How Is Historical Evidence Validated?
- Thread starter Yahweh
- Start date
-
- Tags
- historical validated
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
It is validated in several ways, each alone, or in any combination available:
- By physical (archaeological) evidence.
- By correlating different sources.
- By internal logic.
We must also take into account that historical evidence is not as precisely validated as, say physical laws, or pharmaceuticals.
For example, the thing some religious fundies like to bring up: King Henry VIII. What is our evidence for his existence?
Without going into extensive details, we have evidence from all three categories:
A grave, and various artefats attributed to him. Paintings that seem to depict him.
Numerous independent sources from different countries mentioning him and generally agreing on the overall story.
Logic: The story has consistent internal logic and correlates with how we know the world in general and the British moarchy in particular functioned at the time.
So, we can convincingly state that Henry VIII existed and had a certain history. Many details, however, may be imprecise or even wrong.
Hans
- By physical (archaeological) evidence.
- By correlating different sources.
- By internal logic.
We must also take into account that historical evidence is not as precisely validated as, say physical laws, or pharmaceuticals.
For example, the thing some religious fundies like to bring up: King Henry VIII. What is our evidence for his existence?
Without going into extensive details, we have evidence from all three categories:
A grave, and various artefats attributed to him. Paintings that seem to depict him.
Numerous independent sources from different countries mentioning him and generally agreing on the overall story.
Logic: The story has consistent internal logic and correlates with how we know the world in general and the British moarchy in particular functioned at the time.
So, we can convincingly state that Henry VIII existed and had a certain history. Many details, however, may be imprecise or even wrong.
Hans
Let's take this a step further, then. Using this same reasoning as above, how do we *know* Jesus Christ existed?MRC_Hans said:
There is no grave of his that we know of. No artifacts attributed to him. Paintings depicting him were created many years, even centuries after he "died".
Independent sources? Are there sources other than the Bible that mention Jesus of Nazareth (Son of God, just so there's no confusion)?
How about logic? It seems possible that a man existed about the time of the first century, whose name was Jesus, born where the Christian Jesus was said to have been born, but did he do the things attributed to him?
In short, how do we know Jesus existed? And if he didn't, why do we believe (we being collectively, not necessarily skeptics on this board) he did?
BTW, I've seen the atheist site (can't find the link at the moment)but I agree with it. I'm not trolling here, just trying to get opinions/discussion.
Interestingly enough you can apply many of these to mythological beasts though too.
There are numerous paintings and references to dragons and unicorns (as well as minotaurs, centaurs, fairies and other creatures of myth). How then do we know that they have never existed? While there are probably varying historical accounts (and tons of paintings and references) there is no physical evidence (like skeletal remains, pelts, etc.).
There are some manufactured artifacts, but these have been shown to either be faked, or to be incorrectly identified. I recall not long ago someone posting (elsewhere) the baby dragon in a jar. It made the news as well. It was an incredibly detailed fake of a baby dragon 'preserved' in a jar.
Now of course, there will always be people who believe that creatures of myth did (or do) exist. But today for the most part it's not widely accepted.
There is one creature of myth which has a wide believer base in the United States at the present time, and that's angels. As articles of faith, they can be neither proven or disproven. (Someone saying they believe in them, but you can't see them, etc. no proof...that's faith). But there are many who believe they are real and can be demonstrated to exist or have been seen. And you don't have to go that far back in history to find the same for dragons, etc.
So it all comes down to the amount of evidence that exists, credible sources, and as someone else stated logic. As evidence is uncovered, there are things that move out of myth and into reality. (Gorillas, some sea creatures, etc.)
There are many accounts of 'Bigfoot' as well, but there's simply not enough evidence to 'prove' its existence. I personally doubt it, but you never know someone might find a creature that would fit the 'bigfoot' descriptions and it would be proven (and explain the legends surrounding it).
So I guess my personal answer would be not only numerous accounts, etc. but also credible evidence. After all Joan of Arc has no remains (AFAIK) since she was thrown into the river after she was burned, but we have numerous eyewitness accounts, as well as records of the Catholic Church, government records of the time period (from both England and France, potentially elsewhere as well), etc. Even lacking the physical evidence of her existance, it's not unreasonable to accept that she existed, based on the volume and sources of the accounts. However as far as the details of her life go, that's open to interpretation. Again, that she was burned at the stake we have ample evidence for. Accounts of who said what, when and where, that's limited, and again open to interpretation, as well as the memory, perception, knowledge, bias (etc) of those who recorded it.
So I think it's reasonable based on evidence to believe Joan of Arc existed, many of the historical details of her life are true. Whether or not she was talking to God/angels, had tinnitus, was mentally ill...or anything else, is a matter of opinion and debate. That she claimed to hear voices that directed her actions though, I would say there's enough evidence for her claiming that to be factual. The source of those voices, that's certainly debatable.
There are numerous paintings and references to dragons and unicorns (as well as minotaurs, centaurs, fairies and other creatures of myth). How then do we know that they have never existed? While there are probably varying historical accounts (and tons of paintings and references) there is no physical evidence (like skeletal remains, pelts, etc.).
There are some manufactured artifacts, but these have been shown to either be faked, or to be incorrectly identified. I recall not long ago someone posting (elsewhere) the baby dragon in a jar. It made the news as well. It was an incredibly detailed fake of a baby dragon 'preserved' in a jar.
Now of course, there will always be people who believe that creatures of myth did (or do) exist. But today for the most part it's not widely accepted.
There is one creature of myth which has a wide believer base in the United States at the present time, and that's angels. As articles of faith, they can be neither proven or disproven. (Someone saying they believe in them, but you can't see them, etc. no proof...that's faith). But there are many who believe they are real and can be demonstrated to exist or have been seen. And you don't have to go that far back in history to find the same for dragons, etc.
So it all comes down to the amount of evidence that exists, credible sources, and as someone else stated logic. As evidence is uncovered, there are things that move out of myth and into reality. (Gorillas, some sea creatures, etc.)
There are many accounts of 'Bigfoot' as well, but there's simply not enough evidence to 'prove' its existence. I personally doubt it, but you never know someone might find a creature that would fit the 'bigfoot' descriptions and it would be proven (and explain the legends surrounding it).
So I guess my personal answer would be not only numerous accounts, etc. but also credible evidence. After all Joan of Arc has no remains (AFAIK) since she was thrown into the river after she was burned, but we have numerous eyewitness accounts, as well as records of the Catholic Church, government records of the time period (from both England and France, potentially elsewhere as well), etc. Even lacking the physical evidence of her existance, it's not unreasonable to accept that she existed, based on the volume and sources of the accounts. However as far as the details of her life go, that's open to interpretation. Again, that she was burned at the stake we have ample evidence for. Accounts of who said what, when and where, that's limited, and again open to interpretation, as well as the memory, perception, knowledge, bias (etc) of those who recorded it.
So I think it's reasonable based on evidence to believe Joan of Arc existed, many of the historical details of her life are true. Whether or not she was talking to God/angels, had tinnitus, was mentally ill...or anything else, is a matter of opinion and debate. That she claimed to hear voices that directed her actions though, I would say there's enough evidence for her claiming that to be factual. The source of those voices, that's certainly debatable.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
And it is of course in just that context believers bring up King Henry: "Why do you believe King Henry existed but not Jesus??"
And the sensible answer (not that it moves anything) is: The evidence for Henry is newer and much more proliferate than for Jesus. And just as historic evidence does not tell us if Henry was posessed by the Devil, any historical proof for Jesus does not tell us if he was God's son.
Hans
And the sensible answer (not that it moves anything) is: The evidence for Henry is newer and much more proliferate than for Jesus. And just as historic evidence does not tell us if Henry was posessed by the Devil, any historical proof for Jesus does not tell us if he was God's son.
Hans
The Mighty Thor
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2003
- Messages
- 961
Historians prefer to work with primary sources, i.e. artefacts and documents that can be proven to come from the period under study.
Archaeological evidence is an import tool for historians. Validation is generally done by 'category experience' (e.g. these potsherds are all found in the same soil layer) and scientific evaluation (e.g. Carbon-14 Dating.)
Documents can be analysed for 'correct paper', 'correct ink' for the period and for other subtleties pointing to a genuine provenance. Provenance is very important when evaluating sources. Look up 'The Hitler Diaries' to see how a hoax can be exposed.
Most historians specialize in a period and often a topic, e.g. 'The Role of Women in Mid-Victorian Britain'. So, since historiography has advanced greatly since its beginnings in the 18 c. there is a wealth of research and study in the field.
Primary source documents might include things such as: Birth Death and Marriage Registers, Parish records, Electoral Registers, Civil and Criminal Court proceedings, private letters, informal and formal writings of the period, contemporary newspapers, Wills and Testimonials, contemporary photographs or film footage . . .
The list goes on.
Obviously, the further we go back in time, the fewer primary sources are available. But for, let's say, the Victorian era, most historians would say there is more than ample evidence for their view of historical reality. But there are many controversies and disagreements.
A time machine would be handy
Try a search on 'historiography' and you might get much more information on validation of historical evidence.
There ARE psuedo-historians and Revisionists out there. Indeed it is quite alarming to see how history can be manipulated for political and religious ends. e.g. The Josephus references to 'Jesus' may well be later interpolations by Christian redactors. There is much controversy over this.
One might ask why religionists who say they only need faith, also hark after 'historical proof' of the Bible -- see the latest mission to find Noah's Ark. Anyway . . .
Any help to you?
Archaeological evidence is an import tool for historians. Validation is generally done by 'category experience' (e.g. these potsherds are all found in the same soil layer) and scientific evaluation (e.g. Carbon-14 Dating.)
Documents can be analysed for 'correct paper', 'correct ink' for the period and for other subtleties pointing to a genuine provenance. Provenance is very important when evaluating sources. Look up 'The Hitler Diaries' to see how a hoax can be exposed.
Most historians specialize in a period and often a topic, e.g. 'The Role of Women in Mid-Victorian Britain'. So, since historiography has advanced greatly since its beginnings in the 18 c. there is a wealth of research and study in the field.
Primary source documents might include things such as: Birth Death and Marriage Registers, Parish records, Electoral Registers, Civil and Criminal Court proceedings, private letters, informal and formal writings of the period, contemporary newspapers, Wills and Testimonials, contemporary photographs or film footage . . .
The list goes on.
Obviously, the further we go back in time, the fewer primary sources are available. But for, let's say, the Victorian era, most historians would say there is more than ample evidence for their view of historical reality. But there are many controversies and disagreements.
A time machine would be handy
Try a search on 'historiography' and you might get much more information on validation of historical evidence.
There ARE psuedo-historians and Revisionists out there. Indeed it is quite alarming to see how history can be manipulated for political and religious ends. e.g. The Josephus references to 'Jesus' may well be later interpolations by Christian redactors. There is much controversy over this.
One might ask why religionists who say they only need faith, also hark after 'historical proof' of the Bible -- see the latest mission to find Noah's Ark. Anyway . . .
Any help to you?
The Mighty Thor
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2003
- Messages
- 961
Forgot to mention:
Try a search on "History Witting and Unwitting Testimony" as well.
Try a search on "History Witting and Unwitting Testimony" as well.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
What a great subject, the source of verification is always fun. I had a friend who worked with Prof. Burton at the UofI on studying the census records from southern states prior to the Civil War. they were trying to study how accurate the census data actualy was.
many states and municipalities had taxes based upon a 'head' tax, and therefore there was an incentive for people to lie about thier local population figures. So while they had a primary source, the census records, they were trying to match it against the other primary sources of the birth and death records.
many states and municipalities had taxes based upon a 'head' tax, and therefore there was an incentive for people to lie about thier local population figures. So while they had a primary source, the census records, they were trying to match it against the other primary sources of the birth and death records.
history and evidence..
Hello
It is unclear to me what you mean by historical evidence...
As I live in Denmark, Europe, let me give you an example.
From 1588-1648 we in Denmark, had a King, Christian the Fourth.
The only real things we know of him is that he lived and died within these span of years. As we have eywtiness accounts of his birth and also of his death.
We also know (from written records) that within this span of years he planned and designed more buildings than other kings before him had done.
From written records we also know that he was harsh on superstitition and such meaning witchcrafts etc.
Now does this him a good or a bad King ?
This depends on the interpretation (ours) of these records (or evidence if you like).
Another example; how can we really be sure that the Vikings lived in Denmark from ca. 750-ca. 1100. Easily; we have found ships, weapons, clothes, and sometimes food (if preserved in a bog). But what societal and and cultural impacts to the Danish society at that time did the Vikings provide ?
Again, we must use interpretation, based on the abovementioned evidence.
And to continue:
From 1940-1945 Denmark was occupied by the Germans.
The Danish Government choose from the beginnning of this occupation a tactic/strategy of co-operation instead of one of
conflict. Much debate has been over this in the few past years.
There is no doubt that DK was occupied by the Germans during the Second World War. But was it correct to co-operate with the German occupational forces or wasn't it ?
There is no right or wrong answer to this question; one could argue either side based on the historical evidence (written records, eye wittness accounts etc.).
or to take one closer to the present day:
Did the tearing down of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 mark the disappearing of the whole communist block in Eastern Europe incl. the Soviet Union (or Russia) ? Did it all began there in November 1989 ?
Again, (as I see it) there is no right or wrong answer here. Either side (yes or no) could be argued each making their points as to which side has the most valid arguments, against (of course) based on the sources (TV-shows, interviews, news paper articles, radio broadcasts etc. etc.) being used by either side.
The historical evidence can (as i see it) provide us with hard facts when, where, and maybe how (or even what) happened.
But it cannot with certainty tell us why something happened, sometimes it cannot precisely tell us what and how something happened.
Hence, we are forced to interpretate the findings, by placing them into a certain context, expressiong them in the certain context that is our language. With the probabilty of us being 'wrong' in our interpretations of the evens that passed many years ago (or even a few years ago).
aries
Hello
It is unclear to me what you mean by historical evidence...
As I live in Denmark, Europe, let me give you an example.
From 1588-1648 we in Denmark, had a King, Christian the Fourth.
The only real things we know of him is that he lived and died within these span of years. As we have eywtiness accounts of his birth and also of his death.
We also know (from written records) that within this span of years he planned and designed more buildings than other kings before him had done.
From written records we also know that he was harsh on superstitition and such meaning witchcrafts etc.
Now does this him a good or a bad King ?
This depends on the interpretation (ours) of these records (or evidence if you like).
Another example; how can we really be sure that the Vikings lived in Denmark from ca. 750-ca. 1100. Easily; we have found ships, weapons, clothes, and sometimes food (if preserved in a bog). But what societal and and cultural impacts to the Danish society at that time did the Vikings provide ?
Again, we must use interpretation, based on the abovementioned evidence.
And to continue:
From 1940-1945 Denmark was occupied by the Germans.
The Danish Government choose from the beginnning of this occupation a tactic/strategy of co-operation instead of one of
conflict. Much debate has been over this in the few past years.
There is no doubt that DK was occupied by the Germans during the Second World War. But was it correct to co-operate with the German occupational forces or wasn't it ?
There is no right or wrong answer to this question; one could argue either side based on the historical evidence (written records, eye wittness accounts etc.).
or to take one closer to the present day:
Did the tearing down of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 mark the disappearing of the whole communist block in Eastern Europe incl. the Soviet Union (or Russia) ? Did it all began there in November 1989 ?
Again, (as I see it) there is no right or wrong answer here. Either side (yes or no) could be argued each making their points as to which side has the most valid arguments, against (of course) based on the sources (TV-shows, interviews, news paper articles, radio broadcasts etc. etc.) being used by either side.
The historical evidence can (as i see it) provide us with hard facts when, where, and maybe how (or even what) happened.
But it cannot with certainty tell us why something happened, sometimes it cannot precisely tell us what and how something happened.
Hence, we are forced to interpretate the findings, by placing them into a certain context, expressiong them in the certain context that is our language. With the probabilty of us being 'wrong' in our interpretations of the evens that passed many years ago (or even a few years ago).
aries
The Mighty Thor
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2003
- Messages
- 961
Re: history and evidence..
All too true. However, historians do look for bias in primary source documents. Propaganda has been with us throughout history. Julius Ceasar thought nothing of 'talking up' his case.
But I took the question 'How is historical evidence validated?' to mean 'How do we prove a source document or artefact is genuine?' You are really talking about how evidence is interpreted and evaluated. Can the study and reporting of history be truly objective? As you say, evaluation and interpretation of validated evidence is unlikely to be truly objective. But we try to be as objective as possible. We try not to make categorical judgments.
Did the European invasion of the New World result in genocide?
You tell me.
aries said:Hello
It is unclear to me what you mean by historical evidence...
As I live in Denmark, Europe, let me give you an example.
From 1588-1648 we in Denmark, had a King, Christian the Fourth.
The only real things we know of him is that he lived and died within these span of years. As we have eywtiness accounts of his birth and also of his death.
We also know (from written records) that within this span of years he planned and designed more buildings than other kings before him had done.
From written records we also know that he was harsh on superstitition and such meaning witchcrafts etc.
Now does this him a good or a bad King ?
This depends on the interpretation (ours) of these records (or evidence if you like).
Another example; how can we really be sure that the Vikings lived in Denmark from ca. 750-ca. 1100. Easily; we have found ships, weapons, clothes, and sometimes food (if preserved in a bog). But what societal and and cultural impacts to the Danish society at that time did the Vikings provide ?
Again, we must use interpretation, based on the abovementioned evidence.
And to continue:
From 1940-1945 Denmark was occupied by the Germans.
The Danish Government choose from the beginnning of this occupation a tactic/strategy of co-operation instead of one of
conflict. Much debate has been over this in the few past years.
There is no doubt that DK was occupied by the Germans during the Second World War. But was it correct to co-operate with the German occupational forces or wasn't it ?
There is no right or wrong answer to this question; one could argue either side based on the historical evidence (written records, eye wittness accounts etc.).
or to take one closer to the present day:
Did the tearing down of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 mark the disappearing of the whole communist block in Eastern Europe incl. the Soviet Union (or Russia) ? Did it all began there in November 1989 ?
Again, (as I see it) there is no right or wrong answer here. Either side (yes or no) could be argued each making their points as to which side has the most valid arguments, against (of course) based on the sources (TV-shows, interviews, news paper articles, radio broadcasts etc. etc.) being used by either side.
The historical evidence can (as i see it) provide us with hard facts when, where, and maybe how (or even what) happened.
But it cannot with certainty tell us why something happened, sometimes it cannot precisely tell us what and how something happened.
Hence, we are forced to interpretate the findings, by placing them into a certain context, expressiong them in the certain context that is our language. With the probabilty of us being 'wrong' in our interpretations of the evens that passed many years ago (or even a few years ago).
aries
All too true. However, historians do look for bias in primary source documents. Propaganda has been with us throughout history. Julius Ceasar thought nothing of 'talking up' his case.
But I took the question 'How is historical evidence validated?' to mean 'How do we prove a source document or artefact is genuine?' You are really talking about how evidence is interpreted and evaluated. Can the study and reporting of history be truly objective? As you say, evaluation and interpretation of validated evidence is unlikely to be truly objective. But we try to be as objective as possible. We try not to make categorical judgments.
Did the European invasion of the New World result in genocide?
You tell me.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,530
Nigel said:
The reference by Josephus is widely disputed by scholars, and many think it was merely inserted by someone other than Josephus.
Thinking in CT
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2003
- Messages
- 59
Bible History Quiz - Physical Evidence
The mortal remains of just one person mentioned in the bible have been positively identified. Who is that person?
(I wonder who will know, a believer or a skeptic?)
The mortal remains of just one person mentioned in the bible have been positively identified. Who is that person?
(I wonder who will know, a believer or a skeptic?)
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
Wasn't it Joseph (of the coat of many colours fame?) - I think I recall hearing they found his tomb in Egypt.
Thinking in CT
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2003
- Messages
- 59
Quiz
No Chance not Tiberius.
Hint: Old Testamemnt.
No Chance not Tiberius.
Hint: Old Testamemnt.