Two hundred years ago, the Rosetta Stone unlocked the secrets of ancient Egypt(smithsonianmag.com)
smithsonianmag.com
Two hundred years ago, the Rosetta Stone unlocked the secrets of ancient Egypt
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/rosetta-stone-hieroglyphs-champollion-decipherment-egypt-180980834/
72 comments
As another bit of trivia, when Cleopatra and Caesar were together, they toured Egypt. They almost certainly made a stop at the Pyramids. (As much of a must-see in Egypt then as now!) But they wouldn't have known, not with certainty, who built them and when.
> But they wouldn't have known, not with certainty, who built them and when.
Are you referring to the long held contemporary debate on whether or not Khufu built the pyramids?
https://www.gaia.com/article/book-of-enoch
Are you referring to the long held contemporary debate on whether or not Khufu built the pyramids?
https://www.gaia.com/article/book-of-enoch
By the time of Cleopatra, written Egyptian had been dead for hundreds of years. No one could read the old inscriptions. Herodotus, some ~400 years before may have had some access to records in some way, or oral tradition, and he wrote an account of Cheops (Khufu) and the construction of the Great Pyramid. An event more than 1000 years before Herodotus himself. How much of Herodotus was myth and how much history was already under debate while he was still alive, and it still is. Being able to read Egyptian gave a whole new perspective in the 19th century: Khufu's name is on the king's list at Abydos.
Knowledge of Egyptian hieroglyphs, hieratic, and demotic didn't completely disappear until a few centuries into the Christian era, evidenced by priests producing new texts in these scripts. They even produced texts in Middle Egyptian—the phase of the language beginning approximately 2,000 BCE—almost to the end of the use of Egyptian hieroglyphs. This thread is about a copy of the Memphis Decree, a text written in two forms of written Egyptian (hieroglyphs, Demotic) produced about 150 years before Cleopatra.
I'm surprised at how such information could be lost over generations. Yet, I recall having to read Shakespeare and barely being able to glean meaning from the passages despite them being written in English. If you go even farther back to the works of Chaucer, the text is essentially indecipherable for any layperson without a teacher. And that is a span of only about 600 years. I must admit that even reading the Federalist papers is a little difficult and those are only a little more than 200 years old.
It gives me a newfound appreciation for how much language changes and the challenges of conveying information across generations.
It gives me a newfound appreciation for how much language changes and the challenges of conveying information across generations.
Our civilization has not collapsed since Shakespeare. Ancient Egypt's did c. 1200 BC and never exactly recovered in terms of literacy though remnants remained into early Roman times. Then it was conquered by the Greeks.
Mesopotamia was even more completely buried and forgotten. A few names in the Bible, nothing more of the history survived until rediscovered in modern times. Around 400 BC, Xenophon returning from his campaign against the Persians, marched past the ruins of a great city. He was impressed with the size of it. The walls on stone foundations 20 ft tall! They're still there today, more or less. Perhaps the Medes had built it, according to the locals. Not much was known of the Medes, to the Greeks. It may have been quite ancient.
Xenophon did not know that it was Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, last of the great Mesopotamian empires. It had been destroyed some 200 years before in the final war between Babylon and Assyria. The Mesopotamian cultural-political system sort of fell apart after. The languages of administration and history stopped being used. Written records ceased. The Persians came to rule the area. Only two hundred years and already forgotten.
Mesopotamia was even more completely buried and forgotten. A few names in the Bible, nothing more of the history survived until rediscovered in modern times. Around 400 BC, Xenophon returning from his campaign against the Persians, marched past the ruins of a great city. He was impressed with the size of it. The walls on stone foundations 20 ft tall! They're still there today, more or less. Perhaps the Medes had built it, according to the locals. Not much was known of the Medes, to the Greeks. It may have been quite ancient.
Xenophon did not know that it was Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, last of the great Mesopotamian empires. It had been destroyed some 200 years before in the final war between Babylon and Assyria. The Mesopotamian cultural-political system sort of fell apart after. The languages of administration and history stopped being used. Written records ceased. The Persians came to rule the area. Only two hundred years and already forgotten.
Or rather the fact that they were like 1800 years old by then.
It was Joseph Fourier, the Fourier in Fourier transform, who showed the then 11-years-old Jean-François Champollion a copy of the Rosetta stone.
Thomas Young, who made many important contributions to the decipherment, was an influential physicist and mathematician. He's largely responsible for the wave theory of light. Young's modulus is named for him.
That is a great factoid
You can still walk right up to the Rosetta Stone in the British Museum. It always has a big crowd around it. Don't bother taking a picture of it, there are lots.
There are certain rockfaces in Australia covered with authentic hieroglyphs, discovered last century sometime. Some of the glyphs used only appeared in dictionaries in this century. Experts who have examined it date the vocabulary used to late period, close to 2000 years ago, just a few centuries before hieroglyphs were abandoned and forgotten.
People in antiquity did get around. Just not always on an industrial scale.
There are certain rockfaces in Australia covered with authentic hieroglyphs, discovered last century sometime. Some of the glyphs used only appeared in dictionaries in this century. Experts who have examined it date the vocabulary used to late period, close to 2000 years ago, just a few centuries before hieroglyphs were abandoned and forgotten.
People in antiquity did get around. Just not always on an industrial scale.
Never heard of these glyphs in Australia before, but they seem to have been debunked as fake pretty quickly. (Sources 1, 2)
That being said, Indigenous Australians of New South Wales (where these phony glyphs are) have done a lot of impressive things themselves and have an amazing history to learn an appreciate all their own. The most famous I'm aware of was the complex societies built upon massive fishery management. (Sources 3, 4)
Sources:
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gosford_Glyphs
2: https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/blogs/tim-the-yowie-...
3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewarrina_Aboriginal_Fish_Tra...
4: https://asia.nikkei.com/Life-Arts/Life/Ancient-Aboriginal-fi...
That being said, Indigenous Australians of New South Wales (where these phony glyphs are) have done a lot of impressive things themselves and have an amazing history to learn an appreciate all their own. The most famous I'm aware of was the complex societies built upon massive fishery management. (Sources 3, 4)
Sources:
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gosford_Glyphs
2: https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/blogs/tim-the-yowie-...
3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewarrina_Aboriginal_Fish_Tra...
4: https://asia.nikkei.com/Life-Arts/Life/Ancient-Aboriginal-fi...
It is always easy to claim things are a hoax. You don't even need to look at them. How the hoaxers found out about glyphs that had not been published yet seems to need explanation. And that they actually spell words and sentences not about gods or pharaohs, as sequences copied would have.
The Ceruti mastodon butchered near San Diego 130,000 ya is one people tried really hard to debunk, and are now forced to admit is real. Nobody has a clue if it was H.s, H.n, H.e, or "others".
The Ceruti mastodon butchered near San Diego 130,000 ya is one people tried really hard to debunk, and are now forced to admit is real. Nobody has a clue if it was H.s, H.n, H.e, or "others".
I'm all for accepting evidence when it's there. I do believe humans have been highly mobile for our entire history. Hell, the ancestors of Aboriginal Australians migrated to both Australia and Madagascar, proven by the fact that Madagascans are genetically much more closely related to Aboriginal Australians than Africans. The debunking of these glyphs are quite thorough, and looking at them as a lay person they look quite fresh. There's even a local known nearby aboriginal site that is 250 years old and looks it.
As for the mastodon, it's news to me, but I'm highly suspect of any positive findings. I believe humans were in the Americas before the widely touted 14,000 year mark. There's solid evidence that Monte Verde in Chile could be 30,000 years old, but maybe just 14,000 years ago. But either way that's far into southern Chile begging the question of when did humans really first arrive in America. But as I said, 130,000 years ago? I'm skeptical, and so are most anthropologists from what I'm seeing
As for the mastodon, it's news to me, but I'm highly suspect of any positive findings. I believe humans were in the Americas before the widely touted 14,000 year mark. There's solid evidence that Monte Verde in Chile could be 30,000 years old, but maybe just 14,000 years ago. But either way that's far into southern Chile begging the question of when did humans really first arrive in America. But as I said, 130,000 years ago? I'm skeptical, and so are most anthropologists from what I'm seeing
If you copy signs from a Greco-Roman period inscription, chances are good you'll copy a sign that's missing from some Greco-Roman sign lists. There are just so many more signs used in that period than the earlier periods—and the work of cataloging them is still ongoing.
Looking at various pictures, I see many mistakes and the signs are badly copied. Even assuming Egypt sent their worst scribes to Australia, why would they be copying fragments of standard funerary texts—for example—on random rock walls far away from anything resembling an Egyptian burial?
Looking at various pictures, I see many mistakes and the signs are badly copied. Even assuming Egypt sent their worst scribes to Australia, why would they be copying fragments of standard funerary texts—for example—on random rock walls far away from anything resembling an Egyptian burial?
What funerary texts?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gosford_petroglyphs.jpg
ꜥnḫ ḏt n ḫꜣt...
I mean, I'd need more context to do a real translation, but there's the "living forever" thing (ꜥnḫ ḏt) that comes after the name of the deceased, or maybe it's di (sign before is cutoff) ꜥnḫ ḏt ("given life forever"). There's the ḫꜣt relating to a corpse.
That text is talking about a dead guy.
ꜥnḫ ḏt n ḫꜣt...
I mean, I'd need more context to do a real translation, but there's the "living forever" thing (ꜥnḫ ḏt) that comes after the name of the deceased, or maybe it's di (sign before is cutoff) ꜥnḫ ḏt ("given life forever"). There's the ḫꜣt relating to a corpse.
That text is talking about a dead guy.
No one is forced to admit it is real. In fact, if you read the wikipedia article, there are a number of people offering alternative explanations to explain the site.
But really, do you think there is a cabal of powerful academics who have their identity so wrapped up in "Humans only came to the Americas 25,000 years ago", that they would try to explain away clear evidence of humans in the Americas 130,000 years ago?
But really, do you think there is a cabal of powerful academics who have their identity so wrapped up in "Humans only came to the Americas 25,000 years ago", that they would try to explain away clear evidence of humans in the Americas 130,000 years ago?
>do you think there is a cabal of powerful academics who have their identity so wrapped up in "Humans only came to the Americas 25,000 years ago"
Unfortunately there is a cabal of powerful academics in almost every field who have their identities and their professional reputations wrapped up in a wide variety of flimsy, dated conjecture. It is why the statement, "science advances one funeral at a time" was coined and remains so relevant.
Unfortunately there is a cabal of powerful academics in almost every field who have their identities and their professional reputations wrapped up in a wide variety of flimsy, dated conjecture. It is why the statement, "science advances one funeral at a time" was coined and remains so relevant.
When Harlen Bretz finally received Geology's highest honor for his work on the Channeled Scablands of eastern Washington state, literally all of his opponents, who had rabidly blighted his career, had died of old age.
There are still lots of geologists and historians who insist there was no Younger Dryas Boundary bolide strike and continentwide conflagration responsible for extinction of most large North American genera; and plenty who still even insist on Clovis First.
Topically, Bretz was hampered buy lack of a source for the many cubic miles of meltwater his scenario called for. (Lake Missoula did not suffice, though it was pressed into service.) It was finally resolved by proof of the bolide strike.
There are still lots of geologists and historians who insist there was no Younger Dryas Boundary bolide strike and continentwide conflagration responsible for extinction of most large North American genera; and plenty who still even insist on Clovis First.
Topically, Bretz was hampered buy lack of a source for the many cubic miles of meltwater his scenario called for. (Lake Missoula did not suffice, though it was pressed into service.) It was finally resolved by proof of the bolide strike.
Maybe if you find hominins in North America 130,000 years ago difficult to contemplate, you will have greater difficulty with 200,000 years?
Look up "Leakey Calico Early Human site". Yes, that Leakey. National Geographic sponsored work. They dug down dozens of feet, kept finding older worked stone. 1960s.
Look up "Leakey Calico Early Human site". Yes, that Leakey. National Geographic sponsored work. They dug down dozens of feet, kept finding older worked stone. 1960s.
I did look it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calico_Early_Man_Site#Current_...
> The present consensus is that there is no evidence of human activity at the Calico Early Man site. This consensus developed based on a number of factors, including:
> The lack of other evidence of human activity (e.g. human or animal remains, or non-tool artifacts).
> The deep antiquity of the site (the next oldest date for human artifacts in the Americas is 30,000 BP, and that date itself is controversial).
> The sheer number of possible tools, up to 60,000 by one account.[6]
> The research by Duvall/Venner, Payen, and others providing possible natural explanations for the stone objects.
> The present consensus is that there is no evidence of human activity at the Calico Early Man site. This consensus developed based on a number of factors, including:
> The lack of other evidence of human activity (e.g. human or animal remains, or non-tool artifacts).
> The deep antiquity of the site (the next oldest date for human artifacts in the Americas is 30,000 BP, and that date itself is controversial).
> The sheer number of possible tools, up to 60,000 by one account.[6]
> The research by Duvall/Venner, Payen, and others providing possible natural explanations for the stone objects.
In other words, there was so much evidence, none of it counted.
They did not, at the time, know about the Cerutti Mastodon.
You can see vids on YT of visits to the site. There were so many tools found, there are piles of them left out on the ground. Very, very obviously knapped tools.
They did not, at the time, know about the Cerutti Mastodon.
You can see vids on YT of visits to the site. There were so many tools found, there are piles of them left out on the ground. Very, very obviously knapped tools.
Yet, astonishingly, did.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5z3DbmOuaFI
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5z3DbmOuaFI
I believe up to a few years ago it was the original Rosetta stone, but when I last visited 2-3 years ago it was just a copy (with a sign explaining why).
For people that understand French, radiofrance has a really good 5 hour long podcast series about Champollion, from childhood to death:
https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceculture/podcasts/grande-tra...
https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceculture/podcasts/grande-tra...
Thanks !!
Champollion's achievement was bad news for Joseph Smith. See, *The Book of Abraham."
So, basically, it showed that he was completely making up his 'translations' of hieroglyphs to say what he wanted them to say while pinning them as words of God?
That's the conclusion most people with the relevant knowledge (hieroglyphs and Demotic) and no dog in the fight come to. On the other hand, there's plenty of apologetics arguing that the extant Joseph Smith papyri aren't actually the ones Joseph used to do his translation of the Book of Abraham. The mistranslation of the facsimiles doesn't really have an even marginally plausible apologetic explanation.
> The mistranslation of the facsimiles doesn't really have an even marginally plausible apologetic explanation.
It has always interested me that these possibilities are there and potentially just ignored in something so crucial as religion to ~15 million LDS worldwide. Thanks for the introduction.
It has always interested me that these possibilities are there and potentially just ignored in something so crucial as religion to ~15 million LDS worldwide. Thanks for the introduction.
I have a friend in the church and he’s like “dude why ask so many questions? What am I gonna do, leave the church and become a pariah to my family and friends?”
He knows it’s BS but to him if they’ve got a good thing going, why not stick with it.
I grew up in the church and left because of similar things and honestly he seems happier than I do.
As I get older I think maybe it’s better to be happy than to be right. Most people unconsciously just naturally do this, and those of us with “engineer mindsets” where we can’t abide by obvious falsehoods for the sake of the tribe are the weird ones.
He knows it’s BS but to him if they’ve got a good thing going, why not stick with it.
I grew up in the church and left because of similar things and honestly he seems happier than I do.
As I get older I think maybe it’s better to be happy than to be right. Most people unconsciously just naturally do this, and those of us with “engineer mindsets” where we can’t abide by obvious falsehoods for the sake of the tribe are the weird ones.
Man, this certainly resonates with me, especially recently. I grew up in a tight knit small town where we knew everyone. Now in my thirties with a small family, hundreds of miles from our hometowns, recently sober, and a fully remote job - it is extremely hard to make friends. Especially friends that feel real, other families that we can just hang out with and do normal things with. I've turned back to religion, listening to apologetics podcasts, etc., all trying to convince myself that I am a believer. A lot of it so I can put myself and my family into a community that we can connect with. I am really outside of my element these days.
Well that was an interesting rabbit hole to do down. Thanks for that.
Everyone in germany after 12 years of school: what's a rosetta stone.
But the internet does teach you the cultural meme of something being a rosetta stone, so I can infer.
In France, we all know it ! Champollion was my hero when I was a little boy going through the egyptian phase (with Theophile Gautier).
The British Museum has free ~20min tour guides scattered throughout the museum who begin at set times. I stumbled into the one for the Rosetta Stone and it was really informative.
There's been a bunch of articles lately about the British Museum under pressure to return artifacts to their original owners / nations.
The argument being they don't need the original and could make a near perfect copy with 3D printing and display that.
The argument being they don't need the original and could make a near perfect copy with 3D printing and display that.
I think the priceless historical artifacts should be kept where they can be properly maintained.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Museum_of_Brazil_fire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Museum_of_Brazil_fire
> The argument being they don't need the original and could make a near perfect copy with 3D printing and display that.
Well, also the argument that they were looted and stolen in the first place.
Well, also the argument that they were looted and stolen in the first place.
It’s a controversial argument. Many of the chief pieces on display were officially purchased from the country in question.
Just like a lot of land in the United States was purchased from some Native American chief who may have been bought off, or under duress to save his tribe.
So can we reverse any trade because X centuries down the road we don’t like the outcome?
I said it was controversial, not wrong. There are two sides to the argument.
I said it was controversial, not wrong. There are two sides to the argument.
Specifically, the Rosetta stone was looted by the French during Napoleon's invasion of Egypt, and then carted away by the British after they defeated the French. There are two sides to this, but none of them are Egyptian.
No, the Egyptians want their shit back.
It really is an oversimplification to apply modern standards of property ownership to this situation. Egyptian history, like most history, is the story of might-makes-right usurpation. It’s easy to paint the French rediscoverers as looters, but the Ottoman administration they took the stone from were not exactly what we would call the rightful rulers either. Is it part of the cultural heritage of the Egyptian peoples? Yes, sort of, and that’s what makes it complicated. I say sort of because the cultural continuity from the stone’s origin to 1799 is somewhat suspect - the stone was being used as building material, with no recognized historic value. Hieroglyphics had been utterly forgotten. So yes, it is part of Egyptian history, but it’s also part of French and British history. It’s complicated.
Especially the Rosetta stone was just a stone used for a wall when the French found it
To take another example, Greece wants the Parthenon marbles back. On the surface that seems fair--can you think of a more prominent symbol of Greece than images of the Parthenon? It's their national heritage and the want it back.
But the parthenon marbles where lying all over the ground after being literally blown up in the 17th century when it was used as an ammunition storage depot. Nobody cared and it was not a recognized cultural artifact of note. Not until the British earl who bought them, legally, used them to help revive interest in Ancient Greece, and Athens specifically, and donated them to the British museum where they have been on prominent display since.
"But they were bought from the Ottomans, not Greece!"
Yeah, because Greece didn't exist, and hadn't existed as a nation or anything comparable since before the Roman Empire. The Byzantine Empire was the greek-speaking Roman Empire, and the Ottomans were the successors to Byzantine. But guess what? The 19th century revival in interest in greek origins was an essential part of gathering foreign support for greek nationalism, which would be achieved--with the support of British nationals--a few decades after the Parthenon marbles first went on display at the British Museum.
The Parthenon became the symbol of Greece because it was on display at the British Museum for all to see. In an alternate history where the Parthenon marbles were not purchased from the Ottomans but instead were pilfered and reused for various building projects in 19th century Athens, no one but some academics would have cared about the relief sculptures, and greek nationalism might have been set back a few decades, or more. They only have widespread cultural value because of a British PR investment.
Maybe they should be given back to Greece anyway. There's something to be said about having artifacts displayed in their original context. But the issue is hardly as clear-cut as it is made out to be.
But the parthenon marbles where lying all over the ground after being literally blown up in the 17th century when it was used as an ammunition storage depot. Nobody cared and it was not a recognized cultural artifact of note. Not until the British earl who bought them, legally, used them to help revive interest in Ancient Greece, and Athens specifically, and donated them to the British museum where they have been on prominent display since.
"But they were bought from the Ottomans, not Greece!"
Yeah, because Greece didn't exist, and hadn't existed as a nation or anything comparable since before the Roman Empire. The Byzantine Empire was the greek-speaking Roman Empire, and the Ottomans were the successors to Byzantine. But guess what? The 19th century revival in interest in greek origins was an essential part of gathering foreign support for greek nationalism, which would be achieved--with the support of British nationals--a few decades after the Parthenon marbles first went on display at the British Museum.
The Parthenon became the symbol of Greece because it was on display at the British Museum for all to see. In an alternate history where the Parthenon marbles were not purchased from the Ottomans but instead were pilfered and reused for various building projects in 19th century Athens, no one but some academics would have cared about the relief sculptures, and greek nationalism might have been set back a few decades, or more. They only have widespread cultural value because of a British PR investment.
Maybe they should be given back to Greece anyway. There's something to be said about having artifacts displayed in their original context. But the issue is hardly as clear-cut as it is made out to be.
Greece can take the Parthenon marbles and pave roads with them if they want. Egypt can use the Rosetta Stone as a coffee table. The Imperial West is not entitled to the cultural wealth of other peoples, to steal their artifacts, or dig up their dead to put in little glass cases, or to grind up and eat, as the Victorians used to do to Egyptian mummies. Cultural exchange can be legitimately given between friends and allies, but not taken.
Who are the Egyptians? The Arabs got there in 700AD, long after the Rosetta Stone had been engraved. Remnants of the Copts perhaps? Maybe the Greeks want a piece of it too. And it was Napoleon who found it, so surely Corsica has a claim as well.
You have to tie yourself in to all sorts of knots to untangle this Ship of Theseus.
And while where at it, all filth of Roman, Norse, Anglo-Saxon, and Norman descent better fuck out of GB. It belongs to the Celts and I want my Gaelic back.
You have to tie yourself in to all sorts of knots to untangle this Ship of Theseus.
And while where at it, all filth of Roman, Norse, Anglo-Saxon, and Norman descent better fuck out of GB. It belongs to the Celts and I want my Gaelic back.
So "Egyptians" don't even really exist, but "the British" absolutely, unequivocally, 100% do, and the latter claim to the Rosetta stone is ironclad and irrefutable, whereas the former is basically fantasy.
Shit like this is the reason half the world danced when the Queen died, you know.
Shit like this is the reason half the world danced when the Queen died, you know.
As somewhat of an aside from the debate on giving back artifacts, I have a fun fact:
The Coptic Christians of Egypt and the Muslims of Egypt are largely the same ethnic/genetic group. Modern day Muslim Egyptians are descendants of Coptic Egyptians who converted to Islam at some point after the Arabs conquered Egypt.
One of the (many) interesting things about Egypt is that despite being conquered by several foreign empires, their genetic/ethnic makeup has stayed largely consistent, with only minor intermixing from those foreign groups.
The Coptic Christians of Egypt and the Muslims of Egypt are largely the same ethnic/genetic group. Modern day Muslim Egyptians are descendants of Coptic Egyptians who converted to Islam at some point after the Arabs conquered Egypt.
One of the (many) interesting things about Egypt is that despite being conquered by several foreign empires, their genetic/ethnic makeup has stayed largely consistent, with only minor intermixing from those foreign groups.
[deleted]
The point is just because someone in some position of authority (who may have been motivated by greed or fear) at one time agreed to sell off land or precious artifacts, that may not make it right to keep them.
Greed and fear are part of the human condition. Every piece of land on this planet exchanged hands a hundred times under those terms so I wonder how far you want to go back.
The native Americans also had their tribal wars although that seems to be memory holed by liberals.
Sure. That still doesn't make it right, or mean that we can't even acknowledge the theft.
There are plenty of cases where the US just flat out broke treaties, or bribed one chief to sell off his whole tribe's land when it wasn't even clear he had that authority. Even if he did, there's a moral issue about taking the land that way. And if none of those strategies worked, sometimes the settlers would just kill everyone in the indigenous village: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnadenhutten_massacre
Manhattan Beach, CA stole a piece of land from a black family through eminent domain in the early 20th Century. They just recently made things right and came to a settlement with the family. Better late than never.
There are plenty of cases where the US just flat out broke treaties, or bribed one chief to sell off his whole tribe's land when it wasn't even clear he had that authority. Even if he did, there's a moral issue about taking the land that way. And if none of those strategies worked, sometimes the settlers would just kill everyone in the indigenous village: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnadenhutten_massacre
Manhattan Beach, CA stole a piece of land from a black family through eminent domain in the early 20th Century. They just recently made things right and came to a settlement with the family. Better late than never.
Every piece has it's own story and a lot of research has to go into each one.
The Rosetta stone was looted from the French. The French invaded Egypt but didn't loot the Rosetta stone, it was just a rock used for a wall in a fort they were reinforcing. Egypt at the time was part of the ottoman empire. Egypt at the time of the Rosetta stone was Greek. The Greeks conquered it from a Persian empire. Neither Egypt now or Egypt in the 1800 are the Egypt of the time of Rosetta stone.
So who should the real owner of the stone ?
So who should the real owner of the stone ?
So glad I was able to see it when I went to the British Museum.
Why didnt Egyptians get industrial revolution or electricity?
When the same is asked of the Romans a common reply is that they had a mass of slave labour and that removes some of the incentives for automation. But the Egyptians didn't even have much knowledge of making iron until very late - contemporary with ancient Greece or Rome.
This is a question I find fascinating too.
This is a question I find fascinating too.
Why native americans didnt invade Europe ?
These questions are complex to answer and the answer isn't really one: how many things didnt we do in Europe we could have done if this or that guy had not died or whatever.
But, usually Europe's industrial revolution is explained by mathematical maturity, political reforms towards individualism, large cross pollination between countries, tolerance of atheism, absence of abudant resources pushing towards mecanisation, outside enemies disappearing, older generation dead or tamed by previous wars liberating the youth,the slow penetration of reading skills in the entire population thanks to the printing press, the liberation of working capital thanks to the transition to paper money, the enforcement of mandatory schooling for more and more children: it's a miraculous convergence of factors, that allowed us to wait for thousands of years before we were ready to seize the opportunity finally to try stuff fearlessly without oppressing traditions to respect.
It's like today why the Netherland can innovate in electro lithography almost without caring while China can send billions to loyal political executives and only produce death sentences for corruption after a few years of investment: there needs to be a fertile ground to produce an innovative jump that seems to revolve around letting people experiment without too much red tape and frivolous politico religious constraints. It doesnt require capital as much as it requires relinquishing ownership and credit for invention back to the populace so they sort their stuff themselves.
These questions are complex to answer and the answer isn't really one: how many things didnt we do in Europe we could have done if this or that guy had not died or whatever.
But, usually Europe's industrial revolution is explained by mathematical maturity, political reforms towards individualism, large cross pollination between countries, tolerance of atheism, absence of abudant resources pushing towards mecanisation, outside enemies disappearing, older generation dead or tamed by previous wars liberating the youth,the slow penetration of reading skills in the entire population thanks to the printing press, the liberation of working capital thanks to the transition to paper money, the enforcement of mandatory schooling for more and more children: it's a miraculous convergence of factors, that allowed us to wait for thousands of years before we were ready to seize the opportunity finally to try stuff fearlessly without oppressing traditions to respect.
It's like today why the Netherland can innovate in electro lithography almost without caring while China can send billions to loyal political executives and only produce death sentences for corruption after a few years of investment: there needs to be a fertile ground to produce an innovative jump that seems to revolve around letting people experiment without too much red tape and frivolous politico religious constraints. It doesnt require capital as much as it requires relinquishing ownership and credit for invention back to the populace so they sort their stuff themselves.
This depends on what we define by industrial revolution.
Building the pyramids must involve a lot of advanced techniques in a cooperative effort involving a lot of specialists. They didn't have gas or petrol but managed to develop an advanced technology on glass, quarrying, agriculture and bureaucracy. They had literature, and this is an huge step. Any advance towards making machines or doing science would be diverted towards supporting war and religion and kept secret probably
Building the pyramids must involve a lot of advanced techniques in a cooperative effort involving a lot of specialists. They didn't have gas or petrol but managed to develop an advanced technology on glass, quarrying, agriculture and bureaucracy. They had literature, and this is an huge step. Any advance towards making machines or doing science would be diverted towards supporting war and religion and kept secret probably
A very interesting concept tangential to this question is the idea of "The Great Divergence".
"The Great Divergence or European miracle is the socioeconomic shift in which the Western world (i.e. Western Europe and the parts of the New World where its people became the dominant populations) overcame pre-modern growth constraints and emerged during the 19th century as the most powerful and wealthy world civilization, eclipsing the Ottoman Empire, Mughal India, Qing China, Tokugawa Japan, and Joseon Korea. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Divergence
"The Great Divergence or European miracle is the socioeconomic shift in which the Western world (i.e. Western Europe and the parts of the New World where its people became the dominant populations) overcame pre-modern growth constraints and emerged during the 19th century as the most powerful and wealthy world civilization, eclipsing the Ottoman Empire, Mughal India, Qing China, Tokugawa Japan, and Joseon Korea. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Divergence
Are there coal deposits there? And some kind of use for the energy?
I guess you need mines that are being constantly flooded to need steam machines in the first place.
Wind mills were probably good enought for seed?
Wind mills were probably good enought for seed?
Ancient greeks did have steam powered toys. It has been discussed elsewhere, that you need a need for revolution to get the progress made on the labour force and market that emerged in the UK to get a first "industrial revolution" started.
Egyptians did have batteries, BTW.
Another angle, with the TL;DR of "There was no such thing a industrial revolution, ever":
Also, if you look at the numeric history of the combined agricultural/industrial throughput of mankind, there was no such thing as a time period for a single industrial revolution. The logarithmic scale of aforementioned output show no peaks, but rather that we made so far made the same speeding up slope in growth every year for all the history we can guess an estimate for.
Egyptians did have batteries, BTW.
Another angle, with the TL;DR of "There was no such thing a industrial revolution, ever":
Also, if you look at the numeric history of the combined agricultural/industrial throughput of mankind, there was no such thing as a time period for a single industrial revolution. The logarithmic scale of aforementioned output show no peaks, but rather that we made so far made the same speeding up slope in growth every year for all the history we can guess an estimate for.
The scale of ancient civilization is always astounding to me.