Announcement

Collapse

Archeology 201 Guidelines

If Indiana Jones happened to be a member of Tweb, this is where he'd hang out.

Welcome to the Archeology forum. Were you out doing some gardening and dug up a relic from the distant past? would you like to know more about Ancient Egypt? Did you think Memphis was actually a city in Tennessee?

Well, for the answers to those and other burning questions you've found the right digs.

Our forum rules apply here too, if you haven't read them now is the time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Cerne Giant in Dorset dates from Anglo-Saxon times, analysis suggests

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Delicious unintended irony oozing forth from yet again from the person who cites Richard Carrier as a legitimate source and who thinks Peter was a fictitious personage (talk about fringe beliefs ). And don't think for a moment that people aren't noticing that you still haven't even tried to refute a single line of what I wrote, but instead continue to sputter impotently as you attempt to direct attention elsewhere.
    I would recommend H H Scullard's Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic. 1981. Thames & Hudson. In part two of that work, "The Roman Year" he details every festival held, month by month.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    Your confection is nonsense. I asked from where you sourced it all - and you seem reluctant to reveal that. I can only assume it was garnered from some Christian site and/or the lunatic fringe.
    Delicious unintended irony oozing forth from yet again from the person who cites Richard Carrier as a legitimate source and who thinks Peter was a fictitious personage (talk about fringe beliefs ). And don't think for a moment that people aren't noticing that you still haven't even tried to refute a single line of what I wrote, but instead continue to sputter impotently as you attempt to direct attention elsewhere.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    Strangely, the information that rogue06 compares favourably with what I found years ago, and with what I am finding in current inquiries.
    However, there is much conflicting information, which forces an examination of primary sources, and even there some of the translations are questionable.
    I for one don't find it strange at all

    That anyone who bothers to investigate for themselves will find the same thing is probably why H_A can't address anything I said even after sneering that it was a "nonsensical claim." You would think that after that "assessment" she would be eager to demonstrate its accuracy, but for whatever reason she shows not the slightest interest in doing so.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    As rogue06 is coy about telling us his sources, we cannot verify their accuracy. However, what he wrote is a confection of muddled nonsense.
    Strangely, the information that rogue06 compares favourably with what I found years ago, and with what I am finding in current inquiries.
    However, there is much conflicting information, which forces an examination of primary sources, and even there some of the translations are questionable.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Whether or not information is sourced from Christian sites, "loony sites," or "Wikipedia" is irrelevant. If the sources cited by that site are valid, the information is valid. Also note - Wikipedia is considered unsuitable for use as a formal academic resource only because it is too readily subject to alteration. TWeb is not a formal academic site. If there is no reason for to consider the Wikipedia article's sources questionable, it is a valid resource.
    As rogue06 is coy about telling us his sources, we cannot verify their accuracy. However, what he wrote is a confection of muddled nonsense.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Whether or not information is sourced from Christian sites, "loony sites," or "Wikipedia" is irrelevant. If the sources cited by that site are valid, the information is valid. Also note - Wikipedia is considered unsuitable for use as a formal academic resource only because it is too readily subject to alteration. TWeb is not a formal academic site. If there is no reason for to consider the Wikipedia article's sources questionable, it is a valid resource.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    It is always glaringly obvious whenever you don't have anything to say in rebuttal.
    Your confection is nonsense. I asked from where you sourced it all - and you seem reluctant to reveal that. I can only assume it was garnered from some Christian site and/or the lunatic fringe.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    https://insidethevatican.com/magazin...tic-tradition/ seems legitimate, and the last four lines significant.

    According to Pope Benedict XVI, the first person to clearly assign Christmas to its current feast day was St. Hippolytus of Rome.5 In his Commentary on Dan­iel, which was written c. 204 a.d., St. Hippolytus wrote: “For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, was December 25th, a Wednesday, while Augustus was in his forty-second year, but from Adam, five thousand and five hundred years.”6Writing roughly 150 years before any known records which designate December 25th as Natalis Invicti, Hippolytus gives no mention of the Roman feast. It would seem the Christian use of the date was quite independent from all pagan solemnities. Where then did he get this date?

    In order to answer this question, many scholars, including Louis Duchesne, Thomas Talley, and Andrew McGowan, believe one must first examine two earlier traditions referenced by the Church Fathers.7 The first of these is the date of Christ’s passion and death. Based on the details given in the Gospels, Christ is believed to have died in the middle of the Jewish month of Nissan.

    According to the calculations of Tertullian, a contemporary of Hippolytus, this day would have been in late March by Roman standards.

    Tertullian wrote that Christ suffered, “under Tiberius Caesar, in the consulate of Rubellius Geminus and Fufius Geminus, in the month of March, at the time of the Passover, on the eighth day before the calends of April [March 25th], on the first day of unleavened bread, on which they slew the lamb at even, just as had been enjoined by Moses.”8This assignment of “Good Friday” to March 25th is found not only in Tertullian, but also in other patristic sources.9

    The importance of Christ’s death in correlation to his birth is revealed by another ancient tradition: that Christ was conceived and crucified on the same calendar day. It was a common belief that the Messiah fulfilled his mission on the anniversary of its inception.10

    St. Augustine is one of the writers who attests to this. He wrote, “For he [Jesus] is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March, upon which day also he suffered; so the womb of the Virgin, in which he was conceived, where no one of mortals was begotten, corresponds to the new grave in which he was buried, wherein was never man laid, neither before him nor since.”11
    Dates for the day of Saturnalia are somewhat confused, generally attributed to the 17th December,
    one source cites 14 days before the kalends (1st) of January with latin numerals showing XVI days before the kalends of January.
    Even if the 17th is taken as the official date, prior to the Julian calendar, the date would have been the 15th (December had 29 days). With the change of calendar, the old date (counting forward from Dec 1) was the first day of the festival. In short: the day of Saturnalia was anything from 8 to 12 days before Christmas Day.
    I'm still trying to trace Latin or Greek sources for the dates of Saturnalia.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    I don't think the myth that Christmas derived from pagan celebrations will ever be laid to rest in popular imagination.

    Two episodes of NCIS (TV Drama) refer to the origin of Christmas - Ducky relates it to Saturnalia. Zeva relates it to Hanukah. The latter would depend on just how early Christmas first became a festival day - with (from memory) the first celebrations in Alexandria rather than Rome (early ROMAN records show only early celebrations in Rome). Early customs of Christmas did, however, strongly reflect those of Hanukah. Origen had things to say against Christian birthday celebrations, so it would be rather surprising if the celebration of Christ's birth was not introduced during his lifetime or shortly after. Aurelian introduced Sol Invictus circa 270CE, and that celebration featured human blood sacrifice. By some accounts that was 50 years after the first celebration of Christmas in Alexandria. Which leaves Mithra (Dec 25), a Persian fertility god - of no particular interest to the empire, though Rome did have some adherents. And Saturnalia, optionally Dec 15 or Dec 17: the actual festival spanned a week - no attempt to subsume that festival would settle on a date that fell after the festival concluded - which Dec 25 does.
    Virtually every Christmas there will be a couple of The History of Christmas-type special edition magazines published and at least one cable TV program doing the same thing, that inevitably bring up how Christians co-opted December 25th from either Saturnalia or Sol Invictus -- occasionally they have even conflated them into a single holiday in spite of their names clearly indicating that they were dedicated to different deities.



    IIRC, the earliest official celebration was in Rome and it wouldn't become an official festival until another several centuries after that.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    From where precisely i.e. what website[s] was this confection of muddled thinking derived?
    It is always glaringly obvious whenever you don't have anything to say in rebuttal.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    It is and follow the link.

    Scratch that, here it is:

    In the 19th cent. everyone was sure that the Christians borrowed heavily from the pagans wrt to Christmas, even co-opting December 25th from pagan celebrations -- Saturnalia and Sol Invictus (Dies Natalis Solis Invicti). But as time went on and scholarship improved it became increasingly apparent that most of the "borrowing" was going the other way. It was, far more often than not, the pagans who were incorporating Christian ideas and practices.

    The Saturnalia festival was traditionally celebrated sometime between December 17th and 23rd. Christmas is on December 25th. If you're going to co-opt a holiday you generally don't want them taking place on different days. It kind of destroys the whole purpose

    The reason that December 25th was picked for Christ's birth was because the assumed date for His death (at least in the Western part of the Empire[1]), since at least 200 AD, was March 25th[2] -- which was calculated to have coincided with 14 Nisan. Back then it was assumed that truly great and righteous men lived a whole number of years, without fractions meaning that they died on the same day they were conceived on (see the Talmud for examples). In short, if He died on March 25th He therefore, or so it was thought, must have also been conceived on March 25th. Add 9 months to the date of conception and you arrive at December 25th as the date of birth.

    Likewise, this demonstrates that Christians were celebrating Christ's birthday on December 25 before the festival for Sol Invictus (Dies Natalis Solis Invicti) on Dec. 25 was only established in the middle of the 3rd cent. by a Roman emperor who was not very friendly toward Christianity. Prior to that the traditional festival days varied throughout the Roman Empire and included August 8th and/or the 9th, possibly August 28th, and December 11th -- but never December 25th.

    This clearly shows, that contrary to popular belief, that festival was actually later syncretized with Christmas rather than the other way around since Christians had figured that Christmas took place on that day several decades prior to the Romans appropriating the day.

    The confusion arises over the fact that the earliest Christians weren't really into celebrating the birth of Christ (they were far more interested in His death)[3] and Christmas celebrations really didn't get started in earnest until 379 or 380 at first in Constantinople and then started taking off in 386 after a sermon given by John Chrysostom.

    IOW, December 25th as the date of Christ’s birth doesn't owe anything whatsoever to pagan influences but it arose entirely from the efforts of early Latin Christians to determine the historical date of Christ’s death.

    Another fact to consider is that the first mention of a date for Christmas (c. 200) and the very earliest celebrations that we have records for (c. 250–300) come during a time when the persecuted Christian minority were not borrowing heavily from pagan traditions of such an obvious character but were taking great pains to distinguish themself from them. That practice didn't begin to change until after Constantine converted to Christianity.

    IOW, December 25th as the date of Christ’s birth doesn't owe anything whatsoever to pagan influences but it arose entirely from the efforts of early Latin Christians to determine the historical date of Christ’s death.





    1. In some parts of the East, especially in Asia Minor and in Egypt, they concluded that it was April 6th with the discrepancy being largely due to the difficulties of trying to translate an unfamiliar lunar calendar into a solar calendar.

    2. See Irenaeus' (c.130 – c.202) Adversus Haereses for instance and Sextus Julius Africanus (c.160 – c.240) both of whom listed March 25th as the day of the conception of Jesus.

    3. Origen of Alexandria (c. 165–264) actually mocked various Roman celebrations of birth anniversaries, dismissing them as a "pagan" practice.
    From where precisely i.e. what website[s] was this confection of muddled thinking derived?

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    I don't think the myth that Christmas derived from pagan celebrations will ever be laid to rest in popular imagination.

    Two episodes of NCIS (TV Drama) refer to the origin of Christmas - Ducky relates it to Saturnalia. Zeva relates it to Hanukah. The latter would depend on just how early Christmas first became a festival day - with (from memory) the first celebrations in Alexandria rather than Rome (early ROMAN records show only early celebrations in Rome). Early customs of Christmas did, however, strongly reflect those of Hanukah. Origen had things to say against Christian birthday celebrations, so it would be rather surprising if the celebration of Christ's birth was not introduced during his lifetime or shortly after. Aurelian introduced Sol Invictus circa 270CE, and that celebration featured human blood sacrifice. By some accounts that was 50 years after the first celebration of Christmas in Alexandria. Which leaves Mithra (Dec 25), a Persian fertility god - of no particular interest to the empire, though Rome did have some adherents. And Saturnalia, optionally Dec 15 or Dec 17: the actual festival spanned a week - no attempt to subsume that festival would settle on a date that fell after the festival concluded - which Dec 25 does.
    Last edited by tabibito; 07-02-2021, 11:19 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    rogue06


    What's this one about? Please tell me it is not about Sol Invictus or Saturnalia.
    It is and follow the link.

    Scratch that, here it is:

    In the 19th cent. everyone was sure that the Christians borrowed heavily from the pagans wrt to Christmas, even co-opting December 25th from pagan celebrations -- Saturnalia and Sol Invictus (Dies Natalis Solis Invicti). But as time went on and scholarship improved it became increasingly apparent that most of the "borrowing" was going the other way. It was, far more often than not, the pagans who were incorporating Christian ideas and practices.

    The Saturnalia festival was traditionally celebrated sometime between December 17th and 23rd. Christmas is on December 25th. If you're going to co-opt a holiday you generally don't want them taking place on different days. It kind of destroys the whole purpose

    The reason that December 25th was picked for Christ's birth was because the assumed date for His death (at least in the Western part of the Empire[1]), since at least 200 AD, was March 25th[2] -- which was calculated to have coincided with 14 Nisan. Back then it was assumed that truly great and righteous men lived a whole number of years, without fractions meaning that they died on the same day they were conceived on (see the Talmud for examples). In short, if He died on March 25th He therefore, or so it was thought, must have also been conceived on March 25th. Add 9 months to the date of conception and you arrive at December 25th as the date of birth.

    Likewise, this demonstrates that Christians were celebrating Christ's birthday on December 25 before the festival for Sol Invictus (Dies Natalis Solis Invicti) on Dec. 25 was only established in the middle of the 3rd cent. by a Roman emperor who was not very friendly toward Christianity. Prior to that the traditional festival days varied throughout the Roman Empire and included August 8th and/or the 9th, possibly August 28th, and December 11th -- but never December 25th.

    This clearly shows, that contrary to popular belief, that festival was actually later syncretized with Christmas rather than the other way around since Christians had figured that Christmas took place on that day several decades prior to the Romans appropriating the day.

    The confusion arises over the fact that the earliest Christians weren't really into celebrating the birth of Christ (they were far more interested in His death)[3] and Christmas celebrations really didn't get started in earnest until 379 or 380 at first in Constantinople and then started taking off in 386 after a sermon given by John Chrysostom.

    IOW, December 25th as the date of Christ’s birth doesn't owe anything whatsoever to pagan influences but it arose entirely from the efforts of early Latin Christians to determine the historical date of Christ’s death.

    Another fact to consider is that the first mention of a date for Christmas (c. 200) and the very earliest celebrations that we have records for (c. 250–300) come during a time when the persecuted Christian minority were not borrowing heavily from pagan traditions of such an obvious character but were taking great pains to distinguish themself from them. That practice didn't begin to change until after Constantine converted to Christianity.

    IOW, December 25th as the date of Christ’s birth doesn't owe anything whatsoever to pagan influences but it arose entirely from the efforts of early Latin Christians to determine the historical date of Christ’s death.





    1. In some parts of the East, especially in Asia Minor and in Egypt, they concluded that it was April 6th with the discrepancy being largely due to the difficulties of trying to translate an unfamiliar lunar calendar into a solar calendar.

    2. See Irenaeus' (c.130 – c.202) Adversus Haereses for instance and Sextus Julius Africanus (c.160 – c.240) both of whom listed March 25th as the day of the conception of Jesus.

    3. Origen of Alexandria (c. 165–264) actually mocked various Roman celebrations of birth anniversaries, dismissing them as a "pagan" practice.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    rogue06
    The non Christian world copied the Christians for their mid-winter celebration.
    What's this one about? Please tell me it is not about Sol Invictus or Saturnalia.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    No I was thinking more of your nonsensical claims that:

    The non Christian world copied the Christians for their mid-winter celebration.
    The actual statement is "The whole Christmas was a pagan holiday immediately comes to mind" I provided a hyperlink where I backed up my statement so if you care to debate any of it, be my guest. But I'll bet you never even glimpsed at it.

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    The Romans took hundreds of slaves with them to do the building work when on campaign.
    Where did I ever say that?

    OTOH, what you proclaimed was false is that among the various camp followers were slave traders who bought prisoners captured by the Romans. A position for which I offered scholarly support[1]

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Thousands of slaves built the ramp at Masada.
    Never cited a number but that slave labor was used in its construction is the consensus view and supported it by citing a wide variety of sources including Israel's leading archeologist, Yigael Yadin[2]

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Spartacus, because he was in the auxiliary Roman army was a Roman citizen.
    I noted that there was an ancient Roman historian, Lucius Annaeus Florus, who asserted that Spartacus was, in his words, "a Roman soldier, that had deserted and became enslaved." Do you dispute this?

    In fact, this is at least the third time in various threads that I had to correct what at this point is obviously an intentionally dishonest attempt on your part.




    Sooo... when are you finally going to tells exactly sort of "extraneous corroborative evidence" that we should have about Jesus, Peter, Paul etc. but don't?

    Or would you prefer to continue asking me for a volume of a book that I included in the original post, told you again in the next post and you still kept demanding it. And what did you do when you realized it? Tried to blame me for your buffoonery.

    This is not the first time you did that. Once, we even had other posters stepping in telling you directly where I gave you the answer to something you demanded, and yet you still continued claiming that I wouldn't respond.







    1. probably not complete
    • John Bodel's "Caveat emptor: toward a study of Roman slave-traders," published in the Journal of Roman Archaeology
    • Jason Paul Wickham's The Enslavement of War Captives by the Romans to 146 BC
    • Keith "K. R." Bradley, who wrote about connection between slavery and warfare made in the Digest (a.k.a., the Pandects) of Justinian noting that the definition of slavery provided by Florentius, the Roman praetorian prefect, was used by it, and which declared: Slaves (servi) are so called because commanders generally sell the people they capture and thereby save (servare) them instead of killing them. The word for property in slaves (mancipia) is derived from the fact that they are captured from the enemy by force of arms (manu capiuntur).
    • William D. Phillips Jr.'s Slavery from Roman Times to the Early Transatlantic Trade
    • Theresa Urbainczyk's Slave Revolts in Antiquity
    • At the risk of citing Wikipedia, their article on the Conquest of the Iberian Peninsula relates this about Marcus Portius Cato (Cato the Elder), who commanded a consular army of two legions plus 15,000 Latin infantry and 800 cavalry there, "Seven forts of the Bergistani (who lived in the north of Hispania Citerior) revolted. They were reduced to submission without any serious fighting. Cato returned to Tarraco, but they rebelled again and this time, when he defeated them again, he sold all into slavery to discourage further rebellion."

    I'll note that I could add several more sources since then since I kept getting papers emailed to me on the subject (and anything remotely close) for over six months after that conversation ended.

    2. And who you immediately sought to dismiss because he once may have improperly interred some remains And then there was the military historian that you tried to handwave off as only knowing about modern warfare when you found out that he's in the military. And when disabused of that erroneous notion, do you remember how you still tried to handwave his opinion? By asking how many volumes did his work covering this consist of

    A quick list (probably not complete) of who I cited wrt the ramp at Masada being built by slaves:
    • "Simon "Si" Sheppard's The Jewish Revolt AD 66-74 where I read that Silva's besieging force included several thousand prisoners who would of course been used as slave labor."
    • "Lon Abbott, a geology professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, the siege ramp was largely constructed using slave labor."
    • "Rabbi Ken Spiro, who also has a master's degree in history also says that the ramp used Jewish slave labor in its construction."
    • "Robert DiPrizio, a military historian, in his Conflict in the Holy Land: From Ancient Times to the Arab-Israeli Conflicts, wrote: "After surrounding the fortress with eight military camps, the Romans oversaw in a nine-month period the construction by Jewish slave labor of an assault ramp to the top of Masada"."
    • "Yigael Yadin, (who worked at some of the most important sites in the region, including the Qumran Caves, Masada, Hazor, Tel Megiddo) believed that Jewish slave labor was used to construct the ramp to deter the rebels from attacking the laborers during its construction"
    • "Dean Smith, writing in History is Now magazine in a piece called Terrorists in the Roman Empire? The Sicarii in First Century Judea matter of factly writes that "The Roman forces apparently used Jewish slave labor from the sacking of Jerusalem to build a wall around Masada."

    And let's not forget what you in turn lined up, aside from repeated handwaves and nuh-uhs. Trajan’s Column. Something constructed by the Romans after their war with the Dacians in present day Romania as evidence that 40 some years earlier the Romans at Masada in present day Israel didn't employ slave labor to help construct the ramp they used to overrun the fort there.
    Last edited by rogue06; 07-02-2021, 09:46 AM. Reason: Almost lost this post copying from it but was able to restore it

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by rogue06, 07-13-2021, 07:28 PM
1 response
14 views
0 likes
Last Post Cow Poke  
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-14-2021, 05:43 AM
50 responses
284 views
1 like
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Working...
X