Writing Analytically, 6th Edition - Rosenwasser, David & Stephen, Jill.original_ [120]
Later in this unit of the book, we offer a whole chapter on the matter of using authorities as evidence (Chapter 13, Using Sources Analytically: The Conversation Model). In that chapter, we explain how to use—rather than just include and agree with—other writers on your subject. In the meantime, we offer the following passage from a student paper on ancient art. In it, you will see how the writer calls on the authority of his sources, putting them into evidence for his case, but also how he offers alternatives to their claims on the basis of his own review of the primary evidence (the art objects themselves).
Note that he does not simply import his sources’ claims but their evidence as well. Calling in the support of an authority, an expert witness, can be very useful, but it’s no substitute for logic: the fact that somebody has gotten a claim printed doesn’t mean it’s a good conclusion. Sharing the source’s evidence and reasoning with your readers will help them to understand your use of the source.
Notice as well how the writer is refereeing a range of possible interpretations by juxtaposing the ways that different experts theorize the significance of empirical evidence—such as their all having ears and all being naked females. (As noted earlier, the word “empirical” means capable of being observed, available to the senses; the word comes from the Greek word for experience.)
The paper from which we took the following excerpt is a study of a group of white marble statues from the Cycladic Islands in the Aegean Sea. Designated as part of the “Early Spedos” stylistic group, the statues date from 2700–2500 B.C. After a careful description of the figures themselves, the writer uses a blend of his own analysis and theories by art history authorities to speculate about the significance of the figures.
Excerpt from “Early Spedos Cycladic Idols”
The function of the figurines is still unclear; there is no specific accepted doctrine or theory on why these figures were created, though many hypotheses and interpretations have been offered. [Writer states problem.] It is commonly known that statues were placed facing the deceased, or the deceased were placed facing the statues in the tomb itself. Most statues are female in the folded arm pose, about hand size for perhaps a daily use, like a child’s doll, and accompanied tools and jewelry in the tomb. [Writer offers empirical analysis by summarizing potentially revealing details in the evidence. He next begins to cite the theories of three authorities on the function of the figures.]
Bigwood notes that, “The different qualities of the carving suggest that the sculptures were not just in the possession of an elite but were accessible to the whole culture” (250–251). Along with a widespread class base, figures occurred in tombs regardless of a person’s sex. With these facts in mind, a few theories on function seem more acceptable than others. Take Fitton, who states in her book,
Figures were put into graves for a variety of reasons. They [may have been] servants who would attend the dead in the after-life, sometimes with special roles—female figures [may have been] concubines, musicians who played for the deceased, and so on. Alternatively, they [may have been] personal possessions, thought to protect the owner in life before accompanying him or her to the grave. As such, they may represent their owners, or a deity (67).
In his book, Thimme suggests that the figures were conceived as images of divine beings and specifically intended for the grave: the female figures represent a divine mistress of life and death who will secure for the deceased rebirth in another world (42).
The occurrence of female figures in both women’s and men’s graves best suits Thimme’s hypothesis that the figures represent a being quite independent of the deceased, a divine or daemonic being (Thimme