Nile shipwreck discovery proves Herodotus right
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
BUT THEY DONT PUT A PICTURE OR DIAGRAM IN THE ARTICLE.
They pulled a “Herodotus” on us and I am pissed.
It sounds like it's a very unique architecture! But all they show us is a row of numbered underwater planks!
[0] https://www.um.es/cepoat/arqueologiasubacuatica/wp-content/u...
Alexander Belov (2014)
A New Type of Construction Evidenced by Ship 17 of Thonis-Heracleion
An astounding set of choices with which to transfer TCP/IP packets if I do say so myself.
cough sci-hub has doi 10.1111/1095-9270.12078 cough
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajita_Kesakambali
"Fools and wise alike, on the dissolution of the body, are cut off, annihilated, and after death they are not."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charvaka
"Charvakas denied metaphysical concepts like reincarnation, an extracorporeal soul, the efficacy of religious rites, other worlds (heaven and hell), fate and accumulation of merit or demerit through the performance of certain actions.[40] Charvakas also rejected the use of supernatural causes to describe natural phenomena. To them all natural phenomena was produced spontaneously from the inherent nature of things."
One can imagine eg a modern day Christian looking back to some roman converting to Christianity and saying that clearly not all Romans were completely gullible.
I do not claim that there is nothing interesting in the history here but I do claim that it isn’t at all about gullibility.
No. I've never said that and I don't believe in that.
My thesis it: there were the thinkers around 2500 years ago, on some very distant places, that came to the basis that is the actual basis of the modern science, fruits of which we all enjoy.
The actual basis of the science is simple: to investigate the world, one must simply posit that the scientific explanation for any observation is not any other-worldy miracle. As soon as one bases his explanation on that, anything is possible, and automatically is out of the science.
Moreover, the sciences which have to posit that aren't only physics or biology. Even history has to posit that: the basic premise of historic examination of any historic even is that there were no deities doing miracles, but the stories claiming miracles invented by humans.
So one can either do history scientifically, or simply be religious, but he can't get the points in science from doing later. His work will then, correctly, be dismissed.
Note, we started the discussion here by talking about Herodotus, the father of history. Not the father of religion.
For a historian doing history, every religious story involving miracles is just a myth, no matter which religion tells it. Every (non theological) university book can't be made otherwise.
And the same approach was of course true for the physicists doing physics: Newton could believe in deities as much a he wanted, he didn't explain the movements of planets with angels flipping wings but by demonstrating the calculations based on the rules of gravitation.
Anyway...
Very little is actually known about the Charvakas except through quotes by their opponents but we can definitely conclude they were skeptics alright but hardly scientific or even rationalist. They only believed valid knowledge only comes from perception by the five senses so even inference was opposed which makes logic impossible.
There is also a recent theory which I’m not sure I buy but sounds interesting that far from being radically anti-religious, the Charvakas were actually the remnant of the most conservative strains of thought.
The Vedic religion c. 500 BC mostly involved sacrificial rituals of greater or lesser complexity performed by a man and his wife. The goal of those rituals was worldly power and wealth. They were addressed to Gods who were either personifications of natural phenomena or embodiments of human archetypes. Such metaphysics as there was involved creating a new body for the deceased so he could enjoy life in heaven. (We can still see remnants of this in the Hindu funeral rites or shraddha in which reincarnation is only rather awkwardly bolted on.) This heaven was beyond the everyday world but otherwise exactly the same. One could even physically travel there.
Around 500BC or so there was cultural upheaval and many new ideas arose. In the Upanishads, Buddhism, Jainism and other sects that no longer survive, a new paradigm arose that emphasized enlightened knowledge over ritual action, the ascetic monk over the married householder, and liberation from constant reincarnation over one future life in Heaven. Heaven (and the new concept of Hell) were also expanded into multiple worlds inhabited by all kinds of supernatural creatures.
If we examine the extent Charvaka fragments, it is mainly these new-fangled ideas that they mock. Furthermore all the known Charvaka authors are Brahmanas some of them well-versed in traditional learning. One of them even quotes the Vedas to support his views. This is because they were actually representatives of the old guard or so the theory goes. Like I said I’m not sure if I buy it but there it is.
Also in similar vein there is a letter from a known Roman writer, cannot remember the name now, complaining how his son is wasting his money in student parties in Athens instead of taking care to finish his degree.
Some things haven't changed that much in a couple of thousand years. :)
Off-topic: the phrase "do Erasmus" is unmistakable. I see you're either Portuguese or Spanish ;)
I can grab some verbatim excerpts if anyone's interested, but his clarification when telling of Darius of child ("But he didn't say Darius, because no one knew he was called Darius yet") and then his explanation of a metaphor in Getae blew my mind. ("They probably don't mean the northern lands are literally covered in feathers, and this was likely just a metaphor for snow.") This is how a precise, scientifically-minded modern writer would communicate.
I had always always equated ancient writing with the Old Testament, or some of the more metaphor-laden prose for old plays (Oedipus) that were pretty opaque to my young mind. But reading Waterfield's translation of Herodotus was a different experience altogether: every sentence is easy to understand, and you can sympathize strongly with Herodotus and the ancient peoples he talks about: there's quite a bit of talent and intelligence, but not much concrete information. And, if you read the Histories without a reference nearby, then you're on equal footing with Herodotus himself.
"As for Libya [Africa, apparently], we know it to be washed on all sides by the sea, except where it is attached to Asia. This discovery was first made by Necos, the Egyptian king, who on desisting from the canal which he had begun between the Nile and the Arabian gulf, sent to sea a number of ships manned by Phoenicians, with orders to make for the Pillars of Hercules [the strait of Gibraltar], and return to Egypt through them, and by the Mediterranean. The Phoenicians took their departure from Egypt by way of the Erythraean sea, and so sailed into the southern ocean. When autumn came, they went ashore, wherever they might happen to be, and having sown a tract of land with corn, waited until the grain was fit to cut. Having reaped it, they again set sail; and thus it came to pass that two whole years went by, and it was not till the third year that they doubled the Pillars of Hercules, and made good their voyage home. On their return, they declared- I for my part do not believe them, but perhaps others may- that in sailing round Libya they had the sun upon their right hand. In this way was the extent of Libya first discovered."
So Herodotus passes on us a piece of information he doesn't understand or believe in, but that seems to prove that the circumnavigation of Africa actually happened because the sailors, having passed the equator, kept seeing the sun on their right side at midday- since they were moving clockwise around the continent. Shivers :)
Livius is what we all think the WWW should look like, but instead we ended up with Facebook.
It has to be a grain other than corn (maize), since that one came from the Americas.
When you read ancient works the impression you get is heavily distorted by survivorship bias; it's not like we've preserved a representative sample of such works.
His technical descriptions of boats kind of sucked though.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uluburun_shipwreck
[2] https://nauticalarch.org/projects/uluburun-late-bronze-age-s...
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/mar/17/nile-shipwre...
though I still find it confusing (I think it’s just the bottom of the hull).
I just added Nation Geographic to the "Idle" bookmark folder I use to catch up on interesting facts during short breaks from my work. Now I'm off to contribute to The Guardian.
I was contemplating paying them a couple bucks, because I am quite impressed with the quality of their publication—at least the parts I've read. The plea for support at the end is almost as long as the article itself, and it's very convincing:
We made a choice…
… and we want to tell you about it. We made a choice which means our journalism now reaches record numbers around the world and more than a million people have supported our reporting. We continue to face financial challenges but, unlike many news organisations, we have chosen not to put up a paywall. We want our journalism to remain accessible to all, regardless of where they live or what they can afford.
This is The Guardian’s model for open, independent journalism: available for everyone, funded by our readers. We depend on contributions from our readers. Will you support our choice?
Readers’ support powers our work, safeguarding our essential editorial independence. This means the responsibility of protecting independent journalism is shared, enabling us all to feel empowered to bring about real change in the world. Your support gives Guardian journalists the time, space and freedom to report with tenacity and rigour, to shed light where others won’t. It emboldens us to challenge authority and question the status quo. And by keeping all of our journalism free and open to all, we can foster inclusivity, diversity, make space for debate, inspire conversation – so more people have access to accurate information with integrity at its heart.
Guardian journalism is rooted in facts with a progressive perspective on the world. We are editorially independent, meaning we set our own agenda. Our journalism is free from commercial bias and not influenced by billionaire owners, politicians or shareholders. No one steers our opinion. At a time when there are so few sources of information you can really trust, this is vital as it enables us to give a voice to those less heard, challenge the powerful and hold them to account. Your support means we can keep investigating and exploring the critical issues of our time.
Our model allows people to support us in a way that works for them. Every time a reader like you makes a contribution to The Guardian, no matter how big or small, it goes directly into funding our journalism. But we need to build on this support for the years ahead. Support The Guardian from as little as CA$1 – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.