Since we already know both men were curious about lost civilizations I wonder what they would think of this: In India there is a people called The Sentinelese, and they still live their lives in the stone age. But the curious part is if anyone tries helping them they will attack and kill you. Okay, the possible reasons are obvious. But Clark and Lovecraft, I feel, would have a field day inventing cosmic or ghostly scenario's to explain why these people still live in the stone age or choose to attack you.

Interesting. I have a book, The Wonder that was India (1959), by A. L. Basham, which is full of interesting things on India.

Basham says "it has been suggested that the Harappa people [of ancient India] consisted of a Proto-Australoid element, which at one time may have covered the whole of India, overlaid by a Mediterranean one, which entered India at a very early period, bringing with it elements of civilization." (25) This Proto-Australoid race, Basham says elsewhere, had a "flat nose and thick lips, related to the Australian aborigines and to some of the wild hill-tribes of Modern india." (24)

Elsewhere, I've read that some have suggested a connection between the (so far undeciphered) Indus script of India, and the Polynesian writing of Easter Island, which further strengthens the idea of a South Pacific/Indian connection.

According to Basham (and other sources I've read) there are also numerous evidences of Indus/Harappan communication/trade with ancient Sumer in Mesopotamia at a very early period. Basham also mentions that "Some authorities in the past" (31) have "claimed an exceedingly early date" for the composition of parts of the Indian Rg Veda, "on the basis of tradition and ambiguous astronomical references in the hymns themselves -it was even believed by one very respected Indian scholar that it was as old as 6000 B.C." (31)

Basham does not mention any tribe of Sentinelese, however.

The resistance of some to improvement/education/advancement is nothing new. American Native tribes displayed the same tendency ---as do many young high school drop-outs today. I myself have an eversion to IPhones (I'm not even sure what they do.) You can't force people to improve themselves. Although I admit a cosmic/horrific reason for such tendencies is more exciting.

I also read an article in David Hatcher Childress's World Explorer magazine last year, which contained some translations from either an Indian or a classical work, I forget which, which described what appear to be dinosaurs living in India during the classical period. (Perhaps it was a translation from the travels of Alexander the Great?) The description of the monsters, which have giant plates on their backs, sounds very much like the appearance of a Stegosaurus; it is interesting to think that a small population of dinosaurs might have persisted somehwere in the jungles of India until a few thousand years ago, where they were seen by Alexander's army...



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 22 Mar 13 | 05:53PM by Gavin Callaghan.

There is a tribe of Troglodytes living in carved out caves just east of Tabriz - they, too, have strenuously resisted acculturation - similarly, the tribes that control mount Judi (Judi Dagh) which according to the records of Sennacherib was the location of the "ark", have not allowed anyone in for millennia. - I am sure there are still tribes in the Amazon that are unknown at this point - Gavin's information on India is quite interesting - and, since Sanskrit is an Indo-European language at its heart, the very early commerce and migrations are evident indeed - Easter Island! Now that would be something. -

The Indus/Sumer connection, so fascinating to me, has been confirmed by numerous sources. Perhaps Heyerdahl was right, and civilization spread from Sumer to Indus to Easter Island to Caral in South America?

All the ancient civilizations: Egypt, Indus, Sumer, Caral, Chinese, Malta, seem to have existed around the same time. It makes me wonder why they call Sumer the cradle of civilization? Seems to me civilization had many parents/starting-points. But since civilization seems to have started 12,000 years ago at Gobekli Tepe (10,000 B.C.) in Anatolia, I don't see how ANY of these sites can really qualify as the first staring point.

[www.smithsonianmag.com]

[en.wikipedia.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 25 Mar 13 | 04:49PM by Gavin Callaghan.

Gavin Callaghan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Indus/Sumer connection, so fascinating to me,
> has been confirmed by numerous sources. Perhaps
> Heyerdahl was right, and civilization spread from
> Sumer to Indus to Easter Island to Caral in South
> America?
>
> All the ancient civilizations: Egypt, Indus,
> Sumer, Caral, Chinese, Malta, seem to have existed
> around the same time. It makes me wonder why they
> call Sumer the cradle of civilization? Seems to
> me civilization had many parents/starting-points.
> But since civilization seems to have started
> 12,000 years ago at Gobekli Tepe (10,000 B.C.) in
> Anatolia, I don't see how ANY of these sites can
> really qualify as the first staring point.
>
> [www.smithsonianmag.com]
> gobekli-tepe.html
>
> [en.wikipedia.org]

At this point, the question of Sumer is very much up in the air - the recent discoveries at Gobeki Tepi in South Turkey are being dated from 12 - 14,000 BC - much older than Sumer - and extremely sophisticated - too advanced clearly to have come from Stone Age hunter-gatherers - much was going on that we just don't know - especially when you something in Babylonian Cuneiform and it speaks of "the mighty men of old..." - The discoveries and hypotheses surrounding them that have emerged since 1990 (about the last opportunity anyone had of freely exploring in Iran) have turned the chronology of the ancient past on its head - it's a blast for me, since I hold the position as an Historian that anything the "regular" academic community opposes and rejects, must be right.
The history of "academe" says so quite clearly -

calonlan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... of freely exploring in Iran) have turned the
> chronology of the ancient past on its head - it's
> a blast for me, since I hold the position as an
> Historian that anything the "regular" academic
> community opposes and rejects, must be right.
> The history of "academe" says so quite clearly -

Bullshit. You wouldn't know the first thing about any of these sites, including their existence, without the efforts of generations of "regular" academics grinding away patiently day-by-day, year-by-year. It's disheartening to see, on the rare occasions I visit The Eldritch Dark, that you are almost always banging some new anti-academe drum. BTW, the constant revision of the archeological record you so despise in academe is what we call the scientific method--conclusions are provisional, then get turned on their head--it's the way business is done. To take malicious glee in the reversal/revision/overthrow of (always) tentative scientific results is a bit like gloating that a colander is full of holes and the spaghetti water falls right through, when that's exactly the way the implement is designed to work.

You may hold a Ph.D., but you act like a smug autodidact, appear to have the same sorts of titanic (cyclopean?) gaps in your knowledge, and seem to want to compensate for it by belittling the "establishment" at every turn. I for one find it a little pathetic.

Oh, and Robert Graves is a completely discredited academic confidence artist, if you haven't already heard.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 30 Mar 13 | 05:10AM by Radovarl.

calonlan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
- The discoveries and
> hypotheses surrounding them that have emerged
> since 1990 (about the last opportunity anyone had
> of freely exploring in Iran) have turned the
> chronology of the ancient past on its head - it's
> a blast for me, since I hold the position as an
> Historian that anything the "regular" academic
> community opposes and rejects, must be right.
> The history of "academe" says so quite clearly -

Reminds me of the discovery of Hittite hieroglyphics. A museum had a stone steal with hieroglyphs on it; since they were unknown, it was deemed a hoax and kept in the basement. Many years passed before a lone visionary dug it out, and proved they were from a real Indo-European language. The Anti-Kythera mechanism languished in a museum basement for decades, too, until (again) a lone visionary dug it out and proved it was an ancient analog computer built in classical times.

Radovarl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> calonlan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ... of freely exploring in Iran) have turned
> the
> > chronology of the ancient past on its head -
> it's
> > a blast for me, since I hold the position as an
> > Historian that anything the "regular" academic
> > community opposes and rejects, must be right.
> > The history of "academe" says so quite clearly
> -
>
> Bullshit. You wouldn't know the first thing about
> any of these sites, including their existence,
> without the efforts of generations of "regular"
> academics grinding away patiently day-by-day,
> year-by-year. It's disheartening to see, on the
> rare occasions I visit The Eldritch Dark, that you
> are almost always banging some new anti-academe
> drum. BTW, the constant revision of the
> archeological record you so despise in academe is
> what we call the scientific method--conclusions
> are provisional, then get turned on their
> head--it's the way business is done. To take
> malicious glee in the reversal/revision/overthrow
> of (always) tentative scientific results is a bit
> like gloating that a colander is full of holes and
> the spaghetti water falls right through, when
> that's exactly the way the implement is designed
> to work.
>
> You may hold a Ph.D., but you act like a smug
> autodidact, appear to have the same sorts of
> titanic (cyclopean?) gaps in your knowledge, and
> seem to want to compensate for it by belittling
> the "establishment" at every turn. I for one find
> it a little pathetic.
>
> Oh, and Robert Graves is a completely discredited
> academic confidence artist, if you haven't already
> heard.
Oh dear me, seems to have struck some sort of nerve in one who in fact knows very little first hand - do you read, or have you mastered Hieroglyphics, cuneiform et al? I have made more than a passing effort in that direction over the last 55 years - and indeed, I respect all the work that went before, and was a student of the first generation of scholars who emerged from the Oriental Institute at Univ. of Chicago - have done considerable archaeological work, and am regularly consulted by my fellow scholars from all over the world - who are you, what are your credentials? I know mine, you are a mystery, and far too angry without reason to taken seriously beyond this little reply - I hold two earned PhD's, but my academic life has gone far beyond those which are now ancient history to me - Graves discredited? by whom - I have met and know few scholars who are his equal, but many who are resent him because his scholarship so far surpasses their own - how well, for instance are you able to work in the Acherusian Tree alphabet, hmmm? As to dating - there is a very substantial number of academics who are taking a hard new look at the dating evidence re Egyptian history - historically (and I suspect you haven't been around long enough to observe the many changes in fashion among academics), just look at the earthquake caused a little over a hundred years ago by Schliemann - centuries of certainty toppled, but not overnight - the site is still being worked, and, while many of the old man's conclusions were mistaken, the pioneering work is still highly honored. And, I might add, it is only very recently, that "traditional" historians have been forced to take seriously the work of linguistic analysis in toponymic identification of ancient site - you have much to learn sir, but not the least of those is fundamental courtesy on this site. I am, and remain for the time being, the last living close personal friend of the subject of this web site - and any observations made on that subject are indeed entirely subjective, and based on real experience - suggest you take a long walk after dark in the rain, and do some serious soul-searching - I found that very useful in my own youth during grad school.

calonlan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radovarl Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > calonlan Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > ... of freely exploring in Iran) have turned
> > the
> > > chronology of the ancient past on its head -
> > it's
> > > a blast for me, since I hold the position as
> an
> > > Historian that anything the "regular"
> academic
> > > community opposes and rejects, must be right.
>
> > > The history of "academe" says so quite
> clearly
> > -
> >
> > Bullshit. You wouldn't know the first thing
> about
> > any of these sites, including their existence,
> > without the efforts of generations of "regular"
> > academics grinding away patiently day-by-day,
> > year-by-year. It's disheartening to see, on the
> > rare occasions I visit The Eldritch Dark, that
> you
> > are almost always banging some new anti-academe
> > drum. BTW, the constant revision of the
> > archeological record you so despise in academe
> is
> > what we call the scientific method--conclusions
> > are provisional, then get turned on their
> > head--it's the way business is done. To take
> > malicious glee in the
> reversal/revision/overthrow
> > of (always) tentative scientific results is a
> bit
> > like gloating that a colander is full of holes
> and
> > the spaghetti water falls right through, when
> > that's exactly the way the implement is
> designed
> > to work.
> >
> > You may hold a Ph.D., but you act like a smug
> > autodidact, appear to have the same sorts of
> > titanic (cyclopean?) gaps in your knowledge,
> and
> > seem to want to compensate for it by belittling
> > the "establishment" at every turn. I for one
> find
> > it a little pathetic.
> >
> > Oh, and Robert Graves is a completely
> discredited
> > academic confidence artist, if you haven't
> already
> > heard.
> Oh dear me, seems to have struck some sort of
> nerve in one who in fact knows very little first
> hand - do you read, or have you mastered
> Hieroglyphics, cuneiform et al? I have made more
> than a passing effort in that direction over the
> last 55 years - and indeed, I respect all the work
> that went before, and was a student of the first
> generation of scholars who emerged from the
> Oriental Institute at Univ. of Chicago - have done
> considerable archaeological work, and am regularly
> consulted by my fellow scholars from all over the
> world - who are you, what are your credentials? I
> know mine, you are a mystery, and far too angry
> without reason to taken seriously beyond this
> little reply - I hold two earned PhD's, but my
> academic life has gone far beyond those which are
> now ancient history to me - Graves discredited? by
> whom - I have met and know few scholars who are
> his equal, but many who are resent him because his
> scholarship so far surpasses their own - how well,
> for instance are you able to work in the
> Acherusian Tree alphabet, hmmm? As to dating -
> there is a very substantial number of academics
> who are taking a hard new look at the dating
> evidence re Egyptian history - historically (and I
> suspect you haven't been around long enough to
> observe the many changes in fashion among
> academics), just look at the earthquake caused a
> little over a hundred years ago by Schliemann -
> centuries of certainty toppled, but not overnight
> - the site is still being worked, and, while many
> of the old man's conclusions were mistaken, the
> pioneering work is still highly honored. And, I
> might add, it is only very recently, that
> "traditional" historians have been forced to take
> seriously the work of linguistic analysis in
> toponymic identification of ancient site - you
> have much to learn sir, but not the least of those
> is fundamental courtesy on this site. I am, and
> remain for the time being, the last living close
> personal friend of the subject of this web site -
> and any observations made on that subject are
> indeed entirely subjective, and based on real
> experience - suggest you take a long walk after
> dark in the rain, and do some serious
> soul-searching - I found that very useful in my
> own youth during grad school.

apologies to the site for not having taken the time to proof-read the above - very tired at end of a long Easter day beginning with playing the Widor Toccata and Bach's "Passacaglia" for church - had to work like a dog all week to build up my strength for such an undertaking - getting too old and arthritic, but still had fun with it; plus my dear wife forced me to help make all kinds of bread for today - "Kusitich" from Russia (a new one for me) plus an amazing spread with butter, creamcheese, lemon juice, almonds,and some other stuff - wish some of you could be here in a couple of months - we get a group together on the appropriate day to read "Midsummer Night's Dream" - beginning rehearsels for Shaw's "Don Juan in Hell" - then, as someone suggested, probably DSF, we're going to try to record Clark's "The Dead Will Cuckold You" - should be a hoot - Hey, Gavin, you're in Texas; email me your phone number, and I'll try to drop by next time I go North -
Meanwhile, my best to you all for the remainder of this year -