Diffusion Part VIII

The Mystery of Disease

Picture of Disease ravaged Natives from

the Florentine Codex

In the past I have examined the usual arguments for contact between the Old and New World pre- Columbus. What I have concluded is that at best with the exception of the Norse (c. 1000 C.E.), the evidence is both very poor and at best indicates sporadic and intermittent contact between the Old and New World and further such contact had minimal influence on the development of New World civilization.1

Here I will discuss briefly one of the seminal problems about arguing for sustained contact between the Old and New World pre-Columbus. The lack of similar diseases.2

Epstein's Folly

Sacsayhuaman

I have in the past discussed the woo writer and all round fringe thinker Graham Hancock1. Here I will discuss a review of Hancock’s latest woo-fest Magicians of the Gods2. The review by a Prof. Jon Epstein is a wonderful example of a Professional academic latching on to a woo claim in order to feel bold, daring and cutting edge.3

Literate Babylonians

Cuneiform Tablet

One of the conceits of much scholarly literature concerning the ancient peoples of Iraq was that the overwhelming majority of the population was completely illiterate in the cuneiform writing system used. The idea is that the writing system was so complicated and difficult to learn that only a few scribes could possibly have been able to master the system.

Waiting for Godot

The von Daniken Version

of the Mayan Collapse

Erich von Daniken

In a previous posting I briefly reviewed Erich von Daniken’s monumental best seller Chariots of the Gods? Of course I concluded that the book was incredibly silly, basically stunningly wrong, but great fun as a puff piece of absurdest “explanation”. Since then we have seen the creation and broadcasting of the idiotic Ancient Aliens, a show that uses the Ancient Space Aliens nonsense and puts the critical facilities to sleep. Von Daniken along with other “experts” has appeared often on the show promoting his idiocies. However the bottom line was that von Daniken simply didn’t and doesn't know what he was talking about.1

Child Killers?

The Trophet of Carthage

One of the most notorious of “facts” concerning the ancient Carthaginians is that they indulged in mass sacrifice of children.

This is because of mass burials of very young children found at the so-called ‘Trophet” or sacred enclosures at various Carthaginian sites, including the site of Carthage itself.1 Because of the sheer mass of children’s cremated bones found in this “Trophet” many have been inclined to think that the practice of infant sacrifice was widespread in ancient Carthage. This seems to be a mistake.

The Lost Civilization

Great Bath at Mohenjo-daro 

Generally the first great civilizations are considered to be Mesopotamia and Egypt. Mesopotamia is considered to be earlier but Egypt was civilized by 3000 B.C.E. In Mesopotamia the process by which civilization developed seems to have been, from the archaeological data both long and “slow”. And it is a process that we can chart through archaeological digs. The process by which farmers settled in the alluvial plains of southern Mesopotamia, congregated in villages that later coalesced into towns that became city states is a process that took many centuries.1

The Battle of Teutoburg Wald

A Brief Update Note on a TV Program

and a Brief Look at two books about it

Battle at Kalkriese / Teutoburg Wald

In a previous posting I discussed the Battle of Teutoburg Wald where the German leader Arminius destroyed a Roman army.1 and by doing so put an end, it turned out permanently to Roman attempts to conquer Germany. Here I will discuss a television program on the battle. It is part of the series Perfect Storms. The episode is called The Lost Legions.2 

The Aztec Writing system

Something New in Something Old

Two generations ago a great many Archaeologists / Anthropologists and Historians would have agreed that there was a lot we didn’t know about the Pre-Columbian civilizations of the New World although the amount that we did know was large.

Shang Dynasty

A Note

Detail of a Shang Bronze

The History of China is surprisingly well known far back. Reasonably accurate records go back to 1600 B.C.E., with the establishment of the Shang Dynasty.

Heretic Pharaoh

A Note

The Aton 

One of the most controversial historical figures is that of the Pharaoh Akhenaten, a Pharaoh of the 18th dynasty who reigned c. 1353-1336 B.C.E.1 The reasons for the controversy are rather obvious, the Pharaoh’s attempted religious changes and to put it bluntly the rather grotesque physique indicated by the art work of his reign. 

The End and the Maya

Mayan Glyphs

   

Well midnight on December 20th happened, it is now December 21st, and the world has not ended.

 

For the last generation or so people have been aware the Mayans supposedly predicted that the world would come to an end  on midnight December 20th 2012. This myth as indicated elsewhere in  book after book in is fact completely bogus1. The Maya did not in fact expect the world to end in 2012 and in fact expected it to continue to exist well into the far, far far future.2

Diffusionistic Fantasies

Part VII

Sauna Diffusion

Or Steamed Off

Exterior of Finnish Sauna

Sometimes respected Anthropologists etc., go off the deep end. The following is a slightly expanded version of a posting I did c. 7 years ago in response to an article written by an Anthropologist who seemed to want to shock people with her daring and boldness.1

Homer Tilted into Absurdity

Ancient bust of Homer

The following is a slightly reworked version of a few postings1 I did a few years ago on the book Where Troy Once Stood2 Having read it I was amused but not convinced at all.

Politics and the

Warrior Queen



Carving of Bajlaj Chan K'awiil
King of Dos Pilas

One of the most surprising discoveries associated with the decipherment of Mayan Hieroglyphs has been the discovery of a whole previously unknown world of dynastic politics and intrigue. Perhaps the most convoluted involves the dynastic politics of the site of Dos Pilas.1

Sometime in the second quarter of the 7th century (625-650 C.E.) a man called Bajlaj Chan K’awiil become lord of the site of Dos Pilas. Now Dos Pilas is a small site, but the dynastic history which it participated in was not that of a minor site but that of a major power in the Mayan world.2

The Emergence of Civilization

Part I 

Great Bath at Mohenjodaro
Indus Civilization c. 2300 B.C.E.

The emergence of Civilization is without a doubt one of the great mysteries of human history. We know far too little about the process by which civilization emerged and then spread. However let us first go through a few definitions.

The Longest Count

Stela One, Coba, Yucatan, Mexico

In a previous posting I discussed the Mayan calendar and of course the Mayan long count.1 Since the supposed ending of the world in 2012 was supposedly predicted by the Maya perhaps exactly what the Mayan long count was about should be examined. Now in the Mayan long count dates were given by giving the number of days that had passed since August 11, 3114 B.C.E., (B.C.).2 This was the so called long count which is usually transcribed into 5 numbers as in 13.0.0.0.0. The number given is in fact the beginning of the Mayan long count.

 Diffusionistic Fantasies V

What would they leave behind?

One of the great questions concerning pre-Columbian contact between the Old and the New World is artifacts. One would expect that if extensive contact had happened between the Old and New World that we would have artifacts left behind by those visitors / explorers. Well pre-Columbian Old World artifacts are conspicuous by their absence in the New World.

More Hancock Woo

At the website Counterknowledge I recently posted the following reply to two comments. The link can be found Here. I’ve slightly modified my reply and added more references. (Note, December 2012, The Counterknowledge Website is no longer up or maintained. Although a copy of the Website is available at the Internet Archive. Sadly the copy of the page saved at the Internet Archive was copied before my reply posted below and one of the posts I was replying to. See Here.)

Kevin you say:

Sanji I to came to this site for exactly the same reasons has u and come to the same conclusion .watched both videos thanks for that .my first introduction to Bauval who I think is both intelligent and honest man listening to him now on information machine try watching black genesis by Bauval and don’t waste your time arguing with Pacal think him rude and offensive and blind to exploration of facts.

Bauval is not worth taking the slightest bit seriously along with Hancock. The whole Orion correlation thing as been exploded long ago. You are not aware that the constellation of Orion when imposed on Pyramids at Giza and the neighbouring area doesn’t match up. But then Bauval’s a joke. Have you bothered to read up on why the majority of Geologists do not accept an early date for the Sphinx as suggested by Schoch? Or how about how Bauval and Hancock were gunning for a 10,500 B.C.E., date for their Sphinx and basically ignoring that even Schoch gave a date after 8000 B,C.E. Of course do you accept the idea that the great pyramid was planned in 10,500 B.C.E., although built thousands of years later to reflect the date of 10,500 B.C.E. Which by the way Hancock got from Edgar Cayce, (the sleeping prophet). Both of them have been in the past quite ready to accuse Egyptologists of lying, of fraud, fabrication and forgery. In Fingerprints of the Gods Hancock accused an 19th century Egyptologist of fabricating Khufu’s name on stone blocks found in the chambers above the Kings chamber. Hancock has since retracted this baseless accusation but he continues to blither on about wicked Archaeologists suppressing the truth.

As for your last comment given the quite vicious names I’ve been called here I find you thinking me rude / offensive hilarious. I’ve merely said you guys were ignorant and clueless. Which you most evidently are. As for blind to exploration of the facts. Depends. If you mean the made up nonsense of Hancock and Bauval; that is speculation and fantasy not fact. But then you guys seem to have absolutely no interest in doing any sort of real research at all, but just mouth whatever Bauval and Hancock pull out of their asses.

Sanji you say:

Yeh its probably pointless to discuss with those guys, because in the end I'm just gonna repeat what Hancock and others have already said, and I m gonna read here the same critics I’ve seen, which sometimes are legitimate, but never good, solid, proven, unbreakable reasons to completely dismiss Hancock and every single aspect of his work. In the end, what he says has been going on for a quite a while through history, it s not brand new, so that debate has already been going on for ages.

Yep the debate between the cranks and Scientists as been going on for ages. Almost all of it in the minds of the cranks. Thank you for indicating that you have no desire to do any real research.

As for your request for unbreakable reason to dismiss Hancock. What about the simple fact that his lost super civilization seems to have vanished without a trace. How about the fact that each and everyone of the anomalies he points to is almost always has a “prosaic” explanation. How about Hancocks conspiracy mongering. I should not forget to note Hancock’s 2012 boosterism. From Baalbak, (built in Roman times), to the Piri Re’is map Hancock recycles mysteries that are not mysteries. Sanji then says:

Maybe because people like me haven’t yet spend a massive amount of time reading work to boost their knowledge, intelligence and ego, that what might be actually misleading or wrong, its easier to get on with the “outside the box” way of thinking.

Yep mustn’t have ones head clogged with knowledge it might inhibit one’s ability to swallow woo. I guess ignorance is a blessed state and knowing nothing is cool. Oh and Hancock doesn’t think outside the box his thought is firmly in the area of twentieth century crank Archaeology, he is right up their with Von Daniken, and especially Robert Charroux, (One Hundred Thousand Years of Man’s Unknown History). Sanji then says:

I wont go into details because they all say it better than me, but his position about C14 dating process for ancient monuments, his position about the Ice Age and its many mysteries, about maps found around the globe showing what might be locations unknown at the time, about ancient monuments that seem to have astronomical aspects to it, about underwater structures looking suspicious, about drawings, texts, interpretation of some ancient texts. and so on and so on….

There is just so much that you cant just ignore all of this, even when “it’s not a prefect match”, “most specialists disagree “, “he isn’t a professional” and blah blah blah blah.

Hancock’s position about Carbon 14 and how it is used to date monuments is deeply ignorant. Hancock never seems to get the fact that the materials that are associated with the monuments are dated. But then how Archaeologists do that would require him to read some of the many texts about Carbon 14 dating and how to use it. For dating methods see Archaeology, Second Edition, Renfrew, Colin & Bahn, Paul, Thames and Hudson, London, 1996.

He could also use with reading a book about climate history. Say Climate Change in Prehistory, Burroughs, William J., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005.

And of course has mentioned above Hancock’s “mysteries” are almost always not mysteries at all.

It is quite easy to ignore most of it, because it is generally not a mystery, and what little is “mysterious” does not require a unknown super civilization or aliens. I should mention here that for a time Hancock supported the idea of alien monuments on Mars, he as backed away from that I hope.

I lost any respect for Hancock from reading the sections of Fingerprints of the Gods (A deliberate play on Von Daniken’s Chariots of the Gods, in my opinion.), on the Maya and Tiwanaku. In the Tiwanaku chapter he almost entirely, (except for a throw away line) ignores the conventional dating of the site and instead advances a far out date based on astronomical alignments deduced from recently reconstructed buildings. These dates contradict dozens of Carbon 14 results along with ceramic, and stratigraphy studies to say nothing of ethno-historical data all of which date the site 200-1000 C.E (A.D.). Please see Ancient Tiwanku, Janusek, John Wayne, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008, The Tiwanaku, Kolata, Alan L., Blackwell, Oxford, 1993. As for the Maya please see The Ancient Maya, Sixth Edition, Sharer, Robert J, & Traxler, Loa P, Stanford University Press, Stanford CA, 2006, pp. 102-120, for the Mayan calendar. It also shows why Hancock’s discussion of it is a crock. Hancock’s discussion of the Sarcophagus lid in the tomb of Pacal at Palenque is also totally bogus. Sanji also says:

There are obviously a lot yet to discover about ourselves and our past, and that dude and his mates definitely bring something worth looking into. If a lot of experts of our time are against even debating or considering all this with a new eye, then so be it. It happened countless times before. Doesn’t mean we should blindly believe people like him, but if you sit on your books and ignore such character, then you really have shit in your eyes and your ears, and your slowing down the learning process of mankind. Anyway, I'm wasting my time typing all this, lets agree to disagree.

Guys I m still waiting to hear your opinion about those two videos

Thank you for the Galileo gambit, the typical cliché of cranks everywhere. However for every Galileo who was right there were 10,000 cranks who were way wrong.

As for seeing it with a new eye? Nope! It is the same old same old processed woo. In the 19th century Ignatius Donnelly was touting woo in his Atlantis: The Antediluvian World, in the early twentieth century we had Edgar Cayce and in the late 60’s and into the 70’s we had Von Daniken, along with countless others. It is the same old crap served for another generation.

As for shit in eyes and ears. Since people like Hancock listen to other woo miesters and ignore reams and reams of data while continuing their diet of woo. It is clear who has shit in their eyes and ears and it is Hancock and those who believe like him.

Although it is nice to know that you think the hard won knowledge of the past won over the past century or so is shit.

Some more reading:

Invented Knowledge, Fritze, Ronald, H, Reaktion Books, London, 2009.

Ancient Astronauts, Cosmic Collisions and other Popular Theories about Man’s Past, Stiebing, William H, Prometheus Books, Buffalo NY, 1984.

Giza: The Truth, Lawton, Ian & Ogilvie-Herald, Chris, Invisible Cities Press, Montpelier Vermont, 2001.

The Atlantis Syndrome, Jordan, Paul, Sutton Publishing, Gloucestershire, 2001.

Frauds, Myths and Mysteries, Feder, Kenneth L, Mayfield Pub. Co., Toronto, 1999.

Ancient Mysteries, James, Peter & Thorpe, Nick, Ballantine Books, New York, 1999.

Imagining Atlantis, Ellis, Richard, Vintage Books, New York, 1998.

The Space God’s Revealed, Story, Ronald, Barnes and Noble Books, New York, 1976.

The Code of Kings, Schele, Linda & Mathews, Peter, Simon & Schuster, New york, 1998.

Lost Continents, de Camp, L. Sprague, Dover Pub. Inc, New York, 1970.

In Search of Ancient Astronomies, Editor Krupp, E.C, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978.

The New Age, Gardner, Martin, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, 1991.

From the website In the Hall of Maat, Here, are the following articles of interest.

Tiwanaku: Alternative History in Action, Fagan, Garrett, Here.

Antarctic Farce, Fagan, Garrett, Here.

Analysis of Hancock's Position Statement on C-14 Dating, Fagan, Garrett, Here.

An Answer to Graham Hancock, Fagan, Garrett, Here.

The Gentle Art of Myth Management, Edlin, Duncan, Here.

Fingerprints of the Gods: A Review, Malek, Jaromir, Here.

An Analysis of the Quality of Graham Hancock's Science, Bass, Mickey, Here.

Myth of the Open Mind, Edlin, Duncan, Here.

Going Orion in a Circle (Or: The Challenging Cayce of 10,500BC), Wall, John, Here.

Age of the Sphinx, Bordeau, Alex, Here.

The New Atlantis and the Dangers of Pseudohistory, Fagan, Garrett, & Hale, Chris, Here.

Tracing Graham Hancock's Shifting Cataclysm, Bass, Mickey, Here.

The Lost Civilization in Historical Perspective Déjà vu all over again, Feder, Ken, Here.

P.S. The two links are to films that are merely the same dull old nostrums that have been coming from those two for quite sometime.

Pierre Cloutier

Homer’s World

Interior of the Treasury of Atreus

In a previous essay I talked about how Homer’s Epics The Iliad and Odyssey, although among the very greatest of man’s literary feats is not and cannot be used, except in the most general sense as a source for the Bronze Age history of Greece.

This view can be described as the standard view of today although it is possible and is in fact argued that perhaps kernels of actual history can be found in the poems.1

One thing does seem clear the social world described is most categorically NOT the world of the Mycenaean palace culture. How do we know this? We know this because we have impeccable contemporary documents. In this case Linear B tablets written in Greek. Now these tablets are almost always accounts. In other words filing records, of who did what work, who owned what, who got paid what, etc. They are indisputably exceptionally dull. However they are also indisputably entirely germane to telling us what Mycenaean society was like.2 Finally unlike Homer’s epics which were written / composed at least four centuries later the Linear B tablets are contemporary with the society that Homer was once thought to have been describing.3

Some resist the above conclusion with what amounts to statements of faith:

But in fact one wonders whether the very complexity and comprehensiveness revealed by the Linear B tablets may not giving a false impression of what life was really like in Mycenaean Greece.4

The implication is obvious, the above authors want to believe that Homer is describing the Mycenaean period. Of course just how Homer could be describing the Mycenaean period accurately when he lived over 350 years later is ignored. It is important to remember that the end of the Mycenaean period was characterized by massive devastation, mass movements of peoples and depopulation. In other words it was a disaster. To expect Homer to describe this period accurately is just not reasonable.5

Recent attempts like Michael Wood’s In Search of the Trojan War, both film and book, are ultimately not the slightest bit convincing in showing us that the world of Homer’s poems is Mycenaean.6

What the Linear B tablets show is a Palace centered culture in which the Wanax (King) has centralized control over agriculture, aided by a system of bureaucracy loyal to him, who administers the system. Further the tablets reveal that the system was feudal with the bureaucracy assigning land to be farmed. Further there is a system of labour obligations and tribute collection.7 perhaps the most revealing indication of the differences between Homer’s world and the world of the Mycenaean tablets is the following list of the eight most high status positions mentioned in the poems and in the tablets. The poem’s list is on the left hand side the tablet’s on the right.

Anax – Wanax
Basileus – Pasireu (basileus)
Archos-Damakoro
Hetairos-Eqeta (hepetes)
Hegetor-Korete (and Porokorete)
Koitanos-Lawagetas
Kreion-Moropa
Medon-Tereta (Telestas)8

What is notable is the difference between the terms used between the Iliad / Odyssey and the Mycenaean tablets. It should be pointed out that the term Wanax which Homer uses for King in his poems sometimes was soon to pass out of use entirely. Meanwhile Homer uses much more frequently the term Basileus for King and soon it was to take over the function of referring to King among the Greeks which it still has to this day. Interestingly among the Mycenaean’s the term Basileus referred to a bureaucratic individual in charge of stores. All of which indicates a break between the actual world of Mycenaean Greece and the world as described in Homer’s poems.9

In fact the entire Mycenaean system of tribute gathering, trade, legal obligation and the network of officials to collect, administer and finally record assets and tribute (taxes) owed to the king is entirely absent from the poems. In fact Homer’s Kings do not seem to have a functional bureaucracy at their command at all. In fact we learn from the Odyssey that one man keeps a record of all Odysseus’ possessions in his head.10

The Mycenaean King was head of bureaucratic machine and had significant institutional means of enforcing his will. Further the society he controlled had a hierarchy of status' and positions that are not reflected in Homer’s poems. For example It appears that a large segment of the Mycenaean population was en-serfed i.e., partially un-free. In Homer’s world status and position sem to be relatively simple men are free, slave and noble. Serfs of any kind don’t seem to exist in Homer’s world.11

Also in both the Iliad and Odyssey there is mention of assemblies. In the Iliad the soldiers meet and decide issues and the various Kings and warriors like Achilles vie for the approval of the assembly. In fact King Agamemnon seems to singularly lack any coercive means to enforce his will. He relies on persuasion to get his way. And the King is dependent on his pursasive ability in order to win support from the common warrior. No tribute system collected, stored and administered by a coercive bureaucracy enables him to collect tribute or enforce his will. Although the Mycenaean Wanax had such a coercive bureaucracy at his command.12

Thus in the poems:

Hence we should appreciate the fact that the epics mention so many meetings of assembly and council. This reflects a basic reality: an assembly is called, often combined with a council meeting, and public debate is arranged in a polis, army, or band of warriors whenever an important issue requires discussion and decision.

…

Normally, the leader makes conscious efforts to convince the assembly (hence the great importance attributed, among the leader’s qualities, to persuasive speaking) and, although there is no formal vote, respects the peoples opinion.

…

The assembly has an important function in witnessing and legitimizing communal actions and decisions, from the distribution of booty to ‘foreign policy’ to the resolution of conflicts.13

In fact this is a world were mere raids for cattle are considered worthy of heroic remembrance by Kings. For example by King Nestor of Pylos. In other words this is a world of small scale warfare and petty Kings and of many raids, small scale piracy etc. Once again it is not the world of the tablets.14

In the case of the Odyssey. Odysseus’ son Telemachus attempts to drive the suitors who are pillaging Odysseus’ wealth while ostensibly wooing Penelope from the palace, by appealing to the Demos or people at an assembly. They refuse to help feeling the matter is none of their concern. The Mycenaean Wanax did not need such an institution and his powers and authority were apparently uncontested legally at least. Such assemblies do not fit into the world of the Mycenaean tablets but they fit into the world of the Greek dark ages; in the period after the collapse of Mycenaean civilization.15

Perhaps the best indication of the difference between the two worlds is the central place given in the poems to gift giving. Unlike the world of the tablets were tribute / taxes are the major sources of wealth, a situation almost entirely absent from the poems along with written record keeping, gift giving is absolutely integral to the economy of Homer’s world.16

Gift giving is not just important for economic reasons but because:

Gift-giving too was part of the network of competitive, honorific activity. And in both directions: it was as honourable to give as to receive. One measure of a man’s true worth was how much he could give away in treasure. Heroes boasted of the gifts they had received and of those they had given as signs of their prowess.17

Just as the Feudal and Bureaucratic nature of the Mycenaean system is absent from poems so is the gift-giving system absent from the tablets.

In fact the need to win over by threats, by bribery and by persuasion etc., means that the Kings in Homer’s world signally lacked the coercive institutions at the command of the Mycenaean Wanax. Agamemnon simply could not order people about he must persuade and this includes the men in his own army who are from his own kingdom. This represents a Heroic age in which each warrior views himself as acting in his own interests and subject to no one’s orders except by a consent that can be withdrawn. Such a situation recalls other Heroic periods like the Viking Age and the ethos of Viking warriors not the palace culture of Mycenaean Greece.18.

Unlike the Mycenaean kings who had at their command a network of institutions to collect revenue in the form of taxes and tribute; kings in Homer’s poems rely on gift giving and much more importantly on the production of their privately held property. The Mycenaean tablets refer to a whole property regime that is entirely absent from Homer’s poems. In the tablets there is a form of state property, mainly of land, the use of which will be granted to individuals in return for services and or taxes / tribute. There are also state owned slaves and serfs and even property owned by the gods. There is also a system by which funds are paid for sacrifices and other services due to the gods.19. In Homer’s poems the situation is quite different.

Property is almost entirely privately owned. Homer’s kings rely on the production of their privately owned estates, state property seems altogether absent. The Mycenaean system of land use seems to be absent. Taxes seem to not exist and neither does regularized tribute of any kind. Religion also seems to be privatized also. Temples seem to be largely absent and no system of state support of religious activity seems to exist.20.

We get a conformation of the lack of any real institutional basis, unlike the Mycenaean kings as revealed in the tablets, for a Homeric kings power from what happened to Odysseus after he returns to Ithaca. There Odysseus is forced to rely almost entirely on personal support for himself in his efforts to reclaim his kingdom. No institutional system either helps or hinders him he must rely on his personal authority and on individuals willing to give him their support.21

Over thirty years ago the British writer / historian Michael Wood starred in the BBC documentary series In Search of the Trojan War. What the show should have been entitled was In Search of Michael Wood’s Critical Faculties, which were conspicuous by their absence in this show. The show was characterized by a gee whiz attitude and tons of romantic glop all centering around the trope that Homer was in his poem’s describing the Mycenaean period. Occasionally, very occasionally, Michael Wood would admit that Homer’s Achaeans were not Mycenaeans, but those moments would pass and the romantic treacle would flow in torrents. From a man who is so critical of things like the legend of Arthur to so fully surrender to a romantic myth is awe inspiring.22

Despite all of Michael Wood’s then and continuing efforts the fact, and it seems indeed to be a fact, is that the world described by Homer is not the world of the Mycenaean tablets. Socially at least the world of Homer is of the Greek dark ages.

Mycenaean Fresco
1. Finkelburg, Margalit, Greeks and Pre-Greeks, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005, pp. 1-3.

2. Finley, M.I., Economy and Society in Ancient Greece, Penguin Books, London, 1981, pp. 213-232.

3. Finley, M.I., The World of Odysseus, Second Edition, Penguin Books, London, 1978, pp. 144-146.

4. Simpson, R. Hope, & Lazenby, J. F., The Catalogue of Ships in Homer’s Iliad, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1970, p. 9.

5. Finley, M. I., Early Greece, W. W. Norton and Co. Inc., New York, 1970, pp. 58-68, Osborne, Robin, Greece in the Making, 1200 – 479 B.C.E., Second Edition, Routledge, London, 2009, pp. 35-51, Deger-Jalkotzy, Sigrid, Decline, Destruction, Aftermath, in The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, Ed. Shelmerdine, Cynthia W., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008, pp. 387-415.

6. Wood, Michael, In Search of the Trojan War, Revised Edition, BBC Books, London, 2007. The TV Show can be found at Here. Both the book and TV series show in abundance Michael Wood’s surrender of his critical faculties to romantic tripe.

7. Footnote 2.

8. Finley, 1981, p. 219.

9. IBID, pp. 217-222.

10. Finley, 1978, pp. 51-73, Shelmerdine, Cynthia W., Economy and Administration, in Shelmerdine, pp. 289-309.

11. IBID, Finley, pp. 74-107, Shelmerdine, pp. 289-309, Raaflaub, Kurt A., Homeric Society, in A New Companion to Homer, Ed. Morris, Ian & Powell, Barry, Brill, New York, 1997, pp. 630-633.

12. Raaflaub, pp. 641-645, Finley, 1978, pp. 92-93, 116-120, Shelmerdine, pp. 289-309.

13. Raaflaub, pp. 625-648, at 642-643.

14. Finley, 1978, pp. 108-141, Osborne, pp. 144-146.

15. Finley, 1978, pp. 92-93, Finley, 1981, pp. 199-232, Raaflaub, pp. 633-645, Osborne, pp. 141-144.

16. Finley, 1981, pp. 199-212, Finley, 1978, pp. 61-69, Donlan, Walter, The Homeric Economy, in Morris et al, pp. 650-667, at pp. 661-665, Osborne, pp. 146-149, Raaflaub, 637-638.

17. Finley, 1978, pp. 120-121.

18. Finley, 1978, 142-158, Osborne, pp. 146-149, Raaflaub, 634-636.

19. Finley, 1981, pp. 199-232, Shelmerdine, pp. 289-309.

20. Finley, 1978, pp. 51-107, Finley, 1981, pp. 233-248, Donlan, pp. 649-667.

21. Finley, 1978, pp. 84-88.

22. See Footnote 6. For Michael Wood’s critical treatment of the legend of King Arthur see Wood, Michael, In Search of England, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1999, pp. 23-42.

Pierre Cloutier

Hancock Woo

Graham Hancock

The following is an exchange I had with a true believer in “Alternavitis” at Counterknowledge Here. (The Counterknowledge Website no longer exists a copy of the page I'm referring to can be found at the Internet Archive Here.)

 

I thought it might be interesting as an example of people obsessed with pseudoscience woo. In this case someone who is enamoured with Graham Hancock's nonsense.

Incognitus July 2, 2010.

OK; Pacal, you want to play hard? Lest do it.You, Mr. Almighty encarnation of archeology, explain to me a few things and make me wise:

1) Baalbek in Lebanon: How did the ancients cut and moved blocks of 1500 tones? What is the technical method to to this? Why are our modern cranes not able to move them and the ancientswere?

2) How do you date stone using C14?

3) Why the similarities between cultures like the mayans and egiptians, why did both cultures were avid stargazers and built pyramids? Are all of these similarities “just coincidence”?

4) Why does the sphinx have evidence of erosion caused by massive water flow on it? When does the climate record say Egipt had a rainy weather? Robert Schoch put his reputation at stake saying this is the case with the sphinx…was he wrong?

4) Finally, how are we suppose to trust a horde of biased individuals when they can not even offer an open explanation to these dilemas?

5) Give the link to the archeological papers that show your points. If not, I will suposse you are a windbag and nothing more!!!!

Finally, Richard Feymann was very critic of scientific methods in social sciences (which includes archeology, as far as I understand), see and grow intellectually:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaO69CF5mbY

From the point of view of a phycisist, archeology is just a bunch of innacurate methods whose uncertainty grows the more we go back in time. It is not a natural science. When we are talking about pre-history events, I think archeology is more flawed than ever.

Incognitus said on 2 July 2010.

Sanji, sorry for what I said about you, I think I put you side by side with that discusting Pacal, which is already a painful mistake!!!Really sorry!!!

*Regarding No. 1, Sorry Baalbek is almost certainly Roman.

To quote:

The stones were transported over a path only 600 meters length and about 15 meters *downhill*. The quarry is 1160 meters high, and the temple 145 meters. So it was easy to keep the stones on an even level to their final resting place and it was unnecessary to lift them about 7 meters as some authors claim. As you might know, Rome is the city with the most obelisks outside of Egypt. They stole the things by the dozen and took them home. The heaviest known obelisk weighs 510 tons, and it was transported some 1000's of *kilometers*. This transport was documented by the roman author Marcellinus Comes. The Romans even left detailed paintings and reliefs about the ways to move such things : as on the bottom of the Theodosius-obelisk in Istanbul. They used "Roman-patented" winches, in German called "Göpelwinden" which work with long lever ways. To move a 900 ton stone, they needed only 700 men. The transport was slow, about 30 meters a day, because they had to dismantle and rebuild the winches every few meters, to pull the obelisk with maximum torque. But in Baalbek, where they moved several blocks, maybe they built an alley of winches, where they passed the block from winch to winch.

From Doug’s Archaeology Page, Here.

See also Wikipedia Here.

Regarding No. 2. Since when does anyone think carbon 14 dates rocks?

To quote:

a). "C-14 can't date stones." Well, this is obvious. It is also entirely irrelevant. Let's assume, for the moment, that C-14 COULD date stones. What would such dates show? They would reveal the age of the stone itself, and therefore render dates in the millions, not thousands of years. While such data might be of interest to geologists, it would be of no interest to archaeologists, who are concerned with when the stone was quarried, moved, and put in place by humans. To find that out, archaeologists would be looking at associated material to date the human activity by which the stone had been manipulated. And that is precisely what they do. So whether or not C-14 can date stone is entirely beside the point.

and

In short, the system works as follows. First and foremost, it dates organic material found in archaeological context. Archaeological context is usually sealed strata of occupation, layer upon layer from the bottom (oldest) levels of a site to the upper (most recent) strata. The strata are carefully recorded and, gradually, the stratigraphy of the site is mapped. Often the stratigraphy is determined by smallish excavation trenches (in some cases supplemented by numerous core samples) made at various points in a site, to be sure you are not getting an imbalanced or unrepresentative picture by focusing only on one small area.

From In the Hall of Maat, An Answer to Graham Hancock Here, written by an archaeologist, Garrett Fagan.

See also Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice, 2nd Edition, Renfrew, Colin, Bahn, Paul, Thames and Hudson, London, 1996, pp. 132-138.

Regarding No. 3. So why were there similarities between Egyptian and Mayan culture?

Well there were also massive differences such as the fact that the Egyptians did not but temples on top of their pyramids. Of course the pyramids were also constructed vastly differently. The Mayans and Egyptians also cultivated different plants and I could easily go on. Of course I could mention the almost total absence of any pre-columbian old world artifact in the new world. I could point out that all sorts of societies from the Chinese to megalithic builders etc., were star gazers. In fact studying the movement ands position of heavenly bodies seems to be a virtually universal human trait and seems to go back to the Palaeolithic times. Of course human civilizations have similarities because they are human civilizations.

If your interested you might want to read the following.

Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries, Third Edition, Feder, Kenneth L., Mayfield, Toronto, 1999, pp. 79-132, Ancient Astronauts, Cosmic Collisions and other Popular Theories About Man’s Past, Stiebing, William H., Prometheus Books, Buffalo NY, 1984, pp. 131-166, Voyagers to the New World, Davies, Nigel, William Morrow and Co., New York, 1979, Lost Tribes and Sunken Continents, Wauchope, Robert, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962, Invented Knowledge, Fritze, Ronald H., Reaktion Books, London, 2009, pp. 63-103, Voyages of the Imagination, Frost, Frank J., in Archaeology, V. 46 No. 2, March/April, 1993, pp. 45-51, The Spanish Entrada: a Model for assessing Claims of Pre-Columbian Contact between the Old and New Worlds, Moeller, Roger W., in North American Archaeologist, v. 15 no. 2, 199994, pp 147-166, Robbing Native American Cultures, Haslip-Viera, Gabriel, de Montellano, Bernard Ortiz, Barbour, Warren, at In the Hall of Maat, Here,
In Search of Ancient Astronomies, Krupp, E. C, McGraw-Hill, Toronto, 1978.

Regarding No. 4. You are aware that Robert Schoch’s statements regarding the Sphinx are hotly disputed to put it mildly.

For example:

To sum up: the weathering seen on the Sphinx and it's enclosure do not resemble that caused by running water, there are no dominant channels such an idea implies. It is apparent that spherical weathering of the exposed limestone , caused by variations in temperature and humidity coupled with CrySIE, best explains what we see at the Sphinx - on the body itself and along the enclosure walls. Schoch's and Reader's assumption that conditions have changed dramatically since the time of the Sphinx's construction are not necessary to explain its current condition, and should be rejected.

From Age of the Sphinx, Alex Bordeau in In the Hall of Maat Here. The above mentioned web site has eight other articles about the age of the Sphinx; read them. See also Giza: The Truth, Lawton, Ian, Ogilvie-Herald, Invisible Cities Press, Montpelier Vermont, 2001, pp. 292-320. This book is especially interesting in that both of the authors are very sympathetic to “alternative” history.

Regarding no. 4? (It should be no. 5). Well it is a collection of useless ad-hominem comments and agitation propaganda. You have learned “alternative” speak quite well. Of course those “individuals” you so relentlessly deride have been able to offer explanations you just haven’t been looking very hard obviously. As for bias that is hilarious considering how biased Hancock and frankly you seem to be. Please look in the mirror. I just love how you refer to them as a horde. Not even really human are they? Once again the same old Manichean dualism of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness. How trite.

Regarding no. 5? (It should be no. 6). So I would be a “windbag” unless I did the research that you should have been doing! You just don’t have the time to do your own research and I’m obligated to do your own research?! This is of course typical of many “alternatives” they propose the far-out bizarre theories but the onus is on the sceptic who doubts them to prove them wrong. Typical double standard. I did not notice you citing any papers, books etc. I am of course not surprised. It took me only about thirty minutes to put together the above from the books, articles etc., that I have in my possession and the web. If you want more detail may I suggest you do it yourself. Your not paying me. Also considering that you seem to hold Archaeologists in near total contempt why would you take seriously any of the papers books etc., I’ve listed?

Regarding Richard Feymann. Already took him in university. A very interesting writer. In that video you linked to Feymann is simply stating a truism about so-called soft sciences. Anyone who practices those sciences knows it is not physics, chemistry etc. It doesn’t mean that the data is not scientifically collected or that their may be aspects of hard science in the soft science. Neither does it mean that we can’t do it and get results that are reliable. Feymann was not a practitioner of any of these so called Soft Sciences and of course his knowledge of them was limited. Of course what he did know was that they are not physics. What you have here is the run of the mill problem with doing science in certain areas. It is in many ways a philosophy of science problem. Which would require reams of books even to get started on.

However none of this means that you can’t do the so-called soft sciences with rigor. After all just look at historiography, definitely a soft science if their ever was one but definitely it can be done if not absolutely rigorously at least more rigorously. People who do it don’t just make up stuff as they go along. (I hope!) And you certainly can’t make up stuff if you practice it rigorously.

I fail to see how the fact that Archaeology is not physics, chemistry etc, (although those can be used doing archaeology) helps Hancock and his nonsense at all. His stuff is far less based on “fact” and “truth” than on any so called “soft” “fact” of Archaeology. If anyone is making it up as he goes along it is Hancock.

In a previous post you referred to Archaeology as “this shit” you also made the demonstrably false statement that Archaeologists do not use a multidisciplinary approach.

It is obvious that you are making it up as you go along also. You have this view of Archaeology and the people who practice it that is sheer Manichean bullshit. Of course it is obvious that you have no interest in trying to learn what it actually involves. In the faint hope you might read it I suggest a book mentioned above, Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice.

Incognitus its nice to know that you think I came from a “shithole”1 and that I am “disgusting”. As far as I’m concerned you are simply ignorant.

1. Counterknowledge Here

*Note My Reply as been removed from Counterknowledge.

Pierre Cloutier