Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

thehistoryblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 274 posts

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#91

Post by krapp »

jaldhar wrote: post #90
krapp wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're specifically talking about the British Empire and its attitude towards colonized people and cultures. I'm sure that Muslim Egyptians had their own prejudice, but Muslim Egyptian prejudice didn't inform British people's alienation and dehumanization of non-white cultures whereas white supremacy did. They didn't use mummies for firewood, to garnish their soup or grind them into paint because Egyptian Muslims cons…

It is as a student of history that the more I learn, the more I realize that The "White people did colonialism and everyone was sad" attitude I grew up with is simplistic when not flat out wrong. Egyptians (who were technically not part of the British Empire) were willing participants in the mummy trade. To ignore that is also dehumanizing.

But white people did do colonialism, and a lot of people were "sad." Genocide and slavery do tend to make people sad.

That the Egyptians were willing participants in the mummy trade doesn't somehow cancel out the nature or effects of British imperialism, any more than Africans participating in the slave trade cancels out chattel slavery.

But fine - "white people did colonialism and everyone was sad and Egyptians helped." Would that satisfy you?

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#92

Post by jaldhar »

krapp wrote: post #91
jaldhar wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is as a student of history that the more I learn, the more I realize that The "White people did colonialism and everyone was sad" attitude I grew up with is simplistic when not flat out wrong. Egyptians (who were technically not part of the British Empire) were willing participants in the mummy trade. To ignore that is also dehumanizing.

But white people did do colonialism, and a lot of people were "sad." Genocide and slavery do tend to make people sad. That the Egyptians were willing participants in the mummy trade doesn't somehow cancel out the nature or effects of British imperialism, any more than Africans participating in the slave trade cancels out chattel slavery. But fine - "white people did colonialism and everyone was sad and Egyptians help…

Sure. I’m not trying to whitewash colonialism just pointing out that it is a lot more complex than the standard anti-colonialist view would have you believe. E.g. in the context of Egypt, the Ottomans were also a colonial imperial power. To ignore that is also “White supremacist”.

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#93

Post by mistrial9 »

wavefunction wrote: post #37
mistrial9 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

those are certainly Christian curated documents. The previous six hundred+ years had seen the development of vivid and exotic religion, philosophy and arts. The Christians famously slew the Dragons, condemned Herod as a sorcerer and astrologer, and replaced the Apollo cults with the scripture that many know well. I imagine that the Library of Alexandria was plural and diverse with respect to the traditions and inquir…

The early Egyptian Christians were a particularly violent bunch. Lots of murders and political scheming against each other and other Christian authorities in the larger world of the Late Antique. They came to power in Alexandria by murder and looting, specifically

[dead]

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#94

Post by z3phyr »

oersted wrote: post #56
z3phyr wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Vedas are surprisingly uniform across a very long time period.

It's likely that there have been bottlenecks, where a single written version became the main common ancestor to copy from. Long after the oral tradition died down and other written versions were lost. Or because some patron decided to fund the dissemination of a particular copy, like Guttemberg or King James, or the Toledo School of Translators. Or because a particular heir of the oral tradition wrote it down, like H…

Could be but all across different regions across the subcontinent where the Vedas are orally recited, except for some technical tones and notes (which is the mechanical part of Vedic Sanskrit) there is little difference.

There are serious attempts made to write down the vedas. The thing is, historically, very few people learned all 4 vedas by heart; Instead different families recited very small part and passed the recitation as heirloom.

If you meet all those families and compile their recitation, it exactly matches to what we have from different earlier efforts of canonisation.

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#95

Post by IAmBroom »

kelnos wrote: post #24
AlexeyBrin wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many cultures bury their dead with objects that the person enjoyed during their lifetime. This is present even today, I saw a burial in Eastern Europe where the parents put a game of chess and toys in the coffin. While it will do no good to the deceased my theory is that it is a way for the living to deal with the loss.

Well, sure. All of our death rituals are for the living left behind, not for the dead.

The religiously faithful would disagree somewhat, but not I.

I wonder, however, why such Christians (for example) think a prayer for the soul of the deceased would alter God's plan in any way. "Gee," he says to Michael, who happens to be flying nearby, "John Doe was a dirtbag sinner, but that was a really nice funeral mass... Screw what I said in Scripture; let him in!"

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#96

Post by IAmBroom »

quantummagic wrote: post #12
horsh1 wrote: post #10

So why would they bury a man with a book?

Why do we bury men in a suit?

It's actually a modern innovation, AFAIK. Common people were stripped and wrapped in linens (or equivalent). Obviously, mummy wrapping would be the extreme example of it, but wills often designated who would inherit "my best tunic", because the clothes were quite valuable if still wearable.

I'm speaking of the common people; kings and bishops were buried in finery. And it's not universal by any means. In times of disaster or plague bodies were buried quickly in their current clothes. This leads to some interesting finds, as when all that remains of an entire outfit is the silk stitching and things like metal buttons.

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#97

Post by jibal »

bluGill wrote: post #76
tsimionescu wrote: post #45

Earlier 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…

If you are not in the field, consensus is often almost impossible to figure out. Remember what gets published is things that are controversial. Thus, things that have consensus are things that are going to be silent in literature if you search for it. Thus, if you're searching for something, you may not actually find the consensus if you're looking, and so the study is hard when you're not already an expert.

This is quite false and the opposite of what is actually true. Textbooks and other teaching materials are entirely based on consensus science, surveys report on consensus, meta-analyses identify consensus, the abstracts of novel studies lay out the consensus that they are reconfirming, adding to, or challenging. Your statements about "what gets published" and "things that are going to be silent" are completely nonsensical and have no relationship with reality. There isn't a single field where there is a consensus where I can't immediately find out what it is.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

"Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the vast majority of active, qualified experts on a conclusion in a specific scientific discipline.[1] Scientific consensus results from the self-correcting scientific process of peer review, replication of the event through the scientific method, scholarly debate, meta-analysis, and publication of high-quality review articles, monographs, or guidelines in reputable books and journals to establish facts and durable knowledge about the topic."

The whole point of that publication is to make the "durable knowledge" accessible.

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#98

Post by jibal »

b112 wrote: post #47
tsimionescu wrote: post #45

Earlier 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…

Consensus in science has nothing to do with voting. It's a consequence, not a cause, and arises when the accumulated evidence is clear enough and unambiguous enough that there is general agreement among experts in the field--that is, those who are intimately involved in the production and tracking of that evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#99

Post by sashank_1509 »

Tanoc wrote: post #88
Starlevel004 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were actually eaten (in the early modern era) or ground up for paint.

Most commonly used for paint or to colour bricks, yes. It's disgusting, but the British and Italians didn't really care at that point because anthropology and archaeology were not respected professions in the 1820s. They were just hobbies of wealthy gentlemen who liked to travel. Most disturbing is that apparently people kept using them for paint up until the last supplier ran out of mummies sometime around 1960. Yes…

Was there no fear of being haunted by spirits?

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#100

Post by baud147258 »

I am a little disappointed the tomb where the mummy was found is from the time where Egypt was part of the Roman Empire. At this point ancient Egypt had been a colony of Rome for quite some time and beforehand a Greek/Macedonian colony for a few more centuries (under the Ptolemaic dynasty, founded by a general of Alexander the Great). If it was from a previous era, it would have been a much more interesting find (in my eyes).
Post reply on HN