Incompetence in Mainstream Linguistics - LexiLine Journal 353

A reader recently wrote me an e-mail suggesting that my connection of archaic Latvian to proto-Indo-European construction was "tribal", which is nonsense. Here is what I wrote to him:

"I personally do not really care whether Latvian or Lithuanian is more archaic as a language. If I find something more archaic in Lithuanian than in Latvian, I use it, of course. There is no question that Lithuanian is also very archaic, as is Latvian.

The question of provenance is critical however to an accurate reconstruction of Indo-European. If you assume Lithuanian is in general more archaic, then you prevalently use Lithuanian rather than Latvian for Indo-European reconstruction. Obviously, if the premise that Lithuanian is more archaic is not true, then you are getting prima facie incorrect results - and that is my major point.

The linguists' reliance on Lithuanian - more or less ignorning Latvian - has led to some mainstream linguistic theories about Indo-European which in my opinion are simply false, based on my native knowledge of Latvian.

Let me take the example of case forms. Lithuanian is regarded to be older than Latvian for example because it has MORE rather than fewer case forms than Latvian, whereas my logic tells me that the more archaic a language is, the less complex its grammar should be, and the less case forms it should have. Differentiation of any kind results from the process of development of a language. An example is Latin, a much younger language, which has a bevy of case forms which developed over time - far many more case forms than exist in Lat(v)i(a)n.

Moreover, if certain case forms are allegedly more archaic, then it is up to the linguists to explain how other languages have lost such case forms or to show remnants of them in such languages. This the linguists do not do.

In Latvian, for example, locative case is shown simply by lengthening the end vowel of a word - and this is not always the same vowel. So that seems to me to be a very archaic - indeed, a more "primitive" method as it were - of showing location than a language which has become standardized and more differentiated in its formal structure of grammar.

Take a look at the following website page at LexiLine:

http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi16.htm

There you see the near grammatical identity of modern Latvian case forms with ancient Luwian Hittite (a language spoken and written nearly 4000 years ago) for the word "water". However, the linguist involved in writing the cited book on Hittite does not even mention Latvian once in his book. He is writing without competent knowledge of his field and is relying on sloppy research to boot.

Moreover, if the Lithuanian hypothesis were correct, then Lithuanian forms would have to be shown to be older than these Hittite forms, and that in my opinion can not be done.

This is just one example of many. It has nothing to do with tribal competition as you suggest, but is a simple matter of the evidence.

When you can find me a mainsteam linguist who can explain the Latvian-Hittite evidence on that website page to my satisfaction within current linguistic theory, let me know. Up to now, I have found no one.

Quite the contrary, the linguists stick to their false version of the nominative form for Hittite "water" i.e. "u-i-da-ar or u-wi-ti-ar", allegeging that this was a U-R form whereas all the other case forms in that same Hittite language were allegedly U-N forms, which is basically impossible. This is incompetent linguistics at its peak.

The reason for this stupidity is simply Western bias toward "water"-form words ending in R, whereas all the evidence in the East - for example, the names of rivers - clearly indicates that the prevailing ancient "water" form in nominative case ended in N.

e.g. Latvian UDEN- = "nominative form for water" whence

DON, TANais, DAN-UBE (UDEN-UPE - the words in Latvan mean "water-
river"), DN-IEP-(er). The older N form is widely prevalent in the
East.

The less archaic form is found in the West and it is an R-form for "wat-ER", i.e. U-R rather than U-N.

WAT-ER, OD-ER (rather than UD-EN), WASS-ER, WES-ER, AD-ER, HYDRO- etc.

Consummate stupidity is then found as a result in the linguists' reconstruction of the Indo-European root for "water" which is alleged to be *wed- with examples given by them of the suffixed o-grade form *wod-or ir the suffixed zero-grade form *ud-ro.

This would mean that the 4000-year old Hittite *wod-on forms were less archaic than say English WAT-ER or German WASS-ER which of course is simply idiotic as a matter of the proven development of Indo-European from the East to the West.

We see this confirmed in the Germanic language, where the old Germanic god ODIN is not WOTAR or ODAR but rather WOT-AN or OD-IN. The N form is older.

Mainstram linguists do not understand the conceptual origin of language. The ancients did not start with a modern-like "abstract" concept for something that was "wet" - "wet" with what?? but rather derived their water-words from the SOURCES of water.

Rivers flowed in river beds - this is VADIN- (vein, duct, canal, river bed) in Latvian = UDEN = one variant form for water in flowing sources.

Other waters were found in wells whence Latin AQUA was the Latvian AKA "well".

Other waters were used for drinking, in Latvian IEDZER means "drink in" = EZER "lake".

The Latvian AVOT- "spring" looks very close to "WET- etc. etc.

Hence, the linguists have to contend with the fact that the word for "wet" in Latvian is NONE of these but is the words SLAPS which is identical with the word for "thirst".

If the Indo-European term for "water" actually derived from an abstract concept for "wet", then Latvian would have remnants of this visible in its very archaic language - but there is not a trace of this origin. Indeed, the concept of "wet" has nothing to do with the origin of terms for water, which is why "wet" in German is e.g. the unrelated NASS, etc.

The average linguist understands nothing of this. I have no quarrel with the Lithuanians or any other ancient tribe or group, but I do have a quarrel with the modern linguists, from whatever nation they may come. Most of them are incompetents.

Taiwan and the Polynesians - LexiLine Journal 352

The New Scotsman has an article by science correspondent Ian Johnston at http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=738032005 about a DNA study just published in the journal PLoS Biology finding that the indigenous population of Taiwan was genetically similar to Polynesians.

This is surely true. Unfortunately the study makes far-reaching and unwarranted conclusions not supported by the actual evidence, writing carelessly that:

"Analysis of DNA sequences in this study reveals the presence of a
motif of three mutations ... [which are] shared among aboriginal
Taiwanese, Melanesians and Polynesians. No mainland East Asian
population has yet been found to carry lineages derived from these
three [DNA] positions.

This suggests that the motif may have evolved in populations living
in or near Taiwan at the end of the late Pleistocene period [more
than 10,000 years ago]. The time element ... requires that we adopt a
model according to which the origin of Austronesian [including the
Polynesian] migration can be traced back to Taiwan."

That kind of erroneous thinking and poor logic has no place in science, even if it is partly made in Baltic Estonia, a country to which I am positively partial (the report is an interesting joint effort by scientists at the Transfusion Medicine Laboratory in Taiwan and Estonia's Biocentre).

Obviously, if the original Taiwanese did not come from the mainland, then they could only have reached Taiwan from somewhere else by boat and hence it was obviously the boatbuilders who reached Taiwan AFTER they discovered making boats elsewhere who first discovered Taiwan and not before they discovered making boats.

Do we need to give courses in logic to the mainstream scientists??

To find the original aboriginals of Taiwan you first have to find out where the boat-builders originally came from, and that issue is as yet undecided.

Korea Japan China Ancient Astronomy - LexiLine Journal 351

To our files at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LexiLine/files
for Korea, Japan and China I have added the following files:

karasukiboshi.png [the graphic below]

(Japan and China, Orion's Belt, Karasuki Boshi, the 3-Pronged Plow, which
helps identify the subsequent Yuri Dolmen Taegu of Korea as the stars of Orion's Belt)

yuridolmentaegu.png [the graphic below]

(Korea, Yuri Dolmen ChangRyong Taegu, Orion's Belt)

Here we see a wonderful mesh of the astronomy of China, Korea and Japan in identifying the Yuri Dolmen at the ChangRyong megalithic site near Taegu, Korea as marking the stars of Orion's Belt in the ancient megalithic survey of Korea. This megalithic site now gives us
a firm, fixed orientation for the Korean megalithic sites.

A new page on Korea will be uploaded soon to http://www.megaliths.net/....

The Sky Disk of Nebra - A Solar Eclipse - LexiLine Journal 350

At my Ancient World blog
http://ancientworldblog.blogspot.com/

I have a new posting about the Sky Disk of Nebra
http://ancientworldblog.blogspot.com/2005/06/nebra-sky-disk.htm
which can be summarized as follows:

It is the English version of an original article by me in German which first appeared recently under the title: Die Himmelsscheibe von Nebra : Beweisführung und Deutung in the periodical Efodon-Synesis, Issue 2, March/April 2005, Volume 18, No. 68.

The major argument presented in the article is that the current interpretation of the Nebra Sky Disk is prima facie wrong in interpreting the Nebra Sky Disk to show the night sky.

The Nebra Sky Disk depicts a solar boat but the Sun is not in this boat. Indo-European evidence indicates unequivocally that the Sun was seen in ancient days to be in the solar boat at night, but not during the day. Hence, the Nebra Sky Disk shows the sky during the day and thus the Sky Disk can only depict a solar eclipse.

Megalithic Sites in Poland : Links from Victor Reijs - LexiLine Journal 349

Victor Reijs (see his website at http://www.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/)
sent the following E-Mail on Polish megalithic sites.
________________________________

>As someone already said; if one knows Polish, there are many
>megalithic (web) sites;-) Below are some links I got through a
>colleague of mine who found all these Polish (web)sites for me;-)
>Thanks Jarek!!!

I> have visited some sites near Poznan:
>http://www.kamienie.most.org.pl/fotki/lekimale.jpg and
>http://www.kamienie.most.org.pl/regiony/kujawy.htm

>I have made GPS readings of Leki Male and Wietrzychowice. At the
>last location 5 long beds have been visited (some are 110 m long!),
>and I have measured the direction of them using a compass (107, 122,
>142, 144 and 145 degrees compensated for magnetic north).

>Thanks for all your help in providing hints on this.

>All the best,

>Victor

>+++
>An english website with an overview of Polish sites:
>http://www.comp-archaeology.org/MEGTindex.htm
>http://www.comp-archaeology.org/PO.htm

>A Polish map:
>http://www.pilot.pl/

>KASZUBY => North East part of Poland:
>http://www.naszekaszuby.pl/modules/artykuly/article.php?articleid=18
>http://www.naszekaszuby.pl/modules/myalbum/viewcat.php?cid=34
>http://www.naszekaszuby.pl/modules/myalbum/photo.php?lid=380
>http://www.naszekaszuby.pl/modules/myalbum/viewcat.php?cid=12
>http://www.naszekaszuby.pl/modules/myalbum/viewcat.php?cid=36
>http://www.naszekaszuby.pl/modules/myalbum/viewcat.php?cid=14
>http://www.naszekaszuby.pl/modules/myalbum/viewcat.php?cid=21
>http://www.naszekaszuby.pl/modules/myalbum/viewcat.php?cid=7&num=10&orderby=titleA&pos=10
>http://www.babidol.eu.org/
>http://www.bory.tucholskie.pl/rozne/kregi/kregi.htm
>http://www.kamienne.org.pl/kamienne/miejsca_szczegolnie_polecane_do_odwiedzenia_!!!.htm

>(Poznan's county)
>WIELKOPOLSKA and KUJAWY
>http://www.kamienie.most.org.pl/regiony/pomwsch.htm
>http://www.kamienne.org.pl/kamienne/kujawy.htm
>http://www.kamienne.org.pl/kamienne/fotografie/Konojad%20(jpg).JPG
>(South West of Poznan)
>http://www.kamienie.most.org.pl/regiony/kujawy.htm
>Welkopolska
>http://www.kamienie.most.org.pl/regiony/wielkopol.htm

>Sites abut megalitic sites (and others) in Poland
>http://www.kamienne.org.pl/
>http://www.kamienne.org.pl/kamienne/index.htm
>http://www.kamienie.most.org.pl/
>http://www.kamienie.most.org.pl/polska.htm

Astronomical Gold Coned Hats of Ancient Wizards : The Metonic Cycle - LexiLine Journal 348

Slowly - but very slowly - mainstream archaeology is waking up to the fact that ancient peoples were sophisticated astronomers.

Steve Burdic has sent me the following link

http://snipurl.com/fkta viz.
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/03/17/wwiz17.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/03/17/ixworld.html to an article by Tony Paterson in Berlin titled "Mysterious gold cones 'hats of ancient wizards'"

It presents more evidence of the astronomy of antiquity.

The article refers to the Metonic Cycle, about which I have written at
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi203.htm
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi153.htm
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi158.htm
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi75.htm
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi20.htm
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi78.htm
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi105.htm
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi12.htm
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi30a.htm

For some mainstream views on the Metonic Cycle see
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/Metonic_cycle.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonic_cycle
http://www.timeemits.com/wpjchp.htm
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/MetonicCycle.html

The idea that Meton was the first to discover this cycle is quaint and foolish and typical for mainstream archaeology and astronomy.

The fact is that this Metonic Cycle is already clearly visible at current Stonehenge - in the version we all know with ca. 50-ton sarsen stones quarried at Marlborough. There the Metonic Cycle was arguably represented by the 19 Preseli Bluestones, according to my analysis at http://www.megaliths.co.uk/stonehengeplan.htm

[January 2010 update comment: The notion that the bluestones at Stonehenge are "glacial erratics" is absurd. Currently it is alleged that ca. 82 Bluestones have been found, but this is simply not true - as only 16 remain standing at Stonehenge. IN our view 19 represented the Metonic Cycle in the currently visible arrangement . There is another newer theory for an alleged 82 bluestones involving a newly found second circle at Stonehenge, and the new theory is to be published this February, but apparently it will be alleged to involve the 56-year Aubrey hole cycle of eclipses. How many bluestones are there really? No one really knows. Earthmagazine.org writes:

"The bluestones were arranged in a circle inside the sarsen circle. They were also set into a horseshoe arrangement within the sarsen trilithon horseshoe. However, there were many changes in the stone settings prior to the arrangement that we see today, and archaeologists have found traces that indicate that the bluestones may originally have been set in a double circle. Regardless, only 43 of these foreign bluestones have been identified in these smaller stone settings at Stonehenge. Of these, 16 are still standing; the others are either leaning, lying on the ground or traceable only through buried stumps. No one knows how many bluestones might have been there originally."]

It is clear also that the ancient Chinese knew the Metonic Cycle long before Meton
http://www.beijingservice.com/beijinghighlights/chinesecalendar.htm

as did the ancient megalithic peoples of Ireland
http://snipurl.com/fkvb
http://www.mythicalireland.com/ancientsites/knowth/calendarstone.html

Why the run-of-the-mill mainstream archaeologists and astronomers are unable to see Metonic astronomy prior to the Greeks is one of the great mysteries of modern scholarship.

Who was Tutankhamun - Jonathon Aton - The Me'il - LexiLine Journal 347

I recently received a letter asking me for an illustration of the robe or Me'il of the Cohen Gadol, the Hebrew High Priest, and also asking me who in my opinion Tutankhamun was. The two questions are inter-related.

See the following website for one interpretative drawing of the Cohen Gadol's priestly garments
http://messianic-torat-chayim-sg.org/Torah/kohengadol.html That is pretty much a fantasy drawing, but a good attempt.

Actually, the robe of the Cohen Gadol will not have been substantially different than that worn by the Pharaohs of Egypt, based on the following example of the garment of Ramses III
ramsesIII.jpg [the graphic below]


which I have uploaded to our LexiLine files at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LexiLine/files/Egypt/

You can see there both the top and bottom robe, the ephod, the belt in layers, as well as the tassels on the robe, some of which, also on Ramses III, appear to be small bells - as allegedly also on the robe of the Cohen Gadol in descriptions of the me'il. This picture is a scan from a superb book by Peter A. Clayton, Chronicle of the Pharaohs, Thames and Hudson Ltd., London, 1994, available at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0500050740/

The book is a must buy for anyone in this field as the best book of this kind in Egyptology (i.e. it is an understandable overview of all the pharaohs and their reigns according to the mainstream views). No other book comes even close. I use it all the time, even though it of course carries forward many mainstream errors in Egyptology.

Remnants of the Hebrew High Priest's robe were in my opinion found in the Tomb of Tutankhamun. Such a robe would have been far more Egyptian in nature than the drawing above and the Cohen Gadol would not have had a beard - quite the contrary, priests were bald: (quoted from http://snipurl.com/fetq viz.
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/egypt/dailylife/hairstyles.html

"Priests were required to keep their entire bodies cleanly shaved. They shaved every third day because they needed to avoid the danger of lice or any other uncleanness to conduct rituals. This is the reason why priests are illustrated bald-headed with no eyebrows or lashes."

In addition, both the bearded Asiatics (Assyrians, etc.) and the black peoples were arch enemies of the clean-shaven Pharaohs, as shown at the Tomb of Tutankhamun on the prow of a miniature ship. In discussing the origin of the Pharaohs, it is rather remarkable that such important pieces of evidence are ignored by Egyptology.

For an extensive review of the items found in the Tomb of Tutankhamun, see generally
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi80.htm and more specifically
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi25.htm and also
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi600.htm

The identity of Tutankhamun can be explained as follows:

In my opinion, the evidence is incontrovertible that King Saul = Echnaton (Akhenaten), King David = Sethos and King Solomon = Ramses II with Shishak = Ramses III.

Accordingly, Tutankhamun can only be ATON, i.e. JON-ATHON ("young Aton, young Adonis, "Jaun-(IE)donis"), one of the sons of Saul in the Bible. Saul was Echn-ATON viz. Akhen-ATEN ("old Aton", old Adonis, "Vec-(IE)Donis"). The other brother was Semenchkare, Biblical Ish-Boshet, who served a short time as Pharaoh before being executed.

The hieroglyphs which the Egyptologists read as SE-Mench are actually ISH-Boshet. SE = ISH. The other error occurs because there are two alternative readings for the small chisel - one is MNCH (Indo-European e.g. latvian MI(N)CHA), MIEC- "to knead, strike" but the other is B[.....] which is Indo-European viz. Latvian PASIT (=BOSHET) "to strike at". The Egyptologists have chosen the wrong alternative of the two for Semenchkare.

Young ATON (Jon-ATHON) saved David's life and was his best friend, but was killed at an early age - according to the Bible - battling the Philistines, in a battle in which Saul ("old Aton") also lost his life. According to the Bible, the latter's body was mutilated by the Philistines and has thus never been found by the Egyptologists, probably having been buried somewhere in Canaan.

Tutankhamun never served as Pharaoh but was heir to the throne. This explains his having a royal cartouche but being excluded from the ancient lists of the kings of Egypt. He never manned the throne. His untimely death brought his best friend David onto the throne, and so Jonathon was buried in regal style by David, who had become King David = Sethos (Setoy).

Note in this regard that the alleged pharaoh Haremhab viz. Horemhab at this time was actually Hiram (also written Huram), King of Tyre, one of King David's best friends. Horemhab never served as sovereign Pharaoh of Egypt, contrary to the erred opinion of Egyptology, but was only a vice-regent (see http://www.varchive.org/tac/harcrown.htm), later given a royal status - whence the cartouche - by King David. Haremhab built many buildings for David (so the Bible) upon which he also placed his name as the builder of them - but pharaoh himself he was not, but only King of Tyre. The kingly reign attributed to him actually belonged to King David (Sethos viz. Setoy) and this is why in spite of two tombs being attributed to Haremhab by the Egyptologists, his mummy is not found among the mummies of the kings which have been recovered in the mummy depots. The Egyptologists incorrectly read "Tyre" on the hieroglyphs as DJOSER whereas Haremhab's cartouched hieroglyph showing the hand holding an object is clearly to be read as TUR ("hold") i.e. TYRE and not DJOSER.

Nearly all of the furniture and treasures in the tomb of Tutankhamun are from a later period. The tomb was reopened and the holy vessels of the Mishnayot were hidden there, including the Ark of the Covenant (also called the Ark of the Law, Ark of the Testimony, Ark of God) with the tomb being resealed by the priests and the entrance being covered by tons of rubble - such tomb only having been found in our modern era by Howard Carter as the Tomb of Tutankhamun.

See in this regard

http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi80.htm and
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi000.htm

for an account of the hiding of the Ark of the Covenant and the holy vessels.