User talk:Kessler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:Kessler/Archive1

Contents 1 Map enquiry 2 What's With Brasenose? 3 ...and Sulgrave Revisited 4 Ithaca 5 Summarizing Iman Wilkens 6 Travelling by ship 7 Johannes Cardinal Bessarion 8 Signed in 9 Iman Wilkens, general reaction... 10 location of Vijayanagara on mapDineshkannambadi 19:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 11 Back to Washington 12 vote 13 Bridge Over Troubled Water 14 Royal LBGT confusion 15 WikiProject France

[edit] Map enquiry

Hi, Thanks for your query. That particular map is used a number of places sucn as History of Tamil Nadu and the pages on colonial history of India. I have drawn some maps such as the ones on the Chola dynasty pages, however there are better capable users such as User:Nichalp. - cheers Parthi 20:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, much appreciated: that old map doesn't show up very well online, does it, at History of Tamil Nadu -- not enough contrast, in those faded pinks etc., and the scale is too large / writing too small for 72dpi. Your Chola dynasty map looks good -- clear -- how did you do it? I'll get in touch with User:Nichalp. --Kessler 20:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's With Brasenose?

"It is a curious thing that the great-grandfather of the first President of the United States and the grandfather of the second President were both Brasenose men.Laurence Washington (sic)...buttery bill...1924...American lawyers... The Reverend Thomas Adams, grandfather of President John Adams, matriculated in 1649,and became a Fellow in 1652: ten years later he was removed from his Fellowship because of noncomformity, and went to Flore in Northamtonshire,where he established a Quaker meeting-house."

in: L.Rice-Oxley,M.A. "Oxford Renowned" London: Methuen & Co. Ltd, 1934 (pg.184)

compare with Thomas Adams (writer) , this article appears to be based on a 1820 reference.

Should we tell Mel ?

Long life and sanity to you my friend (Lunarian 17:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC))

Give it a try! :-) I fear I shot my personal wad in trying to shoehorn GWashington's great-(great?)-grandad in there: encountered pretty stiff-necked Redcoat resistance, I did, although ultimately he did get reasonable and relent... But if you tap in a "Thomas Adams" reference you may get better treatment, now, thanks to the "Laurence Washington" precedent.

Hopefully there's already a Wikipedia article existant on The Reverend Thomas. If not I suggest you start one up prior to messing with the Brasenose article. "Mel" -- that's a pseudonym, incidentally -- rightfully is concerned, though, that there be a significance greater than simply "genealogy", to the link. It's enough for the Brasenose article, I believe, that Reverend TomA was a student there: BNC itself refers to him on their college website -- same webpage as the reference to Reverend LaurenceW -- so BNC obviously considers him to have been "significant" even if Mel does not. A full Wikipedia article on the guy, however, does need more: can't let Wikipedia become a tool for the genealogy-freaks, or the thing will get filled up with meaningless trees of Jesse and generations of Adam.

So I'd suggest a little research into the "nonconformity" of Reverend TomA, and the "dismissal" trouble he got himself into, and any direct influence upon his descendant President JohnA stemming from all of that. It's all been exhaustively studied: a good reference citation to one such study should get you over the initial "significance" hurdle, with Mel, and then others (me too) will be able to join in and elaborate.

--Kessler 17:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, I see my work is cut out. Au boulot! BTW "Mel"'s all right and deserves much credit as an editor. (Lunarian 18:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC))

Oh I know... I checked in on his talk page a bit, back when I first tangled with him at the BNC article, and I discovered the kind of thing he has to deal with daily, there, and so I don't blame him. Every organization needs guys not afraid to say "no" / every publication needs good editors... --Kessler 18:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ...and Sulgrave Revisited

So as it does not escape your notice: Sulgrave site expanded

(Lunarian 11:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC))

Ouch! "Lawrence Washington, born c. 1500, the eldest son of John Washington of Warton, Lancashire, who first settled at Sulgrave with his second wife Amy, the third daughter of Robert Pargiter of Greatworth, near Sulgrave. His former wife, Elizabeth, died childless and Robert Washington his eldest son, born to Amy in 1544, inherited Sulgrave Manor with about 1250 acres. In 1568, Robert's Wife Elizabeth gave birth to a son, Lawrence, who later married Margaret, daughter of William Butler, of Tyes Hall, Cuckfield, Sussex, he died on 13th December 1616 in his fathers' lifetime... etc., etc., etc...."

Mel Etitis makes a good point! :-)

--Kessler 21:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ithaca

Ithaca is not! the gog magog hills. Don't try to make fun of Iman Wilkens and then quote him wrongly. Ithaca is Cadiz; It's described as 'amphialos' (Homer), which means in between two seas: the Mediterranean and the Atlantic ocean. By the way: gog and magog hills is the location of Troy where one of the bloodiest and longlasting battles ever is fought. Therefore the name :'gog and magog.' (as in the bible). For argumentation I refer to Iman Wilkens' books.

212.123.163.102 16:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops sorry, if I did misquote. I was paraphrasing others, who in turn were paraphrasing the original author perhaps. I haven't read Wilkens: would you please summarize?

I've been in the Gog Magog hills, and in Cadiz, and frankly have great trouble imagining either to have been a Homeric location -- they're both so far away from Greece -- but if you truly believe that Wilkens or whatever other author makes a plausible case, I'll be happy to give their texts a try. I've been trying to get hold of the Baltic States location text, but the libraries I use don't have that yet.

A reminder as to where exactly I lodged my mis-quote / mis-use of Wilkens, online, would be much appreciated as well. I'm afraid I've had fun with that Gog Magog idea on a number of sites, and if a correction is in order I'd like to be sure to cover all of them.

--Kessler 15:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summarizing Iman Wilkens

I don't think a correction is necessary because it's not such a big deal and I'm afraid I can't remember where I struck upon your quote. (And excuse me if I sounded a bit harsh; who am I after all?)

Although it's virtually impossible to summarize the complete book as it's a rather extended work full of hypotheses and arguments, I can copy some of the comments I placed on Wikipedia. The general idea is that Iliad and Odysseia took place on the shores of western europe and the Atlantic Ocean around 1200 BC and the people in them were Celts or Gauls (France) or proto-Celts as officially Celts didn't exist before 600? BC. The war was over tin, which was in the hands of the Trojans (The Brits), because there was plenty of it in Cornwall.On the other hand fought the Achaeans from the shores of Europe from the Baltic to Spain. The tin-mines on the continent were emptied, and tin was necessary to produce Bronze. The stories were orally handed down by the Sea Peoples (Achaeans) who emigrated to the Mediterranean and named their new cities after the ones they came from (just as so many place-names emigrated to America during last centuries). Around 800 BC the stories were translated to Greek and written down.

Odysseus and the Atlantic ocean? The greeks never used their word for ocean, 'okeanos' to designate the Mediterranean, but only the words pontos, pelagos and thalassa. For the ancient greeks ocean meant exclusively 'the river that surrounds the world' outside the mediterranean basin and the known world. The ocean 'comes back on itself' (XVII,399 and 20,65) implying that it is subject to tides. There can be no doubt, because the word used, apsorro-os means 'flowing back'or 'ebbing', the movement after high tide. This word, which is also used for someone going back to Ilium (VII,413) as well as other indications led the Greek geographer Strabo to note that 'Homer was not ignorant about the ebb and flow of Okeanos' and he concluded that several events described by the poet must therefore have taken place in the Atlantic Ocean.

Hissarlik? Hissarlik and the adjacent plain do not fit the descriptions in the 'Iliad' as Hissarlik was a village the size of a stadium while Homer called it a 'big city' with a garrison of 50,000 warriors (Iliad, VII, 562). Schliemann thought that there could not have been more than 5000 inhabitants. It is hard to believe that the siege of such a small place by a big army would last ten years even with the existance of a lower town. Also the plain to the north of Hissarlik is far too small for such warfare. The distance from the hill to the coast is now six kilometres, and it was even less in Homer's time as most of the bay has silted up since then. In other words: there was a bay where the battlefield is supposed to have been! There was no room for the quarters of some 100.000 warriors which was approximately the size of the Achaean army according to the 'Catalogue of ships' in book II of the Iliad. Homer often speaks of the 'Wide camp of the Achaeans', and a military camp for so many people must be huge, covering many square miles. Another thing that doesn't fit is the mentioning of eight rivers which flooded the Achaean camp after the war. Near Hissarlik there are but two: Kara Menderes and Dümrek Su. The bay of Hissarlik is also way too small to hold a fleet of 1186 ships.

The Mediterranean? And than there are lots of arguments why the Iliad and Odysseia most probably did not take place in the Mediterranean; Many things don't fit the geography of the Mediterranean.

1 Geograpy in Homer: Egypt is not on the way from Troy in Turkey to Sparta in Greece, the narrow straits of the dardanelles don't fit the description 'vast and boundless', Ithaca is not situated on the way from Crete to Sidon in the Lebanon, Agamemnon wouldn't fit the description 'wide-ruling' monarch if he were only the king of the north-eastern corner of the Peloponnese etc. etc. (Wilkens gives many more examples of anomalies).

2 Syria, Egypt, Cyprus, Lesbos, Crete, Rhodos and Hellas, all names appearing in Homer, were not! known by those names in his time as they were called respectively Aram, Kemi, Alashia, Issa, Kaphtor, Ophiusa and Pelasgia. And how could Homer mention the Dorians and Phrygians as they arrived in Greece and Turkey long after his time?

About Egypt The land that we now call Egypt was never named so by the Pharaohs but Misr, Al-Khem or Kemi . The biblical name is Mitsrayim. The first historian who called the land of the Pharaohs by the name Egypt was Herodotus, who visited the pyramids in the 5th century BC. When Alexander the Great turned the country into a Greek colony in 332 BC, its official name became Egypt.

Religion and language If, according to ruling ideas the Trojan war was between Greeks and Hittites, Europe versus Asia, how is it possible that the Trojans and Achaeans (often translated "Greeks" but never called so by Homer) shared the same language and religion even to the extend that the Gods had taken sides between the warrying parties? In north- west Turkey the language was Luvian and the religion that of the Hittites. Is the explanation that Homer was a liar or did not know what he was talking about?

Odysseus' travels according to Iman Wilkens:

Troy is Gog and Magog Hills near Cambridge;

Ismarus is in Finisterre, Brittany;

After that a storm blowing Odysseus cs. southward, the sails blown out, at the mercy of the wind and current which drives them to Spain. According to Cailleux Odysseus arrives in a bay on the north-west coast of Spain, near the town of El Padron, whose patron saint is San Iago (St James), who, according to legend,arrived by sea with twelve companions ( a reminder of the twelve ships?);

Two days later with strong wind from the north and strong current also to the south they fail to round Cape Malea, which is Cape St. Vincent, south west Portugal and thus failing to go eastward to reach Ithaca (Cadiz, Spain);

Further south by the storm missing Cythera (Morocco);

The land of the lotus-eaters is Senegal;

The land of the Cyclopes is Cape Verde Islands;

Then Following the gulf stream and favourable winds to: The Aeolian Island, which is Saba, Antilles;

The story of the winds, symbolizing this is not a favourable route back to Europe, and thus they are being blown back to the Aeolian Island;

After that following the right direction which is more to the north they reach the land of the Laestrygonians, which is Cuba (Havana);

With the gulf-stream and west-winds they now go to Aeaea, the island of Circe, which is Schouwen (province: Zeeland, town of Zierikzee, south-west Netherlands);

Than Odysseus has to go to Hades, which is Walcheren, one of Zeeland's islands, Zeeland being a province of the Netherlands;

Than back to circe;

After that the Tin-route; Sirens is The Solent (southern England);

Scylla and Charybdis is Mount's Bay, Cornwall;

Thrinacia is Land's End, Cornwall (Tin!)

Now southward again; Ogygia, Island of Calypso, which is St Miguel, Azores (check vegetation and other characteristics!);

Scheria, Phaeacians is Lanzarote, canary islands;

Intermezzo: Delos is Veluwe-area, Netherlands;

Ithaca Cadiz;

All this, I repeat, according to Iman Wilkens; As you see there is not only a story but also directions for two important sea-routes in the Bronze Age: How to navigate cross the Atlantic, with wind-stills, ruling wind-directions, direction of the gulf-streams and mentioning the most important archipels (Azores, Cape Verde Islands, Antilles, Canary Islands, Cuba) and on the other hand the tin-route to Cornwall, tin being an important substance for manufacturing bronze;

2006 Locations named in the catalogue of ships and their possible locations in Western Europe

Far more locations and rivers can be found etymologically in western Europe than in the Mediterranean. For instance: of the locations that Wilkens believes to be in Denmark almost all place-names (though etymologically altered) can be found versus almost none in Greece. A selection:

Denmark: graea, now graerup; hyle, now hyllebjerg; thisbe, now thisted; arne, now arna; scandeia, now skanderborg; nisa, now nissum;

France: orneia, now orne; corinthe, now courances (corintia in middle-ages!); cleonae, now cleon; gonoëssa, now gonesse; helice, now elyseé; thronium, now trugny (trun in 1059); tiryns, now thury-harcourt (tirins in middle-ages!); hermione, now hermanville; river aurus, now aure; hyampolis, now Janville (hiemivilla in 1130); aetole, now etaules; pleuron, now ploëron; nile, now -nil (for example: mesnil);

Alsace: cyllene, now selé(stat); rhipa, ribeauville; stratia, now strasbourg; parrhasia, now barr;

Spain: pylos, now pilas; gerenia, now gerena; sparta, now esparteros; sidon, now medina sidonia; ortygia, now ortigueira;

Low countries: thessalia, now tessel; alos, now alost; boudeion, now boudinkerke; phulake, now flakkee; pyrasos, now braassem; iton, now etten; antron (near the sea), now antwerp; calydne, now calland; sume, now sumar;

Great Britain: adrasteia, now ardrossan; percote, now perth; practius, now pratis; axius, now axe; cromna, now cromarty; aegialus, now aigas; erythini, now ericht; halizones, now halezy; halube, now halabezack; maeones, now meon; hyde, now hyden hill; temese, now thames (temes in middle-ages); kaystrios, now caister; rhesos, now rhee; karesos, now car dike; grenikos, now granta; skamandros, now cam; simoeis, now great ouse; satnioeis, now little ouse; tenedos, isle of thanet (tanatus in ancient latin); lecton, now lexden; chryse, now grays, cray and crayford; cilla, now chilham; "silver bow", now the bow and silvertown; ilion, now ely.

I hope I didn't overdo it

RB 212.123.163.102 21:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Many thanks... I will try my best at going through this, although I can't promise an early reply to you on it. I am no specialist myself. It would help me then if there is corroboration, of both the observations and the reasoning / conclusions, from others as to Wilkens' approach: if you or others have any to recommend they would be of interest to me -- also any which attempt to tear the theory apart, for that matter, as the "negative review" often is as useful as the "positive review", in this sort of thing -- I'll look for same myself.

--Kessler 01:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It would certainly be nice if Iman Wilkens' ideas got a fair chance.There are all too many people who are willing to tear the theory apart, sometimes by argumentation, which is allright, but sometimes not so respectful and it seems that a lot of emotion is involved! (Because for 2800 years there has hardly been any questioning that Troy was in Turkey?).

What bothers me is that intelligent people who always want to verify theories and facts for themselves before accepting or rejecting them now refuse to read Wilkens book categorically only on the basis of judgement by others! Why dismiss it so easily?

My experience is that if you read the work of Wilkens with an open mind, and accept that in his enthousiasm he at occasions maybe jumps to conclusions, (which by the way does not diminish the overall truth and beauty), a complete reality starts to unfold in which all the anomalies of Homer in the Mediterranean suddenly appear to fit in the Atlantic setting. It's really majestic!

If you want to examine Wilkens' ideas: http://www.troy-in-england.co.uk

212.123.163.102 05:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said previously, I am willing to give Wilkens' work a try, fantastic though I find his ideas to be at first glance. I am no expert, on the subjects he addresses, and I too tend to be as disenchanted with establishment "expertise" as you and other supporters of him appear to be: too many people simply write books about the books about the books of others... This said, several basics within my own experience contradict, initially, several basic tenets of what I take to be Wilkens' theory: most having to do with distance -- in swimming times or sailing times or marching times. My personal experience, with small villages and small villagers, is that they generally do not travel very far away from "home", for making war or for finding food or for any other purpose: isolated wanderers and desperate tribes do, but villagers don't, and the era we're addressing was composed largely of settled villagers, I believe. The Vikings did: that's one exception, and there have been others... So I'll be interested to read Wilkens' theories, then, and his evidence, for why these particular peoples voyaged so far away from "home", as well as on other topics.

--Kessler 23:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Travelling by ship

When you're on a ship with enough supplies of food and water and using favourable winds and currents and, at times rowing, mostly staying close to the coast, you can safely and easily travel great distances, without encountering difficulties as you would find ashore. During the summer, with 14-15 hours daylight, travelling 6 m/h, in three days that would be 250-270 seamiles, which is ca. 450 kms. 212.123.163.102 05:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point. The Vikings did OK on speed, apparently:

"One replica longship covered 223 nautical miles in a single day, and another re-creator was able to go faster than 8 knots in his longship." [[1]]

The Greeks, too: per re-creations of a galley like the ones they used at Salamis --

"According to contemporary writers, triremes were capable of a top speed of 11.5 knots (21 km/h) for short sprints, of accelerating to full speed in 30 seconds, of turning at top speed within their own length, and of sustained rowing at 7 knots (13 km/hour) for a long time. [[2]]

-- although a trireme had about 6 inches freeboard, as I remember, and so seems an unlikely boat design for use mid-Med, much less on the stormy Atlantic & the stormier Channel & the horrendous North Sea... A friend rowed that recent re-creation, and tells funny tales of how *wet* the lowest row got, and how on several occasions they were very-nearly-swamped.

But at the various supposed dates of the "Trojan War" the British were bouncing around in water mostly in rudder-less and keel-less and sail-less coracles, weren't they? According to the archeology, anyway... Per Stonehenge they may have known their navigation, I suppose, but at the time in question I wonder what they navigated in?

I do have the Wilkens book on recall via my local library, now -- apparently pretty popular -- I'll get to it.

--Kessler 20:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Already around 2300 BC A bronze statue of the Pharao Pepi was made using tin from Cornwall. Can you imagine the difficulty transporting the tin from Cornwall to the Mediterranean roaming the high seas in coracles? --212.123.163.102 06:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That is pretty interesting. But how do we know that the tin was from Cornwall? There must be other ancient sources of tin more near Egypt than Cornwall, aren't there?

--Kessler 16:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The Cornwall attribution appears to be biblical: the following from the Wikipedia article on Tin -- I've asked the folks there for more sources --

From Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary : "Tin" --

    Heb. bedil (Num. 31:22; Ezek. 22:18, 20), a metal well known in
    ancient times. It is the general opinion that the Phoenicians of
    Tyre and Sidon obtained their supplies of tin from the British
    Isles. In Ezek. 27:12 it is said to have been brought from
    Tarshish, which was probably a commercial emporium supplied with
    commodities from other places. 

--Kessler 16:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Around 13th century BC Cornwall was one of the main locations for obtaining tin as other sources ran out because of the enormous need for producing bronze. Iman Wilkens names also Land's End as the location of Thrinacia (Odyssey). 212.123.163.102 20:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but were there other sources for tin as well? Before Cornwall can be identified as the sole or most important source of Mediterranean tin at the time, sufficiently-so to have caused significant wars, the other tin sources have to be identified as well.

--Kessler 11:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Where Troy Once Stood is about the Atlantic. Not the Mediterranean212.123.163.102 17:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Understood. I thought you were making the point, though, that there was a trade in tin from Cornwall to the Mediterranean: if so I am questioning whether either a sea or a land route for that was practical in terms of navigation and seafaring and travel technologies, at the time -- whether we have any evidence for any of that -- also whether such a long-distance trade would have been competitive, with sources of tin located closer to the Mediterranean customers?

I've just gotten hold of a "Where Troy Once Stood" copy, and now will look for this in there, too.

--Kessler 22:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Wilkens somewere names a number of parties engaged in trading tin from Cornwall, amber from the Baltic and gold from Ireland to as far as Kanaan not only mentioning of course the Achaeans but also specifically naming the Phoenicians.

So ,as you now have the book I have some advice. Just keep on reading and step over the guesses that Wilkens made that look too wild. The book is written with a lot of imagination, which is necessary, as well as for hypothising as he does as for others to capture the theory if not yet fully familiar with it. There is, I think, really a lot of truth in it as well as a handfull of thoughts that are hard to swallow, although absolutely not impossible. If I were you I'd stick to the book and read all of it before forming an opinion about each and every item, as there's a lot to be found in there.

212.123.163.102 20:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly shall -- my normal procedure -- nothing worse than getting bogged down. Will keep an eye out for trade data, tho, as that seems interesting. I read Schliemann, too: remarkably meandering and lots of "false drops" there, as well -- his reputation rode on his essence, not his mistakes -- ditto Aurel Stein. Looking forward to seeing what Wilkens has to say.

--Kessler 00:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johannes Cardinal Bessarion

Hi, I noticed your fine details edits. Might I however be so bold as to suggest that when you have a series of very small copy-edits on a single article/section, as here the bibliography, you'ld do better to group them rather then save 'every comma' separately? It's not only a rather pointless waste of memory space (each time the whole article!) but bogs up the watchlist and history. Fastifex 08:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion and yes I do try to do this. That Bessarion edit was done in an Internet cafe, though, pretty much of a rapid-job afterthought to some writing & research I was doing there -- original intention was not to edit but only to read -- so normally I do try to "group" things.

--Kessler 08:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signed in

Hi Kessler Remember me? I'm the guy from the overseas-trading discussion. I have now signed in so from now on I sign: Antiphus 08:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey there, Antiphus! Which "Antiphus" are you, a Trojan or the Greek?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiphus

Maybe I need an Achaean alias for this discussion, myself: no "Kessler" mentioned in the catalog of ships... :-)

--Kessler 17:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iman Wilkens, general reaction...

Just completed, as promised elsewhere here, a first read-through of Iman Wilkens' book, Where Troy Once Stood (New York : St. Martin's Press, 1991) ISBN 0312059949 : herewith my general reaction --

Wilkens' thesis, it seems to me, is one of those very interesting ideas which cannot be either proved or disproved.

The problem is lack of evidence. Standards of what constitutes "evidence" do change, from era to era: some eras require nothing more than mention in a "holy book", for some assemblage of information to be considered "truth" -- other eras reject that and require "reasoning", of some variety approved by those initiated into the higher realms of logic and philosophy then-prevalent -- still other, more sceptical, eras demand "physical evidence", of pottery remains and building foundations and datable carbon traces and so on, even though the logic underlying those links may be as arbitrary as it is during any "age of reason".

Ours is a sceptical era. We still demand physical evidence, even though our methodologies are fraying a bit now around their edges, as cosmologists and critical realists and others question the "objectivity" of our scientific method. But for our era's still-prevailing way of thinking there is little credible evidence of what Wilkens proposes: few pot shards, little in the way of building foundations or even earthworks, only a tiny collection of questionable bronze pieces, and no documentation whatsoever. All this supposedly took place too long ago... So the Wilkens idea needs to remain in the realm of "interesting hypothesis", I think.

Nor, as I said, is there firm evidence against it. Wilkens' ideas about the Sea Peoples, and the Illyrians, and his other notions of early Aegean contacts with proto-Celts to the north, all are areas of scholarship which still are very unsettled. Scholars haven't even figured out what might have caused the much later Greek Dark Age, let alone the details of Mycenae and the other civilizations which preceded it. Again, the problem is lack of evidence -- careful archaeologists such as Snodgrass have demonstrated that.

Perhaps it simply is a problem of our own age's scepticism, and not really one of the evidence. Other eras might be more ready to accept myth, and placename coincidence, and fundamental overturnings of long-established cultural tradition, than our own is. With Wilkens they might accept, with less question than the rest of us might, the many enormous numbers mentioned in the Iliad and the Odyssey -- of army troop concentrations, city populations, fleets of ships, casualties of war, and so on -- as being more fact than fiction. Nowadays we consider most of Homer's figures to have been hyperbole -- poetic license, merely -- and so find it unnecessary to seek harbors, such as the Wash or Jutland, more capable of sheltering "a thousand ships" than Hissarlik's was, long ago.

Or in an era more interested in "reasoning", such as Gibbon's 18th century or the Scholastics' 12th, the sheer force of Wilkens' logic might be sufficient, to advance his "interesting hypothesis" to a "plausible thesis" stage.

Or in an era more interested in devotion and in holy writ, the mere fact that Homer mentioned and described certain geographic places in his "text", and that others -- proto-Celts or otherwise -- may have mentioned similar places in their "text", might simply require correlating, to establish causation. Then the exercise would be, as Wilkens to a great extent undertakes it, simply the search for interesting parallels in the two literatures, and a suspension of belief in the accepted correlation sufficient to consider the new proposed lists. But our sceptical 21st c. era does not consider this to be enough: as Wilkens knows well, I am sure, from encounters with his critics, we now believe "correlation does not equal causation" -- and for causation we require pots, and stones, and datable carbon.

Somebody may do a dig, some day. I'd hate to see the lovely Gog Magog Hills near Cambridge dug up à la Schliemann, for the purpose, but that would be necessary. Digs elsewhere, too. A dig in Cadiz -- right in the city center, downtown, and big, and deep -- would unearth, or un-submerge, all sorts of interesting things, including perhaps "hard" evidence of Wilkens' thesis sufficient for 21st c. minds.

The 21st c. itself, too, is changing. Much which the 20th c. demanded in the way of "hard" evidence recently has come into question, including our 19th-20th c. notions of objectivity and scientific method, so if all that changes then the standards for evidence of the type Wilkens' ideas demand may change with it. Wilkens may have "history on his side", yet...

But unless and until those changes take place he doesn't, I think. Qua Celt myself -- some part of half of the family, at any rate -- I am fascinated to imagine that the old northern Europeans might have been the Achaeans and the Trojans of Homer's wonderful tales. The suppression of previous peoples and their beliefs by the Romans and the Christians long has interested me -- without judging which system was "better", as too many nowadays do I believe.

Also, Wilkens' notion that received opinion need not necessarily be accepted, even in archaeology and most certainly in literary history, is a congenial one. The terrible certainty with which some specialists insist upon their own points of view, particularly in so-called "scientific" disciplines, is a hangover of 19th c. positivism which the horrors of the 20th c. ought to have dissipated by now. Perhaps the increasingly-shaky uncertainties of our 21st c. -- today is the "September 11" anniversary -- are some evidence that old certainties at last are being re-evaluated.

But all this is only beginning. Much remains to be done. And until it's done, Wilkens' idea about the Trojan War is, I think, an "interesting hypothesis", only. I'd recommend that anyone intrigued by any of the vast number of subjects he addresses read his book. But unless & until 21st c. minds really change, I believe most will have at best the same reaction I do.

--Kessler 17:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday our edits on your talk page crossed and my edit was deleted. After I saw your edit I was glad that yours was not because your edit was much more extensive; I wrote: who needs an alias if he's named after a television series (see Wikipedia: Kessler) and i also wrote in answer to your question which Antiphus I was that I guess that I would actually be a myrmidon, because I live in the province of Zuid Holland (South Holland).

Your reaction on Wilkens looks pretty accurate and describes the situation really well except maybe for the line where you mention a tiny collection of questionable bronze pieces. This is not true for Cambridgeshire and your observation is maybe due to the age of the edition you've read. I've edited some on archaeology in for instance the East Cambridgeshire article where you can see that in fact there is a substantial, huge, vast quantity of very actual, real, bronze objects, in fact weaponry, found, from an age where bronze was so valuable that no one would leave even a tiny bit of bronze lying around. This means that either every person there died instantly by some strange phenomenon or a giant war took place.Antiphus 05:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Odd that an edit would have been deleted -- I see no sign of that in the article history, where I believe even any deletion gets recorded automatically -- sure you didn't just press the Save Page tab incorrectly? I've done that.

Yeah I've seen that TV series article... Infotainment people should think before they name things... When I think of all the taunts, and worse, that little kids in playgrounds receive just because of their names -- so along comes some smart TV BBC editor who smears all little kids happening to share the very common name "Kessler", for generations -- oh well at least my name isn't Marvin, which gets even worse treatment in a playground. :-) And OK you're a Myrmidon... :-)

My "a tiny collection of questionable bronze pieces" addresses mainly the significance of same for proving Wilkens' thesis, but you're certainly correct that 6500 does not sound "tiny". The Wikipedia article to which you point is fascinating: so there really was a war. there, or at least a very major battle.

That said, the article needs specific substantiation for the "By far the greatest quantities of bronze objects found in England" claim: Wilkens would not be enough, as he is the point in question -- has anyone else corroborated both the count and the claim?

I see no "Fenland Survey" cite in the Wikipedia articles. If it is the following:

Author -- Hall, David, 1960-  
Title -- Fenland survey : an essay in landscape and persistence / David Hall and John Coles.  
Publisher -- London : English Heritage, 1994.  
Description -- xii, 170 p. : ill., maps (some col.) ; 30 cm.  
Series -- Archaeological report / English Heritage ;no. 1  
Series -- Archaeological report (English Heritage) ;no. 1.  
Note -- Errata slip tipped in.  
Note -- Includes bibliographical references (p. 159-164) and index.  
ISBN -- 1850744777    

-- then that ought to be put in, there, to clarify the "op. cit" in the two notes, and a quote from the Survey added.

Do you know what other literature exists about the Moyse's Hall Museum bronze collections? The websites mentioning that place don't appear to say very much.

Very interesting that the horde is so large. Size alone would not substantiate Wilkens' thesis about its relationship to the Trojan War, though. There must have been plenty of battles, in such an era among such folks, although perhaps not plenty that were so big. How accounts of this particiular one got from Cambridgeshire etc. to the Aegean still is the missing link for Wilkens, however -- there were plenty of battles elsewhere too.

--Kessler 07:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

n.b. I see the following online, via [3], and at,[4] : a page, with plentiful cites, apparently documenting Bronze Age tin mining activities near Mesopotamia... That's a hurdle for Wilkens: whether and to what extent tin was mined elsewhere than in Cornwall, during the Trojan War era or prior, would cut into the thesis that a substantial Cornwall=>Aegean trade in the stuff might have existed. But I do not know the history, or the archeology, myself.

--Kessler 07:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] location of Vijayanagara on mapDineshkannambadi 19:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sir, the map shows Vijayanagara right on the boundry of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh states while in reality, the town is about 80-100 Kms from the border, within Karnataka state. Please see if you can rectify the location of the "dot" by moving it a little to the left.

My own reply: Please ignore my earlier comment. I rectified the map myself. Dinesh Kannambadi

Hi Dinesh,

That link which you wrote, in the Vijayanagara article, wasn't working: something wrong with the syntax. So I have replaced with a link which does work, now, but uses your revised location coordinates.

You might take a look at the article on Uluru, at the bottom ("#7 External links"), for examples of several other GeoRef coordinate formats: I don't find the general Wikipedia articles on correct link syntax for this purpose to be too helpful, myself -- too complex, and the formats are changing rapidly so such articles get out of date -- I just copy a link format which works and then change the coordinates within that.

--Kessler 23:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Back to Washington

Hi Kess', I see you are kept on your toes with tin toys... I never got around writing on John Adams' progeny. Yet ! I managed to read C.V.Wedgwood's "The King's Peace: 1637-1641" and "The King's War: 1641-1647". In "The King's War" she writes a few notes on a Colonel Henry Washington who secured the taking of Bristol for Rupert of the Rhine and the Royalists. This happened in 1643, the year in which Lawrence Washington ( of ill Wikifame ) lost his livelyhood in Purleigh for being a Malignant Royalist. Also:

The furious tenacity of Henry Washington was to give Worcester its proud title of civitas fidelis - " the first of the cities that declared for the crown and the last which held out in defence thereof " ( Wedgwood in "The King's War": Collins Fontana 1973, pg 497 )

I would say to this that the exploits of Henry somewhat tainted the name of Lawrence, making him that tiny bit less non notable. The history of that particular civil war also saw the birth of printed press, adding another tiny fragment to the notoriety of the Washington name at that particular time.

I thought I owed Mel Ettitis at least the courtesy of looking a little closer into the matter, since I believe I got rather carried away in my defence of "humble" Lawrence. In any case I still can not say I regret coming across the reference to both Mel and yourself in this most terrible of all encyclopediae.

Take care (Lunarian 15:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

Geez, "Rupert of the Rhine and the Royalists" sounds like a 1960s Liverpudlian rock group... or maybe even US & maybe even earlier: Bill Haley and the Comets, Buddy Holly and the Crickets... "Malignant Royalists" being maybe a later-on punk version of same... :-)

I would think any modern biographer of George would want at least to speculate on the psychologies of such a lineage -- à la Erik Erikson -- the personality of Henry and its influence on his son, and of the latter on his, and so on down to George and even further in the family...

I am not a fan, personally, of that sort of biography. I figure a person is no more the product entirely of her/his genetics, as we appear to believe today, than the product entirely of upbringing, as the DAR once urged us to believe. Or of "the temper of the times", a notion the Marxist historians and too many others once fervently embraced... It seems to me the history of someone like George Washington needs re-writing for every era's interests and sensibilities, and that pace Gibbon no view is any more "correct" in any timeless & universal sense than any other: that's an opinion I've just seen eloquently expressed in T. Cahill's How the Irish Saved Civilization -- he rightly figures English historians have been doing his folks in for generations.

But the raw material for any historian is the sort of fact which you have unearthed here. So I hope you will figure out some way of getting it included in Wikipedia articles on George, the Gibbons here notwithstanding. The average Wikipedian is youngish -- 20-something I'll bet -- and unsullied so far by Too Much Education, and so more objective when it comes to assessing George. Said budding historian may be influenced for life by the suggestion that George's bravery and insecurities, both, may have been a family inheritance from Henry W. of "Rupert of the Rhine and the Royalists", so you and Wikipedia would be doing all of us a favor by suggesting it.

--Kessler 21:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Bill Haley indeed! Trust you to catch my drift! :-D ! Fact is: I'm all for a broad view, but with the topoi in the landscape well pictured. (Let them youngsters figure out this one. :-D ! )

Let's remain curious for a while longer.

(Lunarian 10:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] vote

Hi Fellow-WikiPedian, This thing came up: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where Troy Once Stood. Would you like to vote? Antiphus 20:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for this heads-up. I've just posted the following to that page:

Strongly oppose deletion. At one point or another in history Schliemann and even Homer himself would have been "deleted". Snodgrass too... political correctness knows no bounds... I expect Prof. Snodgrass himself would be horrified by the idea of censoring Wilkens: not of criticizing him, certainly, or of dismissing his ideas -- but the notion of removing the ideas of Wilkens or any other non-conformist, "nut" or otherwise, so that they might not even be read, if only to be dismissed, runs against the grain of the Western free-thinking tradition of which both Homer and now Snodgrass himself are parts. I've just read Wilkens' book, myself: greatly entertained, if not convinced -- it has motivated me to re-read Snodgrass. Paraphrasing a now-very-old online debate (kudos to Steve Cisler): "And first they came for Wilkens..." --Kessler 17:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

--Kessler 17:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Kessler, I have to say that I find your post on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Where_Troy_Once_Stood a bit offensive. You're simply mistaken to imply that I'm somehow censoring Wilkens; the debate is not about his ideas, it's about whether his book is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. And apparently you didn't notice, but I voted to keep the article.

Perhaps you don't realize it, but this paraphrase you credit to Steve Cisler, "and first they came for Wilkens..." is a paraphrase of a poem by Martin Niemöller, "First they came..." This rhetoric is not an appropriate way to describe a Wikipedia AfD. Furthermore, even if you do not intend to do so, you're implicitly comparing me to a Nazi. I find this offensive, but also highly ridiculous. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

My posting (above) is not about any particular user, or voter, but simply about the general effort to censor Iman Wilkens' unorthodox views on the Trojan War. Removal of such an article on substance to me is censorship. Wilkens' ideas, unlikely though I myself find them to be, are no more irrational or absurd than Schliemann's once were considered, or than Wegener's on plate tectonics, or than Galileo's. The attribution of the quote I supplied to someone prior is interesting but irrelevant: I was referring only to its specific use in a 1990s debate regarding people who use digital media to pick fights and "flame", online, as I said. And no one has compared anyone to a Nazi, here. --Kessler 23:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Kessler, this post certainly looks like it was directed at me, and seems to imply that I am a censor.

It's nice to see that you didn't intend comparisons to the Nazis, but the Niemöller poem is quite famous--I've even seen it on t-shirts. Since you didn't explain what you meant by the quote (and a reference to Steve Cisler doesn't help, since I've never heard of him), it's natural to see it as an allusion to the Nazis, who were quite happy to censor/burn books. In future, I'd suggest explaining this quote more fully, or avoiding its use, because I don't think I'm the only person who will see it as a reference to Niemöller. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be standing logic on its head to allow anyone engaged in censorship to defend by protesting that his critics are calling him names. So I do intend to oppose censorship, any time I see it, whatever name-calling innuendos either real or imagined may spring up: I called you no name -- and to me it always is better to allow someone to have their say, and then discuss it. Whatever the intentions here, then, I do not believe the Wilkens article in question should be deleted: better that it be retained, and discussed -- you appear to agree, so I think the two of us should leave our discussion there. I don't appreciate your instruction, --Akhilleus, and you don't appear to appreciate the way I express myself, but neither of these is the point here -- simply the Wilkens article -- so I suggest we let these other matters rest. --Kessler 00:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, accusing me of censorship is name-calling. You seem to think that censorship is an objectionable activity, so don't you think that the people doing it are offensive? And of course, you accused me of being a censor without checking to see what my vote was first, which suggests you have a pretty low opinion of me.

Really, my suggestion about the "first they came" quote was intended as a friendly suggestion: it appeared to me that you were saying that anyone who votes to delete Where Troy Once Stood is walking down a path of jack-booted thuggery. I think it's possible that others will misunderstand what you're saying in the way that I did. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The quotation I made of the phrase "First they came for..." referred simply to the following: part of a debate which took place on the PACS-L econference in 1994, regarding a well-known gadfly there who some of us wanted to censor but others among us defended on "free speech" grounds -- [excerpt:]

Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 08:57:27 CST Sender: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum From: Steve Cisler Subject: Re: Unwanted Messages

"The presence of [the gadfly] is proof that the Net is still open and somewhat egalitarian...

"The sorts of messages he and others who also burn with conviction post show that anyone can be an electronic Paul Revere, even if they sit on the horse backwards, and even if the British are not really coming.

"... a bozo filter. If you can't abide the postings of me or that libertarian or that gun control fanatic, put their name in the bozo file, and you never see them again...

"Would it be inappropriate to close with the mantra:

"'First, they came for Vigdor. Then they came for Rush and Howard and Camille and Geraldo and Barney and Joe Camel...'"

[5]

-- until it was brought to my attention here by you, Akhilleus, I was unaware that Martin Niemöller or anyone else ever had coined the "First they came for" phrase, or had had the phrase attributed to them specifically.

In fact I wonder whether Niemöller really did, as even per the Wikipedia article you cited, his "Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten" does not translate to "First they came for", exactly -- the article itself translates it as "When the Nazis came for the communists", which seems an odd rendering of "holten" -- while per Babelfish, for another example and more literally, the translation is "As the Nazis the communists got".

Translation questions aside, I have heard the "First they came for" phrase used generally, although for many years and by many people and in many contexts: usually to describe any form of intrusive police-state tactic, very much including censorship. It was a popular expression during the McCarthy era, and as the Wikipedia article points out usage then had nothing to do with Nazis -- Niemöller's first line even was omitted entirely from translations often, that article says -- nor were Nazis involved when the phrase was used generally during the 1960s civil rights and Vietnam War eras. I've never seen the phrase on a tee-shirt, as you say you have; but that would only indicate, again, how widespread and common-practice the usage is.

It might be interesting to consider where Niemöller might have found the phrase himself, as I am sure others must have used it before he did -- all due credit to him for using it, and perhaps coining it, in the face of Nazism -- but it seems to be a common-enough expression, for describing a sad and destructive tendency in persecution and in the chilling of free expression. Censorship plays a vital role in that, and that is the only sense in which I used the phrase myself.

Now if you believe that any accusation of censorship is name-calling, as you say, then it is not clear to me how you would resist censorship. To my mind, censorship is far more dangerous than name-calling, and it is well worth it to society to risk the latter in the interests of resisting the former. Yes, removal of Iman Wilkens' article on Troy to me appears to be censorship: the grounds for removal appear to be substantive, as I said -- they do not address its style or composition or even its facts, but more just the opinions expressed therein, and whether Wilkens' opinions conform to the current majority view -- and tyranny of the majority always is the first rationale invoked by censors, they never like people who "go against the grain". So although I disagree with Wilkens myself, I strongly oppose deleting his article simply on free speech grounds, as I said.

But that was not the basis for your and my disagreement here, no. You were opposed to deletion yourself, as you point out. This whole ruckus between the two of us began, though, with your posting as follows:

"This is slightly alarmist. If this article is deleted, I doubt the Wikipedia police will show up on Wilkens' doorstep and drag him off for reeducation. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)"

-- which I consider, as it was a comment upon my own vote posting, to have been gratuitous and snide and even sarcastic -- entirely unnecessary, in the context of an AfD discussion -- no reason for you to have said any of that, Akhilleus, particularly if you agree in fact with keeping the Wilkens article. I am fairly thick-skinned, and I don't care much about Wilkens' article really: had your posting not addressed the far more important issue of the effects of Wikipedia AfD and other such procedures, and the possibility of their deteriorating into censorship, I would have let your comment slide. But it did seem to me you were being casual about a major concern I have for Wikipedia and for digital information generally: the procedures for deletion and the safeguards against censorship are not yet sufficiently-transparent and clearly-stated, I think -- certainly not enough to be flippant about the very serious risks involved.

So I will go on objecting to "censorship" when I see it or when I sense it. This has nothing to do with you personally, as you suggest it might -- I have no opinions there. I do regret any misunderstanding with you which might have arisen, in my use of the "First they came for" quote, from your having discovered the Niemöller attribution in that Wikipedia article -- although I don't accept any rigid application of that quote to Nazis only, which per even that article is not common practice, and in any event it was not my intention.

The "path of jack-booted thuggery" to which you refer above, however, is closer to us always, in my own opinion, than you apparently feel it to be -- "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance", goes the famous saying (not Niemöller and in fact unattributable, I understand, but still true :-)) -- so I do believe Wikipedia has an important responsibility to be very, very careful before "deleting" things, always. Usually better to leave articles up and let folks discuss them, I think, certainly where the grounds for deletion are substantive only and based merely on differing opinions, and as long as the article in question appears to be reasonably well-thought-out and well-presented. But then you and I do not disagree about this.

--Kessler 00:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Kessler, Thanks for writing this thoughtful and informative response. I think I should apologize to you, because I was too quick to take offense, and because I caused offense. You're right to point out that when I responded to your vote on the AfD my remark was rude. I'm sorry.

However, I would like to say (and I hope I don't do so offensively) that I disagreed with the tenor of your comment, because I do not see this AfD as an issue of censorship. The question is (or at least should be) a very narrow one: is Wilkens' book notable enough to have a Wikipedia article? I think it is, simply because Snodgrass mentioned it in his article; if Snodgrass hadn't mentioned it, I would have voted to delete; but neither vote is based on whether Wilkens' ideas are good or bad or worth hearing--it's a question of how well-known his book is.

That said, I do think there are very real issues of censorship on Wikipedia, things like U.S. Congressmen editing unfavorable information out of their biographies, suppression of well-sourced information on the sexual preferences of famous figures, removal of well-sourced historical information on nationalist or ethnocentric grounds, that kind of thing (just look at the articles on Balkan history, or Pontian Greek genocide). Or, if Wilkens' book was extremely well-known and had reviews in the New York Times and the New Yorker, but the article were deleted on the grounds that his arguments were wrong, I could see that as censorship. As it is, the book is not very well-known, but to the extent that people voted on the grounds that Wilkens was wrong, you could call that censorship. Looking back at the page, it seems that most people voted on notability, so I don't think there's a problem here.

Your additional thoughts about the Niemöller poem are interesting. I agree with you that it has been used to describe police-state type tactics in general, but I think the power of the phrase comes precisely from its association with the Nazis--it's a way to say that the action/policy being criticized is the start of a slippery slide towards fascism. Perhaps what I'm saying is once the Nazis get dragged in, it's hard to escape thinking about them. And I suppose this time, that's my fault. So, sorry once again, and best wishes. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Your handsome apology accepted, Akhilleus -- my own, for misunderstandings I had too, I hope as well -- onward! :-) --Kessler 16:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bridge Over Troubled Water

Oh boy! Do you ever need a break! :D !

Well, here it comes !

I just linked Lawrence Washington (1602-1655) to Pocahontas !

How's that for Rock and Roll, Dude!

P.S. It's not a joke !

Never mind the bullocks,

(Lunarian 13:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC))

Wow, she even looks like "Old George", in that picture... :-)

--Kessler 16:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Royal LBGT confusion

Hi. You've misunderstood my edit. Maybe my edit summary was insufficient. I explained my edit on the Talk page, but maybe you didn't see that. The current list of laws/topics is not acceptable for Wikipedia, so I moved it to the Talk page. Unfortunately, the LGBT subsubsubsection was the only section that was non of unaccectably low quality. The other issues should be mentioned again, but not as a list, and not without any explanation for their relevence to Ms. Royal. Gronky 11:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not what it looks like. It looks like someone preoccupied with the Ségolène Royal presidential campaign LGBT issues -- either pro or con -- has waded in and eliminated everything else, to focus the article on LGBT. That is not NPOV and is contrary to fundamental Wikipedia policy.

I understand what you say about format, but given what you did in your edit that sounds like an excuse: if your suggestions really are *just* about format, instead of deleting everything you don't like why not *just* re-format things the way you'd prefer them to be presented -- that is the usual Wikipedia procedure, in my experience anyway -- even better, why not discuss with the rest of us first, which is what the Discussion/Talk page of the article is for.

If this woman is going to be the next president of France, and even now while she is one of their leading politicians, Wikipedia readers need to know her policies. We have to figure out some way of describing those -- all of them, not just the ones of interest to some of us -- in the article.

--Kessler 20:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

OK got myself into a little more conciliatory mood and re-wrote the sections-in-question in the Segolene Royal article, so pls have a look. Yes they do "flow" better, now -- :-) -- altho I still prefer bulleted lists myself.

--Kessler 00:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject France

The above project has been proposed at the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#France, would be needing some willing helpers to merge and bring together the various active Wiki Projects related to France. Let me know if you have some suggetion or ideas for it. STTW (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)