Thursday, July 12, 2018

Schemin’ Heinrich Schliemann?





Image result for schemin heinrich schliemann
 
by
 
Damien F. Mackey
 
 
 
 
“Priam's Treasure is the richest single find in all Bronze Age Anatolia and was rumored to have been improved by modern additions. No Mycenaean grave has one-tenth of what was in shaft grave V. Was Schliemann's luck at Mycenae too good to be true?”
 
William M. Calder, III
 
 
 
 
A colleague in France is desperately trying to convince me that Homer and the legends of Troy and The Iliad and The Odyssey are all truly historical writings, people and events.
 
…. Seriously, if you have SO much trouble with trusting simple tradition on simple fact (here was a war, the people involved were named so and so ...) even when parts of it have been confirmed (Paris was also known as Alexander, and this name for Tarwusha / Wilusha region has been confirmed by ancient diplomacy, he could have been the diplomat of his father ... or to extreme sceptics, the real ruler of Troy, but that I won't buy ...). If you have SO much trouble with that, why do you trust archaeology on anything either?

After all, you were not there at most digs!

There is a dig outside ancient hills of Hissarlik, where archaeologists and military have found traces of a military encampment ... but since the tradition of this dig comes via youtube and me, trusting it would obviously be too much of a life of the eagles' young for your taste!  …. 
 
I, for my part, am convinced that they are entirely derivative, The Odyssey, for instance, being heavily based upon biblical writings.
See e.g. my articles:
 
Similarities to The Odyssey of the Books of Job and Tobit
 
 
and
 
Book of Tobit and the Greeks. Part Two: Influence from the Hebrew side
 
 
 
Professor William Calder wondered in 1999 - as have many others - whether or not the so-called Mask of Agamemnon might be a hoax (in Archaeology):
 
 

Behind the Mask of Agamemnon
Volume 52 Number 4, July/August 1999
IS THE MASK A HOAX?
 
For 25 years I have researched the life of Heinrich Schliemann. I have learned to be skeptical, particularly of the more dramatic events in Schliemann's life: a White House reception; his heroic acts during the burning of San Francisco; his gaining American citizenship on July 4, 1850, in California; his portrayal of his wife, Sophia, as an enthusiastic archaeologist; the discovery of ancient Greek inscriptions in his backyard; the discovery of the bust of Cleopatra in a trench in Alexandria; his unearthing of an enormous cache of gold and silver objects at Troy, known as Priam's Treasure. Thanks to the research of archaeologist George Korres of the University of Athens, the German art historian Wolfgang Schindler, and historians of scholarship David A. Traill and myself, we know that Schliemann made up these stories, once universally accepted by uncritical biographers. These fictions cause me to wonder whether the Mask of Agamemnon might be a further hoax. Here are nine reasons to believe it may be:
 
1. Günter Kopcke of New York University's Institute of Fine Arts has stressed that the Agamemnon mask is stylistically different from all other Mycenaean masks. He draws attention to its distinctive eyebrows, ears, beard, and moustache. Kopcke suggests it is the work of an innovative and highly talented goldsmith: "Certainly the...mask is more original and has a stronger effect [on the viewer than the other masks]--the goldsmith...invested enthusiasm and pride in his craft."
2. Schliemann was quite ready to have duplicates of finds made that he would pass off as genuine. He had agreed to split his finds with the Ottomans in exchange for permission to excavate Troy. Once he discovered the gold and silver objects he called Priam's Treasure, however, Schliemann smuggled them to Greece. When it appeared as though the Ottomans might claim their fair share of the treasure, he explored the possibility of having forgeries manufactured in Paris to give to the Turks.
 
3. Memoirs of informed contemporaries preserve allegations that Schliemann planted finds with the intention of later "discovering" them. Among the skeptics were British scholars Sir Charles Newton, Percy Gardner, and A.S. Murray, who, discussing Schliemann's career, declared, "He who hideth can find." Ernst Curtius, director of the excavations at Olympia and professor of ancient history at Berlin, called him a schwindler und pfuscher (swindler and con-man). One could go on.
 
4. The Mycenae excavations took place between August 7 and December 3, 1876. The mask was discovered on November 30, 1876. Three days later the excavations were closed. Similarly, excavations at Troy were closed just after the discovery of Priam's Treasure. In both cases did Schliemann simply assume that the most valuable objects had been found, or had he only found what he had planted?
 
5. Excavations were also closed on November 26 and 27 while Schliemann was away. Where was he? A relative of his wife, Sophia, is alleged to have been an Athenian goldsmith. Did Schliemann obtain the mask from Sophia's relative in Athens, then return to Mycenae and bury it, to find it on the 30th?
 
6. Priam's Treasure is the richest single find in all Bronze Age Anatolia and was rumored to have been improved by modern additions. No Mycenaean grave has one-tenth of what was in shaft grave V. Was Schliemann's luck at Mycenae too good to be true?
 
7. There are suspicious details in Schliemann's publication of the mask. I quote his Mycenae: A Narrative of Researches and Discoveries at Mycenae and Tiryns (1880):
 
In a perfect state of preservation, on the other hand, is the massive golden mask of the body at the south end of the tomb (No. 474). Its features are altogether Hellenic and I call particular attention to the long thin nose, running in a direct line with the forehead, which is but small. The eyes, which are shut, are large, and well represented by the eyelids; very characteristic is also the large mouth with its well-proportioned lips. The beard also is well represented, and particularly the moustaches, whose extremities are turned upwards to a point, in the form of crescents. This circumstance seems to leave no doubt that the ancient Mycenaeans used oil or a sort of pomatum in dressing their hair. Both masks are of repoussé work, and certainly nobody will for a moment doubt that they were intended to represent portraits of the deceased, whose faces they have covered for ages.... We are amazed at the skill of the ancient Mycenaean goldsmiths, who could model the portraits of men in massive gold plate, and consequently do as much as any modern goldsmith would be able to perform.
One searches for a subtext. The opening reference to "a perfect state of preservation" is intended to anticipate suspicion. The mask's long, thin Hellenic nose makes me suspicious, as if it were created to fit the idea of Greek nobility articulated by the influential eighteenth-century German art historian Johann Joachim Winckelmann. Stress on the moustaches suggests that Schliemann believes them to be the most suspicious detail. He anticipates the objection that upturning a moustache requires pomade, which the Greeks did not possess, by asserting, through circular argument, that because of the moustaches, Greeks must have possessed pomade. At the end he shows his hand: "the ancient Mycenaean goldsmiths...could...do as much as any modern goldsmith." Why mention modern goldsmiths unless Schliemann knew that indeed a modern goldsmith had made the mask? In the English edition there is a note after "crescents" stating, "There is nothing new under the sun."
 
8. Schliemann stated that he had excavated objects which in fact he had purchased. One example is the so-called Cleopatra bust which he claimed to have excavated from a trench in Alexandria in February 1888. Wolfgang Schindler, however, pointed out that Schliemann's alleged 25- to 35-foot-deep trench would have been considerably below Alexandria's water table; the bust was most likely purchased a year before from an Egyptian dealer. There are also Attic inscriptions published by Schliemann and said by him to have been excavated in his garden. George Korres showed they were in fact bought from private collections.
 
9. There are obvious motives for Schliemann to have buried and excavated a modern forgery. He wanted to close the excavations with a bang. He also desperately needed a Herrscherbild, a portrait of a leader. The other four masks--billiard bald or pancake-flat--were not worthy of a great king. The authenticity of these masks is substantiated by later, similar finds. We must recall how contemporary German artists imagined Agamemnon. The great example is the brooding Agamemnon in a wall painting depicting Achilles dragging the fallen Hector about Troy in the Achilleion, a villa built on Corfu between 1890 and 1891. He has a full black beard and moustache. The closest parallel to the moustaches on the mask are those of Bismarck, Wilhelm I, and Wilhelm II. Prussian men of power, in Schliemann's day and after, all boasted beards and moustaches. Clearly Agamemnon required one. Schliemann ordered a Herrscherbild that combined Winckelmann's Greek nose with Hohenzollern facial hair.
 
My evidence is circumstantial. When considered cumulatively, however, it is enough to make me skeptical. If the mask is genuine, Schliemann is the luckiest archaeologist until Howard Carter. If it is a fake, he was a genius who duped the leading archaeologists and historians in the world for more than a century. Because I am a great admirer of Schliemann and spend a lot of time studying his life, I hope it is a fake. It is much better to be a genius than just lucky.
William A. MacDonald of the University of Minnesota observed that modern Schliemann research "is a mean spirited scholarly enterprise--particularly when aimed at one who cannot defend himself.... If deposits of genuine artifacts were salted with fake copies, scientific tests (not unsupported insinuations) are the constructive way to ascertain the facts."
 
The fact is that David Traill has more than once sought to test the mask, and the National Museum in Athens has consistently denied his request. This has always puzzled me. A metallurgist could silence annoying critics. What we must have is a public test by an independent expert not associated with the National Museum.--WILLIAM M. CALDER, III
 
 
 
Image result for mask agamemnon

Sunday, July 1, 2018

Socrates more prophet than philosopher?

A painting of Socrates representing him in a story about the lake.


Eleazer and Socrates

 


Part One:

Socrates more prophet than philosopher?

 



 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

 


“… the ‘historical problem of Socrates’ is a major one, about which much has been written and debated. Statues of Socrates, for instance, can be found in post-Christian Roman contexts, such as at Pompeii”.


 


 

 

 

 

Previously I have written of what I have considered to have been:

 

The Evolution of ‘Socrates’

 

Though both the prototypal Socrates and Mohammed are (according to my view) grounded historically in the above-mentioned “Axial Age”, in which era the conventional Socrates – but not Mohammed – is considered to have existed, the two underwent a literary-historical evolution thereby picking up aspects of other characters and eras not truly belonging to them.

 

Striking Christian aspects, for instance, such as Mohammed’s supposed ascension from Jerusalem into the seventh heaven. Frequent claims that the Prophet Mohammed copied from Judaïsm and Christianity – such as e.g. the Christian Apocryphal source “The Infancy Gospel” and Gnostic Christians about the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ – would need to be modified substantially, according to my reconstructions, so as not to include the “Axial Age” Mohammed as a copier. ….

 

For likenesses between Jesus Christ and Socrates, see my next section [not given here].

 

Socrates and Jeremiah were also alike in many ways. Both, called to special work by oracular or divine power, reacted with great humility and self-distrust. And, whenever Socrates or Jeremiah encountered any who would smugly claim to have been well instructed, and who would boast of their own sufficiency, they never failed to chastise the vanity of such persons.

Again, the Book of Jeremiah can at times employ a method of teaching known as ‘Socratic’: www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/scr_index.php?act=book

 

“… Then came the word of the Lord unto Jeremiah, saying, Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there anything too hard for me?” – Jeremiah 32:26, 27. THIS method of questioning the person to be instructed is known to teachers as the Socratic method. Socrates was wont, not so much to state a fact, as to ask a question and draw out thoughts from those whom he taught.

 

Similarly in the case of Zechariah, as we read in another place, “God used what we today call the Socratic method to teach Zechariah and the readers of this book” (http://www.muslimhope.com/BibleAnswers/zech.htm)

And perhaps to none of the Old Testament prophets more than Jeremiah would apply the description ‘gadfly’, for which Socrates the truth-loving philosopher is so famous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_gadfly):

 

The term “gadfly” (Ancient Greek: μύωψ, mýops[1]) was used by Plato in the Apology[2] to describe Socrates‘s relationship of uncomfortable goad to the Athenian political scene, which he compared to a slow and dimwitted horse.

The Book of Jeremiah uses a similar analogy as a political metaphor. “Egypt is a very fair heifer; the gad-fly cometh, it cometh from the north.” (46:20, Darby Bible)

 

Could this last be the actual prompt for the ‘Socratic’ concept?

But, as we are going to read in the last section of this article, the ‘historical problem of Socrates’ is a major one, about which much has been written and debated. Statues of Socrates, for instance, can be found in post-Christian Roman contexts, such as at Pompeii (http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/solomon-socrates-and-aristotle/).

Socrates and Jeremiah were very humane individuals – Jeremiah’s constant concern for the widow and orphan – men of profound righteousness, always trying to do all that was good for the people.

Both Socrates and Jeremiah were hated for having challenged the gods of the society; Jeremiah, of course, being a loyal Yahwist.

Socrates, like Jeremiah, had followers or disciples who also were inspired by him and were willing to go into exile and defy the government for him. ….

[End of quote]

“Is Socrates a Prophet?” is a question commonly asked.

 


 

Everybody acknowledges the importance of Socrates’ role and influence on the history of philosophy, as well as on the culture of humanity. He is also considered to be the first martyr of virtue and wisdom in human history. In spite of this, even though most Western commentators recognize the elevated meanings and high level of Socratic wisdom, they refuse to consider it to have a supra-human source and to be divine prophecy. In this article and through the analysis of Socrates’ words and speeches, which can be found in authentic sources such as some of Plato’s writings, the author aims to prove the truth of Socrates’ claim according to which he had the gift of prophecy. By putting together rational proofs and historical clues from his life, we will underline the veracity of such a claim. A part of the article will be dedicated to underlining the fact that our reasoning is based on authentic and historical references of Socrates’ speeches, which are mainly mentioned in Plato’s Apology. By quoting the main and most important commentators’ views in this field, we will therefore endeavor to show that there is a sort of general consensus among most commentators to consider this treatise to be an historical document. The importance as well as main outcome of this article is that if we accept this theory, the general outlook of the history of philosophy will change radically. In addition, the claim that wisdom has a divine source, which is mentioned repeatedly in the content of divine wise men’s words and in some Islamic traditions, will be confirmed. Moreover, the link between spiritual truths and human reasoning will be corroborated and underlined. ….


[End of quote]

 

Amongst the Ahmadi Moslems, Socrates is indeed considered a prophet:


 

The Holy Quran proclaims that God has sent messengers to all peoples in the world. In Islamic traditions 124,000 thousand is the number that is given for prophets that were sent by God to guide people. While some of them are mentioned by name in the Quran, Ahmadi Muslims believe that Socrates was one of the prophets of God. Islam literally means surrender to God’s Will. As a Prophet of God Socrates was devoted to this and is therefore a “Muslim” (in meaning) in his heart.

In keeping with the universal and inclusive character of Islam this means that Greek people are also brothers in faith and must be respected.

 

[End of quote]

 

Socrates was, I believe, like Mohammed, a non-historical composite character based largely upon biblical persons.

As to the manner of his death, Socrates, I think, may mostly resemble the fearless teacher, Eleazer, of the Maccabean period.

 





 


Part Two: Forced to eat pig’s flesh

 
“There was an elderly and highly respected teacher of the Law by the name of Eleazar, whose mouth was being forced open to make him eat pork. But he preferred an honorable death rather than a life of disgrace”.

2 Maccabees 6:18-19
 
 
Previously I had written: “Perhaps the death by martyrdom in the Old Testament (Catholic) Scriptures that most resembles that of Socrates, is that of the venerable and aged Eleazer in 2 Maccabees 6:18-31”.
I then proceeded to elaborate a little on this, whilst also including certain likenesses to the death of Jesus Christ:
 
…. There is something anomalous about the callous slaying of Socrates at that particular era of Greek ‘history’, when conditions would not really seem to have favoured it.
Glover calls it “almost unintelligible” ….
G. Thomas has written an entire book on The Trial [The Trial, Bantam Press, NY, 1987, p. 175], in which he seems to be at a loss to account for many things, not least of which was why poor old Socrates was martyred, and why they waited until he was 70 years of age to do this.
The supposed trial and death of Socrates may be something of a composite event; a mix of the ‘martyrdom’ of Jeremiah; death of the aged Maccabean hero, Eleazer (2 Maccabees 6:18-31); and the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ.
 
Eleazer, for instance, has the Socrates-like aspects of being,
 
(i) during Greek rule (as the Macedonian Greeks were ruling Palestine in Maccabean times);
(ii) “advanced in age”;
(iii) a witness to “the young”. Socrates was actually accused of ‘corrupting youth’.
(iv) Socrates’ death by swallowing (viz. the ‘hemlock’) may be an echo of Eleazer’s refusal to swallow the pig’s flesh.
(v) Eleazer’s acquaintances of long-standing begged him to feign compliance by substituting meat of his own, to save himself. Likewise, Crito begged Socrates to escape, even to using bribery if necessary (Apologia, Scene II); but
(vi) Eleazer refused to do this out of honour, and instead faced death with courage; as did Socrates.
 
Folklore has sensed the similarity between the demise of Socrates and the end of the earthly life of Jesus, and thus has Socrates warning Pontius Pilate’s wife, Claudia Procula, to save Jesus: “… in her premonitory dream Socrates appeared to Pilate’s wife and urged her to intercede on behalf of Jesus” [ibid.]. (Cf. Matthew 27:19).
According to H. Tredennick [trans. Plato. The Last Days of Socrates (Penguin Books, 1969), p. 43]: “The first part of the charge [against Socrates] – heresy – was no doubt primarily intended to inflame prejudice. … The prosecution relied mainly on a powerful conjunction of religious and political hostility”. The same combination that Jesus had to face. Anytus, the moving spirit in the prosecution of Socrates, has a name a bit similar to Annas, father-in-law of the high-priest Caiaphas at the time of Jesus’ death.
Jesus’ disciple John “was known to the high priest” (John 18:13, 15). Meno 90b. Socrates: “Please help us, Anytus – Meno, who is a friend of your family, and myself – to find out …”. St. John was known to Caiaphas”.
…. even the cock chanting to a new day figures in Plato’s Symposium (223c), connected by J. Pepple to Socrates’ death [“The Order of Plato’s Dialogues” (February 14, 1995) (www.uni-heidelberg.de/subject/hd/fak7/hist/o1/logs/sophia/log.started941201/mail-50.html)]. (Cf. John 18:27).
Socrates, in good Greek fashion will – as we just saw – drink hemlock. He does not die on a cross. Still, even that terrible death is depicted in Plato’s The Republic, Intro., # 362]: “The just man … will be scourged, tortured, and imprisoned … and after enduring every humiliation he will be crucified”.
 
I submit that this statement would not likely have been written before the Gospels.
 
[End of quotes]
 

Whilst it is quite common for scholars to detect similarities between Eleazer and Socrates, some of these will do inevitably - as scholars invariably do - and that is attribute to the pagans (in this case the Greeks) the original upon which supposed ‘model’ the biblical account 9is based. Typical of this approach is that by Lacey Baldwin Smith (Fools, Martyrs, Traitors: The Story of Martyrdom in the Western World, p. 56), who writes:

 
The Maccabean martyrs, of course, did not stand historically alone as the inspiration for later martyrdoms. Eleazar in particular owed much to Socrates [sic] for the style of his performance, especially in Maccabees IV, where he is pictured as an overly verbose philosopher, sensitive to God's good opinion and to his reputation in this world. Like his classical counterpart, he not only disdained all avenues of escape but also made it almost impossible for the state to do anything except go through with the grisly execution. Moreover, he also sought to thwart his opponents by maintaining firm control over himself and the proceedings leading up to his execution, and he was set upon demonstrating the truth of Socrates' own dictum that it is better to suffer a wrong than commit one ….



 
In somewhat similar fashion, Marie-Françoise Baslez will describe Eleazer as a “New Socrates”



 
The author of 4 Maccabees considers Eleazar as a "New Socrates," … the archetype of the semi-voluntary intellectual martyr: he is a [νομικός] … in the royal Court (4 Macc 5:5) … he is implicitly compared with Socrates by the metaphor of the pilot (4 Macc 7:6) … young people regard him as their "teacher" (4 Macc 9:7).
 
 
Image result for socrates and the young