The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Re: In Which Xenophon And We Get It Wrong

Re: In Which Xenophon And We Get It Wrong
Posted by pancho (Guest) - Sunday, February 25 2007, 20:00:15 (CET)
from 189.162.7.18 - dsl-189-162-7-18.prod-infinitum.com.mx Mexico - Windows XP - Internet Explorer
Website:
Website title:

Maggie wrote:
>You call a three-page post short and simple?
>
>The Aechemenid Period begins 645 B.C. and ends at 330 B.C.
>The Peleponesian War began 431 B.C. and ended at 404 B.C

..I believe you`re still mistaken...there were two Peloponesian Wars...the first one started and ended before Xenophon was born...the second one began when he was born...

>Anabasis covers from 431 B.C. to 360 B. C.

...yes but the battle of Cunaxa has no part in the wars between Sparta and Athen...which all took place on Greek soil and not in Persia.
>
>Everything I said about Anabasis was correct and accurate, except that I made a mistake of calling it a Diary of the "Peloponesian War" instead of the "Persian Expedition," which is what Anabasis means, an "expedition". so yes, please don't call me names for one mistake.

..of course not...but it shows you how easy it is to make even simple mistakes, in your own time-frame...imagine having to sift through all the literature since the beginning of time and come up with any relibale version...and since no three such scholars agree with one anoher, as how could they...we must be more judicious when speaking of what WE KNOW...especially when we admit we have laundry pressing on our minds.
>
>I apologize, I don't really don't know why I said Peleponesian, I guess I was tired, and in a hurry, and going by memory.

..imagine how Xenophon felt..with arrows being shot at him and death dogging his every step...had he had laundry to do as well one shudders to think how many more errors he would have made.

Perhaps I was thinking about Thucidedes who wrote the Pelopenesian Wars, a book I have been re-reading recently.

... of course...rank amateurs, like you and I and the rest of us can be forgiven for getting nearly everything wrong...
>
>The point was, all writers will use certain sources to prove their theory, which is why no doubt Dr. Joseph uses Xenephon to illustrate his point,

...his "point" in using Xenophon was not to "prove" any theory of his own, as I mentioned several times...it was only because he wished to show that Rassam was in error when he relied on Xenophon for a point HE wanted make about a theory of HIS...none of this was initiated by Dr Joseph to prove anything of his own...but only because Rassam tried to use it to prove himself, Rassam, correct...okay?


which he wasn't able to prove anything any way, because he didn't realize that Xenephon had written other books, in which he did use the words Assyrian and Assyria.

..of course he knows that...how do you get a doctorate in history WITHOUT knowing that? Xenophon`s later writings on the Assyrians could have been as fanciful and filled with a different sort of error as was the Anabasis...which is all beside the point anyway as Xenophon, had he never been born, would have no bearing anyway on Dr Joseph´s main theme...remember, Dr Joseph did not refer to Xenophon, or the Anabasis and did not need to refer to the other books by Xenophon because Dr Joseph isn`t interested in ancient history of the Assyrians, not before Xenophon and not during Xenophon...not for the putpoes of THIS book...Dr Joseph is well aware of all phases of Assyrian hsitory...what he contends is that very often, and also in classical times, writers, people and explorers have made the assumption that the people then living ON the land, were the direct decsndants of the people who ONCE lived there or who are now UNDER the land...so that the number of times Xenophon says he saw "Assyrians", is not a "solution" to this ridle...but rather part of the RIDDLE...and if you`ll bear with us...we`ll get to the rest of it.

That is my contention. He blew himself out of the water by using Xenephon, and only one source by Xenephon, but he still does NOT, and I repeat does NOT prove his case.

...see above.


A scientist must have a hypothesis, and take certain measures, which are based on "scientific" and "empirical" evidence, and empiricism is based on the senses, so that the evidence gathered can be seen, felt, heard, smelled, etc. In that regard, Dr. Joseph cannot prove we are not Assyrians by a history book, no matter what sources he uses.

..he did not set out to prove that you are NOT...he tries to show that a series of events led Westerners to assume, gladly and with NO scientific anything, that the people above the ground in "Assyria" or "Chaldea", who were happily Nestorian and Nestorian Catholic and called themselves Suraye or Suryoyo till then, were really the same as the people under it...and from the attention these villagers received and from the ideas of nationalism rife at the time and especially among those who moved to the West, came this change in which the Nestorians began to insist they were not Suraye, but Ashuria or Athuria...and which he explains quite well and makes compelling points for which, if you`ll wait till I get past page 13, in a 260 page book you still have not read...you will see.

How would you like to be caught vacationing and killed in a car accident, or having moved for financial or security reasons and died of natural causes, in Foolishlandia, and buried there, and 2000 years later dug up and proclaimed by experts to be one of the original "Foolish" people...because the LAND was always known as the land of the Foolishlandians?

Furthermore, the criteria established by the researching scientist must be able to be used across the board when comparing it to or distinguishing it from any OTHER group. In other words, once the criteria is established by the hypothesis, then it will be used as a tool to measure other groups in the same manner. In this regard, Dr. Joseph will have a hard time proving anything,

..like I said, he isn`t trying to "prove" anything, certainly not in the iron-clad and boiler-plated manner you assume he is, or MUST. He`s merely providing us with information, collected facts and writings which led him to the idea that we are mistaken in asserting that we MUST be modern Assyrians..it would seem to be the better part of science and empiricism for you to put down Thucydides, swear off Xenophon forever, and pick up Dr Joseph´s book instead...since we are not really discussing the Peloponessian Wars or the Anabasis...especially before you presume to speak about the contents of the book when I´ve only reached page 13. Wouldn`t you agree?


unless we want to go back to the beginning of the Paleolithic era, when we formed tribes, right out of the caves, and how we got to this point. And if we were to use Dr. Josehph's criteria on all human groups, then no one is what they are today.

...maybe...but since we live in a tangible and hard world nonetheless...one which demands proof of us when we get a driver´s license of, among other things, place of birth and nationality, and will NOT be amused if we write down "Assyria" or Albion or Gaul...we should try to curb our enthusiams for paleolithic identities a little especially when it comes to mucking about in our children`s minds or handing them over with a song in our hearts to become martyrs to this most foolish of all causes...in this atmosphere, Dr Joseph`s book might be of practical help.
>
>But there's an issue even more complex than all this, and that is religion. Because man comes out of the cave having already formed a religion. It is these religions that will determine the outcome of a particular culture. And I think there's a lot to be said about that, which is where you and I are at right now, and very curious. Religion, more than anything has played the biggest role in shaping humanity and its cultures. You and I studied Sociology, and as sociologists, we have to cherish each and every culture, preserve it, value its contribution to life itself, and therefore to not let it face extinction. In other words, once something forms, we cannot force it to go back to the way it was, but value it for what it is.

...it can go where it wants to..if it was standing on a cliff`s edge and needed only a shove from behind...I would be happy to oblige. But my interest is in Dr Joseph´s theory, his compelling argument, the facts he produces and the analysis he provides, which I can only thank him for and sigh in relief, as I wander through this intellectual and moral wasteland, this Assyria-of-the-Mind.
>
>Where I start in my series of articles is religion and its impact and power on the formation of Assyrian culture beginning with the paleolithic age and am slowly going through all the religious phases, the rites, the beliefs, the celebrations, and to show how the Mesopotamian culture and religion shaped the whole world, and what are some of the by-products of such a phenomenon. IT will make a good discussion and debate.

...I appreciate your varied attempts to change the subject or drown it out...and as you know there`s no one I like to kick around the block more than a purveyor of snakeskin oil parading around as a priest etc...I think it`s even more important to find out first if I am who I was told I am...or something other. First things first...I want to know if I came out of the right cave.
>
>Since you are such a worthy opponent, I would love to move forward with you on this forum to discuss these things, even if superficially, knowing we cannot do justice to any kind of scholarly work with a post written in a few minutes on a forum. I don't have enough time to do it here and in the articles I am working on, so that's why I say superficially. I must focus on the articles themselves, which can lead to real duels, with real swords.

...well, my feeling is that if you can focus on one, you can focus on the other...and since you don`t have to focus on both at the same time..and since I`ve crucified Jesus all over again several times, in a manner of speaking..and have barely gotten to page 13 of the only book of its kind about how we came to think we are modern Assyrians...I`d prefer to at least get to page 260 and see no reason, no good or scientiic reason, to shut down debate before it even gets warmed up. The bible isn`t going anywhere.
>
>By the way, I never said the Kurds don't have a history, Dr. Donny George said it in Zinda Magazine. So you must have me mixed up with what he said.

..I`ve seen you both...that might be the case.

But in all fairness to the Kurds and Dr. George, the Kurds were originally an Iranian tribe, called Karduchian from Kardu-Khoi, (probably from modern Khoi in Iran). Xenephon refers to them as the Karduchian tribe, but they were not in Mesopotamia,

...Mesopotamia was indeed part of the Persian Empire...so you can see how he continued in his errors...by first assuming that the people on the land of Assyria were Assyrians...and by next assuming that the Kurds in Mesopotamia were Mesopotamians...it`s an excusible error...like your´s was..but an error all the same.

they were on the other side of the mountains of Bet-Nahrain, the other side of the Zagros mountains, which means they don't belong in Arbil, Mosul, Nineveh, but they slowly crossed the mountains in search of a better life and riches, and landed in Mesopotamia, or modern Iraq.

..you are living in and working in and raised children in a land whose founders "wandered" across the ocean to settle where they "didn`t originate from" or "belong"...but there they are anyway...as are the people who stole and setled all the land and nations on earth...yet I don`t think, for all of that, that you`d accept the "right" of an Apache at the door telling you to "go back where you belong". The most basic reading of world history, including Assyrian and Greek, is that people have gone and can go wherever they damn well please and do what they want to those already occupying the land, who probably got it the same way...and keep it if they can...after which you can move there and "belong" as much as anyone.

That was nearly 500 years AFTER the fall of Nineveh, so we outdo them by a few thousand years, which is why I said if we were to base things on territory, region, or on "Geographical realities" we can prove we were there first.

...so can that Apache...but do you plan to move?



---------------------


The full topic:



Content-length: 13265
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/x-shockwave-flash, application/vnd.ms-excel, applicatio...
Accept-encoding: gzip, deflate
Accept-language: es-mx
Cache-control: no-cache
Connection: Keep-Alive
Cookie: *hidded*
Host: www.insideassyria.com
Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf5/rkvsf_core.php?Re_In_Which_Xenophon_And_We_Get_It_Wrong-1KXY.5Zeo.QUOTE
User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9