History: Fiction or Science? (Chronology, No. 1)

Book Description

Recorded history is a finely-woven magic fabric of intricate lies about events predating the sixteenth century. There is not a single piece of evidence that can be reliably and independently traced back earlier than the eleventh century. This book details events that are substantiated by hard facts and logic, and validated by new astronomical research and statistical analysis of ancient sources.

Customer Reviews:

Calculations are only as good as your numbers.......2007-08-03

Yes, we can all agree that mainstream history is nearly 100% BS due to politics, economics, ego, problems with dating techniques, and various conspiracies. Agreed. But, I've been researching the distinct possibility that human history (in terms of civilizations) are much more ancient than we've been told, so coming across this book was very interesting to me. I wondered how Fomenko could be wrong (if at all) because he is very persuasive in his presentations. Then it dawned on me. If at previous times in prehistory, due to the various catastrophies that are well documented (comets, asteroids, planetary disruptions, plasma discharge, pole reversals, etc) the Earth was in a different position in relation to the sun, different tilt on its axis, different orbit, different rotation (in terms of velocity and DIRECTION), and the continents were in different positions, then would this not cause the ancients to see the sky (constellations) differently? In other words, is Fomenko making erronious assumptions about the physics of the Earth in pre-history, which then corrupt his data with regards to dating the relevant astrology? The last event to seriously disrupt our planet occured roughly 3500 years ago, according to other good researchers, so is it possible Fomenko has been confused by this? The vastly different physics of our planet in the not so distant past may explain this confusion, which is not to say the "mainstream" version of history is correct; on the contrary. I am not an expert in these fields, but wanted to see if this idea could spark discussion.

Pants on fire?.......2007-07-19

Will people ever read before spamming? Yes, Jesuits could not rewrite world history alone, they had help. Anyway, Dr Prof Acad A.Fomenko does not point to jesuits as the driving force of world wide history manipulation in published volumes 1,2,3;, actually he barely mentions the poor devils. Check it with 'Search inside' feature, please. China is rarely mentioned either, in fact, Dr Fomenko is completely eurocentric. Right, his theory contradicts all mainstream schools of history, because in their actual state they are all built on blatantly erroneus chronology. You don't need a mysterious cabal (conspiracy) to falsify history, the falsification is its modus operandi. It is inherent to history(ians) to falsify (distort) events, as it is inherent to humans to boast as it is inherent to power (authority) to legimize itself by referrring to glorious past made to its own order. Dr Prof Fomenko and team have identified scores of instances of such manipulation in Russian, European, etc.. history, and delivered valid statistical proof thereof. His own 'reconstruction' is completely another story. Forget c14 as a valid method of dating. W.Libby has initially discovered a brilliant method of INDEPENDENT dating. Too bad, c14 method has become a joke after a forced marrige with dendrochronology with consensual chronological scale inbuilt. Radiocarbon method can't stand blind tests, but is so very productive as a rubberstamp.

Accepted History & Chronology Must Be Changed. .......2007-04-09

There is no doubt that history as most know it is a sham, & institution's version of History both University & Church is fradulent & inaccurate. Everything was established with an agenda, The real "Dark Ages" are now when we have access to incredible amounts of information past authorities & more important 'common folk' didn't have but our institutions & educators are slow to evolve because of what has ignorantly & arrogantly been taught for too long. This is on many subjects not just Chronology.

For anyone to question "Why would a Mathematician have anything credible to say of History?" The answer is from Dr. Fomenko's preface in the book: "It would be worthwhile to remind the reader that in the XVI-XVII century Chronology was considered to be a subdivision of Mathematics." These volumes could possibly be some of the most important works to date & should be read by everyone with an interest in History, especially professors & educators who have a duty to the public. I have read both books & must say that 'Chronology 1' has some very eye opening & revolutionary information. Even if these volumes are part true the implications are profound & opens the doors to further investigations & questions which must be done. I speak several different lanquages & must say the logic Dr. Fomenko uses with "inflection" of words & words being read from left to right in one region & right to left in another then written backwards, the removal of vowels & get down to basics of words, or different cities & locations having the same name etc. is correct. Vowel usage has always been optional & varied, actually complicating linquistics & study. The first thing one has to understand is that words never had a fixed spelling in history like we do now, the spelling of words was mutable & regional, as well as names & titles of people were vast, varied & changed, NOTHING WAS FIXED or understood linear. Matters of Life & Death as well as financial profiteering yesterday & today were & are made with ignorant, illogical & conspiratorial views of history & reality, it's time people get closer to the Truth & society collectively grow up.

Very Interesting.......2007-03-07

It is a good proposal and I believe it will mature into something even better in the future. I think it deserves to be read.

History as Science Fiction.......2007-01-10

Anatoly Fomenko has written a very intriguing book, full of pictures, charts, and computer 'proof' of his thesis: backwards of AD900 we don't really know what happened or when. Between AD900 and AD1600 there is more certainty, but there is still a lot of fuzzy ground, and things don't get reliable until we get past the 1600's where the printing press made it very difficult for the perpetrators of this timeline manipulation to change anything that had been committed to print. The Dark Ages did not happen. Books were burned for a reason. One organization has doubled the actual length of its existence by expanding the real chronology. Read why.

I had always wondered why Christ died about AD33 and yet men waited until the 11th century to form the Knights Templar, the Cathars, etc and go after the Holy Land by force. Why the 1000 year gap? Turns out there wasn't more than a 10-12 year gap and he proves it using astronomy. This also implies that the planet is not as old as we have been told, and current Christian and other creationist scientists are already championing that idea without being aware of Fomenko's book. The two groups, creationist scientists and the Russian mathematical analysts corroborate each other. Fascinating.

Of course, all this flies in the face of what we have been told traditionally is the 'proper' chronology of western civilization, and most readers will experience 'cognitive dissonance' in reading this book. It means that our history going backwards from AD1600 becomes progressively more incorrect and unreliable until it cannot be trusted at all... in the space of 700-800 years.

Naturally, the curious, open-minded reader will want to know WHO did this, WHY, and did any of the events we think of as really ancient ever happen?
Dr. Fomenko is a respected scientist/mathematician at Moscow State University who has already answered these questions to the satisfaction of his initially skeptical colleagues. Most of them are now believers, a few still refuse to believe (the usual diehards), and of course the western press has ignored Fomenko's work -- for obvious reasons when you read the book. The ones who perpetrated this chronology ruse have a lot to answer for. They are still with us. That's why this book is a well-kept secret.

I gave the book a 4-star rating because I was unable to check out some of his claims; those I checked were as he said. But if even 1/3 of his claims are true, this punches a big hole in what we think is our history, the meaning of western civilization, our educational process (for repeating the ruse as gospel), and the trustworthiness of the organization that perpetrated this ruse, well-intentioned or not.

This book relates to current research into a Young Earth paradigm, to John Keel's discoveries about our planet, and Fr Malachi Martin's insights (in his now out-of-print books). We are indeed sheep who are manipulated and kept ignorant -- for a reason. While knowing what these men have to say may be the "booby prize" (as in: 'what can you do with this knowledge?'), it will provide interesting reading. Didn't someone say: "...and the Truth will set you free."?? For you to judge if this book contains the truth.

Black Shoe Carrier Admiral: Frank Jack Fletcher at Coral Sea, Midway & Guadalcanal

Average customer rating:

Indispensable history
long time Pacific War buff
Scholarly Work
A 5-star book by a 5-star author
Overdue detailed study of a key commander in the first year of the Pacific War

Black Shoe Carrier Admiral: Frank Jack Fletcher at Coral Sea, Midway & Guadalcanal
John B. Lundstrom
Manufacturer: US Naval Institute Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

Military & Spies | Professionals & Academics | Biographies & Memoirs | Subjects | Books

General | Military | History | Subjects | Books

Naval | Military | History | Subjects | Books

ASIN: 1591144752

Book Description

An abundance of new evidence demanded this reevaluation of Frank Jack Fletcher, the "black shoe" admiral who won his battles at sea but lost the war of public opinion. A surface warrior -- in contrast to a "brown shoe" naval aviator -- Fletcher led the carrier forces that won against all odds at Coral Sea, Midway, and the Eastern Solomons. These and other early carrier victories decided the Pacific War not only because they inflicted crippling losses but also because they denied Japan key strategic positions in the region.

Despite these successes, by 1950 Fletcher had become one of the most controversial figures in U.S. naval history and was portrayed as a timid bungler who failed to relieve Wake Island in December 1941 and who deliberately abandoned the Marines at Guadalcanal.

In this book, author John Lundstrom recalls that Fletcher once remarked, "after an action is over, people talk a lot about how the decisions were deliberately reached, but actually there's always a hell of a lot of groping around," and notes that the goal of his study is to probe and explain the "groping around." Drawing on new material, Lundstrom offers a fresh look at Fletcher's decisions and actions. The first major reassessment in more than fifty years of the once-maligned naval officer, it provides a careful analysis of the effect of radio intelligence on decision-making in the carrier battles during the first nine months of the war in the Pacific. This new assessment is based on thousands of documents and massive dispatch files and personal papers that no historian has previously used.

Customer Reviews:

Indispensable history.......2007-10-14

I've belatedly gotten around to reading the FJF bio, and it's absolutely indispensable to understanding the first year of the Pacific War. With due respect for The Big E, Fletcher and Yorktown (CV-5) lugged most of the flattop mail in the six months after Pearl Harbor, and with his Guadalcanal experience, he became the leading practitioner of carrier warfare in the US Navy--and in the world.

If you don't read anything else, go to the Conclusion for an education in how history gets written, especially by Recognized Historians with agendas. As an example of expositive historiography it will stand alone for a long-long time.

long time Pacific War buff.......2006-10-25

This is a long overdue look at Adm Fletcher and his role in the critical first year of the war. I always found it odd that the victor of the three most important battles fought by our fleet in WWII was quickly shunted aside and treated with disdain by postwar historians. John Lundstrom does a fine job of exposing the biasis and backbiting within the navy at the time that resulted in Fletcher's downfall.
Mr Lundstrom is an eminent historian of this subject and has produced a first rate, readable and important work. It deserves a place with the best accounts of the wartime Pacific Fleet to appear in many years. It clearly shows Frank Jack Fletcher for the fine leader and fighter that he was.

Scholarly Work.......2006-10-24

Black Shoe Carrier Admiral is one of two excellent works to be published this year on WWII Pacific carriers, battles and the men who commanded them. John Lundstrom has obviously put a great deal of effort into setting the record straight on Admiral Fletcher and his contributions to our early victories in the Pacific. His work is well documented and thoroughly researched, and adds new sources that had not previously surfaced in World War II histories of that period.

The book demonstrates how Fletcher became the target of severe criticism for his actions, primarily by others who hoped to improve their own reputations or deflect criiticism as a result. Lundstrom pulls no punches, however, by describing both Fletcher's strengths and failings in the events of December 1941 to September 1942. He repeatedly demonstrates that misinterpretations of Fletcher's actions, particularly by Admiral King in Washington, resulted in Fletcher's eventual downfall. At the same time, he explains how some noted historians played down or ignored Fletcher's important contributions, that sealed the US victories at Coral Sea and, particularly Midway.

John Lundstrom's book is an excellent read for anyone wanting to know more of the early war in the Pacific. It is also an important source for any serious student of the period who wants to gain insight both to the actions of the war and the politics inside the Navy at that time.

A 5-star book by a 5-star author.......2006-10-21

"Black Shoe Carrier Admiral" is a 680-page, meticulously detailed accounting of Admiral Fletcher's leadership of U.S. carrier forces during the first year of World War II in the Pacific. Author John Lundstrom's fundamental thesis is that Fletcher has been unfairly maligned by many of his peers, by historians, and by a large segment of the U.S. Marine Corps for perceived errors of judgment or even failings of character during crucial battles in the Coral Sea, at Midway, and in the Solomons.

The author's painstaking research into primary sources largely ignored by other writers (i.e., memos, letters, and logs kept by those who were present with Fletcher during those battles, plus actual radio messages and dispatches sent by and to him aboard his various flagships) reveal a reasonable rationale for many of Fletcher's controversial decisions that mostly seem to have escaped his critics. It's not possible to adequately summarize them in a short review like this, but suffice to say that admirals sitting behind desks in Hawaii or Washington are poorly situated for grasping all of the important realities of a convoluted combat scenario occurring half a world away. Thus when Fletcher is condemned for failing to charge full speed ahead to engage the enemy when doing so would have totally exhausted the fuel in his escorting destroyers, making victory impossible and needless destroyer losses inevitable, he is chastised for failing to engage the enemy rather than praised for sensibly preserving America's meager fleet assets in the face of superior forces.

While there is much more to be said about this fine volume, it seems necessary in this forum to spend as much energy reviewing some of the other reviews as the book itself. It is patently unfair to the author for a reviewer to post a derogatory assessment of this or any book when he (a) apparently has not read it, or (b) does not seem to be in possession of factual information about it or the author, or (c) both. Such is clearly the case with some of the reviews found here, with the result that Black Shoe Carrier Admiral gets less than the five-star ranking that it clearly deserves. For example:

~One reviewer denigrates the book because it says relatively little about Fletcher after the 1942 carrier battles. He apparently didn't bother to read the book's subtitle: Frank Jack Fletcher at Coral Sea, Midway, and Guadalcanal.

~Another writer says Lundstrom has no documentation and there is no evidence to support the suggestion that USS Hornet captain Marc Mitscher sent his air group in the wrong direction at the Battle of Midway. That writer is apparently ignorant of an abundance of testimony from Hornet veterans, both aircrew and ship's company, that support exactly that (see Naval History magazine, Feb 2006, p. 48 for just one resource).

~Another devotes all of three lines in ALL CAPS to trumpet the claim that Fletcher was hated by the Marines. Such a brief review obviously provides no space for the writer to tell us his opinion of Marine Colonel Melvin J. Maas, who unlike legions of other fine Marines, actually knew and worked directly with Fletcher during the Solomons campaign. Col. Maas cited Fletcher for his exceptional ability as a naval tactician and superior quality as a task force admiral.

~Other one-star reviewers complain that Lundstrom is trying to write an academic history without being an academic himself (Lundstrom has a master's degree in military history), that his book makes claims unsupported by facts or documentation (the book has 82 pages of fine print citing documented sources, largely original, for every significant statement in the manuscript), and that Fletcher was responsible for the loss of three fleet carriers in 1942 (apparently the Imperial Japanese Navy, with superior aircraft, battle-experienced aircrews, and an awesomely deadly torpedo had nothing to do with it).

Such agenda-driven opinions do not serve Amazon's review process in the intended manner, and in this case present a grossly inaccurate portrayal of the book's content and its author's qualifications for writing it. "Black Shoe Carrier Admiral" is a magnificent achievement, representing years of dogged research and composition by an award-winning expert who is eminently qualified and experienced in this subject matter. To revile it as anything less without supporting facts and documentation (so important to Lundstrom's detractors) is simply irresponsible.

Overdue detailed study of a key commander in the first year of the Pacific War.......2006-10-01

This is an important book for any student of the Pacific War, because it corrects the largely unrefuted negative accounts of Admiral Frank Jack Fletcher's service as commander of the U.S. carrier task forces in the first three of the four carrier battles of 1942 (Coral Sea, Midway, and Eastern Solomons). In fact, there were only two carrier battles in history where he did not command the winning side - Santa Cruz in October 1942, and Philippine Sea in 1944.
Despite this record, Fletcher has been savaged by critics for allegedly failing to stand by the Marine garrison at Guadalcanal, and, since he headed the relief expedition to besieged Wake in January 1942, he gets blamed for that expedition's turning back as well (despite the fact that he was ordered to do so). That he won three carriers battles against superior forces never gets him the credit he deserves. This was due in part to a confluence of several negative factors. First, he was a "black shoe" admiral, and not an aviator - and aviators were furious that carrier task forces were being commanded by non-aviators in the early stages of the war. In their mind every mission he didn't send them on would have been a great success - and that's what they told his superiors. Second, he was a convenient scapegoat for other admirals - most notably Richmond Kelly Turner at Guadalcanal, and CinC Ernest King - when they either made mistakes (Kelly at Guadalcanal) or were dissatisfied with his failure to act more "offensively" in spite of the circumstances that prevented it, or counseled against it. Third, when the attacks started rolling in during the war and after, Fletcher did not respond to correct the record, in part because of two unfortunate circumstances. First, he lost his records for the first half of the war when the Yorktown went down at Midway. Second, when he left the Saratoga at Pearl after her torpedoing, he unexpectedly was not permitted to return for the change of command ceremony, and thus lost his records from June through September as well. And after the war, without these records to refute what was being said about him he repeatedly demurred when asked to review what was being written about the battles in which he took part. So the people who were writing that he'd been incompetent and reluctant to risk battle to the point of cowardice, and used hindsight to justify their opinions were largely refuted for half a century. Someone else (I cannot recall who, but Lundstrom does not mention it) has said that Fletcher in postwar interviews seemed confused and unsure what had happened when. Whether this was due to lack of records or old age, the writer said that Fletcher's appearance may have reinforced the common belief that he was not very bright, and was in over his head during the war. I thought I saw a reference to Fletcher's becoming senile as he aged (he did not die until 1973) and that probably did not help things - it is hard to see someone who is visibly impaired by old age as a sharp-eyed fleet commander.
Enter John Lundstrom. Lundstrom's painstaking knowledge of what the carrier commanders knew, and when they knew it, and when various participants were flat-out lying about what happened, or making incorrect assumptions (uniformly to Fletcher's detriment) makes clear than at numerous crucial points Fletcher consistently made the right decisions, at least based on what he knew at the time, and preserved the U.S. Navy's irreplaceable (at the time) carriers. Most readers are aware of Nimitz' order to Fletcher at Midway to only risk the carriers when he had the opportunity to inflict serious damage on the Japanese carriers, but it appears that Fletcher was under the same instructions at Guadalcanal. And with a far more dangerous mission in sub-infested waters within range of Japanese land-based bombers he made the decision to leave the forces at Guadalcanal temporarily uncovered at times to reduce the risk to the carriers. What this book makes clear is that at the time he was not aware - in part due to bad communications and in part due to Turner's errors, that he was leaving at a bad time. Of course both Turner and the Marines didn't see it that way, and there was nothing his presence could have done to avert the Savo disaster, but then they didn't know what he knew.
At bottom, the unpleasant truth was that Fletcher's carriers were incomparably more important than the Marines at Guadalcanal, and if he had to choose between abandoning the Marines (which he did not believe he was doing at the time he retreated to refuel - which he had to do at some point so as to be ready when the Japanese carriers showed up) or putting the carriers in substantial risk with no prospect to inflict equal damage on Japanese forces, the carriers won. Losing Guadalcanal would have been a temporary setback. Losing the bulk of the carriers in the fall of 1942 would have been far worse. The Marines would disagree - and understandably still do - but had that been the decision (and Lundstrom makes clear that it was never that clear) that would have been the right decision. In the long run, the Marines depended on the carriers being there to stop the Japanese Navy when it showed up far more than they needed them to cover the unloading of supplies, and that was what Fletcher did. If he had lost the carriers covering Turner's delayed unloading of supplies, the Marines would have been dislodged when the Japanese Navy showed up, no matter how much supplies they had on hand.
Not everything Fletcher did was right, of course, but given that he was practicing a new form of naval warfare in which he had no experience (neither did anyone else, of course) and he won every battle he was engaged in, and preserved the Navy's carriers long enough to bridge the gap till the new carriers under construction reached the fleet, he deserves far greater credit for what he did.
The book also explain better his post-carrier command work. Once he was out of the South Pacific after the Saratoga was torpedoed, his days as a carrier commander were over - both King and to a lesser extent Nimitz were unhappy with what they perceived as a lack of offensive-mindedness, and he was relegated to a land-based commend on the mainland.
But Lundstrom also makes clear that that may have been where he was headed anyway. Having an admiral with no aviation experience command carrier task forces in early 1942 may have been unavoidable because there were no air admirals with sufficient seniority, but by the end of 1942 all the fliers who had started the war as captains (Mitscher as an example) were now rear admirals, and sufficiently senior to command carrier task forces. Fletcher, on the other hand, was now a vice admiral, too senior for a task force command, and with the wrong background to command the overall carrier fleet (despite his phenomenal failure at Midway, Mitscher did end up being the right man at the right time). Add to that that Fletcher did have a record of not seizing the initiative (although I don't think he can be faulted for doing so in the circumstances in which he operated) I really don't see that he would have remained with the carriers in any event. His record was precisely the opposite of the tactics that Mitscher would later employ to great success in early 1944. Again, it has to be said that Mitscher could afford to take risks with the forces available to him, and Fletcher could not. Had he played with fire the way the armchair admirals wanted him to, the benefits would have been minor, and the risks were incalculable.
In the end, if anyone deserves the credit for the way the U.S. carrier task forces successfully fought the first year of the Pacfic War, it has to be Fletcher, and I'm glad we finally have a book that explains this. Lundstrom is not neutral on the subject of Fletcher, but then neither has anyone else been, and this book helps to balance the account.
The only reason I give the book four stars instead of five is that Lundstrom's detail is sometimes overwhelming, and he not infrequently has sentences that are unintentionally cryptic, where it's hard to tell what exactly he is trying to say. It is also clear that he is an advocate for Fletcher, and while I applaud that because it helps balance the record, this is an analysis of what Fletcher did and why and why his detractors are or are not wrong. A five star rating would be appropriate if it were a balanced account of what happened. But that book is not yet possible, because no one had done the homework to see whether the attacks on Fletcher were justified. That has now been done, and we can now see what the next generation of naval scholarship makes of this stage of the war. For example, I am particularly interested in reassessments of what King and Nimitz thought about Fletcher - Lundstrom seems to be not entirely sure, and while that it perhaps not needed in this book, to get the whole picture, that needs to be analyzed further. There were a lot of politics going on in Washington, and perhaps Pearl as well, and those need to be taken into account.

Greek Colonisation: An Account Of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas: Volume 1 (Mnemosyne, Bibliotheca Classica Batava Supplementum)

Average customer rating:

Greek Colonisation: An Account Of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas: Volume 1 (Mnemosyne, Bibliotheca Classica Batava Supplementum)

Manufacturer: Brill Academic Publishers
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

General | Architecture | Professional & Technical | Subjects | Books

General | Ancient | History | Subjects | Books

General | Europe | History | Subjects | Books

General | World | History | Subjects | Books

General | Interior Design | Home & Garden | Subjects | Books

All Titles | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books
ASIN: 9004122044

Book Description

The 2-volume handbook is dedicated to one of the most significant processes in the history of ancient Greece - colonisation. Greeks set up colonies and other settlements in new environments, establishing themselves in lands stretching from the Iberian Peninsula in the west to North Africa in the south and the Black Sea in the north east. In this colonial world Greek and local structures met, influenced and enriched each other. The handbook brings together historians and archaeologists, all world experts, to present the latest ideas and evidence. The principal aim is to present and update the general picture of this phenomenon, showing its importance in the history of the whole ancient world, including the Near East. The work is dedicated to Prof. A.J. Graham.

Book Description

The area from the Balkans to the Caucasus is often seen as a zone of timeless conflict, a frontier region at the meeting place of mutually antagonistic civilizations. But in this pathbreaking work, Charles King investigates the myriad of connections that have made the Black Sea more of a bridge than a boundary, linking religious communities, linguistic groups, empires, and later, nations and states. For some parts of the world, the idea of waterways as defining elements in human history is uncontroversial. Mention the Mediterranean or the South Pacific, and images of mutual influence come to mind. Those images come less readily for the Black Sea-a region that has experienced ethnic conflict, economic collapse, and interstate rivalries over the last two decades. But in the recent past, the idea of the Black Sea as a distinct unit was self-evident. From its formation some seven or eight millennia ago to the political revolutions and environmental crisis of the late twentieth century, the sea has been a zone of interaction - sometimes cordial, sometimes conflictual - among the peoples and states around its shores. To the ancient Greeks, the sea lay literally at the edge of the known world. In time, the growth of Greek trading colonies linked all the coasts into a web of economic relationships. In the Middle Ages, the sea was tied to the great commercial cities of Venice and Genoa. Later, the Ottomans used the region's resources to build their own empire. In the late eighteenth century, the sea was opened to foreign commerce, and the seacoasts were part of a genuinely global system of trade. After the collapse of the Russian and Ottoman empires, the coastline was carved up among a number of newly formed nation-states, with each asserting a right to a piece of the coast and a section of the coastal waters. Today, efforts to resurrect the idea of the Black Sea as a unified region are once again on the international agenda. Based on extensive research in multiple languages, this book is an indispensable guide to the history, cultures, and politics of this fascinating sea and its future at the heart of Europe and Eurasia.

Customer Reviews:

Uninspiring.......2006-11-02

Although well enough written it failed to address the importance of the Black Sea to Eurasian mytho-history as well as it might have. By skittering from period to period it left this reader wanting more about the essential place of the sea. An analytical approach would have been more effective. And by relegating only a small space to the creation of the Black Sea at the end of the last Ice Age and its place in the Flood myths that grew up around this the book failed to really place it ideologically.

Not a bad book but overall disappointing for this reader.

However, I would recommend this book as a fair introduction to the Black Sea and its history...but I was hoping for a more perceptive read.

An Outstanding Work.......2004-07-18

Charles King combines meticulous research with engrossing storytelling to produce a work that is at once intellectually rigorous and readable. Ambitious in its scope, the book traces the history of the Black Sea from the time of Greek trading colonies to the modern regional powers and environmental issues that characterize the sea and the states and peoples that surround it today. Not limiting itself to a narrow analysis, The Black Sea puts this region into a global perspective, and is a valuable read for anyone who is interested in this important part of the world, or in the past and future of regional confrontation and cooperation.

Average customer rating:

Takes a while to get started
Chimamanda Adichie's comments on Unburnable
A Must Read
Not a Fluff Read!
Long Story Short

Unburnable: A Novel
Marie-elena John
Manufacturer: Amistad
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

Contemporary | General | Literature & Fiction | Subjects | Books

Family Saga | Genre Fiction | Literature & Fiction | Subjects | Books

Caribbean | World Literature | Literature & Fiction | Subjects | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 0060837578
Release Date: 2006-04-11

Book Description

In this riveting narrative of family, betrayal, vengeance, and murder, Lillian Baptiste is willed back to her island home of Dominica to finally settle her past. Haunted by scandal and secrets, Lillian left Dominica when she was fourteen after discovering she was the daughter of Iris, the half-crazy woman whose life was told of in chanté mas songs sung during Carnival: Matilda Swinging and Bottle of Coke; songs about a village on a mountaintop and bones and bodies; songs about flying masquerades and a man who dropped dead. Lillian knew the songs well. And now she knows these songs -- and thus the history -- belong to her. After twenty years away, Lillian returns to face the demons of her past, and with the help of Teddy, the man she refused to love, she will find a way to heal.

Set partly in contemporary Washington, D.C., and partly in post-World War II Dominica, Unburnable weaves together West Indian history, African culture, and American sensibilities. Richly textured and lushly rendered, Unburnable showcases a welcome and assured new voice.

Customer Reviews:

Takes a while to get started.......2007-09-07

I took a little while for me to get into this book. I, quite frankly, didn't care about Lillian the main character until I was almost a third of the way through. The most dimensional and complex characters were of course Matilda and Iris. Once the novel's focus shift primarily to them, it becomes a page turner. If you feel like investing the time to get to the heart of this tale, give it a read.

Chimamanda Adichie's comments on Unburnable.......2007-07-23

Chimamanda Adichie (Half of a Yellow Sun, Purple Hibiscus: A Novel) had these wonderful things to say about UNBURNABLE in the book review section of London's Guardian newspaper on Saturday June 23, 2007:

"I read Marie-Elena John's novel Unburnable on the plane from New York to Copenhagen. I laughed aloud so often reading this wondrously intelligent book about Dominica and the United States and Africa, about gender, class and race, about love and sexuality, that the bespectacled man sitting next to me put his Wall Street Journal down and leaned over to see what the title was. He asked what it was about. I could have told him how it dealt honestly with issues without ever forgetting to keep character and soul as its centre, but instead I told him a tiny anecdote from the book about black women and thongs. And I much enjoyed his blush."

A Must Read.......2007-03-27

This is a great book to kick back in silence and just immerse yourself into suspense, deep thinking, and a few tears. I was just a little disappointed with the ending, but all in all this was a great read.

Not a Fluff Read!.......2007-01-14

I have been blessed enough in the last week to read not one but TWO great books this one being the greater. I will admit I wasn't wrapped up in the book by page two but by page ten I was all caught up in this story. Marie-Elena John is an EXCELLENT story teller. Her words are beautiful and her descriptions come off the page so effortlessly. I could've easily believed this was her third novel instead of her first. I laughed, I cried and I called all my friends and advised them to please read this book. I did not know anything about Dominica before picking up this novel and now I cannot learn enough. This book intrigued me to no end and I cannot wait to read future publishings from Marie-Elena John. This story is not in the least predictable and her knowledge on the subject matter is outstanding! If you are looking for a mind challenging novel that will shock and educate you at the same time then look no further.

Long Story Short.......2006-11-08

Interesting story, you have to continue to read this book and not stop or you might get side tracked if you put it down for too long.

Black Athena Writes Back: Martin Bernal Responds to His Critics

Average customer rating:

European mythology is not history ,it's PROPAGANDA
SEMITIC ATHENA, not black Athena
RACIST GARBAGE!!!
No More Western Arrogance
Not Literally Black!

Black Athena Writes Back: Martin Bernal Responds to His Critics
Martin Bernal , and Martin Bernal
Manufacturer: Duke University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Greece | Ancient | History | Subjects | Books

General | Europe | History | Subjects | Books

Egypt | Middle East | History | Subjects | Books

General | World | History | Subjects | Books

ASIN: 0822327171

Book Description

In Black Athena Writes Back Martin Bernal responds to the passionate debates set off by the 1987 publication of his book Black Athena. Producing a shock wave of reaction from scholars, Black Athena argued that the development of Greek civilization was heavily influenced by Afroasiatic civilizations. Moreover, Bernal asserted that this knowledge had been deliberately obscured by the rampant racism of nineteenth-century Europeans who could not abide the notion that Greek societyâfor centuries recognized as the originating culture of Europeâhad its origins in Africa and Southwest Asia.
The subsequent rancor among classicists over Bernal’s theory and accusations was picked up in the popular media, and his suggestion that Greek culture had its origin in Africa was widely derided. In a report on 60 Minutes, for example, it was suggested that Bernal’s hypothesis was essentially an attempt to provide blacks with self-esteem so that they would feel included in the march of progress.
In Black Athena Writes Back Bernal provides additional documentation to back up his thesis, as well as offering persuasive explanations of why traditional scholarship on the subject remains inaccurate and why specific arguments lobbed against his theories are themselves faulty.
Black Athena Writes Back requires no prior familiarity with either the Black Athena hypothesis or with the arguments advanced against it. It will be essential reading for those who have been following this long-running debate, as well as for those just discovering this fascinating subject.

Customer Reviews:

European mythology is not history ,it's PROPAGANDA.......2007-07-28

Exactly, European Mythology is not history,it's white supremacist propaganda. We are all aware of Europeans & their weapons of mass deception. They don't have any credibility with the origanal peoples anymore & are loosing credibilty with their own people. The legendary lying lore of white superiority is over & if you can't handle the truth that your racist ancestors have been supressing & distorting for the last 600yrs,then you have only your self to blame for your ignorance & arrogance. Don'trust these colonizers of history & people. You can't even tell the truth about amerikkkan foriegn or domestic policy maybe that's why wilfully ignorant amerikkans still think that Saddam had something to do with the 911 attacks. We can't trust a historical liar who can't acknowledge the truth. They can't even admit that racism and white priviledge is alive & well & that the legacy has been preserved in amerikkkas institutions wich still haunts us today. Europeans CAN NOT BE TRUSTED PERIOD !

SEMITIC ATHENA, not black Athena.......2006-01-14

That's right. The Egyptians and Phoenicians were Semitic/Hamitic,
NOT negroid. Egypt was only breifly ruled by negroid peoples at the invasion of the southern Nubians. Anybody who knows anything about the Ancient Hellenes, knows that they learnt a vast amount from the Egyptians and Phoenicians. I mean are language via Latin and Greek is related to the Phoenician alphabet via Egypt's...Duh!

If this author is criticizing a Eurocentric archetype, than he should equally criticize his afrocentric archetype. Greek culture, though it was heavily benefited from Asia and Africa is neither Euro or Afrocentric....it is Ancient Hellenic. We are projecting inept models and types on the Ancient Greeks!!!!!!!

Unless any of you people have studied a history book, Western Civilization is not apart of Ancient Greek Civilization, they are seperate. Furthermore what is wonderous about the Greeks is that they severed themselves from Asian/African cruelty and theocratic madness to form their own 'UNIQUE' culture in the first place!!!

Greece was not governed by a system religion or priestly caste which retained all the knowledge from the common man. THIS IS THE TRUE REBELLION AND MIRACLE IN HISTORY: THAT THE GREEKS WERE ABLE TO GROW FROM AND THEN REBEL AGAINST THE STERILE, THEOCRATIC CULTURES OF ASIA AND AFRICA TO FORM SOMETHING TOTALLY NEW!

RACIST GARBAGE!!!.......2005-06-16

It is funny reading the five-star reviewers. They have the least amount of knowledge in the field of classics, and yet they can make claims like the "Greeks learned everything in the science from the Egyptians who had mastered all of science first". Really? As I classics major myself who studied both the Greek as well as the Near Eastern histories I can assert that Greece absorbed very little from Egypt; and moreover, Greeks via the Hellenistic Empire of Alexander influenced Egypt far more. Bernal claims that the period of Egyptian involvment in Greece was during the proto-greek stage of the Myceneans, and the dark age that soon followed, which by the way is the most inconclusive period in Greek history. Yet, Bernal, a "scholar" not even trained in the Classics, can claim that this is obviosly because of western ignorance and rascism, that chooses to hide this shameful history. He claims that the Hyskos were a semitic people that invaded the Aegean region in time lending the Greeks their culture etc. First, the Hyskos where a minor group who are only mentioned in respect to Israelite history as they both are said to have entered Egypt at the same time. Bernal leaves out the fact that Egypt and the entire Levant was invaded by "Sea People" who originated form Ionia and the Aegean Islands and were the remnant of the Mycenean Age Homer wrote about. These Sea People devestated Egypt and the Levant, and actually forged colonies. The Egyptians named them the Peleset, who later are known as the Philistines. However they are Myceneans.
Further, Egypt was a theocracy with very little to offer the world in the sciences. The great breakthroughs came in the Classical and Hellenistic Age where Astronomy and Calculus flourished to name a few. Prior to this period the only other notable contributions came from the Babylonians in Mesopotamia.

Furthermore, SEMITIC PEOPLE ARE CAUCASIAN AS WELL.

Meaning Babylonians, Assyrians, Hebrews, Hyskos, Sumerians, and most likely Egyptians, a fact that can be seen in the present day inhabitants. While Arabic has been absorbed, this does not mean the aboriginal inhabitants have been erased. Furthermore, Bernal claims these eurocentric view is centered on a Greco-Roman model of western civilization; however western scholars are first to point out the contributions of other middle eastern peoples, like the the Mesopotamians, the Hittite, and the Persian. The latter two spoke indo-european by the way, in the midst of the so-called "black" semitic language he so readily attempts to usurp. In fact the word Arryan is the derived from the word Iran, as it literally mean the "land of the Arryans". Caucasians do not dwell soley in western Europe; in fact it might be better for these Afrocentric revisionists to expand their propaganda to calibrate for the entire Caucasian world which stretches into a Eurasian model going as far as the Russian steppes and Iranian peripheries.
Furthemore, this idea of Egypt as black is derived on the premise of non-european otherness, where because someone is not European it automatically means they are not white, and because they are not white that natuarally means they fall into the black camp. The whole train of though is ludicrous.

No More Western Arrogance .......2005-01-19

In Black Athens Bernal argued that Greek history had been written when racism was dominating Europe. The origins of "super", "pure" races had to be super and pure. We're still under the influence of this racist history. In the opening ceremony of 2004 Athens Olympic games, the NBC speaker had said "now the sport is returning to where it originated", as if there was no sport elsewhere in the world. European civilization advanced our world, and its origin Greece started everything from nothing. This is the idea Bernal criticizes.
But Can you name a civilization which didn't take from others? Building a civiliziation is all about trading ideas. But we were given the impression that Greeks created philosophy, art, mathematics and everything else out of nothing.
But didn't Phthogoras study in Egypt? Didn't Phoenicians invent the alphabet and give it to the Greeks? While even Herodotus mentions Egyptians colonizing Greece, how can we not appreciate Bernal's Black Athens and his this reply? Sure few of us have the sophistication to evaluate his and his opponents' evidence. But Bernal has a rock solid thesis which makes perfect sense. 19th and 20th centuries were the ages of positivism where there was a pure science (physics), where there were pure races. White race was drunk of its supremacy over blacks, native Americans, Indians and was justifying its ruthless colonization with the theory of evolution. Of course when the origin of Europe had to be pure, not contaminated by "backward" African Egyptians, and Semitic Phoenicians and Asians. This was the European-Western arrogance and it still exists today (e.g. current US policy in Iraq, EU Christian Democrats' statements against Turkey's EU membership). The truth is, Greece learned from Egyptians and Phoenicians, contributed to it, and gave it to the world.

Not Literally Black!.......2003-12-05

People may dislike Bernal's writing style, but that doesn't mean they should ignore his ideas.

By naming his books "Black Athena" Bernal doesn't mean that AthenaÑthe symbol of the Athenians and their culture, which we call Greek cultureÑwas imagined as black. More likely he believes she was a light mediterranean brown. Even the famous classicist Bernard Knox (a professor who wrote introductory essays to Robert Fagel's translations of The Illiad and Odyssey) conceeds this point in his ironic essay collection "The Oldest of the Dead White European Males" when he politely describes Greeks as an olive colored people.

Bernal's use of black in "Black Athena" refers to the historical misconception of her skin color by Romantics, Racists, and ImperialistsÑ who were not necessarily the same people! It also refers to the poetically and politically motivated misunderstanding of the historical origins of Greek myth, culture, and language. Not to say that Athena wasn't a Greek Goddess but rather that Greek ideas of Gods and Nature have significant (and uncredited) roots in more ancient civilizations (whether Egyptian, Sumerian, or more broadly Afro-Asiatic).

Bernal is attempting to undermine the false popular idea (especially among people who specialize in the study of the Greco-Roman Classics) thatÑ poetically speakingÑ Greek culture just sprang out of the ground like Cadmus' dragon teeth. Oh wait, no; actually, that myth tells of how a Phonecian, who we classify as Afroasiatic, brought literacy to the Greeks. Other ancient Greek sources attest to having recieved the basic tools of Greek Culture from their neighbors, why should we disbelieve them? Then there's etymology...

Of course, Afroasiatic roots do not detract from the genius of Greek theater, literature, and philosophy! That would be like saying Newton was an idiot because he didn't invent numbers. That would be like saying Shakespeare was worthless because he didn't create the theater, because he learnt from the literary examples of Geoffery Chaucer, Christopher Marlow, and Ben Johnson, because the subject matter of his plays were shaped by thousands of years of preceeding history, and because his plots were not original.

Clearly parents have a large role in the raising of children, but posterity does not praise parents for their childrens accomplishmentsÑ not with great artists, scientists, or statesmen. Though they lay the foundations of a child's moral, literary, and technological culture, what is built on those foundation is not their own. Ultimately Shakespeare's father was not Shakespeare, but who would believe that Shakespeare's family had no influence on his intellectual development? Likewise, using and improving the brilliant ideas of neighbors and ancestors does not rob scientific progress or artistic excellence of value. Is it more important that an idea is perfectly original? none are, or that it is good? Cultural innovators keep their worth when credit is given where credit is due, and their supporters have their importance recognized too.

Book Description

Scythians and Greeks focuses on the ancient history of the northern Black Sea region: a major "new frontier" of Classical studies. The book presents a series of engagements with key themes bearing on cultural interactions within the region, from archaic Greek colonial settlement (approx. sixth century BC) down to the region's inclusion within the Roman imperial system (first century AD). By bringing together contributors from Russia, Ukraine and Georgia, the book makes available material and ideas which are either wholly new or known only to a very limited circle of specialists. The particular focus is on the relationships which developed, in peace and war, between the local peoples of the region (conventionally termed "Scythians") and the cultures of the classical Graeco-Roman world.

Wealth, Aristocracy and Royal Propaganda Under the Hellenistic Kingdom of the Mithradatids in the Central Black Sea Region of Turkey (Colloquia Pontica) (Colloquia Pontica)

Average customer rating:

Wealth, Aristocracy and Royal Propaganda Under the Hellenistic Kingdom of the Mithradatids in the Central Black Sea Region of Turkey (Colloquia Pontica) (Colloquia Pontica)
Deniz Burcu Erciyas
Manufacturer: Brill Academic Publishers
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

General | Ancient | History | Subjects | Books

Turkey | Asia | History | Subjects | Books

General | Europe | History | Subjects | Books

General | World | History | Subjects | Books
ASIN: 9004146091

Product Description

A rebellious kingdom on the margins of the great Roman Empire or a kingdom in pursuit of a wider sovereignity? In spite of its notorious political history under the reign of Mithradates VI (120-63 BC), the social and economic history of the Black Sea region constitutes an uncharted territory. This book is a first comprehensive study of the archaeological, literary, and numismatic evidence from the central Black Sea region of Turkey during the Hellenistic Period. The monetary policies of the Pontic cities, testimonial to regional unification under Mithradates and his political influence on neighbouring lands are studied in separate sections. The section on the discovery of a remarkable tomb at Amisos reveals the emergence of the Pontic cities early as the fourth/early 3rd century BC.

The Poems of Exile: Tristia and the Black Sea Letters

Average customer rating:

The Poems of Exile: Tristia and the Black Sea Letters
Ovid
Manufacturer: University of California Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Ancient | History | Subjects | Books

Romania | Europe | History | Subjects | Books

General | World | History | Subjects | Books

General | Poetry | Literature & Fiction | Subjects | Books

Ancient, Classical & Medieval | Poetry | Literature & Fiction | Subjects | Books

ASIN: 0520242602

Book Description

In the year A.D. 8, Emperor Augustus sentenced the elegant, brilliant, and sophisticated Roman poet Ovid to exile--permanently, as it turned out--at Tomis, modern Constantza, on the Romanian coast of the Black Sea. The real reason for the emperor's action has never come to light, and all of Ovid's subsequent efforts to secure either a reprieve or, at the very least, a transfer to a less dangerous place of exile failed. Two millennia later, the agonized, witty, vivid, nostalgic, and often slyly malicious poems he wrote at Tomis remain as fresh as the day they were written, a testament for exiles everywhere, in all ages.
The two books of the Poems of Exile, the Lamentations (Tristia) and the Black Sea Letters (Epistulae ex Ponto), chronicle Ovid's impressions of Tomis--its appalling winters, bleak terrain, and sporadic raids by barbarous nomads--as well as his aching memories and ongoing appeals to his friends and his patient wife to intercede on his behalf. While pretending to have lost his old literary skills and even to be forgetting his Latin, in the Poems of Exile Ovid in fact displays all his virtuoso poetic talent, now concentrated on one objective: ending the exile. But his rhetorical message falls on obdurately deaf ears, and his appeals slowly lose hope. A superb literary artist to the end, Ovid offers an authentic, unforgettable panorama of the death-in-life he endured at Tomis.

Books:

Books Index

Books Home

Recommended Books