Cautionary Note

Plasma formations in the ancient sky. The role of planets as charged bodies in these formations. Ground-rules for drawing reliable conclusions. A new approach to the mythic archetypes: is a unified theory of world mythology possible?
User avatar
starbiter
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA
Contact:

Re: Cautionary Note

Unread post by starbiter » Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:39 pm

Thanks David: Your response was much more than i anticipated with this long shot. Your like a Rabbit in the Brier Patch with this one. Do you give the visitor suggestion 0% possibility.
I read Von Daniken and was unimpressed. But ya never know.
Thanks again to You, Wal and all the rest for trying to educate us.
michael steinbacher
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com

David Talbott
Site Admin
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: Cautionary Note

Unread post by David Talbott » Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:51 pm

starbiter wrote:Thanks David: Your response was much more than i anticipated with this long shot. Your like a Rabbit in the Brier Patch with this one. Do you give the visitor suggestion 0% possibility.
I read Von Daniken and was unimpressed. But ya never know.
Thanks again to You, Wal and all the rest for trying to educate us.
michael steinbacher
About the suggestion by some that mythic "giants" might be "visitors": It happens that since high school l've followed the UFO evidence with considerable interest, and you'd probably be surprised at certain conclusions I now regard as inescapable, based on the same general protocol that enables us to extract a reliable substructure from myth. But on the visitors question I keep all opinions to myself--except one: the mythic giants have nothing--and I really do mean nothing :) --to do with aliens.

David Talbott

Grey Cloud
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Cautionary Note

Unread post by Grey Cloud » Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:20 pm

My thinking on giants is that there were giant flora and fauna on the Earth so it follows that there could well have been giant 'people'. It would take us off-topic but I tend to think that 'we' have been here on this planet in one way, shape or form since day one.
I have also read about giant bones/skeletons beig found in, e.g., the USA in the C19th by miners and people digging guano out of caves etc. Many of these finds featured in the newspapers of the day.
One should also keep in mind that 'giant' is a relative term.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.

User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Cautionary Note

Unread post by MGmirkin » Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:08 pm

David Talbott wrote:The Greeks regarded the Titans as "ancestors" of humanity, and that ancestry is remarkably similar to various ancestral ties to "giants" in the different cultures. The epoch of the Titan's rule was synchronous with the remarkable epoch of Kronos, the planet Saturn. Kronos himself was the chief of the Titans, all of whom were sons of Ouranos, as were the Gigantes.
I'm wondering: I seem to recall mention of the notion of lineage and/or kingship descending from the original "king" or "God." (Or perhaps rather from "heaven" when "heaven was close to Earth.") Is the reference above to the Greeks seeing the Titans as "ancestors" of humanity in a similar vein with the notion of lineage / kingship mentioned elsewhere? I guess I was just seeing kind of a parallel there? Maybe it's just me?

~Michael
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law

User avatar
nick c
Moderator
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Cautionary Note

Unread post by nick c » Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:42 pm

Grey Cloud:
Thanks for your input but I feel that you are quoting me slightly out of context as in the paragraph preceding I wrote:


Quote:
If you guys are correct then, yes, one should see abundant references to catastrophic events, etc in these stories and a minimal number of stories relating to, e.g., a common spirituality or philosophy.
My apologies for my misunderstanding. I thought you were implying that there were not references to past catastrophes from classical Greco/Roman writers. Such references, while not that common, do exist.
That being said, I don't see any purpose to a tally of catastrophic references versus spiritual references. These men wrote in a time similar to our own, that is, within a stable solar system. Like us, they had no threatening planets/Gods, they had the luxury to contemplate metaphysics and engage in philosophical debate, and interpret their myths/religions in a spiritual or philosophical context. Indeed, Plato in "Timaeus and Critias" writes that the myth of Phaethon is a "mythical version of the truth," implying that they (his contempories) had, even in that time, forgotten the true (catastrophic) meaning of that (and presumably others) myth. The knowledge of the catastrophes being the secret knowledge of the Egyptian Priests.
As far as what events are refered to in Phaethon, well, it is but one myth and should be viewed in context with others. It does seem to present ancient testimony to some type of disruption in the Earths' motion and/or rotation followed by a conflagration. It is not inconsistent with any of the catastrophic theories, Saturnist or otherwise, as it could be interpreted as describing events after the time Earth left the influence of Saturn and before the present order was attained. Perhaps further research may or may not suggest that the sun that went off its' course, was the Saturnian Sun. Anyhow, I would prefer to respect the request of Dave T. and not get into discussions of any specific myth viewed in isolation.

I became aquainted with catastrophism in the early 1960's, after about 10 years of disbelief, I finally was convinced that Velikovsky's premise, that mythology told the story of a disrupted solar system, was indeed true. In the mid 1970's I was introduced to Dave's polar Saturn theory, in a flyer called "The Research Communications Network" and then later I eagerly read "The Saturn Myth," as well as Kronos, and Aeon. The compilation of mythological evidence was astounding, and to me, the only legitimate criticism was that it was impossible by the "laws" of celestial mechanics...even for a Velikovskian! But the total body of evidence presented (by Cardonna, Cochrane, and others too) was so stunning, I had to think that Saturn was indeed perceived by our ancestors as a stationary sun above the north pole. And now, we are in the midst of the discovery of the Electric Universe and that is showing us that perhaps there is no violation of any of nature's "laws," only our understanding of those "laws."
If this Polar configuration is possible within our understanding of nature, and the ancients say that is what they experienced, then the only logical conclusion is, that is what must have happened.
Nick

User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: The Crowns of Sages and Warrior-Kings (Part 3)

Unread post by MGmirkin » Thu Apr 24, 2008 1:51 pm

David Talbott wrote:So put yourself in the position of one determined to discover where the Egyptian evidence leads. In particular, what would you want to know when considering the three Egyptian symbols below? Would you not ask whether, against all apparent reason, the Egyptian symbolists recognized a hidden identity of these symbols with the White Crown?
Well, if one tentatively accepts the model for the purpose of argument, one is tempted to look up Uraeus / Uraeus Serpent and see what other sources have to say about it:

(Uraeus)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uraeus
Among other things, Wikipedia wrote:Later, the pharaohs were seen as a manifestation of the sun-god Re, and so it also was believed that the Uraeus protected them by spitting fire on their enemies from the fiery eye of the goddess. In some mythological works, the eyes of Ra are said to be uraei. Wadjets existed long before the rise of this cult when they originated as the eye of Wadjet as cobra and are the name of the symbols also called the Eye of the Moon, Eye of Hathor, the Eye of Horus, and the Eye of Ra—depending upon the dates of the references to the symbols.
And this seems to bring us back to the question of Wadjet and eventual transferrence / transformation from Wadjet to the Eye of Horus / Eye of Ra mentioned back in the "Origins of Myth..." thread.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law

User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: The Crowns of Sages and Warrior-Kings (Part 3)

Unread post by MGmirkin » Thu Apr 24, 2008 3:18 pm

With respect to "Ra" / "Re" mentioned in the previous post, Wikipedia had the following to say:
According to E. A. Wallis Budge he was the one god of Egyptian monotheism, of which all other deities were aspects, manifestations, phases, or forms of this deity.[1] Ra itself, however, was also a monotheistic god. A Hymn to Ra (approx. 1370s BC) was written to stress the pantheistic nature of Ra to combat encroaching polytheism. In it, several deities are described, not as beings in their own right, but certain forms of Ra.

[...]

It is not known for sure what Ra's name means, but it is thought it may be a variant of or linked to 'creative', if not an original word for 'sun'. As his cult arose in the Egyptian pantheon, Ra often replaces Atum as the father, grandfather and great-grandfather of the deities of the Ennead, and becomes the creator of the world. Ra then was seen to have created Sekhmet, who becomes Hathor, the cow goddess, after she has sufficiently punished mankind as an avenging Eye of Ra, and so he is often said to be the father of both and brother to the god, Osiris.
Strangely enough, this appears to support the notion that the various gods / goddesses were "aspects, manifestations, phases, or forms of this deity." Ra gives rise to Sekhmet who becomes Hathor, etc. etc. Interesting...

~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law

User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: The Crowns of Sages and Warrior-Kings (Part 3)

Unread post by MGmirkin » Thu Apr 24, 2008 3:51 pm

Similarly, Atum seems to be an earlier (the earliest?) version of the "one God" concept...

(Atum)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atum
Of Atum, Wikipedia wrote:Atum is one of the most important and frequently mentioned deities from earliest times, as evidenced by his prominence in the Pyramid Texts, where he is portrayed as both a creator and father to the king. He is usually depicted as a man wearing either the royal head-cloth or the dual white and red crown of Upper Egypt, and Lower Egypt, reinforcing his connection with kingship.

[...]

In the Heliopolitan Ennead cosmogony established in the sixth dynasty, he was considered to be the first god, having created himself, sitting on a mound (benben) (or identified with the mound itself), from the primordial waters (Nu). Early myths state that Atum created the god Shu and goddess Tefnut from spitting or from his semen by masturbation in the city of Annu (the Egyptian name for Heliopolis)

[...]

In the Old Kingdom the Egyptians believed that Atum lifted the dead king's soul from his pyramid to the starry heavens. By the time of the New Kingdom, the Atum mythos, merged in the Egyptian pantheon with that of Ra, who was also the creator and a solar deity, their two identities were joined into Atum-Ra.
What distinction is to be made between Atum and Ra? It sounds like Atum was the "primordial God" and Ra was the successor supreme God, or some such thing? Perhaps Dave can elucidate the difference in terms of mythology (as I'm not up on Egyptian myth, etc.)?

Cheers,
~Michael
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law

Grey Cloud
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: The Crowns of Sages and Warrior-Kings (Part 3)

Unread post by Grey Cloud » Thu Apr 24, 2008 4:34 pm

From Michaels post:
According to E. A. Wallis Budge he was the one god of Egyptian monotheism, of which all other deities were aspects, manifestations, phases, or forms of this deity
This is essentially the same as Hinduism where all the other gods are aspects Brahman/Atman. Brahman is ineffable. It is easier to say what Brahman is not, which led to the concept of nirguna Brahman.

As far as I can make out all traditions subscribe to the same concept. The Maya do and in the Huna tradition of Polynesia it is the same. In the I Ching it is No-Thing which creates the Dao. In Nordic 'mythology' it is All-Father. I may be wrong with this one but I think that in Qabala it is Ain. Variations on a theme.

The Sun is worshipped not for itself but because it is representative of the Creator or what Plato would call the Unmoved Mover. Just as the rays or energies from the Sun give life to everything on this planet so do the energies of the Creator to the Universe. And it is all taking place in the 'mind' of said Creator.

There are subtleties within subtleties in Egyptian mythology so one must be careful about making definitve statements about any part of it. The Eye of Ra and the Eye of Horus and the Uraeus can also represent the third eye. In the Gita, Krishna opens Arjuna's third eye so that he may comprehend Krishna's full power. In Nordic mythology, Odin, in exchange for wisdom 'loses' one eye. It's related to the sixth (?) Chakra and either the pituitary or pineal gland (I can never remember which is which). The concept of Chakras also exists all around the world. Many paths, one Truth.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.

User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: The Crowns of Sages and Warrior-Kings (Part 3)

Unread post by MGmirkin » Thu Apr 24, 2008 4:43 pm

Grey Cloud wrote:There are subtleties within subtleties in Egyptian mythology so one must be careful about making definitve statements about any part of it.
Quite so.

It also seems that one bit leads into the next, and sometimes the differences are blurry between several apparently similar, quite possibly related elements. Whether this is due to our later interpretations, subsequent generations' interpretations of the original images / stories into newer images / stories, or something else may be hard to say... Or, again, if they're "somehow" all extremely similar yet completely unrelated? (For whatever reason, I'd find that a bit of a stretch...?)

Anyway, certainly not meaning to make any definitive statements... I'm just starting to find the various inter-relationships and descriptions of Egyptian myths / figures / symbols rather interesting. Hadn't really read up on them before (though I've read a bit of Norse myth; not that they're related, just that I at least get the references to it. ;o] ).

~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law

David Talbott
Site Admin
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: Cautionary Note

Unread post by David Talbott » Sun Apr 27, 2008 8:39 am

When is evidence “definitive”?
“There are subtleties within subtleties in Egyptian mythology so one must be careful about making definitive statements about any part of it.”
Here’s another way of looking at the question. It all depends on the field of evidence and the tools you are working with. Is the evidence itself susceptible to principles of reasoning that can lead to reliable conclusions?

Much of the issue here relates to the difference between an “explanation“ and a prediction. When a principle or observation is offered to explain a phenomenon, it may indeed stand as a possible “explanation,” so long as it is not categorically disproved by some known fact. But if it lacks predictive power, there is no reason to believe it. A Mesoamerican scholar suggests that the cultural image of Venus as a serpent was due to the shimmering reflection of Venus off the waters of the Pacific. Yes, that is a theoretically possible “explanation” for a local symbol, however remote, at least until an alternative explanation is confirmed. But why would anyone actually believe that the overwhelming power of the "feathered serpent" and related motifs in Mesoamerica could be due to such a frivolous consideration?

Another scholar will tell you that the reason why early astronomers called Saturn the “motionless” god is that the planet moves slowly. Well, Saturn’s slow movement in relationship to the background stars is not as slow as that of the background stars themselves(!) :), but who can say that the “explanation” is wrong? Popular discussion of mythology has never advanced beyond explanations lacking all predictive power. Essentially, everyone can claim whatever occurs to them.

But what happens if it can be shown that cultures around the world attached every hieroglyph of a comet to Venus? Or that the most common of these symbols was the serpent? Is the local explanation of the serpent image still worth clinging to in the face of the global pattern? Don't believe in accidents. A global pattern raises the possibility, even the likelihood, that a definitive, archetypal explanation is available for the local image. In the end you’ll see why a hypothesized comet Venus is an incomparably better explanation than the reflection of Venus off a regional body of water: It is better because the hypothesis--Venus was a comet--predicts the global serpent image of Venus in all of its key relationships to the global language of comets--long flowing hair or beard, effusive filaments or feathers, fiery countenance, and much, much more. Standing on the seashore watching Venus set in the west would not provoke any meaningful prediction about ancient images of Venus.

The same point can be made with respect to the archaic language of Saturn as the stationary or motionless power of the sky. Observing its slow movement today will inspire no predictions about the first images of Saturn as primeval god. So, by way of contrast, ask yourself what you might expect to find if Saturn once towered over the world, hanging stationary at the celestial pole, in a spectacular and “utterly implausible’ alignment of planets.

Any assessment of a theory’s strength requires one to think in terms of predictive power. If perchance someone caused you to simply wonder whether Saturn anciently appeared in the planetary arrangement we've claimed, then a failure to find the global human memories predicted by such a hypothesis would be reason to discount it. A few things you might look for as the first hints of an integral but essentially “lost” memory: An ancient insistence that the sky changed radically. An earlier time of heaven-spanning formations in the sky. An age of gods and wonders. A catastrophic shift in the celestial order. A central (stationary) luminary presiding over a lost epoch. An “impossible” alignment of planets in that lost epoch. Enigmatic astronomical links of today’s remote planet Saturn to the remembered great luminary.

Of course, if you began to encounter precisely-stated echoes of such a memory, all in apparent contradictions of nature--these echoes would, by their underlying integrity and their repetition from one culture to another, only fuel enthusiasm for the investigation.

But how would you resolve the apparent contradictions surrounding the hypothesis? For example, you would immediately run into the modern conviction that the great luminary was the Sun. Such contradictions must have a resolution, so you would dig deeper, and lo and behold you would discover exactly what the radical hypothesis would anticipate--a bizarre ancient astronomical claim that Saturn was the primeval sun, the exemplary ruler of the “first time”; and also, a similarly bizarre ancient claim that Saturn’s former station was a spot never visited by the planet we know--the celestial pole.

Did the ancient world remember something the modern world has forgotten? By asking that question again and again, and overlooking nothing, the path will continue to open in front of you. This promise is why I’ve leapfrogged over volumes of available evidence to illustrate the way the research path invariably takes a serious investigator into details and associated predictions that do in fact lead to definitive conclusions.

A visitor simply passing by this forum section might gain at least a sense of what I’m talking about by considering Part 3 of the thread “The Crowns of Sages and Warrior Kings”. But keep in mind that many details will not immediately fall into place for you without wider reading of available material. In the cited thread, I apply the concrete hypothesis to what is known about the Egyptian White Crown. My point, oft repeated, is that definitive conclusions are possible only if the hypothesis can offer uncompromising predictions, and the predictions match up with undisputed patterns, detail by detail, in ways that would not be possible for a fundamentally false hypothesis.

On the other hand, by following this simple ground-rule, anyone who doubts the hypothesis will only need to show that its predictions are contradicted by documented patterns, or that the more essential predictions are simply not fulfilled.

David Talbott

mague
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 2:44 am

Re: Cautionary Note

Unread post by mague » Fri May 02, 2008 3:19 am

(bear with my english please)

I am a reader and follwer of the EU, but i am also a person with geometric visions.

We should be very careful when interpreting ancient symbols into "with the eye" visible plasma colums and discharges.

There is the egyptian rule: As above so below. I personally rather call them the endless repetitive rules and patterns.
It doesnt matter if people do wittness a huge plasma column above the horizon or a tiny one within the electric/energetic circuit of a human body. The sparc follows the same universal rules.

I d like to think people once about somehitng else within the EU. So we do have more or less complex circuits within our universe. Are we humans part of the circuit ? And is it possible that the "big" flow of Energy contains something like a modulated signal (similar do radio transmissions) ? No, i dont talk about Aliens. But is it possible that everything within our "circuit" (sun, moon, mars, venus, jupiter, ect.) is leaving his own information or fingerprint in the great flow ?
Have ancient seer, shamans and oracles been able to read those informations ? Are symbols sometimes the visualized expression of abstract modulated informations ?

Grey Cloud
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Cautionary Note

Unread post by Grey Cloud » Fri May 02, 2008 4:28 am

Mague wrote:
Have ancient seer, shamans and oracles been able to read those informations ? Are symbols sometimes the visualized expression of abstract modulated informations ?
Excellent point and one I had not considered. I think it is entirely possible that the Egyptians, for example, operated with a different state of consciousness to us.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.

Muser
Guest

Re: Cautionary Note

Unread post by Muser » Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:21 am

Hi, I am new here, so I can only make comments that may or may not have been already mentioned in other parts of the forum.

I find the idea of debating what is defined by the word "ancient" and what is not an interesting one. I also believe in caution when looking at ideas, but we also have to be careful that we don't become too restrictive in our minds regarding what is acceptable to question and what is not.

Grey Cloud mentioned in one small section of a very large and extremely interesting post the following.

"What I meant by there are ancients and there are ancients is that the 'ancient' period covers a vast tract of time. In academic history the 'ancient world' came to an end with the fall of Rome but I view the Romans as the first modern civilisation (they were out and out materialists). I view classical Greece and the Hellenistic period as a transitional period. For example there is a difference in the way the pre- and post-Socratic philosophers wrote (or even between Plato and Aristotle).
Another example which is frequently seen in the media, is referring to the 'ancient' Aztecs and the 'ancient' Incas. The two culture were not ancient but contemporaneous with medieval Europe."


Unlike Grey Cloud I do NOT consider the Romans to be the first modern "civilisation". Yes they were out and out materialists, but we have never left their ideas behind, only embroidered on it and encouraged other cultures to follow suit - to the detriment of mankind as a whole, and so-called civilisation too.

For me, civilisation means that people are wiser, more considerate, determined to stay within harmony of the environment around them, and to observe life around them, both visible and invisible in a harmonious way. There have been many civilisations which have done that much better than the "modern" roman form that still exists today.

Considering the Greeks and Hellenistic period as two separate groups is, in my mind, incorrect, as the word for Greece is Hellene and so any Hellenistic period is clearly that of the Greeks. Pardon me if I am saying something that is known to all, but it was my immediate thought as I read this phrase.

I agree that the Incas, and the Aztecs, were contemporary with Europe, however, it could be that they were also older than the European groups, or were they? Too often we look at the way cultures and peoples migrated across the world but I have come to the conclusion that the common view that people migrated to Britain AFTER they had already established themselves on the mainland, and that the advanced technologies were brought to Britain by those people, is a wrong concept. I believe that Britain was far more advanced than many of the European groups, or at least contemporary with them, and that Britain was the centre of learning for Europe long before, and at the beginning of Roman advancement into Britain.

Just a few words. Apologies if you have all considered these points before, and I honestly don't mean to offend anyone by these ideas. They are what I, at present, believe.

Grey Cloud
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Cautionary Note

Unread post by Grey Cloud » Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:58 am

Hi Muser and welcome aboard.

While my own definition of what constitutes 'civilisation' is very similar to yours, in the post I was using the word in its generally accepted sense. I'm not a big fan of the Romans myself.
One of the points I was trying to make in that post was that the Romans did not, by and large, come up with anything new including their mythology. Therefore using Romans myths and iconography as evidence of the Saturn Theory is, in to my mind, not the best way of doing things.
The Greek and Hellenistic periods are two distinct periods. The former period is generally put at the 5th and 4th centuries BCE and covers the age of the city-states. The latter period runs from the 4th century to the 2nd century BCE and covers the Hellenisation of the former Persian and Egyptian empires etc.
The Aztec and the Inca were descendents of older peoples but they had not been around for very long as Aztec or Inca. Inca is, I believe, actually the name of the ruling class.
As regards pre-Roman Britain, I think that Celtic civilisation (there's that word again) covered much of Western Europe including Britain and that travel/trade between the various regions was more extensive than is currently held by academics who are hidebound by Darwinism.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests