Page 10 of 16
Re: Andrew Collins on Gobekli Tepe sister site
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:54 am
by E.P. Grondine
I heard a comedian joke that Jesus came by to visit, saw all the crosses, and decided the if that was the way people remembered him,
it was best to stay away for a while yet.
If the two of you want to do some real archaeology, head to Bazas:
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/ce082202.html
Or to Girvan and Reghed.
Re: Andrew Collins on Gobekli Tepe sister site
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 6:03 am
by Simon21
Tiompan wrote:No I am not confused . You are .
You said " the first example we have of the Cross being used as a major symbol" .
My reply was "Crosses have been used in rock art long before the Lullingstone mural , from many different periods and cultures ."
That obviously means a long time before Lullingstone was built or the Roman period .
It doesn't matter that the villa or the murals were built over a period , I am talking in terms of millenia not decades or centuries .
It's very simple "Crosses have been used in rock art long before the Lullingstone mural ,from many different periods and cultures ."
Do you dispute that ?
You do know that a Chi Rho is not a cross ?
We can all pretend not to know copntext but not in this case. I am sorry but the issue is clear. We are talking about the Christian symbol which you may see if you go to a church. The cross is meant to remind people of Christ's execution (given you beleive in him and given you beleive he was crucified on a cross, some beleive nothing so elaborate was used). It was still used to execute people up to the fourth century - but it wasn't used as a major symbol of christianity. I genuinely cannot see what this has to do with rock art? Crosses are symbols as are noughts and wiggly lines - is this the point being made?
Do you really pretend not to know what is being said? Do you actually beleive a distinguished academic ewas claiming that is the first time ever in human history a cross symbiol was ever used anywhere onb earth in art/religion. Is that what you think he was saying? You don't think he might have been laughed at if he had meant such nonsense?
And sorry the Chi rho at Lullingstone indeed features a cross - apparently you didn't know that.
Re: Andrew Collins on Gobekli Tepe sister site
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 6:06 am
by Simon21
E.P. Grondine wrote:I heard a comedian joke that Jesus came by to visit, saw all the crosses, and decided the if that was the way people remembered him,
it was best to stay away for a while yet.
If the two of you want to do some real archaeology, head to Bazas:
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/ce082202.html
Or to Girvan and Reghed.
That is sadly a very old joke
and this is comical drivel
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/ce082202.html
I suggest you start with David Dumville, Keith Dark or Robin Fleming (superb)
Re: Andrew Collins on Gobekli Tepe sister site
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 6:21 am
by Tiompan
You said " the first example we have of the Cross being used as a major symbol" . That is not true .
If the academic said it, he was wrong too .
When I responded with "Crosses have been used in rock art long before the Lullingstone mural ,from many different periods and cultures .", why didn't you say that you , or the academic, had omitted the context ?
The Chi Rho is obviously not a cross , it is more complex .
Is that the "cross " you have been referring to ?
Re: Andrew Collins on Gobekli Tepe sister site
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 8:34 am
by Simon21
Tiompan wrote:You said " the first example we have of the Cross being used as a major symbol" . That is not true .
If the academic said it, he was wrong too .
When I responded with "Crosses have been used in rock art long before the Lullingstone mural ,from many different periods and cultures .", why didn't you say that you , or the academic, had omitted the context ?
The Chi Rho is obviously not a cross , it is more complex .
Is that the "cross " you have been referring to ?
The refernce was always to Lullingstone so, the comment was therefore correct.
And you do not beleive a presenter at the BM seriously said the Lullingstone villa frieze (which in truth you obviously did not know) was the first time in human existence that two lines had been crossed.
And you now know what the word example means.
So game set and match.
Having disposed of that very silly act of pedantry can we return to the issue? The actual archaeology?
Was the presenter right. Is the use of the cross (the christian symbol) on the clothes of the Lullingstone figures the earliest example of it being used so prominently is the Empire (the Roman Empire). If he is what does this mean. Is this an aspect of the Pelagian heresy - the "fine clothes" referred to in the life of St Germanus.
Re: Andrew Collins on Gobekli Tepe sister site
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 8:46 am
by Tiompan
Simon21 wrote:Tiompan wrote:You said " the first example we have of the Cross being used as a major symbol" . That is not true .
If the academic said it, he was wrong too .
When I responded with "Crosses have been used in rock art long before the Lullingstone mural ,from many different periods and cultures .", why didn't you say that you , or the academic, had omitted the context ?
The Chi Rho is obviously not a cross , it is more complex .
Is that the "cross " you have been referring to ?
The refernce was always to Lullingstone so, the comment was therefore correct.
And you do not beleive a presenter at the BM seriously said the Lullingstone villa frieze (which in truth you obviously did not know) was the first time in human existence that two lines had been crossed.
And you now know what the word example means.
So game set and match.
Having disposed of that very silly act of pedantry can we return to the issue? The actual archaeology?
Was the presenter right. Is the use of the cross (the christian symbol) on the clothes of the Lullingstone figures the earliest example of it being used so prominently is the Empire (the Roman Empire). If he is what does this mean. Is this an aspect of the Pelagian heresy - the "fine clothes" referred to in the life of St Germanus.
Re: Andrew Collins on Gobekli Tepe sister site
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 9:04 am
by Simon21
Tiompan wrote:Simon21 wrote:Tiompan wrote:You said " the first example we have of the Cross being used as a major symbol" . That is not true .
If the academic said it, he was wrong too .
When I responded with "Crosses have been used in rock art long before the Lullingstone mural ,from many different periods and cultures .", why didn't you say that you , or the academic, had omitted the context ?
The Chi Rho is obviously not a cross , it is more complex .
Is that the "cross " you have been referring to ?
The refernce was always to Lullingstone so, the comment was therefore correct.
And you do not beleive a presenter at the BM seriously said the Lullingstone villa frieze (which in truth you obviously did not know) was the first time in human existence that two lines had been crossed.
And you now know what the word example means.
So game set and match.
Having disposed of that very silly act of pedantry can we return to the issue? The actual archaeology?
Was the presenter right. Is the use of the cross (the christian symbol) on the clothes of the Lullingstone figures the earliest example of it being used so prominently is the Empire (the Roman Empire). If he is what does this mean. Is this an aspect of the Pelagian heresy - the "fine clothes" referred to in the life of St Germanus.
GSM
Doesn't sem to be an answer to the questin here though anybody else any ideas?
Re: Andrew Collins on Gobekli Tepe sister site
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 9:06 am
by Tiompan
You don't understand the rules of tennis either .
No , not game set and match .
You made a mistake to begin with and it looks you are covering up for an even bigger one .
Never mind that you avoid the central problem of your quote .
You have also just avoided the other awkward problems and questions ,i.e the entire content of my last post .
e.g.
When I responded with "Crosses have been used in rock art long before the Lullingstone mural ,from many different periods and cultures .", why didn't you say that you , or the academic, had omitted the context ?
The Chi Rho is obviously not a cross , it is more complex .
Is that the "cross " you have been referring to ?
Judging by your failure to respond to the problems it looks like you were referring to the chi rho or more to the point it is a chrismon of Saint Ambrose “ i.e a Chi Rho with an alpha and omega contained in a circle .The basic chi rho contains a cross but it is never described as a cross for the obvious reason that it also contains a rho . Further it was in use before christ .
Your academic is unlikely to have made two huge mistakes , the first maybe , but he wouldn't have described a chi rho as a "cross" .
Funny thing about truth , I was aware of chi rho and swastikas /fylflots but not about any cross . What makes you say that I didn't ?
Fwiw I do know the villa and the far more interesting archaeology , for me at least ,elsewhere in the area .
You seem to be suffering from EPitis , a condition that ignores data that refutes their errors whilst be unable to accept the error and by saying more they dig them selves into a deeper hole .
Re: Andrew Collins on Gobekli Tepe sister site
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 9:39 am
by Simon21
Tiompan wrote:You don't understand the rules of tennis either .
No , not game set and match .
You made a mistake to begin with and it looks you are covering up for an even bigger one .
Never mind that you avoid the central problem of your quote .
You have also just avoided the other awkward problems and questions ,i.e the entire content of my last post .
e.g.
When I responded with "Crosses have been used in rock art long before the Lullingstone mural ,from many different periods and cultures .", why didn't you say that you , or the academic, had omitted the context ?
The Chi Rho is obviously not a cross , it is more complex .
Is that the "cross " you have been referring to ?
Judging by your failure to respond to the problems it looks like you were referring to the chi rho or more to the point it is a chrismon of Saint Ambrose “ i.e a Chi Rho with an alpha and omega contained in a circle .The basic chi rho contains a cross but it is never described as a cross for the obvious reason that it also contains a rho . Further it was in use before christ .
Your academic is unlikely to have made two huge mistakes , the first maybe , but he wouldn't have described a chi rho as a "cross" .
Funny thing about truth , I was aware of chi rho and swastikas /fylflots but not about any cross . What makes you say that I didn't ?
Fwiw I do know the villa and the far more interesting archaeology , for me at least ,elsewhere in the area .
You seem to be suffering from EPitis , a condition that ignores data that refutes their errors whilst be unable to accept the error and by saying more they dig them selves into a deeper hole .
I have answered all you points (you cannot engage with a single one of mine) and I agree you are digging yourself into a deeper hole. Repetition is not argument (except to you but when you decide to be honest an Like pretending you do not know what GSM refers to (curling perhaps?) and pretending you knew about Lullingstone villa when you had no clue. And apparently still don't. Dishonesty rarely helps an argument. For your information the crosses are on the clothes of the figures - which anyone who knows Lullingstone would know automatically since their preservation is astonishing.
I don't think you suffer from any particular medical condition except a touch of megalomania and an inability to concede when proved wrong - a belief you know everything about everything, which I am sad to report you manifestly don't.
As for your silly irrelavnt blather about the chi rho symbol - a fairly desperate attempt to change the subject - but anyway a. it contains a cross that is one of the key points the letters were chosen - like the fish used as a christian symbol. Though I (unlike your brilliant self) concede I do not know enough about the origins of the Chi Rho - I am not sure these are known. Totally irrelevant to the frieze figures as I said. Actually not totally irrelevant but in no particular relation. Other Chi Rhos have been found in Britain.
GSM as I said (and here I have repeated myself) opps
Now do you think instead of repeating yourself endlessly we could see if anyone knows any other similar examples from anywhere else in the Empire.
Re: Andrew Collins on Gobekli Tepe sister site
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 9:58 am
by Tiompan
Provide the quote where you answered "Crosses have been used in rock art long before the Lullingstone mural ,from many different periods and cultures .", why didn't you say that you , or the academic, had omitted the context ?
Is that the "cross " you have been referring to ?
You obviously didn't answer them , so won't be able to provide them .
I have mentioned the quote where you got it wrong i.e. " the first example we have of the Cross being used as a major symbol"
It's simple that comment is not true .
Now you provide the quote where I said something wrong , should be simple too if I did say something wrong .
You have now mentioned that the crosses were on clothes , there were no clothes when I visited .
Further, you commented "As I say I am tryihg to find what it is about the second Lullingstone figure mural that signals he was dead at the time of painting and whether it is true that this is the first example we have of the Cross being used as a major symbol." No mention of clothes there . Make up your mind ,is it the mural or clothes that have the "cross" ?
I wouldn't have mentioned the chi rho if you hadn't been so evasive .
The chi rho has a cross but nobody would call it a cross ,and nobody who knows what they are talking about does .
I never said anything about GSM , and I really don't what it is , and I'm not pretending . Similarly I have been to the villa probably long before you and again I'm not pretending .
Your imagination seems to exceed your comprehension .
Now instead of evading the questions let's see if you can answer .
Re: Andrew Collins on Gobekli Tepe sister site
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 9:05 pm
by E.P. Grondine
And here I thought I had an unusual sense of humor
Simon21 wrote:
I suggest you start with David Dumville, Keith Dark or Robin Fleming (superb)
I will have to see what they're up to.
My little essay is now 15 years old.
(David Dumville -
with Pádraig Ó Néill) Cáin Adomnáin and Canones Adomnani, 2003
Going through the destruction of Bazas by impact with him over a gin and tonic would be a real pleasure,
as he really knows how to work with the surviving written records.
Impact events are very useful for chronological work, and the destruction of Bazas gives you a relatively firm date.)
I am mildly allergic to wool, don't prefer scotch, can not play golf, and do not do well now in cold rainy weather,
but a side trip may be perhaps a necessary diversion on my way to ouzo, raki, discos, sunny beaches, and Minoans.
But the current excavation at Rheghed is the best site in the UK, IMO,
and if you're trying to work with sub-roman Britain,
deconstructing Adomnan's Life of Columba to its sources is the essential frontier of research.
As you can see from his work on Adomnan, Dumville knows what the hell he is doing.
I am enjoying watching you and tiompan "debate".
Re: Andrew Collins on Gobekli Tepe sister site
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 1:04 am
by Simon21
Tiompan wrote:Provide the quote where you answered "Crosses have been used in rock art long before the Lullingstone mural ,from many different periods and cultures .", why didn't you say that you , or the academic, had omitted the context ?
Is that the "cross " you have been referring to ?
You obviously didn't answer them , so won't be able to provide them .
I have mentioned the quote where you got it wrong i.e. " the first example we have of the Cross being used as a major symbol"
It's simple that comment is not true .
Now you provide the quote where I said something wrong , should be simple too if I did say something wrong .
You have now mentioned that the crosses were on clothes , there were no clothes when I visited .
Further, you commented "As I say I am tryihg to find what it is about the second Lullingstone figure mural that signals he was dead at the time of painting and whether it is true that this is the first example we have of the Cross being used as a major symbol." No mention of clothes there . Make up your mind ,is it the mural or clothes that have the "cross" ?
I wouldn't have mentioned the chi rho if you hadn't been so evasive .
The chi rho has a cross but nobody would call it a cross ,and nobody who knows what they are talking about does .
I never said anything about GSM , and I really don't what it is , and I'm not pretending . Similarly I have been to the villa probably long before you and again I'm not pretending .
Your imagination seems to exceed your comprehension .
Now instead of evading the questions let's see if you can answer .
I see your logic is simple the Chi Rho isn't a cross so that is obviously what I was referring to. That makes sense in your mind. Lot of time on your hands have you?
You know nothing about Lullingstone if you do not know the famous frieze. As anyone who knows the site would know the actual frieze is in the BM but there are plenty of depictions of it on the site. It's discovery and preservation is one of the great triumphs of British archaoelogy. The four figures have been endlessly discussed. I have mentioned them at least twice in other postings. One of the figures was apparently painted after death - though what suggests this I do not know.
So you either went round the site blind (and if you are blind full apologies) or you didn't go. It is like visiting Paris but not seeing the Louvre.
You comment that there are better sites around Eynesford (where Lullingstone is located) is beyond farcical - it is one of the key sites of Roman Britain and in fact in Europe - being a clear example of an early house chapel. Furthermore it is built on top of pagan chapel to which it was connected by a trap door - work that one out.
GSM is game set and match.
It is very unwise to comment on something if you do not know what is being talked about
Re: Andrew Collins on Gobekli Tepe sister site
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 1:10 am
by circumspice
*whispers 'Vee-ger'*... 
Re: Andrew Collins on Gobekli Tepe sister site
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 1:44 am
by Tiompan
It is very unwise to comment on something if you do not know what is being talked about .
I have been to the Lullingstone villa and have a slightly better memory of the area around Eynesford than the actual villla .
The Louvre is very similar , most of what I can remember is the visit itself , certainly not the specifics . I have a better memory from the same period of cafes .
"You comment that there are better sites around Eynesford "
No I didn't , your'e making stuff up again . What I said was " far more interesting archaeology , for me at least ,elsewhere in the area ." Note , not "better", but "more interesting for me at least ".
Romano/British archaeology or the Louvre for that matter is trumped everyday by 127 Paleolithic axes or the numerous other axe find sites in the area .
Fwiw I don't know anything about GSM .
You have completely avoided the problem .
i.e. Provide the quote where you answered "Crosses have been used in rock art long before the Lullingstone mural ,from many different periods and cultures .", why didn't you say that you , or the academic, had omitted the context ?
Is that the "cross " you have been referring to ?
You obviously didn't answer them , so won't be able to provide them .
I have mentioned the quote where you got it wrong i.e. " the first example we have of the Cross being used as a major symbol"
It's simple that comment is not true .
Now you provide the quote where I said something wrong , should be simple too if I did say something wrong .
You also avoided ." It's very simple Crosses have been used in rock art long before the Lullingstone mural ,from many different periods and cultures ."
Do you dispute that ?
The bottom line is that your original comment " the first example we have of the Cross being used as a major symbol" is wrong and will always be wrong regardless of context , unless of course it was the earliest Paleolithic example known at the time .
Who was the lecturer ,William Sterling
http://www.williamsterling.co.uk/profile/? I wonder what he actually said .
Re: Andrew Collins on Gobekli Tepe sister site
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:59 am
by Simon21
Tiompan wrote:It is very unwise to comment on something if you do not know what is being talked about .
I have been to the Lullingstone villa and have a slightly better memory of the area around Eynesford than the actual villla .
The Louvre is very similar , most of what I can remember is the visit itself , certainly not the specifics . I have a better memory from the same period of cafes .
"You comment that there are better sites around Eynesford "
No I didn't , your'e making stuff up again . What I said was " far more interesting archaeology , for me at least ,elsewhere in the area ." Note , not "better", but "more interesting for me at least ".
Romano/British archaeology or the Louvre for that matter is trumped everyday by 127 Paleolithic axes or the numerous other axe find sites in the area .
Fwiw I don't know anything about GSM .
You have completely avoided the problem .
i.e. Provide the quote where you answered "Crosses have been used in rock art long before the Lullingstone mural ,from many different periods and cultures .", why didn't you say that you , or the academic, had omitted the context ?
Is that the "cross " you have been referring to ?
You obviously didn't answer them , so won't be able to provide them .
I have mentioned the quote where you got it wrong i.e. " the first example we have of the Cross being used as a major symbol"
It's simple that comment is not true .
Now you provide the quote where I said something wrong , should be simple too if I did say something wrong .
You also avoided ." It's very simple Crosses have been used in rock art long before the Lullingstone mural ,from many different periods and cultures ."
Do you dispute that ?
The bottom line is that your original comment " the first example we have of the Cross being used as a major symbol" is wrong and will always be wrong regardless of context , unless of course it was the earliest Paleolithic example known at the time .
Who was the lecturer ,William Sterling
http://www.williamsterling.co.uk/profile/? I wonder what he actually said .
As I say endless repitition (which I admit I am doing) is not an argument. My comment was obviously true but you cannot apparently admit you were wrong. It doesn't matter the point is made. We all misunderstand things. Though we don't all go on mindlessly repeating the same thing.
You do seem to have trouble with basic english.
Fwiw I don't know anything about GSM . At last something you admit you don't know! A hearty shake of the hand from me. I admit it could be an old experession when tennis had a higher profile then it has now.
Do you actually read what you write? I would strongly advise you to do so. Then you wouldn't say silly things like:
Romano/British archaeology or the Louvre for that matter is trumped everyday by 127 Paleolithic axes Anyone with a genuine love of archaeology does not go around saying one type
trumps another. I do not know much about the archaeology of the South Pacific or most of Indo China. This is not someting to be proud of. Is it.
Personally I do prefer it when there is some textual evidence as well as archaeological since in the latter case anthropology plays a much bigger role and I approach the subject from a historical perspective.
Two final points. Mr Sterling is an expert on music not Roman Britain, so instead of frantically posting anything you find, do check first. The lecturer's name was Dr Sam Moorehead. He presented a fascinating lecture on Roman British coin hoards last year. Apparently Britain has more coin hoards than any other part of the empire, they are inevitably located on western slopes and the prime reason for them is still largely unknown. Startlingly, using coin hoard evidence, he was able to venture that the usuper Carausius probably invaded from the West (to secure the welsh gold mines), an amazing conclusion condering he was coming from Northern Gaul. I am eagerly awaiting the publication of the findings of the conferfence at which Dr Moorehead was speaking.
Secondly do not pretend you have seen something when you haven't. This is the source of this confusion. Deperate to assert yourself you somehow found the Lullingstone Chi Rho while ignoring the famous frieze. This is very silly. Like visiting Sutton Hoo and announcing "treasure, what treasure, wasn't it all about rowing boats?"
Right back to the archaeology which is supposedly why we are here, Not to air our egos and fantasies. To the question (again) Dr Moorehead asserted that the crosses (probably of chinese silk ie majorly expensive) depicted on the Lullingstone frieze represent the largest and most public use of the symol (christian) so far found in the former empire. That sounds a squeeze to me since RB was not considered a primary part of Roman real estate (at least in the written sources - the famous late Roman joke about could any Briton ever be called "Bonus"). However when St Germanus of Auxerre visited Britain in 429 (as is claimed) he is said to have confronted the Pleagians who were all dressed in "fine clothes". Are these people Pelagians - the only depction of them? Is this why the Villa was torched?