I don’t think we are argueing anything here, in my OP I was just asking if anything we widely accept as solid history was actually based on incredibly meager sources, ala the example cited, perhaps you can define your terms for us laymen – “scanty manuscript traditions,” “narrative account” – so that I might refine my query appropriately.
Sure. A manuscript tradition is, basically, the physical texts - what we have left and whether THEY were copied from the same text or not (which we can usually tell by different words in different places etc). For most ancient texts, we have more than one physical copy and usually more than one manuscript tradition (ie, more than one text was copied). Grimpen mentioned above that we only have one manuscript for Tacitus’ Histories.
A narrative account is the story, start to end. Livy, for example, contains a narrative account of Hannibal crossing the Alps. A reference but NOT a narrative account would be, for example, if Cicero used Hannibal’s march as a comparison for something he was discussion - not a full account but still proof that it was in the collective memory.
A lot of the stuff we have from ancient history is the only long narrative source for that particular event. We’re pretty lucky when we can cross-reference. I would rarely if ever relate there being only one narrative source to the story being dubious. If there was only one reference in total, and there was no archaeological evidence, then we have cause to be dubious. This is certainly not the case for many things mentioned in this thread - Pompeii, Socrates, Hannibal, etc.
Northern Piper, a big preoccupation of classicist (particularly German ones) in the 20th century was trying to figure out the sources of each ancient historian. If you’re really interested in finding out what the (more original than Polybius and Livy) sources were for Hannibal, I can find out for you. I am, however, 99% sure that it is as well attested as many ancient events.
One Roman 2nd hand reference. If that doesn’t qulify as “poorly documented”, I don’t know what does.
Possibly, although that time period isn’t exactly flooded with history texts. My point, though, was whether or not that exodus was taught as history or as reiligion. I’m not aware of history texts that treat the exodus as anything but a legend.
I think that, perhaps, what the OP is trying to get a feel for is what counts as “well attested” in terms of ancient events–it’s my understanding (though I am no historian) that that “burden of evidence” is considerably lower than what laypeople like myself really expect–which isn’t to say the historical record is meaningless, but that it is probably more specualtive than your average Western Civ survey course implies.
And fundamentalists attack the theory of evolution. Go figure.
Here’s a good book of the rare first-hand accounts for Rome: The Mammoth Book of Eyewitness Ancient Rome. Despite the title, not everything in there is first hand, but much of it is.
As for Pompei, Masada, etc. my point wasn’t that there wasn’t much alternative evidence for their existence, but that if we didn’t have the writings of Pliny or Josephus, we wouldn’t even know to look there, or the significance of it if we did find it. I suppose that’s not quite the same issue as the OP, though.
I’ve always wondered about what we don’t know - surely there’s still some big pieces that we don’t even know we’re missing …
PS - sorry for the misattribution Chronos and Grimpen.
I begin to understand! Here’s something that might be illuminating, then. This information comes from the Penguin Classics edition of books 21-23 of Livy’s history.
His sources for the Second Punic War were: a) possibly the official records (senatorial decrees, annales etc.); b) definitely annalists like Claudius Quadrigarius and Valerias Antias, who collected those records; c) Coelius Antipater, a historian before him whose work is not extant; d) Quintus Fabius Pictor, a general in the war and a writer of a history which is not extant; and e) Polybius, who lived only shortly after the war, and who was friendly with a family (the Scipiones) whose immediate ancestors were major players. His history is extant and we can do a nice comparison.
We also have full narrative accounts from Polybius (good for comparison with Livy - the details do differ) and Plutarch (a much later writer, who probably relied a lot, although not entirely, on Polybius and Livy). We also have references in Juvenal’s plays, for example, of Hannibal being used as a rhetorical exercise for schoolchildren and as a scary force.
This wealth of information is certainly NOT typical of ancient events.
Don’t know, but boy, what a sight the ol’ fortress is! Quite a climb (on stairs they’ve built in for the tourists), but the view from the top at the crack of dawn is amazing. I think you can ride a car up there on a cable–if you’re a wimp (or disabled).
Maybe i can nominate an event slightly more recent and (for Americans) slightly closer to home.
Over the past century and a half or so, one of the most often-cited examples of a conspiracy by slaves to overthrow and kill their masters has been the Denmark Vesey conspiracy of 1822 in Charleston, South Carolina. Vesey and 36 others were executed once the “plot” was uncovered, and history books still treat it as an exemplar of slaves who attempted—if unsuccessfully—to rebel against their condition.
But over the last few years the whole story has come into question, with one scholar doing a comprehensive examination of the evidence and deciding that there had never been a conspiracy at all, and that Vesey and his alleged co-conspirators were the victims of “legalized murder” at the hands of white authorities in Charleston.
Admittedly, not all historians agree with this interpretation, but the very debate itself has called into question what had been, until a few years ago, an almost universally-accepted view of the events. Also, the evidence marshalled in defence of the new, “no conspiracy” view is pretty impressive. You can see the original article by Michael Johnson that started all the fuss here, although i think it’s possible that those without access to the History Cooperative will only see the first few hundred words of what is a very long article. Here is a full version that should be available to everyone, and the main issues are summarized in this article from The Nation.
Since Johnson wrote the original article, the debate has been the subject of a special forum in the William and Mary Quarterly, one of the most respected scholarly journals in the field of American colonial and early national history, and has also be discussed in many other journals and historical conferences.
Full disclosure: the professor who started this whole thing rolling, Michael Johnson, of Johns Hopkins University, is someone i know and like, and with whom i have been teaching a course over the past semester and a half.
Duh, books 21-30. Sorry.
Not true. The destruction of Pompeii is attested by the ruins of Pompeii. There can be no doubt that a Roman town named Pompeii was destroyed by a volcanic erruption in the late 1st century AD. We know this from huge amountas of archaeological evidence, not from a single written source.
Yes, but if we didn’t have Pliny’s letter about the destruction, would we have even known to look for a buried, perfectly preserved town? I’m not disputing that Pompeii existed and was destroyed - just speculating that without the single written reference, we may have never known about it. This isn’t really what the OP was about, though.
That’s what makes the instance of Pompeii interesting. In the case of something like the Exodus, it’s not unreasonable (given the absence of documentary evidence outside the Bible) to question whether it ever happened. But in the case of Pompeii, as you note, we have absolutely conclusive archaeological evidence for its existence, its importance, and its destruction. And yet, we have only one written source for its destruction.
That is: we know for sure it happened. But our documentary evidence is slender in the extreme.
As Helen’s Eidolon notes regarding evidence for Hannibal, “This wealth of information is certainly NOT typical of ancient events.” In response to the original post, I’d almost be prepared to argue that the more interesting challenge would be, not to find poorly documented ancient events, but to find significant ancient events for which we have multiple documentary sources. Rather more often than not, evidence is fragmentary.
Actually, Pliny’s letter isn’t the only source. Suetonius also refers to it in his Life of Titus.
Northern Piper, thanks for adding the Aristophanes reference. I agree that it’s good evidence for the actual existence of Socrates (which I see no reason whatsoever to dispute). The interesting question, for me, with regard to the original post, is this: on what sort of evidence do we know what we think we know about Socrates?
Let’s point the question more sharply: what do we know about the trial and death of Socrates? And how do we know it?
Interesting. I’ll have to find that and add it to my mental notes. Do you happen to know if Suetonius’ account is independent of Pliny?
It’s Life of Titus, 8. It doesn’t refer to Pompeii being buried, but mentions Vesuvius exploding in Campania.
I myself really couldn’t tell you if Suetonius had gotten it from Pliny. They were roughly contemporaries - Pliny was actually writing the letter to Tacitus for use in his Histories, whose account of this time period is lost. I therefore don’t know if the letter would have been published that soon. I’m sure there is some info out there on it, and if you want more, I can look for it.
Thank you!
Despite facing a little piece of scientific evidence against it in every class period, and despite there being no serious scientific argument for it, a few of my Intro Bio classmates have this weird idea about how some spaceman made the world and the human race in a week. I’m a little unclear on it myself, but it’s pretty “out there”, no?
I can’t speak for the OP, but I interpreted the original question as regarding history that is widely accepted by the general public–not necessarily the educational community.
Good catch - here it is online: http://www.roman-literature-online.com/suetonius/titus/page-3.html
Looks like Suetonius probably was aware of Pliny’s account.