According to Iliad 2.645-670, in the direct vicinity of Egypt (notably 1000+ years before those mummies got wrapped) ships from Rhodes (Lindos, Ialysos and Kameiros) and also Crete had taken part in the Trojan War (Knossos and Gortyn, Phaistos and Rhytion).
Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy
41–50 of 274 posts
Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not that surprising. The earliest complete copies of many ancient texts is similarly dated. For example, the earliest copy of the Rg Veda is dated to about that age as well. It's hard to keep complete copies of big books.
As well, both the Iliad and Vedas are originally oral traditions. Likely there were different versions and different parts of the stories were emphasized to appeal to their audiences and local tastes and current events. Something that can still be apparent in historical texts but probably greatly reduced by the function of printed versions presenting a singular "authoritative version."
The Vedas are surprisingly uniform across a very long time period.
Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
People say this without any evidence. This ai-post is just regurgitating hn-thread "received wisdom". The evidence for the existence of a library is thin and hard to piece together, but points to more than a myth. I appreciate that people want real proof of anything, but dumping an ai-slop summary is hardly doing any better than accepting the existence of a large library.
The Library almost certainly existed. It is the destruction (by deliberate fire) that is probably myth.
Its destruction multiple times (in sieges and uncontrolled fires) is current historical consensus.
Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Library almost certainly existed. It is the destruction (by deliberate fire) that is probably myth.
Its destruction multiple times (in sieges and uncontrolled fires) is current historical consensus.
Historical consensus? So the non scientific view? Science is not consensus based.
Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its destruction multiple times (in sieges and uncontrolled fires) is current historical consensus.
Historical consensus? So the non scientific view? Science is not consensus based.
If you want to know what the science says on some topic, you have exactly two valid options:
1. Become an expert in said topic, reading the broad literature, becoming familiar with points and counterpoints, figuring out how research actually works in the field by contributing some papers of your own, and forming your own personal informed opinion on the preponderance of the evidence.
2. Look at the experts' consensus on said topic
Of course, you have other options. A popular one is to adopt the view of one expert in the field that you happen to like, who may or may not accept the consensus view - but this is far more arbitrary than 1 or 2.
Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy
#46So why would they bury a man with a book?
While the collection is now termed by modern scholars as "Book 2 of the Iliad", there was no such thing as a "book" as we know it, in those times; there were codices and scrolls and manuscripts, etc., and everyone's favorite: the palimpsest! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palimpsest
"Volume" means "scroll" in Latin.
"Book" has been used to translate the Latin word "liber", which is the word used by the Ancient Romans for the parts of a bigger document, each of which would have been written on a different scroll.
Latin "liber" was used to translate the Greek words "biblion" or "byblos", which are thus the oldest source of the word "book". "Byblos" originally meant papyrus in Greek, but later it was also used for the parts of a big document. A later form of this word, which was more specialized with the meaning of "material for writing" or "book", is "biblion" (a diminutive), having the plural "ta biblia" = "the books", which is the source of English "bible".
Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Historical consensus? So the non scientific view? Science is not consensus based.
If you want to know what the science says on some topic, you have exactly two valid options: 1. Become an expert in said topic, reading the broad literature, becoming familiar with points and counterpoints, figuring out how research actually works in the field by contributing some papers of your own, and forming your own personal informed opinion on the preponderance of the evidence. 2. Look at the experts' consensus…
As a Canadian I love the US, think of them as family, but also view them as some sort of relative which has lost their senses. Before most recent times, we'd sadly shake our heads, as this relative does weird things, yet still hope for the best for them. Yet while rambling blathers about invading Canada and compelling 51st statehood would be fondly tolerated in grandpa, not so much for a nation with a massive army and a joy in using it.
So I purpose we strengthen another aspect of American "democracy" that Canadians find amusing, the concept of "hiring people for popularity not competency". Americans, especially at the local level, vote for judges, police chiefs, even dog-catchers, so why not a local scientist! Rather than 1 or 2, we can conjoin this concept with your third option, yet with the officiousness that only a vote can provide!
Each municipality can have a local head scientist, which will proclaim what scientific fact is correct. People can vote on such candidates, and their platform of scientifically correct "things" during election time.
It will all work out very well for them I'm sure, and hopefully, with science thus democratized, perhaps they will be less of a threat over time.
(Sorry, I don't know why your comment made this pop into my head)
Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its destruction multiple times (in sieges and uncontrolled fires) is current historical consensus.
Historical consensus? So the non scientific view? Science is not consensus based.
Of course science is consensus based ... consensus is a fundamental part of the scientific process, which is conducted by a community of scientists. Consensus is the end result of attempts at reproducibility and falsification, of the ongoing process by which scientists challenge the claims and purported findings of other scientists. Without it, all you have are assertions from which people can pick and choose based on their biases (as we see, for instance, with people who deny climate or vaccine science by cherrypicking claims).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus
https://skepticalscience.com/explainer-scientific-consensus....
https://tomhopper.me/2011/11/02/scientific-consensus/
And even if you reject consensus as being essential to science, calling the consensus view "the non scientific view" is obviously mistaken, a basic error in logic.
This is all well understood by working scientists so I'm not going to debate it or comment on it further.
Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want to know what the science says on some topic, you have exactly two valid options: 1. Become an expert in said topic, reading the broad literature, becoming familiar with points and counterpoints, figuring out how research actually works in the field by contributing some papers of your own, and forming your own personal informed opinion on the preponderance of the evidence. 2. Look at the experts' consensus…
As a Canadian I love the US, think of them as family, but also view them as some sort of relative which has lost their senses. Before most recent times, we'd sadly shake our heads, as this relative does weird things, yet still hope for the best for them. Yet while rambling blathers about invading Canada and compelling 51st statehood would be fondly tolerated in grandpa, not so much for a nation with a massive army an…
Why not just have them vote on the truth. That would be very entertaining and keep them all busy
Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
People say this without any evidence. This ai-post is just regurgitating hn-thread "received wisdom". The evidence for the existence of a library is thin and hard to piece together, but points to more than a myth. I appreciate that people want real proof of anything, but dumping an ai-slop summary is hardly doing any better than accepting the existence of a large library.
The Library almost certainly existed. It is the destruction (by deliberate fire) that is probably myth.
[deleted]