mc.eatersofthedead-第32章
按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
resented some bizarre mating of men and apes。 Nor should we overlook the degree to which societies with vastly differing degrees of cultural attainment may exist side by side： such contrasts appear today； for example； in Australia； where the stone age and the jet age can be found in close proximity。 Thus in interpreting the descriptions of Ibn Fadlan we need not postulate a Neanderthal remnant； unless we are fancifully inclined to do so。〃
In the end； the arguments stumble over a well…known limitation to the scientific method itself。 The physicist Gerhard Robbins observes that 〃strictly speaking； no hypothesis or theory can ever be proven。 It can only be disproven。 When we say we believe a theory； what we really mean is that we are unable to show that the theory is wrong…not that we are able to show； beyond doubt； that the theory is right。
〃A scientific theory may stand for years； even centuries； and it may accumulate hundreds of bits of corroborating evidence to support it。 Yet a theory is always vulnerable； and a single conflicting finding is all that is required to throw the hypothesis into disarray； and call for a new theory。 One can never know when such conflicting evidence will arise。 Perhaps it will happen tomorrow； perhaps never。 But the history of science is strewn with the ruins of mighty edifices toppled by an accident； or a triviality。〃
This is what Geoffrey Wrightwood meant when he said at the Seventh International Symposium on Human Paleontology in Geneva in 1972： 〃All I need is one skull； or a fragment of a skull； or a bit of jaw。 In fact； all I need is one good tooth； and the debate is concluded。〃
Until that skeletal evidence is found； speculation will continue； and one may adopt whatever stance satisfies an inner sense of the fitness of things。
SOURCES
I。 PRIMARY SOURCE
Yakut ibn…Abdallah MS； a geographical lexicon； ？A。D。 1400。 Nos。 1403A…1589A； Archives University Library； Oslo； Norway。
Trans：
Blake； Robert； and Frye； Richard； in Byzantina…Metabyzantina： A Journal of Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies； New York； 1947。
Cook； Albert S。； New York； 1947。
Fraus…Dolus； Per； Oslo； 1959…1960。
Jorgensen； Olaf； 1971； unpublished
Nasir； Seyed Hossein； 1971； unpublished。
St。 Petersburg MS； a local history； published by the Academy of St。 Petersburg； 1823。 Nos。 233M…278M； Archives University Library； Oslo； Norway。
Trans：
Fraus…Dolus； Per； Oslo； 1959…1960。
Stenuit； Roger； 1971； unpublished。
Soletsky； V。 K。； 1971； unpublished。
Ahmad Tusi MS； a geography； A。D。 1047； papers of J。 H。 Emerson。 Nos。 LV 01…114； Archives University Library； Oslo； Norway。
Trans：
Fraus…Dolus； Per； Oslo； 1959…1960。
Nasir； Seyed Hossein； 1971； unpublished。
Hitti； A。 M。； 1971； unpublished。
Amin Razi MS； a history of warfare； A。D。 1585…1595； papers of J。 H。 Emerson。 Nos。 LV 207…244； Archives University Library； Oslo； Norway。
Trans：
Fraus…Dolus； Per； Oslo； 1959…1960。
Bendixon； Robert； 1971； unpublished。
Porteus； Eleanor； 1971； unpublished。
Xymos MS； a fragmentary geography； ？ date； bequest estate A。 G。 Gavras。 Nos。 2308T…2348T； Archives University Library； Oslo； Norway。
Trans：
Fraus…Dolus； Per； Oslo； 1959…1960。
Bendixon； Robert； 1971； unpublished。
Porteus； Eleanor； 1971； unpublished。
II。 SECONDARY SOURCES
Berndt； E。； and Berndt； R。 H。 〃An Annotated Bibliography of References to the Manuscript of Ibn Fadlan from 1794 to 1970；〃 Acta Archaeologica； VI： 334…389； 1971。
This remarkable pilation will refer the interested reader to all secondary sources concerning the manuscript； which have appeared in English； Norwegian； Swedish； Danish； Russian； French； Spanish； and Arabic for the dates cited。 The total number of sources listed is 1；042。
III。 GENERAL REFERENCE WORKS
The following are suitable for the general reader with no particular archaeological or historical background。 Only works in English are cited。
Wilson； D。 M。 The Vikings； London； 1970。
Brondsted； J。 The Vikings； London； 1960； 1965。
Arbman； H。 The Vikings； London； 1961。
Jones； G。 A History of the Vikings； Oxford； 1968。
Sawyer； P。 The Age of the Vikings； London； 1962。
Foote； P。 G。； and Wilson； D。 M。 The Viking Achievement； London； 1970。
Kendrick； T。 D。 A History of the Vikings； London； 1930。
Azhared； Abdul。 Necronomicon ＇ed。 H。 P。 Lovecraft＇； Providence； Rhode Island； 1934。
A FACTUAL NOTE ON EATERS OF THE DEAD
EATERS OF THE DEAD WAS CONCEIVED ON A DARE。 IN 1974； my friend Kurt Villadsen proposed to teach a college course he called 〃The Great Bores。〃 The course would include all the texts that were supposed to be crucial to Western civilization but which were； in truth； no longer read willingly by anyone； because they were so tedious。 Kurt said that the first of the great bores he would address was the epic poem Beowulf。
I disagreed。 I argued that Beowulf was a dramatic； exciting story…and that I could prove it。 I went home and immediately began making notes for this novel。
I started from the scholarly tradition that examined epic poetry and mythology as if it might have some underlying basis in fact。 Heinrich Schliemann assumed the Iliad was true； and found what he claimed was Troy and Mycenae； Arthur Evans believed there was something to the myth of the Minotaur； and uncovered the Palace of Knossos on Crete；46 M。 I。 Finley and others had traced the route of Ulysses in the Odyssey；47 Lionel Casson had written about the real journeys that might underlie the myth of Jason and the Argonauts。48 Thus it seemed reasonable； within this tradition； to imagine that Beowulf； too； had originally been based on an actual event。
That event had been embellished over centuries of oral retelling； producing the fantastic narrative we read today。 But I thought it might be possible to reverse the process； peeling away the poetic invention； and returning to a kernel of genuine human experience…something that had actually happened。
This idea of uncovering the factual core of the narrative was appealing but impractical。 Modern scholarship offered no objective procedure to separate poetic invention from underlying fact。 Even to try would mean making innumerable subjective decisions； large and small； on every page…in the end； so many decisions that the result must inevitably be still another invention： a modern pseudo…historical fantasy about what the original events might have been。
The insoluble problem prevented me from proceeding。 Of course； in writing a novel； I intended to create a fantasy of my own。 But fantasies demand strict logic； and I was troubled by the logic behind what I wanted to write。 Since a real scholar could not do what I intended to do； I found I could not pretend； in writing； that I had done so。 This was not a failure of imagination or nerve。 It was a purely practical problem。 Like the scholar； I had no basis for deciding which elements of the Beowulf narrative to keep； and which to discard。
Although the idea of working backward seemed untenable； I remained intrigued。 I asked a different question： suppose； for a moment； that the practical problems that troubled me did not exist； and the process could indeed be carried out。 What would the resulting narrative look like？ I imagined it would probably be a rather mundane recounting of some battles that occurred more than a thousand years ago。 In fact； I suspected it would probably resemble most eyewitness accounts of famous events； as written by people who are unaware of the significance of the events they are seeing。
This line of thinking eventually led to the solution to my problem。 Clearly； I wanted an eyewitness account。 I could not extract it from the existing Beowulf narrative； and I did not want to invent it。 That was my impasse。 But at some point； I realized I did not have to invent it…I could discover it instead。
Suppose； I thought； a contemporary observer had been present at these battles； and had written an account of the events that were later transformed into a poem。 Suppose； too； that this account already existed； but had never been recognized for what it was。 if this were so； then no invention on my part would be necessary。 I could merely reprod
