Geological Reasons for the Oracle of Delphi

Textkit is a learning community- introduce yourself here. Use the Open Board to introduce yourself, chat about off-topic issues and get to know each other.
Post Reply
User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2037
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Geological Reasons for the Oracle of Delphi

Post by Lucus Eques »

I'm quite pleased, since my Structural Geology professor assigned us to read this article:

http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/ ... /34/10/821

Geology and Ancient Greece — ah, my favorite things combined. It's a great article; sorry, that's just the abstract. But I can send anyone the full PDF who wants it.

À propos, you'll see the frequent use of -genic as opposed to -genetic suffixes — Greeks in fact participated in the writing of this paper. See my latest post in the "Of Neologisms" thread in Learning Greek if you feel like helping me resolve this perplexing question.
L. Amādeus Rāniērius · Λ. Θεόφιλος Ῥᾱνιήριος 🦂

SCORPIO·MARTIANVS

Adelheid
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:58 pm
Location: Rhenen
Contact:

Post by Adelheid »

Does the article reinforce the research by de Boer, Hale and Chanton (New evidence for the geological origins of the ancient Delphic oracle), or is it a new theory?

Some info about De Boer's research can be found here
Last edited by Adelheid on Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Regards,
Adelheid
http://www.perispomenon.nl

User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2037
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by Lucus Eques »

They suggest benzene instead of ethylene, since ethylene hasn't be found in sufficiently high concentrations from the fault and would be unexspected from the bedrock geology, while benzene fits the marine carbonate shelf profile. Otherwise, yes.
L. Amādeus Rāniērius · Λ. Θεόφιλος Ῥᾱνιήριος 🦂

SCORPIO·MARTIANVS

Adelheid
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:58 pm
Location: Rhenen
Contact:

Post by Adelheid »

OK, thanks.

I will be visiting Delphi this year. Hope to be able to see that fault which, according to De Boer, is in plain sight.
Regards,
Adelheid
http://www.perispomenon.nl

Chris Weimer
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 561
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:34 am

Post by Chris Weimer »

Most classicists still ignore the theory.

Adelheid
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:58 pm
Location: Rhenen
Contact:

Post by Adelheid »

And that means what? That the theory should not be taken seriously or that classicists should take the trouble to check the theory?
Regards,
Adelheid
http://www.perispomenon.nl

Chris Weimer
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 561
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:34 am

Post by Chris Weimer »

Neither. That the theory was checked out and pronounced DOA save by a few Classicists.

Adelheid
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:58 pm
Location: Rhenen
Contact:

Post by Adelheid »

Chris Weimer wrote:Neither. That the theory was checked out and pronounced DOA save by a few Classicists.
Could you please provide sources for this? DOA no less. I would like to know on what grounds most classicists arrived at that conclusion.

Thanks!
Regards,
Adelheid
http://www.perispomenon.nl

User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2037
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by Lucus Eques »

Likewise.
L. Amādeus Rāniērius · Λ. Θεόφιλος Ῥᾱνιήριος 🦂

SCORPIO·MARTIANVS

Chris Weimer
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 561
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:34 am

Post by Chris Weimer »

Littleton, C. Scott. "The Pneuma Enthusiastikon: On the Possibility of Hallucinogenic "Vapors" at Delphi and Dodona." Ethos 14.1 (1986): 78.

I'll have to find links to recent rebuttals, as I do not have them on me.

Adelheid
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:58 pm
Location: Rhenen
Contact:

Post by Adelheid »

Chris Weimer wrote:I'll have to find links to recent rebuttals, as I do not have them on me.
Yes, please, because an article from 1986 doesn't really count as a rebuttal for an article from 2001 ('New evidence for the geological origins of the ancient Delphic oracle (Greece)', Geology; August 2001; v. 29; no. 8; p. 707–710).

I am really curious why it would have met with rebuttal. It seems to reinforce the textual evidence for the Delphic oracle.

So please, links.
Regards,
Adelheid
http://www.perispomenon.nl

Post Reply