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

151–160 of 274 posts

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#151

Post by adrianwaj »

The article sounds convincing enough, but discoveries can easily be faked, just like crop circles can be made by farmers using rake-like devices.

Luxor and Las Vegas = same thing.

Not trolling, but it's worth keeping this notion in mind. It's great for tourism and building mystique. At least when there is fakery, it's makes the real thing all the more valuable.

Fakery sells movie tickets - it can sell plane tickets too.

People still love Milli Vanilli - so many don't even care because it's just entertainment.

How much of history is real, how much is entertainment (and diversion) by vested interests and the "winners" ?

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#152

Post by dyauspitr »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #112
dyauspitr wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Would you be happier if they had cast the trans actor as the trans character (Tiresias), or would that also be a bridge too far?

Tiresias was magically turned into a woman. He may as well have been turned into a rabbit.

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#153

Post by dyauspitr »

xdennis wrote: post #150
vkou wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a non-trans person stars in a film, nobody calls it a 'straight-cis' ideological hit piece.

You can't have a 1.55m woman play the greatest Greek hero of all time. It's an insult to Greek culture. If Sydney Sweeney played Martin Luther King it would be equally insulting.

Somehow Sydney Sweeney playing MLK or Samuel L Jackson playing Adolf Hitler actually sounds interesting though.

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#154

Post by xdennis »

protocolture wrote: post #116
zulux wrote: post #102

>>If Christopher Nolan’s coming adaptation of the Odyssey happens to do well enough to get Hollywood back on its feet, A typical laconic reply works here: "If"

It looks pretty shonky. I dont care about the casting. But the costumes look like ass (One of the extras was saying he had fit into the same armor for a low budget sword and sandal film), they are using a viking longboat as a greek ship (have already seen half a dozen experts spitting chips over the difference in boat design). I just cant bring myself to care about the film. "Oh its a fantasy film" its set in a histo…

[flagged]

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#155

Post by michaelmrose »

dyauspitr wrote: post #152
AlotOfReading wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you be happier if they had cast the trans actor as the trans character (Tiresias), or would that also be a bridge too far?

Tiresias was magically turned into a woman. He may as well have been turned into a rabbit.

If a movie had a black actor in it would you say that the movie was about black ideology?

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#156

Post by dyauspitr »

MaxHoppersGhost wrote: post #135
defrost wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's literally just manufactured faux-concern about a rumour and a very very minor character role: Achilles does not actually appear as a living character in Homer's epic poem The Odyssey (as he dies in the Trojan War before Odysseus' journey home). However, in Christopher Nolan’s upcoming film adaptation, the character is rumored to make a brief appearance as a ghost in the Underworld. Viral rumors suggested Elliot…

Yeah he doesn’t appear as a living character in Homer’s poem but he does appear as a ghost in the poem when they visit the underworld (sorry for the spoilers). Not sure what difference it makes if Achilles shows up as alive or as a ghost but he is in the poem and it would be weird to have a non macho dude play Achilles. Regardless I think it’s a bullshit rumor and people are running with it. The sad thing is how beli…

I don’t think it’s a rumor. There’s literally a shot of her in the trailer.

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#157

Post by moi2388 »

airstrike wrote: post #140
brudgers wrote: post #110

Unearthed from a 1,600-year-old Roman-era tomb That's c. 400 AD. Closer to today, than to the time of King Tut...and King Tut was closer to the TFA mummy than to the First Dynasty. Ancient Egypt is really really old. The Great pyramid was 3000 years old at the time of the TFA mummy. The TFA mummy is about equidistant between today and the events of the Iliad and the book was already more than 1000 years old in 400 CE…

Obligatory "Cleopatra lived closer to the creation of the iPhone than she did to the building of the Great Pyramid"

In time, not space.

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#158

Post by pjmlp »

markdown wrote: post #131
hungryhobbit wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically a huge percentage of the historical documents we had came from "the garbage", and/or other cases of people reusing documents for other purposes. In large part this was because paper was incredibly expensive back then, so it got used for one purpose, used again for another, and that continued until you were out of room ... at which point it may get used yet again (for say mummy wrapping). Another classic ex…

Where I grew up, fish and chips was wrapped in actual newspaper.

Same with grilled chestnuts in Portugal, nowadays they use paper bags.

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#159

Post by dyauspitr »

defrost wrote: post #138
MaxHoppersGhost wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah he doesn’t appear as a living character in Homer’s poem but he does appear as a ghost in the poem when they visit the underworld (sorry for the spoilers). Not sure what difference it makes if Achilles shows up as alive or as a ghost but he is in the poem and it would be weird to have a non macho dude play Achilles. Regardless I think it’s a bullshit rumor and people are running with it. The sad thing is how beli…

> it would be weird to have a non macho dude play Achilles. Odd. Remind me, wasn't it Achilles who spent a couple of years cross dressing as a girl while hiding out to avoid a fight? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achilles_on_Skyros Buenos noches Senores y Senoras Bienvenidos La primera pregunta es: Que es mas macho, pineapple o knife? Well, let's see My guess is that a pineapple is more macho than a knife Si! Corre…

I hate these gotchas but I can’t resist and it’s on a flagged comment so no one is really going to see this. Are you saying trans people are just cross-dressers?

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#160

Post by michaelmrose »

xdennis wrote: post #150
vkou wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a non-trans person stars in a film, nobody calls it a 'straight-cis' ideological hit piece.

You can't have a 1.55m woman play the greatest Greek hero of all time. It's an insult to Greek culture. If Sydney Sweeney played Martin Luther King it would be equally insulting.

If Greek machismo were blemished by mere fiction it would always have been eggshell thin. I have a feeling it shall hold up just fine as it has for millennia.
Post reply on HN