That's true - there will be many unknowns normally associated with the physical objects. The actual date of the objects is (IMO) of prime importance to historical research. Sometimes unprovenanced manuscripts can be radiocarbon dated.One note here is that some objects have no archaeological provenance, especially due to the antiquities trade and the relative permissibility (historically speaking) of trading in unprovenanced manuscripts.(2) is responsible for the identification and registration of the actual remaining physical sources of evidence as an initial process. These surviving sources are 3D objects including physical mss archeological relics and even people (or rather their bones). At this preliminary stage the objects are simply "data collected".
That's reasonable.I think you should argue for splitting apart "higher criticism" and archaeology (and papyrology), then putting only the latter first.
This defines the physical source objects. ie the historical evidence. It's this stuff that I refer to as 4D.The only reason I added "and archaeology" was to encompass both texts and artifacts. But if we focus on "archaeology and papyrology" as the study of the physical remains of the past, then that should be separate from "higher criticism."
If so, we get:
(1) Archaeology and papyrology; understanding the physical objects relevant to study of the past.
The following represents various interpretations, hypotheses, evaluations, etc concerning this evidence. These are human activities applied to the base layer of evidence.
OK(2) Text criticism; the shape of the texts+artifacts: variants, lacunae, interpolation, deletion, conflation.
(3) Higher criticism; the provenance of the texts+artifacts: date, place, author, and social setting.
(4) Philology; the interpretation of the texts+artifacts: the meaning of what is written.
(5) Intertextuality; the comparison of texts+artifacts: identifying sources, influences, and parallels.
(6) Historical research; the evaluation of individual historical issues, the organization of data as evidence.
(7) Anthropological research; contextualization through interdisciplinary study of society and culture.
(8) Historical explanation; the creation of a plausible historical narrative based on salient, curated information.
What other dimensions would you add to space and time for these (1) primary physical objects?Maybe "4D puzzle" is off by a factor of two.
Absolutely.If anyone's wondering I did not use the word "genre" in any single step because it's a multi-step learning process involving almost every step but (1) and (8).
And to clarify again, we can try to minimize back-tracking that results in revision of error (instead of adding information) by trying to be careful at every step, but completely avoiding any "revisiting" of previous steps is much too inflexible to be effective.
Some time ago I put together a short article on the necessary process of the revision of results. In fact at the core of the process is what I described as a "WHAT IF" machine. Highly iterative.
Ancient History: How Hypotheses about the evidence lead to Theoretical Conclusions and vice verse
ABSTRACT
A process is identified to describe the methodology of historical theorizing in which evidence items are registered, one by one. Against each item of evidence hypotheses consistent of simple statements are then registered. These hypotheses are either formulated anew and/or recalled from old hypotheses previously formulated. All investigators are entitled to address any or all items of evidence, or add items of evidence to the register to be addressed. All investigators may select existing hypotheses directly related to each item of evidence, or formulate new hypotheses. General hypotheses may also be selected and/or formulated by all investigators. All these hypotheses, consistent of simple statements representative of the evidence and the conceptual framework of the investigator are input into a "Black Box" which is designated as a "Theory Generator", and theoretical conclusions are output.
![Image]()
-- (Won't display? Right click, open in new tab)
SOURCE: http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/Ancie ... erator.htm
ABSTRACT
A process is identified to describe the methodology of historical theorizing in which evidence items are registered, one by one. Against each item of evidence hypotheses consistent of simple statements are then registered. These hypotheses are either formulated anew and/or recalled from old hypotheses previously formulated. All investigators are entitled to address any or all items of evidence, or add items of evidence to the register to be addressed. All investigators may select existing hypotheses directly related to each item of evidence, or formulate new hypotheses. General hypotheses may also be selected and/or formulated by all investigators. All these hypotheses, consistent of simple statements representative of the evidence and the conceptual framework of the investigator are input into a "Black Box" which is designated as a "Theory Generator", and theoretical conclusions are output.
- (1)Evidence Items are registered
E1, E2, E3, ..., En
- (2) For each evidence item
hypotheses are formulated;
P1, P2, P3, ..., Pn
- (3) General hypotheses are added
GP1, GP2, GP3, ..., GPn
- (4) All hypotheses become INPUT
to the "Black Box" of the Theory Generator
A highly iterative "WHAT IF? MACHINE"
- (5) Theoretical Conclusions are OUTPUT
C1, C2, C3, ..., Cn
-- (Won't display? Right click, open in new tab)SOURCE: http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/Ancie ... erator.htm
Statistics: Posted by Leucius Charinus — Fri Jan 17, 2025 8:48 pm