[Music of the Spheres]

RE: Summer of Love: I have been trying to think of music of the era (ca.60's/70's) that specifically relates to, or mentions Ancient Rome. There's "the End" by the Doors with "lost in a Roman wilderness of pain" (Morrison had been reading Sir James Frazer) and "When the Earth Moves Again" by Jefferson Airplane (references Hannibal, but seems inspired by the film "Spartacus") but seems as if there should be more. Maybe not, I dunno.

[Global Warming]

For a while now I've watched an advert on global warming. Its a frightening prospect. All those greenhouse gases polluting our atmosphere and raising temperatures that render our world a very inhospitable place. You need only log on to www.climatechallenge.gov.uk to join the effort to save our planet.

 

Except for one small point...

 

IT'S RUBBISH!

 

Sorry, but it is. The advert is blatant propaganda designed to pander to our current fad for enviromental concern and recruit well meaning citizens to the government cause by frightening their poor little socks off.

 

So why is this advert propaganda? The current popular belief is that greenhouse gases are causing global warming. False. Global warming is powered by the sun. As the sun becomes more active, so our temeratures rise. The action of sunlight on the worlds oceans creates far more CO2 than we do. True. Pollution from volcanoes is currently the worst offender. True. Cosmic rays are responsible for the extent of cloud formation, not CO2. True. We also blame industry for the rise in geenhouse gases yet during the period from 1940 to 1975 when industry increased in leaps and bounds - the mean world temperature dropped. Its ironic therefore that greenhouse gases are caused by global warming. True. Serious climatologists have uncovered a time lag between mean temperatures and the amount of greenhouse gases resulting from it amounting to around 800 years.

 

But what about the ice caps? Surely we have to stop the sea level from rising? Well it would be a neat trick but changes in sea level are nothing new. It happens all the time and always will. One of the reasons for the saxon incursions into england was rising sea levels that inundated their coastal settlements. The current perception also ignores the fact the dry land rises and falls too. Britain is rising out of the sea (slowly) after the collossal weight of ice from 10,000 years ago has now gone. London is sinking because the land mass we call Britain is slowly tipping over. The northwest is rising, the southeast falling. Why? Because tectonic movement is pushing Britain aside as it opens the Atlantic wider. Something similar is true of the Mediterranean. We know that the Meditteranean coast is rising and falling as it buckles under the strain of the African plate as it moves northward. The Alps are the result of it, and the sea is shrinking. Thats what powers volcanoes such as Etna, Vesuvius, and the reason why the island of Santorini blew up in distant antiquity.

 

The fact is global warming is a natural event. The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today. Where they beset with droughts and disastrous weather and flooding? No. In fact they benefitted from bumper harvests. Wine was produced in the now chilly north of england. When you consider the 800 year time lag between temperature and greenhouse gases we are in fact now receiving the 'tax bill' for the Medieval Warm Period. If you go further back, there are long periods in earths history where the world is significantly warmer than our predictions of doom. Only once in earths past, the late Permian period, was the temperature so high as to seriously affect life on earth. For those that don't know, that was before the dinosaurs. We're at the mercy of a ball of hydrogen undergoing a nuclear reaction 93,000,000 miles away.

 

So what the heck is going on? Basically the study of climate has been hijacked by those people with agendas. Remember all those campaigners who tried to stop the deployment of nuclear weapons? The ones who played cat and mouse with whale hunters? Now their holy grail is global warming. The failure of governments around the world is that they now adopt the same attitude for popularity. These days if you mention global warming doors open. Point out that its all nonsense and you're a pariah. Its become a mantra of our time, and its based on misconceptions.

 

One of these misconceptions is that we can predict what will happen. Although the current trend is for warmer temperatures, it might swing the other way with a vengeance if our ocean currents change too far. The computer models designed to make these predictions are based on the premis that global warming is down to greenhouse gases, and we already know thats incorrect. But because the global warming industry is in full swing no-one wants to hear that the statistics are based on mistakes. They only want to hear the answers that suit their purpose.

 

So what can we do about global warming? Unfortunately, the answer is almost nothing. Really. We are literally helpless in the face of nature. But then nature has always insisted that survival of the fittest is the prime directive of life. Species survive because they adapt to changes. Species that become specialised can do well, like us, but ultimately their enviroment will change faster than their ability to change with it. Our attempts to be greener are laudable but it won't stop climate change. Like King Canute, we stand there trying to order back the tide.

 

I wholeheartedly agree. It's just made with people who have an agenda and nothing better to do in an attempt to change our lifestyle. I'm worried about the environment and the rate we are destroying it but to say that global warming will kill us all is just stupidity. Shifts in the temperature of the Earth is nothing new it's a natural process. No matter what we do the Earth will warm and cool according to its time.

 

They're just like the guys who come up with daylights savings time, they have nothing better to do so they enforce it upon the people.

On the other hand, I don't think it's necessary to let polluters/exploiters off the hook, since the overall effects of environmental destruction are decidedly bad. Problem is, the worst ones, I mean one (China) isn't receptive to the pleas of environmental activists.

[How does one pronounce Roman Latin?]

That PDF from Michael Covington is excellent...the table on the last page is particularly informative. And Wheelock's is always a great stand-by. Thanks, PNS!

Thank you, this is exactly what I was looking for! Harmonicus

[How does one pronounce Roman Latin?]

I know this will seem extremely simple-minded, but is there a practical guide with simplified phonetic pronounciation of Ancient Roman Latin? Many textbooks I've consulted overlook certain vowel combinations, such as "ii": is this sounded as a long "i" ("ee") or a double vowel (as "ee-ee")? I know this sounds utterly ridiculous, but I'm genuinely confused, and I'd like to have some reliable guide without embarking on a project of learning to speak Latin (as worthwhile as it might be). Don't know if this is the correct forum for this.

[Son of Spartacus]

Calm down Neph....

 

Yah, that's me, the brunette chick in the background of that poster, with the blonde chick trying to hold me back.

 

"SEE...! The man in the iron mask! The rescue of a love slave! The infamous leopard-men! An Emperor's evil orgies!"

 

Oh mama. Bring on the popcorn!

 

-- Nephele

Thanks! Gotta say, old Kirk wouldn't last long in the arena against Steve! Douglas did say "Hollywood is a bitch goddess" and I'm thinking maybe he meant that in a Roman Pagan sense. Harmonicus

[Anglo-Saxons didn't settle in Britain?]

I was reading Britain BC recently and after finishing the book I was thinking of getting the next in the series: Britain AD. After reading through reviews on amazon and on academic sites, it seems that Dr. Pryor's new book isn't as recommended as the previous one. Most of the book's criticism is centered on the bizarre idea that the Anglo-Saxons didn't settle in Britain, and further more they didn't even exist!

 

Pryor bases his idea squarely on the shoulders of archaeology, as he basically refuses to aknowledge the historical record, claiming that writers such as Bede and Gildas made the invasion up in order to invent a creation myth for the English. He also suggest that because Britain was not over run by invaders such as Neolithic farmers, Beaker people and Celts in prehistoric times (as originally supposed by scholars) then it must be true that there was no Anglo-Saxon settlement in Britain, and that their culture, language, customs and art were peacefully imported by traders. He even suggests that the Saxon shore forts built by the Romans were used as trading warehouses not as defensive fortresses. There is, in his own point of view, no evidence for an invasion or settlement by Anglo-Saxons in the archaeological record in England.

 

Has anyone else read this book? What's your opinion on this idea? I personally find it very, very bizarre as it goes against everything we know from the historical record. There are more sources for settlement of Anglo-Saxons in Britain than just the English and British written records - there are for instance the Roman records e.g - they mention the Barbarian conspiracy in Britain in AD 367, where the Saxons and the Picts launched a two pronged attack on southern Britain etc.

Then there is also evidence from the continent from the Life of St. Germanus, and numerous records from other areas.

 

Ahem. now even I have to say this thesis isn't accurate. In my area are some ancient sites known to have been over-run by saxons. Wayland Smithy, a neothilic burial site, was regarded as a sacred site by the impressed saxon invaders marching down the Ridgeway, and the hill-fort at Barbury is so named because it was taken over by Bera, a saxon warlord. Further, just down the hill from that fort is a level plateau where a dark age battle took place between saxon invaders and romano-celtic defenders, who lost. The remains of this relatively minor set-to have been found. If you look at the map of wiltshire, there are plenty of saxon names given to sites, and we know the saxons were keen farmers as much as hated warriors. Well I would suggest Mr Pryor comes down to north wiltshire armed with an ordnance survey and read up on saxon place-names. He might see things differently.

I was attempting to encapsulate Pryor's thesis, and didn't intend to be overly lengthy. Personally, I think he's gone a little bit too far, maybe way too far. I don't think the displacement of language, and place-names can easily be explained by a gradual absorption of incoming Saxons. Here in the USA there are alot of Native American place-names and loan words in a stiuation where the entire aboriginal population was displaced. I think there is a need somewhere to believe that the post-roman invasions were amiable. Hey, I think Wayland Smithy might be a Saxon name! (Just kidding, but that a cool name!)

[Son of Spartacus]

Does anyone know of an Italian -language sequel to "Spartacus"? Wasn't exactly on the production level of the original, belonged to the Hercules genre. Just how many of those strongman movies had specifically Roman Empire content? Most of the ones I've seen are set in a kind of Greek Mythological never-never land.

[Summer of Love, 40th Anniversary]

For those who didn't know it (I'm sure Docoflove knows it, living in San Francisco as she does), this year marks the 40th Anniversary of the Summer of Love.

 

For any aging hippies or new generation hippies around here who care to celebrate, I'm doing my 'gramming thing by offering hippy names to anyone who wants them.

 

As before, just give me a scramble of your name (for privacy, if you like) and, through the magic of anagramming, I'll happily hippify you with a suitable hippy name that you can wear with your tie-dyed, paisley-patterned, bell-bottoms and shades.

 

Peace, baby.

 

-- "Calleann Phree" (a.k.a. Nephele)

Hey, let's not forget Jim Morrison, an avid reader of the Golden Bough, hence, "lost in a Roman wilderness of pain", specifically Aricia. I believe the summer of love was roman pagan in character, whereas the Reagan era was really the dark ages. Come and dig my earth! Harmonicus

[Anglo-Saxons didn't settle in Britain?]

I was reading Britain BC recently and after finishing the book I was thinking of getting the next in the series: Britain AD. After reading through reviews on amazon and on academic sites, it seems that Dr. Pryor's new book isn't as recommended as the previous one. Most of the book's criticism is centered on the bizarre idea that the Anglo-Saxons didn't settle in Britain, and further more they didn't even exist!

 

Pryor bases his idea squarely on the shoulders of archaeology, as he basically refuses to aknowledge the historical record, claiming that writers such as Bede and Gildas made the invasion up in order to invent a creation myth for the English. He also suggest that because Britain was not over run by invaders such as Neolithic farmers, Beaker people and Celts in prehistoric times (as originally supposed by scholars) then it must be true that there was no Anglo-Saxon settlement in Britain, and that their culture, language, customs and art were peacefully imported by traders. He even suggests that the Saxon shore forts built by the Romans were used as trading warehouses not as defensive fortresses. There is, in his own point of view, no evidence for an invasion or settlement by Anglo-Saxons in the archaeological record in England.

 

Has anyone else read this book? What's your opinion on this idea? I personally find it very, very bizarre as it goes against everything we know from the historical record. There are more sources for settlement of Anglo-Saxons in Britain than just the English and British written records - there are for instance the Roman records e.g - they mention the Barbarian conspiracy in Britain in AD 367, where the Saxons and the Picts launched a two pronged attack on southern Britain etc.

Then there is also evidence from the continent from the Life of St. Germanus, and numerous records from other areas.

I have almost finished Britain AD, haven't read BC yet. Pryor's hypothesis seems to be that the so-called Anglo-Saxon invasion was more of a gradual migration, and had no observable disruptive effects on the existing Romano-British population. He traces the large-scale abandonment of urban centers to the late-Roman period. His major theme is the endurance of an agricultural society with origins in the Neolithic period. Pryor is a farmer, as well as a scholar, and I think his obvious love of farming contributes largely to his attitudes. He is somewhat dismissive of historical sources (well, more like source, i.e. Gildas) and there's a definite prehistorian vs. classicist subtext to the work. All that said, I really dug the book.

[Opium Smoking in Ancient Rome/Egypt???]

After watching last nights episode of ROME (episode 9 of series 2) and witnessing half the cast indulging in hookah pipes and bongs and little brass ganja pipes I can contain myself no longer and must explain that the Romans, or any Old World culture never actually smoked opium.

 

According to 'OPIUM: A HISTORY' by Martin Booth,

"...the exclusivity of opium, which was eaten, meant very few people were addicted. However, this was to change when a particularly unique new vice, originating in the New World, was introduced to China by European sailors. It was smoking"

 

Although this paragraph is not specifically about the Romans it does explain that smoking substances was an idea that did not exist.

 

"Thus was born one one of the most evil cultural exchanges in history - opium from the middle east met the native American Indian pipe".

 

"For the Romans , the poppy was a powerful symbol of sleep and death. Somnus, the god of sleep is often portrayed as a small boy carrying a bunch of poppies and an opium horn, the vessel in which the juice was collected by farmers..."

 

Could this opium horn be the cause of the misunderstanding? Is it being mistaken for some kind of pipe?

 

 

I am hoping that someone will contradict my post and point to evidense of Old World cultures smoking cannabis or something. It seems improbable to me that hashish was not smoked before Tobacco made its way to Europe and Asia.

Excuse this somewhat belated reply: I'm a novus homo (my Latin is really provincial!). Excavations of Scythian tumuli have revealed that devices for inhalation of smoke were in use ca.400 CE. Bronze tripods held burning substances, probably cannabis, and users would enclose themselves in tents to inhale the smoke. There is also evidence for the use of hand-held pottery burners dating from the late-neolithic period in Europe, and again, the substance in use was probably cannabis. The gap between burning incense, and smoking isn't all that vast.

[Opium Smoking in Ancient Rome/Egypt???]

After watching last nights episode of ROME (episode 9 of series 2) and witnessing half the cast indulging in hookah pipes and bongs and little brass ganja pipes I can contain myself no longer and must explain that the Romans, or any Old World culture never actually smoked opium.

 

According to 'OPIUM: A HISTORY' by Martin Booth,

"...the exclusivity of opium, which was eaten, meant very few people were addicted. However, this was to change when a particularly unique new vice, originating in the New World, was introduced to China by European sailors. It was smoking"

 

Although this paragraph is not specifically about the Romans it does explain that smoking substances was an idea that did not exist.

 

"Thus was born one one of the most evil cultural exchanges in history - opium from the middle east met the native American Indian pipe".

 

"For the Romans , the poppy was a powerful symbol of sleep and death. Somnus, the god of sleep is often portrayed as a small boy carrying a bunch of poppies and an opium horn, the vessel in which the juice was collected by farmers..."

 

Could this opium horn be the cause of the misunderstanding? Is it being mistaken for some kind of pipe?

 

 

I am hoping that someone will contradict my post and point to evidense of Old World cultures smoking cannabis or something. It seems improbable to me that hashish was not smoked before Tobacco made its way to Europe and Asia.