- Joined
- Sep 22, 2020
- Messages
- 4,691
- Reaction score
- 1,499
I think it is quite obvious that I was not trying to change the subject. Ancient Roman and Greek stuff was used as an example of what patterns look like. I used Ancient Rome and Greece because I did not want to speculate about Irish manuscripts due to never researching those. At the same time looking into the very first one revealed a similar type pattern. Just the mere fact of you not being aware of such patterns, demonstrates that no complex document history inspection was done by either you, or the establishment you represent (at least no data was made public).
#1. What proof of provenance are you prepared to accept for a source?
Nobody would care for a blank piece of paper, under most circumstances. It is only important because of the contents, textual or subliminal. These contents form perceptions, and shape our understanding of the events of the past.
- For manuscripts I would accept an independent and verifiable source not based on opinions or interpretations of experts.
- I will not accept stuff similar to "located in 15th century, and dated to 8th century" because the totality of circumstances shows that this is the case with just about every manuscript we have.
- Those MSS dated in a different manner simply appear to have a different pattern. An example of a possible pattern of this type can be seen in this post of the current thread.
- I will not accept references to the object of investigation contained within non-related independent MSS located/dated in a similar to the above manner.
#2. Is there any condition under which you are willing to accept the word of a secondary source that a primary source says something, without having seen the primary source? (ie. A modern article says that a historical manuscript says X (properly referencing the correct archive call number and folio or page number), but the manuscript is in an archive in Paris so you can’t go and see it)
- That would depend on the contents of the manuscript. If it talks about some event of grand scale i.e. Armenian Genocide, than absolutely you would have to travel to Paris.
- Normally there are plenty of available documents not requiring going to Paris. If there is a pattern, it will be visible based on the easily accessible ones. Prior patterns allowed me, even without any knowledge of the history of The Book of Ballymote, to correctly question it, and reveal that it has no verifiable history between 1391 and 1666.
- That is if you care about determining such patterns.
- I see nothing wrong with secondary sources up to the point when a recognizable pattern is formed. You accused me of attempting to change a subject, but those, just like I said, were examples of patterns I recognized.
I will absolutely say that, because these are poor excuses based on speculations of those who do not want to investigate and are blind to the patterns.
- How do you know that all originals were destroyed due to the reasons outlined above?
- Why did the originals end up in the elements, and copies did not?
- Hundreds of ancient Greek and Roman manuscript copies start getting discovered in the beginning of the 15th century.
- None are discovered in the 14th century.
- Shortly after the discovery of the above texts hundreds of ancient statues and busts start getting discovered all over the place.
- None were discovered prior to the very first copies of the manuscripts.
- Examples: Questionable antiquity of the "ancient" statues
I understand that people did not dig in their backyards for a thousand years, and only discovered this wonderful activity in the early 1400s, but... there is a point where narrative ends, and common sense starts.
@Oisín, you are welcome to address the Sahara Desert and Stoneworking and points of discussion when you get time. If you could get a fellow scholar specializing in ancient Rome address the Julius Caesar issue, that would be highly appreciated.
