It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Starseed theory

page: 7
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2006 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by mojo4sale
[Take it from someone who grew up in close proximity to indigineous australians during the 60's and 70's that "white academia" along with religious groups, govt and farmers did in fact, not only ignore, but in a lot of cases actually fabricate cultural information regarding the aborigines for their own benefit. I have seen this first hand.

This is true in the Americas, BTW, where there's a great outcry from the Native Americans. The guilty parties (fabricating culture) tend to actually be the New Age groups, and there's a number of very angry pages on the Internet from Native Americans about this (Lynn V. Anderews is one that they organize protests against.)


Like i said above when talking about the history of indigineous australians, Nats comment does not show ignorance or a lack of knowledge, its the truth. That is not to say there weren't white academia who truly cared for aboriginal culture, just that they were rare.

Wouldn't it have been fair to say "some academics"?

However, the major culture suppressors are, as you've noted, the farmers and government and religious leaders -- and, alas, the New Agers who really want wonderful Deep Knowledge who want enlightenment and want it NOW! Rather than study, they "channel knowledge" from their bits and pieces and then hand down wisdom wholesale in books. In some cases, tribe members who are poor/low status/have not been living within the tribe will support these "gurus" and lend them an air of authenticity. In this way, the low-status tribe member gains high-status in the outside world.

And some economic power beyond that which most of his group or tribe has.




posted on May, 6 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by NJE777

Originally posted by Byrd

Would be interesting to find out what that "robert" refernce was. First name, perhaps?


Well, not 100 % sure but have been reading about Hellanicus and in the articles I have read they make reference to:

Robert, Pausanias als Schriftsteller (1919) Lucken, An, Mitt p 98
see below book review of him. I think this is your man:

Pausanias als Schriftsteller. Studien und Beobachtungen
Carl Von Robert, Berlin, Weidman
Review author[s]: Mitchell Carroll
Classical Philology, Vol. 5, No. 4. (Oct., 1910), pp. 519-522.


Great Find, Nat!! That may well be the guy, but Castleden referenced a "Robert" work from 1917. I wonder how much of this is available online. Not very many libraries around here good enough to find this stuff in.

Anyway, this "Robert (1917)" reference was about an apparent translation of a particular papyrus fragment from Oxyrhynchus. These papyri post-date Plato by a couple of centuries, as far as I'm aware. Here's a link to a site that boasts an online, searchable database of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri:
www.papyrology.ox.ac.uk...

These documents were written mostly in Greek and date to the Ptolemaic era (at the earliest) so, although they are found in Egypt, they are not to be considered Egyptian in any strict sense.


Originally posted by NJE777
I decided to check out Hellanicus of Mytilene.

...Hellanicus was big on ethnography:


"A learned man from the Island of Lesbos, who wrote many books on local history, mythography & geography, among them a chonicle of Attica made public after 406 B.C."


And geneology, that I believe was your first guess too?

"Hellanicus devoted an entire prose work to each of serveral heroic families: his Deukalioneia, Atlantis, Asopis & Phoronis"


And, I think you also suggested Plato stole Hellanicus's work?

The suggestion that Plato "borrowed" from Hellanicus of Lesbos came from Castleden in his work on Atlantis (I believe he too tries to tie it in with Thera, unless I'm mistaken.) The information that Castleden speculates on this came from the email from Doug Weller that I pasted into an earlier post.


Originally posted by NJE777 Even if, Hellanicus wrote about geneology, do we write that off too?

I know you're asking Byrd, but in my opinion, if we pretend to know that Hellanicus' "Atlantis" was merely a geneaology (we almost certainly will never know this for a fact), I don't see how we would have any other choice but to write that work off as not applicable to the subject.

Regarding your interest in Thera, I assume you have looked at the recent more accurate date of eruption of just prior to 1600 BC? I started a thread here at ATS (Ancient and Lost Civilizations forum) with a couple of links to this info.


Originally posted by NJE777So the eruption of Santorini is now posed around 18,000 BC. Plato's states Atlantis sank after volcanic eruption in 9,000 BC.
Was this a typo?

Also, regarding Castleden, you can find his book HERE or at Amazon. A brief scan of the reviews for this book at those pages shows that Castleden has done some work along the lines you wish to pursue.

Harte



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by mojo4sale

originally quoted by harte
Nat,
Or, you could have just listened to me.

Should that stop others from researching, if so we would never learn anything new if we just believed what someone else tells us without gathering our own evidence. How many scientific theory's from the turn of the century are now thought to be incorrect. Without challenging the status quo we would still be living in the dark ages, just because you or me or someone else believes something to be true doesnt really make it so. I have no problem with evidence being tabled from opposing views as long as it is civil and devoid of the 'I told you so mentality'. No one takes any notice of those that state 'I have come to this conclusion so it must be correct'. It only detracts from the discussion at hand. I'll shut up now and let the exchange of ideas continue.

Mojo,
While the post you referenced might have given the impression you state, I was constrained by the character limit so that I could not provide links to the posts of mine I quoted from.
When I post information such as I re-quoted in my previous post to Nat, I include links to the information that I have collected that led me to form the opinion that I state. In that post, though, I didn't link back to my original posts, which themselves actually do contain the links to the aforestated information.

By this I mean that I do not post here at ATS with the attitude that 'I have come to this conclusion so it must be correct', though I can see why the last post might give that impression. If I state a thing which I believe based on a "feeling" or something, then I say so. Otherwise, you will always find links to supporting materials in my posts where I state any educated opinions. (Like This post of mine. That is certainly not the same as saying something like "I think it so it must be true" or anything along those lines.

It is also 180 degrees away from what most of the posters here at ATS do (yourself excluded, among many others I'm sure, - I'm aware of your posting of references here.) Most posts here, at least in this part of the site, contain no reference links whatsoever. Others that do contain such links usually are referencing what someone else has said about Plato (for example) or about pyramidology (another example) without fact checking any of the statements they use to support their posts.

So, by all means, challenge the status quo. But first, before one does so, one should make at least some small effort to discover exactly what the "status quo" is, no? It is for this reason that you always see me around here insisting that people stick with Plato when discussing Atlantis. Plato is the status quo.

It's also why I often request links to source material, such as book number and page number of the Mahabarata, as was mentioned elsewhere (like I did here), and links to other, even more arcane reference works like Native American folklore. These subjects often come up to support this or that theory about Atlantis. Almost without exception, references to these last two are the result of some New Age Atlantis website perusals, and never have I seen a poster here actually cite the portion of the Mahabarata or the particular Native myth that they are using in their Atlantis "argument."

But I rant....


Harte

[edit on 5/6/2006 by Harte]

[edit on 5/6/2006 by Harte]



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by NJE777

Originally posted by Harte
Anyway, try to find where Plutarch, Aristotle and the boys at your crystalinks quote actually said what is claimed on that page. If you can find it, it's better than even odds that reading the statement in context would reveal that these guys were no more referring to any "Atlantean-type" culture than they were to my ex mother-in-law!

Oh I intend to do better than that...
I am in the process of sourcing the original extract...soon as I find it, not if or when, I will post

cheers
Nat

Nat,
Any luck on this part yet?

Harte



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by harte
Mojo,
While the post you referenced might have given the impression you state, I was constrained by the character limit so that I could not provide links to the posts of mine I quoted from.
When I post information such as I re-quoted in my previous post to Nat, I include links to the information that I have collected that led me to form the opinion that I state. In that post, though, I didn't link back to my original posts, which themselves actually do contain the links to the aforestated information.

By this I mean that I do not post here at ATS with the attitude that 'I have come to this conclusion so it must be correct', though I can see why the last post might give that impression. If I state a thing which I believe based on a "feeling" or something, then I say so. Otherwise, you will always find links to supporting materials in my posts where I state any educated opinions. (Like This post of mine. That is certainly not the same as saying something like "I think it so it must be true" or anything along those lines.


Fair enough harte, lets leave it at that shall we and allow the discussion to return to its original state of civility and understanding. The subject of interference to indigineous culture from external sources is quite personal to me and i may have overreacted, whether right or wrong i did feel as if Nat had been unfairly chastised.

As a famous Australian was often quoted as saying " I luvs ya all ".

M4S



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by byrd

Wouldn't it have been fair to say "some academics"?

However, the major culture suppressors are, as you've noted, the farmers and government and religious leaders -- and, alas, the New Agers who really want wonderful Deep Knowledge who want enlightenment and want it NOW! Rather than study, they "channel knowledge" from their bits and pieces and then hand down wisdom wholesale in books. In some cases, tribe members who are poor/low status/have not been living within the tribe will support these "gurus" and lend them an air of authenticity. In this way, the low-status tribe member gains high-status in the outside world.

And some economic power beyond that which most of his group or tribe has.


Yes it would have been fairer to state " some academics ". Lets remember though that it is quite easy to include grammatical errors in posts, i'm famous for it, not having had the benefit of a higher education.

And yes its also true that certain members of the aboriginal community did in the past and even now contribute to the cultural fallacies surrounding their history, but again i would point out that the pressures on these outsiders to conform to white ideals was significant. Btw though im not always in agreement with your stance on some subjects, I do have the utmost respect for the way that you state your case and the obvious care that you take in supporting it.

Cheers
M4S



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by NJE777
Robert, Pausanias als Schriftsteller (1919) Lucken, An, Mitt p 98
see below book review of him. I think this is your man:

Pausanias als Schriftsteller. Studien und Beobachtungen
Carl Von Robert, Berlin, Weidman
Review author[s]: Mitchell Carroll
Classical Philology, Vol. 5, No. 4. (Oct., 1910), pp. 519-522.



Great Find, Nat!! That may well be the guy, but Castleden referenced a "Robert" work from 1917. I wonder how much of this is available online. Not very many libraries around here good enough to find this stuff in.


It is available online at Jstor...I provided the link but you have to subscribe or go in using university password. I dont know how much subscription is, but it is an excellent source of info.


Anyway, this "Robert (1917)" reference was about an apparent translation of a particular papyrus fragment from Oxyrhynchus.
Yes I realise that but this Robert has numerous articles...I included the book review of 1909 to demonstrate he has earlier work.


Here's a link to a site that boasts an online, searchable database of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri:
www.papyrology.ox.ac.uk...


thanks, I will check this out.


I know you're asking Byrd, but in my opinion, if we pretend to know that Hellanicus' "Atlantis" was merely a geneaology (we almost certainly will never know this for a fact), I don't see how we would have any other choice but to write that work off as not applicable to the subject.


well, Hellanicus mentions 'Atlantis' and if I remember correctly, earlier someone posted that Plato was the only person to have mentioned Atlantis. So, regardless of geneology (and we dont know..as for the readings about Greek Historians, he was regarded very highly but seems his enthographic studies did not fit into Thucydides methods) this demonstrates to me that someone else mentioned Atlantis earlier than Plato.


Originally posted by NJE777So the eruption of Santorini is now posed around 18,000 BC. Plato's states Atlantis sank after volcanic eruption in 9,000 BC.

Was this a typo?

What are you saying here? Not sure...The latest archaeo findings have dated Santorini at 18000BC.



[edit on 6-5-2006 by NJE777]



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Anyway, try to find where Plutarch, Aristotle and the boys at your crystalinks quote actually said what is claimed on that page.


Check this one, still looking at other articles...

The Myth in Plutarch's De Facie (940F-945D)
W. Hamilton
The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 1. (Jan., 1934), pp. 24-30.

cheers



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by NJE777
It is available online at Jstor...I provided the link but you have to subscribe or go in using university password. I dont know how much subscription is, but it is an excellent source of info.

Yeah, I saw that some of Robert's stuff was at Jstor through a search of Google Scholar, but I'm too cheapo to subscribe
. I can't see subscribing to a service I'll only use once or twice a year.


Originally posted by NJE777well, Hellanicus mentions 'Atlantis' and if I remember correctly, earlier someone posted that Plato was the only person to have mentioned Atlantis. So, regardless of geneology (and we dont know..as for the readings about Greek Historians, he was regarded very highly but seems his enthographic studies did not fit into Thucydides methods) this demonstrates to me that someone else mentioned Atlantis earlier than Plato.

Also to be considered is the fact that "Atlantis" was the title of the work by Hellanicus, and not mentioned in the (admittedly small amount of) text fragments. By this I mean that it must be considered that the word itself is being used in a different manner than, say, a proper noun such as the name of a civilization. IOW, used to represent the world at large, which is an acceptable usage of the word, and not to represent the mythical civilization.


Originally posted by NJE777...The latest archaeo findings have dated Santorini at 18000BC.

The "17th century BC" means between the years 1600 and 1700 BC.

The findings, which place the Santorini eruption in the late 17th century B.C., not 100 years later as long believed, may lead to a critical rewriting of Late Bronze Age history of Mediterranean civilizations that flourished about 3,600 years ago, Manning said...
...At the moment, the radiocarbon method is the only direct way of dating the eruption and the associated archaeology," said Manning, who puts Santorini's eruption in or just after the range 1660 to 1613 B.C. This date contradicts conventional estimates that linked Aegean styles in trade goods found in Egypt and the Near East to Egyptian inscriptions and records, which have long placed the event at around 1500 B.C.
(My emphasis)
Source - www.physorg.com...
Two more sources, including the original publication, can be found in the first post in this thread.

Harte



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   
A little off topic, but NJE why 777 ?



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Are you sure you want to rely on that as a source? Most of the book(s) were written after 100 AD. This is hardly "ancient lore."


My Friend

I will rely on the books associated, brought forth and are attributed to Enoch.

As a record keeper, Thoth, brought forth the much of that knowledge the Egyptians have/had. You accept this, do you not?

Other Cultures also had a name for him.

So, yes, 100 Time's, I will rely on Enoch's Books as what they are. An Historical Record, A Spiritual Record and a Prophetic Record, as the Bible is.

I thought you would recall my impression of the Man. I look forward to chatting at lenght with him in the coming years.


As for the Peoples and the History Lesson, I agree whole heartedly. I never have had a problem with that.

If you would like, maybe we should Post a Thread. Conjecture vs Suggestive Theory, and see if we could elaborate on things like this.in there (By the Way, where would a topic such as this fit, in the Sections Portion?????).

This way we can stop wasting Nat's space here, and those who wish to review and partake could do so as well. Maybe it will be interesting???

Lets us all now, join hands and think, What else can anyone suggest to assist NAT in her work here?.

Essan

It's good to see things cleared up, and the contributions of late have been excellent as well as very important. Again, if I believe all of it, is another story, but the important thing in here is that this is brought forth to be considered.

Ciao

Shane



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
The "17th century BC" means between the years 1600 and 1700 BC.


oh roll on the floor laugh my ------ off!

now I understand what you meant. lol I posted that at about 2am and kept looking at it thinking thats not right! lmao

cheers



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trinity_IX
A little off topic, but NJE why 777 ?


Spiritual number...


I had seen some other people with triple 7 on here too and learnt that it identifies with Christianity? I think. I dont label myself as a Christian but believe in GOD and Jesus Christ. I just dont like being labeled under one hat.

cheers



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shane007

Originally posted by Byrd
Are you sure you want to rely on that as a source? Most of the book(s) were written after 100 AD. This is hardly "ancient lore."


My Friend

I will rely on the books associated, brought forth and are attributed to Enoch.

As a record keeper, Thoth, brought forth the much of that knowledge the Egyptians have/had. You accept this, do you not?


WHICH Thoth?

There's the Egyptian version, the scribe of the gods but not the source of the knowledge.

There's the Thoth/Hermes-Trismegistus, which is actually a Greek kit-bashing of Hermes with Thoth, and who is kind of a very weird blend of the two deities:
www.answers.com...

This got further turned on its ear by the alchemists of the middle ages, where he became symbolic of many things.


So, yes, 100 Time's, I will rely on Enoch's Books as what they are. An Historical Record, A Spiritual Record and a Prophetic Record, as the Bible is.


Ah, but ARE they a historical record? They rather seem more aligned with the thinking of the alchemists (I'm not sure if this book was one of their foundation books.)

This link includes a link to the "book of Thoth", which is in Egyptian (but they present the translation)
touregypt.net...

I thought you would recall my impression of the Man. I look forward to chatting at lenght with him in the coming years.


As for the Peoples and the History Lesson, I agree whole heartedly. I never have had a problem with that.


If you would like, maybe we should Post a Thread. Conjecture vs Suggestive Theory, and see if we could elaborate on things like this.in there (By the Way, where would a topic such as this fit, in the Sections Portion?????).

(chuckle) I'd love it... not sure where to put it, but I do enjoy these conversations.

Perhaps over in ancient civilizations? I'm FSME there; they can't whack me TOO hard for starting conversations about it!

(g) and thank you for your wonderful efforts in getting this back on track to Nat's original question.



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
and thank you for your wonderful efforts in getting this back on track to Nat's original question.


Okay...
On that note, is anyone here convinced at all, or even leaning toward believing anything on, that inane "Starseed" webpage?

To me, the discussion on the Druids and Ogham was far more interesting.

Nat -

An earlier reference of yours notes that Julius Caesar mentioned the use of Ogham in his writings about the Gallic wars. I've been able to find several "Druid" websites that contain what Caesar said about the druids, but none of them make this claim about Ogham.

Also, I've located Caesar's writings on the Gallic Wars at Sacredtexts.com. I don't see anything about any written language other than Greek in Caesar's commentary, but Caesar either wasn't exactly an engaging writer, or he doesn't translate well, because it's far too tedious for me to read all the way through trying to find what it was your source was referring to.

I wish people would cite the works they refer to. I realize the guy's an academic but there's no mention at all of Caesar's writings in the "Reference" section at the bottom of his webpage on Ogham.

So here, why don't you have a go at it. I'd like to see what Caesar said about this script:
The Gallic Wars By Julius Caesar Index Page

The Gallic Wars Book 6 (concerns the Druids - scroll down to Chapter 13)

Here's one of those Druid" webpages I mentioned, with a slightly different translation of the "Druid" part of Caesar's commentary on the Gauls:
www.celtic-twilight.com...

It may sound harsh, but unless I can find a real reference telling me where to look in Caesar's comments, I'm gonna have to believe that Caesar never said anything about any Druidic script other than Greek. Don't take it personally, it's just the way I look at things. If there's no reason to believe a thing, I withold belief.

Also, I have to consider that all the other scholars of Ogham have access to Caesar's commentary as well as your reference did. Why is it then that several of these other "experts" put the origin of Ogham in the Common Era? I mean, Caesar lived around 100 BCE or so, right? If he actually mentions something resembling what we call "Ogham" in his writings, then some of those other "experts" would have to be pretty darn ignorant, to say the least, to make the claims they do about the origins of Ogham, right?

Harte

[edit on 5/8/2006 by Harte]



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by NJE777

Originally posted by Trinity_IX
A little off topic, but NJE why 777 ?


Spiritual number...


I had seen some other people with triple 7 on here too and learnt that it identifies with Christianity? I think. I dont label myself as a Christian but believe in GOD and Jesus Christ. I just dont like being labeled under one hat.

cheers



The reason I ask is I am facinated with number combinations and 777 comes up a lot in my everyday life.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 06:46 AM
link   
Okay Harte
well really funny u should go back to this because in my endeavors to find articles relating to the boys from crystal links, I came across a lot of info re: Druids/Celts. Some of which I saved and will put up now and the others I will find and add later.

Now I am using the ex format but is too wide, is there something else I can use?


their trail has been traced from the Iberian Peninsula to the Baltic to Britain, and from the Atlantic eastward into Poland and Hungary, spilling into Greece and over to central Turkey. This helps to account for their myriad names-"Keltoi" or "Galatians" to the Greeks, "Gauls" to the Romans-and explains why they were bad-mouthed by the most cultured and sophisticated societies of their time. Confusion persists even among those who call them "Celts": English-speaking people pronounce it KELTS, the French SELTS, the Italians CHELTS.
The last remnants of Celtic language and lore exist in nooks and crannies where the Romans didn't get at them-Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Brittany, and Boston.
Source: The Druids and Romanization
Norman J. DeWitt
Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 69. (1938), pp. 319-332.



after all the wild-eyed classical reports of flaxen-haired females who brandished swords and fought beside their men, excavators found, only in 1953, a final testament to the importance of Celtic women: the burial of a princess with jewelry, a carriage and a bronze krater more than five feet tall. Known now as the Vix tomb (SMITHSONIAN, March 1986), it certified not only the presence of a princess, but also the scope of trade one would expect of the first Europeans: items from Etruria, Greece and elsewhere in the Mediterranean world. Her four-wheeled burial wagon was decorated with bronze panels resembling a male burial bed found in Germany whose exquisitely formed caryatids echoed those on the Athenian acropolis.
Source: Smithsonian 24.n2 (May 1993): 118(8). Expanded Academic ASAP.
Once maligned, Celts are now touted as the first Europeans. Dora Jane Hamblin. Smithsonian v24.n2 (May 1993): pp118(8).



the language of the ancient Celts remains elusive because they had virtually no written documents. They were quick, however, to pick up the local scripts wherever they went. The inscriptions that have come down to us from the Celts use the alphabets of such languages as Latin or Greek, Etruscan or Semitic. They, like the Romans, were incorrigibly eclectic adapters and improvers. For all their skill with metal, the Celts didn't invent coinage, for example, but when their mercenary soldiers returned from foreign lands jingling those peculiar metal disks in their hands, the Celts became some of the finest and most innovative coin creators in the world. Source Citation: Hamblin, Dora Jane. "Once maligned, Celts are now touted as the first Europeans."
Source: Smithsonian 24.n2 (May 1993): 118(8). Expanded Academic ASAP.
Once maligned, Celts are now touted as the first Europeans. Dora Jane Hamblin. Smithsonian v24.n2 (May 1993): pp118(8).




Celt is a terminology usually associated with the inhabitants of continental Europe and the British Isles during the prehistoric Iron Age. However, its adjective form had been used indiscriminately for medieval, early modern and modern cultural practices. The word is traceable to Herodotos' writings circa 5 B.C. in Greece. Source: Who, Where, and What Were the Celts?. Peter S. Wells. American Journal of Archaeology v102.n4 (Oct 1998): pp814(3).


Druids: the Gauls had been enemies of Rome for 3 centuries - the word Druid is omitted from narratives and yet Diviciacus was certainly a Druid known to Cicero. Later in Book VI, he finally describes the Druids. (Caesar that is) Now from this article, it actually states Druids were on the defensive even before the Roman period and refused to commit to the main body of their doctrine in writing. Now this is one of the reasons for the decline of the Druids. The Druids were already using the Greek alphabet...so as you can see from this and other sources Caesar did mention them....

Information based on :The Druids and Romanization
Norman J. DeWitt
Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 69. (1938), pp. 319-332.

cheers
Nat
I will actually do a search on ogham because this info I came across as I said when I wasnt looking for it.

[edit on 9-5-2006 by NJE777]



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by NJE777
Druids: the Gauls had been enemies of Rome for 3 centuries - the word Druid is omitted from narratives and yet Diviciacus was certainly a Druid known to Cicero. Later in Book VI, he finally describes the Druids. (Caesar that is)

Yes, this I know. I linked you to this Book VI of Caesars in my previous post.


Originally posted by NJE777
Now from this article, it actually states Druids were on the defensive even before the Roman period and refused to commit to the main body of their doctrine in writing.

Julius Caesar says this in his commentary, linked above.


Originally posted by NJE777
Now this is one of the reasons for the decline of the Druids. The Druids were already using the Greek alphabet...so as you can see from this and other sources Caesar did mention them....

Caesar also says this about their use of Greek, again, linked in the previous post.

Harte



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Byrd
and thank you for your wonderful efforts in getting this back on track to Nat's original question.


Okay...
On that note, is anyone here convinced at all, or even leaning toward believing anything on, that inane "Starseed" webpage?

To me, the discussion on the Druids and Ogham was far more interesting.

Harte

[edit on 5/8/2006 by Harte]


Frankly Harte, I would say yes to your first question, based on my personal beliefs. This is a good effort and worth the consideration.

You also have noted, that your interest is evident in the Druid and Ogham discussions. I am curious in this regard as well.

So if I may suggest, do not be so quick to dismiss one aspect of this, and welcome, with some level of curiousity, another aspect.

It is all relative and connected.

Surfing as I tend to, I ran across this and wish to present it solely for your consideration and comments. It gives some credance to the premise, Ogham is much older in it's origins than generally accepted.


I would say that the origin of Ogam must be sought much earlier. In her monumental book, "The Language of the Goddess", Marija Gimbutas describes the much alike "Old European Script" the earliest evidence of which she dates at 5300 B.C. (p308). It appears therefore that the Ogam script has gone through a very long period of evolution. It may well be that all the authors who suggested origins for Ogam were right, that all the places mentioned and all the different uses over the ages played a role in the development of the script. Whatever its early history, the form of the Ogam script we know today is certainly of Irish origin.


www.islandnet.com...

And as you are apt to point out, Yes the Link also suggests the more accepted dating of 350 AD.

And then there's this


Similar markings have been found on standing stones in Spain and Portugal, in the area once known as Celtiberia—that part of the Iberian Peninsula colonized by the Celts as early as 1000 BC. The markings in Spain are believed to be much older than the ones in Ireland, perhaps dating from 800 BC.


www.castletown.com...

So this starts to retrace, aspects of Geneology discussed in here earlier.

This can be furthered, by the Link offered by Nat previously.

www.csupomona.edu...

Check out the maps, and where All of these trees are to be found.

We are now moving again, into aspects of the Tracing of the Celtic Origins.

Now before you hand me my words for dinner Harte, this is being brought forth solely for consideration and based on observations.

I find that this is implying the Celt's have carried this Language for some period of time that is considerably longer than we will accept.

I am not attempting to dispute the differences between Ogham and the Original source Language, but I am just noting the Celts seem to have brought the Ogham with them, as evidence in Spain presents and Marija was pointing to. Also, I was not attempting to indicate the 'Known' Ogham writings found within the Isles, are anything other than a Celtic Language. Just the most recent one.

Have a good afternoon

Ciao

Shane



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Obviously, I would have problems with anyone dating any script as pre-Sumerian/Akkadian. Particularly, thousands of years before the Sumerian. Especially one such as Ogham, which seems to change based on which "expert" you're reading on any particular occasion.

I'm providing a link here to an very interesting webpage I found when trying to find out about these things. It has both opened my eyes, and confirmed my suspicions. I know those two situations seem kind of polar opposites, but hey, it's a big webpage. It covers subjects from purported "alphabets" from 20,000 BC to Barry Fell's silly interpretations of New World "Ogham" to microscopic examination of ice age ivory carvings looking for any signs of the use of any system of notation at all.

The website provides an excellent overview of the subject, as well as imparting a very real feeling for the preposterous nature of several of these "findings" that have been trumpeted over the years.

It is here:
Linked from Twisted History

I hope somebody (anybody?) takes the time to go there a read what it says. It is, at the very least, quite entertaining.

Harte



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join