Talk:Odysseus Unbound

/Archive1: Older discussions are archived here.

Gerasimo Volterras?

A line just added has the initial paragraph of the article reading, "This identification dates back to at least 1903, when Gerasimos Volterras published his A Critical Study of Homeric Ithaca..."

Would someone who has read Volterras please confirm, and quote him? The reference to his work in the study (p. 77) says, simply,

"...a few other writers over the last 100 years have also considered Paliki as a possible solution to Strabo's comment that 'where the island is narrowest it forms an isthmus so low-lying that it is often submerged from sea to sea'. In 1903 the Palikian G. Volterras published a book in Greek entitled A Critical Study of Homeric Ithaca which made this proposal..."

Volterras full cite is: Volterras, Gerasimo. Kritiki Meleti peri Omerikis Ithakis (A Critical Study of Homeric Ithaca) (Athens: ?, 1903) -- I'd be interested to know the extent to which he really did identify Paliki as "Homer's Ithaca", and particularly how he did it, his methodology: did he use the Homeric text and if so which one, and did he identify sites on Paliki at all close geographically to those identified in the study?

The study (p. 78) says Tsimaratos also suggested the isthmus as "Strabo's Channel", but that he identified central Kefalonia as the site of "Ithaca" -- so it would be interesting to learn exactly where Volterras thought his "Ithaca" really was. The point really, I suppose, is the geology or lack of it: without that, plenty of places might look like "Ithaca".

I'll put the Volterras & Tsimaratos results up on Homer's Ithaca, if anyone comes up with anything. I ask the question here just because this latest edit here raises it. A full "peri Omerikis Ithakis" translation would be great to see, too; altho someone pls suggest what the copyright status of that would be?

--Kessler 23:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

omnibus reply

Since this page is getting so long (over 50k, and only three people participating) I'm going to put my thoughts in this section, rather than clutter up the page more with scattered replies.

My main objection to this article is that it advocates a particular theory of where Homeric Ithaka was, rather than impartially reporting on the theory. This isn't appropriate for a Wikipedia article; nor is the idea that you state above, "The whole point here is to assess that new study, as its further investigation goes forward, and your contribution might form an important part of the process." This is an encyclopedia, not a book review, nor an online seminar. Assessing the theory qualifies as original research, and the Wikipedia guidelines state quite clearly that this isn't the place for original research.

I've suggested some ways the article can be made NPOV: the best way, I think, is to have a single page where the various theories of the location of ancient Ithaca can be catalogued. If you look at the article impartially, I think you'll find it easy to whittle it down to fit in a Homer's Ithaca article; for instance, it is not necessary to include the question about the hilltop fortress in Lefkas, or in general, narrate the process that led to Bittlestone's findings. Just report the findings, and the content will be short; it will still be quite interesting.

To restate this objection: this article was created to advocate the theory that Paliki is the true location of Homer's Ithaca. Wikipedia isn't the right place for advocacy. That's a sufficient reason to edit this page, or preferably merge it with Homer's Ithaca. So the miles of verbiage that follow are in some degree superfluous, but here goes anyway:

It seems like you don't think this is advocacy: rather, you regard this theory as proven fact, and not just a fact, but a pivotal moment in Homeric studies--a paradigm shift. Since it is true and important, it deserves its own page. I have two responses: 1) it's not proven. 2) regardless of the theory's truth or falsity, it's not a paradigm shift.

1) it's not proven.

a) Bittlestone characterizes his work as "preliminary researches" (xvi) and as "Initial research to demonstrate the strength of this proposal". In Ch. 34, and at the website, he says that the research documented in Odysseus Unbound is phase A of a three-phase research plan. Even though he's made a strong case from geological evidence, more research into the ancient sea level needs to be done, and more research into the contours of "Strabo's channel" needs to be performed ("Phase B"). In Phase C, archaeological investigation of the proposed locations for sites like Odysseus' palace, the polis of Ithaca, etc., needs to be conducted. In other words, the identification is not yet definite.

b) Not everyone agrees. Here's a reaction to Odysseus Unbound from Professor John Luce (go to the end of the linked article):

1. First, Paliki offers nothing to match the close conjunction in Ithaki of Homer's 'Raven's Crag' and the perennial watering place that L. takes to be Homer's 'Fountain of Arethusa'. Here one can see the 'Sharp Islands', with which (L. points out) Athena tells Odysseus' son Telemachus to mark the route of his return home, 'keeping well away from the islands' (which must include Cephalonia).
2. B. cannot match in Paliki the 'Cave of the Nymphs' at Marmarospilia in central Ithaki, where 'sherds dedicated to the Nymphs have been found, and whose double entrance precisely matches Homer's description'.
3. Polis Bay in the north of Ithaki bears a very unusual name which suggests that the chief settlement of ancient Ithaca was in that area. There is the 'Tripod Cave', where 13 magnificent bronze tripod cauldrons (9-8th C BC) were dedicated, strongly reminiscent of gifts given to Odysseus on his travels. 'Whoever dedicated them must have had at least a proto-Odyssey in mind which located the hero in Ithaki.

On the tripods on Ithaki, see also the historian and TV presenter Michael Wood--scroll down to the heading "Archaeological finds disprove theory": "What this proves is that the story was older than Homer; that the cult of Odysseus on today's Ithaca was already in existence in the ninth century BC, and it proves too that Homer had this very cave in Ithaca in mind when he composed the Odyssey. He may even have been there."

I'm not arguing that either Bittlestone or Luce or Wood is correct here, but that the existence of disagreement means that Bittlestone's identification is not regarded as proven fact.

c) Classics isn't an experimental science, so you can't just publish an article/book and regard something as proven. The community has to argue things out and some degree of acceptance has to occur (as I recall, Kuhn would say this is the way things work even in scientific communities). As an example, take Ventris' demonstration that Linear B recorded an early form of Greek--even though that was about as solid and scientific as things get in Classics, it still took awhile before that became the standard opinion. In 2006, of course, you can regard it as proven fact, but if you were writing an encyclopedia in 1956, the right tack to take would probably have been "An interesting new theory by Michael Ventris says....but it awaits confirmation." On the other hand, if in 1956 you were writing an article in the Journal for Hellenic Studies, then it would be time to argue vociferously that Linear B was Greek...and you would have been right.

Now, Bittlestone could be correct in every detail. An archaeological dig in a few years might find Odysseus' palace on Paliki. Until something like that happens, the majority of classicists will regard this theory as an interesting, but unproven, possibility. Until then, it seems best to adopt a more neutral tone in an encyclopedic article. To put this another way, the article shouldn't reflect an individual viewpoint, but the current state of the discipline...and right now, I don't think this article does that.

2) It's not a paradigm shift.

If we're going to see this through a Kuhnian lens--which might not make sense, since we're not dealing with an experimental science but a hermeneutic discipline--we should remember that not every new theory or finding causes a paradigm shift. Kuhn has a criterion of incommensurability--basically, the idea is that a paradigm shift occurs when a new way of looking at things and the old way are so incompatible that they can't be reasonably compared. This theory doesn't fit that criterion, for two reasons. First, Diggle's arguments for rejecting Ithaki as Homeric Ithaka are old chestnuts, except for his argument that nesos can mean "peninsula." However, the method he uses in that argument--and for every other argument he makes--are old-school philology. No new methodology there. That isn't a slight--Diggle's reputation as a textual critic is well-deserved. His editions of classical texts, esp. the OCT of Euripides, will be standards for at least a generation, and while it's possible to quarrel with his interpretations of the Odyssey, the quality of his procedure is undoubtable. But his arguments are not paradigm-shifting; he's using proven, standard techniques.

Second, the idea that the Odyssey faithfully represents the geography of Ithaca isn't new--Luce's 1998 book, which identifies Ithaki as Homeric Ithaka, argues that Homer's geography is perfect in every detail. Stubbings, in 1962 (A Companion to Homer) also thought Homer's geography was accurate--and he was largely following Victor Bérard (Les Phéniciens et l'Odyssée, 1902). Both of them identified Ithaka with modern Ithaki. Here's part of what Stubbings argues:

"It has, however, been pointed out by Victor Bérard that, as seen by someone approaching from the south or south-east, Ithaki does seem low by contrast with the very high mountains of Cephallenia behind it. It is from this aspect that Ithaki would be familiar to most of the ancient Greek world, and Bérard urges that the whole of the passage now under discussion is written from this standpoint."

The view that Homer's description of Ithaca is accurate is a mainstream position in classics. The idea that Paliki is Ithaca isn't a new one either (pp. 558-561). Bittlestone's protestations that classicists think that Homer is a geographic ninny are a standard rhetorical tack--a way of saying "what I'm doing is totally new"--but it's not accurate. He's not changing the terms of the debate, not introducing a radical new way at looking at Homeric geography. He's entering a debate that goes back farther than Strabo. He hasn't even found a totally unprecedented solution, but he has argued for it in a way that previous attempts haven't--better use of the methods of modern geology. This a good and praiseworthy thing. There is, however, ample precedent for using geological tools and methods in Greek (and Roman) archaeology, let's not overblow this research by calling it a paradigm shift.

It should also be noted that Homer's geography is an old subject in studies of the Iliad, and the same methodology--archaeology, geology, investigations of sedimentation, etc., plus good old-fashioned philology--has been used there. Luce is a good example, the more recent book of J. Latacz (2004) is also a good place to look. The larger question at stake is one of Homer's historical reliability--is he preserving an accurate memory of the Bronze Age? This is one of the most intensively studied questions in Homeric studies in the last two generations, and Moses Finley, Ian Morris, Gregory Nagy, Anthony Snodgrass, and many others have a lot to say about it.

So, Bittlestone is working in a long-established paradigm: where is Homer's Ithaca? Is Homer's geography accurate? If it is, what does that tell us about the poems? Bittlestone does not substantially reframe any of these questions. What he is doing is new, yes--he makes excellent use of advances in geology, but this is not a radically new way of doing archaeological research--it's not a new paradigm. To sum up, then, I don't think Odysseus Unbound is path-breaking enough to warrant a page of its own.

What would a paradigm shift in classics be? Well, as you've said, Schliemann's excavations--those changed the way everyone thinks about how historically accurate Homer's poems are (not that it's led to a consensus, but the terms of the debate were radically altered by the discovery of Troy, Mycenae, etc.). The definitive identification of the "real" Ithaca wouldn't alter the terms of that debate, but would add a wealth of new data to it. Other paradigm shifts: the decipherment of Linear B, the research of Parry and Lord into oral poetry. Note that even Nagy, who in my estimation is the most influential Homerist alive, should not in my opinion be credited with causing a paradigm shift--though he has made amazing advances, he is working in the footsteps of Parry and Lord.

Ok, that's more than anyone ever wanted to read, but I just wanted to make three smaller comments: it's entirely appropriate to refer to this as Bittlestone's idea. Odysseus Unbound is written in a very conversational, first-person voice (as you say, it's much more readable that way), and the "I" who speaks is clearly Robert Bittlestone. Diggle and Underhill only make first-person appearances in the appendices, otherwise they're quoted. Bittlestone owns this idea; and why shouldn't he? What he's done is impressive, even if I disagree with it. Note that Diggle attributes the theory to Bittlestone (B.): "I thought it was far too good to be true to be able to identify original Homeric sites on Paliki, but when I went there, I found B.'s analysis tremendously persuasive. I am prepared to say that I cannot controvert B. on any of his proposed locations."

Also, the image of classics profs reading Bittlestone over the holidays and waiting for someone to bring it up is hilarious. Also the notion that someone might be shouted down in a graduate seminar if they hadn't read it. (The idea of anybody being "shouted down" in a grad seminar is quite alien to any grad seminar I've experienced; I'm not sure what it means--are we supposed to be evaluated on our disciplinary purity or something?) Anyway, Homeric geography is not a towering concern right now--it's only a small part of the study of Homer's relationship to his historical background, which in turn is just one of the many things Homerists study. For instance, in one of the Homer seminars I took, questions of oral formulaic composition and Homer's use of myth consumed more time and interest than Homeric geography. If you look at Classics-L, an email list for academic classicists (easily googled), the purported discovery of Odysseus' tomb aroused more interest--though not necessarily friendly interest...

Finally, just for amusement, here are some other things Gregory Nagy has said about new books in classics, from the forwards of books in the series he edits for Cornell University Press: "The interpretive power of Muellner's insight, in all its simplicity, is astonishing. His book rebuilds the ancient listener's cognitive process of understanding a story through its sequence. Perhaps even more astonishing is Muellner's discovery that the patterning of mēnis in the Homeric Iliad is matched in the Hesiodic Theogony. In addition to striking parallels...Muellner's discovery lays the foundation for a redefinition of intertextuality in oral traditions. It also leads to a powerful new understanding of the main epic theme of the Iliad..." (G. Nagy, in L. Muellner, The Anger of Achilles, Cornell 1996).

"The poetics of recomposition-in-performance, which are reflected in the patterns of wording and word placement within the fundamental rhythmical unit of the dactylic hexameter, can now be further examined from both synchronic and diachronic perspectives. Bakker's own explorations of these questions mark a monumental advance in our understanding of Homeric discourse as a linguistic system...In the wake of Bakker's analysis, the classicist cannot help but read the Greek of Homer differently: the reader's understanding of practically every verse is affected--and enhanced." (G. Nagy, in E. Bakker, Poetry in Speech, Cornell 1997).

These are both excellent books, and Nagy's descriptions are correct. They illustrate that the way we read Homer changes with every new work of scholarship. Akhilleus 09:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

To me it seems detailed identification of the home of Odysseus on Paliki is of great interest, to a large number of Wikipedians: classicists among us, but also any of us interested in the various fields of investigation involved -- geology and several of its subfields, philology, history, the others I have mentioned -- as well as anyone simply interested in the Odyssey, Greece, "the ancient world", and so on.

The current study appears not to have met your personal standards of "proof", Akhilleus: in our exchanges up above I have tried to respond, with my own understanding of standards and methodology in these areas, to each of the points you have raised -- your reply to my points is this "omnibus" reiteration of your own point of view. But the study does meet the standards of the recognized experts I have mentioned, such as Harvard's Gregory Nagy, and Cambridge's James Diggle who in fact is a study co-author, and Underhill at Edinburgh ditto, so the balance of authorities for now rests with the Bittlestone/Diggle/Underhill study, it seems to me.

Several of your suggestions have addressed specific wording in the article, and changes have been made in it to respond to those suggestions. And changes will continue, this being Wikipedia: I'll be making some myself, and others will -- I'll go through carefully again now, for instance, to try to rectify any bias favoring the study, per your worry that it's still in there, as yes NPOV is an important thing here. The more general "Homer's Ithaca" article, too, will benefit from some of the interesting points you raise here in this "omnibus" comment: I'll add in there the references you make to some of these non-Paliki authors. You might consider doing an article yourself, on "Ithaki, Homer's Ithaca" for example, and / or on any of the others: "Lefkas, Homer's Ithaca" would be well worth a full article, I think, just for Dörpfeld's contributions alone -- or it's one I myself very much would like to read, anyway, if only to compare & contrast Dörpfeld's approach and methodology with those of the others.

But I suggest you and I leave our discussion of more general topics alone now, for a bit. As you point out, our debate is getting long, and it seems unlikely that you and I personally are going to agree on general things. So let's give others a chance to speak up and discuss here for a while.

--Kessler 17:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my "omnibus reply" is not a reiteration--I supplied new data and made new arguments. Perhaps they were missed because I wrote at too great length?

One point I made is that my personal view of the truth or falsity of the identification is irrelevant: this article is not the place to prove or disprove that Paliki is ancient Ithaca.

What is relevant are the objections of experts in the field, like Luce and Wood. If we're going to revert to tossing credentials around, Luce is an eminent scholar, and the inclusion of Wood in the "Resources" list indicates his expertise. They've examined the theory, and made substantive and specific objections. Another example of scholarly disagreement is Mary Beard's review, listed in the "Resources" section, though she does think that the identification of Paliki is plausible. Let's add this review by Tom Palaima in the Times Higher Education Supplement:

"Odysseus Unbound is full of hypotheses and hunches, assumptions and leaps of faith. According to the results of Underhill's fieldwork, the first seismic event occurred anywhere between 2550BC and 750BC. If it were any time before, say, 1300BC, Bittlestone's game would be over. No problem.

Bittlestone declares: 'These ratio-derived dates are hardly precise: they are simply order-of-magnitude estimates.'"

(Incidently, I don't think we can conclude that much from the Nagy quote, which is a dust-jacket blurb--a hyperbolic genre, lacking in nuance. Nagy doesn't say whether the identification is correct or not. There are parts of OU Nagy certainly wouldn't agree with, like the model of the composition/transmission of the Odyssey in Ch. 33--unless he's decided to leave behind everything he's written about Homer.)

So, can we acknowledge that expert opinion disagrees on this identification? If so, it doesn't matter whether the "balance of authorities" lies with one theory or another; Wikipedia is not supposed to prove something true or false--instead, according to the NPOV policy, we're supposed to report all significant points of view. The current version of the article, however, only presents the Paliki identification without noting other theories or specific objections to OU.

Another factor contributing to the POV feel of the article is that it reports Bittlestone's arguments in excessive detail, including lists of identified sites with latitude and longitude coordinates. This article should report on the findings, not on the book. The arguments don't need to be reproduced--after all, there's a whole book for people to look at if they're intrigued. Readers do not need to know that B. was inspired by a tourist map, or puzzled by a hilltop fortress on Lefkas. Methodology need not be reported unless it is ground-breaking, and as described in the article, it doesn't seem so. As currently written, the philological method described is "we translated the Odyssey, made a list of some places it describes, and found them." And as I've (tiresomely) explained above, it doesn't seem to me that there's any new philological method at work here.

Finally, as I thought we'd established, this article isn't the place for a discussion of the composition and transmission of the Homeric poems. (N.b. any discussion of the transmission of the poems is automatically a discussion of their composition as well, because of the way in which the poems became transmissible as texts.) If it's necessary to say something along these lines, the Homer's Ithaca article is the place to talk about why anyone gives two cents about any of this controversy about Ithaca. But even then, it's excessive to write about the manuscript-printed-digital transition, or to quote Hugo and Eliot (no matter how inspiring the 4 Quartets are). Akhilleus 08:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Your latest comment raises questions which I believe have been discussed before here, Akhilleus: for example the roles of hypothesis, and of academic disagreement, in all of this. I am happy to discuss your views on these things further, but per my own previous comment I just wanted a breather from them somewhat in hopes that others, as well, will get to chime in here about Paliki.

If you believe that Luce, or Wood, or for that matter Mary Beard, in fact make fundamental objections to the findings of the study, I wish you would be specific and offer quotes: I read all three as being open-minded and interested, myself -- as I believe all in the fields involved are, now, or ought to be. Those three raise misgivings and questions which they'd like to see addressed, certainly, but that is part of the process. I expect that process to continue for many years; in the meantime, though, "Bittlestone/Diggle/Underhill" seems firmly established as the leading hypothesis -- both on the strength of its distinguished authorship and their rigorous methodology, and because its observations simply make more sense than do those of previous theories.

I've added a cite to the Times Higher Ed. Supplement article you've found. Certainly any other discussion, pro or con or just questioning, ought to be considered. I'll beef up the reference to the "Homer's Ithaca" page, too, as that is where most of the previous theories reside, now, to respond to your NPOV point.

I do disagree with you about reporting methodology: that is central to this article, as it would be to any similar article on Lefkas or Ithaki or any of the other previous theories. Readers are more interested in why each of these folks thought Odysseus might have lived in their particular locations, than in simply a list of said locations. The point is the philology -- I doubt Prof. Diggle agrees with your description of his philological method -- and the geology, and the overall methodology or lack thereof... Transmission of texts, too, applied specifically here and not generally, is not concerned with past controversies about erroneous locations but only with the accuracy of this one: the point in this case is whether "Homer" was composing fiction or fact, and for whom was he reciting it and why, and how the two became blended over time to give us the epics we read today -- for that purpose it is important to know where they began, and if Paliki really is it, then text transmission needs to know a great deal more about Paliki, and needs to consider it thoroughly.

I'll put together a more detailed response to points in your latest posting and put that here, hopefully this week but more likely the next. This is just a brief general reply.

--Kessler 18:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Direct quotes

I quoted Luce above. His objections give several ways in which the Paliki identification fails. I wouldn't call that "open-minded"--he's sure that the identification is wrong. Bear in mind he's written a book (Celebrating Homer's Landscapes) that argues that modern Ithaki is described precisely by the Odyssey--it's clear he hasn't changed his mind.

Wood (remember, this is printed under the heading "Archaeological finds disprove theory"):

"Though there were big arguments in the 19th century as to whether
Homer's Ithaca was today's island (next to Kefalonia) most, if not all,
experts now believe Homer is describing today's Ithaca.
As William Gell first noted in his book on the island published in 1807,
it is the numerous coincidences between Homer's description and the
topography of the island that tend to prove the identification; and it is
what has been found on Ithaca by modern archaeologists that really
clinches the identification.
There have been Mycenaean finds, especially in the north of the island,
which show that the place was indeed a kingdom in the Late Bronze Age,
the period on which Homer's narrative ultimately rests. No matter how
much the new book [Odysseus Unbound] denies this, the evidence is clear.
Furthermore, a whole series of Homeric place names which describe
natural features on his Ithaca can be identified with landmarks on the
modern island, ...
It is, however, the archaeological find made by a British team in the 1930s
that put any doubts to rest..."

It should be clear that Wood isn't "open-minded" either.

As I said, Beard accepts the possibility that Paliki is ancient Ithaca (note "possibility", not "certainty"), but loses patience:

"So far, so good. But sadly Bittlestone does not know where to stop.
It is not just a question of trying to fit all the major locational clues
in Homer into his theory ... Worse is his keenness to squeeze every
single literary episode that Homer sets on Ithaca into the topography
of modern Paliki... The end of the book descends into fantasy... Wild
literary theories are usually victimless crimes ... If Robert Bittlestone's
more extravagant theories catch on, these poor Cephalonians will
soon be deluged with busloads of visitors ... We can only hope that
common sense prevails and that they do not catch on."

So, "open-minded" to a point, and then not very "open-minded" at all. Maybe not "interested," either; it sounds more like she thinks Bittlestone is a crank.

Here's Palaima (whom I also quote above):

"Enough about the marketing of a potentially money-making popular
book by a university press. Odysseus Unbound is indeed a good read,
if we do not try to make it something it is not. That something is the
good book it could have been if more scholarly rigour had been demanded
of it by outside readers and press editors, and if less had gone into trying
to boost its sales through breathless sensationalism. It does not rise to the
level of popular scholarly good sense attained by Michael Wood's In Search
of the Trojan War...
James Diggle, professor of Greek and Latin at Cambridge, ingeniously and
without too much special pleading, interprets relevant ancient Greek texts
to conform, as well as they can, to Bittlestone's ideas. No collaborator handles
Aegean prehistory. A helpful Aegeanist is cited in the preface, but we should
hold him nameless and blameless for what Bittlestone does with Linear B texts
and Bronze Age archaeology...
Odysseus Unbound is full of hypotheses and hunches, assumptions and leaps of faith...
Things get no better when Bittlestone speculates about evidence from the
Mycenaean Greek Linear B tablets. He proposes impossible interpretations
and admits that he did not even bother to consult the second greatly expanded
and improved edition of the main Linear B handbook, Documents in Mycenaean
Greek (1973). He gets by with the 1956 edition..."

By saying that OU doesn't have enough "scholarly rigour," that Diggle's interpretations "conform, as well as they can" to the Paliki identification, and that the handling of bronze age evidence is sub-par, Palaima clearly indicates that he doesn't agree with Bittlestone's identification and that aspects of the book's methodology are poor. (To be fair, he does praise the book for its vivid and engaging writing.)

That's four expert opinions, three of which disagree with the identification, and another (Beard) which agrees with the possibility of the Paliki identification, but disagrees with the detailed identification of Ithacan sites.

Now, I'll quote the Wikipedia article on the NPOV policy:

The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views,
these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view
are presented, ...

The current article, in my opinion, doesn't meet this policy, as the main text doesn't note any alternative ideas of where Homeric Ithaca was, nor does it mention any disagreement with Bittlestone's work. And I think it's fair to say that it asserts the identification rather than presenting it. And I don't mean to be rude, but your comments that the identification is the "leading hypothesis" and that this article isn't concerned with "past controversies about erroneous locations" add to my impression that you're not interested in reporting this theory neutrally.

On methodology: what do you think is new in the methodology of this work? You haven't explained that in the comments or in the article. (And please note, when I wrote "As currently written, the philological method described is 'we translated the Odyssey, made a list of some places it describes, and found them'", I was describing what this article said, not what OU does.) As far as I'm aware, Diggle doesn't claim that he's doing anything new methodologically. In fact, I wouldn't expect him to: philology is the most conservative part of classical studies, and methodological innovation isn't exactly encouraged there. None of the expert reviewers mention anything innovative in Diggle's philology; and speaking as someone with professional experience in this area, I'll say that I don't see any new method here.

If I may request a direct quote from you, how about one where Diggle says he's using a new method? If there's something new in the methodology, then the article ought to say so, explicitly. But you might want to compare the philological procedure to that of Luce, Stubbings, and Berard--not to mention Latacz on Troy. Unless I've missed something, Diggle's technique does not differ significantly from those scholars, or what classical scholars usually do in trying to determine the meaning of confusing passage in a classical text. Let me emphasize that one can reach new results without employing new methodology.

On transmission of texts: first of all, the transition from manuscript to print to digital isn't very relevant in this article, nor are the Hugo or Eliot quotes. The questions of whether Homer was composing fiction or fact, etc. are much larger than the identification of Ithaca, and are perennial ones in Homeric studies, and therefore should be discussed at Homer or Homeric scholarship or Historicity of the Iliad. Or at Homer's Ithaca, which ought to be more comprehensive than this Paliki article, but seems to be more of an afterthought.

If you're going to maintain that the Paliki theory is a paradigm shift, which it seems you are, could you please address the issue of incommeasurability? How is this theory as radical a change as, say, the Copernican Revolution? Perhaps it's not necessary to address this, though, because I don't think the "paradigm shift" idea is relevant to whether this page is NPOV or not.

Anyway, I have placed a Request for Comment, which will perhaps get some more participants in here...

what is this even about?

the geographical article on Paliki should obviously be seperate from all this Homeric stuff, whatever the merits of the latter. What are the geographical templates doing on this article? dab (ᛏ) 09:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

ok, this article was in serious need of focus. It is about a specific hypothesis, "Paliki = Ulysses' Ithaca", as put forward in the Odysseus Unbound book. I removed all offtopic stuff that properly belongs on Trojan War, Homeric scholarship or Odyssey, as well as the more misguided categorization, and moved the article to the book title. Paliki should of course be the article about the peninsula itself, and now links to this article. dab (ᛏ) 09:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is not about Paliki geography: it is about the new archeological discoveries of Homeric sites, on Paliki, which correspond to descriptions of Odysseus' home there, in the Odyssey. The geographical templates point to those sites.

The article is not a book review, either. The Bittlestone/Diggle/Underhill study, announced by their book, establishes the current leading hypothesis about the location of Homer's "Ithaca", as described in the Odyssey: the article is about the philology and geology and archaeology which are going into that ongoing study -- none of which is covered by, or belongs in, the other articles you mention.

So please reverse your edits: read the discussion/talk, and its archive, and contribute there. If we can agree on some changes, then let's by all means make them; but you've moved the article & done your edits here without discussing with anyone, which to me seems pretty un-democratic and against Wikipedia policies.

--Kessler 16:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that if, as you say, Paliki is the leading location hypothesis for Homer's Ithaca, there can well be a section dedicated to it on Homer's Ithaca. Discussion of the geology etc. of the peninsula of course belongs on Paliki, the article about the peninsula itself. dab (ᛏ) 16:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough room for a description of the Paliki discovery, in the Homer's Ithaca article: that already-very-full page lists various theories proposed, historically, for the location of "Ithaca" -- 17 of them among the "credible", now, plus several not-so-credible, and there have been many others which I hope will be added -- a reference already exists there to the "Odysseus Unbound" book. And "discussion of the geology etc. of the peninsula" is not the interest, here: only the geographic locations of the identified archaeological sites, and precise philological issues surrounding those, and the geology specifically related to the new "Ithaca" discoveries, on Paliki -- that is why I would like to see the "Paliki, Homer's Ithaca" article restored, which addressed all of these closely-related matters of the discovery, together and specifically.

So I disagree with you, as I have here before, although I welcome this chance this time to discuss changes in advance. But you made the decision, dab, urged on by the anonymous user here who calls himself "Akhilleus", to turn this article into a book review: if you decide now to reduce it further, to mere notes in other articles, I cannot stop you this time either -- you are an Administrator.

I can point out to you again, though, how arbitrary all of this is. The "Paliki, Homer's Ithaca" article was alive for only 2 1/2 weeks, from February 26 when I wrote it until March 13, when you qua Administrator cut it down and turned it into a book review. During that short time I don't know how many people actually were able to see the article, but it was "discussed" by only 3 of us editors: discussions with one were productive and resulted in several changes -- the other was this guy "Akhilleus" who, if you'll read the archives here, does not really discuss but simply insists on his own POV. Then when he contacted you for support, you yourself just went ahead and changed things without discussing at all.

The "book review" which you made out of the article, and which per the above you now do seem willing to discuss, has been online for only 5 days, but already you appear to want to cut it further and even eliminate it entirely. So I say even this article should be left standing some while longer, to give others a chance to see and discuss it, as I said to "Akhilleus" before, as well: leave up the book review article which you made at least, then, although it still does not address the archaeology and other issues of the former "Paliki, Homer's Ithaca" article -- and I still believe that former article ought to be restored and better-"discussed".

It's my own opinion that, for this new discovery of the home of Odysseus, chief figure in one of Western civilization's oldest and most significant cultural texts, all this fuss by "Akhilleus" is ridiculous: Troy has its own Wikipedia article, so does Mycenae, so ought this new site -- it can't be called "Ithaca" because there is another island nearby already claiming that name, and it can't be called "Paliki" because Wikipedia already has a large "tourism" article bearing that name, so Paliki, Homer's Ithaca to me still seems suitable for an article devoted entirely to this very exciting and significant new archaeology.

Beyond my own opinion, though, your reply to me, when I protested to you here initially, was that "Wikipedia is not a democracy": you directed me to WP:NOT which declares Wikipedia's "primary method of finding consensus is discussion"... But there are some very big differences between "democracy" and "being democratic"... And your own Wikipedia-policy "discussion" hasn't even taken place, in this instance: you didn't "discuss" your changing the article into a book review -- instead you relied on this "Akhilleus", who puts himself forth as some sort of classicist, although he himself doesn't "discuss", and he hides behind his Wikipedia anonymity while he badmouths recognized classical scholars such as James Diggle and Gregory Nagy.

So, as I said earlier to you, I think you've backed the wrong horse, in this very POV "Akhilleus" guy, and that you've mistakenly created a POV situation which perverts your own NPOV policy: give us back our "Paliki, Homer's Ithaca" article and leave it up there for a while and let some more of us really discuss it -- per your own WP:NOT -- or at least leave your own current "book review" article alone for a while longer. And tell "Akhilleus" to let some other folks talk. Wikipedia is missing one of the major archaeological events of both this and the last century, in not even looking at the Paliki discoveries, now, or letting them be looked at, much less allowing their discussion -- and Wikipedia's good reputation for at least "being democratic", moreso than the elitist encyclopedias which it hopes to replace, is very much at stake in all of this, I believe. Even if it isn't, as you said, a "democracy"...

--Kessler 20:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

ps. I can't seem to get to "/Archive1" to the discussion/talk history, here: at either of the links offered above, both of which lead to empty pages. Do you know where it went? / would you please restore? That's where what substantive discussion which did take place of all this is. If you need a copy I have one and simply could paste it in?

--Kessler 20:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)