 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / Archaeology / June 2007Let's get controversial about Barry Fell
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://home.online.no/~joeolavl/viking/he lleristning2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://spectralvortex.stumbleupon.com/archive/80/&h=4 50&w=600&sz=42&hl=en&start=10&sig2=FPjBDrCciBmcnMJClRmuXQ&tbnid=N5vtItpR_QH-6M:& tbnh=101&tbnw=135&ei=RhdvRt3gM4SmhQT-uKyEBw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnorway%2Bhome%26s vnum%3D10%26hl%3Den http://home.online.no/~joeolavl/viking/helleristning2.jpg Here is a rock carving from Norway. Barry Fell in his book America BC claims that it is OGAM. My simple question --- is it Ogam? Regards, David Carl Christainsen Newton, Mass USA > http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://home.online.no/~joeolavl/viking/he lleristning2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://spectralvortex.stumbleupon.com/archive/80/&h=4 50&w=600&sz=42&hl=en&start=10&sig2=FPjBDrCciBmcnMJClRmuXQ&tbnid=N5vtItpR_QH-6M:& tbnh=101&tbnw=135&ei=RhdvRt3gM4SmhQT-uKyEBw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnorway%2Bhome%26s vnum%3D10%26hl%3Den > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > My simple question --- is it Ogam? No. >http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://home.online.no/~joeolavl/viking/he lleristning2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://spectralvortex.stumbleupon.com/archive/80/&h=4 50&w=600&sz=42&hl=en&start=10&sig2=FPjBDrCciBmcnMJClRmuXQ&tbnid=N5vtItpR_QH-6M:& tbnh=101&tbnw=135&ei=RhdvRt3gM4SmhQT-uKyEBw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnorway%2Bhome%26s vnum%3D10%26hl%3Den > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >My simple question --- is it Ogam? Certainly not as defined by the Book of Ballymote. Probably not as defined by anything else either. Eric Stevens > http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://home.online.no/~joeolavl/viking/he lleristning2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://spectralvortex.stumbleupon.com/archive/80/&h=4 50&w=600&sz=42&hl=en&start=10&sig2=FPjBDrCciBmcnMJClRmuXQ&tbnid=N5vtItpR_QH-6M:& tbnh=101&tbnw=135&ei=RhdvRt3gM4SmhQT-uKyEBw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnorway%2Bhome%26s vnum%3D10%26hl%3Den > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > My simple question --- is it Ogam? No. tk Thomas Kavanagh, Phd Seton Hall university Museum http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://home.online.no/~joeolavl/viking/he lleristning2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://spectralvortex.stumbleupon.com/archive/80/&h=4 50&w=600&sz=42&hl=en&start=10&sig2=FPjBDrCciBmcnMJClRmuXQ&tbnid=N5vtItpR_QH-6M:& tbnh=101&tbnw=135&ei=RhdvRt3gM4SmhQT-uKyEBw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnorway%2Bhome%26s vnum%3D10%26hl%3Den > http://home.online.no/~joeolavl/viking/helleristning2.jpg > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > My simple question --- is it Ogam? No, it's a picture of a boat. Don't take Barry Fell seriously. Alan > http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://home.online.no/~joeolav... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > David Carl Christainsen > Newton, Mass USA If it's Ogam then it is a series of 24 "B's." Of course if one reads it th eother direction, it is a string of 24 "H's." Otherwise it's a picture of a ship or boat with a bunch of lines on it. I think the later suggestion is the more likely. It's a crude picture of a ship. Searles O'Dubhain > http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://home.online.no/~joeolav... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > David Carl Christainsen > Newton, Mass USA FWIW here's a similar carving of a ship inside of Newgrange in Ireland. It's not Ogam either: http://www.mythicalireland.com/ancientsites/newgrange/artinside.html Searles O'Dubhain http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://home.online.no/~joeolavl/viking/he lleristning2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://spectralvortex.stumbleupon.com/archive/80/&h=4 50&w=600&sz=42&hl=en&start=10&sig2=FPjBDrCciBmcnMJClRmuXQ&tbnid=N5vtItpR_QH-6M:& tbnh=101&tbnw=135&ei=RhdvRt3gM4SmhQT-uKyEBw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnorway%2Bhome%26s vnum%3D10%26hl%3Den > http://home.online.no/~joeolavl/viking/helleristning2.jpg > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > My simple question --- is it Ogam? No it's symbolic and the message is clear. "Now when it's autumn and our ship is loaded we have to set off before the waters freese. It will take us 11 to get home and 9 more before we get back. Wait for us here then. Until then have a good hunting. So long." JT > Regards, > David Carl Christainsen > Newton, Mass USA > http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://home.online.no/~joeolav... > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > David Carl Christainsen > > Newton, Mass USA- I appreciate the humor; I really do. Yet and however, I do not feel justice is being done here in sci.arch to Barry Fell, a dead man who cannot defend his name. I don't now offer any proofs of this injustice, merely a suggestion to all participants here in sci.arch to keep an open mind. Also, I have not the slightest doubt, after studying the book "America BC", that Barry Fell was sincere about his work with the so-called pre- Columbian inscriptions. Regards, David Christainsen Newton, Mass USA > I do not feel justice is being done here in sci.arch > to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Columbian > inscriptions. I don't think anybody greatly doubts Barry's sincerity, but what's now needed to protect his academic legacy is somebody else who really understands why, for example, he chose to interpret that picture of an oared boat as Ogam, and can defend that interpretation with as much rigour as he would. David B. > > I do not feel justice is being done here in sci.arch >> to [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >David B. 'rigour' or 'vigour'? In all fairness, Barry saw patterns that nobody else could see, even when he explained the patterns to them. In some cases he seemed to be doing the equivalent of reading messages from God in the wall paper but in other cases he may have been right. Who really knows? I don't. Eric Stevens >>> I have not the slightest doubt, after studying the book "America >>> BC", that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > 'rigour' or 'vigour'? vigour is useless without rigour- which rather brings us to your next point... > In all fairness, Barry saw patterns that nobody else could see, even > when he explained the patterns to them. In some cases he seemed to be > doing the equivalent of reading messages from God in the wall paper > but in other cases he may have been right. Who really knows? I don't. That's a bit like a stopped clock being exactly right more often than a slow or fast one. Some might prefer to see it as analogous to Clarke's Third Law- any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from kookery- but what other examples do we have of discoveries which nobody at all could understand, even when they were carefully explained by the discoverer over a period of years? David B. >>>> I have not the slightest doubt, after studying the book "America >>>> BC", that [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >at all could understand, even when they were carefully explained by the >discoverer over a period of years? Have you studied the arguments about climate change recently? They can't all be right and there are plenty of examples of advocates from side A being ignored by the inhabitants of side B, and vice versa. Some of the arguments that are being commonly decried will one day turn out to be right, and I'm picking this about some quite important topics. Eric Stevens >>> In all fairness, Barry saw patterns that nobody else could see, even >>> when he explained the patterns to them. In some cases he seemed to be [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > day turn out to be right, and I'm picking this about some quite > important topics. I've actually studied quite a bit of the evidence behind the arguments about climate change recently. The "hockey stick" is very real and very anomalous, and if some folks hadn't wasted so much time denying its existence, we'd probably understand a great deal more about the precise causes of it by now. However, as for Barry Fell, I'm with Tom- if Barry had just proceeded with a bit more patience, and perhaps concentrated on making a really sound case for a limited set of inscriptions generated by a particular culture, he would have gained genuine respect. David B. >>>> In all fairness, Barry saw patterns that nobody else could see, even >>>> when he explained the patterns to them. In some cases he seemed to be [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >existence, we'd probably understand a great deal more about the precise >causes of it by now. There we go again! Is the hockey stick real or is it the result of cooked up data? If the hockeystick is real, what happens to the evidence for a Roman warm period, a medieval warm period and a little ice age? Who knows? Watch this space. :-) >However, as for Barry Fell, I'm with Tom- if Barry >had just proceeded with a bit more patience, and perhaps concentrated on >making a really sound case for a limited set of inscriptions generated >by a particular culture, he would have gained genuine respect. Where would you set the limit? <1? Eric Stevens >> I've actually studied quite a bit of the evidence behind the arguments >> about climate change recently. The "hockey stick" is very real and very [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > evidence for a Roman warm period, a medieval warm period and a little > ice age? Who knows? Watch this space. :-) That's not comparing like with like. What's unusual and scary right now is that the relationship between global surface temperatures and solar activity has broken down- the historic peak of solar activity was half a century ago, and indeed we're also right now at a minimum of the shorter-term solar cycle, but the temperatures within our living environment at the bottom of the atmosphere aren't responding in the ways we know they did in the past, both in short-term cycles and longer fluctuations such as the Maunder Minimum / Little Ice Age. Overall, they just keep rising faster and faster. >> However, as for Barry Fell, I'm with Tom- if Barry >> had just proceeded with a bit more patience, and perhaps concentrated on >> making a really sound case for a limited set of inscriptions generated >> by a particular culture, he would have gained genuine respect. > > Where would you set the limit? <1? Well, the main point is to be able to build up a coherent picture of the cultural developments behind the inscriptions, not just to try to interpret all inscriptions in all scripts in all areas without careful investigation of the background to each inscription. To build on Barry's work, a number of researchers now need to co-operate on that investigation, each concentrating on a limited geographical area or subset of inscription types. David B. >>> I've actually studied quite a bit of the evidence behind the arguments >>> about climate change recently. The "hockey stick" is very real and very [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >fluctuations such as the Maunder Minimum / Little Ice Age. Overall, they >just keep rising faster and faster. It is an essential part of the now discounted hockey stick that the Roman warm period, the medieval warm period and the little ice age be minimised or done away with all together. You don't seem to be aware of the 1500~1600 year cycle which has been extracted from proxy data by a number of different groups. But I don't want to argue about climate. All I wanted to do was provide an answer to your question "but what other examples do we have of discoveries which nobody at all could understand, even when they were carefully explained by the discoverer over a period of years?" >>> However, as for Barry Fell, I'm with Tom- if Barry >>> had just proceeded with a bit more patience, and perhaps concentrated on [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >investigation, each concentrating on a limited geographical area or >subset of inscription types. If I have understood you correctly, that suggestion presupposes that the inscriptions were made by the local residents. How do you suggest coping with the possibility that the inscriptions were made by passers by? Eric Stevens >> the relationship between global surface temperatures and solar >> activity has broken down- the historic peak of solar activity was half a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > You don't seem to be aware of the 1500~1600 year cycle which has been > extracted from proxy data by a number of different groups. You're confusing the original presentation of the "hockey stick" with the reality of its existence. If you present the data in a way which smooths over the effects of variations in solar activity, you pretty much lose things like the medieval warm period, but you still get the hockey stick. >> the main point is to be able to build up a coherent picture of the >> cultural developments behind the inscriptions, not just to try to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > coping with the possibility that the inscriptions were made by passers > by? All inscriptions, as human artifacts, have cultures behind them. Given that writing systems like ogam and runes can be traced to Old World cultures, occurrences in the New World must be made by immigrants or visitors. It would greatly strengthen the case for the validity of these inscriptions if the background in place and time of the makers could be identified, and proved to show consistent patterns (e.g. that several inscriptions in one area showed traces of, say, early Welsh influence). David B. >>> the relationship between global surface temperatures and solar >>> activity has broken down- the historic peak of solar activity was half a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >much lose things like the medieval warm period, but you still get the >hockey stick. You seem to be making my point for me. One of us has all the evidence in front of us, we have had the arguments explained to us, and we still don't get it. I wonder which one of will turn out to have read the wall paper correctly? >>> the main point is to be able to build up a coherent picture of the >>> cultural developments behind the inscriptions, not just to try to [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >identified, and proved to show consistent patterns (e.g. that several >inscriptions in one area showed traces of, say, early Welsh influence). As long as you are not making the mistake of taking for granted that all the inscriptions were made by local residents and that you can better u8nderstand things simply by studying the local culture. Eric Stevens <snip> >>>> However, as for Barry Fell, I'm with Tom- if Barry >>>> had just proceeded with a bit more patience, and perhaps concentrated on [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > coping with the possibility that the inscriptions were made by passers > by? You cope with that possibility by studying the cultures of a given area in enough detail to be able to identify what can be attributed to those cultures, what might be attributed to those cultures but needs further work, and what is anomalous to all the known cultures of an area. And, for that matter, other cultures in areas that are known to have had, or are likely to have had, contact with the area of interest. It is not enough for epigraphers to deem certain markings anomalous, at least not without exhaustive understanding of what is known or expected for that place. That way lies Fellishness. A fer-instance would be the Crack Cave 'equinox' markings. That is a dramatic artifact, interpreted as Ogham. But without an understanding of the cultures of the area, it is impossible to say whether it is anomalous, or even intentional. Do we know whether Native folk in the region had other indications that they marked the easily-understood astronomical fact of equinoxes? There are many artifacts in the American west from pre-historic times that show such alignments. Have the epigraphers studied these other artifacts for relevance to Crack Cave? There are epigraphers with archaeoastronomical competence. Have any of them done the background work to be able to rule out Native Americans as the folks who made the inscription? For that matter, has anyone looked at the issue of straight-line markings in the region? Crack Cave would seem to me to be a place for occasional shelter for folks on the move. Can we rule out the role of sheer boredom as a reason for the markings? Can we rule out the markings as, at least in origin, tally marks for hunters, or for farmers? Who live in the area over time? What were their economic situations? What do we know of their behavior; their religion; their thoughts, to the extent those can be known? All that is to be answered before the issue of symbolic communications raises its ugly head. And even then, the issue of whether it is Ogham is a bit farther down the line. ><snip> > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >in areas that are known to have had, or are likely to have had, >contact with the area of interest. Fair enough but, if inscriptions in Utah are tentatively identified as, say, Demotic Greek, do really have to study the locals very hard before you can rule out the possibility that they were responsible? I suspect not. >It is not enough for epigraphers to deem certain markings >anomalous, at least not without exhaustive understanding of what >is known or expected for that place. That way lies Fellishness. But Fell did not merely deem markings as anomalous. He deemed them as ogam, syrian, hebrew, proto-tifinag etc and those scripts if they were found in NA would certainly be anomalous. The question is as to the extent that his identifications were correct. >A fer-instance would be the Crack Cave 'equinox' markings. That >is a dramatic artifact, interpreted as Ogham. But without an >understanding of the cultures of the area, it is impossible to >say whether it is anomalous, or even intentional. I think it is reasonable to say that it is Ogam and intentional. According to McGlone et al on page 184 of 'Ancient American Inscriptions' (AAI) the site was first found in an epigraphical sense by Dan Rohrer when 'he entered the cave and reported Ogam-like markings on the wall'. The site was revisited while Scott Monahan was making a documentary with 'the hope that something pight be found on camera. The result was Phil Leonard's recognition and spontaneous decipherment of the spectacular Crack Cave material ... '. AAI goes on to describe the transcription and the translation of the inscription on the basis of it being a form of ancient Irish to read: "(SUN) STRIKES (HERE) DAY OF BEL" What is more, the sun did prove to strike (HERE) on the Day of Bel. The inscription seems to be self-verifying and I don't think you will get very far if you try to argue that it was made by 'one of the cultures of the area'. Nor is it likely that it is merely the chance result of interpreting the scratches as Ogam. That would be an extraordinary outcome indeed. On that basis it is indeed anomalous. That is not the same as saying that it is genuine. You will also note that Fell does not appear to have entered this particular picture. >Do we know whether Native folk in the region had other >indications that they marked the easily-understood astronomical >fact of equinoxes? There are many artifacts in the American west >from pre-historic times that show such alignments. Did they note them in a form of old Irish using an Ogam-like script? >Have the >epigraphers studied these other artifacts for relevance to Crack [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >out the markings as, at least in origin, tally marks for hunters, >or for farmers? Probably, on much the same basis that one can rule out the works of Shakespeare being the product of a room full of monkeys. :-) >Who live in the area over time? What were their economic >situations? What do we know of their behavior; their religion; [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >communications raises its ugly head. And even then, the issue of >whether it is Ogham is a bit farther down the line. All of this sounds like a mechanism from putting off facing the ugly fact that it appears to be Ogam, can be read as Ogam in a form of old Irish, and the translation turns out to be meaningful in an archaeoastronomical sense. [I know that my use of the term 'old Irish will cause the hackles of some to rise. I would be happy to use a better term if I knew what it was.] Eric Stevens >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > before you can rule out the possibility that they were responsible? I > suspect not. You'd be wrong. You just might have to extend the time spread forward a bit. >> It is not enough for epigraphers to deem certain markings >> anomalous, at least not without exhaustive understanding of what [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > found in NA would certainly be anomalous. The question is as to the > extent that his identifications were correct. Which you cannot know without knowing the archaeology of the specific regions involved. And, of course, Fell's deeming is suspect as a matter of principle. >> A fer-instance would be the Crack Cave 'equinox' markings. That >> is a dramatic artifact, interpreted as Ogham. But without an >> understanding of the cultures of the area, it is impossible to >> say whether it is anomalous, or even intentional. > > I think it is reasonable to say that it is Ogam and intentional. Tsk tsk, Eric. > According to McGlone et al on page 184 of 'Ancient American > Inscriptions' (AAI) the site was first found in an epigraphical sense [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > What is more, the sun did prove to strike (HERE) on the Day of Bel. Who is this 'Bel' of whom you speak? And what was his/her/their/its 'Day'? And were there two of these days every year? If you are referring to some purported Keltic god of the sun, please show that there was such a god (or rather that the Kelts believed in him/her/them/it). Also please show that that god's day came on the equinoxes, and not some other time. Kelts often used 'cross-quarter' days as being of high interest, not the usual days used to quarter the solar year. > The inscription seems to be self-verifying Operative word being 'seems'. Too many things 'seem' right to epigraphers, that turn out not to be so. > and I don't think you will > get very far if you try to argue that it was made by 'one of the > cultures of the area'. How do you know? Who has done the work to eliminate local cultures as the makers of the marks? And who has determined that the apparent relationship of the markings to the equinoxes is real? That's why I picked this example--it is so striking, yet the archaeological underpinnings are sadly lacking. I'm sure you are as aware as I am of the vast number of wildly improbable things that are, in fact, coincidence, not identity. > Nor is it likely that it is merely the chance > result of interpreting the scratches as Ogam. That would be an > extraordinary outcome indeed. On that basis it is indeed anomalous. Bull. sh.t. Onna biskit. > That is not the same as saying that it is genuine. You will also note > that Fell does not appear to have entered this particular picture. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Did they note them in a form of old Irish using an Ogam-like script? Cart. Horse. Misalignment. >> Have the >> epigraphers studied these other artifacts for relevance to Crack [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Probably, on much the same basis that one can rule out the works of > Shakespeare being the product of a room full of monkeys. :-) There were no monkeys in the area. Their were Native peoples for many thousands of years. I suspect they would not like the comparison to monkeys. And are you equating the 'equinox' markings with Shakespeare? If so, you need to re-read the Bard. Or at least look at a book of his complete works and see all the words in it. >> Who live in the area over time? What were their economic >> situations? What do we know of their behavior; their religion; [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Irish, and the translation turns out to be meaningful in an > archaeoastronomical sense. Eric, meet Archaeology; Archaeology, Eric. Jesus H. Christ, Eric! I'd expected better from you. > [I know that my use of the term 'old Irish will cause the hackles of > some to rise. I would be happy to use a better term if I knew what it > was.] How about 'markings under discussion'? Why beg the question? >>> <snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >You'd be wrong. You just might have to extend the time spread >forward a bit. You are right. I should have specified 'ancient inscriptions'. >>> It is not enough for epigraphers to deem certain markings >>> anomalous, at least not without exhaustive understanding of what [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Which you cannot know without knowing the archaeology of the >specific regions involved. I'm assuming the existing level of knowledge about the archaeology of north America. If the peoples of the past were known to have used ogam, syrian, hebrew, proto-tifinag etc scripts there would not be the problem accepting Fell's (and others) identification. >And, of course, Fell's deeming is suspect as a matter of principle. Yet he may not have been entirely wrong. See Kelley on the Peterborough inscriptions. >>> A fer-instance would be the Crack Cave 'equinox' markings. That >>> is a dramatic artifact, interpreted as Ogham. But without an [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Tsk tsk, Eric. Tsk tsk, yourself Tom. If you are going to express dissaproval you should at least wait until you have found out what I was going to say. That you didn't speaks volumes. >> According to McGlone et al on page 184 of 'Ancient American >> Inscriptions' (AAI) the site was first found in an epigraphical sense [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Who is this 'Bel' of whom you speak? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belenus >And what was his/her/their/its 'Day'? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltane >And were there two of these days every year? Astronomicaclly speaking, of course there were. >If you are referring to some purported Keltic god of the sun, >please show that there was such a god (or rather that the Kelts >believed in him/her/them/it). Also please show that that god's >day came on the equinoxes, and not some other time. See above. >Kelts often used 'cross-quarter' days as being of high interest, >not the usual days used to quarter the solar year. As I'm sure you know already, the astronomical alignments of some of the ogam sites described in AAI do correspond with cross-quarter days. However, that of the crack cave corresponds with the equinoxes. >> The inscription seems to be self-verifying > >Operative word being 'seems'. Too many things 'seem' right to >epigraphers, that turn out not to be so. My use of the word 'seems' leaves room for doubt, but there is no need to totally swamp the apparent confirmation with doubt. >> and I don't think you will >> get very far if you try to argue that it was made by 'one of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >real? That's why I picked this example--it is so striking, yet >the archaeological underpinnings are sadly lacking. Other than these ogam inscriptions, how many other artifacts attributable to native americans do you know of with equinoxial or cross-quarter alignments? >I'm sure you are as aware as I am of the vast number of wildly >improbable things that are, in fact, coincidence, not identity. You seem to be getting dangerously close to arguing from incredulity. >> Nor is it likely that it is merely the chance >> result of interpreting the scratches as Ogam. That would be an >> extraordinary outcome indeed. On that basis it is indeed anomalous. > >Bull. sh.t. Onna biskit. So it's not anomalous? Or are you saying that the coincidence between astronomical events and the translation has no validity? >> That is not the same as saying that it is genuine. You will also note >> that Fell does not appear to have entered this particular picture. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Cart. Horse. Misalignment. In AAI McGlone et al say they are unaware of any similar alignments attributable to native americans. I don't know anything about this other than what they have written. Are you able to falsify this statement of theirs by citing an example? >>> Have the >>> epigraphers studied these other artifacts for relevance to Crack [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > >Jesus H. Christ, Eric! I'd expected better from you. You seem to be heading into another of your arguments by put-down. I'm sure you can do better. >> [I know that my use of the term 'old Irish will cause the hackles of >> some to rise. I would be happy to use a better term if I knew what it >> was.] > >How about 'markings under discussion'? Why beg the question? I was refering to the language descriptor, not the inscriptions. Eric Stevens >>>> <snip> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > should at least wait until you have found out what I was going to say. > That you didn't speaks volumes. I read all through your post, carefully, before I began my reply. That you assumed I didn't speaks volumes; it perhaps speaks to your mode of reply. >>> According to McGlone et al on page 184 of 'Ancient American >>> Inscriptions' (AAI) the site was first found in an epigraphical sense [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belenus But 'Bel' isn't attested in that link independently; it's only in a list of alternative names. >> And what was his/her/their/its 'Day'? > > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltane Beltaine was a cross-quarter day--if you had read through my post you would have come across that observation. May 1, or thereabouts, has zip to do with either equinox. So I ask again, who is this 'Bel' whose day is on the equinoxes? >> And were there two of these days every year? > > Astronomicaclly speaking, of course there were. Bel's days? Show me. >> If you are referring to some purported Keltic god of the sun, >> please show that there was such a god (or rather that the Kelts >> believed in him/her/them/it). Also please show that that god's >> day came on the equinoxes, and not some other time. > > See above. You didn't show me a decent reference to 'Bel'; and you have only shown that Beltaine, possibly a festival relating to Belenus, etc., does not occur on an equinox. So far, you aren't doing very well. >> Kelts often used 'cross-quarter' days as being of high interest, >> not the usual days used to quarter the solar year. > > As I'm sure you know already, the astronomical alignments of some of > the ogam sites described in AAI do correspond with cross-quarter days. > However, that of the crack cave corresponds with the equinoxes. Not any relationship with Beltaine. >>> The inscription seems to be self-verifying >> Operative word being 'seems'. Too many things 'seem' right to >> epigraphers, that turn out not to be so. > > My use of the word 'seems' leaves room for doubt, but there is no need > to totally swamp the apparent confirmation with doubt. See above. >>> and I don't think you will >>> get very far if you try to argue that it was made by 'one of the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > attributable to native americans do you know of with equinoxial or > cross-quarter alignments? IANA archaeoastronomer. But there are numerous Native American features that indicate the solstices and the equinoxes. Why are you worried about cross-quarter days? You haven't established that they have any validity for Native peoples, nor for this 'Bel' of whom you speak. >> I'm sure you are as aware as I am of the vast number of wildly >> improbable things that are, in fact, coincidence, not identity. > > You seem to be getting dangerously close to arguing from incredulity. I am pointing out that it's important not to jump to conclusions without checking out the options. You, on the other hand, appear to be arguing from credulity--a far deadlier scientific sin. >>> Nor is it likely that it is merely the chance >>> result of interpreting the scratches as Ogam. That would be an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So it's not anomalous? Or are you saying that the coincidence between > astronomical events and the translation has no validity? Actually, I wrote that before I went back and did a more detailed interleaved reply. It was meant to reply to your entire paragraph. And that I stand by. >>> That is not the same as saying that it is genuine. You will also note >>> that Fell does not appear to have entered this particular picture. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > other than what they have written. Are you able to falsify this > statement of theirs by citing an example? See above. Do you honestly think that millennia of hunters and farmers in the New World didn't notice, and make note of, astronomical alignments? I have read of many, but can't put my hands on them just now. ...a few quick Googles, and: "Woodhenge" at Cahokia, ca. 1000 ybp; marked the summer and winter solstices and the equinoxes: http://members.tripod.com/~IS335/woodhenge.html ----- Fajada Butte in Chaco Canyon: "High atop the imposing butte at the entrance of the canyon is the most famous of Chaco’s sites. There, a set of spiral petroglyphs pecked into a cliff face behind three giant slabs of rock functions as a solar marker. At summer solstice, a vertical shaft of light pierces the main spiral exactly at its center. On the winter solstice, two shafts of light perfectly bracket the same spiral. Light shafts strike the center of a smaller spiral nearby on the spring and fall equinoxes." http://tinyurl.com/2zlyjd ----- Wijiji in Chaco Canyon: "Wijiji is one of Chaco’s great houses, and may also have served to anticipate and confirm the date of the winter solstice. Standing at the northwest corner of Wijiji, you can see the sun rise at the northern edge of a distant notch in the horizon, sixteen or seventeen days before the winter solstice. Over the course of the next sixteen or seventeen days, the sun seems to traverse the notch. Finally, on the morning of winter solstice, you can see the sun rise at the southern edge of the notch. Nearby, another site designated by the park service as "Wijiji 931," affords a similar opportunity to anticipate and confirm the summer solstice. This spot, marked by a pictograph, may have been a sun-watching station. From here, you can see the sun rise precisely over a pointed butte on the morning of the summer solstice and the pictograph is illuminated by a beam of light that cuts precisely across its center. It was first observed and documented June 22, 1983, by artist Janet Saad-Cook. Check our links section for her field report and the original photographs. Light shafts move across a pictograph at Wijiji 931. Watch | Get Flash plug-in Being able to anticipate the arrival of winter solstices would have been crucial to the ancient Pueblo, to allow time to prepare for ceremonies marking the occasion. These ceremonies were of the utmost importance; if they were not performed correctly, the sun might continue on its southward journey and never return, bringing perpetual cold and darkness." http://tinyurl.com/2d5ynu ----- General cardinal points alignment of structures in Chaco Canyon: "Many of the structures at Chaco Canyon are aligned with the cardinal directions: north, south, east, and west. A prominent example is the Great North Road, an ancient Chacoan road extending thirty-five miles north of Chaco Canyon. Described as "overbuilt and underused," speculations abound about the purpose of the thirty-foot-wide roadway. Some argue that the road was more ceremonial than functional, a reflection of Puebloan beliefs about the origins of their existence. Aspects of the road point to its symbolic (as opposed to functional) value. In some areas, the road splits into four parallel segments. Meanwhile, it travels doggedly north without regard to the landscape, even scaling vertical cliffs." http://tinyurl.com/2tkgbs <snip> >>>> Who live in the area over time? What were their economic >>>> situations? What do we know of their behavior; their religion; [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > You seem to be heading into another of your arguments by put-down. I'm > sure you can do better. You are not arguing at all, but asserting. You can do better. >>> [I know that my use of the term 'old Irish will cause the hackles of >>> some to rise. I would be happy to use a better term if I knew what it >>> was.] >> How about 'markings under discussion'? Why beg the question? > > I was refering to the language descriptor, not the inscriptions. But at least Crack Cave is not 'old Irish'. Why not use the neutral moniker? >>>>> <snip> >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] >That you assumed I didn't speaks volumes; it perhaps speaks to >your mode of reply. My mode of reply was set by the tone of your response to me. Apart from that, I assumed you didn't for the simple reason that its normal to post your text under that to which you are responding. >>>> According to McGlone et al on page 184 of 'Ancient American >>>> Inscriptions' (AAI) the site was first found in an epigraphical sense [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >But 'Bel' isn't attested in that link independently; it's only in >a list of alternative names. It's offered. >>> And what was his/her/their/its 'Day'? >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > >Not any relationship with Beltaine. True. Did I ever say otherwise? >>>> The inscription seems to be self-verifying >>> Operative word being 'seems'. Too many things 'seem' right to [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >IANA archaeoastronomer. But there are numerous Native American >features that indicate the solstices and the equinoxes. I'll have to look up the exact quote in AAI. >Why are you worried about cross-quarter days? You haven't >established that they have any validity for Native peoples, nor >for this 'Bel' of whom you speak. Because (as I have already written) cross quarter days appear to be relevant to some of the sites described in AAI. >>> I'm sure you are as aware as I am of the vast number of wildly >>> improbable things that are, in fact, coincidence, not identity. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >without checking out the options. You, on the other hand, appear >to be arguing from credulity--a far deadlier scientific sin. I'm not arguing. I'm pointing out what the evidence on the ground is claimed to be consistent with. That's a different thing entirely. >>>> Nor is it likely that it is merely the chance >>>> result of interpreting the scratches as Ogam. That would be an [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >interleaved reply. It was meant to reply to your entire >paragraph. And that I stand by. It's a rather emotive reply somehat devoid of clear meaning. >>>> That is not the same as saying that it is genuine. You will also note >>>> that Fell does not appear to have entered this particular picture. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >alignments? I have read of many, but can't put my hands on them >just now. That's what they said. >...a few quick Googles, and: > [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > >You are not arguing at all, but asserting. You can do better. I'm still not arguing. I'm recounting what AAI said. >>>> [I know that my use of the term 'old Irish will cause the hackles of >>>> some to rise. I would be happy to use a better term if I knew what it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >But at least Crack Cave is not 'old Irish'. Why not use the >neutral moniker? Because I wasn't referring to just the inscriptions. I was referring to the language that was used to translate the supposedly ogam transliteration into english. Eric Stevens [...] >> Tsk tsk, yourself Tom. If you are going to express dissaproval you >> should at least wait until you have found out what I was going to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That you assumed I didn't speaks volumes; it perhaps speaks to > your mode of reply. And what does it say that he thinks you can read his mind? [...]  Signaturep.a. <snip> >>>> Do we know whether Native folk in the region had other >>>> indications that they marked the easily-understood astronomical >>>> fact of equinoxes? There are many artifacts in the American west >>> >from pre-historic times that show such alignments. <snip> > In AAI McGlone et al say they are unaware of any similar alignments > attributable to native americans. I don't know anything about this > other than what they have written. Are you able to falsify this > statement of theirs by citing an example? You have not shown that they did make this statement. OTOH, on p. 155 of AAI, the boys write: "The New World has a large number of ancient astronomical alignments that are just now becoming known through the relatively young field of archaeoastronomy. most of theses sites are oriented to the solstices, though some are aligned to the sun near the time of the equinoxes (or on other special days of the year) and to the stars." They go on to refer to the 'Sun Dagger' in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, one of the references I gave. This is an Anasazi site, in one of the most impressive Anasazi landscapes. As they pointed out in 1993, archaeoastronomy was in its relative infancy. It has progressed in the intervening 14 years. The Anasazi were a late prehistoric Puebloan group, located in the Four Corners region (the common border point for Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anasazi See especially this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anasazi-es.svg Crack Cave is in southeastern Colorado. Note that the map shows Anasazi presence near that area. I think it is more likely that the inscription at Crack Cave, if it were intentionally an equinox marker, was an early precursor to the sort of concern for orientation to solar points of interest shown by the Anasazi, than an out-of-place artifact of a culture not attested otherwise in the region. I think it interesting to note also that a common theme in many Native American cultures is that of balance. It is certainly the case in the historic Puebloan cultures. In the Crack Cave example, much is made of the relatively vertical marks being both above and below the line. AAI even notes that the above-line marks look like sun rays. In my view, it would not be uncharacteristic of the Native peoples to have noted the equinoxal potential of the cave, and to have made the lines crossing the sun line as a matter of balancing the year between light and dark. Which is a fair representation of what the equinoxes do. Where do you find AAI saying that there were no such Native American alignments? If they said what you suggest, perhaps you could point me to that place in the book. It may be that you are remembering another point being made; or it may be that you are just mis-remembering. <snip> ><snip> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >You have not shown that they did make this statement. I've just spent about an hour looking through the book for the statement and the nearest I can find is on page 173: "The two equinox indicators in Annubis cave 2 are precise for the true equinox, a feature that to our knowledge has not yet been demonstrated to be of interest to Native Americans of the region, but which is of interest to Mithraists" This most definitely is NOT the statement I had in mind so I will have to withdraw the claim that they said what I said they did. In fact, in searching the book I found a number of statements that contradicted what I thought they had said. But now I am curious. The statement I recall was rather peculiarly worded and I will keep looking for it to see what it actually said. >OTOH, on p. 155 of AAI, the boys write: > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >remembering another point being made; or it may be that you are >just mis-remembering. It was only two or three days ago that I saw it, which is why I am so frustrated at not being able to find it. Eric Stevens --SNIP-- >>Who is this 'Bel' of whom you speak? > > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belenus That's Belenus, not Bel. The ancient Irish did not refer to him as Bel. If the inscription was written in this fictional "vowelless" Ogham, what happened to the "n" and "s"? Or is this another "vowelless, n-less, and s-less" form of Ogham? >>And what was his/her/their/its 'Day'? > > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltane That says the day is 1st May, not the equinox. Well done Eric, you've helped show that there is nothing to support the "translation" of the markings in Crack Cave. >>And were there two of these days every year? > > Astronomicaclly speaking, of course there were. No, there is only one 1st May every year as far as I'm aware. Can you name a year that had two? >>If you are referring to some purported Keltic god of the sun, >>please show that there was such a god (or rather that the Kelts >>believed in him/her/them/it). Also please show that that god's >>day came on the equinoxes, and not some other time. > > See above. I did, now can you actually answer the challange made? >>Kelts often used 'cross-quarter' days as being of high interest, >>not the usual days used to quarter the solar year. > > As I'm sure you know already, the astronomical alignments of some of > the ogam sites described in AAI do correspond with cross-quarter days. > However, that of the crack cave corresponds with the equinoxes. And it's the Crack Cave we are discussing, and equinoxes weren't too important to the ancient Irish of the time period that we are discussing. >>> The inscription seems to be self-verifying >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > My use of the word 'seems' leaves room for doubt, but there is no need > to totally swamp the apparent confirmation with doubt. You've just shown above that it is not self-verifying. The god mentioned doesn't seem to have existed, and the one you claim it alludes to doesn't have his day on an equinox. >>> and I don't think you will >>> get very far if you try to argue that it was made by 'one of the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > attributable to native americans do you know of with equinoxial or > cross-quarter alignments? There are a number that align on the equinox. AAI even admits as much IIRC. >>I'm sure you are as aware as I am of the vast number of wildly >>improbable things that are, in fact, coincidence, not identity. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So it's not anomalous? Or are you saying that the coincidence between > astronomical events and the translation has no validity? You've shown that it has no validity. Plus from the photos in AAI aren't the alignment isn't exactly shockingly accurate. The sun hits part of the markings on the days in question. It doesn't light up the whole "inscription", nor does it align with any particular part. Did they check it out any other day of the year? >>> That is not the same as saying that it is genuine. You will also note >>> that Fell does not appear to have entered this particular picture. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > other than what they have written. Are you able to falsify this > statement of theirs by citing an example? I think you need to go over AAI again. I seem to recall them saying the opposite. Page 155 might be a starting point. --SNIP-- >> A fer-instance would be the Crack Cave 'equinox' markings. That >> is a dramatic artifact, interpreted as Ogham. But without an [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > "(SUN) STRIKES (HERE) DAY OF BEL" But the inscription is so darned sloppy. Leaving aside the lack of vowels: a) it's divided into two parts which are not two words b) there's another disregarded letter beyond the end c) only part of the inscription is illuminated at equinoxes d) the letter strokes are of meaninglessly uneven length e) strokes within letters are not always parallel Intentional inscription yes. Intentional ogam? Anybody of true Celtic descent should be ashamed to have written it. David B. >>> A fer-instance would be the Crack Cave 'equinox' markings. That >>> is a dramatic artifact, interpreted as Ogham. But without an [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >But the inscription is so darned sloppy. Leaving aside the lack of vowels: >a) it's divided into two parts which are not two words AAI acknowledges there are problems with this. 'we have lowered our confidence rating to "possible"'. >b) there's another disregarded letter beyond the end >c) only part of the inscription is illuminated at equinoxes According to AAI at page 188: "On equinox day, all who were there were fully prepared to record I the sunrise light display on film and tape, and it was not a disappointment. At the instant of sunrise, the sun's light landed brightly on the inscription, lighting it entirely. See Color Plate Vd. It was sharp and abrupt, much like snapping on a spotlight. None of those present will ever forget it. The curved stemline fit the limit of the light on the knob perfectly, so that the light there could be taken for a sun and the lighted parallel lines above for rays. It was clear why the unusual curved stemline was present, for the lighted area followed it closely." >d) the letter strokes are of meaninglessly uneven length They usually are in the oldest inscriptions. >e) strokes within letters are not always parallel ditto. >Intentional inscription yes. Intentional ogam? Anybody of true Celtic >descent should be ashamed to have written it. Pity about the reading and translation though. Eric Stevens >> the inscription is so darned sloppy. Leaving aside the lack of vowels: >> a) it's divided into two parts which are not two words [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >> b) there's another disregarded letter beyond the end I note you didn't repond to this one- a frequent complaint against the American-Ogam set is that they ignore marks which don't suit their ideas. >> c) only part of the inscription is illuminated at equinoxes > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > above for rays. It was clear why the unusual curved stemline was > present, for the lighted area followed it closely." I've seen so far two photographs and one video of the Crack Cave inscription at the Equinox moment. None of them shows the second part of the inscription (which is not on the wondrous curved stemline because it remains in shadow. >> d) the letter strokes are of meaninglessly uneven length > > They usually are in the oldest inscriptions. What do you mean by "the oldest inscriptions"? Bear in mind that anything earlier than about the 5th century AD is likely to have been identified as Ogham by Barry Fell or one of his disciples, so we get rather a circular chain of reasoning. In "classic Ogham", the length of strokes differentiates between consonants and vowels. >> e) strokes within letters are not always parallel > > ditto. Ditto. In classically recognised early Ogham inscriptions (i.e. most obviously those from the late-Roman era British Isles) strokes within letters have to be parallel, because oblique strokes have specific meanings. >> Intentional inscription yes. Intentional ogam? Anybody of true Celtic >> descent should be ashamed to have written it. > > Pity about the reading and translation though. Yes, though perhaps not in the way you mean. David B. >>> the inscription is so darned sloppy. Leaving aside the lack of vowels: >>> a) it's divided into two parts which are not two words [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I note you didn't repond to this one- a frequent complaint against the >American-Ogam set is that they ignore marks which don't suit their ideas. I can't answer it. Its not my transliteration. I'm not even sure what it is you mean. Can you refer to a particular URL or page in AAI? >>> c) only part of the inscription is illuminated at equinoxes >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >rather a circular chain of reasoning. In "classic Ogham", the length of >strokes differentiates between consonants and vowels. Its late at night and I don't want to start fighting over old ground again but you should know that there are agreed to be several types of ogam and fighting still rages over a few more. Years ago I dug out a whole series of links to a number of very ancient Irish inscriptions in which the only distinctive features of the long strokes were that they were long. Certainly both their length and their angles were uneven. Just look at some of the inscriptions at http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/didact/idg/kelt/ogamabb.htm >>> e) strokes within letters are not always parallel >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >obviously those from the late-Roman era British Isles) strokes within >letters have to be parallel, because oblique strokes have specific meanings. >>> Intentional inscription yes. Intentional ogam? Anybody of true Celtic >>> descent should be ashamed to have written it. >> >> Pity about the reading and translation though. > >Yes, though perhaps not in the way you mean. Can you do better - assuming for the moment that the inscriptions are Ogam. Eric Stevens > [...] >>>> Intentional inscription yes. Intentional ogam? Anybody of true >>>> Celtic descent should be ashamed to have written it. >>> Pity about the reading and translation though. >> Yes, though perhaps not in the way you mean. > Can you do better - assuming for the moment that the > inscriptions are Ogam. Well done. That is Eric Stevens in a nutshell. Signaturep.a. >> [...] >>>>> Intentional inscription yes. Intentional ogam? Anybody of true [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Well done. That is Eric Stevens in a nutshell. I suppose you would prefer to treat the hypothesis as already falsified (by definition) and not try it out at all. Eric Stevens >>> [...] >>>>>> Intentional inscription yes. Intentional ogam? Anybody of true >>>>>> Celtic descent should be ashamed to have written it. >> >>>>> Pity about the reading and translation though. >>>> Yes, though perhaps not in the way you mean. >>> Can you do better - assuming for the moment that the >>> inscriptions are Ogam. >> Well done. That is Eric Stevens in a nutshell. > I suppose you would prefer to treat the hypothesis as already > falsified (by definition) and not try it out at all. Hypostatize what you like, eg that New Zealand was built by aliens. Signaturep.a. >>>> b) there's another disregarded letter beyond the end >> I note you didn't repond to this one- a frequent complaint against the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'm not even sure what it is you mean. Can you refer to a particular > URL or page in AAI? I've put a brightened version of a picture from www.fs.fed.us/r2/psicc/coma/main/archaeobrochure.pdf with an extra bit at the bottom (much brightened) from http://www.archaeoastronomy.com/lehrburger5.pdf at http://homepages.tesco.net/~trochos/crackcave1.jpg You'll see that in addition to the two sections of alleged "ogham" there are several other verticalish marks meeting the horizontal stratum lines (not counting the rows of little parallel marks)- why aren't they interpreted as letters or vowelless words? >>In "classic Ogham", the length of >> strokes differentiates between consonants and vowels. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > uneven. Just look at some of the inscriptions at > http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/didact/idg/kelt/ogamabb.htm What the illustrations on that page tend to show are Ogham letters where all the strokes of a given letter are about the same length, and pretty much parallel to each other. There are some variations in length and angle between letters on different parts of the stones, but not as great as on the Crack Cave inscription- and never very significant within the same letter, as allegedly happens at Crack Cave. >>> Pity about the reading and translation though. >> >> Yes, though perhaps not in the way you mean. > > Can you do better - assuming for the moment that the inscriptions are > Ogam. That's why I put "not in the way you mean". I see no reason to assume that the Crack Cave inscription, in particular, is Ogham just because it has some short lines meeting long lines approximately at right-angles, and therefore I find the Ogham interpretation a regrettable waste of time. I would add that "a very early form of ogham" is the least likely explanation for such markings, because early forms of scripts tend to be much neater than later forms, not the other way round. On the other hand "a very late form of ogham" doesn't work too well either unless all ogham writers in America were members of some cult that suppressed vowels to protect its mysteries. David B. >>>>> b) there's another disregarded letter beyond the end >>> I note you didn't repond to this one- a frequent complaint against the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >(not counting the rows of little parallel marks)- why aren't they >interpreted as letters or vowelless words? I can't answer you and I don't know who is still around who can. >>>In "classic Ogham", the length of >>> strokes differentiates between consonants and vowels. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >ogham writers in America were members of some cult that suppressed >vowels to protect its mysteries. Yet another who won't even try. :-( Eric Stevens >> I see no reason to assume >> that the Crack Cave inscription, in particular, is Ogham just because it [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> > Yet another who won't even try. :-( Correct. Languages such as Hebrew and Arabic can be written without vowels because of the way they build words; Celtic languages don't work the same way, and the lack of vowels introduces major ambiguities. Ogham would therefore originally have been designed with vowels, so we can say for a start that any claims of vowelless ogham predating classic ogham are mistake. David B. >>> I see no reason to assume that the Crack Cave inscription, in >>> particular, is Ogham just because it has some short lines meeting long [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > because of the way they build words; Celtic languages don't work the same > way, and the lack of vowels introduces major ambiguities. Something that has been pointed out to Eric previously. However, he still doesn't accept any evidence that shows his beliefs are wrong, he instead want to play "let's pretend" in order to convince himself that his beliefs are correct. > Ogham would therefore originally have been designed with vowels, so we can > say for a start that any claims of vowelless ogham predating classic ogham > are mistake. > > David B. > >>> I see no reason to assume that the Crack Cave inscription, in > >>> particular, is Ogham just because it has some short lines meeting long [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Looks like I missed the party.:-( Oh well! I'm certain the issue will resurrect itself in these parts. Searles >>>>>> b) there's another disregarded letter beyond the end >>>> I note you didn't repond to this one- a frequent complaint against the [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >> > Yet another who won't even try. :-( You haven't commented on the evidence I found about Native American's use of solstice and equinox markers. Nor, for that matter, on my observations that made a case for the Crack Cave inscription being in character with the known archaeology of the prehistoric cultures of the region. I find it interesting that you have not commented. It's almost as though you would have us ignore the archaeological evidence in favor of the epigraphical evidence. This certainly seems to go along with your observation of yesterday: "What is more, the sun did prove to strike (HERE) on the Day of Bel. The inscription seems to be self-verifying and I don't think you will get very far if you try to argue that it was made by 'one of the cultures of the area'." Do you have any comments on the possibility that Native Americans might have made the marks in Crack Cave? Personally, I don't think you can get very far in anything if you don't examine all of the relevant evidence. >>>>>>> b) there's another disregarded letter beyond the end >>>>> I note you didn't repond to this one- a frequent complaint against [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > have made the marks in Crack Cave? Personally, I don't think you can get > very far in anything if you don't examine all of the relevant evidence. <crickets chirping> Yet another who won't even try archaeology. :-( >>>>>>>> b) there's another disregarded letter beyond the end >>>>>> I note you didn't repond to this one- a frequent complaint against [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > > Yet another who won't even try archaeology. :-( Classic Eric. If you show him actual evidence put together by an expert to show he is wrong, he will choose to ignore it on the grounds that said expert once forgot to cross a "T", and therefore his work cannot be relied on. However, when someone who agrees with him is shown to have been completely wrong beyond any shadow of a doubt, Eric will claim that we still have to believe what they say as they may actually be correct in this one instance! Why does he do that? Simple, he believes what he wants to believe, and will never allow the facts to get in the way of his belief. > >>>>>>>> b) there's another disregarded letter beyond the end > >>>>>> I note you didn't repond to this one- a frequent complaint against [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > believe, and will never allow the facts to get in the way of his belief. >... As firmly as you believe the above, I know a different Eric. What impresses me about him is his honesty. I suggest that the rights and wrongs on the Barry Fell issue can be sorted out successfully on sci.arch. In the process I uphold the value of good manners on the part of everybody. > I know a different Eric. What impresses > me about him is his honesty. What impresses me about him is his stamina. > I suggest that the rights and wrongs on the Barry Fell issue > can be sorted out successfully on sci.arch. Well maybe- but at the moment it's everybody versus Eric, and a little bit more input on the pro-Fell side would be useful. > In the process I uphold the value of good manners on the part of > everybody. I'm not sure the word "uphold" is the best to use in that sentence... David B. >> I know a different Eric. What impresses >> me about him is his honesty. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > David B. "Uphold" in the sense of "hide behind. >>>>>>>>>> b) there's another disregarded letter beyond the end >>>>>>>> I note you didn't repond to this one- a frequent complaint against [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > impresses > me about him is his honesty. I generally agree. He does get a bit...focused sometimes, though. > I suggest that the rights and wrongs on the Barry Fell issue can be > sorted out > successfully on sci.arch. Correction: they have been sorted out, quite successfully, here. If you want to review the conversations that accomplished that feat, do so. Then come with your questions. > In the process I uphold the value of good manners on the part of > everybody. I guess netcopping and ignoring that no one wants to talk with you about your Babs is jake with you, eh? Huh. > >> "Tom McDonald" <kilt...@gspammail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Actually, my baby (the extraordinary Dr. Barbara Thiering) is hot as I dig - Mireille Mathieu y Julio Iglesias http://youtube.com/watch?v=-akthLWRPS0 >From the Temple Scroll to your local church (1) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/5309 >From the Temple Scroll to your local church (2) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/5310 >>>> A fer-instance would be the Crack Cave 'equinox' markings. That >>>> is a dramatic artifact, interpreted as Ogham. But without an [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > above for rays. It was clear why the unusual curved stemline was > present, for the lighted area followed it closely." The photo provided doesn't seem to show anything spectacular. Do they say what happened on ordinary days of the year? I don't think so, I wonder why they never bothered to check other days for comparative purposes. >>d) the letter strokes are of meaninglessly uneven length > > They usually are in the oldest inscriptions. No they're not. Have you any examples to back up your claim of actual attested Ogham that is that irregular for strokes within the same letter? >>e) strokes within letters are not always parallel > > ditto. Examples of any being as far removed from parallel as those at Crack Cave? >>Intentional inscription yes. Intentional ogam? Anybody of true Celtic >>descent should be ashamed to have written it. > > Pity about the reading and translation though. Why? The reading is wrong (even if it had been Ogham). > Eric Stevens >><snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > before you can rule out the possibility that they were responsible? I > suspect not. Yes you do! If you know nothing about the locals you know nothing about the "inscriptions". Just because something looks like Demotic Greek doesn't make it so. The locals may use something the looks similar to mean something completely different, and if you don't study them and their culture properly, then you will remain ignorant as to the "inscriptions" true meaning. >>It is not enough for epigraphers to deem certain markings >>anomalous, at least not without exhaustive understanding of what [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > found in NA would certainly be anomalous. The question is as to the > extent that his identifications were correct. His identifications were incorrect. Even others looking for the same thing distanced themselves from his "readings". >>A fer-instance would be the Crack Cave 'equinox' markings. That >>is a dramatic artifact, interpreted as Ogham. But without an >>understanding of the cultures of the area, it is impossible to >>say whether it is anomalous, or even intentional. > > I think it is reasonable to say that it is Ogam and intentional. That just shows that after all these years you still haven't done the slightest bit of study into any of the relevant subjects. > According to McGlone et al on page 184 of 'Ancient American > Inscriptions' (AAI) the site was first found in an epigraphical sense [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to describe the transcription and the translation of the inscription > on the basis of it being a form of ancient Irish to read: Eh, that's not a form of ancient Irish that I've ever seen before. Looks more modern than anything (that is, after they made up letters out of thin air to go between the letters they claim to have read from the inscription, even they didn't try to claim that the "inscription" said what they were "translating" it as) > "(SUN) STRIKES (HERE) DAY OF BEL" Out of curiosity, once again I ask, if this is in fact what it said, why would any ancient Irish care about the "day of Bel"? Who was "Bel"? > What is more, the sun did prove to strike (HERE) on the Day of Bel. What day was that? Where does it say that the day of the god "Bel" was on an equinox? Where does it say that the ancient speakers of Irish cared about the equinox, or worshiped Bel? > The inscription seems to be self-verifying and I don't think you will > get very far if you try to argue that it was made by 'one of the > cultures of the area'. Nor is it likely that it is merely the chance > result of interpreting the scratches as Ogam. Oh, it's not chance, it was deliberate. They had to deliberately choose how to group the scratches, and they had to deliberately decide what letters to use to fill in the gaps in order to get the reading they got. > That would be an > extraordinary outcome indeed. On that basis it is indeed anomalous. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Did they note them in a form of old Irish using an Ogam-like script? I doubt it, but then again, the Crack Cave markings aren't Ogham, nor are they in a form of old Irish. >>Have the >>epigraphers studied these other artifacts for relevance to Crack [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Probably, on much the same basis that one can rule out the works of > Shakespeare being the product of a room full of monkeys. :-) Hardly. >>Who live in the area over time? What were their economic >>situations? What do we know of their behavior; their religion; [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > All of this sounds like a mechanism from putting off facing the ugly > fact that it appears to be Ogam, It appears nothing like any known Ogham. > can be read as Ogam in a form of old > Irish, No it can't. Even if it was to be assumed to be Ogham, what you get is gibberish, not old Irish. > and the translation turns out to be meaningful in an > archaeoastronomical sense. No it doesn't, not unless you can identify Bel, and show that the equinox was his/her day, and that the speakers of old Irish both worshiped Bel and cared about the equinox. > [I know that my use of the term 'old Irish will cause the hackles of > some to rise. I would be happy to use a better term if I knew what it > was.] I assume that by old Irish (no capital "o") you mean a form of Irish pre-Modern Irish. That's what my replies above are based on. If Modern Irish can be included as the possible language, then I can point out more problems with the inscription! > Eric Stevens >>> I've actually studied quite a bit of the evidence behind the arguments >>> about climate change recently. The "hockey stick" is very real and very [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >fluctuations such as the Maunder Minimum / Little Ice Age. Overall, they >just keep rising faster and faster. See http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-svensmark/art icle_view?b_start:int=0&-C= and then read the book described at http://preview.tinyurl.com/2louch This is basicly Nobel Prize material. >>> However, as for Barry Fell, I'm with Tom- if Barry >>> had just proceeded with a bit more patience, and perhaps concentrated on [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >David B. Eric Stevens >... > Seehttp://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-sv... > and then read the book described athttp://preview.tinyurl.com/2louch > This is basicly Nobel Prize material. >... > Eric Stevens As a meteorologist, I find Svensmark's work extraordinary. >> What's unusual and scary right now >> is that the relationship between global surface temperatures and solar [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > and then read the book described at http://preview.tinyurl.com/2louch > This is basicly Nobel Prize material. Quote from the interview: "if the sun and the solar wind are very active—as they are right now—they will not allow so many cosmic rays to reach Earth" Ummm- hello- the sun is just coming out of a MINIMUM-activity period right now, with only a couple of minor storms in the past few months, and it remains to be seen whether the next maximum, due in about 4 years' time, will be anything like as intense as the recorded peak in 1958. That cosmic rays play a part in cloud formation makes perfect sense, but as for the possibility that solar activity is thus indirectly the main cause of the present global heat surplus- I for one am not convinced. David B. > > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > and it remains to be seen whether the next maximum, due in about 4 > years' time, will be anything like as intense as the recorded peak in 1958. Well, there seems to be other data indicating a higher solar activity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_Activity_Proxies.png JT > That cosmic rays play a part in cloud formation makes perfect sense, but > as for the possibility that solar activity is thus indirectly the main > cause of the present global heat surplus- I for one am not convinced. > > David B. >> the sun is just coming out of a MINIMUM-activity period >> right now, with only a couple of minor storms in the past few months, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_Activity_Proxies.png We're slightly at cross-purposes here. Nobody is denying that solar activity rose dramatically from the early 18th century onward, or that that ended the Little Ice Age. What I'm talking about, though, and what's got climate scientists worried, is the last centimetre or two at the right-hand side of that graph, showing a significant *decline* in solar activity since the late 1950s. It was predicted a few years ago that the next sunspot maximum would reverse this trend- but the prediction included a suggestion that the current (2006) solar minimum would be very short, whereas in reality the activity graph has been bumping along the bottom for about a year now. As we all know, the global temperature graph has definitely not been bumping along the bottom in recent years, and if the next solar maximum really is very high, it's likely to boost the upward trend. David B. >>> I do not feel justice is being done here in sci.arch >>> to [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > doing the equivalent of reading messages from God in the wall paper > but in other cases he may have been right. Who really knows? I don't. In all fairness to the people who made the various patterns Fell saw on the rock walls (etc.), Fell had a hammer and every petroglyph he ever saw was a nail. Had he had a true interest in investigating the petroglyphs, he would have done what an archaeologist would do--either become expert in the cultures and their symbols himself, or discover and consult the very best experts in said cultures and symbols. Instead, he created a discipline and called 'epigraphy' as a way to read messages from whomever in the wallpaper without having to worry about the full range of context for each symbol set. Myself, I'm far more interested in fairness to the dead who have no one to speak for them except archaeologists and allied professionals. Fell has his own followers to speak for him. And, to be fair, for the |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message