Odysseus's Return From the Trojan War Dated

srothroc writes "Scientists have used astronomical data from the Odyssey to attempt to pinpoint the time of Odysseus's return from his eponymous journey after the Trojan War. From the article: 'The scientists then searched for potential dates that satisfied all these astronomical references close to the fall of Troy, which has over the centuries been estimated to have occurred between roughly 1250 to 1115 B.C. From these 135 years, they found just one date that satisfied all the references — April 16, 1178 B.C., the same date as the proposed eclipse.""

Re:phew..

[srothroc]

Well, I thought it was interesting, considering the whole "mythical" quality of the story. Don't forget that people doubted Troy was real, let alone the Trojan War, until relatively recently. With the additional verification of other (astronomical) elements of the epic as well as the phenomenon that marked his return, it lends more credence to the story as a whole as well as the existence of Odysseus himself.

What other "myths" could be somewhat verified in this manner?

As far as other myths go, don't forget that a lot of people claim that Jesus was an actual person, but in an era that had an extensive bureaucratic system and census, no record was ever made of him, and he was much, much more recent than Odysseus...

Re:phew..

[techno-vampire]

Well, I thought it was interesting, considering the whole "mythical" quality of the story.

If you want to be accurate, the Trojan War is a legend, not a myth. A legend starts as a true story handed down by word of mouth, and gradually gathers additional details, incidents and other accretions before finally being written down. Behind every legend is a core of truth if you can but find it. The Voyage of the Golden Fleece, as an example, probably started out as the story of a trading and raiding expedition to the Black Sea.

A myth is an invented story created to explain how things came to be, or illustrate a moral or religious point. Thus, the myth of Persephone having to spend six months out of every year in the Underworld was an attempt to explain the changing of the seasons.

Re:Are they going to look for Atlantis next?

[ResidntGeek]

But for a story to have its roots in an event from which it is separated by several centuries in which there was no such thing as writing ... well, why not just announce that you've found Atlantis? That kind of announcement would have pretty much the same relationship between myth and historicity.

Oh, come on, that's not fair. The Mycenaean and Hellenic peoples were two ends of the same culture, and the Greek Dark Age was only, what, four or five centuries long? It's really not that implausible that the story could have been preserved that long (at the most, remember - no telling when in the dark age Homer composed), especially given that it was regularly memorized in its entirety by students in the Hellenic period. Atlantis is a random children's story that got lost, then blown out of proportion. Not the same thing.

Re:Are they going to look for Atlantis next?

[Petrushka]

That is true; I had seen another article earlier today, which didn't mention the bit about the fact that it was a new moon. So that part of the story is new to me, and it does mitigate my annoyance quite a bit.

I'm not very convinced, though. The other references they draw on are much more problematic: it has been known for a loooong time that the internal chronology of the Odyssey is a complete mess. For that reason I wouldn't put any stock in the bit about

Odysseus is told to watch the Pleiades and late-setting Bootes and keep the Great Bear to his left. Next, five days before the supposed eclipse, Odysseus arrives in Ithaca as the Star of Dawn -- that is, Venus -- rises ahead of the sun.

Still, the new moon thing is of interest. Not enough to convince me, but enough to get me to actually pay attention to their findings if I ever manage to find out where they're publishing them.

Re:phew..

[Moridineas]

If you want to be accurate, the Trojan War is a legend, not a myth. A legend starts as a true story handed down by word of mouth, and gradually gathers additional details, incidents and other accretions before finally being written down. Behind every legend is a core of truth if you can but find it. The Voyage of the Golden Fleece, as an example, probably started out as the story of a trading and raiding expedition to the Black Sea.

Bunk. Behind every legend is a core of truth if you can but find it. -- is that supposed to be like "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur" (that which is said in Latin sounds profound).

There is a reason the stories--myths and legends--of ancient greece are collectively called "Greek Mythology"--they are so intertwined as to be one. The distinction is largely meaningless.

I mean, by your standard, what do you do, go through each story and take a stab in the dark the story was based on something real or not? You hypothesis that Jason and the Argonauts is based on actual events while Persephone was just made up is a fine one--it's interesting, but it's a total guess, thousands of years after the fact at that!

What about myths about Heracles? Fighting with Gods, doing impossible things, yet possibly based on a real person, so is that a myth or a legend? You state that a myth is "an invented story created to explain how things came to be." Pillars of Hercules? The myth goes that massive land structures were put into place by Hercules. Is heracles a myth or legend? Or he is both?

No, there is not a "core" of truth behind every legend. Sure, some stories might be based upon actual events, some myths too. All--no.

A myth is an invented story created to explain how things came to be, or illustrate a moral or religious point. Thus, the myth of Persephone having to spend six months out of every year in the Underworld was an attempt to explain the changing of the seasons.

Completely arbitrary ... If the people telling and hearing the stories believes in all of their realities, your point is irrelevant. Do you think during the high classical age that your average hellene sat around saying "Ah, well I'll pray to Heracles for xyz, realizing that the stories of his accomplishments are based upon real events, and I'm also fully aware that Zeus is just made up to explain thunder" (or whatever).

In the year 5028...

[Anonymous Coward]

Resurrection of Dinosaurs Dated. Scientists have thoroughly examined the fashion styles of individuals in the documentary Jurassic Park, and have dated the first reincarnations of dinosaurs to approximately 1700 A.D.

Re:phew..

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, you forgot about the record of the execution by hanging of a guy named vaguely like him about a decade after his presumed death for wizardry. Not to mention the extensive writings of his life all written at least a couple of generations after his presumed death! I mean with evidence like that who could reasonably doubt that Jesus ever existed, son of God or not? It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside to think that all (except a few heretics) of modern scholars and historians accept his historicity as a fact!

Actually there is extensive evidence in Roman writings of both his existence in life and death by crucifixion.
If you discount evidence for other historical figures in the same manner you are that of Jesus, then there is no credible evidence for the existence of Julius Ceasar or Nero, amongst a host of others.

Re:phew..

[Anonymous Coward]

"denying his existence is a bit absurd"

Why so? There are absolutely no uncontested sources of Jesus' existence. On the contrary, the fact that christian writers felt it was needed to falsify the works they copied to include references to Jesus is suspect.

Re:Are they going to look for Atlantis next?

[nicomachus]

sfsp said:

"There is evidence of significant historical details being preserved in oral tradition. This might be one example."

Maybe, but I'd like to see exactly what texts in the Odyssey the authors get their numbers of days from. For example, Homer most certainly does not say "Mercury was in retrograde motion 34 days before" or anything like it. The authors instead rely on a story about the god Hermes (= Roman Mercury, but of course identified by the Greeks with the planet Mercury) going from west to east and then back from east to west. We need to supply a lot of interpretation to see this as a reference to an episode of retrograde motion (i.e. relative east-to-west motion with respect to the background of fixed stars).

For the inner planets, and especially Mercury, you can't directly observe an entire east-to-west (or west-to-east) swing, since in the middle the planet's too close to the sun to be observed. What you actually see is (1) planet visible in the morning, before the sun, (2) planet appears closer to sun on successive mornings, (3) planet no longer visible for a succession of days, (4) planet visible in the evening, just before sunset, (5) planet moves farther from the sun on successive evenings, (6) planet moves back towards the sun on successive evenings, (7) planet no longer visible for a while, (8) planet visible in the morning just before the sun, (9) repeat. To get a reference to this out of a story about Hermes delivering a message to someone in the west and then coming back requires some genuine interpretive argument.

It may well be that the authors of the article (i.e. Magnasco and Baikouzis, the authors of the article discussed in the MSNBC article linked to this current thread) have supplied enough argument to make their case for this. However, I can't tell, because their article isn't available to me (it's in PNAS [pnas.org] for June 23, and my institution's online subscription only shows the June 17 issue as available. I'll check it out when it goes online.

Incidentally, the MSNBC summary appears to have been written by someone with little familiarity with naked-eye astronomy. And as others have pointed out, there's absolutely nothing surprising about a solar eclipse happening at the time of the new moon, since that's the only time it could possibly happen (but the fact that the proposed eclipse is located at new moon in the Odyssey may be evidence that, at the very least, someone somewhere along the line of transmission had actually seen a solar eclipse and remembered that it happened at the time of a new moon--a natural thing to remember for ancient Mediterranean societies, which used the moon as a short-range calendar).