Guild Wars 2

The Jotun may be considered useful for the information they have provided regarding the Elder Dragons, but their lore is otherwise discredited within the Durmand Priory. For the Priory, one of the most authoritative sources of knowledge about the Elder Dragons is Jotun stelae – written documentation of ancient origin. Given the age of this information, the Priory no doubt considers it to be credible particularly in comparison to the Jotun oral tradition which, due to the nature of spoken language, can leave historians playing Tyrian whispers. But just how accurate is the Jotun written documentation?
As you can imagine, recovering the written documentation of a xenophobic race is one thing – but deciphering their language is quite another. There are only so many ways that this can be done. One of the first ways would be to approach the Jotun directly for assistance. Although you might find Jotun willing to assist in the translation of the stelae, the reliability of the work would be subject to the extent to which the language has changed. And changed it may have, given that the Jotun stelae could be as much as 10,000 years old. But for the sake of simplicity, let’s argue that the contemporary Jotun language is reliable enough to provide an accurate translation.
The problem with conceding that the contemporary Jotun language is a reliable translating tool is that it demonstrates that even though the language is now predominantly oral it has nonetheless retained its integrity throughout the generations, suggesting that any forms of knowledge – whether preserved in written or spoken language – retained by the Jotun are probably also reliable in the sense that they have not changed. This does not mean, however, that the stories contained in the oral tradition are not fabrications, merely the details first fabricated have not changed. Thus, we could argue that an influential Jotun made this up, but that the original content of the tale is intact.
This is of particular importance when we consider the roles that both Thruln The Lost and Elder Thruln play in helping us form an understanding of the reliability of any knowledge about Jotun history passed onto us from modern Jotun.

The first (apparent) problem with these two sources is that they appear to be providing differing explanations about why the Jotun declined. Furthermore, they do not refer us to any written sources, suggesting that we are receiving either 1) the version of events preserved within the oral tradition or 2) a modified version of events. in this regard, Elder Thruln is probably the more reliable of the two sources. He is typical Jotun – xenophobic and so more likely to tell a tale uniquely Jotun in its perspective. For example, whereas Thruln The Lost speaks of the Six Human Gods (indicating that he has rudimentary knowledge of at least one other culture’s gods), Elder Thruln makes no mention of them.
However, Thruln The Lost’s account should not be so easily dismissed.

@ OP:

What you described is true of any ancient documentation. History is mostly not subject to the scientific method so the way our RL historians deal with the infinite amount of possibilities that may or may not be true is to measure them against what they developed and call a ‘historical standard’.

What that standard is a comprehensive turn of events and accepted truths that historical evidence seems to support. Alternate theories may arise but ultimately, those theories need to be backed up by the evidence. Understanding that simply playing devils advocate is an effort in futility because most of history is not subject to the scientific method. So the historical standard comes into play.

e.g.: How do we know that George Washington existed? We have no photographs, or DNA history of a confirmed George Washington prior to DNA technology or carbon daring of documents. What we do have is trusted documentation and references to the historical figure called George Washington, as well as major historical acts attributed to him. So while a devils advocate may say, “He may have been created as a hoax early on by our Founding fathers”, the evidence seems to suggest that there actually was a real figure and there is enough evidence that George Washington not existing probably isn’t true.

Stephen.6312:

The first (apparent) problem with these two sources is that they appear to be providing differing explanations about why the Jotun declined. Furthermore, they do not refer us to any written sources, suggesting that we are receiving either 1) the version of events preserved within the oral tradition or 2) a modified version of events. in this regard, Elder Thruln is probably the more reliable of the two sources. He is typical Jotun – xenophobic and so more likely to tell a tale uniquely Jotun in its perspective. For example, whereas Thruln The Lost speaks of the Six Human Gods (indicating that he has rudimentary knowledge of at least one other culture’s gods), Elder Thruln makes no mention of them.
However, Thruln The Lost’s account should not be so easily dismissed.

This^ is a great point. We only encounter problems in the Jotun telling of history when we ignore the fact that they are not giving us imperical truths. What they are giving us is events as the jotun saw them. Which is the only thing any true historical accounting can provide from any one people.

Thruln The Lost is alone in Hoelbrak. Unlike the typical Jotun narcissist, Thruln The Lost is openly associating with other races. He is familiar with the Norn; he is familiar with humans. Given that myriads of player-characters have conversed with him, it is just as likely that he is familiar with the Asura, Charr and Sylvari too. Moreover, he seems somewhat ashamed of the current state of his people. Having noted these things, it seems unusual that Thruln The Lost would provide his version of events to promote the Jotun – in other words, his motives seem sincere.

I also think that Occum’s Razor plays a large part in validating the jotun’s written documents (And RL historical documents). We can assume that they weren’t true when they were written down but that would require assuming that an influential jotun made them up before they were written down. Occum’s razors states “that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.” Whereas assuming that they are true until there is actual evidence against their truth is the simplest and most logical route.

Thruln the Lost proves to be false about some things he brings up. While we cannot be certain that the Six had dealings with jotun, we know that his claims for the humans are fully false – both in how they were when arriving on Tyria, their relationship to the gods, and their relationship to the jotun is also likely but the first two are certainly wrong. Furthermore, we have far more reports than Elder Thruln backing him up over Thruln the Lost about the fall of the jotun. Go explore Dredgehaunt Cliffs and you’ll find some of them.

Also there is the matter if magic. The Six did nog remove it, the Seers did. Though it seems they may have regained some as per the quaggan personal storyline where you can go retrieve some powerful magic to fuel a quaggan ritual.

Stephen.6312:

Thruln The Lost is alone in Hoelbrak. Unlike the typical Jotun narcissist, Thruln The Lost is openly associating with other races. He is familiar with the Norn; he is familiar with humans. Given that myriads of player-characters have conversed with him, it is just as likely that he is familiar with the Asura, Charr and Sylvari too. Moreover, he seems somewhat ashamed of the current state of his people. Having noted these things, it seems unusual that Thruln The Lost would provide his version of events to promote the Jotun – in other words, his motives seem sincere.

Even if Thruln the Lost had the best of intentions (and I’m pretty sure that he added the norn to the story purely so he’d get sympathy from them) an oral tradition in a society where saying the wrong thing to your chief is liable to get you killed is, by nature, highly suspect. Even if Thruln the Lost honestly believes in what he’s saying, who knows how many of his predecessors have found it prudent to shift the blame of the jotun fall onto a third party?

Regarding jotun writing – it’s mentioned in one of the heart events that the jotun have forgotten their own writing system. So the only help living jotun can provide there is to give their modern language as a starting point. (Odds are, the Priory research into jotun history has relied more on magic than the techniques used to decipher ancient script in the real world.)