Re: True history and myths told by naysayers

In sci.archaeology, t(nospam)kavanagh created a
message ID news:d849b4$p5r$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

>> tk,
>> presenting provenance in ALL cases where Diplomas and
>> Annals are refered to isn't needed as long as we aren't
>> discussing differences between two or more copies of the
>> past.
>
> The introduction of ANY documentary data (and not just
> "Diplomas and Annals") into a scholarly discussion--which I
> would hope this "discussion " is and not just bull***--
> presupposes that the provenance of that data is known to the
> introducer, and that it can be made available upon request.
> All other alleged "documentary" information without such
> provenance is no more than bull***.

For logical reasons I will address the debate here. Inger's
basic claim is that if two reputable sources (not primary)
agree then one does not need provenance of either source,
since they corroborate each others testimony.

Let us break down the source. The target of the information is
a conclusion.

1. That two sources come to a conclusion
[Unknown to this group]
2. That the two sources were primary sources, as yet
undisclosed, to same or similar events.
3. That one sources is information has a dependency
relationship on the other.

Since scouring a large body of information one can come across
many opinions, and shared opinions, such as cliches in
organization one expects to find instances where one has an
orative person were others follow a school of thoughts and
'facts'. For example if one goes back and reads the Journal of
Biological Chemistry <1900, which is relatively good
literature from the 19th century, one finds alot of
misinformation and frankly weak science worded in a rather
pedantic style. In this literature you can see cliches, people
borrowing from others thoughts and styles. There was, of
course, progress being made, but many many missteps.

> I will agree that such provenance data does not
> have to be provided every time a data source is referenced.

As far as I know Inger has never provided the Diplomas she has
referenced, she claims that people should review them but then
claims they are inaccessable.

>> Please remember that before Guthenberg all books were
>> handwritten

Translation, they are not digital and we might misinterpret
their language, therefore she is not going to provide the text
in any form to the group because someone may find great fault
in her translation. IOW, TK, Inger is not going to give you
the benefit of a collegiate and scholarly doubt, that you
would be unable to find someone who could translate them as
well as she [thinks she] can.

>> and that type of differences hardly ever is on the
>> agenda for anyone but us

Key word is _us_ which means the few previlidged.
Scholars share information when feild specific colleages
request it. TK is requesting it, either you are going to
provide it to him unadulterated in any way or you are not a
scholar.

>> who deals with it when we have to establish which copy is
>> defending on which. In other word A-version, B-version etc.

A-version her translation. Version B someone elses tranlation.

> For example, many writers rely on F. W. Hodge's, _Handbook
of Indians
> North of Mexico_ (Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 30,
Smithsonian
> Institution, 1907-10) for information in the Indians of New
Mexico.
> However, Hodge relied on Manuel Orozco y Berra's _Geografía
de las
> lenguas y carta etnográfica de México._ (Mexico: J. M.
Andrade y F.
> Escalante, 1864), as his authority on the Indians of New
Mexico. But
> Orozco y Berra did not provide sources, and it was not until
recently
> (i.e., last Tuesday) that I (myself, not reading about
anyone else's
> work) realized that his listing of the "VIII Familia
Apache," subgroup
> "Faraon" was lifted bodily from Jose Agustín de Escudero's
_Noticias
> historicas y estadisticas de la antigua provincia del Nuevo-
Mexico_
> (Mexico, Impr. de Lara, 1849), which was itself a bad
transcript of
> Pedro Baptista Pino's _Exposición sucinta y sencilla de la
provincia del
> Nuevo México._ (Cádiz: Impr. del Estado-mayor-general,
1812) which in
> turn copied Joseph Villa Señor y Sanchez, _Theatro
americano:
> descripción general de los reynos y provincias de la Nueva-
España_
> (Mexico: Impressora Real, 1746-48), which copied Pedro de
Rivera,
> _Diario y Derrotero de lo caminando_ (Ympresso de
Guathemala, por
> Sebastian de Arebalo, 1736). I have not been able to verify
where Rivera
> got his information, although he had just come from a
conference in
> Santa Fe.

Ah, so, you are admitting that the situation with the SW
apaches and comanches has been limited by the sharing of a few
perspectives and not actual investigation. Does this mean you
are willing to admit that the Edwards plateau and western
regions had not been cleared between 1865 and 1885? :^).
[Another discussion, however]

>>That is known by every single scholar of History and
>> most other scholars here in the 'Old World'.
>
> Again, in your arrogant worldview, only "Old World "
> Europeans are "scholars."

In her world view only Scandanavians and people with high
affiliation to the church are worthy of this enhanced reliance
without primary sources.

>> It takes books(plural) of analyzes [analyses] and
>> works from those analyzes to present such information. You
have to accept
>> that.
>
> No, it doesn't take "books (plural)": all it takes are the
words (fill
> in the blanks) "author < >, title < >, publisher or
archive < >,
> date < >."

Generally acceptable introductions of manuscripts includes a
synopsis of conclusion or results from other papers that are
references (by name or number) to the Reference section of the
paper, review or book. This is a standard requirement of all
manuscripts presented for peer review.
In this case however given that many authors might interpret
a 800 year old document in different ways it would be
acceptable to have a facsimile of a document as a JPG posted
with these interpretations as well as and references. What is
probably true is that Inger has seen some of these old
documents and tried to interpret them, it is unlikely IMHO
that she has a digital or facsimile of the document, she is
solely relying on her memory. In the world of publication, say
20 years ago, when information was difficult to duplicate and
transmit, rough images and low resolution photocopies might
have been sent with a manuscript. This is no longer the case,
most peer-reviewed journals allow the creation of an appendix
with very lengthy material such the feild experts can now
review it, this material in digital format may contain
sequences, mathematical calculations, spread***, digitized
old documents, digitized old photographs, a 3 dimensional
surface reconstruction of a object, etc.
A place, sci.arch.aux was created for the expressed reason
of providing a secure location from uploading of discussed
material or maintained links, for the sake of these
discussions. Inger has never uploaded anything however.
.