Historical Storytelling- Accurate?

Great Debates
1

I managed to catch part of Discovery’s show on the search for a King Arthur. Interesting, to a point, but in another way, intriguing…

To wit: Why assume certain historical documentation is the literal truth?

I mean, it seems that, if someone wrote down an entertaining story a thousand years ago, or two thousand years ago, those writings are all but assumed to be the literal truth, or at worst, accounts of factual events but mildly embellished.

But if somebody writes down an entertaining story today, it’s a movie script, or the plot to a sitcom. Worse, if one DOES wish to pen the Literal Truth, one had better be prepared to provide unassailable documentary proof and have citiations and evidence to back it up.

For example, I was under the impression that, centuries ago, Sir Tomas Mallory committed what was essentially an “oral tradition”- or more accurately, an entertaining story told around cook fires- to parchment and called it “The Death Of Arthur”. (Sorry, I can’t recall the correct spelling of “Le Morte…” et al.)

But now, today, it’s assumed the story had more than just a passing basis in fact- there WAS an Arthur, there WAS a Camelot, the Knights DID seek the Holy Grail, etcetera.

Today, it’s considered quite normal for a good writer to take certain parts, certain character traits, from many people to create a single chracter for a story, or even to borrow a “type” of character from another writer’s work as a basis… But the assumption is, that centuries ago, writers had no such imagination, that those who were described where in fact real people… if perhaps embellished a bit.

The show I caught made a big deal out of a stone with a word enscribed upon it- “Art” something- with odd lettering… so of course the natural assumption was that the stone basically said “Arthur” and that it referred, of course, to King Arthur. (Okay, that was the impression the show conveyed anyway.)

So there was apparently only ONE “Arthur” who lived about that time? :smiley:

In the same vein, as mentioned in other threads, the Bible was written over the course of what, several hundred years? And describes a period encompassing some 4,000 years? Obviously it can’t be entirely eyewitness accounts by impartial observers… So why the assumption it’s The Literal Truth, and not an entertaining story that was told around cookfires for generations before being committed to paper?

2

I’m no expert on Discovery, but that doesn’t sound like a very well thought out programme. It does however remind me of a good documentary I saw on the BBC a few years ago, looking at all different interpretations of the Arthur myth. It concluded that the ‘original’ Arthur was probably just a Welsh war chief, and that most aspects of the tales had been tacked on from other Celtic legends or invented to suit the times. The main theme of the programme was how the Arthur myth was adapted over the centuries to support successive groups: the Celts, the Romano-British, the Saxons, the Normans. Over time Arthur evolved from a pagan chieftain. battling Romans to a Christian knight embodying medieval ideals of chivalry.

I don’t imagine any decent historians assume documentation to be the literal truth. Of course, that doesn’t mean its worthless. Myths, legends and tribal histories are usually not true in the strict sense of reporting the events as they happened, but they are not complete fiction either.

For example, a myth about a god usurping his divine father and taking his place in heaven may report the success of a new cult in taking over a more established religion. A marriage between gods may reflect an alliance between the peoples who took those gods as patrons. The lives of patriarchs in the bible such as Adam and Noah who supposedly lived for centuries may refer to successive generations of tribal leaders.

Just because ancient sources aren’t the literal truth, does not mean they don’t contain some elements of truth.

As I understand it current consensus amongst historians has it that much of the Old Testament is broadly reliable as history. On the other hand, pretty much everything contained in the various Arthurian myths is invention. Ancient sources seem to fall into two broad categories, tribal history and sacred history. The former is generally based on truth, albeit seen through very subjective eyes. The latter is more likely to be an invention based on religious rituals: a prime example would be the story of Demeter and Persephone - the myth was generated to account for the changing of the seasons and the rituals that went with them.

Of course a problem is that this distinction is easily blurred, and the two elements frequently mixed together in one story. Many myths seem to take a real historical person and attach sacred elements to the story. For example, Theseus was probably a real person who ruled in Athens and scored a significant victory over the Cretans. However, successive generations added the trappings of other Greek heroes: the descent into labyrinth and his escape/rebirth is similar to the descent into the underworld by both Dionysus and Heracles.

It is the task of the historian to separate the strands of these stories, to discover how much truth there is these narratives.
Alex B

3

What is your question? I think just about everyone understands that history is a matter of perspective and that over the years facts get distorted in the retelling.

4

Rule of thumb: Anything seen on TV about King Arthur, pyramids, the Bible, ghosts, the Knights Templar, Atlantis, the Celts, bigfoot, or aliens should be assumed to be false until proven otherwise.

Occasionally there are good documentaries on these subjects, but most of 'em are made up of legend, wild speculation, the rantings of crazy people, and lies.

There are some reputable scholars who think the figure of Arthur might be based on an actual Dark Ages warlord. However, none of those scholars thinks the actual guy pulled a sword from a stone, had a magician buddy named Merlin, or went questing after the Holy Grail.

5

Did the TV show actually claim that there was a Camelot and a search for the Grail? I know of no historian who would put much credence in either of those. (We may discover a castle or fortress that might have a name that could eventually be corrupted to our Camelot, but there was certainly no period when knights wandered about doing only good.)

We know exactly where Malory got his initial tale (and it can be purchased in an English translation from Penguin Books).

The reason to consider that a genuine war leader named something like an early version of “Arthur” may have existed is that there were many tales told about him. Arthur does not spring to the page, complete and fully pictured, in the fifteenth century. Rather, he shows up at odd places in several older works. The Preiddeu Annwfn, purportedly written by Taliesen, dates to around 900. The Welsh Triads or Trioedd Ynys Prydein date from the thirteenth century, but appear to contain much older material, including several Arthurian references. The tenth century Annales Cambriae mentions Arthur and Mordred falling at the battle of Camlann. In the twelfth century, Geoffrey of Monmouth had Arthur conquering most of Europe. He was simply attempting to establish British primacy in war and culture, but his use of the figure of Arthur presupposes a familiarity with the legend among his audience. The twelfth century also saw romances written in German and French, indicating that some knowledge/story of Arthur had made it onto the continent prior to that time. Arthur makes a background appearance in the Medieval poem from Scotland Childe Rowland, in which Rowland, Ellen, and their brothers are mentioned as the children of Arthur.

None of this establishes a “real” Arthur, but it implies that someone, at some time, got the name into circulation as a hero. If you look at other Medieval romances, you find that many, if not most, have at core some historical figure, so supposing an actual Arthur is not out of line.

As to the extension of the analogy of the legendary hero to several works of the Bible, scholars have been doing just that sort of speculation for many years.

6

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by tomndebb *
**

Like Paul Bunyan?

7

Geoffrey Ashe makes an outstandingly good case for the equivalence of the “historical Arthur” with the historically documented warlord Riothamus, overlord of the Britons who repelled Saxon invasions and apparently died at a documented battle in Burgundy (a few miles from an “isle” – upland within wetlands, as in the Isle of Ely – named “Avallon.” Of “Arthur” or “Riothamus,” at least one would be a title, the other being either an alternate title or the given name.

There’s some strong evidence for legendary accretions to historical personages, such as Alexander of Macedon and Charlemagne.

8

Well, Paul Bunyan is certainly a good counter-example to explain my point.

Paul Bunyan did spring to the page, complete and fully pictured in the 20th Century. While there appear to have been a few tales told in lumber camps of a lumberjack of prodigious ability–mostly figuring in tall tales where the amazing feat was the point and Paul was known for his skill, not his size–the stories that have been widely popularized were deliberately written from whole cloth as an advertising campaign. There may or may not have been an original Paul Bunyan, but the stories we know of him were written to a specific purpose. Similarly, Pecos Bill was the creation of a single author and John Henry was involved in a single ballad (although with several variants) and never really became the focus of legends.

In contrast, Casey Jones, was a real person and did inspire a certain amount of legend making and inspired many songs.

If Paul Bunyan had been an imaginary figure who made it to legend (as opposed to written stories), it would still not destroy my point which was that the large number of Arthurian tales may have indicated that such a person might have lived.

9

Historians of the medieval period decided some time ago that “Dark Ages” was an inappropriate title for this historical epoch. Not only is there much information now available on the period that ended, roughly speaking, with the Reformation and the Renaissance, but recent evidence indicates that there was much innovative thinking and scientific discovery during this so-called “dark” period. Not a big deal, i realise, just FYI. :slight_smile:

10

This gets into an interesting area: how do historians evaluate the accuracy of source material?

The closer the material is to an actual event the more reliable it tends to be. So surviving personal correspondence and official documents from the American Civil War are among the best sources available. Contemporary newspaper reports rank a little lower since reporters weren’t necessarily eyewitnesses and politics often moved the editor’s hand. Memoirs written many years after the event could be tainted by selective memories. “Official” accounts written long after the event have varying value. Oral traditions are usually among the weakest sources, and a legend committed to writing generations after the event is very similar to oral history.

Sometimes new evidence confirms a legend as fundamentally accurate. Schliemann’s excavation of the ruins of Troy may be the most famous instance, but the discovery of Joan of Arc’s trial transcripts may be the most dramatic example. Until the mid-nineteenth century she endured as a purely legendary figure. Some rationalists (notably Voltaire) had dismissed the oral history about her as pure fantasy. Then five different original manuscripts of her trial transcript surfaced in various libraries. Scholars also uncovered the records from her retrial, complete with sworn testimony from over 100 witnesses who had known her during her life. Contemporary correspondence, including two letters signed by Joan of Arc herself, further confirms the surviving oral tradition.

It’s rare for documents of this importance to surface. If the case for a historical King Arthur figure is true then it places him in an era where literacy was even more rare than in Joan of Arc’s time and from which few documents survive. There’s always an outside possibility that a trove like Sutton Hoo will surface, but failing that the best historians can do is to seek inscriptions on surviving gravestones and churches and to comb old archives for the earliest Arthurian stories. The inscriptions have high value as source material but are extremely rare. The chronicles are highly questionable since the earliest of them date several centuries after the events they describe.

11

Scampering gremlin and (as usual) Tom have provided some excellent commentary.

I didn’t see the Discovery channel documentary the OP was citing, so I can’t judge how accurate it was. But the OP is sorely mistaken if he thinks that serious scholars are in the habit of taking ancient texts at face value. Quite the contrary!

Nineteenth century historians didn’t believe that Homer’s “Iliad” was describing real events or real people. Indeed, until the ruins of Troy were discovered, most doubted that Troy itself ever existed. Heck, even ancient Greek historians like Thucydides thought that Homer was a shameless exaggerator.

Whether the subject is King Arthur, Robin Hood, Dracula, Jesus, Socrates, or Hercules, serious historians are invariably skeptics. You won’t find any scholar of note who believes every ancient document or legend he’s read about ANY of those men. There are numerous scholars who’ve spent years studying each of those men, and don’t believe they ever existed. There are far more scholars who believe that each of those men existed, but that there’s only a tiny kernel of truth in the stories we’ve heard about them.

No one puts creedence in the Bible simply because it’s old.

12

Storytelling can provide insights into the society in which the stories are circulated. The content, style, and points of emphasis in stories have the potential to shed light on some of the values and beliefs prevalent within a culture.

13

To clarify, are you suggesting that Voltaire argued that Joan of Arc was a complete invention who never existed or merely that he dismissed most of what was commonly believed about her ?

14

This is all why reputable historians don’t assume ancient documents to be fact unless they can find strong corroborating evidence.

And we have lots of cases of the opposite - stories we thought were false but turned out to be true. For example, when the ancient city of Angkor Wat was discovered it was a big surprise, because historians thought it was just a legend.

15

If we look at recent writings about elvis, we can see the example of a character who existed, but is now being transformed into myth. For example, Elvis is widely reported to be alive…I expect that this may in time lead to stories about his ressurection. Perhaps in a hundred years, we will have a full-blown mythology about Elvis, complete with tales of his travels after his 'death".

16

This is, strictly speaking, not entirely true. For example, I have studied government documents issued in Late Roman Egypt. Historians and papyrologists have every reason to believe that the document detailing the tribulations of, say, an Oxyrhynchian peasant woman named Arsinoe, who petitioned the [sym]strategoV[/sym] for relief in some property dispute, is absolutely true even if no corroborating evidence can be found.

In ancient history, one must first have a reason for skepticism. If there is no reason to doubt the reliability of source material, then it is often best accepted if not as fact than as close to fact as we can possibly perceive. Sources that are particularly normative and tendentious bear the brunt of most historical skepticism, as well as those written by authors with little connection to events either by proximity or by time.

MR

17

mhendo: The now-passe term “Dark Ages” didn’t refer to the entire medieval period, but rather to the period from the the collapse of the Western Roman Empire to the time of Charlemagne, i.e. about 475-800.

The more PC term “Early Middle Ages” is now used. For the British Isles during this period, though, I’d still say it was pretty damn dark.

18

Actually, from the fourth century to about the seventh century, the term “Late Antiquity” is most commonly employed.

And if you really believe Britain was “dark”, then you haven’t been reading the right sources.

19

Maeglin: I don’t think we are in disagreement. In the case you mentioned, there IS strong corroborating evidence. Namely, the evidence that other documents of this type, when checked, turned out to be correct. The mountains of evidence that the Romans were meticulous recordkeepers, etc. If I find a manifest for a ship, and it matches manifests for other ships in design and tone, and if our experience is that such manifests are very accurate, then we don’t need to prove every item on it, unless there is something extraordinary about it.

If we had no extant Roman documentation at all, and just came across the one scrap you mentioned, then we would demand some sort of corroboration that it was what it appeared to be. It would be considered evidence that such a person existed, but the evidence would be weighted by our opinion of the likelihood that the document was literal.