|
Does anybody have any recommendations for books about the deciphering of Linear B? Or the intersection of archaeology and linguistics more generally. I see there's a bunch of books written on the topic but wanted to see if anybody here had a favorite
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 04:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 02:41 |
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Does anybody have any recommendations for books about the deciphering of Linear B? Or the intersection of archaeology and linguistics more generally. I see there's a bunch of books written on the topic but wanted to see if anybody here had a favorite I actually grabbed an old used book on this very topic creatively titled "the Decipherment of Linear B," by John Chadwick. It's a cool history-of-the-history by one of the historians who worked on the project in the 50s. I haven't finished it yet, but I like how it's given a history of the script's discovery and the theories about it early on. I've just gotten to the part where Alice Kober figures out it was used for an inflected language.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 08:07
|
|
|
Also, I would like a book (preferably one with a Kindle version) on the decipherment of Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs! I already have one on Athanasius Kircher and his ridiculous fake decipherment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 18:54
|
|
|
I just learned about this silly thing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR_5h8CzRcI
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 03:54
|
|
|
Quick ancient Rome question, if anybody knows. Putting aside the Etruscans and the Greeks, Italy was, of course, divided into a bunch of different tribes,which the Romans managed to subjugate. After the Social War (brought about by a revolt by the Italic tribes against Rome), Rome gave citizenship to the Italians. How long, though, did tribal identities exist after that? How long did people consider themselves Oscan, or Picentes, or Samnite, for example?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 06:58
|
|
|
There's not a good answer or one that can be applied consistently. The only one I know for sure about are Etruscans. We have records of people identifying as Etruscan up to 410 CE, the last known mention of them as a distinct group was Etruscan wizards offering their services against the Goths. Etruria does seem to have maintained a distinct identity more than other parts of Italy, but that may be our greater familiarity with Etruscan culture compared to some of the other groups. There are signs written in Oscan all over Pompeii, so the language was still alive many generations after the Oscans became full Roman citizens. This is the sort of thing you'd really want written records from the average citizen for, and those exist but are extremely rare. My guess is that the identities existed for a very long time and people had a distinction between being Roman and being a Latin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 07:10
|
|
|
How did ancient or medieval systems of property inheritance and so forth deal with twins, either fraternal or identical? Did birth order matter even if it was only by minutes? Were there any major regional trends, considered lucky or unlucky or just "Hey, two heirs for one pregnancy, good deal."
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 08:03
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:There's not a good answer or one that can be applied consistently. The only one I know for sure about are Etruscans. We have records of people identifying as Etruscan up to 410 CE, the last known mention of them as a distinct group was Etruscan wizards offering their services against the Goths. Etruria does seem to have maintained a distinct identity more than other parts of Italy, but that may be our greater familiarity with Etruscan culture compared to some of the other groups. There are signs written in Oscan all over Pompeii, so the language was still alive many generations after the Oscans became full Roman citizens. Tell me the story of the etruscan wizards 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 08:53
|
|
|
Those Darn Etruscan Wizards is the best jeopardy category
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 11:33
|
|
|
The Romans had wizards??? This explains EVERYTHING
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 11:58
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:The Romans had wizards??? This explains EVERYTHING No, the etruscans did. They were probably all slytherins.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 12:10
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:No, the etruscans did. But they were working for the Romans
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 12:47
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:But they were working for the Romans they said they did, but surely I'm not the only one who sees the hand of perfidious Etruscan magicks in Hannibal's Alpine crossing
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 15:07
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:they said they did, but surely I'm not the only one who sees the hand of perfidious Etruscan magicks in Hannibal's Alpine crossing While it’s true that wizards are not known for their loyalty, Hannibal’s Alpine crossing was clearly the work of the treacherous Mountain Dwarfs
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 16:41
|
|
|
There wouldn't have been a Rome any more if only the Carthaginians had found a way to get the gorillas on their side.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:There wouldn't have been a Rome any more if only the Carthaginians had found a way to get the gorillas on their side. They should have introduced crocodiles to the Tiber
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
Nessus posted:How did ancient or medieval systems of property inheritance and so forth deal with twins, either fraternal or identical? Did birth order matter even if it was only by minutes? Were there any major regional trends, considered lucky or unlucky or just "Hey, two heirs for one pregnancy, good deal." Not a fully qualified expert, but I think the beginnings of an answer might be that strict "winner-take-all" primogeniture wasn't as strong and absolute a norm as it's generally believed to have been; various kids would have gotten various things no matter where they were. The echoes of lectures past and read information are suggesting to me an example might be found in English royalty where when you go down the line more often than not it wasn't the firstborn that took the throne at all. In an ancient context my mind goes immediately to good ol Gaius Julius himself. He adopted Antony before Octavian, right? But his will left 90% of everything to Octavian despite that Mister Olympus fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Dec 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
I can’t even think of a pair of medieval royal twins. Probably most of the time it happened at least one of them died fast. Twins are mostly born premature and low weight which are both big risk factors in societies with lovely healthcare. I’m sure it happened a couple times but...Mister Olympus posted:In an ancient context my mind goes immediately to good ol Gaius Julius himself. He adopted Antony before Octavian, right? He definitely did not, or Antonius would never have shut up about it and quite probably would have won the empire in the end. Antonius had been the magister equitum to Caesar so could perhaps have expected to be his heir at one point, but by the time of Caesar’s death this was no longer necessarily true — they had fallen out in 47 over Antonius’ disastrous handling of Dolabella’s attempt to cancel debts and only reconciled shortly before Caesar’s death. The fact of being named Gaius Julius Caesar, legal son of Gaius Julius Caesar, was the one big advantage over all other Roman elites Augustus had from the beginning. The big advantage that Antonius had was that with Caesar dead, he was the only sitting consul and held the treasury and the most legitimate power base. Antonius might have expected to find himself named as heir in the will, but maybe not. As the guy entrusted with it he couldn’t very well just sit on it, regardless of how favorable to himself he expected it to be. skasion fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Dec 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 18:45
|
|
|
skasion posted:I can’t even think of a pair of medieval royal twins. Probably most of the time it happened at least one of them died fast. Twins are mostly born premature and low weight which are both big risk factors in societies with lovely healthcare. I’m sure it happened a couple times but... from wikipedia's list of royal twins, there's james II of scotland (if you count 1430 as still being medieval), whose twin died in infancy, and ramon berenguer II, who had a perfect nemesis twin, up and to including his name quote:He succeeded his father, Ramon Berenguer I, Count of Barcelona, as co-ruler with his twin brother, Berenguer Ramon, in 1075.[5] The twins failed to agree and divided their possessions between them, against the will of their late father. Ramon Berenguer the Towhead, so called because of the thickness and colour of his hair, was killed while hunting in the woods in 1082.[6] His brother, who went on to become the sole ruler of Catalonia, was credited by popular opinion of having orchestrated this murder.[6] Berenguer Ramon II the Fratricide[6] was later succeeded by Ramon Berenguer's son, Ramon Berenguer III.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:from wikipedia's list of royal twins, there's james II of scotland (if you count 1430 as still being medieval), whose twin died in infancy, and ramon berenguer II, who had a perfect nemesis twin, up and to including his name Ah, so it’s a self-solving problem
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
skasion posted:I can’t even think of a pair of medieval royal twins. Probably most of the time it happened at least one of them died fast. Twins are mostly born premature and low weight which are both big risk factors in societies with lovely healthcare. I’m sure it happened a couple times but... This makes sense and my head just immediately went to "well he was pals with caesar longer" as his initial argument just carrying over to inheritance law somehow
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 19:16
|
|
|
How twin age is calculated is cultural as well. In east asia (I know for sure in Japan and I think in other places as well) the baby who comes out first is considered younger.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 19:25
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:How twin age is calculated is cultural as well. In east asia (I know for sure in Japan and I think in other places as well) the baby who comes out first is considered younger. How is that justified
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 19:30
|
|
|
Squalid posted:How is that justified first baby in last baby out
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 19:31
|
|
|
Squalid posted:How is that justified In the womb, one is already older and one is already younger, birth order is just a diagnostic of age, not the cause of it. The folk explanation is that the older sibling helps the younger sibling to be born before themselves leaving the womb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 19:33
|
|
|
Now that my memory has been exposed as deeply fuzzy, it does lead to the question: how absolute was primogeniture? I know the idea itself had to take time to gain full traction because you have things like the Carolingians chopping up their estates and titles, but was it ever generally accepted that “most should go to the oldest living son,” and what were the exceptions and details of thar?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 19:34
|
|
|
Tias posted:Tell me the story of the etruscan wizards Unfortunately it's just a passing mention of a set of Etruscan wizards offering to use their pagan godly powers to attack the Gothic army with lightning. But it's a super valuable passing mention since A) we get that Etruscans are still a thing in 410 CE and B) this is well into the era of Christian Rome and pagan wizardry is still enough of a thing for them to show up and it isn't remarkable. Also they aren't burned at the stake or anything, they just get a no thanks and leave.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 20:09
|
|
|
Geez what a coincidence that every time Royal twin heirs are born that one dies in infancy, just removing the problem of figuring out who the legitimate heir is. Such a coincidence. What are the odds?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 20:17
|
|
|
This is totally unrelated but I just found out from the "tell me about references in older media that are lost on modern viewers" thread here in A/T that divans, like the chair/couch things, have a name that's ultimately descended from the Sumerian for "clay tablet" because they were the furniture where the bureaucrats sat and then the metonymy evolved from there. Which is super cool to me if only because goddamn that word is old.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 21:05
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:Geez what a coincidence that every time Royal twin heirs are born that one dies in infancy, just removing the problem of figuring out who the legitimate heir is. Such a coincidence. What are the odds? I get your angle but it doesn't explain how many live into adulthood and die in hunting accidents. DACK FAYDEN posted:This is totally unrelated but I just found out from the "tell me about references in older media that are lost on modern viewers" thread here in A/T that divans, like the chair/couch things, have a name that's ultimately descended from the Sumerian for "clay tablet" because they were the furniture where the bureaucrats sat and then the metonymy evolved from there. now wait until you hear about Sky Dad
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 21:22
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:I get your angle but it doesn't explain how many live into adulthood and die in hunting accidents. Doesn't it? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
Edit: i read gud
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 23:28
|
|
|
It's surprising that a number of monarchs just figured that their multiple sons would rule the inherited state in tandem. Despite having ruthlessly consolidated power back in their own day, they figured their kids would just agree and get along. I know of split inheritances that didn't end horribly and even the brothers got along a little, but joint inheritances are just a weird dumb idea in a monarchic system. Although the monarchs who had the opposite problem of no heirs and thought of the future of their state and tried really hard to make sure there was someone to carry on after they died didn't seem to get much return either. It works best when the heir is powerful before succession, but for some reason monarchs don't like that sort of setup, so they try to find all sorts of ways around that. They make sure that as many important things run through them as possible, then when they die it's a mad scramble to make it all work again, even with the institutional stability of succession rules. Best way of smoothing everything out is by somehow subverting the whole system so the it's all a farce and the real power is held in the hands of organized factions of aristocrats, but then it's barely even the system it claims to be anyways, and the new order will be in peril if you ever accidentally wind up with a monarch who wants to really do something. In conclusion, monarchy is a waste of effort.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 00:20
|
|
|
I think in at least some of the societies with partible inheritance, it worked because kingship was a series of personal holdings, privileges, and feudal relationships, rather than rulership over a state. Charlemagne had the loyalty of a bunch of counts and personally owned a bunch of royal land that he drew income from. That's partible in a way that isn't possible with other societies. So I guess my answer is that monarchs who assumed their children would inherit in tandem thought it was okay because the "state" wasn't their concern, because the state didn't necessarily even exist. They just wanted to do right by (all of) their sons. Multiple sons inheriting in tandem worked at least one time I can think of though. Basil II and Constantine VIII co-ruled with Basil doing all the hard work and Constantine being content to enjoy the life of the palace and perform ceremonial imperial roles
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 00:32
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:. It works best when the heir is powerful before succession, but for some reason monarchs don't like that sort of setup, Isn't the reason that monarchs with powerful heirs tend to die early?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 00:59
|
|
|
If you don’t divide your inheritance at least semi-evenly among your sons then the disfavored ones have no reason to back your succession plan. Kids aren’t passive receptacles for your will, and this is much more important to realize when your kids are also magnates, commanders of armies and centers of patronage. If you try and keep your kids from being these things as a ruling king, then that in itself makes them dangerous to you. Modern people who think in terms of states can boggle about the division of Charlemagne’s empire by Louis the Pious, but this division wasn’t just something he decided to do on a lark, it was an extremely fraught and unstable compromise forged by nearly 20 years of war between his close family over his previous plans of succession and his attempts to change them to keep everyone onside.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 01:31
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:It's surprising that a number of monarchs just figured that their multiple sons would rule the inherited state in tandem. Despite having ruthlessly consolidated power back in their own day, they figured their kids would just agree and get along. I know of split inheritances that didn't end horribly and even the brothers got along a little, but joint inheritances are just a weird dumb idea in a monarchic system. I mean, plenty of parents around today are totally unaware of what their children's wants and desires are, don't discount "bumbling ignorance" when it comes to family drama
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 01:44
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:It's surprising that a number of monarchs just figured that their multiple sons would rule the inherited state in tandem. Despite having ruthlessly consolidated power back in their own day, they figured their kids would just agree and get along. I know of split inheritances that didn't end horribly and even the brothers got along a little, but joint inheritances are just a weird dumb idea in a monarchic system. So, my question is, have you written all your kids but one out of your will? And will that make for an awkward Christmas? Something I've noticed is that a lot of times when we talk about history, or criticize decisions made by historical figures, we sort of have an underlying expectation that their actions are or should be intended to maximize utility. If I had to guess a reason for that, it's because historians tend to be more comfortable talking about broad historical trends and institutions. We talk about the conflict between the HRE emperors and the popes as a clash between two rival sources of legitimacy, for instance. To a large extent, of course, this is a corrective against the whole great man theory of history, but I wonder sometimes if we've gone too far in the other direction, and gotten rid of human agency altogether....if we forget that historical figures were, first of all, people. So I wonder if how much of the "my kids will rule the state in tandem" is just partly the king's wish fulfillment and belief in the decency of his kids, and partly the desire to make sure that his one son can take care of himself and have something to do when the king himself is dead. How much is it him thinking as a parent rather than as a king?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 03:37
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:How twin age is calculated is cultural as well. In east asia (I know for sure in Japan and I think in other places as well) the baby who comes out first is considered younger. cursory googling in japanese suggests that perhaps this was a folk belief, but the current legal situation is that the first one out is older.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 03:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 02:41 |
|
|
skasion posted:If you don’t divide your inheritance at least semi-evenly among your sons then the disfavored ones have no reason to back your succession plan. Kids aren’t passive receptacles for your will, and this is much more important to realize when your kids are also magnates, commanders of armies and centers of patronage. If you try and keep your kids from being these things as a ruling king, then that in itself makes them dangerous to you. Modern people who think in terms of states can boggle about the division of Charlemagne’s empire by Louis the Pious, but this division wasn’t just something he decided to do on a lark, it was an extremely fraught and unstable compromise forged by nearly 20 years of war between his close family over his previous plans of succession and his attempts to change them to keep everyone onside. I think this is a good point and when we look back at how badly joint inheritance schemes worked it's easy to forget just how often brothers ended up killing each under every system of succession. Especially if you think the parents want to do right by their kids, giving them some kind of independent power might be the only way to keep them alive. Then there's also the uncertainty involved. Like, in hindsight it seems obvious that it was stupid for Septimius Severus to make Geta and Caracalla co-emperors. However before him, had there ever even been an emperor with two sons? I can't think of any off-hand. Also worth mentioning that he might not have planned to die when he did, and may have been caught unprepared. If he had instead cut Geta out of any inheritance, he might have been murdered by Caracalla anyway just to tie up loose ends. If he had made him governor of some distant border province he might have raised rebellion and set off a civil war. In such situations there might only be bad choices and it's not easy to judge what course is best. Of course there are also plenty of instances of fathers very cynically handling inheritance issues. Ottoman dads and their fondness for taunt bowstrings spring to mind. . .
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 05:01
|
|