origins of religion.

[Francis king]

todays Observer, pg 39 (sunday, 20th may, 2007)...

"diamonds tell tale of comet that killed off the cavemen" (Robin McKie, science editor)

... scientists are suggesting that a comet exploded over the earth 13, 000 years ago creating a hail of fireballs that set fire to most of the northern hemisphere, destroying primitive stone age cultures and populations of large animals such as the mammoth and the mastadon, and causing dramatic cooling that lasted about 1000 yrs and seriously disrupted the early human civilisation semerging in europe and asia..

"the magnitude of this discovery is so important" says James kennett, of the university of california, as "it explains three of the highest-debated controversies of recent decades"...

these are-the sudden dissapearance of the first stone age ppl of america, the dissapearance of mammoths throughout europe and america and the sudden cooling of the planet, an event known as the Younger-Dryas period...

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Francis king

todays Observer, pg 39 (sunday, 20th may, 2007)...

"diamonds tell tale of comet that killed off the cavemen" (Robin McKie, science editor)

... scientists are suggesting that a comet exploded over the earth 13, 000 years ago creating a hail of fireballs that set fire to most of the northern hemisphere, destroying primitive stone age cultures and populations of large animals such as the mammoth and the mastadon, and causing dramatic cooling that lasted about 1000 yrs and seriously disrupted the early human civilisation semerging in europe and asia..

"the magnitude of this discovery is so important" says James kennett, of the university of california, as "it explains three of the highest-debated controversies of recent decades"...

these are-the sudden dissapearance of the first stone age ppl of america, the dissapearance of mammoths throughout europe and america and the sudden cooling of the planet, an event known as the Younger-Dryas period...

This news item rang bells from something I read a while back and sure enough it's the same folk involved in these claims.

Research News: Supernova Explosion May Have Caused Mammoth Extinction

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Francis!

As a fellow Virtigo, I would like to chime in if I may.

Originally Posted by Francis king

as far as I know the indo-european and aryan hypothesis favoured by victorian era intellectuals like max muller et al which suggests that all "indo-european" languages are such due to migration from asia towards the west is not upheld by all scholars and many ppl now feel that it is only as a result of western bias that the indo-european hypothesis was given any merit and taken so seriously for so long...

the term indo-european only originated in the victorian era, and was not used everywhere... germans, for instance, referred to our common roots as indo-germanic, and the irish referred to it as indo-celtic...

and so maybe it is ethnocentrism which is responsible for our indo-european hypothesis, not actuality...

While I wasn't aware of this you speak of, I am not surprised. I have stumbled on similar phenomena dealing with certain historical issues in certain regions of Asia. There is a form of oneupmanship between competing cultures, over things like who came on the scene first. A great deal is cultural bias and propaganda, a sincere scholar must watch for such.

Now, while I am not usually of the notion to use the term "Indo-European," I would be remiss if I were to say I have never used the term. Even so, it is used (if taken in a generic sense) to imply a specific time, place and peoples and their contributions to the world as a whole. If translated in that light, and not used as some form of silly cultural ego-stroke, I feel it is OK. Certainly a great deal of the old anthropology texts use this term quite a bit, even if it might now be out of favor for the reasons you mention.

Quickly, regarding the "Aryan controversy," referring to the ancient peoples of the Steppes who came down into India in antiquity, I have two quick things to say from a cursory look a while back:

#1. These are not the same Aryans the Germanic peoples would later emphasize and idealize, these are a completely different people and culture in place and time.

#2. The only serious contention I saw regarding the Aryan invasion of India was by Indian scholars with a vested interest in their own cultural "purity" and bias. By and large those who were trying to decipher the matter in a neutral manner from what sparse evidence there is, were inclined to believe an invasion took place.

Originally Posted by Francis king

my opinion is that when our ancestors all lived on the one land mass, before the continents where formed, the competition for resources had already ensured that these simians had migrated widely, eventually the continents shifted into almost the position they are in now, and the simians adapted to their enviroments over time to become seperate ppls with the diversity of racial characteristics we have today...

Well, like was mentioned elsewhere by one of the others, Pangea broke up even before the dinosaurs disappeared. Looking at the material Vajra linked to I noticed that there is some hint that the islands surrounding Australia may have been linked in the very recent (until 50 thousand years or so) past. And of course the infamous speculated land-bridge across the Bering Sea, and the less well received possibility of a North Atlantic crossing at the foot of the glacier. People in antiquity were certainly mobile, more so I believe than our texts give credit. While it is likely true that the shape and format of the continents may have been quite different two hundred thousand years ago, Pangea was already long broken and disbursed.

Originally Posted by Francis king

a fox is red in England, yet in the Artic circle his ears are smaller, his fur is white and much thicker, in the Gobi desert his ears are bigger, his fur is sandy... they are all the same species, they are all foxes, but they are different... why should ppl be any different?

I like the way you think on this.

Originally Posted by Francis king

astrology smology... man was desperate to make sense of the world, and so he looked to the heavens...

most ancient cultures have the same kind of gods- gods of the sun, gods of the rain, moon, etc, etc... why is that?

astrology and the gregorian calendar do not mix... most primitive ppl eventually came to look to the celestial bodies for portends and signs yet really this came from man's need to mark and define time, to know when it was best to cross a river, to know when it was most beneficial to plant his crops...

I don't think astrology at the beginning was about soothsaying and fortune telling. As you hinted, and somewhat supported by Frazer in "the Golden Bough," ancient civilizations based their beliefs, rites and rituals on the harvest. Prior to agriculture is anybody's guess, but after the advent of agriculture, we have some pretty good ideas that various civilizations were into what we now call sympathetic magic. Looking to the cycle of birth / death / (re)birth... they developed their spiritual practices to (I think) first commemorate, and then with time and superstition manipulate the natural order of things.

Sacrifice was offered to the god(s) of water and/or rain, sacrifice was offered to make the barren fields of late winter fertile, sacrifice was offered of the harvest to appease the spirits involved, and so on.

The astrological connection at first was a matter of coordination and commemorization. Later, again as the reasons behind the concepts grew vague and superstition clouded understanding (so that ceremony became rote instead of rite), astrology became associated with things far afield of its original intent...particularly among those in the cities who no longer took part in the agricultural practices and so no longer had any intimate ties to the land and the cycle of nature.

My rambling two cents.

[juantoo3]

BTW, Good links, Francis and Tao!

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Francis king

todays Observer, pg 39 (sunday, 20th may, 2007)...

"diamonds tell tale of comet that killed off the cavemen" (Robin McKie, science editor)

... scientists are suggesting that a comet exploded over the earth 13, 000 years ago creating a hail of fireballs that set fire to most of the northern hemisphere, destroying primitive stone age cultures and populations of large animals such as the mammoth and the mastadon, and causing dramatic cooling that lasted about 1000 yrs and seriously disrupted the early human civilisation semerging in europe and asia..

"the magnitude of this discovery is so important" says James kennett, of the university of california, as "it explains three of the highest-debated controversies of recent decades"...

these are-the sudden dissapearance of the first stone age ppl of america, the dissapearance of mammoths throughout europe and america and the sudden cooling of the planet, an event known as the Younger-Dryas period...

Interesting...may also explain 'fire and brimstone.'

[Francis king]

i am not very knowledgable about the break-up of the land mass and must do some research!... any links or insights, preferably delivered in simple terms which I can understand, with as few numbers as possible, would be most gratefully recieved.... ? basic timeline for me, anyone? no rush, like...

[Francis king]

yes, is the same gang, tao

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Francis king

i am not very knowledgable about the break-up of the land mass and must do some research!... any links or insights, preferably delivered in simple terms which I can understand, with as few numbers as possible, would be most gratefully recieved.... ? basic timeline for me, anyone? no rush, like...

This is a good site providing simple animations:
Plate Tectonics

[Francis king]

cheers tao

[_Z_]

hi, lunamoth

Interesting...may also explain ‘fire and brimstone.’

interesting point! i have often wondered why people even considered having to appease the gods with sacrifices etc. in one sense people probably thought that the world was ‘given’ to them so thanks was necessary, but the 'fire and brimstone' is probably what made people think they needed to do a lot more to placate the gods, including human sacrifice. talking of which a native s.american was speaking on a documentary about the maya culture, he was quite convinced that this ‘chore’ [human sacrifice] was sometimes taken up gladly by people whom were fatally/badly injured or diseased. he said that before modern medicine life could be tortuous in the extreme, thus a ‘noble death’ in battle or by sacrifice - noble?! - was prefered. enemy prisoners accepted their fate as sacrificial victims, because they too presumed upon the hunger of the gods and the necessity of sacrificial appeasement. in ancient china human sacrifice was a part of the earth mother cult and specifically to do with ancestral worship [i’ll dig up a link], as presumably it was for the ancient britons and the carthaginians [both also earth mother cultists, in the main].

i wonder what it is that links the mother with death, one would have thought it logical that the mother is conducive to birth, nurturing and hence life?

[Tao_Equus]

Lunamoth: Interesting...may also explain 'fire and brimstone.'

If the research is correct then it is indeed interesting and very possibly the origin of the myth. Cant wait to see the full release this week.




Z,
I have read several times that in Mayan and ancient Japanese cultures, and perhaps others - I forget, that individuals to be sacraficed were deeply honored, pampered and drew great kudos to their families. That their sacrafice promised elevation for them in the afterlife made it something not to be feared but embraced.
In the west countless old black and white movies have shown us the sacrificial young virgin dragged screaming to the alter. This perhaps has significantly coloured our veiw of things to the degree that few have ever given any thought to the possibility of the willing 'victim'. So it is a very good point you raise.

i wonder what it is that links the mother with death, one would have thought it logical that the mother is conducive to birth, nurturing and hence life?

After reading that I did a little googling and in first couple of pages found only 1 link to show any matriarchal system involved the woman in death rights. I looked at a few others. They all seemed to be unanimous that that area was delegated to the men. I post the link on the exception.


Information about Lithuania

TE

[_Z_]

tao equus
there is a druidic notion shown in the image of the duelling adders, whereby the female devours the male then gives birth to it, this shown how the feminine can perhaps be seen as ending as well as giving life. it is kind of like the sperm being ‘consumed’ or merged into the egg.

thanks for the link! very interesting,how the hell did you find that.
quote from that link:
In the period of matriarchy the goddesses were responsible for the birth, existence and death of man, fauna and flora. Those deities took care that the continuity of life and fecundity be maintained in the Universe through constant interchangeability of life and death

[Tao_Equus]

Just did a google on *matriachal death*

Funny its not the first time either I ended up on that Lithuania site tracking down prehistoric info.

[_Z_]

i just found this intereasting link about the olmec-china possible connection

perhaps the olmecs were connected to the chinese!

The Official Graham Hancock Website: Feature Articles