| View previous topic :: View next topic |
|
|
|
 |
|
| Chad wrote: |
So you advocate a link between ROMAns and ROMA but won't extend that link to R*M*t? Even though ROMa and R*M*t both mean "The People".
(* Please insert your own vowels.) |
Constantinople was called Rome at one point. Couldn't we just as easily say the Roma and/or Gypsies originate from there? They do look kind of Turkish, don't they?
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Yes, 'New' Rome fits much better. The application of 'What is is what was' was used to great effect when trying to decide the origins of East European Jewry. Just by plotting their known present (or at any rate, well-documented recent) distribution, it is perfectly clear that their origin was much more likely to be the Khazars of southern Russia than the ludicrously distant Israel.
Similarly the present (and overwhelming) distribution of Gypsies in south-eastern Europe points equally overwhelmingly to a source very much nearer than the orthodox assumption of 'the Indian sub-continent'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
Grant wrote (and so wisely)
| And here's how to explain the extent of Megalithia: the (metaphorical) Garden of Eden was in the Dordogne area. Early man spread out until he reached the sea, then travelled along the coast in each direction. They also followed rivers into the centre of Europe. |
The earliest records of modern man are the cave paintings in France and Spain which have been dated to about 30,000 years ago. These early people were exactly the same as you and me. They lived in a land of plenty and within a thousand years there must have been a million of them across Europe.
These early men would pretty soon have wanted to build impressive structures. Now what is the easiest way of building an impressive structure? Answer, of course, a megalith.
All the carbon-dating placing megaliths to 2-10,000 BC are nonsense because you can't carbon-date stones. The assumption is that the megalithics built wooden structures first and then replaced them with stone. But what if this isn't true? Maybe wood replaced stone 3,000 years ago when Megalithia was in decline. Maybe any wood over 5,000 years old will have rotted to oblivion and be unavailable for dating?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| All the carbon-dating placing megaliths to 2-10,000 BC are nonsense because you can't carbon-date stones. |
True, but orthodoxy says you can carbon-date organic material under the stones. As far as I know these underlying organic tidbits always come out as 1500 - 4000 BC or thereabouts. How do you explain this?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
|
How can anyone know that the 'organic tidbits' have been undisturbed for millenia with all the burrowing creatures, earthworms and whatnot raking up the soil? A number of finds from barrows are due to rabbits' not archaeologists' diggings.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
What, in every single case? You would think that most very ancient stones would have very ancient thingies underneath them. But not none.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Chad wrote: | | In their first appearances in the historical record of the Middle Ages, the Romanians were called "Vlachs" by chroniclers from Hungary and Constantinople. A principality called "Wallachia" emerged among the Vlachs before 1300... The idea of a Roman descent gave Vlachs new pride in themselves. After Wallachia and Moldavia coalesced into a single entity in 1859, the name "Romania" was selected in 1862 to describe the combined state. |
If you believe it.
Now me. I can't help but notice there are two Romanias. Each to either side of Rome.... err... Constantinople. One is called Romania. The other is called A-Romania (Armenia).
And in so far as the Egyptians called themselves Roma well... we call the Roma e-Gypsies, don't we?
Maybe there's something more going on here.
| So you advocate a link between ROMAns and ROMA but won't extend that link to R*M*t? Even though ROMa and R*M*t both mean "The People". |
Everyone calls themselves "The people". There's no particular significance in that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Everyone calls themselves "The people". There's no particular significance in that. |
Of course everybody calls themselves "The people".... The significance here is that these three groups of "The people" all call themselves ROM.
And in so far as the Egyptians called themselves Roma well... we call the Roma e-Gypsies, don't we?
Maybe there's something more going on here. |
This is important because before modern linguists brainwashed them into believing they came from India, the Roma themselves insisted they originated in Egypt.
(Although there is good evidence to suggest that much of their formative history may have taken place later in Upper Mesopotamia... Close to Rocky's suggestion.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
Mick wrote
| What, in every single case? You would think that most very ancient stones would have very ancient thingies underneath them. But not none. |
But has anyone ever dated an object found underneath a megalith. The dating always seems to come from the packing around the megalith.
But what if the stones had to be regularly repacked to keep them standing? What we would be dating would be the end of Megalithia, not the date of construction.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
Regarding the age of the megaliths I've just found something quite fascinating about bog oaks.
http://www.adamsonandlow.com/bog_oak
I've never heard of these before, but apparently it is quite common for enormous ancient oaks to be discovered buried in the Fens. The explanation is that forests stood there 7,000 years ago. An enterprising carpenter can dry these out and is making them into furniture.
The fascinating thing is that an expert radio-carbon dater has carried out a report in the age of these oaks and estimates that they date from 1,500 to 5,000 BC with an average date of 3,300 BC.
Isn't that an amazing co-incidence? I can understand all the megaliths being dated to around the same period, but these trees were buried by nature and still the dates come out the same.
And if I remember rightly, Sea Henge was dated to 3,000 BC as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
It can be no coincidence that trees in peat bogs and stone markers are of an age. There would be little point in erecting standing stones or stone circles in dense woodland where they would be hidden from the sight of the travellers they were intended to guide. There would no doubt have been trackways cutting through since trees are not cleared in a day and stones could well have been needed where paths forked and crossed.
Much more exciting than bog oaks is the discovery of stone rows, carefully positioned and selected according to size, beneath the peat on one of the highest hills on Dartmoor. Peat cover, which has undergone pollen analysis, was in place at least six thousand years ago....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Hatty wrote: | | Peat cover, which has undergone pollen analysis, was in place at least six thousand years ago.... |
I doubt it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Chad wrote: | | This is important because before modern linguists brainwashed them into believing they came from India, the Roma themselves insisted they originated in Egypt. |
But the proper mystery may concern where exactly "Egypt" is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | Hatty wrote: | | Peat cover, which has undergone pollen analysis, was in place at least six thousand years ago.... |
I doubt it. |
Orthodox dating puts peat cover at four thousand years ago which accords with the official megalithic period. Since the report on the Dartmoor stone row, in 2004, no archaeologist has shown the slightest interest, not even to refute the date.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
There is a vital discrepancy in the account about bog-oaks that Grant has directed us to [ http://www.adamsonandlow.com/bog_oak ] At the outset it is confidently held that
| Approximately 7000 years ago a rise in sea level relative to land level caused the rivers to back up and flood the fens, consequently the trees died standing and then fell into the silt of the forest floor and many have been preserved under anaerobic conditions until now. |
This is orthodoxy and is downright silly on two grounds
1. A rise in sea level has to be gradual (according to orthodoxy) and therefore it is impossible for trees to "die standing there" and be preserved in the now flooded forest floor. Sea level is rising now and I don't see any press reports of oak forests getting scythed down and preserved en masse.
2. To say this is happening in 5,000 BC is pretty tricky because the only known mechanism for sea-rises is the end of the Ice Age and the melting ice raising sea-levels, and that happened way before. Orthodoxy does try to explain these kinds of things by saying that southern Britain is sinking but this process would be even slower than melting ice raising sea levels and unlikely to be of interest to any individual oak tree.
But in any case the whole thesis is blown out of the water (but weirdly completely without the least acknowledgement) later in the piece by this
| Research by Dr Switzer has shown that the age of most species from the East Anglian fenland basin lie between 1,500BC to over 5,000BC. Recent radiocarbon dating of our current stocks has established a date of around 3,300BC. |
In other words, the phenomenon of bog-oaks started exactly at the moment when Megalithic Britain started and ended just at the moment when Megalithic Britian finished (the -lithic bit anyway). So it remains for us to discover why Megalithic Man wanted bog-oaks or what was he doing that created them as a by-product.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
