Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is the Roman Pantheon a colossal sundial?
New Scientist ^ | Wednesday, February 4th, 2009 | Jo Marchant

Posted on 02/05/2009 6:39:00 PM PST by SunkenCiv

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

1 posted on 02/05/2009 6:39:01 PM PST by SunkenCiv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: StayAt HomeMother; Ernest_at_the_Beach; 1ofmanyfree; 21twelve; 24Karet; 2ndDivisionVet; 31R1O; ...

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·

 
Gods
Graves
Glyphs
The original Pantheon stood on the same site and burned down in the great fire of Rome during Nero's reign. It was rebuilt by, hmm, one of the Flavians (I think) who also gave us the Colosseum. The exterior appears flatter because of the Romans' method of self-centering. Brunelleschi studied the Pantheon (among other Roman structures) in his pursuit of the design for the dome of Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence Italy.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
 

· Google · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology · Biblical Archaeology Society ·
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo ·
· The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·


2 posted on 02/05/2009 6:40:13 PM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/____________________ Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Not to hijack the thread, but I love how AD and BC have made a comeback. (Over the CE and BCE that were being forced upon us like the metric system) On a recent trip to the Smithsonian, I noticed some new exhibits are also back to AD and BC when giving dates.


3 posted on 02/05/2009 6:41:43 PM PST by icwhatudo (Still a proud member of the VRWC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

It’s not a sundial - it’s a Catholic church! (smile.....)


4 posted on 02/05/2009 6:43:25 PM PST by phoenix07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo

I teach history at a private school in Australia. ‘Official’ guidance for us now is that we should use AD and BC in discussing western history, but that BCE and CE is still appropriate when discussing other places - particularly Asia.


5 posted on 02/05/2009 6:43:56 PM PST by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo

I’ve noticed the same thing happening on the “educational” channels too. (History, A&E, etc.). I smile (BIG SMILE) everytime I see it.


6 posted on 02/05/2009 6:45:53 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer ( Elections have consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo
Not to hijack the thread, but I love how AD and BC have made a comeback. (Over the CE and BCE that were being forced upon us like the metric system) On a recent trip to the Smithsonian, I noticed some new exhibits are also back to AD and BC when giving dates.

I am really glad to hear that. I have refused to use those stupid new designations for the years. I refuse to even write them when discussing them.

7 posted on 02/05/2009 6:47:48 PM PST by stripes1776 ("That if gold rust, what shall iron do?" --Chaucer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975
Not to hijack the thread, but I love how AD and BC have made a comeback. (Over the CE and BCE that were being forced upon us like the metric system) On a recent trip to the Smithsonian, I noticed some new exhibits are also back to AD and BC when giving dates.

And that is appropriate for what reason?

8 posted on 02/05/2009 6:49:21 PM PST by stripes1776 ("That if gold rust, what shall iron do?" --Chaucer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975
but that BCE and CE is still appropriate when discussing other places - particularly Asia.

This is the quote I meant to respond to. Why is that appropriate?

9 posted on 02/05/2009 6:51:57 PM PST by stripes1776 ("That if gold rust, what shall iron do?" --Chaucer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

It’s still silly to use that nomenclature if the demarcation between BCE and CE exactly mirrors BC and AD and is, after all, divided by the pivotal birth of Christ.


10 posted on 02/05/2009 6:52:38 PM PST by WorkingClassFilth (Actually, it all started back in Mayberry. Helen Crump was a traveler and Floyd, well, you know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo
Feminist grad students in Wymen's Studies hardest hit.

They were getting into that when I was at UT. Some of them even threatened to flunk you on papers if you used BC/AD.

11 posted on 02/05/2009 6:54:33 PM PST by Richard Kimball (We're all criminals. They just haven't figured out what some of us have done yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
Almost all ancient cultures spent a significant amount of time studying the sun, moon and stars. I had never thought about it, but I would be surprised if it wasn't at least partially used for some kind of study of astronomy.


12 posted on 02/05/2009 7:02:35 PM PST by Richard Kimball (We're all criminals. They just haven't figured out what some of us have done yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776

I don’t know. I didn’t do it.

Seriously - I think the idea behind it is that the Judaeo-Christian tradition has had such major significance on the western world that dividing dates into the pre-Christian and post-Christian eras makes a great deal of sense.

This is not as true for other areas around the world - but when we look at their histories, we often still find a useful ‘dividing date’ somewhere approximately around AD1 - for example, with China, the Han Dynasty encompasses around -200 to +200 (yet another dating system!), with Japan, the Yayoi period frames -300 to +250, in India, the Middle Kingdoms arise about that time... there’s a decent case to argue that the world in general changed at that time, and so as a convenient dividing date, the Gregorian calendar is still useful - but using BC/AD would put risk ignoring the reasons the changes occurred.

Personally I do use BC/AD in my classes and differentiate where necessary by using references like, “During the Qin period,” but I’m also aware of the discussion that goes on around these issues, and it makes me wonder if the mover back to BC/AD in some US contexts might come from this ‘compromise’ rather than a return to the older principles.


13 posted on 02/05/2009 7:02:51 PM PST by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: WorkingClassFilth

I agree, but there is some thinking behind it - ping to 13 to see some of it. Like I say, I agree with you, but this isn’t just coming out of nowhere.


14 posted on 02/05/2009 7:04:04 PM PST by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

The original building was built by Agrippa in the period 27-25 B.C.—the inscription on the exterior still has his name: M. AGRIPPA COS. TER FECIT (Marcus Agrippa, consul for the third time, made [this]). But the dome dates from the reign of the Emperor Hadrian (A.D. 117-138).


15 posted on 02/05/2009 7:16:03 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

The inscription was reproduced on the current building, the original had been destroyed in the fire.


16 posted on 02/05/2009 7:20:22 PM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/____________________ Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Well,DUH!


17 posted on 02/05/2009 7:28:03 PM PST by screaming eagle2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

well you know ... if those clever Roman chaps had just had cell fones to tell them the correct time, they wouldn’t have had to go to all that trouble designing a building where the sun falls certain places at certain times ...


18 posted on 02/05/2009 7:39:26 PM PST by webschooner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975
I think the idea behind it is that the Judaeo-Christian tradition has had such major significance on the western world that dividing dates into the pre-Christian and post-Christian eras makes a great deal of sense.

Yes, that is why the terms BC and AD have been used for a very long time. As a historian, perhaps you would know something about the history of calendars and numbering years. When were the terms first used?

This is not as true for other areas around the world - but when we look at their histories, we often still find a useful ‘dividing date’ somewhere approximately around AD1 - for example, with China, the Han Dynasty encompasses around -200 to +200 (yet another dating system!), with Japan, the Yayoi period frames -300 to +250, in India, the Middle Kingdoms arise about that time... there’s a decent case to argue that the world in general changed at that time, and so as a convenient dividing date, the Gregorian calendar is still useful - but using BC/AD would put risk ignoring the reasons the changes occurred.

It seems to me that case is extremely flimsy. When you discuss Chinese history, do you also start lecturing in Chinese? Or when discussing Japanese history, do you speak in Japanese? If you continue to lecture in English, does that not give the wrong impression that the Chinese and Japanese speak English as their native tongue?

Personally I do use BC/AD in my classes and differentiate where necessary by using references like, “During the Qin period,” but I’m also aware of the discussion that goes on around these issues, and it makes me wonder if the mover back to BC/AD in some US contexts might come from this ‘compromise’ rather than a return to the older principles.

I still don't see a sound principle for the change to BCE and CE in the first place. I think what we see is common sense reasserting itself after some academics in a snit of multicultural fundamentalism decided that would change the traditional designations.

19 posted on 02/05/2009 8:22:47 PM PST by stripes1776 ("That if gold rust, what shall iron do?" --Chaucer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776

In a small antiquities shop in a side alley in Naples, I recently purchased a Gold Roman Solidus dated 125 BC. The emperor stamped on the head side looked a lot like Obama.


20 posted on 02/05/2009 9:26:38 PM PST by Kenny Bunk (Ayers for SCOTUS. It's a done deal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson