ASCLEPIADES
-
Posts
2,115 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by ASCLEPIADES
-
-
Salve, guys and Ladies!
I think the real question would be where did humanity begin; what could the first human do and his predecessors couldn't that made him so utterly different?
-
Salve, guys!
There is more than one definition of statesmanship. Whichever you choose, I think we should measure any statesman by his/her achievements; how deep, how far and how long do they affected his/her society and the World.
By that standard, I can't see any possible controversy; no other single Roman politician affected Rome, Europe and the Western World so deeply and so extensively, both in space and in time, as Augustus.
Certainly, there were many men and women behind his achievements (vg, Agrippa, Livia, Maecenas, Salvidienus); quoting a member of UNVR (I can't remember who) every government is an oligarchy. But he was clearly the head in any sense. Paraphrasing Augustus himself, he received a state on the brink of disintegration and left an effective system of government that endured more than three centuries, surviving even the mediocrity of a lot of his successors.
-
Salve, guys!
I suppose that any guerrilla force in the Roman world (and beyond it), from the Jews to the Picts, would have tended to be very adroit at laying ambushes.
-
Salve, guys!
Do you know if there's evidence of smoking of any kind in the Old World before tobacco?
-
Salve, guys!
I think there is enough evidence of the fact that Phillip II and his predecessors had converted the Macedonian phalanx into one of the most outstanding military machines in all History; during Alexander's lifetime and long afterwards, the phalanges suffer very few defeats against any foreigners, even under some commanders that were probably mediocre at best; their only real enemy was another Macedonian phalanx. Anyway, thoroughly considered, many if not most of the generals of Alexander were of first order by their own merits (vg, Parmenion).
I concord with S that Alexander has been overrated, crudely and systematically overrated in many different ways. From a military point of view, the two most important ways would be both quantitative:
- It is very common to see figures for battles like Gaugamela not merely fantastic, but even close to delirious.
- It is commonly claimed that he conquered the World; more than 90% of the world that he conquered was the declining Persian Empire itself.
After having said that, it is undeniable that, beyond all the flattery, Alexander was undoubtedly one of the most formidable commanders that ever existed; you can only find a handful of them in any time and place that could have been considered his peers; I would include people like Timur-i-lang, Temudjin (Gengis Khan), Khalid ibn al-Walid and Cyrus II the great; this last comparison was made even during Alexander's lifetime.
I think that any rating among them would be subjective at best.
-
Salve, guys! Something is bothering me:
Where do the coins of the legitimate dealers come from?
-
Salve,guys! The publication of this articule got a number of mailed questions with their respective answer. I am going to poste here some of them:
Mummy's Curse - Junk Science PD Harper,
I did not spot anywhere in the article where it mentioned what the mummy's curse was, so how can a reader put into context the conclusions? I don't beleive in curses but I also don't believe in junk science. There is no defintion of what "exposure" to the curse in means. I believe the curse was: "Death Shall Come on Swift Wings To Him Who Disturbs the Peace of the King" Does this defintion limit the recipient of the curse to a male and to one person only? The conculsion is based on dishonest a premise; Quote: "What this study adds There was no association between "potential exposure" to the mummy's curse during the excavation of Tutankamen's tomb and death within 10 years. No evidence was found for the existence of a mummy's curse"
"Potential exposure" should not have been the the focus of the study; it should have been focussed on actual exposure and 10 years hardly seems to fit in with the "swift wings" part.
TO BE CONTINUED
-
SOMEBODY HEEELP!
I am still unable to upload pictures; the following links go to the 2 figures that complete this article, and I will ask for your help to set them in this thread:
and
Fig. 2. Dose effect of exposure to mummy's curse and mean survival
Thanks in advance.
-
Salve, guys! This question can't be solved and any answer must be subjective for a number of reasons.
A couple of them:
- Most of the time, the Roman army was much more proficient than any of its enemies. Therefore, even bad commanders could get plenty of victories. It is very difficult to evaluate the evolution of the quality of the Army.
- We simply don't have reliable figures. The accounts that we get are typically one-sided and tend to inflate the numbers of the enemy and decrease that of the hero (whoever he is) precisely to highlight his heroic qualities, sometimes getting to really absurd extremes.
I consider the best general is the one that gets the best achievement with the lesser resources in the harder conditions.
With my limited knowledge of the matter, I think this could very well have been Aetius.
-
There was a sex difference as spouses of professionals in the 1920s was more likely to be women and therefore over-represented in the unexposed group.
Aha! Just as I thought. Aside from there being more women in the unexposed group, the exposed group was at no higher risk of premature mortality than anyone else. No need for the mold theory, or the curse theory, or whatever nefarious vector you'd like to imagine--if the exposed group didn't die early, there's nothing to be explained.
Indeed, that is exactly the conclusion of Dr. Nelson and his team: there is no need to explain a curse simply because there is no curse at all. The "exposed group" had the same risk of death than the "unexposed".
PS: There is still some additional material. I will upload it soon.
-
Salve, guys! Finally, here's the last part of the article:
Limitations of study
My study has several limitations. Exposed people were more likely to be involved with the dig and therefore be mentioned in print. Hence there was a difference in the completeness and accuracy of data between the exposed and unexposed groups. There was a sex difference as spouses of professionals in the 1920s was more likely to be women and therefore over-represented in the unexposed group. The definition of exposure may also be questioned with the possibility of contamination of the "unexposed" if the curse acted longer or more widely. Carter recorded that the season after the discovery saw over 12 000 visitors to the site and therefore in the absence of an ensuing epidemic it was thought to be reasonable to limit the period to one day. The small numbers analysed, however, resulted in wide confidence intervals, and the study may have been underpowered to show a more subtle adverse effect.
Conclusion
An Egyptian archaeological dig in the 1920s was inhabited by interesting characters and it was this and the circumstances of the archaeological find of the modern age that has kept the myth of the mummy's curse in the public eye. I found no evidence for its existence. Perhaps finally it, like the tragic boy king Tutankhamen, may be put to rest.
References
1. Carter H. The tomb of Tutankhamen. London: Century Publishing, 1983.
2. Curse of the pharaoh denied by Winlock. New York Times 1934 Jan 26;19-20.
3. Malek J, ed. Howard Carter's personal diaries of the first excavation season in the tomb of Tutankhamun. Part 1, October 28 to December 31. Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1922. www.ashmol.ox.ac.uk/gri/4sea1not.html (accessed Aug 2002).
4. Malek J, ed. Howard Carter's personal diaries of the first excavation season in the tomb of Tutankhamun. Part 2, January 1 to May 31. Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1923. www.ashmol.ox.ac.uk/gri/4sea1no2.html (accessed Aug 2002).
5. Dawson WR, Uphill EP. Bierbrier ML, ed. Who was who in egyptology. 3rd ed. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1995.
6. Who was who. 4th ed. , Vol II. 1916-1928 London: A&C Black, 1967.
7. Who was who. 2nd ed. , Vol III. 1929-1940 London: A&C Black, 1967.
8. Who was who. 5th ed. , Vol IV. 1941-1950 London: A&C Black, 1980.
9. Who was who. 4th ed. , Vol V. 1951-1960 London: A&C Black, 1984.
10. Who was who. , Vol VI. 1961-1970 London: A&C Black, 1972.
11. Who was who. , Vol VII. 1971-1980 London: A&C Black, 1981.
12. Who was who in America. , Vol 1. 1897-1942 Chicago: Marquis Publications, 1966.
13. Debrett's peerage and baronetage. London, Macmillan , 1995.
14. Debrett's baronetage, knightage and companionage. London: Macmillan, 1995.
15. Burke's peerage and baronetage. 105th ed. London: Burke's Peerage, 1975.
16. Reeves N. The complete Tutankhamun. The king. The tomb. The royal treasure. London: Thames and Hudson, 1995.
17. Montserrat D. Louisa May Alcott and the mummy's curse. KMT A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt 1998; 9: 70-75.
18. France P. The rape of Egypt. London: Barrie and Jenkins, 1991.
19. Brier R. The murder of Tutankhamen: a true story. New York: GP Putnam's Sons, 1998.
-
Salve, guys! Here is the third part of the article:
Results
Carter recorded the presence of 44 Westerners in Egypt at the relevant time, of whom 25 were potentially exposed to the mummy's curse. They were members and relatives of Carnarvon's and the Metropolitan Museum of Art's excavation teams, the press, Belgian royalty, British officials and dignitaries, and experts employed by the Egyptian government. I established dates of death for all of those exposed and 11 (58%) of those not. The table lists the characteristics and mean survival of exposed and unexposed groups. Figure 3 shows a dose-survival plot for those exposed to the curse. There were no significant differences for the four groups (analysis of variance F=1.03, P=0.41). Female sex was a significant predictor of survival (38 v 21 years, P=0.017). Adjustment for age and sex, any exposure, or the number of times exposed did not confer additional risk for early (within 10 years) death (odds ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 0.20 to 9.6). There was also no effect on survival time for any exposure or number of exposures.
Discussion
The mummy's curse is now widely accepted to be derived from fictional literature. In 1869 Louisa May Alcott, author of Little Women, had written a short story called "Lost in a Pyramid: the Mummy's Curse."17 An alternative source may have been a tale related by the US painter Joseph Smith (1863-1950), who told of a curse on the heretic king Akhenaton, Tutankhamen's father-in-law. Akhenaton (ruled 1353-35 BC) displaced the traditional pantheistic worship by combining the hundreds of deities into one: Ra, the disc of the sun.18 On his demise the vengeful priests were said to have damned "his body and soul . . . to wander separately in space and never to be reunited for all eternity." Tutankhamen inherited the throne through marriage to the third daughter of Akhenaton after the death of the older two daughters. There is speculation that the priests had Tutankhamen murdered to further their own ambitions.19 The chief priest, Ay, inherited the throne on Tutankhamen's death.
Howard Carter was a professional archaeologist and therefore had no time for the curse, declaring that "all sane people should dismiss such inventions with contempt."16 He had meticulously and carefully excavated the tomb to allow photographic recording of the exact position where objects were found and the preservation of items and the tomb itself. This was a painstaking process conducted over several years, interrupted by political infighting over who had the right to exploit such a find. He received assistance from American experts from the neighbouring excavation of the Egyptian Department, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, and officials and employees of the Egyptian government. These groups made up the bulk of the cohort studied.
TO BE CONTINUED
-
The groups were compared statistically by means of the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-test.
This made absolutely no sense to me. Ages are a continuous variable, therefore using a nonparametric test is inappropriate.
Good question. The independent variable (length of life) is indeed continuous, BUT the dependant variables for each analysis (1.- born before or after 100 BC; 2.- firmness of the dates of birth and death) are not; they are categorical. As far as I now this test is an acceptable alternative under this circumstances.
You have it backwards. The DV is the thing being measured--in this case, lifespan. The IV is the thing being manipulated (or, acting as a predictor of the DV)--in this case, category of date (before/after 100 BC) and "firmness" of dating. When you have an continuous DV (which lifespan most certainly is) and a categorical IV (which is what they're using), choosing a non-parametric test is typically inappropriate (especially for small samples) because it's likely to make overly conservative errors (i.e., fail to find differences where they really exist). Given that a few assumptions are met (which they don't report on one way or the other), they should have instead used some variant of a general linear model (probably a mixed model would be best).
BTW, since their chief claim is that the samples don't differ, their choosing a statistical test that is biased to fail to find real differences is pretty sleazy. In fact, the only reason that this was news was the surprise value of their "finding" that the lifespans of the ancient Romans (at least the elite ones) was no different from the lifespans of the modern ones (at least the elite ones). Tsk tsk tsk.
Salve, MPC. Of course, you're right; I have been corrected and I think you have a valid point Gratiam habeo!
-
The only thing that could help--and this is my real fear--is the banning of ALL sales of ancient coins. And, frankly, I don't think it's right to do that for a very long list of reasons.
I don't think that would help. One of the reasons for not being the right thing to do is that it would probably only rise the price unscrupulous collectors would have to pay, making the trade even more lucrative.
-
What's new and objectionable is putting ancient coins on the list of antiquities. No other nation has such a treaty with the US (or anyone else, as far as I know).
I think it's only a matter of time.
-
The groups were compared statistically by means of the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-test.
This made absolutely no sense to me. Ages are a continuous variable, therefore using a nonparametric test is inappropriate.
Good question. The independent variable (length of life) is indeed continuous, BUT the dependant variables for each analysis (1.- born before or after 100 BC; 2.- firmness of the dates of birth and death) are not; they are categorical. As far as I now this test is an acceptable alternative under this circumstances.
-
Salve, guys! If still can't link to the article, you can always try in the site of the British Medical Joural (www.bmj.org) or, even better, read it in paperware at your favoritelibrary. Quoting MPC: "Instead of doing a search on Google, try doing a search on your library's catalogue of BOOKS. They deliver text at amazing speeds without even needing an internet connection, feature high quality images, and--best of all--contain scholarly references and are edited for accuracy. All operating systems work with BOOKS, and thanks to public libraries, they're even open source."
Now, the Results section of this article:
The figures for length of life of the ancient population were first analysed in isolation. The 298 observations were grouped in consecutive 5-year periods, when the distribution showed a negative skew with a mode at 75-80 years. The median was 70 years; the range was 19-107. To test the homogeneity ofthe population the 298 members were arranged in chronological order according to year of birth, ranging from 650 BC to 602 AD. When their lengths of life were grouped according to their century of birth, a drop in length of life after the second century BC was strikingly apparent. A lower level was maintained in succeeding centuries. The subgroups with firm dates and with circa dates were therefore examined separately, when both subgroups were seen to show the group trend with drops in the median length of life after 100 BC (Table 1). The decreases were statistically significant in both cases.
Table 1. Median length of life in ancient populations with 'circa' and 'firm' dates born before and after 100 Bc. The figures in parentheses denote the numbers in the samples. The P values are for two-tailed significance limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
..............................................'Circa' dates..........................................................'Firm' dates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Born before 100 d.c.................. 72 years (128)........<--z=0.15 NS--->....................71.5 years (30)
.
..............................................z = 2.31 p <0.05.................................................z = 3.03 p <0.005
Born after 100 d.c.....................66 years (100).........<--z=2.37 P< 0.02--->..............58 years (40)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NS=Not significant
TO BE CONTINUED ...
-
Salve, Lady N. Glad you like it.
-
This means that if I outlaw trade in Cypriot coins, I'm most likely not protecting ANY sites in Cyprus for the elementary reason that coins minted in Cyprus are not likely to be FOUND in Cyprus. They'll be found all over the Roman world and acquired legally. And if I do find a coin in Cyprus, there is no way anyone could know that I found it there as opposed to a zillion other possible locations.
Quoting this NYT article:
"Cyprus has said the restrictions are necessary to combat the looting of cultural and archaeological sites, particularly in the northern part of the island, which has been divided from the south since Turkey invaded in 1974.
Archaeologists frequently use coins to help them date ancient sites; they say that treasure hunters using metal detectors to look for coins often wreck potentially important archaeological discoveries."
I would think that these rules are for coins remaining in Cyprus, irrespectively of where they were minted.
I think you're right, it should be very difficult to find coins in any archeological site anywhere. But it is still more difficult to find them elsewhere. That's why archeologists search there. Besides, if I were a looter, I would probably take my chances anyway.
-
Bosra?
-
Palmyra?
-
Salve, K!
I think we should applaud any kind of official measure intended to the preservation of World Heritage sites like Petra.
BTW, this information is somehow related to the "Free Money Now!" thread.
-
I am not sure what "normal artifacts" mean, or BTW how much abnormal coins are. I am also not sure that the volume of the booty has much to do with the degree of the damage inflicted on the looted archeological sites.
Let's face it, the openness of the collector community without rules (or with they if not observed), being it for the sake of the dissemination of knowledge or for the greediness of the looters, has done a great damage to the cultural and archeological heritage all around the world, from Mesoamerica to Iraq (not excluding the US).
-
Why is Pyrrhus ranked higher than the man who defeated him--M Curius Dentatus?
Apparently, that was also Hannibal's opinion.
Pope: Other denominations not true churches
in Hora Postilla Thermae
Posted
Any more guesses?