|
Judgy Fucker posted:I few years ago I read a book about Merovingian France, and the author included an anecdote about a landowner in the Rhone Valley in the 6th century who was utterly incredulous when told there was no Western Emperor on the throne, illustrating 1) how ineffectual the Western Roman state had become in its later years (didn't even notice when it was gone) and 2) the socioeconomic isolation of late antiquity/the early middle ages; dude was 75ish years behind the news I'd also kind of interpret it the other way around, where the collapsed empire was still orderly enough that people didn't really realize that something was missing up top. But yeah, the later empire had gotten to a point where the wellbeing of "the empire" as a whole thing unto itself was irrelevant to the majority of people. I kind of think of the Fall of Rome as kind of it dissolving. There were still plenty of "roman" institutions floating around, but at some point the "non-roman" institutions that had been floating around the late empire for a while flipped things around and took over. The Franks and Goths were bumping around the empire for a long while before it fell, and I think after the fall of Rome the politically dominant powers still paid a lot of lip service to the idea of the empire even if they were de facto independent and there wasn't really an imperial structure anymore. Odoacer was ostensibly a client beneath the Byzantine Empire. Rome pulling out of England was a more straightforward situation where the empire still clearly definitely existed, so nobody could lay claim to having its authority or permission.
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 14:07 |
|
|
One thing I'm a bit unclear on re: the history of racism is the relationship between racist attitudes in Europe/America and racist attitudes in the Muslim world. Does anyone know of a source that explains how the latter developed and how it related to the former?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 18:32
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:High altitude adaptation is the most interesting one to me. The genetic mechanisms are a pretty recent discovery and the Tibetan and Andean versions are distinct from one another, so it's an example of human convergent evolution. One fun tidbit is that at least some of the Tibetan/Central Asian high-altitude genes seem to be really, really old and come from the Denisovans which is cool as hell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 18:36
|
|
|
FishFood posted:One fun tidbit is that at least some of the Tibetan/Central Asian high-altitude genes seem to be really, really old and come from the Denisovans which is cool as hell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 18:51
|
|
|
Asian people too iirc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 18:51
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Is that common out there, sort of like the Neanderthal genes in Europeans? Yeah, I think most Asian, Austronesian, and Native American populations have Denisovan ancestry. It seems like when modern humans started to migrate out of Africa, the populations that went to Europe mingled with Neanderthals and the populations that went to Asia mingled with Denisovans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 18:56
|
|
|
No. Also Neanderthals and denosovians interbred which complicates everything. Also there is another unknown homo group in there as well
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 18:58
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:Depends on where you were. The collapse in England was near total, to the point of losing several technologies.  brosnað enta geweorc
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 19:01
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Is that common out there, sort of like the Neanderthal genes in Europeans? We have so little evidence for Denisovans at the moment it's hard to say anything definitive, but it does seem likely there was some sort of analogous mixing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 19:24
|
|
|
zoux posted:Thinking about Marc Antony: For whatever reason English has nativized a lot more Roman names than Swedish, to the point where first learning about the Romans in Swedish and then reading about them in English can be mildly confusing. I dunno if it's just that Roman-style names clashes more with English phonology or what's going on. What I do know is that it made me sound super pretentious when watching Rome with my friends and reverting to calling characters by their Roman names that I knew from Swedish history books when I tried to explain what was happening between episodes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 20:09
|
|
|
Older English writers definitely refer to Brutus (especially the Trojan Brutus, supposed first king of Britain) as “Brute” sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 20:12
|
|
|
Et tu, Brute being the apotheosis of that, which I somehow forgot about when posting earlier e: I forget, in Rome do they call him Marcus Antonius or Marc Antony
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 20:14
|
|
|
Brute is valid Latin in that specific line. It's the vocative, the case you use when just calling out the name outside of the structure of a sentence. The e isn't silent. At least, I assume Shakespeare intended the vocative there because it's in a Latin line
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 20:17
|
|
|
zoux posted:Et tu, Brute being the apotheosis of that, which I somehow forgot about when posting earlier This one I know, as it was the main culprit in making me sound pretentious. He's called Marc Antony in the show.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 20:19
|
|
|
euphronius posted:No. Also Neanderthals and denosovians interbred which complicates everything. Also there is another unknown homo group in there as well
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 20:22
|
|
|
You think Anglicization is bad, how about Frenchification https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tite-Live?wprov=sfti1 And I’m pretty sure Italians talk about Giulio Cesare etc. Idk but I suspect that basically only within the last few centuries has anyone cared enough about vernacular ancient history to insist on purist spellings of names, and even then there’s limits. Nobody talks about the Ivlii and Clavdii. (Clavdivs, according to Monsieur Tite-Live, is itself a Latinization of the Sabine name Clavsvs)
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 20:28
|
|
|
You telling me Santa Claus is a claudian
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 20:30
|
|
|
skasion posted:You think Anglicization is bad, how about Frenchification Spirit, why do you show me such horror
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 20:33
|
|
|
Famed Roman historian and soundcloud rapper Tite Live
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 20:34
|
|
|
skasion posted:You think Anglicization is bad, how about Frenchification Now I'm kinda curious how much the names were localized in German, as I suspect that Swedish writers tended to just crib German writers' homework for a lot of stuff regarding what to call foreign people and places.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 20:36
|
|
|
I had a real challenge teaching history in China because Chinese writing is so inflexible you literally cannot render foreign words in it, so sometimes they'll try to do something that sounds vaguely similar (eg Maidanglao for McDonald) or just make up a new name. So there were lots of historical figures my students actually did know something about or had at least heard of, but with a completely different name and we had to do twenty questions to figure it out and connect the dots. Had a very frustrating conversation in Japan once because Mao Zedong is called Motakuto in Japanese and neither of us knew what the other one was talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 20:44
|
|
|
Offler posted:Now I'm kinda curious how much the names were localized in German, as I suspect that Swedish writers tended to just crib German writers' homework for a lot of stuff regarding what to call foreign people and places. German mostly uses the Latin names but often abbreviates them (e.g., removing an -(i)us) or changes the spelling according to German pronunciation rules (e.g., Trajan, Mark Aurel, Horaz, Martial).
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 20:47
|
|
|
Offler posted:For whatever reason English has nativized a lot more Roman names than Swedish, to the point where first learning about the Romans in Swedish and then reading about them in English can be mildly confusing. I dunno if it's just that Roman-style names clashes more with English phonology or what's going on. What I do know is that it made me sound super pretentious when watching Rome with my friends and reverting to calling characters by their Roman names that I knew from Swedish history books when I tried to explain what was happening between episodes. In contrast, it's funny that the English call the great Swedish king Gustavus Adolphus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 20:48
|
|
|
I think older books will call him Gustav Adolph but Adolph is not a popular name anymore for some reason
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 20:53
|
|
|
Ol' Gussy Hitler
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 20:56
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:I think older books will call him Gustav Adolph but Adolph is not a popular name anymore for some reason Athaulf the Goth, king of Sweden
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 20:58
|
|
|
Teutonic tribes did pretty alright for themselves huh
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 21:04
|
|
|
zoux posted:Teutonic tribes did pretty alright for themselves huh That’s what the historians will tell you. But when I want to redistribute the provincial lands to my retainers and establish my own realm within the empire, suddenly I’m “not welcome at Chili’s anymore”
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 21:55
|
|
|
zoux posted:Thinking about Marc Antony: It's obviously hard to tell how people would address each other in daily oral practice, but I would be willing to bet that there was a formalized system of what forms to use when, even if it was never written down in a way that's survived. Kind of like Russian, where you can (or at least could, in a more formal age) tell a lot about the relationship between people or the formality of the situation based on which of the three parts of a name they used to address each other skasion posted:You think Anglicization is bad, how about Frenchification They do it with everything! Even Poutine! Grand Fromage posted:Ol' Gussy Hitler And this reminds me of the Russified spelling Гітлер. That's never sat right with me. Instinctively, I'd much sooner write хитлер because it's really not a hard G and the X sound feels closer to the German H that's barely a sound at all. Maybe that's a bit of Ukrainian (or other more western east slavic language) influence, since it's much less of a G sound there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 00:05
|
|
|
EricBauman posted:It's obviously hard to tell how people would address each other in daily oral practice, but I would be willing to bet that there was a formalized system of what forms to use when, even if it was never written down in a way that's survived. You could probably check this by comparing Cicero’s letters with Caesar’s commentaries. Obviously not a record of direct speech, and written for different purposes, but the two of them wrote about a lot of the same people while having very different friends. Most obviously Cicero calls his brother Quintus, not by their family name or his own cognomen, whereas to Caesar he’s Q. Cicero or even (since Marcus didn’t go on campaign with him) just Cicero.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 01:00
|
|
|
When looking on wikipedia, trying to find out the reasons why there was a plot to assassinate Alexander The Great, I came across this quote by the philosopher Strato: "The youthful bloom of the twelve-year-old gives me joy, but much more desirable is the boy of thirteen. He whose years are fourteen is a still sweeter flower of the Loves, and even more charming is he who is beginning his fifteenth year. The sixteenth year is that of the gods, and to desire the seventeenth does not fall to my lot, but only to Zeus. But if one longs for one still older, he no longer plays, but already demands the Homeric ‘but to him replied.’" Those greeks invented democracy, and built the foundations of modern society, but they was kiddie fiddlers. I like all the weird and hosed up stuff in ancient history. I could probably read a whole book about eunuchs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 01:27
|
|
|
EricBauman posted:
Missed opportunity to go for putain for the last name. It's just as close to the original as the fries-with-gravy name.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 01:44
|
|
|
To add to the name chat, Finnish is fun in that a lot of classical names were relayed to Finnish by folks with a classical education, so we mostly use the originals in nominative: Πλάτων = Platon, Ἀριστοτέλης = Aristoteles, Marcus Tullius Cicero, Julius, Octavianus, and so on. (We even use the Latin-derived word "krapula" for hangovers, indicating that the academic elites back then had the money and time for really getting their drink on while the rest of the country was relatively poor and sober and the word spread to popular usage.) However, we have our inscrutable system of translating most of the names of European royalty, so you get Charles = Kaarle, Gustav = Kustaa, George = Yrjö and so on. We now let go of that with Charles III, he's just Charles III now which irks me because Charles II of the 1660 Restoration fame is still Kaarle II in the history books. I love studying Japanese because they of course use mostly the same sinographs (with some historical divergence because of the simplified Chinese reforms by the CCP), but give their own reading to them. You get from Mao Tse-Tung to Motakuto because it's the Japanese reading of the sinographs 毛 沢東 = モウ タク トウ Moutakutou. The letters also often have a native Japanese reading, which makes history fun because the same folks have two names depending on whether you use the Chinese-derived or Japanese reading. The Minamoto clan, 源氏 Minamoto-shi can also be read as Genji, while their enemies in the Genpei war, the Taira-shi 平氏, can also be read as "Heiji". The word "Genpei" comes from putting the two together and reading the Hei as Pei because sometimes it just be like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 10:54
|
|
|
barbecue at the folks posted:
I play the Nobunaga’s Ambition series of strategy games in Chinese and it’s funny to me that I can read the hanzi but have no idea what the Japanese reading is. Outside of the big memorable guys I can recognise from their pictures, I basically have no idea how any of their names are pronounced, and that’s before they go through any of the hundreds of name changes that they seemed to really like doing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 11:27
|
|
|
Some of you like that Historical Fiction, not really all that into it myself but I did read John William's Augustus and I think it should be of interest to much of the thread. By the same William's who did Stoner and Butcher's Crossing. Something of a forgotten author for some decades but is really regaining a following now, especially Stoner for some reason. quote:Finished Augustus by John Williams There's my thoughts from the Lit thread if you wanna know what it's about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 22:53
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:Some of you like that Historical Fiction, not really all that into it myself but I did read John William's Augustus and I think it should be of interest to much of the thread. By the same William's who did Stoner and Butcher's Crossing. Something of a forgotten author for some decades but is really regaining a following now, especially Stoner for some reason. Also recommend. Read it a long time ago but very interesting book. I remember especially liking his portrait of Julia, and of the downfall of Salvidienus which is rarely stressed by the historical sources b/c the guy got purged and had no powerful friends to keep his memory alive, but which must have been a pretty crazy thing to go through, given his seniority among the future Augustus’ partisans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 23:13
|
|
|
skasion posted:Also recommend. Read it a long time ago but very interesting book. I remember especially liking his portrait of Julia, and of the downfall of Salvidienus which is rarely stressed by the historical sources b/c the guy got purged and had no powerful friends to keep his memory alive, but which must have been a pretty crazy thing to go through, given his seniority among the future Augustus’ partisans. It was the only time Antony managed to outmaneuver Octavian, you can feel how raw that emotion is and can feel that it's at that moment that Antony went from a rival and potential conspirator to someone that Octavian was going to eventually put down. And then again at the end when Augustus is recalling his youth he can feel only pity for the man whose only crime was to be born too alike in character to Augustus himself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 23:44
|
|
|
EricBauman posted:It's obviously hard to tell how people would address each other in daily oral practice, but I would be willing to bet that there was a formalized system of what forms to use when, even if it was never written down in a way that's survived. I think the weirdness is mostly left in official names and being dropped by younger people. So Hitler is still Gitl(y)er. Biblical Habbakuk is Abbakuk. The River on the map is Gudzon. But younger russians in NYC still kinda say it that way but type Khudson. Russian transliteration is a mess, really, is my takeaway. I try to stick to just trying to match the spelling back and forth. Except for doing ь/ъ as apostrophes in latin mostly bc I still can’t remember or say them right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2024 17:55
|
|
|
Speaking of name etymology/origins I guess, last night I was googling about looking for something new-to-me to read and I stumbled across a conviction that "El Shaddai" in the early Old Testament was a completely different God altogether than the later and better-known "YHVH"/Yahweh, who got the Asherah treatment and instead of his name getting turned into "groves" or "trees" or "a pole" his name got turned into an honorific, "The Almighty/Almighty," that could be worked into the Yahwist narrative as "yeah that was definitely our guy all along" and also the parts that don't fit became Satan. Now I got all this from like, the first three sentences of the "Shaddai" wikipedia page, so maybe this is something everyone else already knows. No? Yes? Is this common cultural historian knowledge? But anyway I realized this all very intensely and got very excited and then kept reading and of course everything I read after that seemed to support this madcap idea so surely this must be "a thing." Here is some Wikipedia. Wikipedia on "El Shaddai" posted:El Shaddai (Hebrew: אֵל שַׁדַּי, romanized: ʾĒl Šaddāy; IPA: [el ʃadːaj]) or just Shaddai is one of the names of the God of Israel. El Shaddai is conventionally translated into English as God Almighty. (Deus Omnipotens in Latin, Arabic: الله عز وجل, romanized: ʾAllāh ʿazza wajal) Something about "conventionally translated into English as" just made me suspicious, given again the whole way "Asherah," definitely a God, gets translated into all sorts of things that aren't "the name of a God" because having her around is very inconvenient in a monotheist narrative. So that was the introduction to the Wikipedia article and next section is on "occurrence." quote:Third in frequency among divine names,[8] the name Shaddai appears 48 times in the Bible, seven times as "El Shaddai" (five times in Genesis, once in Exodus, and once in Ezekiel). Wow! Okay! What caught my eye here is the bit According to Exodus 6:2–3 Shaddai was the name by which God was known to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Let us source this verse. Genesis 6:2 - 5 posted:God spoke to Moses and said to him, “I am the LORD. 3 I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them. 4 I also established my covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan, the land in which they lived as sojourners. 5 Moreover, I have heard the groaning of the people of Israel whom the Egyptians hold as slaves, and I have remembered my covenant. Hm okay. So as everyone here probably knows, when it comes to philosophical and theological arguments a lot of weight is attached to being legitimate successors to older events and ideas. I mean, a lot of things are like this, I guess. But we know that say, the Greek philosophers would point to older ideas that supported theirs, etc. This reads to me as "Ah yeah, that other guy you knew of, who spoke to people by that name, that was definitely me. I didn't tell them my real name though. My real name, I'm only telling to you, and we're using that name from now on. But we're definitely the same guy, and I'm super powerful." Please, remember that Moses met the burning bush like, two chapters ago at this point, and the bush, which we later come to know as Yahweh, has motives that are kind of sus. I don't want to derail too far into "the origins of Yahweh" (such as we know them) right now but Wikipedia's page on Yahweh to the rescue here: Wikipedia on "Yahweh" posted:The oldest plausible occurrence of his name is in the Egyptian demonym tꜣ šꜣsw Yhwꜣ, "The Land of the Shasu YHWA," (Egyptian: 𓇌𓉔𓍯𓄿 Yhwꜣ) in an inscription from the time of Amenhotep III (1390–1352 BCE),[29][30] the Shasu being nomads from Midian and Edom in northern Arabia.[31] The dominant view is therefore that Yahweh was a "divine warrior from the southern region associated with Seir, Edom, Paran and Teman".[5] There is considerable although not universal support for this view,[32] but it raises the question of how Yahweh made his way to the north.[33] An answer many scholars consider plausible is the Kenite hypothesis, which holds that traders brought Yahweh to Israel along the caravan routes between Egypt and Canaan.[34] This ties together various points of data, such as the absence of Yahweh from Canaan, his links with Edom and Midian in the biblical stories, and the Kenite or Midianite ties of Moses,[33] but its major weaknesses are that the majority of Israelites were firmly rooted in Palestine, while the historical role of Moses is problematic.[35] It follows that if the Kenite hypothesis is to be maintained, then it must be assumed that the Israelites encountered Yahweh (and the Midianites/Kenites) inside Israel and through their association with the earliest political leaders of Israel.[36] There's context for this! Yahweh has a grudge, yo. He has a history with Egypt. This is a great opportunity for a dude to help a bunch of guys, secure a bunch of worshippers, and really grind some poo poo into the faces of his enemies. So there's your motivation for him to appear legitimate to this Moses guy and secure an oath and a covenant. Yahweh was largely attributed as a war and storm God prior to becoming supreme creator. I think some sources peg him for a god of the Forge, too, though I don't know if that's as widely accepted as "war and weather." And from this point on in the narrative "the Lord" behaves like one might expect a war and storm and forge God to behave. We all know the jokes about the Old Testament God, he's "kind of a dick." But I want to point back to something from the El Shaddai page. Wikipedia on "El Shaddai" posted:The first occurrence of the name comes in Genesis 17:1, "When Abram was ninety-nine years old the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, 'I am El Shaddai; walk before me, and be blameless,'[9] Similarly, in Genesis 35:11 God says to Jacob, "I am El Shaddai: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins." Maybe I have just spent too many years trying to read accurate tone from text but this kind of sounds like a whole different guy from the very vengeful short-tempered war-like God that Israel ends up in partnership with. This is like, fertility God talk, for sure. Oh what's this? Wikipedia on "El Shaddai" posted:The Hebrew noun shad (שד) means "breast".[19] Biblical scholar David Biale notes that of the six times that the name El Shaddai appears in the Book of Genesis, five are in connection with fertility blessings for the Patriarchs. He argues that this original understanding of Shaddai as related to fertility was forgotten by the later authors of Isaiah, Joel, and Job, who understood it as related to root words for power or destruction (thus explaining their later translation as "all-powerful" or "almighty").[20] Brilliant. Amazing. At this point I break away from Wikipedia. "EL SHADDAI" I Google blithely, and several minutes of scrolling past results that seem irrelevant to me later JSTOR comes to the rescue. ON THE ORIGIN OF THE HEBREW DEITY-NAME EL SHADDAI, F. M. Behymer, April 1915. It's open-access, gently caress yeah, but I will paste the introductory paragraphs here anyway. quote:ON THE ORIGIN OF THE HEBREW DEITY-NAME EL SHADDAI. Whoa! poo poo! Okay! So obviously this paper is arguing that a fertility aspect of Israel's God was forgotten, not, the fertility aspect of Israel's God was a whole different God. But drat! That's the monotheist version of this thing! Remember when we read about Shaddai meaning "the destroyer" but maybe also, "human breasts" all the way at the top there? Remember how you were like "one of those don't sound like it fits quite." Well maybe you weren't but I definitely was, and I will fully admit that I thought "human breasts" was the weird one. That's not for Yahweh, Yahweh don't like androgyny stuff at all. "The vanquisher" though, "the subduer," that makes total sense as a meaning for a name for the war-God of Israel, doesn't it? That's called protecting one's image. ON THE ORIGIN posted:The earliest ideas of divinity seem to have been centered in the female as reproducer, whence the worship was gradually transferred to the male as generator, first in the stellar and lunar, and at last in the solar stage. Then the cast out divinity of one cult became, as frequently occurs in history, the diabolos of another, and in Deut. xxx11. 17 we find shedim rendered as "devils." "They (Jeshurun, meaning Israel) sacrificed unto devils (shedim), not unto God (Eloah) ; unto gods (elohim) whom they knew not," and in Ps. cvi. 37 we read: "Yea, they (Israel) sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils (shedim)." This last would seem to indicate that at some former period Israel was not above offering human sacrifices to their imaginary gods. The deity-name El Shaddai always occurs in connection with those of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and is said to have been the only name by which he was known to them (Ex. vi. 3), the name JHVH being made known first of all to Moses at a much later date. This would indicate that the feminine principle was recognized as a factor in the nature of the Hebrew deity at that early period, though it was almost eliminated by the later Biblical writers. For though shad expresses femininity alone, in the form Shaddai the masculine principle also is suggested, the yad (i) being regarded by those versed in Hebrew mysticism as the expressor of the male divinity. To quote Laurence Oliphant (Scientific Religion, p. 449) : "It is a well-known rule of Semitic philology that similar consonants may be interchanged, one with another, this interchange effecting certain modulations in sense. Thus sibilants may be interchanged with sibilants, dentals with dentals, gutturals with gutturals, etc. Now in the case of shad we have a soft sibilant, sh, and a soft dental, d. Corresponding to sh we have two hard sibilants, both equivalent to our English s. Corresponding to d we have also two hard dentals rendered by the English t, the latter sometimes modified into th. These sibilants and dentals may be consequently interchanged with each other, the conversion of the soft consonant into the corresponding hard having just this simple but important effect,—it inverts the sense, either partly or wholly, according to whether one only or both the consonants are changed. A remarkable illustration of this rule is afforded by the word 'shiddah,' "a virtuous wife," and 'sittah,' "a wife who has gone astray." Ah, there's our link to "Satan." I knew it would be around here somewhere, this probably fits into all the Job stuff neatly (the passage of time seeing "Satan" or "the Devil" evolving from "the Adversary" to "the Embodiment of All Evil," all that). Most of the rest of the paper is on Egyptian stuff, very interesting, guest appearance by the word mes being the primordial substance of creation in Egyptian which is a really interesting parallel to the Mesopotamian mes of civilization. But I just found a blog post named EL SHADDAI: THE GOD WITH BREASTS and so I will link that here so if my excitement and intrigue have excited and/or intrigued any of you you may read a properly laid out source on some of these things that I have just said / been saying. https://robincohn.net/el-shaddai-the-god-with-breasts/ El Shaddai: The God with Breasts posted:Rooted in a very old poetic tradition, the divine name Shaddai occurs 48 times in the Hebrew Bible and has traditionally been translated as Almighty. The early Hebrew ancestors of Israel “worshipped the supreme god under various appellations, such as El (as among the North Canaanites of Ugarit), (El-) ‘Elyon, (El-) Saddai” (Albright, p.191). Perhaps the deity’s name is related to Shaddai, a late Bronze Age Amorite city on the banks of the Euphrates River (in what is now northern Syria). It has been surmised that Shaddai was the god worshipped in this area, an area associated with Abraham’s home. It is “quite reasonable to suppose that the ancestors of the Hebrew brought it [Shaddai] with them from northwestern Mesopotamia to Palestine” (Albright, p.193). The early patriarchs and matriarchs then would have perceived Shaddai as their chief god. oh boy. this article is a ride, do recommend reading it  Anyway this is all so very interesting to me, and this thread has been quiet long enough I figure it's okay to share these thoughts here because it may be interesting to some of you too  Gods are neat
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2024 18:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 14:07 |
|
|
Sounds like another W for the Father of History, who figured the names of the gods must have come from Egypt because, like, look at how old that place is. They've been worshiping them for millennia. They gotta know what's up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2024 00:23
|
|
