|
packetmantis posted:"Why would a woman make art of herself when she can just look at other women" is possibly the stupidest thing I've heard in this thread where an occasional poster literally thinks Atlantis is real. Not to mention that the rear end perspective means the artist can turn her neck 180º
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 08:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 18:47 |
|
|
Everyone knows spines didn't evolve until 1864.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 08:34
|
|
|
SeaWolf posted:So what was education like for the non patricians? Do we know anything about what or how they studied? We've read about and discussed the elites hiring greek tutors, learning rhetoric, reading plato and socrates and all the other philosphers... It's described as a lot of rote memorization and getting beaten by the teacher when you gently caress up. I don't think we have a surviving curriculum or anything. I think it's a safe assumption that literacy and basic math were the core subjects if you were a normal person getting some schooling. Probably grammar, so you can sound educated and get status from it. If you were from a merchant family picking up additional languages might be very useful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 08:42
|
|
|
Squalid posted:That seems sort of a stretch for the venus figures. . . although archeologists have found plenty of uh, ambiguous artifacts. "The siltstone phallus is highly polished" is a great thread title
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 09:06
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:"The siltstone phallus is highly polished" is a great thread title
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 10:04
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:"The siltstone phallus is highly polished" is a great thread title
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:"The siltstone phallus is highly polished" is a great thread title
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
Magnus Manfist posted:Aw, fair enough. I'm slightly disappointed they didn't literally think bench press was as important as philosophy. edit: my favorite thing about the prehistoridildo is that the other end is a flint knapp. very pragmatic HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Jul 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:i've read a bunch of greeks saying that the gym and gay love are important for the development of civic virtue, which is why tyrants hate both, but I forget which greeks it was Lol, googling around to find other examples of prehistoric dildos turns out this gem: apparently squeamish (I'm just going to assume Victorian) era archaeologists euphamistically called stone phalluses they found "Ice aged batons."
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Lol, googling around to find other examples of prehistoric dildos turns out this gem: apparently squeamish (I'm just going to assume Victorian) era archaeologists euphamistically called stone phalluses they found "Ice aged batons." http://lithub.com/there-once-was-a-dildo-in-nantucket/ http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-erotica-ivory-dildo-3341344-Apr2017/
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:"The siltstone phallus is highly polished" is a great thread title The ✲siltstone phallus✲ is highly polished, it menaces with spikes of siltstone, and hanging rings of siltstone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The ✲siltstone phallus✲ is highly polished, it menaces with spikes of siltstone, and hanging rings of siltstone. Please don't make dildos with menacing spikes
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:which is funny as hell because the wives of those archaeologists would have been, uh, intimately familiar with the article from their own material culture (links very NSFW): quote:
 had these guys never actually touched a woman sexually? I get thinking sex is dirty or whatever but how in gods name do you put a vibrated on a woman's crotch and think "it's not inside her so obviously she isn't sexually stimulated"
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:
victorian men were notoriously lovely lovers
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Please don't make dildos with menacing spikes Clearly you are not familiar with dorf culture. Everything menaces with spikes. Cyrano4747 posted:
I mean if you never bothered to ask and just assumed that what worked for you, worked for her, and then told all your other dude friends, it makes perfect sense why you would think that. It's the Aristotlean entomology of sex. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Jul 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:
Some ancient Greeks thought lesbians had to have giant engorged clits in order to gently caress because otherwise how could you have sex?????
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's the Aristotlean entomology of sex.  WoodrowSkillson posted:Some ancient Greeks thought lesbians had to have giant engorged clits in order to gently caress because otherwise how could you have sex????? Historically, European taboos against lesbianism have been pretty bound up in the notion of penetration, sometimes to the point where anything BUT that is a-ok. I think I posted a link to an article about this a while up thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
I read somewhere that in medieval Japan it was somewhere between accepted and desired that highborn girls would enter lesbian relationships so they would have some sexual experience on their wedding night but wouldn't actually lose their virginity. The notion that lesbian sex doesn't count isn't exactly rare culturally.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
I read in a book on the history of homosexuality that the clitoris was "forgotten" in the Middle Ages, or at least no one wrote about it. It was "rediscovered" in the Reneissance by going to ancient authors like Galen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
I'm fairly sure it was constantly being rediscovered.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
Grevling posted:I read in a book on the history of homosexuality that the clitoris was "forgotten" in the Middle Ages, or at least no one wrote about it. It was "rediscovered" in the Reneissance by going to ancient authors like Galen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
packetmantis posted:"Why would a woman make art of herself when she can just look at other women" is possibly the stupidest thing I've heard in this thread where an occasional poster literally thinks Atlantis is real. What is the consensus on Atlantic? I've always assumed it was advanced for its time, meaning possibly had a better system for water. And then natural disasters destroyed it. This seems like a plausible possibility for it. Also, this may be an impossible question to answer, but would Greeks and Romans have had a better understanding of ancient history than we have? To take the Bronze Age for example, would they have had a better idea of how it happened, possibly from oral histories, or more surviving architecture?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 19:38
|
|
Hazzard posted:What is the consensus on Atlantic? I've always assumed it was advanced for its time, meaning possibly had a better system for water. And then natural disasters destroyed it. This seems like a plausible possibility for it. On how they lived their own lives they knew much more and there are for sure lost oral historical traditions and lost writings of all sorts of kinds but it's abundantly clear that understanding of distant history quickly becomes mythological. We have no very clear idea of how much Greeks believed their own myths but for sure in gener they believed there was a Trojan War and a real Agamemmnon and Priam but our archaeological records, which they could not access, show that pretty much everything Greeks believed about the Trojan war, including that it happened at all, was untrue. They just did not have the frameworks for knowledge or methods to really interrogate their own distant past.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:What is the consensus on Atlantic? I've always assumed it was advanced for its time, meaning possibly had a better system for water. And then natural disasters destroyed it. This seems like a plausible possibility for it.  quote:Also, this may be an impossible question to answer, but would Greeks and Romans have had a better understanding of ancient history than we have? To take the Bronze Age for example, would they have had a better idea of how it happened, possibly from oral histories, or more surviving architecture? No, they did not. We have some of their speculations about etymology and archaeology and anthropology, and their understanding was about as good as everything else (i.e., a fraction of ours, tons of wrong ideas with the occasional great insight/guess). They basically eyeballed everything and believed a lot of what they were told.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:What is the consensus on Atlantic? I've always assumed it was advanced for its time, meaning possibly had a better system for water. And then natural disasters destroyed it. This seems like a plausible possibility for it. I don't see how that's a plausible possibility for a known fictional place, which only appears in a fictional book describing a fictional version of Athens as the counterpoint.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
fishmech posted:I don't see how that's a plausible possibility for a known fictional place, which only appears in a fictional book describing a fictional version of Athens as the counterpoint. bolivia is real and strong and is my friend
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:On how they lived their own lives they knew much more and there are for sure lost oral historical traditions and lost writings of all sorts of kinds but it's abundantly clear that understanding of distant history quickly becomes mythological. We have no very clear idea of how much Greeks believed their own myths but for sure in gener they believed there was a Trojan War and a real Agamemmnon and Priam but our archaeological records, which they could not access, show that pretty much everything Greeks believed about the Trojan war, including that it happened at all, was untrue. I believe the consensus is to that there probably was an actual Trojan War, but the details are mostly unknowable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 03:14
|
|
Silver2195 posted:I believe the consensus is to that there probably was an actual Trojan War, but the details are mostly unknowable. AFAIK the consensus is if there was it can't possibly have been one the Greeks had in mind. In any event, another example would be the belief in the Jewish exile in Egypt, which certainly was not real but was only overturned as a belief really quite recently.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:I believe the consensus is to that there probably was an actual Trojan War, but the details are mostly unknowable. There was almost certainly military conflict between Mycenaean Greeks and their contemporaries in Anatolia. The Tawagalawa Letter, written from a Hittite king to an Ahhiyawan king in the 13th century BC, refers to their previously having gone to war over Wilusa. Current scholarly consensus is that Ahhiyawa = Achaea, Wilusa = Ilios, and thus that Greeks at one point fought Hittites over Troy. Additionally archaeological work on the site of Troy does suggest that the city was destroyed in the early 12th century, probably violently. However, while these things do suggest that there was probably armed conflict involving Greek attacks in the Troad around the time that later Greeks believed the Trojan War to have taken place, they do not suggest that there was a Trojan War in the sense that the Iliad proposes, much less any of the details of Homer's plot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
skasion posted:There was almost certainly military conflict between Mycenaean Greeks and their contemporaries in Anatolia. The Tawagalawa Letter, written from a Hittite king to an Ahhiyawan king in the 13th century BC, refers to their previously having gone to war over Wilusa. Current scholarly consensus is that Ahhiyawa = Achaea, Wilusa = Ilios, and thus that Greeks at one point fought Hittites over Troy. Additionally archaeological work on the site of Troy does suggest that the city was destroyed in the early 12th century, probably violently. Hence "the details are mostly unknowable."
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
skasion posted:There was almost certainly military conflict between Mycenaean Greeks and their contemporaries in Anatolia. The Tawagalawa Letter, written from a Hittite king to an Ahhiyawan king in the 13th century BC, refers to their previously having gone to war over Wilusa. Current scholarly consensus is that Ahhiyawa = Achaea, Wilusa = Ilios, and thus that Greeks at one point fought Hittites over Troy. Additionally archaeological work on the site of Troy does suggest that the city was destroyed in the early 12th century, probably violently. So essentially there was a Trojan War, but the Illiad is essentially an ancient equivalent of those jump scare horror movies "based on true events".
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:So essentially there was a Trojan War, but the Illiad is essentially an ancient equivalent of those jump scare horror movies "based on true events". It's like The Patriot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 06:54
|
|
|
The Illiad was the Fargo of its day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 08:23
|
|
|
*Suddenly sea peoples*
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:AFAIK the consensus is if there was it can't possibly have been one the Greeks had in mind. In any event, another example would be the belief in the Jewish exile in Egypt, which certainly was not real but was only overturned as a belief really quite recently. I may be misrembering things, but I've read somewhere the Jewish exile in Egypt was actually a description of the Jewish exile in Babylon, and just got attributed to a fictional Jewish exile in Egypt long after the fact. How close is this to known historical facts?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
The Jewish exile in Babylon is pretty shady too, unless the exile only refers the the ~1000 most important Jews.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:What is the consensus on Atlantic? I've always assumed it was advanced for its time, meaning possibly had a better system for water. And then natural disasters destroyed it. This seems like a plausible possibility for it. If it existed in anywhere near the condition it was said to have existed then we would have found it by now. If we can find neolithic settlement remains under the Mediterranean then we absolutely would have run across an advanced (for the bronze age) city that more or less got reclaimed by the sea. And we haven't. If it was a million years ago then maybe there would be an argument for it to have been somewhere highly inaccessible or inconvenient to explore, but it isn't going from "coastal lagoon" to "two miles under the surface" in some thousands of years. It was a myth. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Jul 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Libluini posted:I may be misrembering things, but I've read somewhere the Jewish exile in Egypt was actually a description of the Jewish exile in Babylon, and just got attributed to a fictional Jewish exile in Egypt long after the fact. How close is this to known historical facts? The story of Egyptian captivity and exodus is essentially ahistorical, it's a mythic metaphor for the Babylonian captivity yeah. The Jews did not come from outside Canaan and conquer it, they were from there. However the myth of Exodus was obviously consciously created as a myth, during the Babylonian exile, as an illustration of the principle that God's people have been through poo poo like this before and God will bring us through poo poo like this again. I don't think it was any kind of unintentional misplacement of actual history, it was being composed during the events that it mythicizes. Baron Porkface posted:The Jewish exile in Babylon is pretty shady too, unless the exile only refers the the ~1000 most important Jews. Biblical accounts say that the Babylonians deported the court, regional leaders, the intelligentsia, military, skilled workers. They don't really claim that the land was completely depopulated and 100% of Jews were walked off to Babylon in chains, in fact they make the point that the land was then turned into a province with a governor related to the old royalty. The Bible's most pessimistic estimate of numbers taken into exile is still a lot lower than the total population of Judah as estimated by modern archaeology. I'm gonna plug The Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein & Silberman again, if people want a good primer on history and the Bible it is a very accessible jumping off point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Don't forget that the separate kingdom of Israel had had a very similar thing happen a good few decades before the elite of Judah were taken. Main difference is the bible never admits to or acknowledges the Israel elite returning, although actual records of them returning don't crop up in other cultures either. So they probably just didn't come back, or only came back converted to the way of life of their captors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 18:47 |
|
|
I feel very sorry for the Samaritans. They avoid being dragged off by the Babylonians and just do their thing. The exiles come back and decide they aren't Jewish anymore. Sucks to be you, Samaritans!
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 19:53
|
|
