RE: Personification in Greek Myth
March 7, 2017 at 8:02 am
(This post was last modified: March 7, 2017 at 8:13 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Fun aside, Thor Heyerdahl actually built a second, less famous but infinitely more capable boat, Ra (and Ra2)......based on his interpretation of a type of craft seen regularly in heiroglyphs. A very large bundled reed ship. He noted that the ship appeared to have a dagger board and basic lateen rig. These two things, and the size of the ship (all explained as artistic flourishes for the longest time) made no sense, to his mind, in the case of a small river barge.
So he put together a team to build and sail it. Seven people, limited experience. They made it across the atlantic, from morocco to Barbados. They even used period appropriate storage on deck, clay amphora and whatnot. I think he should have tried to sail one back the other direction, but at least it showed the general seaworthiness of the vessel. The book he wrote about it is good. Particularly a passage wherein they describe the (then) growing pollution in the atlantic currents. A river of trash, he called it, lol. Made it easy to sail the canary current, though. Floatsam and jetsom presented themselves as a viable navigational aid (and would have at any time, though less pronounced than tons of garbage floating).
Now, he thought that the egyptians used these to sail to the americas, and from the americas to the pacific islands - thus the explanation for those civilizations. Turns out he was completely and emphatically wrong about that. He was right about it being a boat built for the sea, and not a river..though. They most likely never made it (or made it back) from some offcourse jaunt into the deep blue.....these boats could have navigated the Med with relative ease. Particularly island hopping, as the only major flaw of the boat was that long periods of being submerged could waterlog the reeds. A day or two pulled ashore every few days would have solved that. Long enough to unload, make arrangements for goods on a return leg, re-provision, wait for tides and wind....and then you're out again.
Thing I love about Heyerdahl, is that his ability to be painfully but admirably wrong was deliciously informative. He tried a bit of reverse syncretism himself, as the author of the book in question seems to have done. Grist for the mill, if only they could all do it like Heyerdahl did it, it would at least be entertaining.
So he put together a team to build and sail it. Seven people, limited experience. They made it across the atlantic, from morocco to Barbados. They even used period appropriate storage on deck, clay amphora and whatnot. I think he should have tried to sail one back the other direction, but at least it showed the general seaworthiness of the vessel. The book he wrote about it is good. Particularly a passage wherein they describe the (then) growing pollution in the atlantic currents. A river of trash, he called it, lol. Made it easy to sail the canary current, though. Floatsam and jetsom presented themselves as a viable navigational aid (and would have at any time, though less pronounced than tons of garbage floating).
Now, he thought that the egyptians used these to sail to the americas, and from the americas to the pacific islands - thus the explanation for those civilizations. Turns out he was completely and emphatically wrong about that. He was right about it being a boat built for the sea, and not a river..though. They most likely never made it (or made it back) from some offcourse jaunt into the deep blue.....these boats could have navigated the Med with relative ease. Particularly island hopping, as the only major flaw of the boat was that long periods of being submerged could waterlog the reeds. A day or two pulled ashore every few days would have solved that. Long enough to unload, make arrangements for goods on a return leg, re-provision, wait for tides and wind....and then you're out again.
Thing I love about Heyerdahl, is that his ability to be painfully but admirably wrong was deliciously informative. He tried a bit of reverse syncretism himself, as the author of the book in question seems to have done. Grist for the mill, if only they could all do it like Heyerdahl did it, it would at least be entertaining.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
