Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Is there an element of truth to this idea that Roman history is partially an invention of Italian humanists? Have the originals discovered by early renaissance humanists ever been carbon dated?
https://www.unz.com/article/how-fake-is-roman-antiquity/
I didn’t want to click through to unz, so I wrote up this whole thing about the Portland vase. It was the first thing in the British Museum’s Roman collection, but glass also can’t be carbon dated. Since I lost my draft, though, here’s the short version.
Even if the main critic was right and that vase is a fake, I don’t think much changes. We still have other historical records corroborating the existence of the alleged last Roman owner. We’ve got a few dozen other samples of glass using the same technique. And we have a broader picture of Roman history anchored by radiocarbon of charcoal and such from towns, military camps, and so on.
It’s pretty implausible that Gibbon et al. were writing massive shared-universe fan fiction.
Thanks. Not sure how I keep forgetting that exists.
Someone's channeling his inner Moldbug.
Ah.
Overall, I was not terribly impressed with the article. The author is correct to note that historical sources are rife with opportunities for fakery or, at least, a game of telephone. He then fails to apply that skepticism to his own pet theory. Perhaps that is a moot point, since he prefers citing the absence of evidence rather than evidence of absence.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link