Ask A Historian

[Minimalist]

Absolutely.  But the example given was Egyptian not English.  While the date of Beowolf is argued over the 8th century seems to gather the majority of the votes.  So going with that we are looking at a document which is 1,300 years old.

If you add 1,300 to 300 for the Rosetta Stone (being charitable and rounding off) you get 1,600 BC which is towards the end of the Second Intermediate Period.  The Middle and Old Kingdoms and the First Intermediate period are out of reach.  Its an amazing span of time.

[Pyrrho]

Yes.  And that is why great care should be taken, and why a gradual approach, at least superficially, seems best.  From understanding Egyptian hieroglyphics from 300 BCE, one should be extremely suspicious of an immediate jump to claiming to understand Egyptian hieroglyphics from 2000 BCE.  I hope (and since you are the historian here, maybe you can tell us what they did) that the people who profess to be experts on this did not try to make that leap in one go, and instead tried to gradually work their way back, unless they had something else to work with than just the Rosetta Stone.

I confess, I do not know the details of what has been done on this, as history is not my subject.  I hope (and, again, please tell us if this is a vain hope) that the historians and archaeologists working on this sort of thing, were responsible on their approach.  (Of course, I do not mean all of them, as that is absurd to suppose that everyone is reasonable, but only that the general approach has been reasonable.)

[Minimalist]

I've got to see if I can find something for you.  BRB, hopefully.

---

Okay - that didn't take too long.


A couple of years ago a big splash was made with the so-called Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon.  This piece of pottery had some writing on it in ink which right off the bat means trouble because ink fades and this thing faded badly.  Nonetheless the Israeli finder, Yossi Garfinkle not only declared the language to be "Hebrew" but claimed that it proved the whole fucking tale of David and Jerusalem.  Hint in archaeology:  Beware of big claims.  They are usually horseshit.

Now, leaving aside the fact that no less an epigrapher than Christopher Rollston has looked at this and not been able to determine what language it is that does not stop the bible thumpers from trying to force this into "Hebrew."  Below are two translations - presumably by people who think they can read this stuff - and after comparing their efforts you would swear they were reading different languages.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co...ption.html

But how certain are the contents of this inscription? Without having to know Hebrew or the finer points of Northwest Semitic epigraphy, we can detect the actual level of uncertainty just by comparing these translations:


A. Translation on John Hobbins’ website:

1 Do not do [anything bad?], and serve [personal name?]

2 ruler of [geographical name?] . . . ruler . . .

3 [geographical names?] . . .

4 [unclear] and wreak judgment on YSD king of Gath . . .

5 seren of G[aza? . . .] [unclear] . . .

B. Translation “provided by the University of Haifa”:

1 you shall not do [it], but worship the [Lord]. 

2 Judge the sla[ve] and the wid[ow] / Judge the orph[an] 

3 [and] the stranger. [Pl]ead for the infant / plead for the po[or and] 

4 the widow. Rehabilitate [the poor] at the hands of the king. 

5 Protect the po[or and] the slave / [supp]ort the stranger

First, notice THERE IS NO DAVID mentioned anywhere in this inscription. Judging by translation A, which mentions Gath, we could equally be exuberant that Assyrian historical claims have been amply confirmed by this inscription because the records (ca. 712/711 BCE) of Sargon, the Assyrian king, mention Gath. Hooray for Assyrian culture and religion!!!

If you aren't familiar with archaeological conventions, the existence of writing inside the brackets generally notes a guess by the translator.  The text itself is too poor to be read.

So here are two separate groups, trying to read this as Hebrew and coming up with radically different versions.


Chris Rollston tries to save their butts by pointing out that there is nothing which makes this out to be Hebrew at all which could explain why it doesn't read well.

https://www.academia.edu/591966/The_Khir...nd_Caveats

Attempting to determine the precise language of the Qeiyafa Ostracon is fraught withdifculties. Ultimately, the epigraphic data of Qeiyafa are not sufcient for a decision. To be sure, it can be stated that this inscription is Iron Age Northwest Semitic (based on thecombined data of the geographic region of the nd, the basic chronological horizon andthe script). Nevertheless, based on the epigraphic data itself, it is difcult to afrm morethan this. After all, there are no lexical elements that are diagnostic for a single language

We are looking at an inscription from the Iron Age I ( c 1200 - 1000 BC) or, to put it in context to the earlier discussion, two thousand years after the founding of Dynastic Egypt.

[Pyrrho]

Okay, whenever people are trying to prove something about their religion in archaeology, it is almost certainly horse shit.  Religionists do not apply proper standards to things pertaining to their religion, and so they cannot be trusted on such matters.

I seem to recall reading about some discovery of something like a house possibly owned by a fisherman named "Peter," and the idiots immediately assumed it must be the Peter of the Bible, without anything else to back up that idea, beyond the fact that it is in the right general area and possibly old enough.  As if only one man named "Peter" could be a fisherman.

(It could have been someone else; I am going from memory on this.  Which means it is still as reliable as the drivel put forth by religionists when they are pretending to do archaeology pertaining to their religion.  Or, if you prefer, it gives it an unreliability to make it more comparable with the pronouncements of religious archaeologists regarding artifacts purportedly relevant to their own religion.  But even so, I don't have the same firmness to my unreliable opinion, so there is still a significant difference.)

As far as archaeology and history goes, I only know enough to tentatively accept whatever the general consensus is among experts, excluding, of course, everything pertaining to their respective religions.  Thus, I am unconvinced of the historicity of Jesus (I have read some G.A. Wells), as nothing anyone has put forth is convincing to me.  And since most of the "experts" on the question are religious believers, their opinions on such matters carry no weight.  When someone goes into an investigation, already believing a particular point of view, it means nothing if they still have that point of view after the investigation.  Frankly, when I first looked into the question of the historicity of Jesus, I thought that there would be much more, and much better, evidence for the idea than there is.  It is shocking how little there is, given the certainty than many feel on the question.

That means, of course, disregarding lone voices on historical and archaeological matters, as it would require an investigation to know if they are right or not.  Normally, I don't bother, as it is not important enough for me to try to figure out minutiae of things so far removed from my life.

I hope that does not come off the wrong way, as I am glad that there are people who do devote themselves to such matters.  It is good to have experts, as one cannot know everything oneself.



Things are a bit different when looking at Egyptian hieroglyphics (as opposed to things pertaining to Christianity and Judaism), as most archaeologists are not believers in ancient Egyptian religion.  So there are not the same sorts of biasses at work.  Still, there are crackpots who are going to make ridiculous claims, and that is where the general consensus among the experts comes into play.

[Minimalist]

So there are not the same sorts of biasses at work.

Correct and it is a big factor.  Instead, they make the Egyptology story into a virtual religion and it becomes heresy to doubt.  When geologist Robert Schoch reported that intense rain had been a major factor in the erosion of the Giza plateau ( meaning that it had happened long before 4th Dynasty Egypt) one of them said something to the effect of "What does he know?  He can't even read Egyptian."

No.  But he read the rocks.


As far as the "house of Peter the fisherman" this is a little more xtian horseshit.  Honestly, there is no group of people who are so ready to bullshit themselves than xtians.  Excavators..who by the way were Franciscan monks, dug out an old church and found found the remnants of a house which dated to the first century BC.  Since a church was built over it they determined that it "must have been" Peter's house otherwise why would they build a church there?

On such shaky foundations is xtian bullshit based.


http://socrates58.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09...-been.html

Buried beneath the remains of an octagonal Byzantine martyrium church, excavators found the ruins of a rather mundane dwelling dating to the first century B.C.

Octagonal martyria were built to commemorate an important site, such as the original house of Peter that once stood here. The inner sanctum of the octagonal building was built directly above the remains of the very room of the first-century house that had formed the central hall of the earlier church. 

. . . Were it not for its association with Jesus and Peter, why else would a run-of-the-mill first-century house in Capernaum have become a focal point of Christian worship and identity for centuries to come?

Like I said - they are champions when it comes to bullshitting themselves.

[Pyrrho]

You should tell us more about history.  Whatever interests you.

Here is something you will like:



If I have to ask a question to get you to tell us something about history, I will make the above illustration relevant, and ask, how were people selected by the Romans for being exhibited in the Colosseum?

[Minimalist]

Check out the commentary of Seneca on first century "games."

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/gladiators.htm

The Roman philosopher Seneca took a dim view of gladiatorial contests and the spectacle that accompanied them. Interestingly, his criticism is not based on revulsion at the butchery he witnesses, but because the display is boring and therefore unworthy of the attention of a well-reasoned man. In a letter to a friend, he describes what he saw in the arena during the reign of Emperor Caligula:

[Minimalist]

Two things, Pyr.

When you ask any question about "How the Romans did x" you need to specify a "when."  Ancient Rome covers in excess of 1,000 years and they were not wedded to tradition.  In fact, one of their most striking qualities is the degree to which they incorporated great new ideas when they saw them.  The gladiatorial games originated in the mid 3d century BC as a funeral rite.  Three centuries later you get to what Seneca was talking about.

BTW, this fictional excerpt from "I Claudius" does touch on some issues which show up in sporadic Roman commentary although generally later than the Augustan period.







Second, I highly recommend this book. 

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/24/the_myth...ersecuted/

I wish I had an electronic copy because I'd be shoving it up the asses of all these xtian morons who are always whining about being persecuted.  Well worth the read if you can find it in a library or book store.

Moss also examines surviving Roman records. She notes that during the only concerted anti-Christian Roman campaign, under the emperor Diocletian between 303 and 306, Christians were expelled from public offices. Their churches, such as the one in Nicomedia, across the street from the imperial palace, were destroyed. Yet, as Moss points out, if the Christians were holding high offices in the first place and had built their church “in the emperor’s own front yard,” they could hardly have been in hiding away in catacombs before Diocletian issued his edicts against them.

[Pyrrho]

Okay, fair enough about the time period.  But I am interested in the evolution of it as well, so it is interesting to hear about it as a funeral rite.

As for the lack of much persecution of the Christians, I seem to remember reading about that elsewhere some years ago, but I do not recall what it was I read on that topic.  (Maybe it was an excerpt from Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.  Did he say something along those lines?)  It was in the days before everyone was online, so it has been a while.

Christians seem to always exaggerate the levels of persecution that they face.

[Minimalist]

The earliest mention of gladiatorial combat dates from 310 BC but it was the Romans' Campanian (Capua) allies who used gladiators to celebrate a triumph over the Samnites.  It is in Book IX of Livy's History.  Books 11-20 are lost but there is a recap, called a Periochae, of Book XVI which notes that it was Decimus Junius Brutus who was the first to organize gladiatorial games to honor his father in 264.  Again, the Romans were not loathe to borrow ideas from others.

Rome spent much of the rest of the 3d century at war with Carthage and given the hammer-and-tong nature of the fighting it is doubtful that they could have wasted much energy on public spectacles.  Until 207 they were seriously in danger of losing the 2d Punic War.  The Battle of the Metaurus turned that and in 202 was Zama and Carthage was done.  But, up to then, the Romans had gotten their asses kicked multiple times by Hannibal if not so much by the other Carthaginian commanders.