82 replies to this topic

[questionmark]

AsteroidX, on 01 January 2013 - 06:13 PM, said:

History is written by the victor. FACT not fiction.

Not quite correct, but a generally assumed fallacy.

[Van Gorp]

Proclus, on 01 January 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

After some radical Atlantis skeptics did repeatedly not understand under which circumstances it is scientifically supported and absolutely reasonable to "move" or "map" a date or place in an ancient story, I start now this thread.

The basic question is: Under which circumstances are you willing to accept that a place or date in an ancient story (Bible, Herodotus, Atlantis, whatever) has to be "moved" or "mapped" (however you want to call it) to another date or place, which is then the real date or place, the date and place really meant, the date and place the ancient text is really talking about?

Example: Herodotus talks of pharao Menes living 11340 years before, but modern science found that king Menes indeed lived approx. 3000 BC. So Herodotus' Menes is a reality, but the date has to be "moved" - as everybody can see, because of good reasons.

Example: Ancient geographers screwed up the place of far-away places like Britain. They thought it to be x miles away, but in reality there are y miles. Despite the error, Britain really exists! We only have to "move" the wrong placing to the right place. (And maybe Britain is much smaller than the ancients thought? Not a problem for us, Britain is anyway real, I hope you agree.)

So, what "good reasons" for such a "moving" of dates and places and sizes do you accept?
I am looking forward to your opinions!
Do you know other good examples?

Hi Proclus,

Interesting subject I think.  Fomenko like?

For me: I would give it all consideration, even if the approach is not believed being 'scientific' enough for others.
Let's call it circumstancial evidence feeling :-) For every one different when to accept I think.
For me, I'm not convinced that the accepted views are that scientific, merely conventional.  So not really bothered with that assumed science :-)

But common sense: why not.

For example: Tacitus, Plato, ...: when did they come from the shelve? -> See that timeframe for analogy in events described in those 'annals'.
A question in this: when exactly did Plato turned up the first time (copy or non copy)? Anybody an idea, I'm wondering if somebody can tell that, I don't.

Deplacements in time and place: let's take Tacitus' 'Germania' (you're living in Germany right?).
If these events describe events on the border of Gallia and Germania during the time when they showed up in the middleages: whole story of Germany (and Europe) can be interpreted otherwise.
Just a thought to reflect on, what the story might be. Some corresponding names that might cause confusing for the monks copying ;-)

Hamburg -> Hammes Boucres
Coln -> Coulogne
Bremen -> Brêmes
Danemark -> Dannes
Noorman -> Normandy

Just gave this example because of handled by Delahaye (notorious believer of deplacements/doublures in history, for others are his ideas not convincing or backed by enough evidence).

[Proclus]

questionmark, on 01 January 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

By a few hundred years back and forth, probably, especially those parts of history we know as the stone age. Most other dates (starting with the invention of scripture) are multiple corroborated so there is no need, and no sense, in shifting them anywhere. Within the shortest time its inaccuracy would be discovered.

And if you never have seen Menes dated as far as back as 5000 BC that must be because your knowledge about history as a science must be much more limited than what you think. Among others that was claimed by Champollion, Bokh and Mariette.

Some hundred years are ok for you but thousands not?
*smile*
You really really have not gotten the point. What a pity!

The Gentlemen Champollion etc. do not represent today's science ...

[questionmark]

Proclus, on 01 January 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

Some hundred years are ok for you but thousands not?
*smile*
You really really have not gotten the point. What a pity!

The Gentlemen Champollion etc. do not represent today's science ...

Which would shoot your pal Herodotus straight out of the water.

Quod erat demonstrando

[Proclus]

Van Gorp, on 01 January 2013 - 06:30 PM, said:

Interesting subject I think.  Fomenko like?

For me: I would give it all consideration, even if the approach is not believed being 'scientific' enough for others.
Let's call it circumstancial evidence feeling :-) For every one different when to accept I think.
For me, I'm not convinced that the accepted views are that scientific, merely conventional.  So not really bothered with that assumed science :-)

Thanks for your examples.
No, it's not Fomenko-like. It's ... yes, it's science! I really start to wonder about the people here in this forum. Looking for the historical circumstances which brought a certain text into life is crucial for a scientific view on ancient texts! You just cannot interprete them correctly without this!

Another example is the Manetho king list of Egyptian pharaos, an important basis for today's view of Egyptian history. It's handed down to us by Jewish-Christian writers who distorted this or that. What did they distort? Of course this depends which fits / fits not into their jewish-christian view! It's not that difficult to understand, is it?

[Van Gorp]

Though, I like Fomenko Find his approach no less scientific than all 'studies' around Plato.
When speaking about 'remapping' history, his work played a big role in helping to understand the necessity for this kind of open approach.

Proclus, on 01 January 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

...
Looking for the historical circumstances which brought a certain text into life is crucial for a scientific view on ancient texts! You just cannot interprete them correctly without this!
...

Couldn't agree more.

And therefore I'm still interested when/how did the legacy of Plato came to us for the first time? I can't find much information on it.
All is debated what he should or shouldn't have meant, should or shouldn't have been in what age etc.
Do we have first hand material of this 'figure', or only references by others that were 'discovered' some centuries later?

[Antilles]

No-one has mentioned the legends surrounding King Arthur. Hope it fits within the question you are presenting. Chretien De Troyes basically gave us the Arthurian legends as we know them, or at least the backbone. Those stories were then added to by the likes of Malory down to TH White. Personally I think Arturis has been successfully placed near the withdrawal of the Roman Empire from Britain around the 5th and 6th centuries AD. If there is a basis for Arturus in the Celtic legends such as Olwen, then how did a Roman Empire general end up at Avalon?

I think because the small bit of truth embedded in the historic figure was embellished and grew until when you get to Malory's time in the Middle Ages, people probably were looking for a great leader to save them from war and the plague and the French! And Malory probably wondered why he kept getting thrown into jail after a spot of raping and pillage.

[The Puzzler]

Proclus, on 01 January 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

After some radical Atlantis skeptics did repeatedly not understand under which circumstances it is scientifically supported and absolutely reasonable to "move" or "map" a date or place in an ancient story, I start now this thread.

The basic question is: Under which circumstances are you willing to accept that a place or date in an ancient story (Bible, Herodotus, Atlantis, whatever) has to be "moved" or "mapped" (however you want to call it) to another date or place, which is then the real date or place, the date and place really meant, the date and place the ancient text is really talking about?

Example: Herodotus talks of pharao Menes living 11340 years before, but modern science found that king Menes indeed lived approx. 3000 BC. So Herodotus' Menes is a reality, but the date has to be "moved" - as everybody can see, because of good reasons.

Example: Ancient geographers screwed up the place of far-away places like Britain. They thought it to be x miles away, but in reality there are y miles. Despite the error, Britain really exists! We only have to "move" the wrong placing to the right place. (And maybe Britain is much smaller than the ancients thought? Not a problem for us, Britain is anyway real, I hope you agree.)

So, what "good reasons" for such a "moving" of dates and places and sizes do you accept?
I am looking forward to your opinions!
Do you know other good examples?

On Herodotus, who I love reading and defend him when I can, because most of what he wrote was 2nd hand info, he records what he has been told and only makes a few assumptions himself - he tells us about the building of the pyramids and the Great Pyramid being built using iron and in the time frame of around 1100-900BC.

I found this pretty interesting and conducted a topic on it, to which kmt and others as well as reading as much as I could on the archaeology assurred me the Great Pyramid was built c. 2600- 2400BC - but still, rather intiguing the way Herodotus explains it and just pops it into that (much) later time frame....

Edited by The Puzzler, 02 January 2013 - 05:16 AM.

[docyabut2]

The Egyptians do have a very good records of history,  is why I change my theory of Tartesso as Atlantis to Crete and Santorina.The Egyptain priest does refered the war of Atlantis  to the mythical kings of Athens around the 15 hundreds bc, and a flood of destuction.

At Tell el Dab'a in Egypt, pumice found at this location has been dated to 1540 BCE, closer to the traditionally accepted date of Thera's eruption.

[the L]

Proclus, on 01 January 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

Herodotus talks of pharao Menes living 11340 years before, but modern science found that king Menes indeed lived approx. 3000 BC. So Herodotus' Menes is a reality, but the date has to be "moved" - as everybody can see, because of good reasons.

What are those good reasons? I dont know any.

[Proclus]

Van Gorp, on 02 January 2013 - 04:21 AM, said:

And therefore I'm still interested when/how did the legacy of Plato came to us for the first time? I can't find much information on it.
All is debated what he should or shouldn't have meant, should or shouldn't have been in what age etc.
Do we have first hand material of this 'figure', or only references by others that were 'discovered' some centuries later?

We have information by many on Plato, such as Xenophon, Aristotle, Theophrastus, etc.

The Puzzler, on 02 January 2013 - 05:14 AM, said:

I found this pretty interesting and conducted a topic on it, to which kmt and others as well as reading as much as I could on the archaeology assurred me the Great Pyramid was built c. 2600- 2400BC - but still, rather intiguing the way Herodotus explains it and just pops it into that (much) later time frame....

So, would you call it reasonable to say that Herodotus got a piece of true information which we today can combine with the right date?
This simply means "moving" the wrong date assumed by Herodotus to the right date we know today, for the pyramids, etc.

the L, on 02 January 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

What are those good reasons? I dont know any.

Imagine please, that somebody asks you: "I heard about this king Menes mentioned by Herodotus, but he dates him on 11340 or so years before which clearly is wrong, could you please give me a more proper idea on when this alleged king Menes mentioned by Herodotus most probably lived, if he lived?" - What is your answer? And why?

[the L]

Proclus, on 02 January 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

Imagine please, that somebody asks you: "I heard about this king Menes mentioned by Herodotus, but he dates him on 11340 or so years before which clearly is wrong, could you please give me a more proper idea on when this alleged king Menes mentioned by Herodotus most probably lived, if he lived?" - What is your answer? And why?

Since I dont know history of Egypt I would search for answer elsewhere.
I know he is from Old Kingdom. But what dynasty I would have to check.

Edit: 3100–3050 B.C

Edited by the L, 02 January 2013 - 12:12 PM.

[Proclus]

the L, on 02 January 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

Since I dont know history of Egypt I would search for answer elsewhere.
I know he is from Old Kingdom. But what dynasty I would have to check.

Edit: 3100–3050 B.C

Thus you have drawn a connection from the 11340-years-Menes of Herodotus to a date around 3000 BC.
This is what this thread is all about :-)

Does anybody disagree?

[Antilles]

Well, I 'll just remove my post.

Except I can't. So you're stuck with it.

Your English is pretty good but not conversational.

Edited by Antilles, 02 January 2013 - 01:21 PM.

[the L]

Proclus, on 02 January 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

Thus you have drawn a connection from the 11340-years-Menes of Herodotus to a date around 3000 BC.
This is what this thread is all about :-)

Does anybody disagree?

Im. Because I know what Herodotus didnt knew.
How come that he wrote 11340 instead of 3000?
Did they count years differently???