Stonehenge was built on solstice axis, dig confirms
Source: The Guardian
Stonehenge was built on solstice axis, dig confirms
Dalya Alberge
The Guardian, Sunday 8 September 2013 16.46 BST
English Heritage says it has discovered a "missing piece in the jigsaw" in our understanding of Stonehenge, England's greatest prehistoric site. Excavations along the ancient processional route to the monument have confirmed the theory that it was built along an ice age landform that happened to be on the solstice axis.
The Avenue was an earthwork route that extended 1.5 miles from the north-eastern entrance to Wiltshire's standing stones to the River Avon at West Amesbury. Following the closure of the A344 road, which cut across the route, archaeologists have been able to excavate there for the first time.
Just below the tarmac, they have found naturally occurring fissures that once lay between ridges against which prehistoric builders dug ditches to create the Avenue. The ridges were created by Ice Age meltwater that happen to point directly at the mid-winter sunset in one direction and the mid-summer sunrise in the other.
Professor Mike Parker Pearson, a leading expert on Stonehenge, said: "It's hugely significant because it tells us a lot about why Stonehenge was located where it is and why they (prehistoric people) were so interested in the solstices. It's not to do with worshipping the sun, some kind of calendar or astronomical observatory; it's about how this place was special to prehistoric people.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2013/sep/08/stonehenge-ice-age-solstice-axis
= new reply since forum marked as read
Let's hope he can finally sleep at night now.
who just said: "Dude, let's build a henge or two!"
People sometimes forget how simple a lot of projects are. For example the Roman Aqueducts.
I once did a water project by hand. I wanted to divert water from a stream down a slow grade. Rather then do the mathematical calculations, what I did was start to dig till the water flowed, then moved to the next section, and dug till the water flowed. I did this for the whole length I wanted the water to go. It was slow, I had to go back and redo parts that had water out, but it can be done in a period of hours by one man or a group of man, just looking at the flow of water.
Most ancient aqueducts were built this way. Slow gradual grade from a high spot to where you wanted the water. No big calculations needed. I suspected even the Ancient Romans did most of their Aqueducts that way (i.e. on the ground with a slow flow). Now, what most people see as ancient Roman Aqueducts are those large tall stone Bridges that carried the water over valleys. Those were built by engineers calculating the height, but I also suspect they were built at a uniform height and then modified for a slow flow. Remember the Ancient Romans did not want any fast running water, just a slow flow. A drop of inches over 100s of feet in length. If you built those stone Aqueduct Bridges at the same height starting as the point where the water flows into it and then use clay to support the lead pipe (Or just clay itself), but make the clay layer less thick as to move along the Aqueduct bridge, you have your inches of drop over 100s of feet of water flow.
The same thing with building anything. You should try to keep everything level, and you need for that is water. A modern Level is water in a frame. The water is marked where it is flat and when it is flat you know you are level. The same thing in ancient times. Water will go to its own level, so a cup, even a tin cap. when it is full will spill over all of its edges at the same time. You can also mark such cup internally to where it is flat (Glass was invented during the time of Ancient Rome, so not used for constructions as far s we can determined). Water is accurate as to level and has been used since ancient times. 99% of all projects done in the world needed a level, but not much else.
Some other construction techniques go back to ancient times. Triangle are the strongest construction form. You see this is today's homes and in Native American Tee Pees (the poles in a Tee Pee formed a circular triangle). The circle takes in the largest amount of room of any shape, thus preferred if it can be built (lowest cost of material, maximum area). Squares are second to circles in ratio of exterior size to interior volume and are easier to construct with simple calculations (i.e. once you out-grown something like a Tee Pee, you need something EASY to build and that is a Square. Solid circular houses tend to be to complex to build for each panel in such a house has to be custom made, unlike a square where more uniform sizes for parts of the walls can be used.
The historical norm for tents is some thing like the Tee Pees, then to something like a "A=Frame" tent (two triangle entrances connected by two long walls), then to a log cabin or house.
Please note this is world wide phenomena, something like Tee Pees were used by some people in Europe as late as the 1800s (mostly northern Europe). We are most familiar with Native Americans who had moved to something like a Log Cabin, at the time of Christopher Columbus. These homes were NOT true Log cabins for Native Americans had no access to iron for axes to cut down such trees. Native Americans relied on brute strength or fire to get the required amount of trees for their homes. It was the plains Indians that reverted to the Tee Pee when their adopted the horse, but only in the summer, in winter their wintered in traditional Native American Wigwams or similar Native American housing.
Native American Housing:
http://www.native-languages.org/houses.htm
I bring up Tee Pees for it is a very effective housing for a tent. Requires just the use of Blankets and long but thin poles. AS people developed they moved from Tee Pees to better more permanent homes, but most of the basic techniques, such as Triangles provide the greatest strength, Circles encloses the most areas, but squares are the easiest to build with standards parts remain the same (along with Water being the best way to determine level, and once something is level you can built bigger and bigger within limits).
Latitude
Latitude was known in ancient times, all latitude is how far north or south you are. By calculating the height of the Sun (or of the north star) you can calculate latitude anywhere. It was the loss of the North Star as you neared the Equator that prevented European Sailors to go further south then the Equator. Looking for a solution Sailors discovered the "Southern Cross" four stars that rotates ROUND about where the South Pol is. The Southern Cross then replaced the North Star in navigation south of the Equator among Western Sailors (there is some indications that natives had done the same for centuries, but that is another story):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crux
Longitude can be fixed anywhere in the world, by just calling one spot Zero. How far away from that spot can be determined by watching the sun at noon. When the sun peaks you set that at noon, and then if you had a clock that could keep its time you look at the difference in time and could calculate how far east or west you were.
One thing the ancient world did was calculate the width of the Planet earth. Around 240 BC Eratosthenes heard about a well that on the first day of summer you could see straight down to the bottom of the well. A man living in Alexandria then measured how far the sun was deflected in Alexandria on the same day. Eratosthenes also knew the distance between the two spots and assumed that they were directly north and south of each other. If you remember your high school geometry, he had angle, side, angle of a Triangle. 90 Degrees in the Well. 1/50th of a circle (7°12"
at Alexandria, and a distance of 5000 "Stadia" (Egyptian Stadia is 157.7 meters).
Using 1/50th of a circle (his measurement of the sun shadow on the first day of Summer in Alexandria) AND that 1/50th of a circle equal 5000 stadia. 1/50th of a circle equal 7.2 degrees. Thus you have 5000 Stadia for every 7.2 degree, or 694.4444 Stadia per degree (5000 stadia divided by 7.2 degrees). Eratosthenes rounded 694,444 to 700 Stadia per degree and multiplied that by 360 degrees in a circle, or 252000 Stadia for the circumference of the world. if we assume he was using Eyptian Stadia (157,7 Meters) that is 1.6% off the actual circumference of the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes
Paper on ancient calculations of the Circumferences of the Earth (and that it may predate the Classical Greeks, having been determined by Egyptians by at least 1080 BC).
http://www.metrum.org/measures/measurements.htm
Other Ancient measrurements (Aristotle rejected all of them as being inaccurate, Plato gave the largest)
http://www.metrum.org/measures/measurements.htm
Around 160 AD Ptolemy of Alexandria did his calculations of the circumference of the earth, his geography was actual more details then Eratosthenes but based on bad calculations (But the best know, thus popular long after it was determined the actual details were wrong, Thus Christopher Columbus used Ptolemy of Alexandria while everyone else went by Eratosthenes except those who followed Aristotle who had rejected the world concept that you could determine the size of the earth with any degree of accuracy).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy
IT is time for me to go to bed, I am rambling on and on. The above needs to be rewritten but I do not have the time but I also believe something along these lines need to be posted. It is a bad post, but I also believe it is a post that is needed so I am posting it and stopping right now before I dig this ditch to much further.
Remember the rule, if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging and that is what I am doing, Good Night.
The oldest Roman Aqueduct is actually underground and still in use. Using ground and water flow is sufficient to determine drop. You do NOT need to do any math is such a simple system. Enlarging the system only require a deeper ditch and more water from the source.
Now you do need to know extensive math and calculations when building the stone structures most people think of when you think of Aqueducts. I even mentioned that. and then pointed out most such structures were uniform height and the water flow adjusted at the top.
Plumb bobs
When these routes were surveyed, all they had was basically a stick of a set height and a plumb bob. The Plumb bob could be attached to a line and when the other side of the line caused the plumb bob to be at a notch in the center of the base, the line was level. Very simple, very ancient, very accurate.
Now a modern water level is more accurate, for a modern level has its water encased in a sealed tube with one air bubble. When the air bubble inside is between the two marks on the bubble. Very accurate, but only really needed is you want to build over hundreds of miles with curves. The Aqueducts tended to avoid curves (They had them, but it was avoided if it could be done).
A plumb bob is still used, through it is considered more fashionable to used more modern methods (i.e. Modern levels tend to be more accurate, but in most construction other errors exceed the greater accuracy of modern equipment over Plumb bobs). A plumb bob is a simple device, it is generally attached to a flat top (to attach to a line) and triangle bottom. A weight attached to the middle of the top by a short string. When the string meet the mark at the bottom of the device, you knew you were level. Very simple, very effective and accurate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plumb_bob
Here is a drawing on the evolution of the Dioptra, the one further to the left is a Plumb Bob, the other two are Dioptra, used mostly in construction. No Records of them in Rome, but were known to the Greeks. This may be simply the result that they had become so common, no one wanted to waste parchment (Which was expensive) on writing about them. An alternative answer was the Romans did not think it was that much of an improvement over the Plumb bob, something the builders of the great Cathentials during the Middle Ages would have agreed with.
Variation of the Plumb Bob was used through out history, the Ancient Greeks used the Dioptra:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dioptra
Another Greek variation of the Plumb Bob, The Groma:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groma_surveying
More on Roman Engineering:
http://www.surveyhistory.org/ferris_state_university1.htm
In many ways, the key to Roman Engineering was getting the people together to do the work NOT in the calculations.
On the other hand, with a line and a plumb bob you could survey a flat route with ease, and whenever you wanted a drop, drop the line. If you wanted a drop off 1 inch every 100 feet, every 100 feet you move the line down one inch. When the actual construction was done, the workers using water would make the final adjustment.
Lead pipes
As to fountains within the City of Rome. That is based on the concept that water will find its own level. Thus if the water flowing into Rome is at a higher attitude then any fountain or other water source in Rome (or any other city) AND the flowing into a system that is sealed (i.e. enclosed pipes NOT open water ways, the Aqueducts were mostly open water ways, except when it was decided to use pipes). Thus you do not have to known how low or high the pipe is, just that it is below the intake to the water system as a whole. Modern plumbing follows the same rule.
Pipes, made of lead, were extensive in Rome itself AND on various Aqueducts when it was determined the best way to transport the water was down one mountainside, along the valley in a sealed pipe made of lead, then up another Mountain. In such situations all you had to do was make sure the pipe was SEALED and the end closer to Rome was lower then the end further from Rome (at one time this extensive use of lead was blamed for Rome going "Mad" and leading to its decline, but the water in that part of Italy is extremely "Hard" and as such pick up little lead as it flows through the Roman Pipes).
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/wine/leadpoisoning.html
Thus, you do not need extensive calculations (There is some questions if the Roman could do such calculations, Roman roads were known to go in straight line ONLY, for that is easy to calculate. Any turns were 90 degrees even in hilly Italy. The Aqueducts structures we know of also tend to be straight lines EXCEPT when it comes to the parts on the ground (Which indicates the Romans used flow of water method for the ground based part of the Aqueducts, for flow of water could be adjusted for curves).
Thus my point, you do not need much calculations to make an Aqueduct. By its nature an Aqueduct is a simple device to carry water.
Much like today...
Often, these were the already wealthy landowners. It was a sweet deal. You had three basic classes. The Lords who actually believed they were destined to rule by God. The warrior class to fight for them. And then the masses who were expected to live out their lives in servitude to their "betters".
This is why when Charles I was executed it threw every blue blood into a panic. Damn that Magna Carta anyway. 
I disagree. The "Dark Ages" was imposed BY the 1% who ran the Church to eradicate intellectualism amongst the masses.
An appropriate bumper sticker of the time would have been, "Si vos can lego is , servo is ut vestri".
The Pope appointed the King of France the title of "The Holy Roman Emperor" to battle the Muslims who owned Spain at the time.
What's really funny is when FOX "News" declared not too long ago the history of Europe was of white peace and it's only when the races mix that you have conflict.
BTW: Hadrian's Wall may not look like much today but at one time it was taller (A lot of it is partly buried or scavaged) and was quite an obstacle as there was once a deep ditch filled with spikes.
This was when the Romans decided to stop expanding and start protecting their borders. They were never able to defeat the Scots.
And that can be said of ANY Politician. "Oh Emperor Charlemagne go fight the Moslems in Spain, but keep your troops near Rome in case the Eastern Emperor decides to March North from Naples, and to keep the Lombards to busy fighting your troops they can not combine with the Eastern Emperor's army and take Rome".
i.e. " Go fight the Moslems if you want to, but first make sure I am safe in Rome from my Enemies, the Lombards and the Greeks".
Hadrian's Wall
As to Hadrian's wall, more recent research have indicated that if there were no written records that it was built by the Romans, it would appear to be better for defense against an attack on the Picts (who then controlled what is today Scotland) then an attack from the South. There found more anti-personal weapons (devices to interfere with someone getting close to the Wall) SOUTH of the Wall then NORTH of the Wall. These researchers made the comment it looked like Hadrian's wall was built to prevent people from going NORTH, not to prevent people from going SOUTH.
Then someone compared it to the Berlin Wall (Especially the Berlin's Wall more rural parts), and that comparison was a better fit, then a wall to keep someone out. In simple terms Hadrian's wall was more to keep people IN Roman Britain then to keep people out.
One thing you must remember, Britain was marginal farm land for Mediterranean farming methods (The method known to the Romans). Given the poor amount of iron due to the poor (compared to the Chinese of the same time period) iron making techniques it was hard to adopt any other type of farming prior to the introduction of the Chinese Iron making techniques (from about 550 onward, and that is tied in with the expansion of the Slavs). Thus Britain had some farming done (not much given the main tools were of wood and maybe bronze) but mostly cattle. AS you go north, what farming that can be done, became harder and harder.
The Wall may have been built for it was decided it was cheaper to feed men on the wall, given the cost of shipping grain, then sending in troops into the Scotland (and the cost of getting food to them in Scotland). Remember's Napoleon's famous comment "An Army moves on its Stomach", that is true today and in the time of the Roman Empire. No food, no army.
In fact this may be the best explanation one the lesser known Antonine Wall. The Antonine Wall was built by Hadrian's successor further up the island, but then abandoned. It may have been to far north to get food to, or even grow (through it seems to be abandoned long before we start to see Temperatures declines as we go from the Roman Warm Period to the Dark Ages Cold Period).
In Garrison, Roman Troops ate a varied amount of food, but on the march it was grain that they had to ground themselves. Thus Roman Forces could NOT march to far from any source of Grain (Thus no movement across the Sahara Desert, into what is now Poland or the Ukraine, or even up the Nile as the Army went to far south for Wheat to be grown). Roman attacks on Persia tended to follow the same path, the path of Grain Growing.
One theory holds that the Romans abandon Britain in 410 AD, not so much to raise troops to defeat the Goths, but also do to it was becoming more difficult to raise grain in Britain using Mediterranean Farming Techniques given that the Climate was getting colder and winter harsher and thus the ground harder to "break" in the spring just to plant crops.
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
Thus Hadrian Wall main purpose may have been to keep Britons inside what is now England for many were escaping to the Picts and raise cattle, rather then stay in Roman Britain and by hard work plant the grain the Roman Army needed (using pick and shovel techniques for the heavy plow was not yet known to Western Europe). Rome had Iron Tools, including spades and even plows, but not to the extent of the Chinese of the same time period, and without the heavy plow what grain the Romans in Britain could grow in areas of harsh winters was limited for the only other way to break grown after a hard long winter was with a spade, one foot at a time.
Think about it, along the Mediterranean coast you could hook up a ox and have it plow up a huge plot of land, that could then be planted with grain (and in Latium itself, whose center was the City of Rome, you could do this two times a year). In areas with hard winter such plows would NOT dig into the soil, it was compacted to much (a side effect of its being FROZEN). Thus the only way to plant crops was by Spade work, one foot at a time. I would not be surprised if they find that the fields around Hadrian's wall were worked each summer by the Soldiers maintaining that wall (lack of labor to do all the spade work need to grow wheat for the soldier to eat the rest of the year). With the cooling of Europe after about 350 AD, by 400 AD it may have been almost impossible to man Hadrian's wall, for the summer had become to short for wheat (In the Middle ages, there is a Story of an English Diplomat saying "Oats, what is feed to Horses in England, and men in Scotland, The queen's response was quick "But where else do you see such beautiful horses and beautiful men".
You must understand the average growing season of various crops, here is the minimum time between the first planting and first harvesting (Average).
Barley........... - 107 days
Corn..............- 128 days
Cotton.......... - 153 days
Oats............... - 98 days
Peanuts........ - 137 days
Rice............... - 137 days
Sorghum....... - 153 days
Soybeans...... - 153 days
Spring Wheat - 107 days
Winter Wheat - 338 days - Less 231 days over wintering - 107 days
Rye................ - 282 days - Less 231 days over wintering - ..51 days
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Usual_Planting_and_Harvesting_Dates/uph97.pdf
Now, the above is the MINIMUM times, you generally had 30 days to plant and the harvest any crop. The Romans had Rye, but considered it a poor crop, but it is not believed they had Winter Wheat.
Thus you had one test for how far North a Roman Army could march, was the area's growing season long enough for Wheat. A lesser test was if the Soil could be done with Mediterranean farming techniques.
Here is a British Map on Average temperatures, Bottom 1/3 of the Island of Britain has decent average temperatures, then you see a substantial drop as you near Hadrian's wall, and a further drop as you go further north. The 8 days growing difference AND Roman's first choice of Wheat as their grain may explain why Rome Abandoned Britain after 400 AD, not enough wheat in the northern half of the Country ti feed any army that went north
Even the Arabs of the Dark Ages Credited the Nestorian Priests of teaching them the fundamentals of Greek Science and Roman Technology. Books from the Greek and Roman time periods were copied and often translated into new tongues (Thus the Slavonic version of "The Jewish War" . Charlemagne encouraged education as did Alfred the Great of England (Alfred went as far as Rome to learn).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_East#Islamic_rule
Latin Survived
Latin almost died out with the Fall of the Roman Empire, but within 150 years all of the Successor States were reinstating the teaching of Latin in their Cities (Latin had by the time of the late Republic broken into two groups, Latin as taught by profession teachers and "Vulgar Latin" which was spoken in the Streets. We know this for every so often you read a paper complaining about a Latin Writing using a non-Latin Term that is also NOT a term from another Language, some even complaining about how such a construction of words could be Latin, when the terms are all Latin but NOT traditional Latin).
Vulgar Latin is the ancestor of today's Romance languages, but none of them were ready to be used as a written language till the High Middle Ages, thus the return to Latin in the 700s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Latin
One bishop even wrote an encyclopedia during the Dark Ages, most of it is from other sources but it clearly shows science had NOT been forgotten during the Dark Ages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymologiae
We even have a book from the Dark Ages written by a Woman, it is instruction to her son how to live as oppose to Science or technology, but it shows that women in the Dark Ages could be Educated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhuoda
Disappearance of Papyrus
One of the problems with records from the Dark Ages is Parchment. With the breakdown in International Trade by the Vandals taking Carthage in 451 AD, Papyrus cease to be readily available (Through we have surviving Documents from the Dark Ages that are on Papyrus). In Roman times, Parchment and Papyrus were both used. Papyrus was cheaper, rougher, did not last any where near from Parchment did, only available from Egypt through trade (Parchment could be made anywhere) and to weak to be used used in a Codex (i.e. what we call a "Book" as opposed to a Scroll) through some Codices in late Roman Empire and the Dark Ages were made with Papyrus).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus
With the adoption of Codex as the preferred way to keep paperwork during the Roman Empire, Parchment started to replace Papyrus as the preferred thing to write on. With the break down in trade due to the Vandals taking Carthage, Parchment became supreme (Through we have papyrus documents from the late Middle Ages, Papyrus disappears completely as Linen Paper was introduced from China, Parchment held on for any record people wanted to keep for a very long time period AND wanted that look of Parchment).
In the time of the Roman Empire Papyrus was used and available and cheap (compared to Parchment). This permitted a lot more writing to occur for people could put something on Papyrus and if others decided it was worth it, re written on Parchment. In the Dark Ages, it was expensive Parchment or nothing. Thus a lot of writing ended up on chalk, in the dust or on bark (other methods of sending written messages, but none have a long life span).
Given this restrictions, and the cost of Parchment, only important records were kept at all. A comparison can be made with Data bases today. Something like 98% of all data is kept on line today. Given that they is a lot of old data still on paper, how did we get 98% of all data on line? The Answer is simple, we made it. What we would NEVER have kept in the days of paper, we now keep on the Computer.
Affect on data from that time period
40 years ago if I went to a Store and purchased a candy bar, I would pay my 25 cents, the clerk would take my quarter, I would get a receipt. Would the Clerk note that I purchased a Candy Bar? NO, all she would do is report I paid 25 cents. At the end of the day she would report all her sales. NOT as individual sales just the total. These would be combined with totals from other clerks and total sales would be determined. What was sold? No one knew or cared. At the end of the Month these totals would again be added up to get a total Monthly Sale, then at the end of the year total sales for the year.
Sometime during the year, inventory would be taken and what was missing. Why the items were missing was unimportant, that the item was missing and had to be re-ordered was important. These missing items were tied in with sales for the same period and net profit was obtained. Notice no calculations for any single good (unless they were expensive, for example cars, washers, dryers, refrigerators, stoves (and other "White" Goods, now called "Durable Goods" were cost as time of sale less cost of buying the car for inventory but those were rare buys).
That was it. No one knew who bought each candy bar, they did not know when it was sold (they could determine the day or month depending how often they had to re-order it but that is all).
Now, look at today. You get a print out of everything you purchased, not just the price. That data is kept in the Cash register. The Cash register keeps not only what I bought, but when and where. This data is transmitted to central computer of the store I purchased the items at and stored and shared with people who think that data is useful. Because we can MINE these data bases we have made, they have value and we can determine who will buy what when to a good degree. Why can be do this, is it is cheap to gather the data. We did not do it 40 years ago for it would have been EXPENSIVE to gather the data.
The same with the Dark Ages. With Papyrus hard to get and Linen Paper only in China, expensive parchment was reserved to items deems worth it. Most were books from the Classical period which were copied during the Dark Ages by those religious driven monks. In fact, except for some rare exceptions, all of the books we have from Ancient Rome and Greece had been re-copied during the Dark Ages by those religious Monks.
What reports we have of the Ancient gods had to be re written by those monks. The Arabs, only after their Conversion to Islam, adopted a similar policy to these books. The Eastern Empire never seems to have left them alone. (Aesop s fable was written done in the Eastern Empire and was a popular book in the Eastern Empire (Through it should be noted the Eastern Empire never lost its ability to obtain
Papyrus unlike the Western Europe).
Josephus and the Jewish war
One of my favorite Controversy over Josephus "The Jewish War"involved the Church Slavonic version of that book. It differs from the Greek Version, first it gives a report on the early Christian Church and provides a different way for Josephus's survival of his pact to commit suicide and several other differences.
There are two arguments as to these differences, first that these were done by the Translator into Slavonic. The problem Scholars have with this argument is no 9th Century Christian would write what is written in the Slavonic version of the Jewish War AND why would a 9th Century translator change "by the will of God I was picked to be last" to "I calculated carefully so I would be the last survivor"? Antisemitism was alive and well, but the Pope made an effort to protect the Jews in Germany in the ninth Century, thus no need for a translator to make Josephus escape from the Jewish side to the winning Roman Side worse then it was.
The second theory is that the Slavonic prince who wanted the Jewish War translated wanted a rarer but earlier version of the Jewish war translated for it had a description of early Christians, even through religious leaders called it a bad report. This original Greek version is now lost to us, but it appears that was the version of the Jewish War someone wanted translated, so it was. The reason for the difference was Josephus himself.
You must remember prior to the printing press, most people did NOT read books by themselves, instead readers went from town to town and read them to people who were willing to pay them to read it to them (and this was generally a large group could be 100 or more). Most people did not know how to read and given the lack of books (and their costs) it generally did not pay for most people to learn to read and write (Even as late as the American Revolution, Washington ORDERED Paine's book "Common Sense" for most of his men could NOT read or write but Washington wanted them to hear what Paine had written).
Now, sometimes these readings were free (for example, Julius Caesar used his position as High Priest of Rome, to his comments of the wars in Gaul to the people of Rome and had his lower Priests read it to them).
Anyway, it appears Josephus not only wanted money from readers reading the book to people willing to hear it, he also wanted to be known as a loyal subject of the Emperor, whose father he helped in the Jewish War (i.e Josephus wanted an increased pension). Thus, after he wrote the what is now the Slavonic version someone came up to him and pointed out the errors. Josephus saw what he had written would NOT get him a pension so he re-wrote the part on how he survived. At the same time someone told him he was wrong as to the Christians, so rather then re-write that part he simply deleted it.
While I lean to the second argument, the reason I bring it up was these old books were read, understood and even translated during the Dark Ages. The translation of the Jewish War to Slavonic is an example of that. The Etymologiae was read during the Dark Ages (and remain Popular enough to be one of the first book printed on a printing press). Yes it contained a lot of writing from other sources, but it shows knowledge and intellectual activity was alive and well during the Dark Ages. It is a lot harder to find, but given the general decline in temperatures (and the subsequent need spend more time looking for food) is a better explanation then any anti-intellectual attitude as to the Church. People want to believe that to be the case, but when you look deep into the Dark Ages it is simply not there.
The Romans never truly trusted Egypt. Most conquered areas had a person in the Roman Senate within 20 years of their Conquest, Egypt it took 140 years. When the various temples were rebuilt by the Emperors during the Second and Third centuries, Egypt's temples were ignored. By the time the Christians came to power in the Roman Empire, the Egyptian scribe appears to have fallen completely out of use. Greek was the language of culture in the Eastern Empire and that is what everyone spoke.
The chief reason was Egypt was the richest province in the Empire. No Patricians (and NEVER a Senator) could even visit Egypt with permission of the sitting Emperor., The Roman Ruler of Egypt was NEVER a Patrician, it was always a Prefect who was always from the Roman equestrian order
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praefectus_Augustalis
Ponitus Pilate is most famous Roman Perfect, through he never ruled Egypt. As a member of the Roman equestrian order he could NOT command Roman Troops, but could command Auxiliaries.
The Roman equestrian order had been in the early Republic the Light Cavalry of the Roman Army. During the Second Punic War, the role of Light Cavalry expanded, but they was NOT enough Roman equestrians to fill the void, so some Plebeians were put on horses then when a force of Cavalry defected from Hannibal to Rome, they were put under the Command of Roman equestrians. This started the long Roman Tradition that Auxiliaries served under Equestrians, something that was maintained till the crises of the Third Century.
Reforms of Diocletian and Constantine
I mention this for the Governor of Egypt NEVER had any Roman Troops till after the reforms of Diocletian in the late 200s. These reforms amounted to the removal of the last of Senatorial say in how the Army was operated, after Diocletian you do NOT hear of a Senator commanding an Roman Army. These reforms also put the Army in charge of the decedents of lead Centurion of each legion. Augustus had started the practice of making the Lead Centurion of each legion into the Equestrian class, but then not of that class. That group and their decedents slowly took over running the Roman Army. By the crisis of the Third Century these decedents of Centurions were being given command of the legions, which technically they could not be given (The Emperor worked around this, calling each appointment "Temporary"
. This divided the Army from the Roman Elite but these new Equestrian were also the most dependent on the Emperor (And Constantine would surround himself with members of this class, calling them his "Companions" latin Comites, which in the Dark Ages became the word "Count".
Egypt
Rome just looted Egypt. We actually have a report from a Bishop of Egypt at the time of the Arab Conquest saying that he was glad of the Conquest for it removed the tyrants that had been stealing the Country blind.
http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/arab_conquest_of_egypt.pdf
Now, you must understand the Late Roman Empire, it had three "centers", the Latin West (about 40% of the Empire), the Greek North-East (The poorest part of the Empire) and that part of the Empire From Syria to Libya that spoke variation of Arabic (Ancient Egyptian is such a variation). While that was the three main languages spoken, the language of Government, Military and Commerce were Latin and Greek. Thus from the time of Egypt being taken over by Julius Caesar and the Fall of Egypt, first to the Persian in 618-629 then to the Arabs in 642.
The last known use of hieroglyphic writing was in 394, three years after all Pagan Temples were closed by Theodosius I in 391 AD, through it appears few really understood them at that time due to Greek and Roman hostility to Egyptian Religion (Some cults were tolerated, but the religion as a whole was not).
Please note, while Theodosius I ordered all pagan temples closed in 391, he did not go out of his way to enforce his own law. Thus Justinian in the 500s had towns within the Empire with still active Pagan Temples, which he ordered closed,
Gold Coins
Theodosius I, seems to have continued Constantine I policy of how to enforce the new currency laws. The Spanish Silver Mines had watered out in the early 200s causing a huge cash problem within the Empire. Since Nero, every time a New Emperor became Emperor he paid the troops a bonus. Now, with the silver coming from the Spanish mines, you had a slight inflation. Do to that slight inflation the economy boomed. As more and more Silver was mined, what you could buy with that silver became less and less, thus inflation. On top of this, the Emperors, starting with Nero would debase the currency to pay the troops even more money (in the form of debased currency).
When the Spanish mines watered out, they was no more silver to make new coins. Thus that only left debasing the Currency, which the Emperors all did in the third century crisis. By the time of Diocletian the Roman Coins had very little Silver in them and no one wanted them and batter had become the way of the Empire. Diocletian tried to solve this problem by issuing new coins with 85% silver content. People hoarded these coins for Diocletian did not have the Silver to mint enough of them to push the bad coins out of circulation.
When Constantine became Emperor he decided to opt for a Gold Coin Instead (The Solidus) His source of Gold? The old pagan temples. Thus the Christian attacks on the Old Pagan Temples was encouraged by Constantine for one of the condition was the Christians had to turn over any pagan idols over to him to melt down (Which he did and used the gold to mint gold coins). The Solius would stay the standard of the World till 1035 when the Byzantine started to debase it (But stay an important coin in international usage till about 1300 when the Venetian Zecchino, a similar sized Gold Coin took over its place as the International Standard). The Venetian Coin, to rare for true international usage, was replaced in the role by the German Silver Thalar about 1450, from which we get the word Dollar via the Spanish and Mexican production of Mexican Dollars of the about the same size and composition (In between the Spanish Pieces of Eight and the American Dollar, the British pound for be the international currency starting about 1750 but ending during WWII)
Source of Gold for Gold Coins
I bring up the coins, for that appears to be why Constantine and his successors went after the old pagan temples, not for religious reasons, but for the gold in the golden idols. If a temple had no golden idols, it survived till Justinian's time (and maybe later). The Acropolis in many ways shows this the best. No one has EVER found a altar at the Acropolis, the reason is it was NEVER a temple. It was the Athenian bank with a huge golden idol of Athena but Altar to to her (Her Altar was in her temple in the city of Athens itself). Having a golden Idol, the Acropolis was converted to a church and the idol taken down and melted (But the pagan cravings on the walls were left alone).
Preserving the Currency seems to be the main reason the temples were attacked. In the 700s the Byzantine Empire would embrace iconoclasm, the banning of "idols" in churches. By idols they meet images of Christ and the Saints, and it seems to be for the same reason, the Emperor wanted Gold to pay the Troops, but by then they were no pagan temples, so he had to go after Christian Churches to loot.
The whole destruction of ancient temples seems to be related to establish a stable currency so the troops could be paid NOT for any other reason. The excuse was the temples were pagan, but that was NOT the reason for if it was the reason the huge number of Pagan temples that survived till the time of Justinian would not have.
Thus the movement away from paganism in the late Roman Empire was driven by the need to get gold from some place, and that appears the best place for such gold was the old Pagan Temples and that is why they were attacked, not for religious reason (through religion was used as an excuse). I hate to say this the 1% wanted their coins and from the 300s till the 1400s that was Gold.
Egypt after Rome
Egypt became the richest province of the Arabic Empire, but like most empire it collapsed within 100 years of its foundation. Spain had been conquered by then, but ruled by a different set of Moslems then ruled Egypt and Iraq. A Shiite dynasty, the Fatima dynasty ruled Egypt just before the Crusades, but they had a weak hold on the country. The Fatima Dynasty collapsed, replaced by Saladin, then the Mamaluks. It is believed Egypt was majority Christian as late as the Crusades, but the Mamaluks, fearing the Mongols, started to enforce rules that made it easier to convert to Islam, but impossible to convert back. The reason the Mamaluks believed in the maxim, one nation, one religion. They had to tolerate the Christians in Egypt, but that did not mean the could not discriminate against them (and they did).
Thus by the end of the Crusades or shortly afterward it is believed most Egyptians were Moslem. The previous Moslem Rulers had NEVER been as discriminatory as the Mamaluks became (And after them the Turks adopted many of the same rules, but not at first, only after about 1600, prior to that the Ottoman Empire was as much Greek Orthodox and is was Turkic Islamic).
I am getting away from the time period I am trying to stay on, the Dark Ages 400-1000 AD, but during that time period, Egypt was Christian, through ruled by Moslems. By agreeing to the Conquest by the Arabs, Egypt was able to get rid of their old Roman Elite and replace them with new Islamic Elite, but being new they wanted less. This is typical when one country takes over another, they replace the top and can often get the 99% to agree to their rule by increasing the share of the Country's wealth that goes to the 99%.
In the case of Egypt, many of their peasants had seen a reduction in their rental payments during the time of the Persian occupation, then saw those rental payments returned when Roman Rule was restored, that they were willing to have a new set of masters so their rents be lowered once again. This reduction in rent made Egypt boom during the period 650-900. It boomed again after Saladin replaced the Fatima Dynasty for the same reason. Egypt Stagnated as the rule of the Mamaluk lasted for Centuries. When the Turks ruled Egypt they did not replace the Mamaluk but worked with them, causing no improvement in the life of the Egyptian Peasant. When the French invaded, they did not make the needed land reforms, and that failure has continued. Sooner or later someone will do land reform in Egypt and Egypt will boom, but that means talking lands away from the present rulers of Egypt, and those Army Generals will oppose that.
Ancient Greek Ideas spreads to Italy
You mention the Arabs preserving Ancient Greek Ideas, but the spread of those ideas into Italy appears to be from Constantinople after that city was sacked by the Fourth Crusade (the only Crusade Condemned before it even started by the Pope). The result of that Crusade was the destruction of what had been the largest city in the World at that time (Baghdad would then surpass it, but in 1258 it would be sacked by the Mongols, who called it the Largest City they ever took, and that included the cities of China).
The leading minds of Constantinople, after 1204 started a slow but steady movement to Italy and with this movement you get the start of the Renaissance. Roman law is rediscovered, Greek art and Science is rediscovered. There seems to be a similar draw of knowledge from Moslem Spain, but not from the Middle East proper (Algebra and the concept of Zero seems to have come from Spain, but one ninth century pope endorsed zero and the decimal digit system, through we have no written report of people in Western Europe using Hindu-Arabic Numbers till after Linen Paper in introduced into Europe in the 1200s).
The Mongol sacking of Baghdad had scared everyone in the Mid East, the Mamaluk rulers of Egypt decided they needed some breathing space so they defeated an out post of the Mongols in Syria. After that battle the Mamaluks then rigged a war with the remaining Crusading kingdoms to drive them out of the Middle East. Unlike earlier wars where both sides tried to preserve the economy of the country they were conquering, the Mamaluks did not want the economy to survive, they wanted a dead space between themselves and the Mongols. The Crusaders wanted to preserve the economy of that part of the Middle East, but the Mamaluks had another agenda. Thus the almost complete destruction of the Crusaders kingdoms, castles and most important for the Mamaluks, the farm fields. In the previous 200 years both sides had done massacres of each other civilians, but had left the field and the peasants working those fields alone, now their were the targets.
This fears of the Mongols made any information exchange between the Arabs and the West impossible at that time period, thus it was the Moslems in Spain and the survivors of the Fourth Crusades out of Constantinople that brought ancient Greek teachings to Italy during the Renaissance. A time period of improve crop yields as the Middle Ages Warm Period replaced the Dark Age Cold period.
Good movie on that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agora_%28film%29
She claimed to be the last living decedent of the line of Cleopatra.
Ronald Reagan understanding of history, appears to be more from Movies made from Hollywood then anything written by people who did research. Movie history tend to be what is popular, not accurate.
From the last paragraph on the Wikipedia site you cite:
Antonio Mampaso, a Spanish astrophysicist and one of Agora's scientific advisors, stated in an interview that "we know that Hypatia lived in Alexandria in the IV and V centuries CE, until her death in 415. Only three primary sources mention Hypatia of Alexandria, apart from other secondary ones". He added that none of Hypatia's work has survived but it is thought, from secondary sources, that her main fields of study and work were geometry and astronomy. Mampaso claimed that Hypatia invented the hydrometer, an instrument still in use today, and that probably her father Theon of Alexandria, together with Hypatia, invented the astrolabe. However, it is generally accepted that the astrolabe had already been invented a couple of centuries earlier, and that the instrument was known to the Greeks before the Christian era. Similarly, the hydrometer was invented before Hypatia, and already known in her time. Synesius sent Hypatia a letter describing a hydrometer, and requesting her to have one constructed for him.
Some reviewers have heavily criticized Agora for historical inaccuracies, heavy artistic licenses and perceived anti-Christian bias in the movie. Robert Barron, an American Catholic priest, writes in an article: "Hypatia was indeed a philosopher and she was indeed killed by a mob in 415, but practically everything else about the story that Gibbon and Sagan and Amenábar tell is false". Irene A. Artemi, a Dr. of Theology of the Athens University, states that "the movie - albeit seemingly not turning against the Christian religion - is in fact portraying the Christians as fundamentalist, obscurantist, ignorant and fanatic". Similarly, the atheist Armarium Magnum blog said: "Over and over again, elements are added to the story that are not in the source material: the destruction of the library, the stoning of the Jews in the theatre, Cyril condemning Hypatia's teaching because she is a woman, the heliocentric "breakthrough" and Hypatia's supposed irreligiousity."
As to the Library, I lean to it being taken by Emperor Julian around 360 ad (30 years BEFORE the destruction of the Temple, and 57 years before the death of Hapatia). Julian was the last of Constantine's family to rule (do to infighting within the family by the time he came of age he was the only male left except for Constantine's son Constantinius II).
After defeating the Germans, Julian decided to lead his army against his then aged uncle, the armies meet ready for battle, then Constantinius II died of old age and both armies declared Julian Emperor. While records from Julian himself shows he had embraced traditional Pagan beliefs before he even became Commander of the Army in Gaul, he continued to celebrate Christian Religious holiday till after he became Emperor (i.e. the Army he lead thought he was Christian not Pagan and the fight with his uncle was over who should rule NOT Christian vs Pagan).
Julian kept up Constantine capital Constantinople and wanted to expand it, for the more he expanded it the more power he could claim. As to Julian's Paganism. While he "Embraced" the old Roman Religion, he did not want a return to the every City in the Empire having its own version of what gods existed. In simple terms, he wanted something like the Christian Church, a Empire Wide Religion with a central dogma and a hierarchy like the Christian Church (i.e. he wanted the Christian Church with Christianity replaced by a centralized Pagan theology).
In many ways the reason Constantine had embraced Christianity was that it would unite the various people of the Empire into one people. Julian wanted to do the same, but based on traditional Pagan Religions. This had been attempted in the 200s and had failed do to the fact each temple in each city had its own agenda and each temple thus rejected the concept of control from above (Through would take money from the Emperor). s of the Christians in the late 200s was in many ways an attempt to get everyone to embrace the old Roman Gods (and was in step of traditional Roman rules that mixed together Roman and Greek gods AND discounted other gods). Diocletian's persecution would have been a first step in setting up a State Religion. Constantine was smart enough to accept that Christianity already had the ability to unite the Empire all he had to do as Emperor was to embrace it, which he had did.
Julian wanted to undo what Constantine had done but then redo it in the form of the old Roman religion. Thus the Pagans did not understand what Julian was doing, nor did the Christians and thus he stayed in power for it actually attacked neither and supported both.
Like Constantine Julian knew he needed gold, and unlike Constantine, he did not want to raid any more Pagan Temples. Thus Julian decided to do Emperor Septimius Severus had done in 197 AD, what Emperor Carus had done in 283, and what Emperor Galerius had done so in 299 AD, sack the Capital of Persia, Ctesiphon (Just south of present day Baghdad). Unfortunately for Julian, the Persians were waiting for him (Unlike the previous times, when the Army was busy in Afghanistan or in a major Civil War), thus his movement was opposed and he was killed in battle, the men of the Army then picked one of their own as Emperor, who declared he was a Christian.
Now, as Julian was planning his attack on Persia and loot Ctesiphon, he also wanted to strengthen the image of the Imperial Capital Constantinople (Which was considered a back water in the 300s, it did not over take Alexandria till the the early 400s and Rome till the mid to late 400s and may be even the early 500s). Thus when Riots broke out in Alexandria, Julian's Roman Governor sent in troops who then raided the temples (These were NON-Roman and Greek Temples and thus held in the same regard by Julian as they were by the Christians). From the Commander of those Troops Julian purchased a huge number of "Books". This is probably what happened to the "Library of Alexandria", Julian ended up with them and deposited then into the Imperial Library of Constantinople (Which was the center of the University of Constantinople founded by Theodosius II in the early 400s) and remained there till the sacking of Constantinople in 1204.
Now, Julian's Christian successors were NOT about to give him any credit for the move, so none was given and thus no records from Christian sources (and I did mention that in the 300s Constantinople was considered a back water). The Pagans did not mention it for they still had access to those books, but now had hated that they were now in Constantinople, a place most of them did not want to go, for they preferred Rome or Alexandria (and thus hated to make the trip). They could blame Julian, but that meant blaming the only non-Christian Emperor after Constantine, something they did not want to do. Thus no one mentioned Julian or his taking of the books.
Such treatment is not unknown even today, for example here is the monument to the US General who lead the Charge during the Second battle of Saratoga:
On the Monument is the following:
Erected 1887 By
JOHN WATTS de PEYSTER
Brev: Maj: Gen: S.N.Y.
2nd V. Pres't Saratoga Mon't Ass't'n:
In memory of
the "most brilliant soldier" of the
Continental Army
who was desperately wounded
on this spot the sally port of
BORGOYNES GREAT WESTERN REDOUBT
7th October, 1777
winning for his countrymen
the decisive battle of the
American Revolution
and for himself the rank of
Major General."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boot_Monument
Notice the General's name is NOT mentioned. It is the most decisive charge in American History, with it Burgoyne had to surrender his army. When the message hit France, an America rode to the US Ambassador, Ben Franklin. On seeing the Rider Ben Franklin asked "Have they taken Philadelphia?" The Rider said yes (For the British had) but I have great New, Burgoyne has surrendered". With that news, the French signed an Alliance with the US and went to war with Britain. Britain gave up all hopes of retaking America and moved its Army South hoping to hold on to something and that lead to Yorktown.
Why is that General's name NOT on a monument? The British hate him for he lost them all hope of taking over America. The American hate him for what he did late, for his name was Benedict Arnold.
I bring him up for it shows what people will write and not write. In the case of Arnold, what he did to win the War is forgotten, just his treason is remembered. As to the British, they never really forgave him for winning Saratoga and costing them America. Thus he was forgotten by both sides. He lived in the time of linen paper so we have reports of what he did, when he did it and why. Things that would NOT have been written in the days of Parchment and Papyrus (or if they were written down forgotten and left to rot for no one really wanted to read them). No one wants to claim Arnold today, just like no one wanted to claim Julian after he died. Thus what records we have indicate he COULD have taken them, but the records do NOT expressly says so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_urban_community_sizes
I think the biological/anthropological view is probably closer to the truth than the classical historical view.
Records and documentation were for the 1%. Those scribes who were not "one-percenters" were writing to please their Lords and Masters and Patrons. The "one-percenters" were writing to please themselves. Just another "O" in the diary of Samuel Pepys.
The "history" of Europe, the one we learn in schools, is largely propaganda. The elites live in one world and everyone else has been overlooked.
I see it in my own family. Our casual genealogy is a fabrication. My surname is supposedly something Scots Presbyterian. My great aunt even got it all mapped out back to the Domesday Book during the eugenics fad of the 'twenties (very nice how that all works out for white protestants, isn't it?) and went so far as to live that lie. My grandfather knew different, that this myth of respectability began when some anonymous Catholic guy jumped ship in San Francisco, probably because he was tired of being flogged for insubordination. New name, new world. Undocumented immigrant. It helps to be a quick study. Give 'em what they want.
A similar thing happened in my mom's family. One of her ancestors was a mail order bride from Europe to the new Mormon settlement in Salt Lake City. Her fabricated genealogy impressed the rubes. But she didn't like sharing a husband so she ran off with a U.S. government surveyor. Her descendant were pretty wild too. One of them had an affair with a Mormon church official and had a kid. Our family knows that, but it's not in the records. So far as the Mormons are concerned she had a miraculous 11 month pregnancy while her husband was away on business on the East Coast. So my mom's surname isn't legit either.
The actual biological dad was a scoundrel himself. He claimed to be White Anglo Saxon. Please... he would have been at home in any photo of IRA members.
It got stranger when my crazy grandma died. She left detailed instructions about the way she wanted to be buried. The Funeral Director asked, somewhat befuddled, "She's Jewish?"
Not that we knew.
So far as I can tell my mom's family motto is just tell 'em you're a Christian so they don't pester you." Pagan, European Jew, Christian, Scandinavian... something. They lived in the wilderness. They never went to church or temple. They were all very good at being where the fighting was not. My mom's dad went so far as to be a pacifist during World War Two. They put him to work building Liberty and Victory ships. His other option would have been jail. My dad's dad was an Army Air Force officer who wanted to fly planes but they decided he was too valuable as a "fix-it" man to get shot at. Dashing young officer who got people deemed essential to the war effort out of jail.
Anyways, I think most of us carry the genes of people who did their very best to avoid becoming part of the historical narrative. Those unnoticed "Dark Age" feudal people were living their lives unnoticed, even making ball bearings, water wheel mills, and iron plows, all doing their best not to become part of the historical narrative.
Becoming part of the historical narrative is usually a bad thing.
