Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
The Puzzler

Egyptian evidence in Australia

722 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Captain Risky
3 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

It's a picky point but valid. You don't use "hieroglyphics" to refer to the style of that script because it's a noun, not an adjective. I had the same thing pounded into me when I was studying hieroglyphs.

So if you're looking at, say, a sarcophagus with an inscription on it, you would say, "This inscription is composed of hieroglyphs." Or if you want to use the modifier, you'd say, "This is hieroglyphic writing."

So, yes, very picky, but valid. It kind of hints at the legitimacy of the training and background a person has. But you know what? I work with Egyptologists, and every once in a while I hear them say "hieroglyphics."

capture-jpg-700x.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
58 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

yeah I'm not a 100% on Troy either BUT the weird thing is that i watched this doco on the history channel that they found this ruined walled city in modern day Turkey that matches up with Homeric Troy. not saying that its Troy just that it is uncanny. the description of the city state Troy matches the Homer story.

I'm of the opinion that their is a little truth in every story. but its unimportant whether Troy is real or not its the identifiable factors like ethnicity, locations, thinking, reasons and personalities thats relevant to our discussion. generally i resist the urge to go off on tangents and i advice you to do the same and stick to the spirt of cordial discussion.   

nothing wrong with reading. i do it every chance i get. thanks. 

The tale behind Troy probably does contain a teeny-weeny kernel of truth about some distant, mostly forgotten battle between Mycenaeans and Anatolians—much embellished, exaggerated, and fanciful. This is typical of Greek lore, whether from the Bronze Age or Iron Age. The site in Turkey which you saw on TV is almost certainly modern Hisarlik. Many believe this to be the historical Troy (though not everyone). The main problem is, this site has been traced through its occupation layers all the way back to prehistory, and the layer most suitably concurrent with the historical Troy contains no tangible evidence linking it to a great battle. I believe they recovered all of one arrowhead.

The story itself was devised in the Iron Age but has a Bronze Age setting. Homer (whoever he really was) basically forced his own world into what he thought the Bronze Age might have been. So whatever kernel of truth the story might possess, it's essentially unrealistic.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
6 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

capture-jpg-700x.jpg

I've heard the occasional visitor at the museum call them "hydroglyphs." Eesh!

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
50 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

you do realise that when that phrase was coined the horse was the dominate mode of transport? welcome to 2018 and the car. i wonder when we finally get autonomous vehicles and car ownership is a thing of the past whether the expression will be...

...and the rideshare company you used. ;)

Homer lived more than 600 years after the events described in Troy. Whatever the genesis of the story, he would've relied on oral transmission, which is an exceedingly poor mode of historical transmission. Without a doubt, whatever Troy was (or wasn't), we certainly know more tangible facts about the Bronze Age than Homer ever did. His story confirms that. He relied on story telling. We have archaeology, epigraphy, philology, and other disciplines. There is no comparison.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
13 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

The tale behind Troy probably does contain a teeny-weeny kernel of truth about some distant, mostly forgotten battle between Mycenaeans and Anatolians—much embellished, exaggerated, and fanciful. This is typical of Greek lore, whether from the Bronze Age or Iron Age. The site in Turkey which you saw on TV is almost certainly modern Hisarlik. Many believe this to be the historical Troy (though not everyone). The main problem is, this site has been traced through its occupation layers all the way back to prehistory, and the layer most suitably concurrent with the historical Troy contains no tangible evidence linking it to a great battle. I believe they recovered all of one arrowhead.

The story itself was devised in the Iron Age but has a Bronze Age setting. Homer (whoever he really was) basically forced his own world into what he thought the Bronze Age might have been. So whatever kernel of truth the story might possess, it's essentially unrealistic.

when it comes to a story 3200 years old who can decide what is fact or fiction. the thing is that even if fiction then Homer and the tale generally would have to be sellable and relatable and so like we've both said some facts or historical accuracy would have been used. its a great story that imparts wisdom and the nature of things in a way that after 3200 years we can still relate too. 

what i love most about the ancient Greek legends and mythology is how fallible both Gods and Hero's are. Gods have human like desires and feelings (yes they get hurt feelings too...lol). they make mistakes and generally apart from their divinity are human. the melding by Homer of man and gods is what brings this to life in such a way that's real like. ask anyone on the street whether the Trojan war happened and they'll prolly say yes even though their is no proof. but no truth doesn't mean that it might not have happened. alas like all stories there is an element of Chinese whispers and that is how i view Homers story.  something that has ben changed over the years.

Bolded: honestly i don't see anything unrealistic in the story anymore that one would expect from the mind or actions of bronze age peoples. an entertaining story none the less. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
11 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

Homer lived more than 600 years after the events described in Troy. Whatever the genesis of the story, he would've relied on oral transmission, which is an exceedingly poor mode of historical transmission. Without a doubt, whatever Troy was (or wasn't), we certainly know more tangible facts about the Bronze Age than Homer ever did. His story confirms that. He relied on story telling. We have archaeology, epigraphy, philology, and other disciplines. There is no comparison.

i'm inclined to dismiss what you've said but i wanna know exactly what you mean by we know more about the bronze age than Homer did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
10 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

i'm inclined to dismiss what you've said but i wanna know exactly what you mean by we know more about the bronze age than Homer did. 

Simple really, Homer lived in one small corner of one Grecian city state.

we have records of and data from the whole world, give or take, from thst period. QED we have more data than Homer did.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
10 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Simple really, Homer lived in one small corner of one Grecian city state.

we have records of and data from the whole world, give or take, from thst period. QED we have more data than Homer did.

what do you mean "we have data" i also have access to that data and i can't see anything other than the the story being an description of a war between to different countries yet with many similarities between them. Homer described things like war chariots that would have played a bigger part in bronze age battles as opposed to Iron age encounters. encounters with one on one combat which more a bronze age thing. Homer correctly describes the political power structure of the bronze age time. look, outright dismiss Homer at your own peril.    

Edited by Captain Risky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
22 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

i'm inclined to dismiss what you've said but i wanna know exactly what you mean by we know more about the bronze age than Homer did. 

What Sir Hats said is a big part of it. Think about it. What was Homer's source for historical narratives? Word of mouth, oral transmission. It's like the Chinese whispers you mentioned: the more the whispering goes on, the farther from the original facts one gets. Homer lived in his little spot of the Greek world and turned oral traditions into a written form. We have a whole host of modern historical disciplines by which we can dissect and accurately interpret hisotry. There is no realistic way Homer knew more about the Mycenaean world than we do. It's the same as how we know far more about Early Dynastic Egypt than, say, someone from the time of Ramesses II ever did.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
1 minute ago, kmt_sesh said:

What Sir Hats said is a big part of it. Think about it. What was Homer's source for historical narratives? Word of mouth, oral transmission. It's like the Chinese whispers you mentioned: the more the whispering goes on, the farther from the original facts one gets. Homer lived in his little spot of the Greek world and turned oral traditions into a written form. We have a whole host of modern historical disciplines by which we can dissect and accurately interpret hisotry. There is no realistic way Homer knew more about the Mycenaean world than we do. It's the same as how we know far more about Early Dynastic Egypt than, say, someone from the time of Ramesses II ever did.

you're forgetting that Homer wasn't a historian but a poet. I'm sure if he knew that at some point in the future that he would have to defend the historical accuracy of the story he would have included some proof. the real question is did Homer completely make up the story or was it a retelling of an actual event in an entertaining way. now how much would Homer have known about the bronze age? from what i can read he knew alot so if we know more than him and what he says is the same then the story must be grounded in truth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
38 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

you're forgetting that Homer wasn't a historian but a poet. I'm sure if he knew that at some point in the future that he would have to defend the historical accuracy of the story he would have included some proof. the real question is did Homer completely make up the story or was it a retelling of an actual event in an entertaining way. now how much would Homer have known about the bronze age? from what i can read he knew alot so if we know more than him and what he says is the same then the story must be grounded in truth. 

Some of your posts I agree with, some I don't. Homer's description of Bronze Age fighting is quite wrong, including how the chariots were used. Single combat was a big part of Homer's narratie but was probably a rarity in real Bronze Age combat, just as it would've been in Homer's own time. Many Greeks of Homer's time and later believed giants had constructed the massive gate and walls of Mycenae. Et cetera. The story itself is magnificent and still highly entertaining, but one must not read it as a work of history. Several centuries of stasis and cultural collapse erased the Greek's memories of the Bronze Age, including by Homer's time. They replaced facts with mythologies and transformed the Bronze Age into an age of heroes.

It should also be stressed that the Iliad and Odyssey were popular throughout the Greek world, and even beyond. Many get the sense that as we read the stories today, they' be identical to the stories spun in mainland Greece and Cypress and Syria and Egypt. In fact, written versions of the story show that it was adapted and changed from place to place.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
2 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

what do you mean "we have data" i also have access to that data and i can't see anything other than the the story being an description of a war between to different countries yet with many similarities between them. Homer described things like war chariots that would have played a bigger part in bronze age battles as opposed to Iron age encounters. encounters with one on one combat which more a bronze age thing. Homer correctly describes the political power structure of the bronze age time. look, outright dismiss Homer at your own peril.    

I could,if I so wished, looked up what the sea level was in California during the Bronze Age. I could, if I so wished, find out what the diet of the average Mongolian was at the time. I could tell you who the Egyptians worshipped and what stars shone over Everest.

Homer could tell you what he had for lunch.

we know more about the Bronze Age than Homer did.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
9 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

i know where you are getting that from and you are just generalising again. the Egypt of those times was a powerful and dominate state that interacted and warred with many states. the Philistines to the best of my knowledge were not particularly renowned for sea travel and buccaneering. they might have joined in or they might have been land based and invaded Egypt for its obvious wealth and thus included as another invader.  

the Minoans and Mycenaeans were the dominate sea faring war mongers of the day and you shouldn't let your pride get in the way of a logical debate.  

Except the Egyptians told us it was the peleset, one of the few groups on their list we can identify.

Harte

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
8 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

you have rocks for brains if you think that Homer living within verbal memory of an event and Sir wearer of Hats living after 3200 years latter can be equalised. 

 

It is a point of contention whether Homer ever existed, so I wouldn't use his "living within verbal memory of an event" as a point in any argument.

Harte

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
9 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

you're forgetting that Homer wasn't a historian but a poet. I'm sure if he knew that at some point in the future that he would have to defend the historical accuracy of the story he would have included some proof. the real question is did Homer completely make up the story or was it a retelling of an actual event in an entertaining way. now how much would Homer have known about the bronze age? from what i can read he knew alot so if we know more than him and what he says is the same then the story must be grounded in truth. 

By that argument we can also prove that Harry Potter and Hogwarts existed and the Mountain of Mordor is somewhere here on Earth and giant 8 foot tall spiders wander around in deep caves and speak English.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
8 hours ago, Kenemet said:

By that argument we can also prove that Harry Potter and Hogwarts existed and the Mountain of Mordor is somewhere here on Earth and giant 8 foot tall spiders wander around in deep caves and speak English.

look, your reply even though funny is kinda extreme and taken out of context. i have an excellent link half way up on this page that shows how Homer included much details about the bronze age that according sesh and sir wearer Homer wouldn't have known about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
12 hours ago, Harte said:

Except the Egyptians told us it was the peleset, one of the few groups on their list we can identify.

Harte

they also mentioned many other tribes, too. what exactly is your point? 

Edited by Captain Risky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
12 hours ago, Harte said:

It is a point of contention whether Homer ever existed, so I wouldn't use his "living within verbal memory of an event" as a point in any argument.

Harte

its a bit like saying that you have to build a rocket to know that the earth is not flat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
6 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

look, your reply even though funny is kinda extreme and taken out of context. i have an excellent link half way up on this page that shows how Homer included much details about the bronze age that according sesh and sir wearer Homer wouldn't have known about. 

Rather like yesterday's "hoist by your own petard," there's a name for this, too: reductio as absurdum. It points out that an argument that might seem logical and consistent on a small scale is neither of those things when applied on a larger one.

Are you sure you know what you mean by "out of context"? You throw that around a lot, particularly when anyone make a comment that is completely in context. It doesn't just mean "a comment that makes my argument look faulty." Or Fawlty, even, though his tirades often make a lot more rational sense.

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
44 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

Rather like yesterday's "hoist by your own petard," there's a name for this, too: reductio as absurdum. It points out that an argument that might seem logical and consistent on a small scale is neither of those things when applied on a larger one.

Are you sure you know what you mean by "out of context"? You throw that around a lot, particularly when anyone make a comment that is completely in context. It doesn't just mean "a comment that makes my argument look faulty." Or Fawlty, even, though his tirades often make a lot more rational sense.

--Jaylemurph

I was wondering the same thing about "out of context," so I'm glad I wasn't the only one who saw that. Kenemet's comment was perfectly in context.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
6 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

look, your reply even though funny is kinda extreme and taken out of context. i have an excellent link half way up on this page that shows how Homer included much details about the bronze age that according sesh and sir wearer Homer wouldn't have known about. 

The link is excellent and the article is very interesting. I enjoyed reading it...but I wonder if you did, all the way through. It's not the glorious substantiation you seem to think it is. One of the most obvious errors is the chariot, which Homer must've known was used in the Bronze Age but whose actual function is far different from his descriptions. Chariot warfare is well understood from the major kingdoms of this period.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
1 hour ago, kmt_sesh said:

The link is excellent and the article is very interesting. I enjoyed reading it...but I wonder if you did, all the way through. It's not the glorious substantiation you seem to think it is. One of the most obvious errors is the chariot, which Homer must've known was used in the Bronze Age but whose actual function is far different from his descriptions. Chariot warfare is well understood from the major kingdoms of this period.

hang on.

 

Despite Homer‟s obvious confusion
 chariot deployment, he was aware that chariots were in common usage during the Bronze Age. Similarly his description of some of the armour used by the Greeks has also been corroborated through archaeological finds. The figure-eight shield and the longer heavier tower shield and their use described in the Iliad bears a striking resemblance to the images discovered

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
How accurate is Homer‟s picture of the society and events of the Late Mycenaean Age? What support for this picture is provided by archaeological finds, Hittite records, and information in the Linear B tablets? 
on inlaid daggers in several Mycenaean shaft graves. More than one of these shaft graves have also yielded piles of boars teeth often cut and shaped so as to fit together to form a helmet
. Homer‟s description of the construction of these helmets is quite detailed. “[Odysseus] fitted on a helmet that was first a cap of hide with bands of leather criss-crossed, and on these boar‟s white teeth were thickly set…”8. At times however Homer does tend to blend the use of weapons and equipment anachronistically on occasion suggesting perhaps an accumulation of stories (and fighting styles and weaponry) woven into a singular narrative over time. “Homer while successfully giving his heroes weapons of bronze occasionally drops in an anachronistic mention of iron” Once again it would appear that, at least in part, Homer‟s tales are grounded in some degree of historical fact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
2 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

Rather like yesterday's "hoist by your own petard," there's a name for this, too: reductio as absurdum. It points out that an argument that might seem logical and consistent on a small scale is neither of those things when applied on a larger one.

Are you sure you know what you mean by "out of context"? You throw that around a lot, particularly when anyone make a comment that is completely in context. It doesn't just mean "a comment that makes my argument look faulty." Or Fawlty, even, though his tirades often make a lot more rational sense.

--Jaylemurph

you do realise that this an english posting forum? 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.