:37:33 AMThe dude is
Quotea nuclear engineer by training and an amateur historian by passion
which raises all kinds of red flags.
But he's Italian. So that can't be you. :lol:
Quote from: celedhring on March 05, 2024, 11:01:13 AM"This imaginary story actually took place in XXXX and not in YYYY" is possibly the supidest subgenre of conspiracy theories. See: Atlantis.
Not a conspiracy theory, but for many francophone children, this was an interesting story back in our youth:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_31
Yeah, it was a very popular show in my youth, too.
Quote from: viper37 on March 05, 2024, 01:02:53 PMQuote from: The Brain on March 05, 2024, 08:37:33 AMThe dude is
Quotea nuclear engineer by training and an amateur historian by passion
which raises all kinds of red flags.
But he's Italian. So that can't be you. :lol:
:hug:
Quote from: Josquius on March 05, 2024, 11:29:35 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2024, 11:11:56 AMQuote from: celedhring on March 05, 2024, 11:01:13 AM"This imaginary story actually took place in XXXX and not in YYYY" is possibly the supidest subgenre of conspiracy theories. See: Atlantis.
Yes, but it is consistent with people thinking the imaginary stories that took place in the Bible actually took place in this or that location.
Think about the arguments over where the garden of Eden was actually located, or the numerous trips to find the remains of Noah's ark.
I dunno, I really find all this "What are the origins of bible stories" stuff really fascinating. Some of them do have actual historic basis. Noah's Ark is a folk memory of some sort of flood is interesting- the Black Sea deluge one is unlikely but super cool.
Plus its a nice area where the irreligious and sensible people of the book can unite and stare in disgust at the literalist nuts.
I agree that the mythological roots of the Biblical stories are interesting. The flood story being a good example. By the way, the prevailing theory is that the Bible story is not related to the flooding of the Black Sea but rather a retelling of the original Sumerian story (which is probably inspired by flooding which occurred in Persian Gulf).
But what is happening is people belief the Noah story is literally true and they try to find the remains of his boat which they belief is just waiting on some mountain top waiting to be discovered.
Quote from: celedhring on March 05, 2024, 11:01:13 AM"This imaginary story actually took place in XXXX and not in YYYY" is possibly the supidest subgenre of conspiracy theories. See: Atlantis.
Except that "Atlantis" almost certainly actually existed and was destroyed in pretty much the fashion Plato described. He just got the size wrong (and was probably not trying for anything like accuracy except where it served his story). See Thera.
Yeah, I doubt it. Plato wasn't a writing a history and there is no evidence that the Greeks of his time knew anything about about a volcano on Santorini. Besides Plato claims Atlantis was the Atlantic Ocean and you can't sail there because you'll run aground on the shoals made from the mountains of Atlantis. We really don't know what happened to Atlantis except that it sunk because Plato's text is incomplete.
Quote from: grumbler on March 05, 2024, 08:04:42 PMQuote from: celedhring on March 05, 2024, 11:01:13 AM"This imaginary story actually took place in XXXX and not in YYYY" is possibly the supidest subgenre of conspiracy theories. See: Atlantis.
Except that "Atlantis" almost certainly actually existed and was destroyed in pretty much the fashion Plato described. He just got the size wrong (and was probably not trying for anything like accuracy except where it served his story). See Thera.
I don't think he was talking about an eruption that happened about 1000 years before him. The whole bronze age collapse happens between the eruption of there, and when Plato was writing, it's hard to believe that he had any kind of inkling of that event.
He was creating a mystical land for the purposes of his dialogue.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2024, 03:50:36 PMI agree that the mythological roots of the Biblical stories are interesting.
All mythology is interesting. I was always fascinated by the Greek mythology books my mom had when I was a kid. I find it no different when it's Jewish/Christian mythology.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2024, 09:11:27 PMBesides Plato claims Atlantis was the Atlantic Ocean and you can't sail there because you'll run aground on the shoals made from the mountains of Atlantis. We really don't know what happened to Atlantis except that it sunk because Plato's text is incomplete.
It got drunk and woke up in the wrong place.
Atlantis was probably an amalgamation of multiple tales.
Tartessos is another big contender which sounds believable.
QuoteAll mythology is interesting. I was always fascinated by the Greek mythology books my mom had when I was a kid. I find it no different when it's Jewish/Christian mythology.
It annoys me though that the Jewish stuff is so "hard to get to". Everything I've found seems so densely written and all reliant on other bits in an awkward nest with no clear branch, and assuming prior knowledge. Kind of like Tolkein mythology.
I'd love to read a good and straight forward tale of the theories for how they killed off their other gods and settled on Yehvah as the only valid god and all others believed by every other people as somehow not real. Jews: original athiests.
Couldn't it also be memories from the flooding of the Persian gulf?
Quote from: viper37 on March 05, 2024, 01:06:21 PMNot a conspiracy theory, but for many francophone children, this was an interesting story back in our youth:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_31
:wub:
My impression has always been that the Iliad is based on real events. Obviously some parts are made up, like the androids.
Quote from: Threviel on March 06, 2024, 05:06:24 AMCouldn't it also be memories from the flooding of the Persian gulf?
Not memories of the people who inhabited the hills in Canaan. Their version of the flood story was based on the Sumerian flood story. The Sumerian flood story was probably a memory of the flooding of the Persian gulf.
There's no particular reason to believe myths are ancient memories of cataclysmic events. Flood myths are common for two reasons. One is that floods are common occurrence. The second is that fossils of shells are fairly common and can be found far away from the sea. A flood myth explains why you find shellfish fossils in the mountains.
Quote from: Threviel on March 06, 2024, 05:06:24 AMCouldn't it also be memories from the flooding of the Persian gulf?
Or the Black Sea deluge, or the drowning of Dogger Land. Like Noah's flood, deluges are in the collective memories of nearly all ancient peoples.
Can't it also just be people making shit up? Why can't we allow for the possibility that ancient peoples had vivid imaginations?
Quote from: Caliga on March 06, 2024, 03:11:04 PMCan't it also just be people making shit up? Why can't we allow for the possibility that ancient peoples had vivid imaginations?
It could be. But I think they're more likely embellishments of something that did happen a long time before. These are oral traditions, designed to keep histories and memories alive.
Quote from: Maladict on March 06, 2024, 01:54:01 PMQuote from: Threviel on March 06, 2024, 05:06:24 AMCouldn't it also be memories from the flooding of the Persian gulf?
Or the Black Sea deluge, or the drowning of Dogger Land. Like Noah's flood, deluges are in the collective memories of nearly all ancient peoples.
How would anybody in the Fertile Crescent have any knowledge of what happened Doggerland?
What is this collective memory?
Quote from: Maladict on March 06, 2024, 04:33:48 PMQuote from: Caliga on March 06, 2024, 03:11:04 PMCan't it also just be people making shit up? Why can't we allow for the possibility that ancient peoples had vivid imaginations?
It could be. But I think they're more likely embellishments of something that did happen a long time before. These are oral traditions, designed to keep histories and memories alive.
They really aren't designed to keep histories and memories alive. Oral traditions are used to explain the present, to entertain people, to increase the status of the speaker or a leader.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 06, 2024, 04:45:10 PMQuote from: Maladict on March 06, 2024, 01:54:01 PMQuote from: Threviel on March 06, 2024, 05:06:24 AMCouldn't it also be memories from the flooding of the Persian gulf?
Or the Black Sea deluge, or the drowning of Dogger Land. Like Noah's flood, deluges are in the collective memories of nearly all ancient peoples.
How would anybody in the Fertile Crescent have any knowledge of what happened Doggerland?
What is this collective memory?
If material culture was transmitted between the two (styles of pottery, tools etc), why not stories as well?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2024, 05:32:29 PMQuote from: Maladict on March 06, 2024, 04:33:48 PMQuote from: Caliga on March 06, 2024, 03:11:04 PMCan't it also just be people making shit up? Why can't we allow for the possibility that ancient peoples had vivid imaginations?
It could be. But I think they're more likely embellishments of something that did happen a long time before. These are oral traditions, designed to keep histories and memories alive.
They really aren't designed to keep histories and memories alive. Oral traditions are used to explain the present, to entertain people, to increase the status of the speaker or a leader.
I'd say the transmission of knowledge is the driving force, but it can certainly be applied to different effects.
My impression is that in many societies oral traditions had a record-keeping/historical function. AND also in many cases an entertainment function, much like a modern history book or historical movie often is designed with a mind to entertain. And that oral traditions typically existed on a spectrum between at one end dry record-keeping and at the other pure entertainment.
I can use Viking Age Sweden as an example. While they did have writing, as far a we know it wasn't used for extensive record-keeeping or story-telling until later, in the Scandinavian Middle Ages. It was primarily an oral society. The law was passed down as an oral tradition. In the great halls stories of royal ancestors (providing legitimacy, tales of glory, and "earthy" entertainment) were an oral tradition. Reciting your ancestors (in a way your neighbors didn't know to be wrong) helped provide legal foundation for your claim as established bonde (free man who owned land). Knowledge of critical information like business contracts and travelling routes were transmitted orally. Stories of gods and legendary heroes provided entertainment. Old wisdom was passed down as poems.
In the 20th century the sagas of kings were kind of scoffed at as pure fiction, but people now seem to see that they are likely based on history (which obviously doesn't mean that every bit is true). It would make sense for them from an Occam perspective to be based on history. Archaeology has offered interesting confirmation of some stories.
We're leaving Viking Age Sweden and return to the general. Do people sometimes go overboard with complete faith in oral traditions? Yes. Can oral traditions be dismissed as historical records out of hand? No.
Quote from: Maladict on March 07, 2024, 02:24:46 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2024, 05:32:29 PMQuote from: Maladict on March 06, 2024, 04:33:48 PMQuote from: Caliga on March 06, 2024, 03:11:04 PMCan't it also just be people making shit up? Why can't we allow for the possibility that ancient peoples had vivid imaginations?
It could be. But I think they're more likely embellishments of something that did happen a long time before. These are oral traditions, designed to keep histories and memories alive.
They really aren't designed to keep histories and memories alive. Oral traditions are used to explain the present, to entertain people, to increase the status of the speaker or a leader.
I'd say the transmission of knowledge is the driving force, but it can certainly be applied to different effects.
What are we to make of say plains native Americans who have horses in their creation myth? Horse were introduced in the Columbian exchange so such myths can't be very old. In fact the people of the plains seem to have forgotten their previous horseless life style.
Quote from: viper37 on March 05, 2024, 01:06:21 PMQuote from: celedhring on March 05, 2024, 11:01:13 AM"This imaginary story actually took place in XXXX and not in YYYY" is possibly the supidest subgenre of conspiracy theories. See: Atlantis.
Not a conspiracy theory, but for many francophone children, this was an interesting story back in our youth:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_31
:wub: :thumbsup:
Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 08:39:01 AMQuote from: Maladict on March 07, 2024, 02:24:46 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2024, 05:32:29 PMQuote from: Maladict on March 06, 2024, 04:33:48 PMQuote from: Caliga on March 06, 2024, 03:11:04 PMCan't it also just be people making shit up? Why can't we allow for the possibility that ancient peoples had vivid imaginations?
It could be. But I think they're more likely embellishments of something that did happen a long time before. These are oral traditions, designed to keep histories and memories alive.
They really aren't designed to keep histories and memories alive. Oral traditions are used to explain the present, to entertain people, to increase the status of the speaker or a leader.
I'd say the transmission of knowledge is the driving force, but it can certainly be applied to different effects.
What are we to make of say plains native Americans who have horses in their creation myth? Horse were introduced in the Columbian exchange so such myths can't be very old. In fact the people of the plains seem to have forgotten their previous horseless life style.
Horses were present in North America before the Europeans. They just disappeared for 10 000 years.
Paging PDH
What is your view about the transmission of oral histories about events that happened over large time and geographic distances?
I think the official answer is that is trustworthy to about 150 years. I don't give it that much credence.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 08:39:01 AMWhat are we to make of say plains native Americans who have horses in their creation myth? Horse were introduced in the Columbian exchange so such myths can't be very old. In fact the people of the plains seem to have forgotten their previous horseless life style.
A relatively recent introduction however one which quickly became absolutely core to their culture and way of life. Stands to reason such a mammoth change would have saw a complete rewriting of their mythology- though I would expect they do include parts of earlier myths in there still.
Not to mention the post-apocalyptic setting of the post-contact Americas. Its like those dudes in fallout worshipping the bomb.
Quote from: Josquius on March 07, 2024, 11:15:57 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 08:39:01 AMWhat are we to make of say plains native Americans who have horses in their creation myth? Horse were introduced in the Columbian exchange so such myths can't be very old. In fact the people of the plains seem to have forgotten their previous horseless life style.
A relatively recent introduction however one which quickly became absolutely core to their culture and way of life. Stands to reason such a mammoth change would have saw a complete rewriting of their mythology- though I would expect they do include parts of earlier myths in there still.
Not to mention the post-apocalyptic setting of the post-contact Americas. Its like those dudes in fallout worshipping the bomb.
Why does that stand to reason? When the British invented trains they didn't rewrite the book of Genesis to include rail. And did you just use a fictional example to prove your point?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 12:27:06 PMQuote from: Josquius on March 07, 2024, 11:15:57 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 08:39:01 AMWhat are we to make of say plains native Americans who have horses in their creation myth? Horse were introduced in the Columbian exchange so such myths can't be very old. In fact the people of the plains seem to have forgotten their previous horseless life style.
A relatively recent introduction however one which quickly became absolutely core to their culture and way of life. Stands to reason such a mammoth change would have saw a complete rewriting of their mythology- though I would expect they do include parts of earlier myths in there still.
Not to mention the post-apocalyptic setting of the post-contact Americas. Its like those dudes in fallout worshipping the bomb.
Why does that stand to reason? When the British invented trains they didn't rewrite the book of Genesis to include rail.
You've played crusader Kings. You know the whole organised religion vs folk belief thing.
You can't really compare the beliefs of a tribe of a few hundred to 19th century mainstream Christianity.
For this analogy to work it'd have to be more trains mysteriously appear one day with absolutely zero explanation and people start using them for every aspect of their life. Adopting the concept of metroland without the underlying understanding of what trains are or how they got there.
Then there's the post apocalyptic factor too which provided quite a hefty fucking to previous structures and a need to develop a new understanding.
QuoteAnd did you just use a fictional example to prove your point?
It's called a joke raz.
Again are you sure you're not a trumpy? :p
Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 12:27:06 PMQuote from: Josquius on March 07, 2024, 11:15:57 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 08:39:01 AMWhat are we to make of say plains native Americans who have horses in their creation myth? Horse were introduced in the Columbian exchange so such myths can't be very old. In fact the people of the plains seem to have forgotten their previous horseless life style.
A relatively recent introduction however one which quickly became absolutely core to their culture and way of life. Stands to reason such a mammoth change would have saw a complete rewriting of their mythology- though I would expect they do include parts of earlier myths in there still.
Not to mention the post-apocalyptic setting of the post-contact Americas. Its like those dudes in fallout worshipping the bomb.
Why does that stand to reason? When the British invented trains they didn't rewrite the book of Genesis to include rail. And did you just use a fictional example to prove your point?
You might have accidentally hit on the key though.
Once things like origin myths get written down it is very difficult to change them.
Native Americans didn't have writing until comparatively quite recently (well in North America - mesoamerica had writing and we know something of their ancient origin myths). They relied on oral history.
Now there has been interesting research on how much we can rely on oral history. I'm far from an expert, but I think the conclusion is we certainly can't discount oral history. But to trust it going back 500+ years I'm not so sure.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 10:37:47 AMI think the official answer is that is trustworthy to about 150 years. I don't give it that much credence.
For how long do you think the Odyssey transmitted itself before it was written? The Trojan war itself, or themselves, would have have happened 400 years earlier.
Homer retells a fictional tale of legendary events that happened at least 400 years before.
Anyway. Most of their myths do not rely on a foundation by horses.
https://www.britannica.com/art/Native-American-literature/Written-literatures
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2024, 11:11:56 AMThink about the arguments over where the garden of Eden was actually located
Missouri, according to the Mormons.
Which is a concept I find hilarious.
Quote from: Barrister on March 07, 2024, 12:40:00 PMNow there has been interesting research on how much we can rely on oral history. I'm far from an expert, but I think the conclusion is we certainly can't discount oral history. But to trust it going back 500+ years I'm not so sure.
We do not know that they did not have writing at some point in the past. There's still a lot we do not know about the mound culture of the central plains.
We only know they did not have writing when they met the first Europeans and we have not found an organized system of writing so far, only some symbols on pottery. Maybe they left with all their stone tablets. Maybe they had other degradable means that have long disappeared. Until we know more, we can not say for certain.
Some cultures, like the Hurons and Iroquois, had some form or writing for some specific events (can never remember the name of their belts), but we can't decipher it anymore.
Viper, I think the evidence is conclusive there was no writing other than in Meso-America. Sadly a lot of the oral history of the Indigenous North Americans has been lost, but what remains is remarkably accurate in terms of describing tribal boundaries.
I'm with the Brain on the veracity of oral traditions. There are numerous examples of oral tradition stuff that's been proved fairly accurate by later archaeology and other investigations. On top of that, of course there's all the other information that can be gleaned from oral traditions even if "date and fact" type information is not precise - things like a society's values and concerns.
Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2024, 02:04:39 PMI'm with the Brain on the veracity of oral traditions. There are numerous examples of oral tradition stuff that's been proved fairly accurate by later archaeology and other investigations. On top of that, of course there's all the other information that can be gleaned from oral traditions even if "date and fact" type information is not precise - things like a society's values and concerns.
Yes, with a caveat. Local oral traditions have proven accurate. I have an issue with a claim that there are accurate oral histories about events that occurred thousands of miles away.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2024, 04:27:55 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 07, 2024, 02:04:39 PMI'm with the Brain on the veracity of oral traditions. There are numerous examples of oral tradition stuff that's been proved fairly accurate by later archaeology and other investigations. On top of that, of course there's all the other information that can be gleaned from oral traditions even if "date and fact" type information is not precise - things like a society's values and concerns.
Yes, with a caveat. Local oral traditions have proven accurate. I have an issue with a claim that there are accurate oral histories about events that occurred thousands of miles away.
No one is saying seriously that there was a guy named Odysseus travelling with sirens in the Baltic Sea recorded by Homer 400 years later. I was just joking about this article, you know. :sleep:
Quote from: viper37 on March 07, 2024, 04:30:22 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2024, 04:27:55 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 07, 2024, 02:04:39 PMI'm with the Brain on the veracity of oral traditions. There are numerous examples of oral tradition stuff that's been proved fairly accurate by later archaeology and other investigations. On top of that, of course there's all the other information that can be gleaned from oral traditions even if "date and fact" type information is not precise - things like a society's values and concerns.
Yes, with a caveat. Local oral traditions have proven accurate. I have an issue with a claim that there are accurate oral histories about events that occurred thousands of miles away.
No one is saying seriously that there was a guy named Odysseus travelling with sirens in the Baltic Sea recorded by Homer 400 years later. I was just joking about this article, you know. :sleep:
Others have made claims in this thread about an oral history informed by floods which the people who have the oral history could know nothing about.
It is true that many peoples have oral histories about floods, but that is because there were local floods. Not because they knew anything about floods that happened in far off lands.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2024, 04:27:55 PMYes, with a caveat. Local oral traditions have proven accurate. I have an issue with a claim that there are accurate oral histories about events that occurred thousands of miles away.
Yeah it's hard to prove.
The fact that certain oral histories seem consistent across a wide range of time and place (if indeed that is the case) probably indicates something... but I'm personally not going to speak with any certitude about
what it is that it indicates. It's kind of fascinating, though.
Quote from: viper37 on March 07, 2024, 12:55:53 PMQuote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 10:37:47 AMI think the official answer is that is trustworthy to about 150 years. I don't give it that much credence.
For how long do you think the Odyssey transmitted itself before it was written? The Trojan war itself, or themselves, would have have happened 400 years earlier.
Homer retells a fictional tale of legendary events that happened at least 400 years before.
Anyway. Most of their myths do not rely on a foundation by horses.
https://www.britannica.com/art/Native-American-literature/Written-literatures
The point wasn't it relies on horses, but that the myths aren't very old. They are designed the explain the present, not to recount history.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2024, 01:12:22 PMViper, I think the evidence is conclusive there was no writing other than in Meso-America. Sadly a lot of the oral history of the Indigenous North Americans has been lost, but what remains is remarkably accurate in terms of describing tribal boundaries.
Do you have examples of this remarkably accurate tribal boundaries thing?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 05:02:51 PMThe point wasn't it relies on horses, but that the myths aren't very old. They are designed the explain the present, not to recount history.
I'm understanding you correctly, that you're saying myths and oral histories as a general rule are only accurate for about a century and a half, and anything prior to that has in fact changed to reflect current concerns?
And you believe this to be an accurate for oral histories in general?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 05:04:03 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2024, 01:12:22 PMViper, I think the evidence is conclusive there was no writing other than in Meso-America. Sadly a lot of the oral history of the Indigenous North Americans has been lost, but what remains is remarkably accurate in terms of describing tribal boundaries.
Do you have examples of this remarkably accurate tribal boundaries thing?
Yeah, the Nuxulk Nation on the BC Central Coast has a rich oral history which recites not only the boundaries of the Nation but also the boundaries of each Family within the Nation.
That oral history has been accepted as evidence in our courts and is corroborated by the archeological evidence.
Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2024, 04:54:45 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2024, 04:27:55 PMYes, with a caveat. Local oral traditions have proven accurate. I have an issue with a claim that there are accurate oral histories about events that occurred thousands of miles away.
Yeah it's hard to prove.
The fact that certain oral histories seem consistent across a wide range of time and place (if indeed that is the case) probably indicates something... but I'm personally not going to speak with any certitude about what it is that it indicates. It's kind of fascinating, though.
The consistency is that there was a flood. Beyond that, and excepting the copying of myths (for example the copying of the Sumerian legend by the Jewish writers), I am not sure what consistency there is across wide ranges of time and place.
Early civilizations started on flood plains. Some like Egypt had predictable and calm flooding, others like the indus Valley and summeria less so. Not surprising flood myths exist. As they become regional powers their myths expanded outwards
Hey Raz - here's an article claiming that Australian Aboriginal history accurately described a 10,000 year old sea rise (including landmarks that were submerged at that time): https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-sea-rise-tale-told-accurately-for-10-000-years/
Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2024, 05:17:47 PMQuote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 05:02:51 PMThe point wasn't it relies on horses, but that the myths aren't very old. They are designed the explain the present, not to recount history.
I'm understanding you correctly, that you're saying myths and oral histories as a general rule are only accurate for about a century and a half, and anything prior to that has in fact changed to reflect current concerns?
And you believe this to be an accurate for oral histories in general?
Generally yeah. Some stories may have accurate details in them, for instance the boar-tusk helm of Odysseus, but you can't readily distinguish what is true and what is false. Take for example the Song of Roland. Some basic elements are true. Charelmagne was a real person and the battle of Roncesvalles took place a guy name Roland (well Hrundelund) died there. The rest is hogwash. The battle involved Franks and Basques, but the poems has Muslims as the attackers. The Muslims are described as polytheists who worship fictional gods. Charlemagne, in the poem, conquers Spain. He didn't really do that.
Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2024, 05:37:56 PMHey Raz - here's an article claiming that Australian Aboriginal history accurately described a 10,000 year old sea rise (including landmarks that were submerged at that time): https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-sea-rise-tale-told-accurately-for-10-000-years/
Yeah, it's been posted before. I serious doubt it.
If the water is the shallow can you see the "islands" from the surface of the water?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2024, 04:34:12 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 07, 2024, 04:30:22 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2024, 04:27:55 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 07, 2024, 02:04:39 PMI'm with the Brain on the veracity of oral traditions. There are numerous examples of oral tradition stuff that's been proved fairly accurate by later archaeology and other investigations. On top of that, of course there's all the other information that can be gleaned from oral traditions even if "date and fact" type information is not precise - things like a society's values and concerns.
Yes, with a caveat. Local oral traditions have proven accurate. I have an issue with a claim that there are accurate oral histories about events that occurred thousands of miles away.
No one is saying seriously that there was a guy named Odysseus travelling with sirens in the Baltic Sea recorded by Homer 400 years later. I was just joking about this article, you know. :sleep:
Others have made claims in this thread about an oral history informed by floods which the people who have the oral history could know nothing about.
It is true that many peoples have oral histories about floods, but that is because there were local floods. Not because they knew anything about floods that happened in far off lands.
Ah. Gotcha.
I think it's a mixture of both.
Far away tales of distant, major flooding events getting passed down and mixed with local tales.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2024, 05:20:28 PMQuote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 05:04:03 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2024, 01:12:22 PMViper, I think the evidence is conclusive there was no writing other than in Meso-America. Sadly a lot of the oral history of the Indigenous North Americans has been lost, but what remains is remarkably accurate in terms of describing tribal boundaries.
Do you have examples of this remarkably accurate tribal boundaries thing?
Yeah, the Nuxulk Nation on the BC Central Coast has a rich oral history which recites not only the boundaries of the Nation but also the boundaries of each Family within the Nation.
That oral history has been accepted as evidence in our courts and is corroborated by the archeological evidence.
So did they use longitude and latitude or what?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 05:50:30 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2024, 05:20:28 PMQuote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 05:04:03 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2024, 01:12:22 PMViper, I think the evidence is conclusive there was no writing other than in Meso-America. Sadly a lot of the oral history of the Indigenous North Americans has been lost, but what remains is remarkably accurate in terms of describing tribal boundaries.
Do you have examples of this remarkably accurate tribal boundaries thing?
Yeah, the Nuxulk Nation on the BC Central Coast has a rich oral history which recites not only the boundaries of the Nation but also the boundaries of each Family within the Nation.
That oral history has been accepted as evidence in our courts and is corroborated by the archeological evidence.
So did they use longitude and latitude or what?
How do you describe locations? When you describe where you live have you ever referred to longitude and latitude?
Of course you don't. Why would you expect a non seafaring people to do anything other than refer to landmarks.
The oldest story in the world, going back 100k years
https://theconversation.com/the-worlds-oldest-story-astronomers-say-global-myths-about-seven-sisters-stars-may-reach-back-100-000-years-151568
Quote from: viper37 on March 07, 2024, 12:55:53 PMAnyway. Most of their myths do not rely on a foundation by horses.
https://www.britannica.com/art/Native-American-literature/Written-literatures
That article does not mention the Plains Indians at all.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 05:47:43 PMYeah, it's been posted before. I serious doubt it.
That's cool.
Are those doubts mostly gut feeling, or based on anything more concrete? Basically I'm wondering if your proposed 100-150 year limit on oral history you posit is "that's what Raz feels is kind of reasonable" or on some body of serious work on the subject by folks with credentials in the field.
Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2024, 07:37:34 PMQuote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 05:47:43 PMYeah, it's been posted before. I serious doubt it.
That's cool.
Are those doubts mostly gut feeling, or based on anything more concrete? Basically I'm wondering if your proposed 100-150 year limit on oral history you posit is "that's what Raz feels is kind of reasonable" or on some body of serious work on the subject by folks with credentials in the field.
Historical method.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method
QuoteGilbert Garraghan (1946) maintains that oral tradition may be accepted if it satisfies either two "broad conditions" or six "particular conditions", as follows:[16]
Broad conditions stated.
The tradition should be supported by an unbroken series of witnesses, reaching from the immediate and first reporter of the fact to the living mediate witness from whom we take it up, or to the one who was the first to commit it to writing.
There should be several parallel and independent series of witnesses testifying to the fact in question.
Particular conditions formulated.
The tradition must report a public event of importance, such as would necessarily be known directly to a great number of persons.
The tradition must have been generally believed, at least for a definite period of time.
During that definite period it must have gone without protest, even from persons interested in denying it.
The tradition must be one of relatively limited duration. [Elsewhere, Garraghan suggests a maximum limit of 150 years, at least in cultures that excel in oral remembrance.]
The critical spirit must have been sufficiently developed while the tradition lasted, and the necessary means of critical investigation must have been at hand.
Critical-minded persons who would surely have challenged the tradition – had they considered it false – must have made no such challenge.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2024, 06:09:03 PMQuote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 05:50:30 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2024, 05:20:28 PMQuote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 05:04:03 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2024, 01:12:22 PMViper, I think the evidence is conclusive there was no writing other than in Meso-America. Sadly a lot of the oral history of the Indigenous North Americans has been lost, but what remains is remarkably accurate in terms of describing tribal boundaries.
Do you have examples of this remarkably accurate tribal boundaries thing?
Yeah, the Nuxulk Nation on the BC Central Coast has a rich oral history which recites not only the boundaries of the Nation but also the boundaries of each Family within the Nation.
That oral history has been accepted as evidence in our courts and is corroborated by the archeological evidence.
So did they use longitude and latitude or what?
How do you describe locations? When you describe where you live have you ever referred to longitude and latitude?
Of course you don't. Why would you expect a non seafaring people to do anything other than refer to landmarks.
Okay, did they have standardized measurements? Better question: When were the oral traditions written down? Did other tribes recognize these boundaries?
Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2024, 05:37:56 PMHey Raz - here's an article claiming that Australian Aboriginal history accurately described a 10,000 year old sea rise (including landmarks that were submerged at that time): https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-sea-rise-tale-told-accurately-for-10-000-years/
I remember reading that when it was posted before. I haven't delved into the details, but I got the impression then that they seemed a bit quick to accept things. Do I accept the possibility that info was passed down for 10,000 years? Yes. Does available evidence strongly support this? Possibly, but I'm not completely convinced.
The article says that the stories preserve the original names of islands. How do we know that those names are the original ones?
Has it been established that the people living in the area when the stories were recorded were descendants of the people living there 10,000 years ago? Maybe DNA from ancient remains shows this? In general 10,000 years is a fairly long time for a group of humans to be living in the same area.
Have possible alternative explanations been fully explored? Sea level change in general, like tides or tsunami events, could have inspired stories. A bit like "normal" floods inspiring megaflood myths. Or simply imagination of course.
This area of research attracts weirdos, so caution is advised.
Re. floods: didn't most civilisations/first cities began near rivers? So: rivers flood, which is a huge deal if you live right next to it but it's far from Biblical proportions. But if you were like 4th generation passing down the story that initially covered "how my father's shed got collapsed by the flood" then likely by then it had morphed into "there was this massive flood that covered everything known to man".
What I find interesting is less what stories are created- of course people living next to a river would have a story or two about floods- and more which stories survive, grow, spread, and become really important.
Completely believable some plains Indian guy of the 17th century would come up with a creation story about a pig shitting out the earth.... but that just didn't click with his people. What really engaged them was the other guy's story about horses. Horses are cool.
Certainly there's flood stories from basically every culture. From the top of my head the Chinese one seems to have a very definite particular local basis in history but the others are a bit more open to interpretation.
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?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 11:12:14 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2024, 06:09:03 PMQuote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 05:50:30 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2024, 05:20:28 PMQuote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 05:04:03 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2024, 01:12:22 PMViper, I think the evidence is conclusive there was no writing other than in Meso-America. Sadly a lot of the oral history of the Indigenous North Americans has been lost, but what remains is remarkably accurate in terms of describing tribal boundaries.
Do you have examples of this remarkably accurate tribal boundaries thing?
Yeah, the Nuxulk Nation on the BC Central Coast has a rich oral history which recites not only the boundaries of the Nation but also the boundaries of each Family within the Nation.
That oral history has been accepted as evidence in our courts and is corroborated by the archeological evidence.
So did they use longitude and latitude or what?
How do you describe locations? When you describe where you live have you ever referred to longitude and latitude?
Of course you don't. Why would you expect a non seafaring people to do anything other than refer to landmarks.
Okay, did they have standardized measurements? Better question: When were the oral traditions written down? Did other tribes recognize these boundaries?
As already mentioned in this thread there was no writing. In fact an alphabet was only recently created. That is what it means to have an oral history.
Archeology has proven the oral history's claim of exclusive use to be accurate.
And why the fixation on units of measurement?
Measurements are typical when coming up with legal boundaries. If the oral tradition was never recorded, how do you know what it is? You didn't personally hear it. Presumably someone recorded it. Perhaps a folklorist, or maybe the speaker knew how to read or write. Now it makes a huge difference if when it was recorded. What would prevent the teller of the oral history from looking at map and tailoring his story fit the borders he wants? I don't know how archeology can prove invisible lines on a map. It doesn't do it for other cultures, why should it do it for these guys? The tool kits and DNA for one group of Hunter Gatherers is going to be very similar to that of their neighbors.
Typical but not necessary
You are creating a restriction that is not necessary except to deny how others perceive the world
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 05:46:56 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 07, 2024, 05:17:47 PMQuote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 05:02:51 PMThe point wasn't it relies on horses, but that the myths aren't very old. They are designed the explain the present, not to recount history.
I'm understanding you correctly, that you're saying myths and oral histories as a general rule are only accurate for about a century and a half, and anything prior to that has in fact changed to reflect current concerns?
And you believe this to be an accurate for oral histories in general?
Generally yeah. Some stories may have accurate details in them, for instance the boar-tusk helm of Odysseus, but you can't readily distinguish what is true and what is false. Take for example the Song of Roland. Some basic elements are true. Charelmagne was a real person and the battle of Roncesvalles took place a guy name Roland (well Hrundelund) died there. The rest is hogwash. The battle involved Franks and Basques, but the poems has Muslims as the attackers. The Muslims are described as polytheists who worship fictional gods. Charlemagne, in the poem, conquers Spain. He didn't really do that.
But isn't that part of the domain of history, figuring out what in records is true*? Part of my dissertation right now involves writers playing fast and loose with the historical record to justify goals for their own day - and one in particular (Bede) was writing with a lot of written records at his disposal but still massaged historical figures to fit his narrative/instructive ends.
What distinction are you drawing for oral histories in terms of truth content?
*well and I guess in our postmodern era, gazing at the idea of objective truth and subjecting it to skepticism :D :Embarrass:
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 08, 2024, 10:55:02 AMTypical but not necessary
You are creating a restriction that is not necessary except to deny how others perceive the world
:rolleyes: I am creating a restriction of what can be demonstrated true or not.
Quote from: Josquius on March 08, 2024, 11:31:48 AMSurely 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...
Can you use archeology to prove invisible lines on a map? If so what are the borders of the polity that built stone henge?
Quote from: garbon on March 08, 2024, 11:41:52 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 05:46:56 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 07, 2024, 05:17:47 PMQuote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 05:02:51 PMThe point wasn't it relies on horses, but that the myths aren't very old. They are designed the explain the present, not to recount history.
I'm understanding you correctly, that you're saying myths and oral histories as a general rule are only accurate for about a century and a half, and anything prior to that has in fact changed to reflect current concerns?
And you believe this to be an accurate for oral histories in general?
Generally yeah. Some stories may have accurate details in them, for instance the boar-tusk helm of Odysseus, but you can't readily distinguish what is true and what is false. Take for example the Song of Roland. Some basic elements are true. Charelmagne was a real person and the battle of Roncesvalles took place a guy name Roland (well Hrundelund) died there. The rest is hogwash. The battle involved Franks and Basques, but the poems has Muslims as the attackers. The Muslims are described as polytheists who worship fictional gods. Charlemagne, in the poem, conquers Spain. He didn't really do that.
But isn't that part of the domain of history, figuring out what in records is true*? Part of my dissertation right now involves writers playing fast and loose with the historical record to justify goals for their own day - and one in particular (Bede) was writing with a lot of written records at his disposal but still massaged historical figures to fit his narrative/instructive ends.
What distinction are you drawing for oral histories in terms of truth content?
*well and I guess in our postmodern era, gazing at the idea of objective truth and subjecting it to skepticism :D :Embarrass:
Oral histories are inherently less reliable. They are highly mutable and can be created on the whim of the speaker. Preserving a factual account is not really what they are for. The point of Song of Roland was not to record the past but to entertain and flatter some lord patronizing the artist. With written records I can compared what was written in the past to what is written currently.
"Duke Dunderhead killed 300 enemies at battle of Bingo-Bongo"
"Yeah, the grave stone of Duke Dunderhead says he died three years prior to the Battle of Bingo-Bongo"
Can't really do that with oral history.
I think you're underestimating the way historians use combinations of the material record, written sources, and oral histories in their work.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 08, 2024, 12:15:40 PMQuote from: garbon on March 08, 2024, 11:41:52 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 05:46:56 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 07, 2024, 05:17:47 PMQuote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 05:02:51 PMThe point wasn't it relies on horses, but that the myths aren't very old. They are designed the explain the present, not to recount history.
I'm understanding you correctly, that you're saying myths and oral histories as a general rule are only accurate for about a century and a half, and anything prior to that has in fact changed to reflect current concerns?
And you believe this to be an accurate for oral histories in general?
Generally yeah. Some stories may have accurate details in them, for instance the boar-tusk helm of Odysseus, but you can't readily distinguish what is true and what is false. Take for example the Song of Roland. Some basic elements are true. Charelmagne was a real person and the battle of Roncesvalles took place a guy name Roland (well Hrundelund) died there. The rest is hogwash. The battle involved Franks and Basques, but the poems has Muslims as the attackers. The Muslims are described as polytheists who worship fictional gods. Charlemagne, in the poem, conquers Spain. He didn't really do that.
But isn't that part of the domain of history, figuring out what in records is true*? Part of my dissertation right now involves writers playing fast and loose with the historical record to justify goals for their own day - and one in particular (Bede) was writing with a lot of written records at his disposal but still massaged historical figures to fit his narrative/instructive ends.
What distinction are you drawing for oral histories in terms of truth content?
*well and I guess in our postmodern era, gazing at the idea of objective truth and subjecting it to skepticism :D :Embarrass:
Oral histories are inherently less reliable. They are highly mutable and can be created on the whim of the speaker. Preserving a factual account is not really what they are for. The point of Song of Roland was not to record the past but to entertain and flatter some lord patronizing the artist. With written records I can compared what was written in the past to what is written currently.
"Duke Dunderhead killed 300 enemies at battle of Bingo-Bongo"
"Yeah, the grave stone of Duke Dunderhead says he died three years prior to the Battle of Bingo-Bongo"
Can't really do that with oral history.
But, of course. Most primary sources were not written to objectively record history. They were always about something else. Even Bede, the main source historian of the Anglo-Saxons, wasn't trying to write an objective history. That's a much more modern goal.
Also why can't oral histories be compared with archeological records?
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.
Quote from: Jacob on March 08, 2024, 12:44:03 PMI 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.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 08, 2024, 12:04:36 PMQuote from: Josquius on March 08, 2024, 11:31:48 AMSurely 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
QuoteCan 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.
If they do this all the time then you will have no problem finding the borders of the polity that built Stone Henge.
Quote from: Josquius on March 08, 2024, 04:34:06 AMThat 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 08, 2024, 04:43:07 PMIf 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/
Quote from: Josquius on March 08, 2024, 07:37:36 PMQuote from: Razgovory on March 08, 2024, 04:43:07 PMIf 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
QuoteAs 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.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 08, 2024, 01:34:25 PMYou 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.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 08, 2024, 06:08:59 PMIf 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:
QuoteBy 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
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/His_Master%27s_Voice_%28small%29.png/80px-His_Master%27s_Voice_%28small%29.png)
"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]
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?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 08, 2024, 07:52:26 PMQuote from: Josquius on March 08, 2024, 07:37:36 PMQuote from: Razgovory on March 08, 2024, 04:43:07 PMIf 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
QuoteAs 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.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 10, 2024, 09:38:39 AMOkay, 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.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 05:04:03 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2024, 01:12:22 PMViper, I think the evidence is conclusive there was no writing other than in Meso-America. Sadly a lot of the oral history of the Indigenous North Americans has been lost, but what remains is remarkably accurate in terms of describing tribal boundaries.
Do you have examples of this remarkably accurate tribal boundaries thing?
Raz, to refresh your memory - actually you did ask me for an example and that is why I gave you an example.
Oh, so you did. Sorry about that.
No problem, it's hard to keep track of what everybody is saying.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 10, 2024, 09:38:39 AMOkay, 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.
Solely archaeology is hard for any particularly well known people as for thousands of years you've had literate and illiterate people living in the world at the same time and they wouldn't have been completely ignorant of each other.
I could point to the celts for instance where we have a very good idea of their historic spread based on archaeology- but then we also have written records from the Romans and Greeks about them.
Look back into pre-ancient times though and you do get solely archaeology based interpretations of e.g. how beaker culture spread over time. They covered most of Europe at some point in history- this is true.
Again a problem here seems to be you're thinking in modern nation-state terms for ancient cultures which just didn't work that way. If you really must have smaller 'political borders' within this big border of the culture then basically you'd be looking at find a village and then walking distance from there is your border.
17th century Europeans are relevant as you replied Europe had contact with Britain when Stonehenge was built as if that was somehow equivalent to me pointing out Europeans a few hundred years ago had a lot of contact with the North American tribes we're talking about. The only way that would be comparable is through time travel.
The issue was exact borders. Exact enough to for a legal boundary dispute in a court of law. You said archeologists do it all the time. Do you still stand by that?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 12, 2024, 09:37:51 AMThe issue was exact borders. Exact enough to for a legal boundary dispute in a court of law. You said archeologists do it all the time. Do you still stand by that?
Yeah, as mentioned several times, the boundaries proven by oral history have stood up in court. I don't know what the issue is you are identifying as being problematic, and something that won't stand up in court.
I have given you an example do you have an example of it not standing up in court?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 12, 2024, 09:39:44 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 12, 2024, 09:37:51 AMThe issue was exact borders. Exact enough to for a legal boundary dispute in a court of law. You said archeologists do it all the time. Do you still stand by that?
Yeah, as mentioned several times, the boundaries proven by oral history have stood up in court. I don't know what the issue is you are identifying as being problematic, and something that won't stand up in court.
I have given you an example do you have an example of it not standing up in court?
I'm not a Canadian lawyer. I don't know about your laws. I'm not an American legal expert either, so I don't if oral history has failed to persuade a judge in the US. Since Native Americans have lost lots of legal cases and were simply tossed off their land I imagine that at least once "we were here 5,000 years ago my grandpa told me" didn't cut it.
Since when is science decided in court?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 12, 2024, 09:50:41 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 12, 2024, 09:39:44 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 12, 2024, 09:37:51 AMThe issue was exact borders. Exact enough to for a legal boundary dispute in a court of law. You said archeologists do it all the time. Do you still stand by that?
Yeah, as mentioned several times, the boundaries proven by oral history have stood up in court. I don't know what the issue is you are identifying as being problematic, and something that won't stand up in court.
I have given you an example do you have an example of it not standing up in court?
I'm not a Canadian lawyer. I don't know about your laws. I'm not an American legal expert either, so I don't if oral history has failed to persuade a judge in the US. Since Native Americans have lost lots of legal cases and were simply tossed off their land I imagine that at least once "we were here 5,000 years ago my grandpa told me" didn't cut it.
The reason why the claims have succeeded in Canada and more particularly western Canada is because that is one of the limited areas of North America, where there were no treaties, and the argument of military occupation was weakest
We are getting a little off-topic since your main concern was that oral history was not precise enough to establish boundaries to claim land. That is obviously not so since there are a number of cases in Canada, where it has been sufficient and accepted by the courts to establish that claim.
In the US experience, Dobbs and Bruen are exemplars of the very serious pitfalls involved when justices decide to take on the roles of amateur historians . . .
I can understand why courts would consider oral histories in the context of tribal land claims, despite concerns about reliability. In the absence of hard and verifiable facts, a court is forced to consider whatever evidence that is available. If the consequence is to give the benefit of the doubt to tribal claims, that is hardly an inequitable result given past history of thumbs on the other hand of the scale. But the fact that a court accepts claims from oral history in such a context is not itself evidence of the actual reliability and accuracy of such histories.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 12, 2024, 10:14:38 AMIn the US experience, Dobbs and Bruen are exemplars of the very serious pitfalls involved when justices decide to take on the roles of amateur historians . . .
I can understand why courts would consider oral histories in the context of tribal land claims, despite concerns about reliability. In the absence of hard and verifiable facts, a court is forced to consider whatever evidence that is available. If the consequence is to give the benefit of the doubt to tribal claims, that is hardly an inequitable result given past history of thumbs on the other hand of the scale. But the fact that a court accepts claims from oral history in such a context is not itself evidence of the actual reliability and accuracy of such histories.
Yes, and it's a good thing nobody is making the claim, pun intended, that the fact that courts accept oral histories is in itself proof of reliability. Rather the claim being made is that the courts in BC have carefully examined the question of the reliability of oral histories in the cases before them, including considering all of the expert evidence related to the consistency of the oral histories with the archeological work done in those areas.
I can't speak to the American situation. It may well be that your judiciary engages in as you say being amateur historians. But that is not what has occurred in the modern BC cases. Rather actual historians and archeologists have appeared to give expert evidence.
If you have an argument as to why the court was wrong to accept all of that expert evidence, I'd be interested to hear your view on that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 12, 2024, 10:30:10 AMI can't speak to the American situation. It may well be that your judiciary engages in as you say being amateur historians.
Our Supreme Court engages in amateur history. It does receive the benefit of expert views via amici briefs, which it then ignores in favor of law review articles from Federalist Society members. It would be comic if not for the horrendous results.
QuoteIf you have an argument as to why the court was wrong to accept all of that expert evidence, I'd be interested to hear your view on that.
To the contrary, I argued above they were right to do it.
Quote from: The Brain on March 12, 2024, 10:01:57 AMSince when is science decided in court?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_trial
Quote from: Maladict on March 04, 2024, 10:25:08 PMYeah, those theories (including Troy being somewhere in Britain) had a resurgence in the 90s, but they go back to at least the 19th century.
Although I wonder if that links to the Medieival origin myth of the Britons as being from Brutus of Troy? I think the same chronicles have the origin of Scots as Scota, the daughter of Moses who brought the Stone of Destiny from Egypt (I think Irish chronicles similarly claim an ancient Israelite/Egyption origin).
I think that sort of thing was pretty common in Medieval chronicles though because they're histories and there is truth in them but also not. I don't think it's necessarily just about status, I think it reflects how the Medieval world saw and understood the world - from a historical perspective I think that in itself is interesting and probably true for oral histories too.
Also I think it's relatively recent that there's not been a fixed form for this stuff - so with Medieval writing, but I also understand with oral traditions, often part of it is complying with a form.
But yeah I definitely like there was an eccentric Victorian clergyman convinced Troy was Cornwall (it is always Cornwall for some reason) :lol: