Message #5379

[Zeptepi]

Hi Europa,
Thanks!
Yes, Sumeria is quite a passion with me.  I do hope to be writing soon about the Sumerian flood epic.  I have so much to say on this subject as I feel it has much relevance to the times we are living in now.

You caught my attention when you mentioned, “…provided that I have the ability to prove them”

I am with you on this.  If I can digress, so you may understand me better in any future exchanges I may have with you and hopefully with others too.

Proof.
This is the most difficult area of any research, be it in a professional manner or amateur.  Proof to my mind is the search to find a complete foundation of knowledge.

The search to uncover our past, I have found, falls into two identifiable categories. These are a distinction between ‘optimistic epistemology’ and ‘pessimistic epistemologies‘.  An optimistic approach is one that abides by the doctrine that truth is manifest and therefore the  truth is not always immediately evident, but can become so.  This is associated with the thesis that ignorance is in some way due to a conspiracy.  A pessimistic approach takes the view that the truth is hidden from us and reserved only for the few.  Therefore, what are the sources of our knowledge?  Are they from our established scientific disciplines, and as such, beyond falsification?  Or is knowledge simply a matter of interpersonal exchange through all our social dimensions?  Which of these stands the best chance of creating a method of gaining truth? 

As I move into my older years I do become so aware of my ignorance’s, but more aware of my perceptions, which is in a sense, a source of knowledge or a way to ‘knowing’.  Therefore, I reject nothing, while being aware of my own limited capacity to take in, ‘what I’ve been told’

It’s taken me a while to become un-doctrinated.  Now I feel quite comfortable taking the so called myths of the past to be the original authors truthful concept on a world long past.  They had no reason to lie, at least no more than we do today.

Back to earth.
Recent population DNA samplings of the current populations of northern Europe do suggest that the Celts, Picts, Anglo Saxons and Viking (Norse traders) were all one of the same people.  They are hardly different from each other and had a coherent language that they all shared.  Studies of their ancient habitats also show a striking similarity of construction - right across northern Europe.  It follows that they were established ocean going seafarers going back to the times when they first came to the region.  I suggest this to be as early as 8000BP or even earlier.  I also suggest that they kept in communication throughout those times right up until the Romans came and commandeered their trade.  Where these people, my ancestors, originally came from is another question.  No doubt it was from a ‘well known to them’ southern region.  Boreas, has very interesting views on this which I do hope explore further.


Myths we have romanticised.
I can’t leave this post without mentioning the romantic ideas we have of the Vikings.  Contrary to popular romantic thought they were not invading savage marauders  or were they blond, blue eyed titans with horns sticking out their helmets. They were, as common with all northern Atlantic people, very good seafarers.  The Norse traders looked no different from anyone else.  Diggings in Norway, Shetland and Orkney show that they were of average height, 5,7 to 5,10ft, and of stocky build.  DNA show also that they were probably of fair skin complexion, brownish, fair coloured or reddish hair.  The pure blond types, now commonly  associated with Scandinavia and Iceland came some time later from across land rather than the sea. 

Finally.
You mention that,  “academia is duty bound to find out about all the people…”

Academia, by nature, does not inform, instead it indoctrinates.  They do not like universal disagreement.  They set the verification and condition standards that forms the distinctions of what are going to believe whether we disagree or not.  They know already that we are far too lazy and indolent to challenge their Phd stamp on history.

Best wishes,
John.