Bones unearthed near ancient city of Troy yield clues of deadly infection

[Reader]

http://feeds.foxnews.com/~r/foxnews/scitech/~3/fHDkmBqCzsk/bones-unearthed-near-ancient-city-troy-yield-clues-deadly-infection.html

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

The city isn't Troy.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/156545020843

[Ned Latham]

JTEM the Drooling Wonder wrote:
>
> The city isn't Troy.

You've said that before\, Droolnot. So waht?

----shbip---

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

Troy is a myth. When you claim something was found
near a non-existing place, you're saying that
nobody found anything.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/156678375525

[Ned Latham]

JTEM the Drooling Wonder:

JTEM is a myth. When you claim something was said
near a non-existinig droolbot, you're saying that
nobody said anything.

Ned

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

Wow, you are really emotionally invested in
your myths. I mean, the way you suffer a
meltdown when the fantasy is exposed...




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/156680390398

[Ned Latham]

JTEM the drooling wobder:

Offfft.

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

Ned Latham wrote:
> JTEM

Is right.

Troy is a myth, and you're so emotionally unhinged
that you're having a fit on me for pointing out the
obvious.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/156698724658

[Ned Latham]

JTEM the drooling wonder is:
>
> having a fit

Gee. Double drool.

Sure would hate to be his nurse.

Ned

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

Ned Latham wrote:

> Gee. Double drool.

You're not exactly doing a bang-up job of hiding your
(strong) emotions here.

In fact, that's what makes you so funny! You keep
splattering your emotions, apparently ignorant of
the fact of how idiotic it makes you look.

(Psst. You're supposed to approach history analytically,
NOT emotionally)





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/156726872678

[Ned Latham]

JTEM the drooling wonder wrote:

> You're not exactly doing a bang-up job of hiding your
> (strong) emotions here.

You're confused, Droolbot. Contempt isn't an emotion.

----snip----

> (Psst. You're supposed to approach history analytically,
> NOT emotionally)

Check the thread, moron. All of my contributionsa to it are
expressions of contempt for you and your pathetic obsession
with your delusions of competence.

You need to stay away from the red cordial.

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

I don't know how many more times you're going
to parade your emotions here and STILL think
that you're not looking like a total psycho...

Are you so fucked up that you can't tell?

Let it go. Take your meds. Move on.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/156726872678

[Ned Latham]

JTEM the drooling wober wrote:
>
> I don't know

You never did. That red cordial's fucked your "brain" completely.

I did tell you to stay away from it.

----snip----

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

Your emotions are the source of endless fascination
for no one.

Take your meds. Get ahold of yourself. Learn to think
about subjects instead of react towards people.

Good luck!

Oh; Troy is a myth.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/156760213219

[Ned Latham]

JTEM the drooling wondxer wrote:
.

> Your emotions are the source of endless fascination
> for no one.

Okay, mo ome. Since you find them so dascinating, how 'bout
this one?

Detestation. All for you.

Stay away from that red cordial, now. You know your keeper
doesn't like it when you add HD to your OCD and your ADD.

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

Okay so you have OCD in addition to all your
emotions towards me.

Like this wasn't already obvious.

But Troy is still a myth and you're still a
dumb troll parading their issues.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/156828409933

[Ned Latham]

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

Wow, you really are mentally disordered to
suffer such a huge emotional reaction towards
the truth.

Troy is a myth. Arguing a "Historic" Iliad
is like arguing a "Historic" bible. No
difference, actually.

You believe in a myth.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/156814728603

[Ned Latham]

JTEM the drooling wondxer wrote:

> Your emotions are the source of endless fascination
> for no one.

Okay, no one. Since you find them so dascinating, how 'bout

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

Your OCD -- not to mention your extreme emotionalism
-- is noted.

P.S. Troy is still a myth.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/44476865783

[Ned Latham]

JTEM the drooling wondxer wrote:

> Your emotions are the source of endless fascination
> for no one.

Okay, no one. Since you find them so fascinating, how 'bout

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

Ned Latham wrote:

> Okay,

Troy is still a myth and you're still an emotionally
unhinged OCD patient making a jackass of themselves.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/156888076504

[Ned Latham]

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

Great. Troy is still a myth. You're still a med
deprived twat you suffered a mental breakdown
simply because I pointed out this fact.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/156958327363

[Ned Latham]

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

Great. You're mentally ill, and I mean in addition
to being obsessed with JTEM.

Look at this thread. Look how you suffered a meltdown
because I pointed out that Troy is a myth.

You're fucked up.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/Groovy

[Ned Latham]

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

Ned Latham wrote:

> Okay,

Troy is a myth. Anyone who tries to pull a literal
place out of the story is exactly equal to
religious fundamentalists doing the same to the
bible.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/158217294103

[Ned Latham]

[Martin Edwards]

I don't like him either, but what do you mean by that?

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

[Ned Latham]

Martin Edwards wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > JTEM the drooling wondxer wrote:
> > >
> > > Your emotions are the source of endless fascination
> > > for no one.
> >
> > Okay, no one. Since you find them so fascinating, how 'bout
> > this one?
> >
> > Detestation. All for you.
> >
> > Stay away from that red cordial, now. You know your keeper
> > doesn't like it when you add HD to your OCD and your ADD.
>
> I don't like him either, but what do you mean by that?

If you follow the group, you'll have noticed that he's quite
obsessive about "winning" his disputes, right or wrong; so I
accuse him of OCD, for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.

You'll have noticed too that his favourite methods of "argument"
include the straw man and the red herring. So I accuse him of
ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder).

Red cordial is the simpletons' favourite (they like it better
that green cordial or orange cordial or...). And cordials are
very high is sugar; so I "encourage" the drooling wonder to
stay away from the red cordial so as to avoid compounding his
OCD and ADD with HD (Hyperactitivity Disorder).

Ned

[Agamemnon]

On 12/01/2017 00:52, Reader wrote:
> http://feeds.foxnews.com/~r/foxnews/scitech/~3/fHDkmBqCzsk/bones-unearthed-near-ancient-city-troy-yield-clues-deadly-infection.html
>

Fake News. The Bones are Byzantine so have nothing to do with Troy.

[Martin Edwards]

Okay, but I have killfield him, so I only experience him through your
posts. What is red cordial made from. Cordials are not very popular in
the UK, lime is the most common.

[Ned Latham]

Martin Edwards wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Martin Edwards wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > JTEM the drooling wondxer wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Your emotions are the source of endless fascination
> > > > > for no one.
> > > >
> > > > Okay, no one. Since you find them so fascinating, how 'bout
> > > > this one?
> > > >
> > > > Detestation. All for you.
> > > >
> > > > Stay away from that red cordial, now. You know your keeper
> > > > doesn't like it when you add HD to your OCD and your ADD.
> > >
> > > I don't like him either, but what do you mean by that?
> >
> > If you follow the group, you'll have noticed that he's quite
> > obsessive about "winning" his disputes, right or wrong; so I
> > accuse him of OCD, for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.
> >
> > You'll have noticed too that his favourite methods of "argument"
> > include the straw man and the red herring. So I accuse him of
> > ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder).
> >
> > Red cordial is the simpletons' favourite (they like it better
> > that green cordial or orange cordial or...). And cordials are
> > very high is sugar; so I "encourage" the drooling wonder to
> > stay away from the red cordial so as to avoid compounding his
> > OCD and ADD with HD (Hyperactitivity Disorder).
>

> Okay, but I have killfiled him, so I only experience him through
> your posts.

Sorry about that. But you'll understand, I'm sure, that I'm not
going to tolerate his idiocies and his attempts to bully and
browbeat people on that account.

Try to enjoy his humiliation.

> What is red cordial made from.

Don't know. Red dye and sugar? The main attraction for simpletons
is the colour.

> Cordials are not very popular in the UK, lime is the most common.

They're not really all that popular here in Oz, either, AFAIK,
except with kids and cretins.

Ned

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

Ned Latham wrote:

> If you follow the group, you'll have noticed that he's quite
> obsessive about "winning" his disputes

This is a history group. Some things are true. Some things
are not true. Things that are not true aren't history, and
they have no place in here being repeated as history.

Troy is a myth. Saying "They found something near Troy" is
disinformation. It's stating a falsehood. And it's identical
to the behavior of the bible thumpers. The thumpers are
also always finding things near THIS biblical site or THAT
biblical location. You behave exactly like a bible thumper.

It's exactly identical.

You pretend to not be one of them, the bible thumpers. Yet,
you emulate them. Exactly.

Don't like it? Tough shit. Start a Facebook group. Block
everyone but like-minded idiots (i.e. bible thumpers). Go
tell each other that fairy tales are history.

Enjoy!






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/158294212358

[Ned Latham]

JTEM the Drooling Wonder confirmed my asserion:

> Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > If you follow the group, you'll have noticed that he's quite
> > obsessive about "winning" his disputes
>
> This is a history group.

No shit, Sherlock. How on earth did you manage to figure that
out?

> Some things are true. Some things are not true.

And despite your desperate desire to the contrary, that
applies to your opinions.

> Things that are not true aren't history, and they
> have no place in here being repeated as history.

So you should be very careful about confusing your idiot
opinions with the truth.

> Troy is a myth.

Wrong. Our earliest records of it extend way back into the
early Bronze Age, indicating almost continuous settlement
of the site for over a thousand years before the time of
our first reports of it.

> Saying "They found something near Troy" is disinformation.

Wrong, Saying that "saying they found something near Troy
is disinformation" is disinformation.

> It's stating a falsehood.

No. Stating that Troy is a myth is a falsehood.

The simple facts are that we have an archaelolgical site
that shows occupation since early in the Bronze Age, and
shows significant wealth at various times during its
occupation, and fits the descriotion of it as given in
the first reports we have of it.

The fact that that those first reports are oral doesn't
even come close to justifying denial of its existence.

----further cretinous ranting snipped----

[Martin Edwards]

Current excavations are also turning up a much bigger settled area than
the fortress. This says little about the Trojan War stories legends.
Movies about Billy the Kid are mostly myth, and the time lapse is much
shorter. The resurrected Maverick series actually featured him twice,
played by different actors.

[SolomonW]

Read again what it states "The ancient skeleton of a woman who lived near
the storied city of Troy"

[Ned Latham]

Martin Edwards wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:

----snip----

> > The simple facts are that we have an archaelolgical site
> > that shows occupation since early in the Bronze Age, and
> > shows significant wealth at various times during its
> > occupation, and fits the descriotion of it as given in
> > the first reports we have of it.

Ie, The Iliad.

Actually, I should say "the first credible reports". The Harakles
stories might be older.

> > The fact that that those first reports are oral doesn't
> > even come close to justifying denial of its existence.
>

> Current excavations are also turning up a much bigger settled area than
> the fortress. This says little about the Trojan War stories legends.

Actually that's not correct. Those excavations confirm the long-doubted
assertions in the Iliad that Troy was big and complex and had a large
population. Archaeologists are now seeing as the citadel what they once
saw as the entire city.

> Movies about Billy the Kid are mostly myth, and the time lapse is much
> shorter. The resurrected Maverick series actually featured him twice,
> played by different actors.

Pfft. Most of the "wild West" stuff is fiction, much of it concocted
by the newspapers of the time, but a lot of it by advertisements for
those "Wild West" shows they used to put on.

I wouldn't dignify any of it with the word "myth".

Ned

[Eric Stevens]

The fit is actually very poor. Homer gives us many landmarks but there
is no comprehensive fit of the geography to the story. It is possible
to put pins in a map and say that such and such happened here, but
when one examines the details it is frequently very difficult to see
how such and such really could have occurred on the site in the manner
described.

The doubts that the site is Troy are older than Schlieman and that it
*is* Troy has slowly moved from hypothesis to tentative acceptance to
accepted dogma, all with relevant evidence that the site has been
correctly identified.

>>
>> The fact that that those first reports are oral doesn't
>> even come close to justifying denial of its existence.
>>
>> ----further cretinous ranting snipped----
>>
>Current excavations are also turning up a much bigger settled area than
>the fortress. This says little about the Trojan War stories legends.
>Movies about Billy the Kid are mostly myth, and the time lapse is much
>shorter. The resurrected Maverick series actually featured him twice,
>played by different actors.

There is no doubt that Hissarlik was an important centre but I have a
substantial doubt that it was Troy.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Agamemnon]

The title should have stated the bones were Byzantine and have nothing
to do with when Troy was inhabited.

[Ned Latham]

Eric Stevens wrote:
> Martin Edwards wrote:
> > Ned Latham wrote:

----snip----

> > > The simple facts are that we have an archaelolgical site
> > > that shows occupation since early in the Bronze Age, and
> > > shows significant wealth at various times during its
> > > occupation, and fits the descriotion of it as given in
> > > the first reports we have of it.
>
> The fit is actually very poor.

Depends on whose "reconstruction" of the c. 1200 BCE topograpy you use.
Have a look at this page on the Ubucersity of Delaware's website:
http://www1.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2003/troy030303.html
If you click on the map, you'kk get a large copy of it.

----snip----

Ned

[Eric Stevens]

I'm sorry to say that that map is now outdated and shown to be
significantly in error. I suggest you read the very interesting PDF to
be found at
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eberhard_Zangger/publication/264159976_Searching_for_the_Ports_of_Troy/links/53d08bac0cf2fd75bc5d29fb.pdf
or http://tinyurl.com/h3nahw9 which throws a whole new flood light on
the geography of the general location. I'm afraid it doesn't make it
any easier to fit Homer to the local geography.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Ned Latham]

Eric Stevens wrote:

> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Eric Stevens wrote:
> > > Martin Edwards wrote:
> > > > Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > > > The simple facts are that we have an archaelolgical site
> > > > > that shows occupation since early in the Bronze Age, and
> > > > > shows significant wealth at various times during its
> > > > > occupation, and fits the descriotion of it as given in
> > > > > the first reports we have of it.
> > >
> > > The fit is actually very poor.
> >
> > Depends on whose "reconstruction" of the c. 1200 BCE topograpy

> > you use. Have a look at this page on the University of Delaware's
> > website: http://www1.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2003/troy030303.html
> > If you click on the map, you'll get a large copy of it.

>
> I'm sorry to say that that map is now outdated

Could well be. But its date is 2003; the date of the document you
linked to is 1996.

And if you look very closely at them, there's not a LOT of
difference.

----snip----

Ned

[Eric Stevens]

I wasn't thinking just of the maps. The Zangger article has a great
deal of supplementary explanation including comments on where the
harbour might have been.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

Pig ignorant, Ned Latham wrote:

> JTEM, my superior informed me:

> > This is a history group.

> No shit, Sherlock.

So stop pretending that myths are real.

> > Some things are true. Some things are not true.

> And despite your desperate desire to the contrary, that
> applies to your opinions.

These aren't opinions. Schliemann was a confirmed fraud.
And, no, his "Troy" was NOT exactly where the Iliad or
anything/anyone else said it would be... which is why a
fraud was digging at that site instead of a real
archaeologist.

Also: If it had been where the Iliad described, it
would have been found long before Schliemann.

Did this not occur to you, or were you too busy,
sitting in the back of the shortbus, eating your
paste?






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/167403627398

[Ned Latham]

JTEM the Drooling Wondee sat around wanking
for eight months and xonfirmed ny assertion:

> Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > If you follow the group, you'll have noticed that he's quite
> > obsessive about "winning" his disputes
>

> This is a history group.

No shit, Sherlock. How on earth did you manage to figure that
out?

> Some things are true. Some things are not true.

And despite your desperate desire to the contrary, that
applies to your opinions.

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

Knuckle dragging ignoramous, Ned Latham wrote:

> Wrong. Our earliest records of it extend way back into the
> early Bronze Age, indicating almost continuous settlement
> of the site for over a thousand years before the time of
> our first reports of it.

And your damaged brain thinks this means... what?

We have many sites that older or older, showing continuous
habitation for that long or longer. Idiot.

You've run out of steam. You're merely obsessive-compulsively
repeating yourself. You can't address facts, you're not
intellectually equipped to deal with them, so you just
repeat, repeat, repeat your idiocy, further condemning
yourself.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/167367273712

[Ned Latham]

JTEM the Drooling Wonder's lost track of time, and space, and
how communication works.

Get a clue, moron.

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

Mentally unstable, Ned Latham wrote:
[---snip---]

You are extremely emotional over your beliefs.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/123920968253

[Eric Stevens]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 07:12:23 -0600, Ned Latham
<nedl...@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:

>JTEM the Drooling Wondee sat around wanking
>for eight months and xonfirmed ny assertion:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>> >
>> > If you follow the group, you'll have noticed that he's quite
>> > obsessive about "winning" his disputes
>>
>> This is a history group.
>
>No shit, Sherlock. How on earth did you manage to figure that
>out?
>
>> Some things are true. Some things are not true.
>
>And despite your desperate desire to the contrary, that
>applies to your opinions.
>
>> Things that are not true aren't history, and they
>> have no place in here being repeated as history.
>
>So you should be very careful about confusing your idiot
>opinions with the truth.
>
>> Troy is a myth.
>
>Wrong. Our earliest records of it extend way back into the
>early Bronze Age, indicating almost continuous settlement
>of the site for over a thousand years before the time of
>our first reports of it.

But is it Troy?

>
>> Saying "They found something near Troy" is disinformation.
>
>Wrong, Saying that "saying they found something near Troy
>is disinformation" is disinformation.
>
>> It's stating a falsehood.
>
>No. Stating that Troy is a myth is a falsehood.
>
>The simple facts are that we have an archaelolgical site
>that shows occupation since early in the Bronze Age, and
>shows significant wealth at various times during its
>occupation, and fits the descriotion of it as given in
>the first reports we have of it.
>
>The fact that that those first reports are oral doesn't
>even come close to justifying denial of its existence.

... or establishing that the site is that of Troy.

>
>----further cretinous ranting snipped----
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Ned Latham]

Eric Stevens wrote:

> Ned Latham wrote:
> > JTEM the Drooling Wondee sat around wanking
> > for eight months and xonfirmed ny assertion:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If you follow the group, you'll have noticed that he's quite
> > > > obsessive about "winning" his disputes
> > >
> > > This is a history group.
> >
> > No shit, Sherlock. How on earth did you manage to figure that
> > out?
> >
> > > Some things are true. Some things are not true.
> >
> > And despite your desperate desire to the contrary, that
> > applies to your opinions.
> >
> > > Things that are not true aren't history, and they
> > > have no place in here being repeated as history.
> >
> > So you should be very careful about confusing your idiot
> > opinions with the truth.
> >
> > > Troy is a myth.
> >
> > Wrong. Our earliest records of it extend way back into the
> > early Bronze Age, indicating almost continuous settlement
> > of the site for over a thousand years before the time of
> > our first reports of it.
>
> But is it Troy?

Consider the evidence. It fits the tradition, which goes back
far beyond the Trojan War and places it geographically and
characterises its wealth. Making allowance for topographical
changes in the 3,000 years since the Trojan War, it resembles
the Troy described in the chronicle of the war, and its
features even fit the events described in the chronicle of
the war. If it's not Troy, two questions must ne answered:

1. Where is there room for the location of the real Troy?

2. Why are so many points of the tradition echoed in the
archaeology?

> > > Saying "They found something near Troy" is disinformation.
> >
> > Wrong, Saying that "saying they found something near Troy
> > is disinformation" is disinformation.
> >
> > > It's stating a falsehood.
> >
> > No. Stating that Troy is a myth is a falsehood.
> >
> > The simple facts are that we have an archaelolgical site
> > that shows occupation since early in the Bronze Age, and
> > shows significant wealth at various times during its
> > occupation, and fits the descriotion of it as given in
> > the first reports we have of it.
> >
> > The fact that that those first reports are oral doesn't
> > even come close to justifying denial of its existence.
>
> ... or establishing that the site is that of Troy.

Wrong. Oral traditions can be unrelaible, but so can written
records. The evidence has to be analysed, and the analysis
wrt Troy has long since disposed of objections to the
identification.

[Eric Stevens]

It has been made to fit the tradition. Many doubts have been expressed
about whether or not it is the right sight both before and after it
was purchased by Schlieman. The biggest objection in my mind is that
Hissarlik as a site cannot be made to fit the story of Troy without
considerable distortion. But such attempts fall by the wayside on the
basis the details of the clutter of various ancient works on the site
reported by Zangger et al in 'The Archaeology of Mediterranean
Landscapes 2'. Unfortunately this his recently retreated behind
Google's and Facebook's walls but it is well worth reading.
>http://www.academia.edu/23835291/Searching_for_the_Ports_of_Troy

>1. Where is there room for the location of the real Troy?

Not in the immediate vicinity. John Crowe in his Volume 1 'The Troy
Deception' makes a case for Troy having been sited at
Bergama/Pergamon. See
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_w3VM3tDPj4Q/S-KceIq3AaI/AAAAAAAAABg/r6I1tbqz7hM/s1600/map1.jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/ybvuujjr
... but that is only one side of his story. I would like to see it
critically reviewed.

Now Professor Frank Kolb of Tubingen University is advocating Troy
having been located in Greece. See http://tinyurl.com/ybslcw3s

I have recently read that somebody advocated a site further up the
Dardanelles.

>
>2. Why are so many points of the tradition echoed in the
> archaeology?

Well, are they? Or is it that so many points of the tradition could be
found in any site in the vicinity? The 'Troy' Deception is worth
reading but it will leave you dissatisfied and waiting for the
promised second volume in the series.

>
>> > > Saying "They found something near Troy" is disinformation.
>> >
>> > Wrong, Saying that "saying they found something near Troy
>> > is disinformation" is disinformation.
>> >
>> > > It's stating a falsehood.
>> >
>> > No. Stating that Troy is a myth is a falsehood.
>> >
>> > The simple facts are that we have an archaelolgical site
>> > that shows occupation since early in the Bronze Age, and
>> > shows significant wealth at various times during its
>> > occupation, and fits the descriotion of it as given in
>> > the first reports we have of it.
>> >
>> > The fact that that those first reports are oral doesn't
>> > even come close to justifying denial of its existence.
>>
>> ... or establishing that the site is that of Troy.
>
>Wrong. Oral traditions can be unrelaible, but so can written
>records. The evidence has to be analysed, and the analysis
>wrt Troy has long since disposed of objections to the
>identification.

Written records are usually copied many times over the centuries with
the attendant risk of both deliberate and accidental additions and
distortions at the hands of the scribes. You take them literally at
your peril.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Ned Latham]

You're accusing over a century of archaeologists of fraud.
You should substantuate that if you can.

> Many doubts have been expressed about whether or not it
> is the right sight both before and after it was purchased
> by Schlieman.

Doubts are not evidence. Especially when they're associated
with academic grants.

> The biggest objection in my mind is that
> Hissarlik as a site cannot be made to fit the story of
> Troy without considerable distortion.

Irrelevant. No site in the world can be made to fit the
tradition without alteration. The alterations envisaged
for Ilion are 3,000 years of sedimentation by the rivers
across the plain. There is no question about the validity
of the estimates made in that investigation of the topology.

> But such attempts fall by the wayside on the basis the
> details of the clutter of various ancient works on the site
> reported by Zangger et al in 'The Archaeology of Mediterranean
> Landscapes 2'.

False. Read it again. Pay careful attention to the discussions
of the movements of the shoreline.

> Unfortunately this his recently retreated behind
> Google's and Facebook's walls but it is well worth reading.

Huh?

> > http://www.academia.edu/23835291/Searching_for_the_Ports_of_Troy

Giigle want me to subscribe. Fuck that. And anyway isn't that
outdated? 1993?

> > 1. Where is there room for the location of the real Troy?
>
> Not in the immediate vicinity. John Crowe in his Volume 1
> 'The Troy Deception' makes a case for Troy having been sited
> at Bergama/Pergamon.

He *thinks* he makes a case. There is no way of reconciling the
tolpology of that area with Homer's description.

> See http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_w3VM3tDPj4Q/S-KceIq3AaI/

> AAAAAAAAABg/r6I1tbqz7hM/s1600/map1.jpg
> or http://tinyurl.com/ybvuujjr
> ... but that is only one side of his story. I would like to
> see it critically reviewed.

Do it yourself. Start by asking yourself how far Pergamon is
from the sea, and how far THomer puts Troy from the sea.

> Now Professor Frank Kolb of Tubingen University is advocating Troy
> having been located in Greece. See http://tinyurl.com/ybslcw3s

Shit. When are we moving to Italy?

> I have recently read that somebody advocated a site further up the
> Dardanelles.

That's idiotic. Hissarlik's location is ideal for putting the
squeeze on traders. Farther up the channel means that it couldn't
"service" them while they waited for favourable winds.

> > 2. Why are so many points of the tradition echoed in the
> > archaeology?
>
> Well, are they?

Yes. The distance from Troy to Kesik Cut (which is a perfect fit
for locating the Greek stockade) is about 5 km. The Tomb of
Ilos is about 2 km from Troy. Scamandrios is just a little
farther on and the ford across it about 3 km from Troy and
4 km from Kesik Cut.

Check out writeup and the map at the University of
Delaware's websire:
http://www1.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2003/troy030303.html

> Or is it that so many points of the tradition could be
> found in any site in the vicinity?

Try it.

> The 'Troy' Deception is worth
> reading but it will leave you dissatisfied and waiting for the
> promised second volume in the series.

I've seen that phenomenon. Last time it was because the author
realised his idea was a crock.

Well, I presume he realised. The idea certainly was a dud.

> > > > > Saying "They found something near Troy" is disinformation.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong, Saying that "saying they found something near Troy
> > > > is disinformation" is disinformation.
> > > >
> > > > > It's stating a falsehood.
> > > >
> > > > No. Stating that Troy is a myth is a falsehood.
> > > >
> > > > The simple facts are that we have an archaelolgical site
> > > > that shows occupation since early in the Bronze Age, and
> > > > shows significant wealth at various times during its
> > > > occupation, and fits the descriotion of it as given in
> > > > the first reports we have of it.
> > > >
> > > > The fact that that those first reports are oral doesn't
> > > > even come close to justifying denial of its existence.
> > >
> > > ... or establishing that the site is that of Troy.
> >
> > Wrong. Oral traditions can be unrelaible, but so can written
> > records. The evidence has to be analysed, and the analysis
> > wrt Troy has long since disposed of objections to the
> > identification.
>
> Written records are usually copied many times over the centuries with
> the attendant risk of both deliberate and accidental additions and
> distortions at the hands of the scribes. You take them literally at
> your peril.

I know that. It's why they're not to ne relied on without careful
analysis any more than oral records are.

[Eric Stevens]

Being wrong isn't fraud, although Schlieman appears to have had doubts
about whether or not he had the correct site. More to the point there
is more than a century of archaeologists who argue that it is not the
correct site.

>
>> Many doubts have been expressed about whether or not it
>> is the right sight both before and after it was purchased
>> by Schlieman.
>
>Doubts are not evidence. Especially when they're associated
>with academic grants.

Neither is belief. The most telling point is that it is very difficult
to fit Homer's story into the site as we now know it was. The strength
of Lowe's argument for Pergama/Pergamon is that he can more easily fit
the story as told by Homer into the site. He claims also to identify
some of the landmarks referred to by Homer.

>
>> The biggest objection in my mind is that
>> Hissarlik as a site cannot be made to fit the story of
>> Troy without considerable distortion.
>
>Irrelevant. No site in the world can be made to fit the
>tradition without alteration.

Now that is an assertion without justification.

>The alterations envisaged
>for Ilion are 3,000 years of sedimentation by the rivers
>across the plain. There is no question about the validity
>of the estimates made in that investigation of the topology.

There is much more than that. Read Zangger et al.

>
>> But such attempts fall by the wayside on the basis the
>> details of the clutter of various ancient works on the site
>> reported by Zangger et al in 'The Archaeology of Mediterranean
>> Landscapes 2'.
>
>False. Read it again. Pay careful attention to the discussions
>of the movements of the shoreline.

Which means what, exactly?

>
>> Unfortunately this his recently retreated behind
>> Google's and Facebook's walls but it is well worth reading.
>
>Huh?
>
>> > http://www.academia.edu/23835291/Searching_for_the_Ports_of_Troy

Thank you. I searched for that and couldn't find it outside Google or
Facebook.

>
>Giigle want me to subscribe. Fuck that. And anyway isn't that
>outdated? 1993?

1999. In any case it is by far the most comprehensive publication on
the subject.

>
>> > 1. Where is there room for the location of the real Troy?
>>
>> Not in the immediate vicinity. John Crowe in his Volume 1
>> 'The Troy Deception' makes a case for Troy having been sited
>> at Bergama/Pergamon.
>
>He *thinks* he makes a case. There is no way of reconciling the
>tolpology of that area with Homer's description.

His attempt is more successful than any I have seen for Hissarlik.

>
>> See http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_w3VM3tDPj4Q/S-KceIq3AaI/
>> AAAAAAAAABg/r6I1tbqz7hM/s1600/map1.jpg
>> or http://tinyurl.com/ybvuujjr
>> ... but that is only one side of his story. I would like to
>> see it critically reviewed.
>
>Do it yourself. Start by asking yourself how far Pergamon is
>from the sea, and how far THomer puts Troy from the sea.

There is a an ancient port, the remains of which are still there.

>
>> Now Professor Frank Kolb of Tubingen University is advocating Troy
>> having been located in Greece. See http://tinyurl.com/ybslcw3s
>
>Shit. When are we moving to Italy?
>
>> I have recently read that somebody advocated a site further up the
>> Dardanelles.
>
>That's idiotic. Hissarlik's location is ideal for putting the
>squeeze on traders. Farther up the channel means that it couldn't
>"service" them while they waited for favourable winds.

I agree, but who said this is an essential element of the story?

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Ned Latham]

> > You should substantiate that if you can.

>
> Being wrong isn't fraud,

Publishing false information is. *Making* a site fit a description
is.

> although Schlieman appears to have had doubts
> about whether or not he had the correct site. More to the point there
> is more than a century of archaeologists who argue that it is not the
> correct site.

And how many of them actually worked there?

> > > Many doubts have been expressed about whether or not it
> > > is the right sight both before and after it was purchased
> > > by Schlieman.
> >
> > Doubts are not evidence. Especially when they're associated
> > with academic grants.
>
> Neither is belief.

The evidence that gives rise to is.

> The most telling point is that it is very difficult to fit
> Homer's story into the site as we now know it was.

Not true, as I see it. Look at the map on the U Delaware page.

> The strength of Lowe's argument for Pergama/Pergamon is that
> he can more easily fit the story as told by Homer into the

> psite.

That's nonsense. Pergamon is avout 35 km from the nearest
point on the coast.

> He claims also to identify some of the landmarks referred
> to by Homer.

He claims.

> > > The biggest objection in my mind is that
> > > Hissarlik as a site cannot be made to fit the story of
> > > Troy without considerable distortion.
> >
> > Irrelevant. No site in the world can be made to fit the
> > tradition without alteration.
>
> Now that is an assertion without justification.

Should be easy to prove it wrong, then.

> > The alterations envisaged
> > for Ilion are 3,000 years of sedimentation by the rivers
> > across the plain. There is no question about the validity
> > of the estimates made in that investigation of the topology.
>
> There is much more than that. Read Zangger et al.

No. I've had enough of the fake scjolarship surrounding this issue.
Too much grant money is being spent on crackpot notions that suck
in amateurs like you and me.

AFAIC, Hissarlik is Triy, and I'll budge from that opinion IFF
a definitive find somewhere forces me to it.

> > > But such attempts fall by the wayside on the basis the
> > > details of the clutter of various ancient works on the site
> > > reported by Zangger et al in 'The Archaeology of Mediterranean
> > > Landscapes 2'.
> >
> > False. Read it again. Pay careful attention to the discussions
> > of the movements of the shoreline.
>
> Which means what, exactly?

There've were two major changes in sea level in that area before
and around the time of the Trojan war: one a drop, the other a
rise, both about two metres. In both cases the shoreline went
seaward, which is the opposite of what you'd expect of a rise.
It is conjectured tha the shoreline went the "wrong" way
because of human intervention.

(In addition, *I* have a conjecture about that too: un the final
battle in the Iliad, the gods get involved. There is lightning,
fige and flood, the earth shakes, Skamndrios bursts his banks...
sounds like an earthquake to me. And a rise or fall in the land
level would be the same as a fall or rise in the sea level from
a human perspectibe. I think that maybe Homer has recorded an
ancient natural disaster for us,)

There's quite a lot in that publication . If you can't get a copy
from the net I have a PDF, 2.3 MB: I can put it on my website if
you like.

> > > Unfortunately this his recently retreated behind
> > > Google's and Facebook's walls but it is well worth reading.
> >
> > Huh?

I mean it, I can't make sense of that.

> > > > http://www.academia.edu/23835291/Searching_for_the_Ports_of_Troy
>
> Thank you. I searched for that and couldn't find it outside Google or
> Facebook.

For my money, that map's a clincher.

If you click on it, a much larger xopy coime up.

> > Giigle want me to subscribe. Fuck that. And anyway isn't that
> > outdated? 1993?
>
> 1999. In any case it is by far the most comprehensive publication on
> the subject.

But where's there a catch-free copy?

> > > > 1. Where is there room for the location of the real Troy?
> > >
> > > Not in the immediate vicinity. John Crowe in his Volume 1
> > > 'The Troy Deception' makes a case for Troy having been sited
> > > at Bergama/Pergamon.
> >
> > He *thinks* he makes a case. There is no way of reconciling the
> > tolpology of that area with Homer's description.
>
> His attempt is more successful than any I have seen for Hissarlik.

Doesn't even come close IMO.

> > > See http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_w3VM3tDPj4Q/S-KceIq3AaI/
> > > AAAAAAAAABg/r6I1tbqz7hM/s1600/map1.jpg
> > > or http://tinyurl.com/ybvuujjr
> > > ... but that is only one side of his story. I would like to
> > > see it critically reviewed.
> >
> > Do it yourself. Start by asking yourself how far Pergamon is
> > from the sea, and how far THomer puts Troy from the sea.
>
> There is a an ancient port, the remains of which are still there.

At the mouth of the tiver? That puts it about 35 km from the sea,
which is too far, and why does Homer not mention the river?
And don't sday Skamandrios: it's too far away from the Greek
stochade. Which, BTW, would be placed where?

> > > Now Professor Frank Kolb of Tubingen University is advocating Troy
> > > having been located in Greece. See http://tinyurl.com/ybslcw3s
> >
> > Shit. When are we moving to Italy?
> >
> > > I have recently read that somebody advocated a site further up the
> > > Dardanelles.
> >
> > That's idiotic. Hissarlik's location is ideal for putting the
> > squeeze on traders. Farther up the channel means that it couldn't
> > "service" them while they waited for favourable winds.
>
> I agree, but who said this is an essential element of the story?

I say it. There has to be a reason for the site and for the Greek
attack on it; given only sail and oars, Hissarlik is a trade
bottleneck. It would be a very lucrative possession. Farther
upstream would be no more than a place to grow olives and goats.

----snip----

[Eric Stevens]

But only if you know the information you publish is wrong.

>*Making* a site fit a description is.

I don't think so. It is always necessary to make adjustments to fit an
ancient story which has come down through multiple copies and
versions. Who knows which is the correct interpretation? That
certainly is the case with Hissarlik.

>> although Schlieman appears to have had doubts
>> about whether or not he had the correct site. More to the point there
>> is more than a century of archaeologists who argue that it is not the
>> correct site.
>
>And how many of them actually worked there?

Probably neither of us have the faintest idea. We probably don't even
know why some of them objected to the site.

>
>> > > Many doubts have been expressed about whether or not it
>> > > is the right sight both before and after it was purchased
>> > > by Schlieman.
>> >
>> > Doubts are not evidence. Especially when they're associated
>> > with academic grants.
>>
>> Neither is belief.
>
>The evidence that gives rise to is.

It may be. But some people will believe the most extraordinary things
on the basis of the most flimsy evidence.

>
>> The most telling point is that it is very difficult to fit
>> Homer's story into the site as we now know it was.
>
>Not true, as I see it. Look at the map on the U Delaware page.

They have fitted some things but where, for example, is the
'watersmeet'? Where is the evidence of there once having been a large
bend in the river just upstream of a ford (what ford?) capable of
trapping many Trojans fleeing from Achilles? And, for example, 'the
'Tomb of Ilos' is marked on that map but I can nowhere find
You should read the book.

>
>> The strength of Lowe's argument for Pergama/Pergamon is that
>> he can more easily fit the story as told by Homer into the
>> psite.
>
>That's nonsense. Pergamon is avout 35 km from the nearest
>point on the coast.

Crowe has used Priam's journey to collect the body of Hector from
Achilles to derive a distance between Ilios and the camp of "in round
figures, somewhere between 20 and 30 km". The beach would be some
distance further away again.

>
>> He claims also to identify some of the landmarks referred
>> to by Homer.
>
>He claims.
>
>> > > The biggest objection in my mind is that
>> > > Hissarlik as a site cannot be made to fit the story of
>> > > Troy without considerable distortion.
>> >
>> > Irrelevant. No site in the world can be made to fit the
>> > tradition without alteration.
>>
>> Now that is an assertion without justification.
>
>Should be easy to prove it wrong, then.
>
>> > The alterations envisaged
>> > for Ilion are 3,000 years of sedimentation by the rivers
>> > across the plain. There is no question about the validity
>> > of the estimates made in that investigation of the topology.
>>
>> There is much more than that. Read Zangger et al.
>
>No. I've had enough of the fake scjolarship surrounding this issue.
>Too much grant money is being spent on crackpot notions that suck
>in amateurs like you and me.
>
>AFAIC, Hissarlik is Triy, and I'll budge from that opinion IFF
>a definitive find somewhere forces me to it.

There is plenty to suggest that Hissarlik is *not* Troy. For example,
acording to Homer:
"But when to Troy they came, beside the streams
Where Simois' and Scamander's waters meet .."
Where do they meet in the map at
http://www1.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2003/map.jpg except in the harbour?

>
>> > > But such attempts fall by the wayside on the basis the
>> > > details of the clutter of various ancient works on the site
>> > > reported by Zangger et al in 'The Archaeology of Mediterranean
>> > > Landscapes 2'.
>> >
>> > False. Read it again. Pay careful attention to the discussions
>> > of the movements of the shoreline.
>>
>> Which means what, exactly?
>
>There've were two major changes in sea level in that area before
>and around the time of the Trojan war: one a drop, the other a
>rise, both about two metres. In both cases the shoreline went
>seaward, which is the opposite of what you'd expect of a rise.
>It is conjectured tha the shoreline went the "wrong" way
>because of human intervention.

Which proves what, exactly? There is no dispute that humans were
there.

>
>(In addition, *I* have a conjecture about that too: un the final
>battle in the Iliad, the gods get involved. There is lightning,
>fige and flood, the earth shakes, Skamndrios bursts his banks...
>sounds like an earthquake to me. And a rise or fall in the land
>level would be the same as a fall or rise in the sea level from
>a human perspectibe. I think that maybe Homer has recorded an
>ancient natural disaster for us,)

Quite possible in that region.

>
>There's quite a lot in that publication . If you can't get a copy
>from the net I have a PDF, 2.3 MB: I can put it on my website if
>you like.

Which publication are you referring to? I already have Zanger et al,
fortunately before they turned it upside down for the PDF.

>
>> > > Unfortunately this his recently retreated behind
>> > > Google's and Facebook's walls but it is well worth reading.
>> >
>> > Huh?
>
>I mean it, I can't make sense of that.
>
>> > > > http://www.academia.edu/23835291/Searching_for_the_Ports_of_Troy
>>
>> Thank you. I searched for that and couldn't find it outside Google or
>> Facebook.
>
>For my money, that map's a clincher.
>
>If you click on it, a much larger xopy coime up.

Yep. You may be interested in these associated maps which appear to
core samples and ages:

http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/geology/31/2/163/F4.large.jpg
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/geology/31/2/163/F5.large.jpg
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/geology/31/2/163/F6.large.jpg

>
>> > Giigle want me to subscribe. Fuck that. And anyway isn't that
>> > outdated? 1993?
>>
>> 1999. In any case it is by far the most comprehensive publication on
>> the subject.
>
>But where's there a catch-free copy?
>
>> > > > 1. Where is there room for the location of the real Troy?
>> > >
>> > > Not in the immediate vicinity. John Crowe in his Volume 1
>> > > 'The Troy Deception' makes a case for Troy having been sited
>> > > at Bergama/Pergamon.
>> >
>> > He *thinks* he makes a case. There is no way of reconciling the
>> > tolpology of that area with Homer's description.
>>
>> His attempt is more successful than any I have seen for Hissarlik.
>
>Doesn't even come close IMO.

Have you read it?

>
>> > > See http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_w3VM3tDPj4Q/S-KceIq3AaI/
>> > > AAAAAAAAABg/r6I1tbqz7hM/s1600/map1.jpg
>> > > or http://tinyurl.com/ybvuujjr
>> > > ... but that is only one side of his story. I would like to
>> > > see it critically reviewed.
>> >
>> > Do it yourself. Start by asking yourself how far Pergamon is
>> > from the sea, and how far THomer puts Troy from the sea.
>>
>> There is a an ancient port, the remains of which are still there.
>
>At the mouth of the tiver? That puts it about 35 km from the sea,
>which is too far, and why does Homer not mention the river?
>And don't sday Skamandrios: it's too far away from the Greek
>stochade. Which, BTW, would be placed where?

I've already commented on the distance above.

>
>> > > Now Professor Frank Kolb of Tubingen University is advocating Troy
>> > > having been located in Greece. See http://tinyurl.com/ybslcw3s
>> >
>> > Shit. When are we moving to Italy?
>> >
>> > > I have recently read that somebody advocated a site further up the
>> > > Dardanelles.
>> >
>> > That's idiotic. Hissarlik's location is ideal for putting the
>> > squeeze on traders. Farther up the channel means that it couldn't
>> > "service" them while they waited for favourable winds.
>>
>> I agree, but who said this is an essential element of the story?
>
>I say it. There has to be a reason for the site and for the Greek
>attack on it; given only sail and oars, Hissarlik is a trade
>bottleneck. It would be a very lucrative possession. Farther
>upstream would be no more than a place to grow olives and goats.

There is a reason for the site at Hissarlik. There is also a reason
for a site at Bergama/Pergamon: A large fertile well-watered plain
with access to both the sea and inland. Also a readily defensible
hill. There is evidence that it may have been inhabited for probably
as long as Hissarlik.
>
>----snip----
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

Eric Stevens wrote:

> Being wrong isn't fraud, although Schlieman appears to have had doubts
> about whether or not he had the correct site.

https://archive.archaeology.org/9907/etc/calder.html

Schliemann was a fraud, and it's hard for anyone who
has glimpsed at his history to doubt that he would
have pinned "Troy" on any city he found anywhere.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/167403489863

[Italo]

Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> schreef:

<snip>

> 'Tomb of Ilos' is marked on that map but I can nowhere find

The "tomb of Ilus" was nearest to the Scaean gate, located towards the north (as I believe the gate got its name from the Seha river / Hellespont) hence the best candidate is the destroyed tumulus north of Hissarlik next to Kumkale, where Schliemann located it too.










--

b o y c o t t a m e r i c a n p r o d u c t s

[Martin Edwards]

On 11/18/2017 11:02 PM, Italo wrote:
>
> Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> schreef:
>
> <snip>
>
>> 'Tomb of Ilos' is marked on that map but I can nowhere find
>
> The "tomb of Ilus" was nearest to the Scaean gate, located towards the north (as I believe the gate got its name from the Seha river / Hellespont) hence the best candidate is the destroyed tumulus north of Hissarlik next to Kumkale, where Schliemann located it too.
>

The Hellespont is not a river, it is a strait.

[Italo]

Martin Edwards <big_m...@yahoo.co.uk> schreef:

> On 11/18/2017 11:02 PM, Italo wrote:
> >
> > Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> schreef:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> 'Tomb of Ilos' is marked on that map but I can nowhere find
> >
> > The "tomb of Ilus" was nearest to the Scaean gate, located towards the north (as I believe the gate got its name from the Seha river / Hellespont) hence the best candidate is the destroyed tumulus north of Hissarlik next to Kumkale, where Schliemann located it too.
> >
>
> The Hellespont is not a river, it is a strait.

Hittite has KUR ID Se-e-ha "Land (of the) river Seha". Where ID is "river" but may be understood in a broader sense (flow, stream, waterway etc).
Without sumerograms it is written Sēḫas utnē "Seha land", apparently no specification hapat(i) "river-land" (?)
The name Hellespont is Greek, obviously. The original name is still found in several names such as Sigeion, Skamandros (= Seha-Maiandros, differentiating from the other Maiandros) and the name of the Saii (also known as the Sinti (<Seha-utne?).

[Ned Latham]

Eric Stevens wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Eric Stevens wrote:

----snip----

> > > The strength of Lowe's argument for Pergama/Pergamon is that
> > > he can more easily fit the story as told by Homer into the
> > > psite.
> >
> > That's nonsense. Pergamon is avout 35 km from the nearest
> > point on the coast.
>
> Crowe has used Priam's journey to collect the body of Hector from
> Achilles to derive a distance between Ilios and the camp of "in round
> figures, somewhere between 20 and 30 km". The beach would be some
> distance further away again.

You and I 've neen through this before, and AFAIC, Crowe's effort
is thorough;y debunked.

As I said, I've had it with the fake scholarship muddying this
issue. I have my opinion, you have yours, the Drooling Winder
has his, and the grant-seekers infesting academia have theirs.

I want no part of that.

----snip----

[Ned Latham]

JTEM the Drooling Wondee wrote:
> Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> Being wrong isn't fraud, although Schlieman appears to have had doubts
>> about whether or not he had the correct site.
>
> https://archive.archaeology.org/9907/etc/calder.html

Another grantseeker who considers that accusing a dead man of fraud
will mask his own fraud.

> Schliemann was a fraud, and it's hard for anyone who
> has glimpsed at his history to doubt that he would
> have pinned "Troy" on any city he found anywhere.

Knossos, foir example?

The outer grave circle ate Mykenae?

Calder can insinuate that Scliemann planted the mask until he's
black in the face, it remains nothing more than an insinuation:
defamatory buyllshit. The National Museum in Athens quite
rightly refuses the demands of such unconscionable calumniators
for destructive metallurgical testing.

[Eric Stevens]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 17:38:29 -0600, Ned Latham
<nedl...@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:

>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>> > Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>----snip----
>
>> > > The strength of Lowe's argument for Pergama/Pergamon is that
>> > > he can more easily fit the story as told by Homer into the
>> > > psite.
>> >
>> > That's nonsense. Pergamon is avout 35 km from the nearest
>> > point on the coast.
>>
>> Crowe has used Priam's journey to collect the body of Hector from
>> Achilles to derive a distance between Ilios and the camp of "in round
>> figures, somewhere between 20 and 30 km". The beach would be some
>> distance further away again.
>
>You and I 've neen through this before, and AFAIC, Crowe's effort
>is thorough;y debunked.

Can you give me a reference or at least a citation. I am interested in
learning more.

>
>As I said, I've had it with the fake scholarship muddying this
>issue. I have my opinion, you have yours, the Drooling Winder
>has his, and the grant-seekers infesting academia have theirs.

I don't have an opinion other than that Hissarlik has always been
doubtful and that Crowe's theory is worth investigating further.
Although I have reached the age of 83 I have not reached that state
where all I want to do is defend what I was taught more than 50 years
ago. As I said above, I would like to learn more.

>
>I want no part of that.
>
>----snip----

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

... says he righteously! :-)

For some time now there have been scanning electron microscopes with
EDAX (Energy Dispersive Analysis X-Ray) capability with chambers more
than large enough to examine Agamemnon's mask in exquisite detail. The
composition of the mask could be identified in fine detail. There
would be no visible change to the mask.

There must be a reason why they don't want to do it ...
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

Ned Latham wrote:

> Another

You're trying way too hard here.

Troll.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/167786997638

[Martin Edwards]

I read somewhere that it is actually old to be Agamemnon's.

[Eric Stevens]

It would be interesting to know the basis of that opinion.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Martin Edwards]

Sorry, I can'r remember where I read it.