Satan Worship

Evangelical Meeting
One of the most interesting phenomena is the world wide worship of Satan, also known as the Lord of this World, Lord of the Flies, King of Demons, Father of Lies etc. An interesting feature of this worship is that most of the worshipers do not know that they worship the Prince of Darkness and Lord of Desolation.

This should not surprise us as Satan is indeed a cunning and ruthless enemy who will use any and all methods to corrupt and destroy the human race and lead us all to perdition. The techniques used by the Deceiver are indeed clever using the human desire for justice, truth and hope as a means to corrupt humanity.

The chief Satan worshippers today, numbering at least in the tens of millions if not hundreds of millions are many if not most of the vast horde of Evangelical / “Born Again” Christians. That they worship Satan is of course obvious, along with their hatred of Jesus. Of course here is where the trick comes in; the vast majority of these people truly believe that they are followers of Jesus and haters of Satan. Their sincerity is not in question. The chief fault they have is an over weaning arrogance that they know the truth and all others are damned and their blissful certainty of their “truth”. They are so committed to the sin of pride it isn’t funny. Further so many of them know in their hearts that their neighbours are damned and they feel superior while piously feeling utter condescension to those not similarly “saved”. They profess love while showing over and over again the most malign hatred of those who think differently from them and their obsession with the sins of others is positively creepy. Further they are obsessed with sex and such trivial things as people swearing and having pornography.

I can remember a broadcast of the TV show 60 Minutes, about Evangelicals that presented two very wealthy looking Evangelicals, who owned prosperous businesses, who intoned in their expensive suits that they were saved because they accepted Jesus as their “Personal Saviour”, whereas Mother Theresa of Calcutta, (who died in 1997) was not saved and her good works meaningless. It requires a very special awe inspiring arrogance for those two wealthy men to feel more virtuous / godly than Mother Theresa. Just exactly what works of a comparable indication of sheer virtue did they do? It is pretty obvious that Mother Theresa’s acts indicate a state of virtue that these men couldn’t achieve if their lives depended on it.1

Also their motivation for their faith is not love of God, Virtue, or their Neighbour, but sheer mindless fear and expectation of reward. It goes like this; if you don’t want to go to hell and suffer for all eternity then you must worship God and follow Jesus. If you do follow Jesus you will be rewarded with an eternity of utter bliss in heaven. From the Evangelical point of view works generally do not count; what counts is belief in Jesus as your “Personal Saviour”. In certain versions of this belief just genuinely saying and believing this before you die is an instant get out of jail free card.2 All your sins are washed away and no matter what perverse, sick, murderous things you’ve done are forgiven because Jesus rewards his grovellers with eternal bliss in heaven. Just utter the magic incantation and all is forgiven and you go to heaven. In other words getting in good with Jesus doesn’t require that you DO anything, just that you massage Jesus’ fragile, inflated ego. So you can be as vile as want so long as just before you die you utter the abracadabra.

Yup sucking up to Jesus pays well and all this love and devotion is prudent. After all for a tiny investment you get an infinity of pleasure and wealth. Talk about a huge return on a really paltry amount of work. After all the only investment is a mouthing of accepting Jesus as your “Personal Saviour”.

Of course not all the Evangelicals are so crass about what their about and many do in fact try to meet rigorous personal demands often about what amounts to moral trivialities. But in the end it all doesn’t matter because nothing pleases their puffed up dictator of a God like grovelling idolatry and adoration. If you don’t grovellingly adore Jesus he might throw a hissy fit and cast you out and punish you because he as a huge ego and really thin skin, and he punishes any personal slight with terrible natural disasters or by giving you a loathsome disease. God as a control freak asshole.

Also if you suck up successfully you will avoid the horrors of the final days before the second coming, (No it isn’t about good sex with repeat performances), by being raptured into heaven where you can watch the Antichrist battle with God for dominion of the Earth, while God along with the Antichrist kills by all sorts of means billions of people. Then at the end you can watch all the unsaved being dragged down to burn in hell forever. For one of the joys of heaven will be that you don’t have to care about the torments of the damned and according to some Evangelical Satanists you will positively enjoy the torments of the damned. Yep kissing the big one’s ass will really pay off.

Given this concept of God the only reasonable conclusion is that this God is Satan, the Deceiver. Certainly this God seems to be a massive, thin-skinned, adulation demanding tyrant and thoroughly Satanic. Of course when combined with how little he/she really demands of humans, aside from ass kissing, it is even more obvious that this God is Satan.

Aside from the followers who are mainly deceived there are the shepherds of this flock who are indeed a nest of vipers and swine. I truly find it very hard to believe that most of this crew of Satanic High Priests don’t know what they are really doing. It seems quite apparent that they are indeed, deliberately out to lead astray and find souls for the Lord of Darkness - Satan.

If the pride and arrogance of their followers is annoying so is the even greater pride of their leaders. Not so much the pride of arrogant belief, but the pride of believing that humans are there to be fleeced and that they, the leaders, have an absolute right to enjoy the fruits of their lies and deceptions. Of course for many of them their contempt for their followers is immense.

The love of power by these people is sometimes a horror to behold. They enjoy sitting at the right hand of earthy power, but not for the purpose of admonishing and correcting, but for the purpose of exercising power and getting more. Especially what they long for and desire, with great desperation is power over others so that they can coerce and oppress with Satanic joy others who think differently.

Also there is their monumental, earth encompassing greed. These are the most devout worshipers of Satan in the guise of Mammon Lord of Wealth. They will resort to virtually any trick to extort money from the desperate, pathetic and lonely and of course the sincere believer. There was the outrageous case of Peter Popoff who scammed millions from desperate people through fake faith healings which were nothing but tricks. One of which included people radioing messages to him to received in his ear, by means of a radio receiver disguised as a hearng aid so that he could fake learning about people’s illnesses through the “power of the Lord”. Shockingly Peter Popoff is still in the faith healing business, presumably with a better bag of tricks. Sadly he is only one of many such fakes.3

To all this, alone with their view of God as a petty small minded tyrant is a powerful indication that they do in fact worship Satan.

One sort of wonders if upon dying all these Satan worshipers will be so in tune with the Satanic mindset that they will think Hell Heaven and Heaven Hell.

1. I can’t remember the name of the 60 Minutes show but it aired in the 1980’s.

2. Jack Chick, who manufactures huge numbers of mind numbing comics, had a comic that makes this point, involving a murderous criminal who murders his victims without remorse and is tracked down by a very virtuous Police Officer and eventually executed for his deeds. Our killer accepts Jesus as his “Personal Saviour” and goes to heaven. (He expresses NO remorse) The Police Officer who caught him and lived a virtuous life does not accept Jesus as his “Personal Saviour” and goes to spend an eternity burning in hell. The particular tract mentioned above does not seem to be in print anymore. Jack Chicks publications can be found at Chick Publications Here.

3. See Randi, James, The Faith Healers, Prometheus Books, Buffalo NY, 1987. The legions of fraud and humbug in the Evangelical world looked at in this book includes, Jimmy Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, W. V. Grant and many more. For a take from an Evangelical who is sick to death about the overt and subtle cons in involved in much Evangelicalism see Slacktivist Here.

Other Book Consulted.

Standaert, Michael, Skipping Towards Armageddon, Soft Skull Press, Brooklyn NY, 2006.

Pierre Cloutier

Fomenko’s Fiction

Anatoly Fomenko
Anatoly Fomenko is a Russian Mathematician who over the last 20 years or so has been putting forward a rather far out theory regarding History it is his belief that ‘History” began c. 800 C.E., and that the Middle ages never happened.

Among many things Fomenko and his disciples believe that English history before the Normans is nothing more than a fiction and that some of Byzantine history is the same. That various dynasties and lists of rulers are nothing more than fictionalizations based on a few models.

That much history of the Ancient world is a creation of fabricators and falsifiers between 1400-1700 C.E. That various methods of dating like dendrochronology (tree rings) and radiocarbon dating are erroneous and useless.

It is of interest that in his new chronology Russia is the center of world history up too seventeen hundred; real Russian history having been falsified by Germans. The obvious hyper nationalism of Fomenko’s ideas is readily apparent.

This approach must of course toss out the astronomical data supplied from ancient Mesopotamian clay tablets and the record of eclipses by the Chinese.

Further all those Greek and Roman statutes are frauds created during the Renaissance.

Ivan the terrible was actually four rulers is another Fomenko “discovery” along with Jesus being a 60 year old Pope, (Gregory VII) and or a Byzantine Emperor (Andronikos I Komnenos).

The Peloponnesian War described by Thucydides occurred in 1384-1387, between the Kingdom of Navarre and the Catalans. And Columbus was a Cossack.1

History is divided into 4 periods. The pre-Christian period is 11th century and earlier; “bacchic” Christianity 11th-12th century, Christianity 12th-16th century and 16th century onwards the modern age.2

Fomenko’s English History, which is supposedly a duplication of Byzantine history, is described as follows:

His [Fomenko] other parallels, even after a double reordering of Byzantine monarchs (they were themselves duplicated twice, you see), are still not very accurate. Beorhtric (ruled 16 years) is equated to Justin I (ruled 9 years), an error of almost 78%. Fomenko links Aethelbert (6 years) to Justin II (13 years), an error of over 113%. He has to combine Zeno's two reigns (over a period of, but not totaling, 17 years) to match the English Cuthread (17 years).

Fomenko does manage, however, a couple of good "hits." He links Egbert, the uniter of England (ruled 38 years), to Justinian the Great, restorer of the Roman Empire (ruled 38 years). But then he combines King Edgar (16 years) with King Edward the Martyr (3 years) and claims they both represent Leo III the Isaurian (24 years). He concludes that the names Edgar and Edward are "similar and consequently their union is natural." (5) Of course, the eleven Emperors Constantine (and the additional Emperors named Constans and Constantius) were apparently readily distinguished by the barbarians.3

To quote another examination of Fomenko’s nonsense:

Fomenko assumes that the researcher can and should distinguish between history and fiction. On the other hand, his methods would not meet with approval from conservative theorists of history such as Keith Windschuttle who maintains that the professional training of historians and peer review of their work pushes history closer to the goal of establishing the truth of the past and of distinguishing what most probably happenned from what could not have happenned. Fomenko is not a historian in this sense. He provides no fair-minded view of the historical literature about a topic with which he deals, quotes only those sources that serve his purpose, uses evidence in ways that seem strange to professionally-trained historians and asserts the wildest speculation as if it has the same status as the information common to conventional historical literature.4

That is enough for now, since simply listing the conjectures of Fomenko is enough to refute him, there is much more than the above all of it fantastic and quite outrageous. Fomenko has earned some quite well deserved ridicule for his absurd ideas, but has managed to turn the issue into one of proving him wrong. Which is of course a typical pseudoscience method.

Even some people who should know better are publishing books taking this nonsense seriously.5

Sorry but when you are proposing an outlandish idea the onus is on you to prove your idea not on the doubters to prove their doubts and you wrong.

It is impossible to go into detail about what is wrong with Fomenko’s absurd ideas, however a few points are worth looking at.

1, Fomenko deliberately selects data in proving his “statistical” correlation that ‘proves” his theory and ignores data that does not.

2. Fomenko spectacularily massages his data to get his correlations, shifting dates and reign lengths and even the number of monarchs all to fit his theory. To quote Wikipedia:

Another point raised by critics is that Fomenko does not explain his altering the data (changing the order of rulers, dropping rulers, combining rulers, treating interregna as rulers, switching between theologians and emperors, etc.) preventing a duplication of the effort and therefore hinting that his results may have a pathological Science aspect to them akin to N-rays over a century ago and effectively making this whole theory an Ad hoc hypothesis.6

3. Fomenko’s rejection of radio-carbon dating, numsiatics, (coin study), dendrochronology, (tree rings), etc., is tenditious and frequently ignorant. For example with dendrochronology he argues from alleged gaps that it can’t be trusted. In fact secure dendrochronological dates go back more than 10,000 years. Fomenko must exercise a disciplined ignorance for his opinions.7

4. Further Fomenko’s dismissal of retrocalculation of astrnomical dating based on the Babylonioan tablets and Chinese recording of eclipses does not contrary to Fomenko’s assertions get dates all over the place in fact multiple analysis to these multiple recorded observations agrees with the conventional dates. For example the whole sequence of Babylonian observations, of which there are literally dozens, found on Babylonian cuniform tablets agrees with the “conventional” dating, to say nothing of other dating methods like denrochronology and radio-carbon etc.8

5. Further this is frankly an over the top conspiracy theory for which Fomenko just wildly speculates about why anyone would do it and assumes the fabrication of masses of documents, accounts etc., along with masses of inscriptions coins etc. It is frankly incredible. All those allegedly mythical Medieval kings with coins are treated with cries of forgery and fraud including the coins that are to this day being dug up.9 To quote:

For that matter, how can we expect to believe Fomenko's arguments since Imperial coinage that documents the succession of the emperors can be gathered from virtually every year from 27 BCE to 1453 CE? How do we discount written Roman history and the great reigns of the past? Further, if Fomenko is correct, we must ignore the Magna Carta of 1215, since England's King John would have been nothing more than a Byzantine fantasy.10

That Fomenko is motivated by a crude form of nationalism is obvious from his writings as one reviewer of his work has said:

The enemy for Fomenko is always the West and their corrupt Russian minions, most notably the Romanovs and the Yeltsin-era reformers. For Fomenko, World War two lives on in the war against the Germans. Not that other western Europeans are much better. Italians composed false chronicles from antiquity in order to make the Romans appear older and wiser than the rest of Europe, the French sent their mercenaries along with other European powers to protect the first Romanovs, the English and Americans always acted against Russia out odf envy that it was in reality Russia who once ruled the greatest empire the world has ever seen. For Fomenko, the Russians need Asia if they are to maintain their existence in the face of the challenge posed by the West.

...

Fomenkoism is an amalgam of disillusionment with and rediscovery of Soviet ideals, mixed with feelings of lost grandeur, hope, vengence and envy. For Fomenko, the story of Russian greatness has to be told a different way to the version favoured by Romanovs and Communists. The latter ignored the greatness of the Russian horde. All those who lived in the steppe and forests of Eurasia are automatically incorperated into Russia, according to Fomenko’s fantasy. The Russian Horde was, and remains, entitled to demand their loyalty.11

I will now briefly go into a examination of just one small part of Fomenko’s nonsense. Fomenko has the the eruption of Vesuvius occur 1631 C.E. Which faces the problem of having Pliny the Younger's account, which was printed before 1631 in Western Europe. Copies of said editions still exist with the dates. So this eruption was described before it happened!? No doubt this little problem is handeled by saying "forgery" and "fraud" over and over again.12


Vesuvius Erupting
Vesuvius has erupted on numerous occasions frequently with great destructiveness. Fromeko's idea is that the destructive eruption that destroyed Pompeii and Heracleum occurred 1631. Which of course means that Pliny's account must have been written after that eruption. Second if you read Pliny's account you would realize that the eruption described was extrodinarily destructive. It appears to have been a, (what is now called) a "Plinean" eruption. In which large sections of the mountain were destroyed and repeated "Nuee Ardente's" (burning clouds) devastated the surounding area and covered the area under many feet (more than 20 feet in places) of ash and volcanic rubble. There was of course the "Nuee Ardente" that swept across the bay of naples to Miseum and nearly killed Pliny the younger's entire family. This eruption has left massive and abundant traces including in places more than 20+ feet of ash etc. The 1631 eruption has also left traces and in comparison it was minor. One is easily distinguished from the other.13

Pompei was long buried by 1631. In fact it was so well buried that people had only a very poor idea of were it was.

In fact appears that although Vesuvius has in fact erupted on numerous occasions eruptions of the 79 C.E., variety seem to be mercifully rare occurring every few thousand years.

The other common sense problem with Fomenko is the huge difference in culture between the remains of those two cities and what we have from the 17th century. Oh and what about the virtually compete abscence of Christianity from both sites.

Oh and by the way the Laocoon after being lost for over a millenium created quite a stir when it was re-discoverd in 1506 and the result was a series of write ups by the media of the day. Now why is the Laocoon important in the context of Fomenko’s absurdities? It is because Pliny the Elder describes the statute in his massive Natural History. Now since Pliny the younger describes his uncle’s death in the eruption of Vesuvius this must mean that the Natural History was composed before the eruption.

The Laocoon
To quote Wikpedia:

Various dates have been suggested for the statue, ranging from about 160 to about 20 BC. Inscriptions found at Lindos in Rhodes date Agesander and Athenedoros to a period after 42 BC, making the years 42 to 20 the most likely date for the Laocoön statue's creation. The statue, which was probably originally commissioned for the home of a wealthy Roman, was unearthed in 1506 near the site of the Golden House of the Emperor Nero (who reigned from 54 to 68 AD), and it is possible that the statue belonged to Nero himself. It was acquired by Pope Julius II, an enthusiastic classicist, soon after its discovery and was placed in the Belvedere Garden at the Vatican, now part of the Vatican Museums.14

Now if Pompeii and Herculaneum had been destroyed in 1631 C.E. that definetly creates a problem. The other one is Pliny the Elder mentions the Laocoön in the palace of the Emperor Titus,Emperor 79 - 81 C.E.

To quote:

Beyond these, there are not many sculptors of high repute; for, in the case of several works of very great excellence, the number of artists that have been engaged upon them has proved a considerable obstacle to the fame of each, no individual being able to engross the whole of the credit, and it being impossible to award it in due proportion to the names of the several artists combined. Such is the case with the Laocoön, for example, in the palace of the Emperor Titus, a work that may be looked upon as preferable to any other production of the art of painting or of statuary. It is sculptured from a single block, both the main figure as well as the children, and the serpents with their marvellous folds. This group was made in concert by three most eminent artists, Agesander, Polydorus, and Athenodorus, natives of Rhodes. 15

So in other words someone before the alleged eruption (1631 C.E.) mentions the laocoon being lost, then Pliny mentions it being in the palace of the Emperor Titus at the time of the eruption, which creates a problem if the eruption was in 1631 C.E. And we have copies of Pliny's Natural History which contain the above passage. Oh and we have complete manuscripts of the Natural History, from the 11th century to say nothing of collections of excerpts that are earlier. Opps!16

As mentioned above Pliny the Younger letters which describe the eruption of Vesuvius and were published before 1631 C.E.

From Wikipedia:

In France Giovanni Giocondo discovered a manuscript of Pliny the Younger's letters containing his correspondence with Trajan. He published it in Paris dedicating the work to Louis XII. Two Italian editions of Pliny's Epistles were published by Giocondo, one printed in Bologna in 1498 and one from the press of Aldus Manutius in 1508.17

Isn't amazing that they were able to write a description of the eruption of 1631 C.E. before it happenned!! Yeah, right!

Fomenko is a total joke. His desperate efforts to escape the inescapable accuracy of the “conventional” history against the serpent of fact and truth are in the end as unavailing as Laocoon and his son’s unavailing struggle against their serpent.

1. New Chronology of the World History, Here. See also the multi volumed, History: Fiction or Science?, Delamere Resources LLC, 2007, Konstantin, Sheiko, Lomonosov's Bastards: Anatolii Fomenko, pseudo-history and Russia's search for a post-communist identity, Phd Dissertation, University of Wollongong, Australia, 2004, pp. 66, 208-226. Copy of Thesis at Here

2. See Wikepedia, New Chronology, Here, See also Fomenko, A. T., Nosovskij, G. V., New Chronology and new concept of the English History, Here.

3. Colavito, Jason, Who Lost the Middle Ages?, Here.

4. Konstantin, p. 21..

5. Diacu, Florin,The Lost Millennium, Knopf Canada, Toronto, 2005.

6. New Chronology.

7. Colavito, New Chronolgy, Dutch, Steven, Is a Chunk of History Missing?, Here.

8. New Chronology, Rawlins, Dennis, Recovering Hipparchos' Last Lost Lustrous Star, in Dio, V. 4. No. 3, December 1994, p. 119, Here. Espenak, Fred, Eclipse Predictions and the Earths Rotation, NASA, Here.

9. Colavito, New Chronolgy, Dutch.

10. Colavito.

11. Konstantin, p. 231 & 232.

12. Pliny, The Letters of the Younger Pliny, Penguin Books, London, 1963. The description can be found in Book Six, letters 16 and 20, pp. 166-168, 170-173.

13. IBID, and Winchester, Simon, Krakatoa, HarperCollins Pub., New York, 2003, p. 11-12, Wikipedia, Mount Vesuvius, Here.

14. Wikipedia, Laocoon and His Sons, Here.

15. Pliny the Elder, Natural History, at Perseus, Here. See Also Pliny the Elder, Natural History A Selection, Penguin Books, London, 1991, Book 36, Ch. 4, s. 37, at p. 347.

16. Wikipedia, Natural History, Here.

17. Wikipedia, Pliny the Younger, Here.

Pierre Cloutier

Carlos Castaneda and
Anthropological Fraud

Carlos Castaneda Cover on Time Magazine
Carlos Castaneda (1925-1998) was the author of various books, of “Anthropology”, including Castaneda, Carlos. Journey to Ixtlan, The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge, A Separate Reality, The Art of Dreaming, and many other books.1

The other thing to remember about Carlos Castaneda is that he was a fraud and a liar. He said that he was doing research on Yaqui Shamanism who he called Don Juan. It is now very clear that Don Juan did not exist and that Carlos books are clear frauds in that they are not in any sense Ethnographic accounts of Yaqui Shamanism but fiction.2

Rather than go into a long dissertation about why Carlos Castaneda’s books are fraudulent, I will just mention a few facts.

Carlos Castaneda claimed that he was born in Sao Paulo Brazil in either 1931 or 1935. It appears that in fact he was born in 1925 in the city of Cajamarca Peru. He also claimed to have served in the Korean War, also a false claim.3

Further it appears that Carlos claim to describe Yaqui shamanism is completely bogus and his Don Juan nothing but an invention.4 Further Carlos accounts have such absurdities as Carlos wondering about with Don Juan in the desert for days in June with no mention of the heat. Those description of hiking about in the desert when the temperature soars to well over 100 degrees Fahrenheit, are just stupid. We read descriptions of climbing up to the top of hills in August and resting in open spaces until noon. What!!5 We also learn that the Sonoran desert is crawling with Mountain lions (Pumas), despite that fact they have nearly been wiped out in the area and are solitary, among other absurdities.6

In 1973 When a lot of people were taking Carlos’ fantasies seriously even Time magazine in a generally positive cover story said:

However, with Castaneda's increasing fame have come increasing doubts. Don Juan has no other verifiable witness, and Juan Matus is nearly as common a name among the Yaqui Indians as John Smith farther north. Is Castaneda real? If so, did he invent Don Juan? Is Castaneda just putting on the straight world?

…

But such endorsements and parallels do not in any way validate the more worldly claim to importance of Castaneda's books: to wit, that they are anthropology, a specific and truthful account of an aspect of Mexican Indian culture as shown by the speech and actions of one person, a shaman named Juan Matus. That proof hinges on the credibility of Don Juan as a being and Carlos Castaneda as a witness. Yet there is no corroboration—beyond Castaneda's writings-that Don Juan did what he is said to have done, and very little that he exists at all.7

If the fraudulence of Carlos “research” and books is now well established how did he end up being so successful and getting a Phd from the University of California? I will explore that later.

Castaneda's books has been under sustained attack for many years, right from the beginning, the refusal of the University of California to openly acknowledge this is a reflection on them but I guess they want to preserve the rather profitable sales of Castaneda's books. Its always hard to acknowledge you've been had especially when it makes you money. I note that vast legion of "alternative" Anthropologists, etc., who have been boosting Castaneda's books have been if anything even more loath to admit they've been had.

If they had followed a few simple rules, that my Prof's in Anthropology were required, and required, to produce Castaneda would never have gotten a Phd.

1, Prove that you went to where you say you went. (tickets, photos, etc.)

2, Turn over your notes to the Phd. committee.

3, If you are working with people who speak a different language provide a vocabulary of some kind indicating a knowledge of said language.

4, Indicate in your bibliography a detailed knowledge of seminal and recent work on the "people" you are studying.

5, Have on your committee at least one person who has some detailed knowledge of the the area / people you are doing the Phd. on.

6, Have the manuscript properly vetted for errors, omissions etc.

It is my understanding that the Committee that awarded Castaneda the Phd., violated those norms.

The University of California is shamefully but not surprisingly refusing to publicly acknowledge this Phd board’s incompetence and negligence.

Carlos Castaneda was and remains a fraud because he invented Don Juan and his research on the Yaqui Indian Shamanism was bogus and false.

He claimed to the Phd., committee he was doing ethnographic research on a Yaqui Indian shaman. He was not. He told the Phd., committee he was doing research on Yaqui religious practice and he was not. He told vast number of people, (those who bought his books) that his books represented a picture of Yaqui shamanism and religious belief; it is not. The books were presented has non-fiction when they were fiction. Finally the books are peppered with absurdities, inaccuracies which indicate systematic falsehoods.It is shameful that Carlos got a Phd., and a further shame the University of California refuses to publicly acknowledge this shoddy episode for what it was.

Carlos was however very attuned to the wave of New Age idiocy that was coming and decided to cash in on that wave by producing works awash in New Age glop and it helped make him rich and famous. Meanwhile it produced works of virtually no Anthropological value whatsoever.8

Some try to excuse Carlos on the grounds that his writing impart a “higher” truth, however Time magazine got it right so long ago when it compared Carlos’ writings to fiction:

The difference is that Castaneda does not present his Don Juan cycle as fiction but as unembellished documentary fact.9

I might be able to discuss the merits of Castaneda's books, (in my opinion minimal) if they had been published as fiction, and not as fact.

1. Journey to Ixtlan, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1972, The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge, University of California Press, Berkeley CA., 1998, A Separate Reality, Pocket Books, New York, 1971, The Art of Dreaming, HarperCollins, New York, 1993.

2. See for example De Mille, Richard, Castaneda’s Journey, Capra Press, Santa Barbara CA., 1976, De Mille, Richard, Editor, The Don Juan Papers, Ross-Erikson Pub., Santa Barbara, Ca., 1980, Kikes, Jay Courtney, Carlos Castaneda, Academic Opportunism and the Psychedelic Sixties, Millenia Press, Victoria BC., 1993, Churchill, Ward, Carlos Castaneda: The Greatest Hoax since Piltdown Man, in Fantasies of the Master Race, Common Courage Press, Monroe MA., 1992 pp. 43-64, Harris, Marvin, Return of the Witch, in Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches, Vintage Books, New York, 1974, pp. 208-222, and Cultural Materialism, Vintage Books, New York, 1979, pp. 319-324.

3. Churchill, p. 45, Wikipedia, Carlos Casteneda, Here.

4, De Mille, Richard, Sonoragate or Tales of Folly, in The Don Juan Papers, pp. 119-143, see also Harris, 1974.

5, Sebald, Hans, Roasting Rabbits in Tularemia or The Lion, the Witch, and the Horned Toad, in The Don Juan Papers, pp. 34-38, p. 35.

6. IBID, p. 36.

7, Time Magazine cover story, March 5, 1973, Don Juan and the Sorcerer’s Apprentice, at Time, Here.

8, Gardner, Martin, Carlos Castaneda and New Age Anthropology, in Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?, W.W. Norton, New York, 2001, pp. 162-171, Harris, 1974 & 1979. For what Carlos was up too later in his life and its ill effects see Marshall, Robert, The dark legacy of Carlos Castaneda, at Salon, Here.

9. Time.

Pierre Cloutier

Truth and Lies

Glyph of Pacal’s name
One of the most pernicious ideas that still has some influence on the study of Mayan Hieroglyphs is the notion that the History recorded in the Glyphs are lies and propaganda. This notion seems to be especially popular among the archeologists and not very popular among the epigraphers, (interpreters of the glyphs).1 This debate is based on the idea that not just were the inscriptions of the Mayan Kings one sided propaganda but that they were deliberate lies and rewriting of history for political purposes. In the twentieth century we have become familiar with lies and propaganda by the state so at first this does not seem like such an outrageous notion. But it is an outrageous notion in the manner in which it is put forward, and it usually has been framed so that those who propose it have thrown the onus of "proof" upon the epigraphers. This is an outrageous notion.

The onus is on those who propose that the inscriptions are lies to show that the inscriptions are false. Before I go into the alleged "evidence", I would like explain why I consider this to be an outrageous notion. The lies that I’m referring to are the birth, accession and death dates also the lists and names of various rulers mentioned in inscriptions. What the "doubters" are proposing is that none of this information can be trusted and that it is often a complete propaganda lie. What is interesting is that the Mayan monumental inscriptions are the only one’s I know of that are subject to such a level of distrust. Egyptian Hieroglyphic texts of the Pharaohs are not subject to this level of distrust, neither are Shang Oracle bones, Hittite texts, Roman, inscriptions, etc. Generally birth dates, reign lengths, accession dates, etc., are considered reliable. Even Rameses (II), the Great whose inscriptions including the monumental ones about the Battle of Kadesh, in which Rameses’ claims he won the battle, when he lost, is considered reliable in terms of his reign dates, birth etc.. The Mayan Royals are being accused of a level of falsehood and mendacity unparalleled in any other ancient society we know of. The deliberate creation of outrageous thoroughly false data about age, birth and accession to the throne. Not even modern Totalitarian states have lied to that extent. As will be shown below the arguments used to distrust the Mayan monumental inscriptions could be applied to virtually any ancient society. For example how safe are the various Babylonian, Assyrian, Sumerian King lists from such "distrust"?

Another effect is that if this distrust is warranted then all the historical information in all Mayan inscriptions would have to be thrown out as fatally unreliable. Nothing could be trusted in the inscriptions; the "history" in the inscriptions would have to be regarded as "useful fictions" created for political purposes. This may appear to be a straw man I’m creating to knock down but that is in effect what the "doubters" are suggesting.

The "doubters" argument is based on the following points. These points will be discussed in relation to the Palenque Royal inscriptions.

1, The inscriptions at Palenque contain obviously made up and fanciful figures. For example the figure of U-Kix-Chan is recorded in a Royal inscription at Palenque as being born on March, 11 933 B.C.E. and ascending the throne on Mar. 28, 967 B.C.E.

2, The dates of accession contain large gaps of time between them. For example the gap of over 4 years between the death of Chaacal I and the accession of Kan-Xul I. Gaps also occur at other Mayan sites. The implication is one of possible or probable usurpation.

3, The great ages recorded for many Mayan Kings upon death and/or accession. For example Chan-Bahlum of Palenque was 66 when he died, 48 upon accession to the throne. Pacal himself was 80 when he died. Pacal’s son Kan-Xul II was 57 years old at accession. These figures are considered unbelievable given what we know about Mayan life expectancy during this period. We cannot be expected to believe the Mayan’s were ruled by a "Gerontocracy".2

4, Mayan Rulers put on their monuments what they wanted their future nobles to believe. No evidence provided, deduced from the public nature of the monuments.

5, Mayan Rulers had ample chance to fake dates to justify usurpation, also in many cases there is a lack of contemporaneous documents. For example the birth and accession of Pacal.

6, Studies of the bones found in the tomb of Pacal reveal that they are the bones of a man who died in his at most in his mid fifties. Thus Pacal could not have been 80 when he died and therefore his birth and accession dates are political lies. Alberto Ruz has stated he believes the man in the temple was about 40 years old when he died.3

7, Given the hard "Scientific" facts about the age of the body in the Temple of the Inscriptions the Glyphic evidence must be in error and give way.

Evaluating this 'evidence" and argument is problematic in that it is so hard to take seriously. The good points are drowned in a sea of bad argument. To start with points 6 and 7. The dates for both Pacal’s accession and birth and death are exact right down to the day. The principles of calculating Mayan dates and converting them to modern dates have been massively tested and are endlessly checked. The same is true of the interpretation and analysis of the Glyphs. That cannot be said for the analysis of bones to determine age. The age at death given for Pacal varies from 40 to 55. Hardly exact. There is in fact much discussion of this in the literature about whether or not old people generally have "young" bones. Further exactly how the anthropologists determined the age of the bones has not been published. 50 years after analysis!4

Tomb of Pacal

In 1984-1986 an analysis was conducted of the bones of those interred in a crypt in a Church at Spitalfields in east London. The dates of birth and death were known of the remains. Different methods of bone analysis, etc. were used to evaluate / determine when the people died and then compared to their actual date of death. The results indicated that:

All the methods applied to the Spitalfields skeletons tended to underestimate the age of the old, and overestimate the age of the young, a result that reflects the bias inherent in cemetery material composed of individuals who died of natural causes. Those who die young have presumably failed to achieve their potential and already have “old bones,” while those who live to a great age are survivors and have “young” bones at death.5

In fact this entire edifice of conjecture is based on the argument that Pacal was far too young at the time of his death to be telling the truth about his birth and accession. So the dates were frauds. From this supposed "fact" was erected, like an inverted pyramid the whole argument about Mayan historical texts being mendacious lies. A rather slender basis for such a sweeping conclusion.

Regarding points 4 & 5. The simple fact that Mayan could have faked evidence is not proof, evidence of fraudulent records. That such lies could benefit Mayan rulers is also no evidence of fraud. The lack of contemporaneous inscriptions for some rulers does not prove that in all such cases later records are fraudulent. In the case of European history certain historical figures would disappear with such an attitude towards the documentary record. For example Alfred the Great, or Hugh Capet, (founder of the Capetian Dynasty of France).

Regarding the puzzling gaps. The "doubter’s" do not seem to notice that the gaps vary in time period from a few months to several years. After making the valid point that these gaps are puzzling and require explanation they are used to impeach the credibility of the whole record. The problem is why did Mayan royalty record those gaps at all. If Mayan royalty was willing to fake birthdays, ages, days of accession to the throne, why not simply erase those puzzling gaps rather than record them? It is very likely that the longer gaps indicate succession problems but the very fact that such gaps were recorded is not an indication that the record is fraudulent. Once again far too broad conclusions are being drawn on limited evidence.

A possibility not mentioned in the literature is that the accession date is the equivalent of enthronement so that frequently it was postponed for reasons involving having it on an astrologically etc., auspicious day and not because of political disputes.

Puzzling features also include the fact that Mayan inscriptions include bad news, such as Kings captured and the sack of cities. In fact inscriptions at Palenque mention the city being sacked. At Tikal a King is described as dying of wounds. These inscriptions would seem to record bad things happening to the cities and their rulers. The doubters can’t have it both ways if the "good" news is lies then so is the bad news.6

Regarding point 1. The fact that U-Kix-Chan is probably legendary is no more proof that the rest of the list is fraudulent anymore than the claim of the House of Tudor that they were related to King Arthur. To say nothing of the claims of other European Noble and Royal families.

Regarding point 3. The "Doubters" are very selective in what reigns they select to make the King’s lists look ridiculous. For example the lists at Palenque do not just include the ages mentioned in point 3 put also the following. Ages. Kuk-Balam acceded age 33, died age 37. Butz-Aj acceded age 27, died age 40. Ahkal Mo-Nahb II acceded age 41 died age 47. Kan Balam I acceded age 47 died age 57. These dates are certainly more "realistic". Given the vagaries of the human life span before modern times such a wide variety of life spans are to be expected. This supports the overall validity of the list.7

Concerning the life span of Pacal and his son it is to be expected that if Pacal reigned for a long time, (67 years) that his successor would be at least middle aged. And since Pacal’s first son, Chan Bahlum II died apparently without surviving children or grandchildren, his younger brother Kan-Hok succeeded him. Since the lists with very few exceptions list only rulers it is not surprising that any children who did not live so long would not be listed. Alberto Ruz’s comment about a Gerontocracy seems only to apply to Pacal and two of his sons, and by what seems to be deliberate perversity in ignoring much of the rest of the King lists.8

Temple of the Inscriptions, Palenque

The great ages recorded should not occasion surprise in that it is perfectly reasonable to expect members of the Mayan elite to have on average significantly longer life spans than ordinary Maya so comparison with the apparent fact that the life expectancy of ordinary Maya was significantly less than the life spans recorded for the elite is hardly much in terms of proof that the inscriptions are lies.

This argument has been characterized with some justification in my opinion to result from the fact that few of the "dirt" archeologists can read the inscriptions or in fact have any knowledge of any Mayan language. If the inscriptions can be dismissed as "propaganda" and "lies" then the archeologist doesn’t have to learn the inscriptions or Mayan. Certainly the analogy with Greece or Egyptology etc., is striking. It would be hard to take seriously any "Egyptologist" who could not read the hieroglyphs, or a Classicist who could not read Latin or Greek. But if you dismiss the inscriptions you can avoid learning Mayan Glyphs and language.9

In 1999 at Palenque an inscription called the K'an Tok Tablet was discovered. This inscription records the investiture of a series of officials by the rulers of Palenque over a 300 year period. The list records such things as Lady Incal overseeing the "tying of the headband" on a man named Janahb Sotz. This record of prosaic activities of the rulers of Palenque strongly supports the idea that the King lists are in fact historical and not lies. Overall in the last few years the accumulation of evidence has virtually completely discredited the doubters.10

The above may appear to be a low blow but in my opinion the proper onus is on those who propose that the inscriptions are mendacious lies to prove that that is so.

Finally it is infuriating that the doubters would like to be able to pick and choose what is "true" and is not "true" and the criteria seems to be entirely subjective. It is concluded that the Mayan inscriptions are about as reliable has other similar inscriptions elsewhere in the world and their reliability should be judged in a similar fashion and not rejected by a cynical nihilism.

To conclude:

We can confidently say that K’inich Janab Pakal did die when he was 80, if only because the contemporaneous records of Maya history, anchored so firmly in the mechanisms of the Maya calendar, leave little doubt. His birth and death dates are immovable, and they come from inscriptions that were composed during his lifetime or soon thereafter. Despite what others have argued, we cannot believe that any Maya king could have manipulated the structure of contemporary history to exaggerate his own age. Pakal was notable for being 80 years old, and Maya historians at Palenque seem to have taken some pride in mentioning his advanced age whenever possible, especially using the title “the Five-score Year Lord”.11

Palace, Palenque

1, Marcus, Joyce, Royal Family, Royal Texts, in Mesoamerican Elites, Ed. Z. Chase & Arlen Chase, University of Oklahoma Press, London, 1992 & Mesoamerican Writing Systems: Propaganda, Myth, and History in Four Ancient Civilizations, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ., 1992.

2, Ruz, Alberto, Gerontocracy at Palenque?, in Social Process in Maya Prehistory, Ed. N. Hammond, Academic Press, London, 1977. see also Footnote 1.

3, IBID.

4, Schele, Linda, & Mathews, Peter, The Code of Kings, Touchstone Books, New York, 1998, pp. 342-344. See also Renfrew, Colin, & Bahn, Paul, Archaeology, Second Edition, Thames and Hudson, London, 1996, p. 408, Stuart, David, & George Stuart, Palenque, Thames and Hudson, London, 2008, pp. 180-182.

5, Renfrew, p. 408.

6, Martin, Simon, & Grube, Nikolai, Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens, Second Edition, Thames and Hudson, 2008, pp, 30-31, 158-161.

7, Stuart, David, pp. 244-247.

8, Lists are, two in Pacal's tomb in the Temple of the Inscriptions and one in the Temple at the Top. One list is in Kan B'alam's Temple of the Cross. See Schele, Linda, & Freidal, David, A Forest of Kings, William Morrow & Company Inc., New York, 1990, Chapter 9, pp 217-261.

9, See Coe, Michael D., Breaking the Maya Code, Thames and Hudson, London, 1992.

10, Skidmore, Joel, A New Palenque Ruler, at Mesoweb, Here

11, Stuart, David, p. 182.

Pierre Cloutier

Brazen Effrontery

Menzies' Voyages

A few years ago Gavin Menzies' book 1421 was published1 amidst a blaze of publicity and controversy, rather than discuss the “merits”, zero in my opinion, of Menzies’ worthless piece of pseudo-scientific garbage.2 I will briefly discuss what we know about how this piece of “scholarship” was manufactured.

I used the word manufactured quite deliberately above, because yes indeed this book was not “researched” or “written” it was manufactured quite deliberately and coldly to make the publisher, and yes the writer, boodles of cash, with of course absolutely no qualms, ethical, moral or simply prudent whatsoever.

Let us go through the steps by which this work of no value was manufactured from the bowels of a shameless publisher.

It all stated when Menzies and his wife traveled to China for their silver wedding anniversary. While visiting the Forbidden City in Beijing Menzies noticed that the dates of all sorts of buildings etc., was the date 1421. Which was the year the capital was moved from Nanjing to Beijing during the reign of the Yongle Emperor.4

Menzies decided to write a book about the year 1421 in China and the rest of the world. The result was a huge book of 1,500 pages. By this time Menzies had acquired an agent who told him that the manuscript has written was un-sellable. However his agent did have a few suggestions…5

In a very small part of the manuscript Menzies had a far out speculation about Admiral Zheng He’s subordinates exploring the world c. 1421. The agent suggested Menzies dump the rest of the book and expand that section massively.

And I then said to him, ‘Look, let's forget what was happening in France and Germany and Britain in the 15th century, let's just look at this one episode and let's make the whole book the story of how China discovered America.’6

Further it was decided to get the media involved in publicizing Menzies’ idea. The agent even decided to rewrite some of the chapters. So a public relations company was contacted and got involved and soon a story was published in the Daily Telegraph and further Menzies gave a talk at the Royal Geographical Society, (they will rent to anyone it seems). Soon major publishers were interested.7

The publisher finally selected was Transworld and one of its subsidiaries Bantam Books. They offered 500,000 pounds for the world rights to 1421. A problem was that despite the extensive expansion of that short section by Menzies the book was still only 190 pages and apparently was badly written and confusing to look at. So Bantam decided to “improve” the manuscript. Supposedly Menzies was told that he could not write.8

It was dry as dust. And Transworld said, "Well" - after they bought it, they said, "You know, this is a great book, potentially, but nobody's going to read it. You know, if you want to get your story over, you've got make it readable, and you can't write, basically." I mean, in a sort of polite way.9

So they had a large staff of supposedly 130 people work on “improving” the book including a ghost writer by the name of Neil Hanson. All the research remained Menzies however and despite the large resources devoted to “improving” the book, zero effort seems to have gone into checking out the books claims.10

As one of the publishers said:

It's very hard to prove that something is or is not correct. I mean, we do have to rely on our authors - we - we simply don't have the time. I mean, we work full - flat out publishing the books, bringing them to press, marketing them, publicising them, selling them - we can't possibly go through all our books and check every single one of them out for factual accuracy.11

Where does one begin with such bold faced cheek! The fact is they devoted extensive resources to “improving” the book, including hiring a ghost writer, and then to marketing the book. It would not have been all the difficult to have the book checked out by a few experts in maritime and Chinese history or to have hired a fact checker to check out a few things.

The bottom line is that the publisher could not be bothered to do anything that might throw a monkey wrench into their desire to earn mega-profits from this piece of dribble.

One of the publishers did say:

What Gavin was claiming, was, of itself, a step away from orthodox history, and anything that says - that does - that is, can be, sensational, or certainly different. And we're always looking for things - as are lots of people - that really go up against conventional wisdom, and this is what I thought this book did.12

Roughly translated we saw this as a bit of sensationalistic clap-trap that would make us much boodle. Of course it was deliberately marked as sensationalistic and a “controversy” was manufactured out of whole cloth, by the publisher as a way of boosting sales of the book.13

Typical of the mindset of the publisher was the claim on the book that Menzies was born in China. He wasn’t; he was born in London.14

The book was published and quite predictably got a torrent of vicious reviews, but well over a million were sold, the book has been translated into many languages and will into the future make even more boodle for Menzies and his publishers.15

The result has been that Menzies is well known and is a sought after public speaker and his book and its equally worthless follow up 1434,16 are selling very well.

This book as been described as:

The most successful book of pseudohistory to appear since Ignatius Donnelly’s Atlantis: the Antidiluvian World over a hundred years earlier. The difference between the books is that when Donnelly wrote his research had some scientific and historical credibility based on the state of knowledge at the time. Menzies’ hypothesis and research has withered under the light of intelligent and informed criticism from the very beginning. His success has been the result of an extensive publicity and marketing campaign that ignored established scholarship and expert opinion in favour of sensationalistic and unwarranted speculation at every step of the way.17

It is clear that the publisher did not and does not care about the truth of Menzies absurd ideas, but cares very much about making acres of cash. By outrageous manipulation and yes “brazen effrontery” they have done precisely that.

1. Menzies, Gavin, 1421, Harper Perennial, New York, 2004.

2. For some critical reviews of Menzies see Findlay, Robert, How Not to (Re)Write World History, Journal of World History, v. 15. no. 2, June 2004, at Here, Hartz, Bill, Gavin’s Fantasy Land, at In the Hall of Maat, at Here,Dutch, Steven, 1421, at Steve Dutch Home Page, Here.,See also this website with lots of articles: The ‘1421’ Myth Exposed, at Here. The above is just some of the critical analysis on the web.

4. Fritze, Ronald H., Invented Knowledge, Reaktion Books, London, 2009, p. 99.

5. IBID. pp. 99-100. The agent’s name is Luigi Bonomi. I hope he enjoyed the money from his pact with the devil. See also Four Corners, Junk History, Broadcast on July 31, 2006, Transcript at Here.

6. Junk History.

7. Fritze. p. 100. The public relations company was Midas Public Relations. See Junk History also.

8. IBID.

9. Junk History.

10. IBID., Fritze, p. 100.

11. Junk History.

12. IBID.

13. IBID. Fritze, pp. 101-102.

14. Junk History.

15. Fritze, pp. 101-102.

16. Menzies, Gavin, 1434, Harper Perennial, New York, 2009. This book seems to be as much a calculated effort to make moolah as 1421. See The ‘1421’ Myth Exposed, above for some well deserved tearing apart of this book.

17 Fritze, p. 103.

Pierre Cloutier

The Degree of Themistocles and Military Probability

Degree of Themistocles
One of the most significant events in history was the successful Greek defence against Persia in 480-479 B. C.E. The decisive event was the naval battle of Salamis just off the coast of Attica near Athens, where the Greeks defeated the Persian navy.

The most important Greek naval contingent was that of Athens and the most influential Greek Naval leader was the Athenian statesman Themistocles, who engineered the Greek victory at Salamis.

The Greeks had tried to stop the Persians at the pass of Thermopylae, with naval forces stationed at nearby Artemisium. The plan failed when the Persians broke through by outflanking the pass. The Persians advanced and ravaged Athens and Attica. The Chief account of this is that of Herodotus who describes panic and what amounts to hysteria in Athens. The Athenians evacuate their women and children to the island of Salamis and parts of the Peloponnesus and man their fleet with the men. The Greek fleet assembles at Salamis to cover the evacuation. The Persian fleet bottles up the Greek Fleet at Salamis and in the panic some of the Greek leaders contemplate withdrawal. By a judicious combination of diplomacy and blackmail Themistocles keeps the fleet together and eggs on the Persians to attack. The result is the battle of Salamis. Afterwards the Persians withdraw part of their forces and fleet withdraws also to Asia Minor. The next year the Greeks defeat the Persians at Plataea ending the Persian threat.1

Map of Greece
Such is the story as usually told.

In 1959 at Troezen in the part of Greece called the Peloponnesus was found an inscription that was supposed to be a 3rd century B.C.E., copy of a 5th century B.C.E., degree of the Athenian Assembly dated 480 B.C.E.2 It dealt with plans for the defence of Greece from the Persian Invasion and goes has follows:

(1) [Gods]. It was resol[ved] by the boule and the people: Themis[tokl]es son of Neokles of Phrearrhioi proposed the motion: [to en]tr[u]st th[e] ci[ty] to Athena [who protlects, Athens (5) a[nd to all the other gods to guard an[d] ke[ep off the ba]rbar[i]an in defence of the country; and that [a]l[l] Athenian[s and the foreig]ners living in Athens should place [their chil]dre[n and wives i[n] Troizen [ .... ? in the protection of Theseus] the founder of the land; and that they should pla[ce] (10) t[he old people and the] moveable possessions on Salamis[; and that the treasurers and the priestesses should remain on the acropolis guarding the belongings of th]e gods; and that all the other Athenians and the foreigners who have reached adulthood should embark o[n the prepared 200 ships and (15) resi[st] t[he barbarian on behalf of freedom, both their own [and that of the other Greeks], along with the Spartans and Corin[thians and Aeginetans] and the others who wish] to sh[are in the danger; and that the gene[r]al[s] should appoint [200] trierar[chs, one for] each ship, (20) [beginning tomorrow, from those who o[w]n both la[nd a]nd [hom]e in Ath[e]ns and who have legit[imate] childr[en and are not more th]an fifty years of age, an[d] should [a]ss[ign t]he ships t[o t]hem by lot; vv they should also choose [t]en ma[r]ines [for each ship from those between twenty [and (25) thirty years of age and four archers; they should [a]lso ap[point by lot] the officers for the ships when they al[so] appoint [the trierar]chs by lot; the generals should als[o] list [the others ship] by ship on notice4boards, the Athenians according to the deme (lexiarchic) registers (30) and the] foreigners from those registered wi[t]h the [pole]m[archj they should list them, assigning them [t]o 200 divisions of [u]p to 100 men each and inscribe for each [divis]ion the name of the trireme and the trierarch and the offi[ce]rs so that they may know on which trireme (35) e[a]ch [d]ivision should e[m]bark; and when al[1] the divisions have been assigned and allocated to the triremes, the boule and t[h]e general[s] are to man a[l]l the 200 ships after [sa]crificing to propitiate Zeus the Almighty (Pankrates) and Athena and Victory (Nike) and Poseidon (40) the Preser[v]er (Asphaleios); and when the ships are manned, with 100 of th[e]m they are to assist Artemis[i]on in Euboea, and with the other 100 around Salamis and the rest of Attica they are to lie in wait and guard the country. So that all Athenians may be united (45) in resisting the barbarian, those who have changed their residence for [ten] years are to go to Salamis and stay there until the people should decide about them; and those [deprived of civic rights ....]3

Not surprisingly the document has been controversial. It for example clearly contradicts Herodotus’ account on a number of points. The most important being as follows:

1. That the Athenian assembly voted to evacuate non-combatants before the battles of Thermopylae and Artemisium and in fact the evacuation began then.

2. The Athenians held back part of their fleet at Salamis. Sending only 100 to Artemisium and keeping 100 at Salamis.

3. The Athenians in fact only intended Artemisium and Thermopylae has temporary holding actions and were preparing for a decisive action at Salamis.

Now one of the problems is that in the 4th and 3rd century B.C.E., there were a number of faked Athenian degrees allegedly from earlier times. Further the language and form of the lettering is in some respects early 3rd century B.C.E. Given that at the very least this degree if its based on an authentic degree of 480 B.C.E., the document has been modified / edited.4

As mentioned above this scenario contradicts Herodotus’ account which is over all quite believable if problematic on details. It is hard to believe that Herodotus could have missed this if it was true. Of course this is not decisive it is simply a problem.5

However the chief problems with the degree are simple military ones. If this was the Athenian plan, or more precisely Themistocles’, then it was an unbelievably stupid plan. And on top of it is very hard to believe that the Athenian assembly would have agreed to such a plan to say nothing of Athens’s allies.

Some of Athens’s allies lived in the area just south of the pass of Thermopylae, just what would they have thought about Athenian commitment to defence against Persia knowing that Athens was already planning to evacuate its non-combatants and abandon Attica and Athens to Persia and keeping ships behind at Salamis. One wonders just what the Spartans would have thought of such plan. Almost certainly it would have infuriated them.

Regarding the Athenian Assembly. Is it remotely serious as even a flight of fancy that even before Artemisium and Thermopylae had been breached that the Assembly would have agreed to open up their city, farms etc., to be looted and devastated by Persian troops has part of some hair-brained scheme of defence? It would be clear that acting out of simple self interest that the Assembly would want the Persians halted as far away from Athens as reasonably possible.

From a psychological point of view it is hard to think up a strategy more effective in demoralizing a population before hand and infuriating your allies.

It is generally recognized that the Greek land and naval forces at Artemisium and Thermopylae were intended to halt the Persian forces permanently. Certainly Herodotus’ account would seem to indicate this.6 Attempt to find a trace of a version of events similar to the degree in Herodotus center on the second oracle of Delphi prophecy given to Athenian emissaries before the battle of Salamis. Part of it goes has follows:

Yet Zeus the all-seeing grants to Athene’s prayer
That the wooden wall only shall not fail, but help you and your children
But await not the host of horse and foot coming from Asia,
Nor be still, but turn your back and withdraw from the foe.
Truly come when you will meet him face to face.
Divine Salamis, you will bring death to women’s sons
When the corn is scattered, or the harvest gathered in.7

Aside from the question of whether or not this prophecy was ever uttered for real or if it is a post-hoc creation; it is a rather slender reed to build on and it still faces the problem that the plan for defence as outlined in the degree is military idiocy.

To illustrate some of the problems with this document look at this photo of the island of Salamis.

Arial Photo of Salamis and surrounding area

The fact is the bay of Salamis is a trap. You can see in the left center the narrow strait between the island of Salamis and the mainland. In antiquity it was even narrower and shallower. It is unlikely that the Greek fleet could have escaped through it or even navigate it!8 All the Persians had to do was block the main strait and blockade the Greek fleet in its trap and sooner or latter the Greeks would have been forced to capitulate or come out and fight in far more open waters were the greater numbers and speed of the Persian fleet would have given the Persians the advantage.

Any plan to set up Salamis has an ultimate defensive position is simply moronic. In fact it appears that the plan was simply for the Greek fleet to cover the evacuation of the population of Athens and Attica to the island of Salamis and the Peloponnesus. I have little doubt that the Persian Admirals were simply ecstatic to find the Greek fleet at Salamis, where it could be blockaded and the transports of the fleet had used to transport part of the army directly to the Peloponnesus out flanking the wall, manned by the Spartans and others across the Isthmus of Corinth.

Now an argument can be made that ignoring the Greek fleet at Salamis was not an option, possible flank attacks, and that the lateness of the campaign season would have forced the Persians to retire to winter quarters.9

I rather doubt that all the Persian fleet would have been required to keep the Greeks bottled up. Only a portion of the fleet was necessary and of course with the Greek fleet at Salamis it would have been easy for Persian transports carrying troops to invade the island of Aegina , (second greatest Greek sea power) and the Peloponnesus. Further the Athenians had abandoned Attica just before harvest. Some food would have been available for Persian troops. Also the Persians had the alliance of Thebes which gave them a substantial Greek ally in central Greece. It is debatable whether or not the Persians were under any real military pressure to attack.

Finally the Greek alliance was fragile, with each city state extremely suspicious of each other and ready at virtually any moment to accuse each other of betrayal. In fact Herodotus’ account of the events in the Greek camp before Salamis indicate an alliance on the point of collapse, with massive mutual recrimination. Herodotus’ account describes in fair detail how the Greeks were ready to flee to their respective homes with their ships and how Themistocles through a combination of trickery and blackmail managed to thwart their efforts.10 It is hard to believe that the Persians were not aware of this from their spies. If anything it was the Greeks who needed a battle soon to save their crumbling alliance.

Herodotus gives to Artemisia, ruler of Halicarnassus, the following words:

Let me tell you how I think things will now go with the enemy; if only you are not in too great a hurry to fight at sea – if you keep the fleet on the coast where it now is – then, whether you stay here or advance into the Peloponnese, you will easily accomplish your purpose. The Greeks will not be able to hold out against you for long; you will soon cause their forces to disperse – they will soon break up and go home. I hear they have no supplies in the island where they now are; and the Peloponnesian contingents, at least are not likely to be very easy in their minds if you march with the army towards their country – they will hardly care to fight in defence of Athens.11

Now it is virtually certain that Artemisia never uttered those words but in my opinion they represent an accurate overview of the situation before the battle of Salamis.

It is interesting that Herodotus says that Themistocles sent a secret message to the Persians telling them that the Greeks were completely disunited and would offer little resistance and that the Persians would have a easy victory if they attacked.12

Strait of Salamis where the battle occurred
The end result of all of this was the Greek victory at Salamis. Even if one doubts certain aspects of the story like Themistocles message to the Persians; the picture it gives of an alliance hanging together by a thread rings true. It also indicates desperation for a battle as soon has possible before the alliance collapses into mutual recriminations.

Themistocles was one of the most astute politicians of his time and it appears he pulled of the equivalent of a military / political miracle. It is rather ironic that he ended up as governor of Magnesia in Asia Minor for the Persian King Artxerxes son of King Xerxes who he had defeated at Salamis!13

It is a common place that in war things hardly ever go according to plan and it is very hard to believe that the apparent plan indicated in the degree would have worked out so well; given its glaring defects and lack of common sense. Further any such degree passed before Artemisium and Thermopylae would have told the Persians well ahead of time Greek, or at least Athenian strategy.

It is virtually certain that at the very least the degree we have is not an exact / accurate copy of the Athenian degree passed at the time and that its more controversial sections that contradict Herodotus should simply not be taken seriously.

1. Sealey, Raphael, A History of the Greek City States: 700 – 338 B.C.E., University of California Press, Los Angles, 1976, pp. 208-228, Buckley, Terry, Aspects of Greek History: 750 – 323 B.C., Routledge, London, 1996, pp. 170-188, Ehrenberg, Victor, From Solon to Socrates, 2nd Edition, Routledge, London, 1973, pp. 152-174, For Herodotus see Herodotus, The Histories, Revd Edition, Penguin Books, London, 2003. For the panic in Athens see Book 8, s. 40-48, See also The Rise and Fall of Athens, Plutarch, Penguin Books, London, 1960, Themistocles, s. 9-10, Fuller, J.F.C., A Military History of the Western World, v. 1, Da Capo Press, New York, 1954, pp. 26-52, Burn, A.R., The Pelican History of Greece, Penguin Books, London, 1965, pp. 177-192.

2. Buckley, p. 174.

3. Dillon, Matthew, & Garland, Lynda, Ancient Greece: Social and Historical Documents from Archaic times to the Death of Socrates, 2nd Edition, Routledge, London, 2000, p. 203. Other translations include, Lewis, Naphtali, Greek Historical Documents, The Fifth Century B.C., A.M. Hakkert Ltd., Toronto, 1971, pp. 4-5, Meiggs, R., & Lewis, D., A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B.C., University of Oxford Press, Oxford, 1969, No. 23, Fornara, Charles W., Translated Documents of Greece and Rome 1: Archaic times to the end of the Peloponnesian War, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2nd Edition, 1983, No. 55, pp. 54-55.

4. Buckley, p. 174, Lewis, p. 4, Ehrenburg, pp. 156, 426 n. 59, Sealey, pp. 214-216.

5. See Buckley, pp. 170-175, Sealey, pp. 208-221.

6. IBID. Buckley, and Herodotus, Book 7, s. 196-239.

7. Herodotus, Book 7, s. 141.

8. Sealey, p. 220.

9. Buckley, p. 178.

10. Herodotus, Book 8, s. 50-65.

11. IBID. Book 8, s. 68.

12. IBID. Book 8. s. 75-77.

13. Plutarch, Themistocles, s. 27-32.

Pierre Cloutier

The Shroud / Fraud of Turin

Head of Christ from the Shroud of Turin

One of the most interesting examples of modern nonsense is the veritable cult surrounding the Shroud of Turin or more accurately the Fraud of Turin. It amazes me that people can take seriously the idea that this artifact is in fact the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth. What is further amazing is how so much of the time shroud gawkers have turned the onus around against sceptics to prove that the shroud is a forgery.

It does not work that way the onus in proving a miracle is on those who assert the miracle not those who doubt it. The simple fact is that it is unlikely in the extreme that the Shroud of Turin is in fact the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth.

One is further amazed about how the shroud gawkers were able to spin away with acres of special pleading and very dubious arguments the carbon 14 dating results done by three separate laboratories in 1988; they tested three different samples from three different parts of the shroud, yielded dates between 1260 -1390 C.E., or an average date of 1325 C.E, +- 65 years.1 The enormous amount of effort to get around and attack these results is positively breathtaking. The chances of such an error are frankly very minimal. Amazingly faced with the carbon 14 results the shroud gawkers still put the onus of proof on the sceptics! Of course it is also common for the shroud gawkers to simply ignore the carbon 14 dating results and act like they do not exist.

What makes the carbon 14 dating results interesting is that the mid 14th century date for the shroud also corresponds to the first literary evidence for the appearance of the shroud. It appears from the Carbon 14 results that the shroud appears just when it makes its first historical appearance.

The document is a letter is from the then Bishop of Troyes Pierre D’Arcis concerning the exhibition of the shroud The letter is mainly concerned with the impropriety of exhibiting the shroud and not with its authenticity. It does however refer to an earlier exhibition of the shroud, in the 1350’s and a investigation by a certain Henry of Poitiers then Bishop of Troyes. Right from the start the shroud was labeled a fraud.2

The letter goes as follows.

[Letter to Pope Clement VII, 1389.]

The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes the Dean of a certain collegiate church to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Savior Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb and upon which the whole likeness of the Savior had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which He bore. This story was put about not only in the kingdom of France, but, so to speak, throughout the world, so that from all parts people came together to view it. And further to attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them, pretended miracles were worked, certain men being hired to represent themselves as healed at the moment of the exhibition of the shroud, which all believed to be the shroud of our Lord. The Lord Henry of Poitiers, of pious memory. Then Bishop of Troyes, becoming aware of this, and urged by many prudent persons to take action, as indeed was his duty in the exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction, set himself earnestly to work to fathom the truth of this matter. For many theologians and other wise persons declared that this could not be the real shroud of our Lord having the Savior’s likeness thus imprinted upon it, since the holy Gospel made no mention of any such imprint, while, if it had been true, it was quite unlikely that the holy Evangelists would have omitted to record it, or that the fact should have remained hidden until the present time. Eventually after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed. Accordingly, after taking mature counsel with wise theologians and men of law, seeing that he neither ought nor could allow the matter to pass, he began to institute formal proceedings against said Dean and his accomplices in order to root out this false presumption. They, seeing their wickedness discovered, his away the said cloth so that the Ordinary could not find it, and they kept it hidden afterwards for thirty-four years or thereabouts down to the present year. And now again the present Dean of the said church with fraudulent intent and for the purpose of gain, suggested as it is reported, to the Lord Geoffrey de Charny, Knight, and the temporal lord of the place, to have the said cloth replaced in the said church, that by a renewal of the pilgrimage the church might be enriched with the offerings made by the faithful. Acting upon the Dean’s suggestion, who was thus treading the footsteps of his predecessor, the knight went to the Cardinal de Thury, your Holiness’ Nuncio and Legate in the French territory, and suppressing the facts that the said cloth at the time above referred to was asserted to be the shroud of our Savior, and that it bore the Savior’s likeness imprinted upon it, and that the Ordinary had taken action against the canons in order to stamp out the error which had arisen, and that said cloth for fear of the Ordinary had been hidden away, nay even, it is said, conveyed out of the diocese, he represented to the Cardinal that the said cloth was a picture or figure of the shroud, which many people came to visit out of devotion and which had previously been much venerated and resorted to in that church, but on account of the war and other causes, by the command of the Ordinary, had been placed for a long time in safer keeping, petitioning that he might be allowed to set up in the said church this picture or figure of the shroud which so many out of devotion desired to see, so that it might there be shown to the people and venerated by the faithful. Then the said Lord Cardinal, without entirely approving the petition, but probably acting on the facts before him and so far prudently, granted to the petitioner by Apostolic authority that without asking leave of the Ordinary or of any other person he might set up this picture or figure of the shroud of our Lord in the said church or in any other decent place. And under cover of this written authority the cloth was openly exhibited and shown to the people in the church aforesaid on great holidays, and frequently on feasts and at other times, with the utmost solemnity, even more than when the Body of Christ our Lord is exposed; to wit, by two priests vested in albs with stoles and maniples and using the greatest possible reverence, with lighted torches and upon a lofty platform constructed for this special purpose; and although it is not publicly stated to be the true shroud of Christ, nevertheless this is given out and noised abroad in private, and so it is believed by many, the more so, because, as stated above, it was on a previous occasion declared to be the true shroud of Christ, and by a certain ingenious manner of speech it is now in the said church styled not the sudarium but the sanctuarium, which to the ears of the common folk, who are not keen to observe distinctions, sounds much the same thing, and crowds of people resort there as often as it is shown or is expected to be shown, under the belief, or more truly the delusion, that it is the true shroud. Moreover, it is currently reported amongst them that it has been approved by the Apostolic See by means of the letters of the said Lord Cardinal.

Accordingly, most holy Father, perceiving this great scandal renewed amongst the people and the delusion growing to the peril of souls, observing also that the Dean of the said church did not keep within the terms of the Cardinal’s letters, obtained though they were by the suppression of the truth and the suggestion of what was false, as already explained, desiring to meet the danger as well as I could and to root out this false persuasion from the flock committed to me, after consultation with many prudent advisers, I prohibited the said Dean under pain of excommunication, by the very act sufficiently published [eo ipso latae], from exhibiting this cloth to the people until otherwise might be determined.

He, however, refusing obedience and lodging an appeal, in defiance of the prohibition went on with the exhibition as before. Moreover, the knight, maintaining and defending his behavior, by holding the said cloth with his own hands on a certain solemn feast, and showing it to the people with the observances above described, caused himself, by a royal warrant [salvagardia], to be put in formal possession and occupation of the said cloth and of the right of exhibiting it, and had this notified to me; and so under cover of the appeal as well as of the said royal warrant this delusion is shielded and propagated, to the contempt of the Church, scandal of the people, and peril of souls – all which I am powerless to remedy – nay more to defamation of my above-named predecessor who denounced the abuse in this time, and of myself who to the best of my poor ability am also anxious to take such prudent as I may. But Alas! The scandal is upheld and defended and its supporters cause it to be spread abroad among the people that I am acting through jealousy and cupidity and to obtain possession of the cloth for myself, just as similar reports were circulated before against my predecessor; while, on the other hand, others aver that I move too half-heartedly in the matter and that I make myself a laughing-stock by allowing the abuse to continue. But though I have earnestly and humbly cited the said knight and besought him that he would for a time suspend the exhibition of the said cloth until your Holiness could be consulted and should pronounce upon the matter, he paid no attention, or rather without my knowledge he had representations made to your Holiness in the same sense as those already made to the said Lord Cardinal, adding that I refused to defer to the said Cardinal’s letters, that I disregarded the appeal and went on launching inhibitions and sentences of excommunication against those who exhibited the cloth and against the people who came to venerate it. But with all deference to the author of representations, my action in thus proceeding against those who exhibited and venerated the cloth was in no wise derogatory to the said Lord Cardinal’s letters, obtained though they were surreptitiously. This authorization of his by no means conceded that the cloth could be exposed with publicity or venerated, but only that it might be restored to or lodged in the said church or some other decent place. And because they would not keep to the terms of the Cardinal’s permit therefore it was that I proceeded against them according to the ordinary forms of law, as in my duty I am bound, and not without much asking counsel, with the view of removing the scandal and the said popular delusion, believing that I should be gravely in fault if I connived at such abuses. Moreover, having to look to my own security in this matter, I was compelled, acting always upon the advice of prudent counselors, to have recourse to the aid of the secular arm, and this being more particularly because the said knight in the first instance had begun to place the matter in the hands of the civil authorities by causing himself to put in formal possession of the right of exhibiting the cloth by the King’s warrant, as said above, which seems a sufficiently absurd proceeding. Accordingly I took measures to have the cloth placed in the custody of the King’s officers, always with the same end in view, viz., that at least until I could bring the whole story to the notice of your Holiness there might for a time being be an end of these exhibitions. And in this request I prevailed without any difficulty with the court of the King’s Parliament when once they were fully informed of the superstitious origin of this shroud, of the use to which it was put, and of the delusion and scandal to which I have called attention. Indeed it is a wonder to all who know the facts of the case that the opposition which hampers me in these proceedings comes from the church, from which quarter I should have looked for the vigorous support, nay, rather have expected punishment if I had shown myself slothful or remiss. However, the knight above mentioned has been beforehand with me, and, having represented the matter as I have explained, has obtained from your Holiness a Brief in which the said Lord Cardinal’s letters are substantially confirmed ex certa scientia and permission is granted that in spite of all prohibitions and appeals, the said cloth my be shown and exposed for the veneration of the faithful; while, as I hear – for I have not been able to procure a copy of said Brief – perpetual silence is enjoined upon myself.

But whereas the canon law requires me to see that no man be imposed upon by false representations and documents for the purposes of gain, and because I am certain that this Brief was obtained by suggestion of what is false and suppression of the truth, and that otherwise it would never have been issued, while I was neither cited nor heard, especially as a the resumption ought to stand in my favor that I would not interfere in such a cause without reason, or disturb any man in any practice of devotion which was harmless and free from extravagance, I do most confidently trust that your Holiness will bear with me if in view of the foregoing facts I still oppose the said exposition until I have fuller instructions from your Holiness yourself, now better informed of the truth of the case. I would ask you then, most blessed Father, to vouchsafe to bestow your attention upon the foregoing statement and to take measures that such a scandal and delusion and abominable superstition may be put and end to both in fact and seeming, in such wise that this cloth be held neither for sudarium nor sanctuarium, nor for an image or figure of our Lord’s sudarium, since our Lord’s sudarium was nothing of the kind, nor, in fine, under any other ingenious pretext be exhibited to the people or exposed for veneration, but that to express horror of such superstition it be publicly condemned, the surreptitious letters above spoken of being recalled, or more truly declared null and void (for fear that the keen-eyed persecutors and detractors of the Church should rail at the Church’s discipline and say that a more prompt and efficacious remedy against scandals and impostures is found in the secular tribunals than in those of ecclesiastical authority). I offer myself here as ready to supply all information sufficient to remove any doubt concerning the facts alleged both from public report and otherwise, in order to exonerate myself and also to discharge my conscience in a matter which I have greatly at heart. Moreover, if health had allowed I should have presented myself personally to your Holiness to state my complaint to the best of my poor ability, for I am convinced that I cannot fully or sufficiently express in writing the grievous nature of the scandal, the contempt brought upon the Church and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and the danger to souls; still I do what I can, chiefly that I can, chiefly that I may be guiltless before God, leaving all else to the disposition of your Holiness, whom may the Almighty long preserve, &c.

Pierre D’Arcis

Bishop of Troyes3

Front image from the Shroud of Turin

On January 6, 1390, Clement VII replied to D’Arcis’ letter. The Exhibition could continue so long as it was always declared that the shroud was a figure or representation of Christ’s shroud not the real deal. D’Arcis was told be keep quiet about the whole thing under pain of excommunication. Letters to other Bishops near Troyes instructed them to enforce the above decisions. Pierre D’Arcis died in 1395.4

The key sections in the above letter related to the issue of forgery are as follows:

Some time since in this diocese of Troyes the Dean of a certain collegiate church to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Savior Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb and upon which the whole likeness of the Savior had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which He bore.

…

Eventually after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed.

Thus the Shroud of Turin enters history as a self confessed fraud.

The carbon 14 results which place the creation of the shroud in the mid 14th century match the statements in the letter about the fabrication of the shroud very well. In fact so well that both pieces of evidence reinforce each other.

Faced with the above the onus is on the shroud gawkers not the sceptics to prove their case.

I will not go into the endless debate and throwing sand in your face antics of the shroud gawkers, all designed to to disguise the perfectly reasonable conclusion that the shroud is a fake. Neither will I go into the various shoddy “documentaries” that appear from time to time on TV that gawk at the shroud and manage to shoddily suppress mention of the letter and the carbon 14 results.5

Of course the main problem with the shroud image as can be seen from the photos used in this post are that the image looks like a painting. If it was actually the image of Jesus of Nazareth “burnt”? onto the shroud by the Resurrection event then the image would be distorted. It is not. It looks painted on. Just wrap any thing in a cloth and gradually unfold it you will see that the image resulting on the cloth will be and must be distorted.

That people continue to gawk at the Shroud of Turin is a sad testement to our times.

1. McCrone, Walter, Judgement Day for the Shroud of Turin, Prometheus Books, Amherst NY, 1999, pp. 245-251, Nickell, Joe, Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, Prometheus Books, Amherst NY, 1998, pp. 150-151.

2. Nickell, 1998, pp. 11-21, McCrone, pp. 1-2, 117-118, Sox, H. David, The Image on the Shroud, Unwin Paperbacks, Boston, 1981, pp. 2-3.

3. The Holy Shroud and the Verdict of History, Translated by Rev. Herbert Thurston, The Month, v. 101, 1903, pp. 17-29 as quoted in Sox, pp.148-152. I put the whole letter here to make it available on the web.

4. Sox, pp. 2-3.

5. The books listed in the notes are a good beginning to do real research on the shroud. I should mention the supposed find of Middle Eastern pollen on the shroud as another example of shroud gawking. The allege pollen find is shall we say like the shroud itself likely fraudulent. See Nickell, Joe, Pollens on the “Shroud”: A Study in Deception, Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 18, No. 4, Summer 1994, pp. 379-385.

Pierre Cloutier