When sources contradict what do I do?

[MagnusStultus]

When sources that are otherwise equally valid contradict each other how do you generally decide which source to go by?

The point of the question isn't for when a large body of other evidence exists, or when one is contemporary and the other isn't (i.e. Cicero vs Plutarch) or when you could try to use archaeology to fix the situation.

Some good examples

1. Plutarch-names a politician who is praised as incorruptible in other sources as a very sleazy and corrupt man

2. Spartacus and Sicily-Cicero praises Crassus for sending commando like raids to prevent him from getting to Sicily, other causes that prevented his escape are named in other sources.

3. Legionary kit-Trajans column depicts "segmentata" Adamklissi (sp) depicts "squamata" (I know in part thanks to this website Trajan's Column depicted more of a series of stock images that the people could recognize instead of reality I am just using it as an example for the question).

4. Tacitus vs Suetonius-It is explicit in the former that Nero did not have any responsibility for the great fire, in the later he was unambiguously involved and had imperial representatives prevent attempts to stop the fire.

5. Seneca vs Historians-Messalina is innocent in The Pumpkinification (sp) of Claudius (title is mistranslated because Romans didn't have pumpkins I am using a title everyone recognizes), Claudius is considered much worst then Caligula and he doesn't know Messalina was executed, and is bloodthirsty and witnesses confirm Caligula's claim to him as his slave when Caligula decides to rescue his uncle in the afterlife-I don't know where to start on showing that every historical account contradicts at least part of that.

6. Law vs Plays-Roman law branded infamia on prostitutes even slave prostitutes and only a reform by Severus (emperor not jurist) changed it and yet I could easily cite Roman plays that end in a slave prostitute who turns out to be a wrongly enslaved citizen marrying very well.

There are many more I could think of I just happen to have used these 6 because they could be considered roughly contemporary.

What is your general rule when you run into historical contradictions? I know there is no universal rule (if there was there would be no historical debate) but when you do run into one source saying one thing that contradicts another how do you reconcile the conflict?

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Dan,

When sources that are otherwise equally valid contradict each other how do you generally decide which source to go by? The point of the question isn't for when a large body of other evidence exists, or when one is contemporary and the other isn't (i.e. Cicero vs Plutarch) or when you could try to use archaeology to fix the situation.

Well, judging from your dilemma my guess is you aren't a historian. because then you would know that it certainly does matter if other evidence exists, one source is contemporary, etc. because those things wigh a lot in the matters you throw at us here, and in general do when a historian has to compare two conflicting sources. You have to keep in mind that, even more than today, sources are not news channels interested in giving us a true account (have they ever?), but almost always single men writing down personal accounts for either their memoires or hard politically motivated targets. Tacitus nor Polybios is an unbiased chronist.

1. Plutarch-names a politician who is praised as incorruptible in other sources as a very sleazy and corrupt man

Well, there you go, conflicting opinion. Do we know more sources? What is the relation of one source to his subject? For instantance Tacitus paraising some and damning others - family connection!

2. Spartacus and Sicily-Cicero praises Crassus for sending commando like raids to prevent him from getting to Sicily, other causes that prevented his escape are named in other sources.

Cicero may have wanted to praise Crassus for his own reasons, other may have wanted to stress the negatives of his actions. The truth, as usual, may well have been in the middle.

3. Legionary kit-Trajans column depicts "segmentata" Adamklissi (sp) depicts "squamata" (I know in part thanks to this website Trajan's Column depicted more of a series of stock images that the people could recognize instead of reality I am just using it as an example for the question).

Ah that's different. It's our modernist ideas that cause us to look at the Roman army as something modern, uniformly equipped etc. That's sometimes based too on artist impressions (like Trajan's Column, which may oversimplify reality for reason of clarity - the 's tock images', indeed. TC was not a picture, it was a propaganda instrument with a message, a message than needed to come across to simple folk. Adamklissi is a monument, also for propaganda of course, but due to the remote location not meant for the larger public.

4. Tacitus vs Suetonius-It is explicit in the former that Nero did not have any responsibility for the great fire, in the later he was unambiguously involved and had imperial representatives prevent attempts to stop the fire.

nero did not play the fiddle, and although he may have greatly benefitted from ther disaster, there's no hard evidence that he caused it. I doubt it myself, because with the limited capabilities of Rome's Fire Dept., he could have suffered great loss himself. So, once more, it's what the source means to stress - guilt or greatness.

5. Seneca vs Historians-Messalina is innocent in The Pumpkinification (sp) of Claudius

As above.

6. Law vs Plays-Roman law branded infamia on prostitutes even slave prostitutes and only a reform by Severus (emperor not jurist) changed it and yet I could easily cite Roman plays that end in a slave prostitute who turns out to be a wrongly enslaved citizen marrying very well. [/quotes] Sometimes sources are just wrong. Plain wrong. Or misinformed. It happens.

[quote="MagnusStultus" post=358984] What is your general rule when you run into historical contradictions? I know there is no universal rule (if there was there would be no historical debate) but when you do run into one source saying one thing that contradicts another how do you reconcile the conflict?

But of course there is a rule, but it can't decide things because history is not a science (yes, I've accepted that now), and results can always be doubted in some way or another. Because even if we can be 99.99% sure of an outcome, we were not there, and we can only rely on these sources. Well, I've shown above what that entails. Sometimes, or rather often, differnces can't be reconciled. Of course, you can't turn that around and write your own history "because professor Robert sez that no source is truthful". There are all we have.

[Youngster]

Well, I think your first problem is that you are looking for a one size fits all approach to a very pervasive historical problem. There are always going to be contradiction, and trying to just choose one source over another is not likely to lead you closer to the truth. Not to get too "epistemological," but we can never really know the truth about anything, let alone what happened 2000 years ago! :grin:
But practically speak, what we can do is interpret sources. You have to read each source carefully, look and the contradiction and then do more research! You need to asses the credibility of each source. Did they witness the event? Are they a contemporary, or are they writing much later? Do they have political/personal motives to lie/exaggerate? There are also other indicia of reliability, such as the level of detail, and whether the purpose of a give source was to provide the type of information you are seeking. Finally, you need to remember that no source was written for modern readers. This means first of all that it is not written to modern academic standards. It also worth remembering that the sources were not in English, but generally in Greek and Latin. Even if you can speak those languages today, you can't assume that every word has the same connotations that it would to the intended audience. If you are reading translations, you have to remember that that translator is only human, may have changed or lost the meaning. As writings were copied by hand until the invention of the movable type, we also cannot discount the possibility of ancient transcription errors.
If you manage to consider all of that, then you might be able to reach a conclusion. But a conclusion should rarely be something so simple as "source A is right, source B is wrong." For many of the examples that you give, more than one source could be right! For instance, if one source say soldiers wore segmentata, and another said mail, it very well could be because some soldiers wore mail and others wore segmentata. Or if one writer thinks a politician is corrupt, and the other virtuous, it could be because the politician took action that questionable but not clearly corrupt and the writers interpret it differently. Or maybe he was corrupt on one occasion and one author focuses on that and another discounts it. Or maybe the politician did engage in some corrupt behaviors, but did so less than other politicians. So he is virtuous by the standards of that time and place, but in an absolute sense he is still corrupt. Or maybe, the author who says he is corrupt just does not like him for political reasons, and so makes up a lie.

What is that takeaway here?
1. You need to gather as much information about the issue as possible, including information about the author of you sources.
2. You need to consider the reliability of each source.
3. You need to weigh the evidence of supporting each possible conclusion.
4. You need to consider whether you conclusion is based on a binary true/false, or whether the truth could be in between.
5. You need to formulate your own answer
6. You need to accept that there is no single correct answer, because you just can't know, and neither can anyone else!

[Dan Howard]

Source evaluation is the key. When we studied ancient history we were given passages from various authors and had to submit an analysis of each one. This started with a description of the author's background, patrons, sources of income, the target audience, purpose of the text, and so on, and how all of this could influence what was written. The second part of the exercise involved analysing the passage and pulling out as much useful information as possible from the text within the context of any bias that was presented in the first part of the exercise. We were given these exercises every few weeks for two years and after a while we started doing it automatically whenever we encountered a new source. The same discipline should be applied to everything you read in the media today.

[MagnusStultus]

Hello Robert

1. I know other evidence is important; the point of the question is when other evidence doesn't exist and you are stuck with the two sources that are after each other. You can't excavate for the type of raids Cicero described because they would leave no archaeological footprint. That is why I said this isn't for where a large body of other evidence exists; I understand why you completely misunderstood the starting premise but aside from Trajan's column vs Adamklissi the things are mentioned leave you with the sources themselves. Off the top of my head I could say

Cicero was praising Crassus for keeping sicily safe in contrast to a governor who embezzled money meant for shore defenses and allowed pirates to crush his fleet as a result; it is contradicted by lack of mention in other contemporary sources.

Moving on the questions aren't meant to be how do you answer these questions but when all else is about equal what is your tendency as a professional to believe/what level of bias in what area is important and what level of closeness is too close or not close enough?

I know what the basics are to examining the source; but once the source is examined (and knowing history isn't a science) and the material is inconclusive about contradictions what set of evidence do you consider the more valid?

For example why isn't the contemporary Seneca influential in how we see Claudius when historians who were if born small children during his reign are? Is it because his closeness consists of his getting banished? Is an victim/enemy of the subject considered less reliable than an author from a generation later?

I know these are opinion questions but it is good to see what others in the field have to say about it; the question was meant to kick off what details of a particular source is more important when you examine the sources validity against another source; not ask what is important (which is everything).

I know now rereading my post I wasn't especially clear; but now with the clarification what is the most important element when you personally are authoring an essay or publication about the ancient world what elements do you select when you determine which contradictory sources without any other source of information is more valid?

For example I know what makes Seneca's depiction of Claudius widely disregarded (Claudius banished him; and he was in bitter rivalry with Agrippina when Claudius died) but at the same time we also know

1. Seneca was considered a man of integrity

2. His banishment was undone by Claudius

3. He is not against all emperors; the man who speaks against Claudius is Augustus

4. He was actively against Agrippina; actively undermining her attempts at influence and power, so might not have considered a time when Claudius was alive to be a bad time because the emperor was not her son yet

5. Wife killing is very heavily emphasized while Tacitus and Suetonius a generation later depict a very different story, yet we know that wife was responsible for his banishment taking away motivation to depict her in a positive light that isn't deserved.

If I was to argue that Seneca being actual contemporary, personally knowing and interacting with the players, having a terrible relationship with the woman who is in the role of innocent victim in his retelling of Claudius as a person, his integrity, and overall philosophy are enough to overrule his obvious bias what would your main argument to refute that be?

[Youngster]

Magnus,

I'm still fairly confused as to what you are asking. It seems as though you are asking how to find an answer when there is none. If you are writing an academic paper, the best practice would be to state the position that you have chosen to believe, based on the above criteria. Then cite your source. Then footnote the contradiction, and cite the source that contradicts.

When you have contradiction with very few sources, you just can't know the answer. There is no special way to divine from the sources. Just make the best call that you can, and don't try to hide the fact that it is a guess!

[MagnusStultus]

Magnus,

I'm still fairly confused as to what you are asking. It seems as though you are asking how to find an answer when there is none. If you are writing an academic paper, the best practice would be to state the position that you have chosen to believe, based on the above criteria. Then cite your source. Then footnote the contradiction, and cite the source that contradicts.

When you have contradiction with very few sources, you just can't know the answer. There is no special way to divine from the sources. Just make the best call that you can, and don't try to hide the fact that it is a guess!

You hit the hammer on the head; I would rewrite the thread now but I am often very careless when writing and it isn't an academic paper.

When an answer is unknowable how do you as a historian/interested student of history come to a conclusion? Everyone has a different approach sometimes it is believing the better of the society sometimes thinking the worst possible; but what is your personal conclusion in these types of situations and why?

[antiochus]

Dan wrote:
When an answer is unknowable how do you as a historian/interested student of history come to a conclusion?

This may be of some help: “Writing Ancient History: An Introduction to Classical Historiography” by Luke Pitcher, ISBN: 978 1 84511 957 7 (HB)

[Robert Vermaat]

When you have contradiction with very few sources, you just can't know the answer. There is no special way to divine from the sources. Just make the best call that you can, and don't try to hide the fact that it is a guess!

Well said. especially that last one is good advice and too often neglected these days.