By: Sean Manning

Sean Manning — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 05:14:13 +0000

I agree that the comparative approach is very important and useful. Classicists need to communicate with economists, historians, anthropologists, and so on, and this is not done as often or as well as it could be. But it is important to make sure that this is not one way … and here I am thinking all the attempts to force ancient economic history into a theoretical mould based on 18th and 19th century data (whether Marxist, primitivist, capitalist, or Malthusian). These attempts were often learned, painstaking, and well-meaning, but they sometimes caused people to see what their models told them they ought to see rather than what the evidence best supported. Sometimes its specialists in later periods who need to ask classicists “I think this is a general rule … does it fit the cases you are familiar with?” so they can be surprised by three counter-examples.

By: kentuckyboyblog

kentuckyboyblog — Sun, 28 Oct 2012 22:37:56 +0000

I’m not certain the word “definitive” is a usable word in history.History has shown to be its own master and though its said it repeats itself we never get the interpretation right be it modern or ancient(especially modern,sadly).But we must always seek out the truth as we see it whether we make good use of it or not.I am by no means a knowledgeable commentator,author,or ‘ologist but I have read much history in my life and the changes I have seen in my short life,puts “definitive”in its correct context for me….a rest stop until the next questions call out…”All aboard!”.Thanks for another fine article.Garry in Kentucky.

Comments on: J.D. Grainger, The Syrian Wars

By: Sean Manning

By: kentuckyboyblog