So, today I found this free Google Books ebook where it is stated that the French historian of geography Marquis d'Avezac in his 1845 book (p.204) TBA equated the island of Aprositus of the 2nd century AD Græco-Roman geographer Claudius Ptolemy with the uninhabited islet of Alegranza in the Canary Islands, and in the next page (p.205) it is shown that he equated Aprositus with the (phantom) island of San Borondón, which is equated with another phantom island of Antilia in multiple credible sources.

Therefore, if Alegranza=Aprositus=San Borondón and San Borondón=Antilia, then Alegranza=Antilia.

Now, as this previous post of mine explains, San Borondón island is equated with the small archipelago also uninhabited, of the Savage Islands, and these islands are also equated with Antilia by one source.

Therefore, there are now two real uninhabited landmasses equated with SB, the other also directly equated with Antilia.

It should be noted that Alegranza is never explicitly associated with Antilia by any source, and that equation can only be done indirectly on the basis of the clear equation of SB with Antilia by multiple sources, logically deducing therefrom that any landmass equated with SB can be called Antilia.

Now the question is which of those two landmasses should be the territory of the micronation of the Holy Antilian Empire and which one the territory of the Hebræo-Phœnician micronation of Elysea?

When these islands are considered in their imaginary form, it is noted that Antilia was always cartographically presented as an archipelago of four islands while San Borondón was presented as an isolated island. Only one modern picture of SB has a small offshore islet, but none of the antique maps.

Savage Islands are an archipelago of six small islands with the total area of 2.73 km².

Alegranza is part of the Chinijo Archipelago, which consists of five islands, of which the largest, La Graciosa is inhabited.

Naturally it would not be included

There is this line in "To the Reader":

The books are divided into chapters, for the ease of the reader, who may thereby the better pause and breath when he thinks fit; and to supply a chronological table in the ten last books, the distinction of times is observed in the notes, both by the olympiads and the Christian era; for the relations in the first five books were long be­fore the olympiads began, and the history is so ancient, that the cer­tain times of persons and things there related are, for the most part, unknown or very uncertain.

I looked around a bit and didn't see anything, but ancient greek history isn't my field of expertise, so I thought I'd check here. I'd like to read this, but I have a deep and abiding hatred of ebooks and I can't afford to spend a fortune to buy all twelve loeb volumes at $20 each. Surely another edition of this in english exists?

I’ve been looking a bit into mythology (mainly Greek) for fun in the past month or so and I thought it would be interesting to read an old text/actual source (instead of just Wikipedia). I’ve stumbled into the existence of “Bibliotecha Historica” compiled/written by Diodorus Siculus. It sounds extremely interesting to me and I really like the premise of the ancient author having compiled the history and mythology he has seen/heard from around him. I do, however, fear that maybe it will be a bit misleading for someone like me who honestly doesn’t know a lot about the subject, as it seems that he has been very harshly criticised over the years. Do I need to already know a lot about the subjects he discusses or can I just jump right in blindly and casually?

Hello, those of r/badhistory! Today I am going to review another Kings and Generals video. This one is called Ancient Celtic Armies: Invasion of Rome and Greece:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leZH41r0fY4

My primary sources are ready to burn away the many errors K&G produce, so let us begin!

0.29: The first mistake here is an extreme generalization. The narrator says ‘We are not saying you should go into battle like the Ancient Celts’. Does Kings and Generals mean all the Celts, or a specific group of Celts? The dangers of a lack of clarification is that the audience, who most likely do not have an in-depth knowledge of the subject matter, may be left with the impression that the entirety of the Celts, who stretched across Europe from Spain to the Balkans, fought in such a uniform manner, which is entirely incorrect.

2.29: The narrator refers to the Celts as ‘Gaulish.’ In modern scholarship, ‘Gaulish’ is mostly restricted to describing the Celts who lived within the region of historical France, with the term ‘Celt’ being used for the group as a whole. They also called Celtic arms ‘highly advanced for their time’. I would argue that the idea of ‘primitive’ versus ‘advanced’ is bad scholarly practice. ‘Primitive’ carries with it the connotation of inferiority. When applied to a culture, it would make it appear as if a whole people had religious and social beliefs, as well as a lifestyle, that was not as valuable or as important because it was seen as ‘backwards.’

2.38: The narrator says the Celts were armed with longswords. Longswords were a very specific type of weapon dating from the medieval period. They were longer than a typical sword (which were known as arming swords), and had a hilt that could facilitate a one or two-handed grip. A Celtic sword was shorter and was intended to be used with one hand. It would very much be beneficial for the audience if K&G could use more accurate terminology.

2.43: “Making the average Gaul deadly in melee and ranged combat.’ As opposed to a warrior being harmless in melee and ranged combat.

3.07: King and Generals uses the name ‘chainmail.’ ‘Chainmail’ did not exist! The form of armor being referred to had a number of different terms through history, but ‘chain’ was never one of them! The name used by most academics is just ‘mail’.

3.59: The narrator says ‘historical evidence suggests a significant amount of Celts did fight nude.’ No, it doesn’t. This

I don't think there's enough posts about Diodorus of Sicily on this sub, so I'll try to summarize why it's so fascinating.

Most people are familiar with Plato's Atlantis story mentioned in his books of dialogues Timaeus and Critias, but there is one very different version mentioned in the Library of History by Greek historian Diodorus Siculus (1st century BCE).

This magnificent work of world history is about four centuries younger than Plato's dialogues, but it doesn't mention Plato's Atlantis at all (although he was most likely familiar with it) and it presents a completely different take on the Atlantis story, but with few interesting parallels that can be drawn.

Diodorus credits it to “Dionysius, who composed a narrative about Argonauts, and also about many other things which took place in the most ancient times.” This Dionysius Scytobrachion, often identified with Dionysus of Miletus, is believed to live in the 2nd century BC in Alexandria, Egypt.

According to this story, "many generations before the Trojan War", the Atlantians, "the most civilized inhabitants of those regions" (Western Africa), became subject to the Libyan Amazons.

> The Amazons embarked upon great ventures, a longing having come over them to invade many parts of the inhabited world. The first people against whom they advanced, according to the tale, was the Atlantians [Atlantoi in Greek original], the most civilized men among the inhabitants of those regions, who dwelt in a prosperous country and possessed great cities; it was among them, we are told, that mythology places the birth of the gods, in the regions which lie along the shore of the ocean, in this respect agreeing with those among the Greeks who relate legends, and about this we shall speak in detail a little later.

> Upon entering the land of the Atlantians they defeated in a pitched battle the inhabitants of the city of Cernê, as it is called, and making their way inside the walls along with the fleeing enemy, they got the city into their hands. [...] But when the terrible fate of the inhabitants of Cernê became known among their fellow tribesmen, it is related that the Atlantians, struck with terror, surrendered their cities on terms of capitulation and announced that they would do whatever should be commanded them.

The city of Cernê was founded by the 5th century BC Carthaginian traveler [Hanno](

The other week there were a ton of articles about the discovery of the tomb of Ptah-M-Wia, the head of the treasury and supervisor of cattle for Ramses II. And something in the accompanying image of a procession of livestock for sacrifice caught my eye. (Full Article).

Scholarship on the Egyptian connection to the Red Heifer

The idea that the red heifer ritual may have connected to Egyptian influence has been being thrown around since the 17th century with Spencer, De Legibus Hebrae- orum cited in Smith, The Red Heifer (1936) (PDF):

> Spencer in his extended discussion of this subject begins by saying that no one will think this a new rite or one contrary to the custom of antiquity. He then adduces the Egyptian parallels and finds them of such a nature that there must be connection of Egyptian and Hebrew usage. His theory is that God designed to oppose and contradict heathen superstitions. With reference to the red color, for example, he discusses various theories that have been advanced only to find them unsatisfactory. But from Plutarch he ascertains that the Egyptians offered red bulls to Typhon and also that red cattle were sacrificed, on the theory that the souls of wicked men migrated into them. On the other hand cows were sacred to Isis. Putting the facts together Spencer argues that the heifer was chosen in order to bring the Egyptian "vaccine cultus" into contempt, that she was to be red in order to show that God would accept a sacrifice despised by the Egyptians, and finally that there was a purpose to expiate the worship of Typhon to which the Israelites had been addicted in Egypt.

The concept that this ritual was in opposition to the sanctity of the cow was again brought up in Newman, Understanding the Mystery of the Red Heifer Ritual (PDF):

> Rabbi Moshe ha-Darshan explains that the rite of burning the Red Heifer was a reenactment of the destruction of the Golden Calf at the foot of Mount Sinai. Thus, it would also be a symbolic destruction of the cow-goddess Hathor which the Golden Calf represented. [...] Seen in this light, the Red He

I am a composer planning to write a work titled “The Muses” for choir and orchestra with an ancient Greek text from the Library of History by Diodorus Siculus.

I already have a word-by-word translation and transliteration of the passage, but it would be very helpful to have a recording of a fluent reading — something that could give me a better sense of the natural stress, speed, and melody of the language.

If anyone would be willing to help, I would appreciate it tremendously. Here is the text:

Μούσας δ᾽αὐτὰς ὠνομάσθαι ἀπὸ τοῦ μυεῖν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἀπὸ τοῦ διδάσκειν τὰ καλὰ καὶ συμφέροντα καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀπαιδεύτων ἀγνοούμενα.

ἑκάστῃ δὲ προσηγορίᾳ τὸν οἰκεῖον λόγον ἀπονέμοντές φασιν ὠνομάσθαι τὴν μὲν

Κλειὼ διὰ τὸ τὸν ἐκ τῆς ποιήσεως τῶν ἐγκωμιαζομένων ἔπαινον μέγα κλέος περιποιεῖν τοῖς ἐπαινουμένοις,

Εὐτέρπην δ᾽ ἀπὸ τοῦ τέρπειν τοὺς ἀκροωμένους τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς παιδείας ἀγαθοῖς, Θάλειαν δ᾽ ἀπὸ τοῦ θάλλειν ἐπὶ πολλοὺς χρόνους τοὺς διὰ τῶν ποιημάτων ἐγκωμιαζομένους,

Μελπομένην δ᾽ ἀπὸ τῆς μελῳδίας, δι᾽ ἧς τοὺς ἀκούοντας ψυχαγωγεῖσθαι,

Τερψιχόρην δ᾽ ἀπὸ τοῦ τέρπειν τοὺς ἀκροατὰς τοῖς ἐκ παιδείας περιγινομένοις ἀγαθοῖς,

Ἐρατὼ δ᾽ ἀπὸ τοῦ τοὺς παιδευθέντας ποθεινοὺς καὶ ἐπεράστους ἀποτελεῖν, Πολύμνιαν δ᾽ ἀπὸ τοῦ διὰ πολλῆς ὑμνήσεως ἐπιφανεῖς κατασκευάζειν τοὺς διὰ τῶν ποιημάτων ἀπαθανατιζομένους τῇ δόξῃ,

Οὐρανίαν δ᾽ ἀπὸ τοῦ τοὺς παιδευθέντας ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς ἐξαίρεσθαι πρὸς [p. 406] οὐρανόν:

τῇ γὰρ δόξῃ καὶ τοῖς φρονήμασι μετεωρίζεσθαι τὰς ψυχὰς εἰς ὕψος οὐράνιον:

Καλλιόπην δ᾽ ἀπὸ τοῦ καλὴν ὄπα προΐεσθαι, τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐστὶ τῇ εὐεπείᾳ διάφορον οὖσαν ἀποδοχῆς τυγχάνειν ὑπο τῶν ἀκουόντων.

A recent set of reports caught the attention of some very online people: Professor Huang Heqing, Professor of Archaeology at Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, claimed in a recent lecture that various historical constructions were not a product of ancient civilizations but rather forgeries of the 19th and 20th century European states insecure about their status relative to China’s history. Among these where claims that the Pyramids, Sphinx, and Parthenon were all forgeries, and supported the hypothesis advanced by various Chinese nationalist scholars like Dong Bisheng, Zhu Youzhi, and Du Gangjian that China was the source of all major inventions like agriculture, writing, history, democracy, and civilization in general.

The first bit here of interest is the claim that the Pyramids were a European forgery. This draws on the controversial research of Joseph Davidovits and Michel Barsoum, French and American researchers who separately argued that the limestone found in the Pyramids exhibits characteristics that are not natural to limestone rocks and thus must be a kind of concrete (Davidovits and subsequent adherents call it a “geopolymer”). Barsoum's 2006 paper was the more professional attempt, but has some basic historical inaccuracies: it claims, for example, that there is “no trace” of ramps at the construction sites, but Zawi Hawass found evidence of ramps at the Giza construction site and published such evidence in 1998, well before Barsoum’s writings. The bigger issue is that Davidovits and Barsoum are irreconcilable, despite some attempts: Davidovits hypothesized the use of an alkali substance to bind together the “geopolymer,” but Dipayan Jana’s 2007 rebuttal notes that Barsoum’s findings demonstrated no alkali enrichment in the limestone which would be present in the “geopolymer” method, and Barsoum finds that the interior stones and non-limestone blocks were carved, which would limit the “concrete” hypothesis to only the outer stones. And while there is some degree of plausibility that m

King Cyrus is mentioned by name in Isaiah 45:1 as the hero of the Jewish people, so reading about Cyrus in Xenophon Cyropedia, they are indeed parallels and the most striking are the similarity between his laws and the laws of Moses.

>Xenophon, Cyropaedia 1.2.2 >>>He was educated in conformity with the laws of the Persians ... they command them not to steal and not to rob, not to break into anybody's house, not to strike a person whom they have no right to strike, not to commit adultery, not to disobey an officer, and so forth; and if a man transgress anyone one of these laws, they punish him.

Cyrus and Moses are the freer of captive people

Isaiah 45:13 He shall let go of my captives

Exodus 5:1 Let my people go

Cyrus was crucified? למשיח לכורש >Diodorus Siculus 2.44.2 >>>For instance, when Cyrus the king of the Persians, the mightiest ruler of his day, made a campaign with a vast army into Scythia, the queen of the Scythians not only cut the army of the Persians to pieces but she even took Cyrus prisoner and crucified him.

First, we'll start with Semele. The name means "inspire" and Semeles second name [THYONE] means "frenzy". When put side by side, look at what appears "inspire frenzy". But its how semele got her second name that matters: Dionysus went into the underworld and brought her (inspiration) into the world. He (Dionysus) shares a portion of his divinity and makes the intended target a god in their own right, as was the case with his mother Semele (who was turned into Thyone, goddess of Bacchic frenzy).

Diodorus Siculus, Library of History 4. 25. 4 (trans. Oldfather) (Greek historian C1st B.C.) : "The myths relate that Dionysos brought up his mother Semele from Hades, and that, sharing with her his own immortality, he changed her name to Thyone."

Dionysus bringing semele from the underworld is basically a second birth for Semele, meaning that Dionysus is the one who inspires frenzy into the world. Anyways, this was surprisingly short. Bye

Most lexicons draw a distinction between "cat" (αἴλουρος) and "weasel" (γαλέη > γαλῆ). In fact, LSJ and Middle Liddell give no indication that γαλῆ is ever interchangeable with αἴλουρος, even though there are several examples of γαλῆ translated as "cat".

Having reviewed lots of those example (below), it makes me wonder how translators adjudicate between these animals, when the term γαλῆ is used and context is limited. Do they just assume it's some kind of weasel, unless there's some indication that it's more likely a cat? Sometimes when I see it translated as weasel, I wonder if it doesn't actually refer to a cat.

The Greek Βικιλεξικό entry for γαλέη indicates that the term can refer to different small animals, such as the weasel, ferret or cat. The English Wiktionary entry for γαλέη (like LSJ and Middle Leddell) says nothing of the sort. Why is there a disconnect?

Under the Βικιλεξικό entry for the contracted form γαλῆ it gives a quotation from Herodotus, where (oddly enough) "γαλαῖ" is translated as "γατιά" (kittens), where Loeb's translation has "weasels". So in this example, for instance, how do we know what animal is actually being referred to?

Having reviewed this and many other examples (below), it seems like αἴλουρος refers unambiguously to a "cat". But when γαλῆ is used, it seems like a coin toss. In some cases where "weasel" is used, I wonder how we can't rule out "cat" as the referent in the given context.

For instances, were superstitions about cats originally superstitions about weasels? Wikipedia has some information on this that's gleaned from a book called Cat, by Katharine M. Rogers.

Per Wikipedia:

>Domestic cats were probably first introduced to Greece and southern Italy in the fifth century BC by the Phoenicians. The earliest unmistakable evidence of the Greeks having domestic cats comes from two coins fro

>Diodorus Siculus, Library 17.110.4 Thence for four days he marched through Sittacene and came to the place called Sambana. There he remained seven days and, proceeding with the army, came on the third day to the Celones, as they are called. There dwells here down to our time a settlement of Boeotians who were moved in the time of Xerxes's campaign, but still have not forgotten their ancestral customs..

These Boeotians in Sittacene are the historical Jews in Ezra & Esther. Βοιωτος > Ιωτος > Ιουτος > Ιουδός / יהודה

Diodorus Siculus made the claim that the Hieroglyphs were actually an Ethiopian script, which was held sacred by the Egyptians and was learned and transmitted only within the priestly families of Egypt. Among the Ethiopians, the script was so common that most Ethiopians knew how to read and write in hieroglyphs. Here is the excerpt:

(Vol. II) DIODORUS SICULUS LIBRARY OF HISTORY p95 Book III (beginning)

>They say also that the Egyptians are colonists sent out by the Ethiopians, Osiris having been the leader of the colony.....
And the larger part of the customs of the Egyptians are, they hold, Ethiopian, the colonists still preserving their ancient manners. For instance, the belief that their kings are gods, the very special attention which they pay to their burials, and many other matters of a similar nature are Ethiopian practices, while the shapes of their statues and the forms of their letters are Ethiopian; for of the two kinds of writing which the Egyptians have, that which is known as "popular" (demotic) is learned by everyone, while that which is called "sacred" is understood only by the priests of the Egyptians, who learn it from their fathers as one of the things which are not divulged, but among the Ethiopians everyone uses these forms of letters......
We must now speak about the Ethiopian writing which is called hieroglyphic among the Egyptians, in order that we may omit nothing in our discussion of their antiquities. Now it is found that the forms of their letters take the shape of animals of every kind, and of the members of the human body, and of implements and especially carpenters' tools; for their writing does not express the intended concept by means of syllables joined one to another, but by means of the significance of the objects which have been copied and by its figurative meaning which has been impressed upon the memory by practice.

Please Note: Ethiopia does not necessarily refer to the modern country (Abyssinia) now called by that name. The Ethiopians of antiquity were usually the Beja (Medjay), Bisharin and Nubian peoples of Northern Sudan and Southern Egypt

The word Ethiopian in Greek is derived from the word Aethiops, meaning Of the burnt face. It was a generic term for black-skinned people similar to Latin words like Niger, Hebrew words like Kush, Spanish

O texto abaixo é uma tradução.

Link do original: https://ladygwynhyfvar.com/2016/02/22/lord-stark-the-fisher-king/

Índice de todas as partes: Parte 1,Parte 2, Parte 3, Parte 4, Parte 5, Parte 6 e Parte 7.

Escrito por Lady Gwynhfvar

https://preview.redd.it/iz2w8586ufe71.png?width=293&format=png&auto=webp&s=e239be7df4492585f39e783f1c78d75b4d883760

> I sat upon the shore
>
>Fishing, with the arid plain behind me
>
>Shall I at least set my lands in order?
>
>T.S.Eliot, The Wasteland

>Sentei-me junto às águas
>
>A pescar, tendo a árida planura atrás de mim
>
>Chegarei pelo menos a por minhas terras em ordem?
>
>- Tradução de Paulo Mendes Campo

O Rei Pescador é às vezes conhecido como Rei Ferido e quase sempre é apresentado com um ferimento na perna ou na virilha. Como a ferida causa perda de fertilidade, seu reino se torna estéril (como em “The Wasteland”) e ele pouco tem a fazer a não ser pescar no rio fora de seu palácio. Ele é o Guardião do Graal, mas deve esperar que o escolhido o cure. Somente quando ele é curado é que o escolhido (alternadamente, Peredur, Percival ou Galahad) tem permissão para “alcançar” o Graal.

A lenda do Rei Pescador está intimamente relacionada à história de Bran, o Abençoado, e seu caldeirão mágico do Mabinogian, um ciclo mítico que muitos acreditam estar intimamente relacionado à família Stark. Curiosamente, o Mabinogian usa uma cabeça decepada como motivo, em vez de uma ferida na parte inferior do corpo. Os eruditos celtas acreditam que alguns celtas praticavam o culto à adoração à cabeça, pois era ali que eles acreditavam que a alma residia. Na verdade, Diodorus Siculus,

In his account of the Libyan Amazons and the Atlanteans, the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus (1st century BCE) described a marsh (or alluvium) called Tritonis which lay on an island Hespera. (Link to map that shows Hesperii right next to Ethiopes.) [Diodorus briefly discusses sources for the ancient Greek histories of Egypt, sub-Saharan Africa, Libya and the Atlas region--the last three are all referred to as Aithiopia (Ethiopia) ]

"[...] As mythology relates, their home [the home of the Libyan Amazons] was on an island which, because it was in the west, was called Hespera, and it lay in the marsh Tritonis. This marsh was near the ocean which surrounds the earth [the Atlantic Ocean] and received its name from a certain river Triton which emptied into it; and this marsh was also near Ethiopia and that mountain by the shore of the ocean which is the highest of those in the vicinity and impinges upon the ocean and is called by the Greeks Atlas. The island mentioned above was of great size and full of fruit-bearing trees of every kind, from which the natives secured their food. It contained also a multitude of flocks and herds, namely, of goats and sheep, from which possessors received milk and meat for their sustenance; but grain the nation used not at all because the use of this fruit of the earth had not yet been discovered among them. The Amazons, then, the account continues, being a race superior in valor and eager for war, first of all subdued all the cities on the island except the one called Menê, which was considered to be sacred and was inhabited by Ethiopian Ichthyophagi, and was also subject to great eruptions of fire and possessed a multitude of the precious stones which the Greeks call anthrax, sardion, and smaragdos; and after this they subdued many of the neighboring Libyans and nomad tribes, and founded within the marsh Tritonis a great city which they named Cherronesus after its shape." (Diodorus 3.53)

• Herodotus (book i. c. 200) mentions three tribes of the Babylonians who wer

The poem is Strange Fruit. It's crazy good. I want to write music to it and would like to be able to pronounce the words properly as I'm singing. A voice recording would be greatly appreciated! Greetings from Norway. :)))

Here is the girl's head like an exhumed gourd.
Oval-faced, prune-skinned, prune-stones for teeth.

They unswaddled the wet fern of her hair
And made an exhibition of its coil,
Let the air at her leathery beauty.
Pash of tallow, perishable treasure:
Her broken nose is dark as a turf clod,
Her eyeholes blank as pools in the old workings.
Diodorus Siculus confessed
His gradual ease with the likes of this:
Murdered, forgotten, nameless, terrible
Beheaded girl, outstaring axe
And beatification, outstaring
What had begun to feel like reverence.

Is it "toi kratistoi" or "toi kratistos"? I've seen both cited as the last words of Alexander. I went to the source (Diodorus Siculus), and here's how it looks (about halfway down page 466). "Toi" is spelled without the iota, and "kratisto" ends in neither iota nor sigma. Which one is correct, and how should all those diacritics be interpreted? Are "toi kratistoi" and "toi kratistos" both correct phrases, or is one simply wrong?

After having to debunk this video multiple times to different people, I decided to go ahead and make a comprehensive post on why HomeTeam History’s Origin of Hieroglyphs video is very bad history. At the moment HomeTeam History seems to be the biggest African History youtuber, and his West African videos seem to be well done, but his North African and Egypt videos leave much to be desired.

Here is the video in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov6bpT1qOXQ

The general gist of the video is that HomeTeam believes the true origin of hieroglyphs comes from Nubian A-group. He comes to this conclusion by taking a Greek source at face value and through Rorschach Archaeology.

Starting off at 0:10, HomeTeam states that the origins of hieroglyphs is still hotly debated and that we have no convincing place of origin for them. However, we do have a concrete estimate of where they started. The earliest evidence of hieroglyphic script comes from tomb U-J at Abydos, and their administrative nature alongside their early phase of consonantal structure suggests the script originated in an urban center (such as Memphis or Hierakonpolis) not long before as an aid to accounting. Unfortunately, HomeTeam History does not even mention Abydos or Tomb U-J once in his entire video, which is a huge gaping hole if he means to talk about the origins of hieroglyphs.

While that could be chalked up to just an error of absence, the real errors begin in 2:05 when HomeTeam states that it is “a fact” that the first significant sign of civilization and “statehood” in the Nile Valley was a Nubian state called “Ta-Seti”. This conjures up all sorts of problems. Firstly, there is no Nubian state called Ta-Seti, as that chiefly refers to the Upper Egyptian nome that borders with Nubia and is sometimes used by Egyptians to refer to the geographic area of Nubia itself, not a state. With that said, I can only assume that HomeTeam History is in fact referring to the Nubian A-Group culture that existed in Lower Nubia, contemporary with the Naqada culture of Upper Egypt. There is simply no evidence that Nubian A-Group was the first “civilization” or “state” in the Nile Valley, especially since the claim ignores the Naqada I and Maadi cultures of Egypt that predate it. It also brushes aside the fact that there is no evidence that Nubian A-Group was an organized state in the first place.

At the 2:33 mark HomeTeam History states that these particul

That is to say, was there any sort of national bias that Greece or Egypt produced better engineers than Rome, because of their long history of engineering projects? Or did Rome consider Roman engineering the height of mechanical skill?

So, that's kind of an obscure myth, but the Ancient Greek author Diodorus Siculus once wrote about a war between the island of the Atlanteans (which he technically doesn't call "Atlantis" but I mean, come on) and the Amazons and like, I'm surprised Rick has never used that in any book yet. Honestly this would make a fantastic basis for a future book I think, if Rick was ever to write a standalone novel on say, Frank or Reyna/Hylla!

(Yes, I know, Percy said that Atlantis doesn't exist, but tbf Apollo thought the same thing about the troglodytes and well, Tower of Nero happened, so if a god can be mistaken about what is real and what isn't, what does a puny mortal know)

DANIEL
 
Chapter Six – DahNeeYay’L [Daniel] in [the] pit [גור, GOR] [of] the lions
 

-1. [5:31 in versions] And DahR-YahVehSh [Darius] the Mede [HahMeeDee] was a son of sixty and two year[s] in his kinging [במולכו, BeMOLahKhO].
 

>“This verse belongs to ch. [chapter] 5. It is however, obviously a postscript, and in the M.T. [Masoretic Text, the standard Hebrew Bible] is 6:1. Darius the Mede… Attempts have been made to identify him with Cyaxares II, the uncle of Cyrus, with Cyrus himself, with Gobryas, the general who actually took Babylon and for a while governed it, with Cambyses the son of Cyrus, and with Astyages the last Median king. All these proposed identifications come to wreck on the facts that in this book Darius is (a) a Mede, 5:31; (b) son of Xerxes, 9:1; (c) the immediate predecessor of Cyrus, 6:28; 10:1. He is thus a figure of story, not of history, and there is no difficulty in seeing how in these folk tales the figure of Cyrus, who took Babylon in 538 B.C., came to confused with that of Darius I, who captured it in 520. The four-empire theory demanded a Median Empire before the Persian, and prophecy had foretold the overthrow of Babylon by the Medes (Isa. [Isaiah] 13:17…), so we have the shadowy figure of Darius the Mede succeeding Belshazzar. It is quite possible that reminiscences of both Gobyras [sic] and Cambyses may have gone into the formation of this figure.
 

>Darius: Daryâwesh, a form which occurs in the Aramaic papyri, is the Old Persian Dārayavauš, a Persian, not a Median name. Darius I Hustaspis is mentioned in Ezra 4:5 ff. [and following], and Darius II Nothus (or Darius III Codomannus) in Neh. [Nehemiah] 12:22, but the Darius of this book is distinguished from them as Darius Medus…
 

>Being about sixty-two years old: This mention of a man’s age is unique in the book.” (Jeffery, 1956, pp. VI 433-434)
 

 

>>>“DANIEL IN THE LIONS’ DEN (6:1-28 [2-29 in the Hebrew Bible])
 

>“In the Chester Beatty papyri this and the following story come after ch. 8. Such an arrangement cannot be original and would seem to be an attempt to place the stories in a more strictly chronological order. Chs. [chapters] 1-4 deal with Nebuchadrezzar,

Are there any tools out there to search Koine Greek etc as used by contemporary writers to the NT to see how word usage may differ or be clarified outside of a theological context?

I don't want to step on anybody's toes here, but the amount of non-dad jokes here in this subreddit really annoys me. First of all, dad jokes CAN be NSFW, it clearly says so in the sub rules. Secondly, it doesn't automatically make it a dad joke if it's from a conversation between you and your child. Most importantly, the jokes that your CHILDREN tell YOU are not dad jokes. The point of a dad joke is that it's so cheesy only a dad who's trying to be funny would make such a joke. That's it. They are stupid plays on words, lame puns and so on. There has to be a clever pun or wordplay for it to be considered a dad joke.

Again, to all the fellow dads, I apologise if I'm sounding too harsh. But I just needed to get it off my chest.

Chapter Three – Rescue from furnace fiery
 

>“This story illustrates how martyrdom is preferable to apostasy……“This story is a rebuke to conformists… “The writer is apparently using a tale that was in existence in his day, but which he has worked over to fit into his six stories. Daniel does not appear… Also the writer seems to be conscious that he is illustrating such passages as Isa. [Isaiah] 43:2; Ps. [Psalm] 66:12, and is thus linking up his example of piety with the prophetic promises to Israel.” (Jeffery, 1956, p. VI 394)
 

-1. And made, the king NeBOoKhahDNeh-TsahR [Nebuchadnezzar], an image gold,

that its height was sixty ’ahMaH [cubits, about 90 feet],

and its width six ’ahMOTh,

and he stood [ויצב, VahYahTsehB] it in the rift of [בבקעת, BeBahQah`ahTh] DORah’ in [the] state of BahBehL [Babylon].
 

>“The phrasing of vss. [verses] 12, 14, 18… suggests that it was a new statue of the king’s favorite deity.

>…

>…Since Antiochus Epiphanes had set up at Daphne a golden image to Apollo (Ammianus Marcellinus Roman History XXII. 13. 1), an audience in the Maccabean period would doubtless have been reminded of that… calculating the cubit as eighteen inches, would make it ninety by nine feet, quite out of proportion. These measurements are merely to suggest hugeness.
 

>“…A biq‘āh is a low plain between two ranges of mountains. The site of this particular Dura has not been identified.” (Jeffery, 1956, p. VI 395)
 

-2. And sent, the king, NeBOoKhahDNeh-TsahR, to gather [את, ’ehTh (indicator of direct object; no English equivalent)] the satraps [האחשדרפנים, Hah’ahHShahDRahPhNeeYM], [את, ’ehTh] the rulers, [את, ’ehTh] the governors, [את, ’ehTh] the judges, [את, ’ehTh] the treasurers [הגזברים, HahGehZahBReeYM], [את, ’ehTh] the wise ones of the justice, [את, ’ehTh] the magistrates [הדינים, HahDeeYNeeYM], and [את, ’ehTh] all authorities [שלטונות, SheeLTONOTh] [of] the state in order to bring them unto [the] dedication [of] the image that raised the king, NeBOoKhahDNeh-TsahR.
 

>“Satraps occurs also in Ezra 8:36; Esth. [Esther] 3:12… It is from the Old Persian xšaθapāvan [xshathapavan], which in Akkadian became satar-pānu, and in Greek εζαιθραπης [exaithrapys], the σατραπης [satrapys], and the Latin satrapes. The division of the empire into

DANIEL
 
Chapter One - [The] grace [of] DahNeeYay-’L [“My Judge is God”, Daniel] and his friends
 

>Introduction of Daniel and his friends to the court
 

>“This chapter is in Hebrew and is a general introduction to the stories given in Aramaic in chs. 2-6, and indeed to the whole book, since the visions of chs. 7-12 assume the presence of Daniel at court.” (Jeffery, 1956, p. VI 360)
 

-1. In year three to [the] kingship of YeHO-YahQeeYM [“YHVH Will Raise”], king [of] YeHOo-DaH [“YHVH Knew”, Judea],

came NeBooKhahDNeh’-TsahR [Nebuchadnezzar], king of BahBehL [Babel, Babylon] [to] Jerusalem and sieged [ויצר, VahYahTsahR] unto her.
 

>“This king was raised to the throne of Judea in the place of his brother Jehoahaz by Pharaoh-necho, king of Egypt, 2 Kings xxiii, 34-36, and continued tributary to him during the first three years of his reign: but in the fourth, which was the first of Nebuchadnezzar, Jer. [Jeremiah] xxv, 1, Nebuchadnezzar completely defeated the Egyptian army near the Euphrates, Jer. xlvi,2; and this victory put the neighbouring countries of Syria (among which Judea was the chief,) under the Chaldean government. Thus Jehoiakim, who had first been tributary to Egypt, became now the vassal of the king of Babylon, 2 Kings xxiv, 1.
 

>At the end of three years Jehoiakim rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar, who, then occupied with other wars, did not proceed against Jerusalem till three years after, which was the eleventh and last of Jehoiakim; 2 Kings xxiii, 36.
 

>There are some difficulties in the chronology of this place.” (Adam Clarke, 1831, p. IV 301)
 

> “Jehoiakim reigned from 608 to 597 B.C., so that the third year of his reign would be 606. Nebuchadrezzar did not become king until 605, i.e. [in other words], in Jehoiakim’s fourth year (Jer. 25:1), and it was not until some four years later that he subdued Jehoiakim, making him tributary for three years (II Kings 24:1), and still later in 597, after Jehoiakim’s death, that he besieged Jerusalem (II Kings 24:10-15).
 

>The date at the head of this chapter results from a combination of II Kings 24:1-2 with II Chr. [Chronicles] 36:5-8. Jeremiah’s references to the fourth and fifth years of Jehoiakim (25:1, 9 ff. [and following]; 36:9, 29) and his elegy in ch. [chapter] 22

Map of Antilia archipelago: https://aijaa.com/yQnsig

Antilia would have been a Portuguese possession, a captaincy general under Dulmo family since 1486, before that a Neo-Visigothic kingdom from 714 AD founded by Roderick who fled there with the archbishop and 6 bishops as well as with 5,000 followers, before that a Roman rump state from c. 400 AD, a Roman province founded by Sertorius between c. 80 BC-400 AD, and the seat of Elysian Empire, a Carthaginian rump state, between c.146-80 BC, and a Carthaginian colony between c.525-350-146 BC, Carthaginians having discovered and settled the island according to both Pseudo-Aristotle (text #84) and Diodorus Siculus (#19¹).

So, A. already had a long history of independence, when conquered by Portugal in 1486, and Antilians resisted the Portuguese invasion, who nevertheless won with their arquebuses and cannons against the Antilian army fighting only with spears and swords. King Wittiza V fell in the final battle, but his son escaped and from 1510 to 1512 held part of the island as king Euric III.

Antilians were pleased to see Sebastian coming and restoring their ancient independence and institutions, and would've been unwilling to submit to Portuguese rule again if/when Portugal wanted to reabsorb its former colony, which by 1642 was ruled by the king Afonso, son of Sebastian.

A. had also conquered its northern neighboring island Satanazes (Salvagia) which, unlike A. had remained unknown to Europeans until 1476, when Luigi Salvaghi, a Genoese captain had discovered it and in 1483 he received it as a donation from the king of Portugal, colonizing it with Italian, especially Ligurian settlers.

Btw, is it realistic that Satanazes was settled originally by Inuits and/or Newfoundland Indians, because according to wikipedia the name might refer to skrælings, or Inuits and Indians who would've attacked European seamen around the island? Moreover,Con, one of the five towns of Satanazes in the maps, could be derived from the Inuit word 'kona' meaning

Do your worst!

I enjoyed this piece, which I think is probably better characterised as a short story, rather than a novella. Our protagonist is a seventeen year old in French Guiana, whose name is Diodorus Pilon (if we believe what he said when on the phone call). It’s an odd tale, surreal in a way that is true to the group in the nested story at its heart.

Summary

We can split the story into four parts for a summary. We begin on the day of a solar eclipse, with Diodorus meeting a group of friends in Port Hope, in the aptly named House of the Sun soda fountain to watch the eclipse. At the centre of this group is Roger Bolamba, mentor and teacher to the group. They discuss “poetry and politics, which was what we always talked about” (79) and it is noted Bolamba has “a marginal position in national literary circles” (84). They see another group, with a couple who dance while staring directly at the sun--with the woman later exclaiming “I’ve gone blind” (81). After talking more the friends leave the cafe, chat in the park, and then eventually go their separate ways after having a drink at Bolamba’s house.

In the second part of the story our narrator, having missed the last bus, decides to take a shortcut home, over the hills through a forest. During this walk he comes across a phone booth, and the phone starts ringing. In the third part of the story, Diodorus answers the phone and speaks to a mysterious person on the other end, who tells him about the Clandestine Surrealist Group of artists and writers who live in the Paris sewers, and who have called Diodorus specifically on this night to invite him to join them. This is the longest section of the story, at twenty pages (89 - 109). Diodorus is given the background of the group, and agrees to find a way to meet them in Paris on a particular date and hangs up. In the final part of the story, Diodorus leaves the forest and returns to the town. He meets up with an older man he knows called Achille, and they see the man and woman who earlier stared at the sun while dancing, along with their friend--who tells Diodorus and Achille that both of her friends have gone blind. Achille directs them to a boarding house, and the story ends.

Discussion

This was a fun piece, and my enjoyment of it went up as a reread parts and mulled it over in my mind for this write-up. It starts with an eclipse, an event that is often imbued with mystery, power and magic (as well as just being a

Diodorus Siculus 2.44.2 > For instance, when Cyrus the king of the Persians, the mightiest ruler of his day, made a campaign with a vast army into Scythia, the queen of the Scythians not only cut the army of the Persians to pieces but she even took Cyrus prisoner and crucified him (ἀνεσταύρωσε)

First, we'll start with Semele. The name means "inspire" and Semeles second name [THYONE] means "frenzy". When put side by side, look at what appears "inspire frenzy". But its how semele got her second name that matters: Dionysus went into the underworld and brought her (inspiration) into the world. He (Dionysus) shares a portion of his divinity and makes the intended target a god in their own right, as was the case with his mother Semele (who was turned into Thyone, goddess of Bacchic frenzy).

Diodorus Siculus, Library of History 4. 25. 4 (trans. Oldfather) (Greek historian C1st B.C.) : "The myths relate that Dionysos brought up his mother Semele from Hades, and that, sharing with her his own immortality, he changed her name to Thyone."

Dionysus bringing semele from the underworld is basically a second birth for Semele, meaning that Dionysus is the one who inspires frenzy into the world. Anyways, this was surprisingly short. Bye