Was the Chinese currency named after the Yuan dynasty?

[removed]

Illustrated by a pyramid. Carter didn't investigate in or near pyramids.

[deleted]

No, he's right on the money. There are very noticeable differences in how archaeology was done between the early 1800s and the early 1900s. Early explorers like Ferlini made an absolute mess of sites in Egypt and Sudan, as did archaeologists like Amelineau. The work of later scholars like Petrie and Winlock is still dissatisfactory by modern standards, but it was a huge improvement.

The Turin collection is all well and good, but archaeology is not antiquarianism – collecting objects is not the end goal. The collection was acquired with a considerable amount of destruction and is no little source of frustration to Egyptologists today. Take the Turin king list, for example, which was found intact but thanks to Drovetti's carelessness is now a jumble of tattered fragments that Egyptologists have been trying to reconstruct for decades.

Jason Thompson's trilogy on the history of Egyptology is well worth a read, as I don't think most people realize how far Egyptology has come in a relatively short amount of time.

And those leaves have delicious flavour, i put them in biryani or any rice dish i make.

I suppose as a pure adventure story it is compelling but that puts it at about the level of Felix Baumgartner jumping out of a space ship in terms of historical value. The peopling of the Pacific islands was a very settled question when Heyerdahl had his expeditions, and those expeditions provided not a whit of actual evidence to support his theory.

He was also more than a little racist towards Polynesians, the impetus of his theory was not far off "these savages couldn't have possible build these monuments".

"One shudders to think how these objects might have fared had their discovery occurred two or even just one century prior to Carter’s 1922 field season."

While this makes for good sensationalism, the Donati and Drovetti collections acquired between 1750 and 1820 formed the basis for the largest collection of Egyptian artefacts outside Cairo (Museo Egizio in Turin, established in 1824). Archaeology and Egyptology wasn't new-- although it was rough, it was rough when Carter and Reisner were doing it, too. And stratigraphy was in use well before Reisner. 

This might be clarified in the book, but I dislike how he misrepresents things in the article just to heighten the drama.

Hmm, I thought Heyerdahl was more of a mixed bag.. exaggerating and manipulating facts on one hand, while taking on some pretty major risks in his voyages, and overall, bringing a bunch of attention to interesting facets of cultural history and so forth.

I haven't read up on him in many years, though, so I'm in little position to debate.

Yeah, I am largely but not entirely ignorant of Egyptology's history and I was not aware of this dust up, I think it can be overestimated how far this is known outside of Egyptologists.

(Heyerdahl on the other hand was a complete charlatan, absolutely nothing of value gained from his work)

Still, for nincompoops like myself who only know the bare facts about Carter's work and discovery, I found it quite interesting getting that deeper (and rougher) dive, and learning about the rivalry of sorts between he and Reisner.

Methinks the story has potential, too, not unlike an Amadeus film scenario, but one in which Mozart and Salieri really *did* hold contempt for each other. Perhaps a bit of a Thor Heyerdahl situation too, in which the real-life Thor had some qualities of flim-flammery and not holding up scientific principles.

/u/xv433

It is. The purpose of the article is to get people interested in Der Manuelian's new book about Reisner, not provide any novel insights about Carter.

Interesting read, thanks

I thought this was the consensus view of Carter?

Things like that are to multicausal to lay at the feet of any one thing. The cassettes were important in giving people a figure to focus on, but there wouldn't have needed to be a figure if there wasn't so much dissatisfaction. If the Shah wasn't so flagrant in his profligacy, if he wasn't in power due to the US assistance, if the SAVAK weren't so brutal, etc, would people have looked for an alternative to the Shah? I would say the cassettes were more important to establishing the Ayatollah as an alternative to the Shah than being responsible for the revolution itself. I think the Shah's mismanagement was the driving reason for that. How it played out is a different story.

(For people who haven't heard about this aspect of the Revolution there were cassettes of the Ayatollah's sermons that were widely distributed throughout Iran before the revolution. One of the ironies was that the US's support of the Shah had allowed the Shah to put in a modern telephone system which allowed Khomeini to call in and deliver these sermons with enough clarity that they could be recorded, duped and distributed.)

Incendiary weapons were most often used in three situations: naval battles, sieges, and pillaging.

I'm not an expert on medieval warfare by any means, but you generally don't see any type of fire weapon being used much in pitched battles.

[removed]

I'm sure there are a lot of Roman traditions where Rome used to be

google search says "An herb is the green, leafy part of the plant. Examples are basil, rosemary, sage, thyme, parsley, and oregano. A spice can come from the root, stem, seed, fruit, flower or bark of the tree or plant"

... the revolution in Iran in 1979? I've not heard that myself, but I'd question it. Cassettes were just coming on the scene, and the Walkman was a few years in the future, so it's not like everyone had a cassette player yet.

[removed]

Noticed a similar pattern after finishing 'The Last Kingdom' while being Reconquista buff

Wessex/Asturias

Alfred the Great/Pelagius

Vikings/Moors

Danelaw/Calphate of Cordoba

--->England/Spain

[removed]

[deleted]

I think you might be right, because from what I understand, herbs are leaves and spices are different parts.