Rare male ghost shark found by researchers in the Andaman Sea. Credit: David A. Ebert / Raffles Bulletin of Zoology
A new type of “ghost shark” has been found by researchers in the deep Andaman Sea near Thailand. This ghost shark is unlike any seen before with a big head, large shiny eyes, and feather-like fins.
The newly found creature is known as a Chimaera supapae. It belongs to a group of ancient fish called Chimaeriformes, which are far-off relatives of sharks and rays.
The discovery was detailed in a scientific paper published on March 6th in The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology.
Chimaera are not commonly found in this part of the world, according to David Ebert, the main writer of the study and head of the Pacific Shark Research Center at San José State University in California.
Chimaeras are found at depths below 1,640 feet
Chimaeras live in the deep sea, dwelling along the slopes and ridges of the ocean floor. They prefer depths below 1,640 feet (500 meters), where the water is dark. These chimaeras feed on creatures such as crustaceans, mollusks, and worms that dwell on the ocean floor.
#Scientists have discovered a never-before-seen species of "ghost #shark" with a massive head, giant, iridescent eyes and feathery fins in the depths of the Andaman #Sea off the coast of #Thailand. pic.twitter.com/21PPqka0Gh
There were previously only fifty-three known types of chimaera worldwide, according to Ebert. Their habitat in the deep sea makes them hard to detect, especially in the Andaman Sea, where some areas plunge to depths of over 14,500 feet (4,400 meters).
Chimaeras are also known as “ghost sharks” and “ratfish” due to their large, shiny eyes and slender bodies resembling rats. Some types of chimaera can reach lengths of up to 6.6 feet (2 meters).
A different male chimaera found dead in the Andaman Sea
During a deep-sea survey project in 2018, scientists stumbled upon the body of an immature male chimaera. This discovery occurred during a bottom trawl in the Andaman Sea at depths ranging from 2,533 to 2,543 feet (772 to 775 meters) beneath the surface.
The researchers distinguished it as a new species due to its massive head with a short snout and its large, oval eyes, which make up more than 32 percent of its total head length.
This newfound species belongs to the shortnose chimaera group, measuring 20 inches (51 centimeters) long with broad pectoral fins. Ebert suggests the creature’s feather-like frills may help in navigating rocky bottoms.
The large, shimmering green eyes of C. supapae help it navigate the dark waters of the deep sea. Its dark-brown skin lacks any noticeable patterns, and it has a dorsal spine on top of its head.
Moreover, this species was named supapae in honor of the late Supap Monkolprasit, a scientist from Thailand who dedicated her life to studying cartilaginous fishes.
The name Chimaera, referring to the genus, originates from Greek mythology, in which it represents a mythical creature with three heads: a lion’s head at the front, a goat’s head extending from its back, and a serpent’s tail ending with the head of a snake.
Archaeologists found the oldest canoes in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Italy. Credit: Juan F. Gibaja / PLOS One
Researchers found five old canoes deep in the Mediterranean Sea. These were used over seven thousand years ago by people living near Rome. Back then, these canoes were used both for fishing and transportation.
These discoveries came during ongoing digs by archaeologists off the coast of Italy. They were exploring a place called La Marmotta, an ancient settlement now submerged underwater. The findings were detailed in a study released on Wednesday in the journal PLOS One.
The canoes, made from different types of wood such as alder, oak, poplar, and European beech, were dated back to between 5700 and 5100 B.C.
Oldest ever boats found in Mediterranean
These boats are the oldest ever discovered in the Mediterranean, according to a statement.
Mario Mineo, an archaeologist and director coordinator at the Museum of Civilization in Rome, explained that one of the smallest boats was likely used for fishing.
The two largest ones were nearly 36 feet long and 4 feet wide. Mineo thinks they might have been used for trade, especially because the Arrone River made it easy to reach the Tyrrhenian coast.
The boat builders of the time were highly skilled. They used what we call “advanced construction techniques” to make these vessels. One important thing they did was add transverse reinforcements. This made the canoes’ hulls stronger and more durable.
Niccolò Mazzucco, a senior researcher at the University of Pisa, pointed out that the construction methods and materials used show how smart these ancient boat builders were.
They knew a lot about making boats and navigating the waters. This is important because it proves how clever ancient people were at relying on nature to build things that helped them move around efficiently, according to Mazzucco.
Vessels equipped with sails or outriggers
The researchers believe these boats might have had sails or outriggers, which are support floats. Mazzucco mentioned that they found three T-shaped wooden objects near the canoes. These objects had holes in them, which were probably used to attach ropes for sails or other boat-related materials.
Mazzucco emphasized that these advancements hint at a deeper understanding of maritime technology and navigation. It seems these boats were ready for long journeys.
However, there’s still a lot we don’t know. We’re not sure exactly what kinds of boats they were, how they were built, or how the canoes and T-shaped wooden objects were connected—whether with ropes, wooden pegs, or something else.
Mazzucco also made mention of the builders’ cleverness in using different types of wood. They knew which trees were best for making these dugout canoes. This is different from other Neolithic sites, where the same tree species were used for all boats.
A detectorist with a faulty metal detector has unearthed England’s biggest ever gold nugget. Credit: James St. John. CC BY 2.0/flickr
A metal detectorist in Shropshire, UK, who was an hour late for the dig and had a faulty metal detector, has unearthed England’s largest ever gold nugget, worth £30,000 ($38,000).
Richard Brock, 67, joined an organized outing on farmland in the Shropshire Hills last summer, arriving late after a three-and-a-half-hour drive from his home in Somerset. He also reportedly had an issue with his metal detector and so had to use an older machine that was not working to its fullest function.
Richard Brock, a veteran metal detectorist has found England's largest gold nugget in Shropshire despite arriving late with faulty equipment. Weighing 64.8g, the nugget, named Hiro's Nugget, is expected to fetch over £30,000 at auction.
“I actually arrived about an hour late, thinking I’d missed the action,” Brock, who has been metal-detecting for thirty-five years, told The Guardian. “Everyone there had [an] up-to-date kit and I bowled up with three old machines, and one of them packed in there…At first I just found a few rusty old tent pegs with this back-up detector, which had a fading screen display.”
Only twenty minutes later, Brock found an enormous 64.8 gram golden nugget buried at around 13 to 15 centimeters (5-6 inches) underground. The metal, which has been given the name Hiro’s Nugget, is now expected to go for at least £30,000 at auction and is thought to be the biggest gold find of its kind in England.
“The machine I was using was pretty much kaput—it was only half working,” Brock told The Guardian. “It just goes to show that it doesn’t really matter what equipment you use. If you are walking over the find and are alert enough to what might be lurking underneath the soil, that makes all the difference.”
Initially, Brock’s faulty detector only flagged a few rusty old tent pegs, but then the discovery was made. “I couldn’t believe it,” he told the BBC. “I was there only a matter of minutes and this treasure hunting expedition was supposed to last all day.”
The lucky finder was hastily surrounded by his fellow detectorists who started to scan the same patch of ground, hoping to repeat Brock’s success.
Buried gold nuggets have been discovered in England, Scotland, and Wales
Hiro’s Nugget was discovered on a site near the village of Much Wenlock. The site is believed to have been an old railway track, containing stone likely brought from Wales, an area known to be rich in gold.
Brock told The Guardian that research suggested the only bigger gold pieces found in the UK have been in Wales and Scotland. A nugget weighing 97.12 grams was unearthed in Anglesey/Ynys Mon, Wales, while the Reunion Nugget, at 121.3 grams, was found in Scotland in 2019.
Before this latest gold find, the previous record was held by a rock, weighing 54 grams, discovered in England. “We’re pretty confident it is the biggest found on English soil,” Brock, a retired cameraman, told The Guardian. “I’m going to split whatever it sells for with the land owner.”
The gold nugget will be sold by auctioneers Mullock Jones in a timed auction that runs until April 1st. The expected estimated price is £30,000 (approximately $38,000).
A military confrontation in Europe between NATO and Russia has become one of the most pressing geopolitical considerations since the war in Ukraine broke out. credit: Kārlis Dambrāns / flickr CC BY 2.0 DEED
The war in Ukraine has brought the military balance in Europe between Russia and NATO back to the forefront of geostrategic thinking.
After the end of the Cold War and the demise of the USSR, Eastern Europe’s geostrategic importance as a potential flashpoint for conflict declined considerably. However, Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and subsequent invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has again catapulted the security situation on NATO’s eastern flank to the top of the alliance’s list of priorities.
Although open warfare between NATO and Russia has thus far been avoided, the potential for such a conflict to ignite is no longer unthinkable. Consequently, determining the conventional military strengths of both sides has again become a crucial preoccupation for military analysts, as it once did during the Cold War.
Is a military clash between NATO and Russia over Europe imminent?
Geopolitical and military forecasting is a difficult business. Even the experts frequently get it wrong. The CIA, for example, wrongly predicted that Russian forces would quickly steamroll through Ukraine. It has been over two years since the initial invasion in February 2022, and Russia’s “special military operation” has thus far failed to produce the victory President Vladimir Putin expected.
Although there is a heightened risk for a military clash to occur between Russia and NATO, it is clear that neither side wants to duke it out over Europe in a conventional—or nuclear— battle.
The financial and military contributions made to Ukraine by NATO members have been issued cautiously to avoid escalating tensions with Russia to the point of open warfare. Ultimately, NATO allies have been willing to expend their finances and munitions stockpiles in support of Ukraine but not the lives of their soldiers.
For Russia’s part, it is hard to imagine that the Kremlin envisages success in fighting in a wider European theater after suffering such serious setbacks in Ukraine alone. Putin’s veiled threats to use nuclear weapons may seem escalatory, but they are intended to deter further NATO intervention rather than to invite a broader conflict.
General view of the meeting of the Foreign Ministry of Estonia at NATO on November 28, 2023. Estonian Foreign Ministry / CC BY 2.0 / Wikimedia Commons
World War III?
“If the iron dice must roll, may God help us,” remarked the German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg on the eve of the First World War. Neither Russia nor NATO wants to roll the iron dice. Even if the Kremlin aspires to absorb swathes of Eastern Europe into the Russian sphere of influence, this aim would be more realistically served by a strategy of hybrid warfare, which would seek to degrade NATO’s ability to resist below the threshold of open war.
With that being said, both sides have alluded to the possibility of a Third World War. Putin commented recently that the world is only “one step away from a full-scale third world war,” and Western officials have repeatedly warned that Russia will push further West into Europe if Ukraine is defeated.
This scenario would most likely transpire due to miscalculation more than anything else. For separate reasons, NATO and Russia have endeavored to keep this proxy war contained to Ukraine. However, a broadening of the conflict to the wider European continent might unfold as a series of unintended consequences.
The areas of most concern are the Baltics, the Black Sea, and Kaliningrad. The Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are the NATO members most vulnerable to any kind of Russian incursion. The Black Sea is the sole site of maritime conflict between Ukraine and Russia, but it is also bordered by several neighboring countries and is a hub for seaborne trade. Kaliningrad is essentially a Russian military exclave sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania.
A myriad of events, particularly at these crucial points, could spark a wider conflict. A stray missile landing in the Baltics, the sinking of a civilian ship in the Black Sea, or an embargo against Kaliningrad might all be enough to upend the fragile status quo.
With those not-so-cheerful thoughts in mind, let us turn our attention toward the military balance between Russia and NATO and the factors that might decide the outcome of a war in Europe.
A Wagner private military contractor in Bakhmut. Credit: CC BY 4.0 / Wikimedia Commons
Military spending
“Money is the artery of war,” the Russian Tsar Peter the Great once remarked. He was not wrong. War is an expensive endeavor, and the side that is able to spend the most money on its military can afford to buy and produce better weapons and equipment, the advantages of which are obvious.
Unsurprisingly, Russia has been increasing its defense expenditure to meet the demands of the war in Ukraine. Late last year, Putin approved large increases to defense spending with approximately thirty percent of fiscal expenditure now directed toward the military.
Russia has the third-biggest defense budget in the world. Last year, it amounted to roughly $108.5 billion. However, the combined defense budgets of NATO members are larger. The alliance benefits tremendously from US leadership with the United States spending $905.5 billion on defense last year, making it the world’s largest military spender.
Non-US NATO members spend considerably less. However, this is still a considerable amount. This year, European NATO allies are projected to spend a combined sum of $380 billion on defense.
NATO members are encouraged to spend two percent or more of their gross domestic product (GDP) on defense. Few have reached this target, a fact that greatly rankled former US President Donald Trump. However, eighteen NATO members are expected to hit the target this year. European NATO allies closest to Russia tend to spend the most on defense.
Map showing which European NATO allies meet the two percent minimum defense spending target. Credit: SDAFA / MapChart
Land, air, and sea
The traditional domains of warfare are land, air, and sea. This is where battles are physically fought between soldiers, tanks, aircraft, maritime vessels, and so on. By comparing the capabilities of Russia and NATO in these domains, we can formulate a clearer picture of military balance in Europe.
Quantitatively, NATO holds the advantage in the air and at sea. NATO and Russian land capabilities are closer in number at least in terms of the number of vehicles and artillery. As for the overall size of the militaries, the regular strength of the Russian armed forces is estimated to be about 1,320,000, whereas the total number of combined NATO forces is roughly 3,500,000.
Russia is purported to have 12,566 main battle tanks (MBTs) to NATO’s 12,408. Russia’s MBT is the T-90, whereas NATO militaries field a variety of models, the most notable being the American M1 Abrams, the British Challenger 2, and the German Leopard 2.
Russian military doctrine has long stressed the importance of artillery. The Russian military has about 6,575 self-propelled artillery pieces and 3,887 self-propelled rocket launchers. NATO has fewer with 4,532 artillery pieces and 3,272 rocket launchers.
Combined, NATO allies have more aircraft at their disposal with a total number of aircraft at 20,633 of which about 3,398 are fighter/interceptor planes. Russia can reportedly field 4,182 aircraft of which 773 are fighters/interceptors. The most advanced Russian jet is the SU-57, whereas, for NATO, it is the F-35 Lighting II.
At sea, NATO again has a quantitative advantage. The total number of Russian military maritime vessels is around 598, whereas NATO allies have a combined number of 2,151. Crucially, Russia only has one aircraft carrier, whereas the US has 11, the UK and Italy have two, and France has one, bringing the NATO total up to 16.
F-35 Lighting II. Credit: I’ll Never Grow Up / CC BY 2.0 / Wikimedia Commons
Nuclear weapons
The prospect of a nuclear war between Russia and NATO is an unsettling notion. Many military and defense experts concluded during the Cold War that a nuclear war was unlikely due to the mutually assured destruction (MAD) doctrine resulting in the annihilation of both sides in a nuclear exchange.
Nevertheless, Putin has used Russia’s nuclear arsenal as a posturing device to deter the West from deepening its involvement in Ukraine.
Russia’s nuclear arsenal is the largest in the world. Russia has 5,977 nuclear warheads. Three NATO members have nuclear weapons: the US, the UK, and France. The US has the most at 5,428, followed by France with 290, and the UK with 225.
There are two categories of nuclear weapons—strategic and tactical. Strategic nuclear weapons are capable of hitting targets at longer ranges and would likely be aimed at densely populated urban areas such as capital cities. Tactical nuclear weapons have shorter ranges and are generally expected to be used against military targets to shape the outcome of battles.
A strategic nuclear exchange would not likely occur in anything other than a case of extreme desperation, given the potential for MAD. The use of tactical nuclear weapons, however, is more feasible in the case of a massive conventional land war between NATO and Russia on European soil.
As noted by William Alberque of the International Institute of Strategic Studies, Russia views tactical nuclear weapons as providing a “comparative and asymmetric advantage over its immediate neighbors and the US and its allies.”
Moscow Victory Day parade. Credit: Michał Siergiejevicz / CC BY 2.0 / Wikimedia Commons
Numbers don’t tell the whole story…
Tallying up the numbers of various military capabilities provides a clearer picture of the means available to either side in a potential conflict. However, quantity alone does not decide the outcome of war. If that were the case, armies would be led by mathematicians rather than generals.
The war in Ukraine is a pertinent example of this. Russia enjoys a considerable quantitative advantage over Ukraine, but its military has thus far failed to achieve decisive results on the battlefield. Wars are as much about leadership, geography, weather conditions, innovation, troop quality, and training, as well as tactical, operational, and strategic brilliance, as they are about how much “kit” either side can bring to the fight.
With that in mind, here are just a few more considerations concerning a possible conflict between Russia and NATO in Europe:
The US is the most indispensable NATO ally. Other NATO members are often dependent on the US for core capabilities such as C4ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance). The US military has a sizeable presence in Europe, but if American reinforcements were prevented from reaching the continent at a crucial point in time, this could give Russia a window of opportunity.
As General Robert H. Barrow once commented, “Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics.” A military force can have all the shiny technology in the world, but if it is incapable of conducting the movement, supply, and maintenance of its forces, it will fail in battle. Russian logistics were disastrous in the opening stages of the Russo-Ukrainian War. NATO has fared better in recent operations, but it remains to be seen how the alliance would meet the logistical demands of a full-scale conventional war.
Willpower and morale matter. The Kremlin believes Russians have a greater propensity to tolerate the deprivations of war than Westerners and thus a stronger willpower to do what is necessary to win. This raises important questions, such as: would NATO allies act according to Article 5 and defend Baltic members if Russia attacked, and would European NATO members be willing to endure a war with Russia or seek an early diplomatic resolution?
US Department of Justice filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple. Credit: Ed-Uthman-MD, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 2.5
In a shocking move, the US Department of Justice (DOJ), backed by a total of 16 US state district attorneys along with the District of Columbia, filed on Thursday an antitrust lawsuit against tech giant Apple.
This unprecedented –for Apple in the US– legal challenge that Apple has to face accuses the popular company of monopolising the smartphone market. This is a move that could potentially have far-reaching implications for the company and consumers as well as the tech industry as a whole.
What is the issue
At the heart of the US lawsuit against Apple is the allegation on behalf of the American government that Apple has been engaged in anti-competitive practices for some time. The US government accuses Apple of trying to maintain its dominance in the smartphone market.
The DOJ also claims that the strategies that Apple has been employing have not only stifled competition in the market but also harmed consumers by limiting their choices significantly and driving up prices. This lawsuit truly represents one of the most significant antitrust actions against a tech company in recent years in America. It is also signalling a new, more robust effort by the US authorities to regulate the power of major mega-tech firms, like Apple.
Key allegations against Apple
The US government lawsuit describes in detail several ways in which Apple is said to have maintained its monopoly in the smartphone market.
Among these, we can find the allegation that Apple has been imposing contractual restrictions as well as fees that limit the functionality of third-party apps on iPhones. Additionally, Apple is being accused of selectively restricting access to critical points of connection between these apps and the operating system of the iPhones, known as iOS.
Such actions, the DOJ argues, degrade the functionality of apps or accessories that are not made by Apple, something that directly impacts consumer choice and innovation in the wider market.
US Department of Justice. Credit: flickr / Salticidae CC BY NC-SA 2.0
Additionally, the complaint against the tech giant highlights the control that the California-based company places over its App Store. Apple is known to be charging up to a 30 per cent commission on sales. This is a practice that has been at the centre of contention with app developers and competitors of the Android market alike. This practice, also known as the “Apple tax”, is seen now by the American authorities as a significant barrier to competition. As a result, developers are being forced to comply with Apple’s stringent rules or face exclusion from its important market.
It is also noted that earlier this month, the European Union fined Apple over €1.8 billion ($1.95 billion) for ”abusing its dominant position on the market for the distribution of music streaming apps to iPhone and iPad users through its App Store.”
Potential impact on consumers
The outcome of this landmark lawsuit could have profound implications for consumers in the near future. If the DOJ’s efforts are successful, we might see a more increased competition in the smartphone market. As with every other market, competition might end up leading to lower prices, more innovation, and greater choice for everyone in the market.
Additionally, it could pave the way for more third-party apps and services to operate more freely and efficiently on iOS. This could potentially finally break down the “walled garden” that Apple has been accused of creating around its ecosystem in the last decade.
As this legal battle unfolds, it will be closely watched by industry observers, competitors, and consumers worldwide.
A controversial and highly-criticized study which claimed that humans built a pyramid on Gunung Padang, Indonesia around 25,000 years ago has been retracted from the journal Archaeological Prospection after a “major error” was discovered.
The Gunung Padang Pyramid Study
In November last year, the study drew lots of media attention for its incredible claim that a mountain in Indonesia—Gunung Padang—is actually the world’s oldest pyramid constructed by ancient humans. However, many archaeologists and other experts were highly skeptical of the pyramid study, repudiating its claims.
According to the paper, Indonesia’s Gunung Padang pyramid did not form naturally. Instead, it was “meticulously sculpted” into its present structure between 25,000 and 14,000 years ago. If this thesis were accurate, it would mean Gunung Padang was thousands of years older than the world’s oldest pyramids, and the research team argued that this “suggests that advanced construction practices were already present when agriculture had, perhaps, not yet been invented.”
Several more unusual claims were also made, such as that there are “hidden cavities or chambers” at the site, and that the site itself seemed to have been buried multiple times “possibly to conceal its true identity for preservation purposes.”
Many other archaeologists were unconvinced by the claims of the Gunung Padang study, particularly as they would rewrite the history of the human race. Lutfi Yondri, an archaeologist at BRIN in Bandung, Indonesia, told Nature that his work has almost conclusively proven that people in the area resided in caves between 12,000 and 6,000 years ago, leaving no evidence of possessing the “remarkable masonry capabilities” apparently employed by people of the region thousands of years before them.
I am annoyed with the editors of Archaeological Prospection and the media and how it handles this Gunung Padang controversy
Nobody has gone and talked with local Indonesian archaeologists. None provide the correct date of the monument nor even stated it's not a pyramid /1 pic.twitter.com/1ZDFkRxqhh
Flint Dibble, an archaeologist at Cardiff University, UK, told Nature that the study used “legitimate data” but drew unjustified conclusions about Gunung Padang. For example, the research team used carbon dating, making the claim that “dating of organic soils from the structures uncovered multiple construction stages dating back thousands of years BC, with the initial phase dating to the Palaeolithic era.”
The team claims that soil samples taken from what they deem to be the oldest part of the “construction” date back 27,000 years. This could be true, but more archaeologists highlighted the fact that these soil samples showed no signs, such as bone fragments or charcoal, indicating human activity. This means that really all it is is really old soil.
These accuracy concerns eventually led to an investigation and subsequent retraction by Archaeological Prospection.
The Retraction
“The publisher and the Co-Editors-in-Chief have investigated these concerns and have concluded that the article contains a major error,” the journal explained in a retraction notice. “This error, which was not identified during peer review, is that the radiocarbon dating was applied to soil samples that were not associated with any artifacts or features that could be reliably interpreted as anthropogenic or ‘man-made.’ Therefore, the interpretation that the site is an ancient pyramid built 9,000 or more years ago is incorrect, and the article must be retracted.”
In reaction to the retraction, the authors said the decision was “unjust” and argued it had been “unequivocally established as man-made constructions or archaeological features, rather than natural geological formations,” in a statement posted on Facebook. “These layers are accompanied by numerous small portable artifacts, providing tangible evidence of their anthropogenic origin.”
Was the hypothesized Dorian invasion the cause of fundamental changes to late Bronze Age society in ancient Greece? Credit: Grant Mitchell / CC BY 2.0 / Wikimedia Commons
The Dorian Invasion is a historical and archaeological hypothesis that suggests a migration or invasion of the ancient Greek mainland by a group of people called the Dorians during the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age.
According to this theory, the Dorians, who spoke a Greek dialect, entered Greece from the north and displaced or assimilated the existing population. The date of the supposed invasion itself remains a point of debate, but some scholars place it at around 1100 BC.
The Dorian invasion theory is one of the most widely debated hypotheses in the study of early ancient Greek history. Late Bronze Age Greece and the collapse of Mycenaean civilization remain uncertain territory for scholars of history and archaeology.
The Dorian invasion theory
Proponents of the Dorian Invasion theory argue that this event caused a significant disruption in Bronze Age Greek civilization. They suggest that the Dorians played a role in the downfall of the Mycenaean civilization, leading to a period of decline and cultural regression known as the Greek Dark Ages. They point to evidence such as the destruction of certain palaces and changes in pottery styles to support their claims.
According to the historian Colin McEverely (1930-2005), “about 1200 [BC] the Achaean Greek and Hittite kingdoms were overthrown by the migrating barbarians… The Dorians, the northernmost of the Greek tribes, broke into the peninsula and methodically sacked the Achaean strongholds; they then took the sea and meted out the same treatment in Crete and Rhodes.”
Proponents of the Dorian invasion theory do not necessarily agree on the finer details beyond the broader hypothesis that the introduction of the Doric Greek dialect was due to an external influx of people called the Dorians. For example, one point of disagreement is whether the arrival of the Dorians was a violent invasion or a more peaceful migration.
Map showing the geographical distribution of ancient Greek dialects after the Dorian invasion supposedly took place. The dialect spoken in the broader Dorian region, excluding Doris itself, was previously believed to be Achaean. From Achaean, the dialects of Arcadocypriot and Aeolic are thought to have originated. However, Doric eventually replaced Achaean in southern Greece. Credit: Fut Perf / Public Domain / Wikimedia Commons
Truth behind a legend?
The first scholars to develop the Dorian invasion theory, mostly writing in the 19th century, derived their initial hypothesis from ancient Greek legends and myths. According to Classical Greek tradition, the Dorians took possession of the Peloponnesus during an event known as the Return of the Heracleidae.
According to the legend, the Heracleidae were the descendants of the hero and demi-god Heracles, who upon his death, were exiled from the Peloponnesus. They returned to the region under the leadership of Kresphontes, Temenos, Eurysthenes, and Prokles, who divided it into three regions.
Kresphontes took Messenia, Temenos took the northeast, and the twins Eurysthenes and Prokles took Laconia, becoming the first dual kings of Sparta. This account is recorded in sources such as Herodotus.
Heracles, wearing the coat of the Nemean, Lion approaches Prometheus. The Dorian invasion theory was initially derived from an ancient Greek legend about the descendants of Heracles. Credit: Christian Griepenkerl / Public Domain / Wikimedia Commons
Opponents of the Dorian invasion theory
The Dorian invasion theory is not without its detractors. In fact, the historian Dr. Owen Rees argues that the consensus among modern historians and archaeologists is that the hypothesis is wrong.
Critics argue that the evidence is insufficient to conclusively prove that a large-scale invasion ever occurred. They propose alternative explanations, such as internal social and economic factors, as the cause of the changes in Greek civilization during that time period.
The English historian and archaeologist Vincent Robin d’Arba Desborough (1914-1978) was highly critical of the theory. He wrote “If [invaders] remained and settled, why have they left no trace? Can one really suppose that they were so primitive as to leave no evidence, whether in some new custom or at the very least in some new artifact? If they moved on, where did they go? If they went back, why did they do so, leaving the good land which they could have occupied.”
A Greek journalist is on trial in an Athens court following a lawsuit by the Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, which accuses him of fabricating evidence in his attempt to prove that the Holy Fire in Jesus’s tomb does not ignite miraculously but through the use of matches.
Orthodox tradition holds that the Holy Fire happens annually on the day preceding the Orthodox Easter in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the Old City of Jerusalem. The blue light is said to have emitted within Jesus’ tomb, rising from the marble slab covering the stone bed believed to be that upon which Jesus’ body is to have been placed for burial.
Journalist Dimitris Alikakos is the man accused by the Patriarchate of Jerusalem of demeaning the tradition by spreading “fake news.”
Holy Fire ignites by a human hand
Alikakos claims that in his book ‘Redemption – About the Holy Light,’ he has gathered testimonies from people involved in the process of touching the light, such as guardians of the Holy Sepulcher and Patriarchs. These testimonies lead to the conclusion, as some of them admit, that it is not a miracle, but rather the touch is facilitated by human intervention
In his book, he presents an interview with the skeuophylax Archbishop Isidoros of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, in which the latter admits that the “Sleepless Candle”, which he, himself, puts into the Church of the Holy Sepulchre during the morning of the Holy Saturday, is ignited by him with a lighter.
The former (1984–1988) skeuophylax (chamberlain) Archbishop Nikiforos makes the same acknowledgement, except that he was using matches.
He said he would never accept that the Holy Fire was a miracle. “Miracles happen when God decides, Not when we decide… Such “miracles” are performed by charlatans and magicians, not the Church.
“Our faith cannot be based on scams,” Nikiforos said.
His testimony was recorded in a video by Alikakos:
In the same book, Archbishop Gerason Theofanis states that the Holy Fire does not light up miraculously, but naturally, and the Patriarch then blesses it.
He adds: “We deceive the believers letting them believe that it is a miracle. This is unacceptable, and does not reflect well on us”.
According to Theofanis, the fraud of the “miracle” was invented by Catholic crusaders a few centuries ago, and was later continued by the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate.
In addition, the Metropolitan Bishop Kornilios of Petras, a surrogate of the Jerusalem Patriarchate in 2001, confirmed an older interview, saying that he also had ignited the candles of the Holy Fire with a natural candle, and he described in full detail what he saw when he entered the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
Lastly, in his book, the journalist mentions the chronicle of the deletion of the word “miracle” from the official website of the Patriarchate on 23 June 2018, with the commandment of the Patriarch Theofilos III.
“Episode from the Greek War of Independence,” Eugene Delacroix, 1856. In the collection of the National Gallery of Greece. Public Domain
Greek folk songs from the 1821 Revolution not only told the stories of brave revolutionaries but also served as historical texts and diffusors of tradition.
Nobel Prize winner Odysseas Elytis once wrote that “no revolution, neither in art nor in life, has more chances to succeed than the one that uses tradition as its base.”
The folk songs of the 1821 Revolution were made in the dens of the revolutionaries, and were created on the spur of the moment in most cases; they were often sung and danced — and, some, unfortunately, were forgotten the next day.
Luckily, the most moving of them remained in our consciousness, not only as documents of the time but also as songs that are sung and danced today, as reminders of the greatest moments in Greek history.
Songs of joy and mourning
The folk songs gave joy and strength to those who listened and rejoiced. The next day, they went out to fight the Ottomans with these songs on their lips.
And so did the ancient Spartans, who would fight after hearing the song that the poet Tyrtaeus wrote especially for them, and that he himself had sung to them the night before a battle.
The songs told stories of battles and brave deeds, of fellow warriors who fell in on the battlefield, of mourning mothers and wives, and of barbaric massacres by the Turks.
They were also songs of faith and devotion to the Orthodox Church, praises of the Panagia (the Virgin Mary) and patron saints, some asking for divine help.
Many of them were not forgotten, though. Today they serve as tiny chapters of a long, rich history, making Greeks feel proud and rejoice in the victory achieved by their ancestors during the War of Independence.
Many of the folk songs were lost over time, tragically. It mustn’t be forgotten that the revolutionaries were mostly farmers and shepherds who did not know how to write.
They were illiterate and even those who could write were often lacking in writing materials, such as pen and paper. But they did not lack in love for Greece and they were determined to kick out the Ottomans from their ancestral land.
Their “writing material” was their tongue — and the rich tradition of the land, and the myths, along with the Panagia and the saints that guided them in the holy cause.
Some warriors, who left one camp and went to another, carried with them not only their rifles but some of the songs they had loved to sing in their previous encampment.
As for the tunes they used, they sang as they pleased, rendering them in the simplest form of measure, even adding and subtracting verses and words at will.
Most of the time, these improvised folk songs did not go beyond the boundaries of each region. Songs sung along the slopes of one mountain, often did not become known in the villages on the mountain across from it.
Each village, mountain, or region had their own heroes and song characters to cry over and mourn, to tell of tricks they played in battles, and relate stories about the family of the warrior.
Folk songs before 1821
In actuality, the Greeks never stopped revolting for a moment against the Ottomans, from the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 onward.
Yet those uprisings were local, small and disorganized; they often had no support and were therefore doomed at birth, in most cases.
Little is known of the pre-1821 Greek War of Independence. Yet, folk songs were the medium that preserved the battles and struggles of the Greeks.
For instance, in 1789 the Ali Pasha aga Yusuf Arapis campaigned with 3,000 Ottoman Turks and Muslim Albanians against the rebelling chieftains of Thessaly and Roumeli.
The revolutionaries led by chieftain Giannakis Kontogiannis fought valliantly, but were outnumbered and were defeated eventually, as we learn in this traditional song:
“What news did you bring me from the chieftains?”
“Bitter news I brought you from the chieftains,
Nikolakis was caught, Konstantis was wounded!”…
“Where are you, Mama, come to me, hold my head,
and tie it tightly, so that I can mourn!
And whom shall I weep for, and whom shall I mourn?”
In 1807 the great revolution of Mount Olympus took place, led by four men in the Lazaios family, or “The Sons of Lazaios (or Lazopoulos),” as Tolias, Christos, Nikos and Kostas were known.
That early revolution was suppressed. The first three remained in Rapsani, while Kostas was held captive by Ali Pasha in Ioannina, as we hear in this old song form the time:
“Three little birds are sitting on Olympus.
One looks to Giannina, the other to Katerini,
the third best mourns and says:
“What evil have we suffered, the poor Lazaios!
Veli-Pasha ruined us, burned our houses,
he took our wives, he took our children!”
In September of 1826, Roumeliotis general Giannis Makrygiannis, along with Giannis Gouras, defended the besieged Acropolis of Athens, which was being attacked by the Ottomans.
Makrygiannis, better known as an historian later on in his life, sang folk songs very well. He was eloquent, and often improvised, making the songs sound like chapters of history.
“The Sun reigned (yes, my Hellene, reigned) and the moon was lost
and the pure Augerinos that goes near Poulia
the four were chatting and chatting secretly.
The Sun turns and tells them, turns and burns them:
“Yesterday when I reigned behind a mountain,
I heard many women crying and men mourning,
for these heroic bodies lying in the plain,
and in pools of blood most are submerged.
For the homeland, they went to Hades, poor souls.”
Folk songs keep history and tradition alive
If it were not for Greece’s folk poetry, many of the most heroic pages of the Greek War of Independence would have been lost.
In 1895, as historian Giannis Vlachogiannis was trying to write a study called “The death of Androutsos,” he discovered that he had trouble collecting material.
It was then he realized that the newly-established Greek state did not keep an archive of documents relating to the War of Independence.
Vlachogiannis then set out on the gargantuan task to search for and save any historical documents about that glorious time for Greece.
In fact, the historian started searching for documents spanning from the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 all the way through the year 1868.
He searched for manuscripts and letters of the revolutionary fighters from their relatives, their friends and their compatriots.
Vlachogiannis found that many such documents had inexplicably been sold — by the kilo — to grocery stores, butcher shops and the like for wrapping food! He bought many of these documents, paying out of his pocket.
From 1888 to 1913 the researcher had managed to collect over 300,000 pages of documents and manuscripts, which he arranged in folders, based on subject and date.
Vlachogiannis also salvaged the “(Revolutionary) Struggle Archive,” which was kept in the National Archives, founded by the first Governor of Greece, Ioannis Kapodistrias.
The Acropolis of Athens at Sunrise. Credit: RobW. CC BY 2.0/flickr
The Acropolis of Athens is a massive archaeological site brimming with the spiritual, artistic, and democratic wonders of ancient Greece, but with every turn, one comes across a new monument. So how does one know what is actually worth visiting?
Thought to be inhabited as far back as 5,000 BC, the Acropolis and its monuments largely remain in suitable condition to this day. In the eighth century BC, the people of Athens dedicated the hill to the goddess of wisdom and military victory, Athena.
Through the ages, as Athens blossomed from a mere settlement village to a large powerhouse in the region, Pericles, who ruled during the golden age of Athens (450 – 400 BC), sought to promote the Acropolis as an exhibition of Athenian pride.
Under Pericles’ leadership, the Acropolis grew from a handful of temples, damaged by the Persians in 479 BC, to a beacon of Classical architecture and symbol of greatness.
Top Monuments to See at the Acropolis of Athens
Archaeological ruins at the Acropolis include temples, statues, sanctuaries, altars, theaters, and even fountains. If you visit, it’s well worth taking the time to appreciate some of the more remarkable sites.
1. The Parthenon
The Parthenon of Acropolis. Credit: Flickr / Sam Valadi CC BY 2.0 DEED
The champion of the Acropolis must surely be the Parthenon, which, according to Andrew Stewart’s book One Hundred Greek Sculptors, Their Careers and Extant Works, was designed under the direction of Pericles in the fifth century BC by the ancient architects Phidias, Iktinos, and Callicrates.
The mighty structure lies on the highest ground of the Acropolis and served a dual purpose. Firstly, it was built to house the great statue of Athena, commissioned by Pericles and designed by Phidias and his team of sculptors. Secondly, it was to act as a treasury. The Parthenon was built in the vicinity of at least three earlier temples dedicated to Athena.
The Parthenon is comprised of eight fluted Doric columns at either end, with seventeen on each side. A great amount of the frieze—which depicted the Panathenaic Procession—within the temple, was damaged during a gunpowder explosion in 1687. The Turks had used the Parthenon to store ammunition, and when the Venetians launched a mortar at it, part of the structure crumbled.
Prior to this, the Christians had defaced a number of the pieces of the frieze, but the largest existing part is made up of the Parthenon Marbles, which were taken by Lord Elgin and are now on display in the British Museum.
2. Erechtheion
The Erechtheion of the Acropolis of Athens. Credit: George Rex. CC BY 2.0/flickr
This complex building on the Acropolis of Athens was designed by the ancient Greek architect Mnesikles and built in the last twenty years of the fifth century BC. According to the Acropolis Museum, the structure replaced the Archaios Neos, or ancient temple of Athena Polias, which was partly destroyed by the Persians sixty years prior.
The new temple was divided into two chambers, an eastern room dedicated to Athena which housed the goddess’s wooden cult statue, and a lower western room which accommodated shrines of Poseidon-Erechtheus, Hephaistos, and Boutes, the brother of Erechtheus.
It is generally understood that the temple’s strange shape is the result of its architect’s desire to accommodate all of these cults within one building, while also making the structure adaptable to the uneven surface it sits on.
3. Temple of Athena Nike
Temple of Athena Nike. Credit: Tilemahos Efthimiadis. CC BY 2.0/flickr
This marvelous monument on the Acropolis, designed by one of the architects behind the Parthenon, Callicrates, was constructed between 426 and 421 BC on the southwestern edge of the great hill. It is the earliest fully Ionic temple on the Acropolis.
The small temple had a frieze etched into it with a relief of various themes along each side. On the east, there was a gathering of gods around Zeus sitting on his throne, while the other sides displayed war scenes between Greeks and Persians as well as between various Greek groups.
The south side of the temple depicted the great battle of Marathon in 490 BC, when the Greeks, led by the Athenians, became victorious against the Persians. The temple is dedicated to the goddesses Athena, who represented both victory and war, and Nike, the goddess of victory.
4. Propylaea
The Propylaia of Acropolis. Credit: Alex-David Baldi / Flickr CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 DEED
In ancient Greek architecture, a propylaeon (singular form) is a monumental gate that usually leads to a temple or religious complex. In this case, Pericles had the gates commissioned as the entrance to the Acropolis.
These propylaea were designed to be wide enough to allow chariots to pass through, and the construction was part of Pericles’ rebuilding program for Athens after the Greco-Persian Wars.
Construction of this great entranceway began once the Parthenon was nearly completed. It was supervised by the Athenian architect Mnesicles, and, although work was halted due to the Peloponnesian War, the central parts of the architect’s work were nevertheless completed.
5. Odeon of Herodes Atticus
Odeon of Herodes Atticus. Credit: skynet. CC BY-2.0/flickr
Located on the southern slopes of the Acropolis, this amphitheater was built in 161 AD by its namesake in memory of his Roman wife, Aspasia Annia Regilla. It was utilized as a venue for music concerts. With a capacity of around five thousand, it remained intact until its demise by the early Germanic Heruli in 267 AD.
In more recent times, the audience stands and stage have been restored using Pentelic marble. Since then, the site has been the primary venue of the Athens Festival. In 1957, Maria Callas performed at the Odeon during the festival. Moreover, that same year, Edith Hamilton was pronounced an honorary citizen of Athens there at ninety years of age. Frank Sinatra has also played at the venue.
6. Theatre of Dionysus
Theatre of Dionysus. Credit: nrares. CC BY-2.0/flickr
This ancient Greek theater is thought to be the prototype for others that followed. It is located on the southern side of the Acropolis and has the honor of being the place where all Classical Greek plays were first performed.
Construction at the site began with the orchestra, the circular stone base of around sixty feet in diameter. There is a raised altar in the middle. Used for dramatic plays that were part of the annual spring festival of Dionysus, it was positioned next to temples of nature and the fertility god Dionysus.
During the fifth century BC, the theater was used for theatrical contests during which the plays of Sophocles, Euripides, Aeschylus, and Aristophanes were first performed.
7. Stoa of Eumenes
The Stoa of Eumenes. Credit: George E. Koronaios. CC by 1.0/Wikimedia Commons/George E. Koronaios
The path from the stage of the Theatre of Dionysus leads uphill and westward to the top of the long Stoa of Eumenes. This is a colonnade donated to Athens by Eumenes II, king of Pergamum from 197 to 159 BC, as a shelter and promenade for audiences of the theater.
The Roman architect Vitruvius referenced the structure in speaking about the purpose of stoas. These were constructed near theaters and served as shelter for audiences during inclement weather. Alternatively, they housed theater props.
The level of the stoa floor in ancient times has, by now, been restored. Several of the monument’s pillars on the ground floor remain on the Acropolis.
8. The Caryatids (Porch of the Maidens)
Replica caryatids, south porch, the Erechtheion, one of the monuments of the Acropolis. Credit: profzucker. CC BY-2.0/flickr
This presentation of statues, also know as the Porch of the Caryatids, comprises the west end of the south side of the Erechtheion temple. The large caryatid statues now visible on the Acropolis site are reconstructions. Most of the original pieces are on display in the Acropolis Museum.
The gap in the museum’s display is for the ‘missing sister,’ the original having been removed by Lord Elgin and put on display in the British Museum in London, where it has remained since 1817.
A Caryatid is a sculpted female figure that serves as an architectural support, replacing a column or pillar and supporting an entablature on her head. The Greek term Karyatides literally means “maidens of Karyai”, an ancient town on the Peloponnese. Karyai had a temple dedicated to the goddess Artemis in her aspect of Artemis Karyatis. As Karyatis, Artemis, rejoiced in the dances of the nut-tree village of Karyai, those Karyatides who, in their ecstatic round-dance, carried baskets of live reeds on their heads as if they were dancing plants.
9. Beulé Gate
Beulé Gate to Propylaia. Credit: ukdamian. CC BY-2.0/flickr
This is a fortified gate built during the Roman period, leading to the Propylaea monument of the Acropolis. It was constructed mostly from repurposed materials from the Choragic Monument of Nikias, a structure built in the fourth century BC and demolished around six hundred years later. The inscription from Nikia’s monument is still visible on the upper part of the Beulé Gate.
10. Sanctuary of Zeus Polieus
Sanctuary of Zeus Polieus. Credit: josema. CC BY 2.0/flickr
The Sanctuary of Zeus Polieus was a columned, open-air sanctuary, as per the name, on the Acropolis. It was dedicated to Zeus Polieus, the city protector, around the year 500 BC. Located to the east of the Erechtheion, none of its foundations have been recovered. Its many entrances and ground plan were worked out from rock cuttings on the Acropolis.
The eastern range of the sanctuary is believed to have housed the oxen for the annual Buphonia or ox-sacrificing.
Pausanias described the sanctuary in the second century AD: “There are statues of Zeus, one made by Leokhares and one called Polieus. Upon the altar of Zeus Polieus, they place barley mixed with wheat and leave it unguarded. The ox, which they keep already prepared for sacrifice, goes to the altar and partakes of the grain.”
“One of the priests they call the ox-slayer,” explained Pausanias, “who kills the ox and then, casting aside the axe here according to the ritual runs away. The others bring the axe to trial, as though they know not the man who did the deed.”
