GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1998-05 > 0894200048


From: Kennwalrus< >
Subject: Re: later roman empire
Date: 03 May 1998 12:54:08 GMT


Leslie Mahler wrote:

"It almost looks like one of those infamous descents from antiquity"

There's nothing "infamous," IMO, about attempting to trace a descent from
antiquity, notwithstanding the widespread attitude of conventional (and
'academically correct') hyperskepticism so ostentatiously displayed in this
forum. (By some, not all.) The tracing of such descents is, quite simply, an
attempt to judge, as best one can, the genealogical truth (if any) reflected in
fragmentary materials that fall short of absolute proof. But so do *all*
documents, modern as well as ancient -- I could cite 20th-century American
birth and death certificates that contain blatant and deliberate falsehoods as
to the parentage of the newborn. (Or decedent. And I refer, BTW, to my own
family.) As one works backward through history, there's a more or less
continuous diminution in the number and quality of genealogically relevant
documents -- but no logically sharp cutoff between 'good,' and 'bad,'
'acceptable,' and 'unacceptable.' Many apparently feel that the quality of
evidence for DFAs is, across the board, so low that reconstructing conjectural
pedigrees and _Ahnentafeln_ therefrom is a waste of time. My reaction to this
stance -- perfectly legitimate in itself -- is analogous to the bumper sticker
that reads, "If you're against abortion -- don't have one." As for myself, I
consider the tracing of conjectural descents from antiquity intellectually
enjoyable; potentially academically useful (family ties may have great
explanatory power; and in many areas, archaeology is still rather likely,
eventually, to turn up new epigraphic and, perhaps, numismatic material); and
no more "infamous," or otherwise intellectually scandalous, than any other
academic enterprise outside the hard sciences. (Always assuming, of course,
that such pedigrees are traced on the basis of the *best* material available
for a given era, and not the worst; that relevant social, political, onomastic,
and biological factors are taken into consideration; and that the tracer
himself, and his readers, bear firmly and continually in mind the limitations
of that "best material," and the fact that the upshot is, indeed, a conjecture.
But, absent DNA testing, one would do well to bear the latter fact in mind
with regard to the hypothesis that one is the biological child of one's own
ostensible parents. After all, those adultery stats are right up there in the
troposphere ...)

Since I've gone so far -- but I might as well stick my neck out, since, unlike
several of the people who regularly post here, I don't have any academic
reputation to keep up by periodically reasserting my hardwon credentials as a
hardcore skeptic -- I might as well close by pointing out the fallacy inherent
in a particular sort of argument I've frequently seen here. Skeptic X wishes
to impugn the veridicality of medieval or ancient document Y. He points out
that the author of Y may have been a fool; or a liar; or misinformed; or that
he couldn't have known what he was talking about save through oral tradition,
which is no good, because preliterate peoples just can't transmit even the
sparest information correctly; or that he misspoke himself, and really meant to
say something else; or that he never really said the offending thing at all,
because Y's been interpolated; or that subtleties of style and reference
suggest that Y was *really* written a century later; or that other documents
like Y may be false -- I'm sure you all could extend this list _ad nauseam_.

But the fact is that the academic 'arsenal of impugnment' comprises such a
wealth of weaponry that there are precious few medieval or ancient documents
that can't be impugned by one or more of 'em; and in practice, too many
arguments against a given document boil down to the assertion that 'if I can
think of a reason why it *might* be crap, it should be assumed to *be* crap' --
or, in other words, 'guilty until proven innocent.' *That's* "infamous."

This thread: