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

161–170 of 274 posts

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#161

Post by klausa »

protocolture wrote: post #146
zamadatix wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different strokes for different folks. I think they are just used to the common trope of people immediately telling them because one aspect of a movie/film/play is unrealistic they shouldn't care if the entire thing is nonsense. Vice versa though, nobody should mind others enjoy or make such content, beyond these kinds of statements that it's not for them. I also more often enjoy films which sit between "100% realist…

>I also more often enjoy films which sit between "100% realistic/accurate" and "anything goes" than either extreme itself. 100% realistic/accurate and it tends to already be known unless it's relatively bland. 100% anything goes and it can still be good but there is a high risk it ends up feeling like every other "anything goes" movie of the same topic. In between you can often get the best of both worlds - something…

>I think that Nolan sells himself (The online worship can hardly all be organic) as an authentic, technical director interested in accurate physical props.

I'm not a huge Nolan-discourse-insider, but that seems like a pretty bizarre reputation to have for someone who's famous for directing three Batman movies, Inception, Interstellar and Tenet?

Is this reputation just because of Oppenheimer?

I haven't seen Dunkirk (and I'm not a WWII buff so couldn't tell if they used right planes/boats/guns/uniforms/whatever even if I tried), but even a short blurb on Wikipedia talks about a "balance historical accuracy with aesthetics that would favour the film stock".

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#162

Post by protocolture »

xdennis wrote: post #154
protocolture wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

No I legitimately don't care about those things. They could cast the smurfs if they had a cool period boat and nice period armor.

You are the one who has some weird race based conditioning where you are hyper-vigilant where it comes to race and need to act offended about it.

Seek medical assistance.

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#163

Post by raffraffraff »

moi2388 wrote: post #157
airstrike wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In time, not space.

Well, if space is expanding and earth is revolving and spinning around the sun which is spinning around the milkyway which is moving through space then.... Was it really close in space either?

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#164

Post by Fezzik »

xdennis wrote: post #154
protocolture wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

I’m just offended Helen isn’t depicted as having goose parts. After-all, Zeus was a goose when he seduced Leda, and Helen hatched from an egg. Some part of her must be goosey.

Edit: I meant swan. My recollection of mythology is rusty.

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#165

Post by tsimionescu »

dyauspitr wrote: post #159
defrost wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

No, it just suggests that to call Achilles "macho" is extremely weird. And the GP didn't even mention his extreme emotionality at the death of his lover, Patrocles, which is like half his plot in the Illiad.

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#166

Post by vkazanov »

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…

Most people kind of merge the kingdoms together, while every kingdom is unique in both the culture and, say, external influence. And the late period is quite long as well.

There is a very strong connection between periods, of course. But 2500+ years of ancient egypt is a very long damn time. All of our modern history is, say, 3k years, starting with greeks, early chinese , india and all.

But egypt to me is like a star in the vast ocean of nothingness of early history. We know NAMES and DEEDS of people who lived 4500 years ago. We see things they've built, we can read words they wrote.

This is amazing.

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#167

Post by dmos62 »

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…

The pyramids aren't actually datable, because it's rock. Maybe if you were to find something with carbon that's provably from the time of construction, that could be used, but I don't think that happened. The popular datings for the older pyramids are educated guesses.

Edit: the Sphynx dating is even more controversial, because it seems to have rain erosion on it.

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#168

Post by maksimur »

mr3martinis wrote: post #120
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…

What is the “TFA” mummy?

TFA originally meant "The Fucking Article" but on HN seems to have morphed its meaning to "The Fine Article" or "The Featured Article". I can't stop reading it as the former every time I come across it.

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#169

Post by adastra22 »

dmos62 wrote: post #167
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…

The pyramids aren't actually datable, because it's rock. Maybe if you were to find something with carbon that's provably from the time of construction, that could be used, but I don't think that happened. The popular datings for the older pyramids are educated guesses. Edit: the Sphynx dating is even more controversial, because it seems to have rain erosion on it.

The construction work camps for the pyramids have been dug. There is also wood, an organic matter in the Kings chamber and mortar inside the pyramid, which can be dated.

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#170

Post by UberFly »

dmos62 wrote: post #167
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…

The pyramids aren't actually datable, because it's rock. Maybe if you were to find something with carbon that's provably from the time of construction, that could be used, but I don't think that happened. The popular datings for the older pyramids are educated guesses. Edit: the Sphynx dating is even more controversial, because it seems to have rain erosion on it.

Within the rock construction are wood beams, mortar and charcoal that are all datable.
Post reply on HN