What Myth?

[abu nuwas]

Ah yes, I see how you practice science!

A poem for manli 'ed!
I like a nice culotte,
Dale,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is what I detest about science, or supposed science (as science should be objective, not drawing conclusions one way or the other before proof is found)

Referring to the Sumerian King's list:

" Some of the earlier dynasties may be mythical; and only a few of the early names have been authenticated through archaeology."

The assumption is that because they cannot be "authenticated through archaeology" they must be "mythical", i.e. false. The failing could not be in archaeology, that is to say, if science cannot prove it to be true, it must be false (you don't find that a tad arrogant?). Troy also was a myth, and anyone who thought otherwise was ridiculed as believing in fairy tales, that is until mythical Troy was proven to have actually existed. Oops!

But of course the Kings list must be false, because certain kings are listed as living hundreds, if not thousands of years, and we know beyond doubt that this is impossible. Despite the fact that these long lived rulers (who are distinguished as gods) is also reported by the Egyptians as well as other sources. But of course gods are just a myth, therefore they are false. Good sound reasoning there. :p

Dale

Dale,

I think one must be careful to distinguish science from 'supposed science'. As it happens, I do not think the example you give is an especially good one. I am not sure I should regard it as science, so much as history. In either case, historian or scientist, must seek to establish facts, and must not be tempted to rely on a single source, most especially if that source, thousands of years ago, may have had all sorts of reasons for making some record, which we cannot now guess at.

In everyday life, it is perfectly reasonable, if a man introduces himself, and says he is a carpenter, to take that at face value. If subsequently, one comes across a cache of false passports, he has some questions to answer; and if someone who knows about the craft, tells you that he does not know one end of a hammer from the other, the questions multiply, and it would be foolish to give him any credence. If, on the other hand, there are no false passports, but, instead, a friend of yours confirms that he has known him and his family for years, and recalls that he won the Carpenter of the Year award, it would be sensible to take what he has told you as true -- unless some momentous event occurs, contradicting all that.

With these King-lists, we are in the situation of having been told something: it might be OK in everyday life to accept it, subject to something contradicting it, but a historian has a higher threshold, if he wants to paint an accurate picture, and therefore should flag up ''may'' if appropriate.

There are, you will know, ample examples of peoples who trace themselves back to some deity. In the UK, all freehold land is held from the Crown-- except in the most northerly parts of Scotland, which once belonged to Norway. There, some land is deemed to be held ''of God and the Sun'' (Odal, or Udal land). I would like to see the first signature on the first sale...but I don't live in hope ... My commentary on the old testament, quite pious, states that in all probability, the names used early on, in fact relate to tribes, not people. The Egyptians solemnly tell us that Amenhotep (?) was the child of a god. A good historian must try to sift evidence.

I am with you in thinking that one should try and squeeze as much as possible out of what at first sight may seem to be bunkum. When I was at school, Troy had been discovered; yet still it was said that i was myth and legend, in all probability. I read Herodotus when I was about ten, and the blurb made a joke about him being 'The Father of History' -- but could easily, had the title not been taken, have been 'The Father of Lies'. Certainly, he spins a good yarn. But in the intervening years, many things have been shown to have a basis of truth, especially regarding Egypt, which he knew. Indeed, he has helped on the language side, I believe, since, his Greek shows vowels, which the hieroglyphs do not.

I am, secretly, rather saddened when I read really good accounts of the ancient Near East: I want all the stories, I don't want the dry we-don't-know-much -for-sure; but I can't have that, and accuracy.

Funny how no other bugger seems the slightest bit interested in all this...