Questions about the "Bardic origin of Tarot" theory

venicebard

Kircher Tree said:
What is the evidence that forces this answer on us?
The fact, first noted by Flinders Petrie, that cuts in the granite of the Great Pyramid -- which admittedly may have been built thousands of years before dynastic Egypt, before most of the technology belonging to the culture destroyed around the 11th millennium B.C.E. (by massive inundation) had been lost -- penetrated the harder quartz more than the surrounding feldspar. The only known way this can have happened is by ultra-sonic drill, since the quartz resonates with it.

There are also the numerous stone jars found beneath the step pyramid of Zoser: their production would be quite difficult with today's technology and quite impossible without it (or its equivalent).
See link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obelisk_building_technology_in_ancient_Egypt
Why is this not a "viable answer"? I was unable to find the archeologist that you quoted as saying "with superhuman effort". Could you provide a link or citation? I would be interested to know who would say such a thing.
Boy, I keep forgetting how literal you folks are over here. "With superhuman effort" encapsulates my appraisal of how Egyptians are supposed to have carved the stones of the Great Pyramid to their intense precision (which can only have been necessary because it was a machine, not a 'tomb') using just copper blades of any size, even with a layer of hard crystals betwixt it and the stone. (How, for instance, did the false cut in the 'sarcophogus' penetrate so deep before it was caught and the blade backed out?)

Of course, if one were to listen only to the Egyptologists, one would not even be aware the Egyptians knew the exact size and shape of the earth! The cubit, for instance, was a (precise) round fraction of a degree of latitude (1/10,000, I believe it was), which is why it was slightly longer in Greece than in Egypt (due to the flattening toward the poles). But then Egyptologists do not like reading all those dry papyri that are mostly calculations, leaving such drudge work to mavericks like Professor Stecchini (who wrote the appendix on ancient measures in Peter Tomkins' Secrets of the Great Pyramid).

No, I do not buy the "we're the first" theory any more than I buy neo-Darwinism, creationism, or the 'big bang'! but you may of course do as you wish.
 

Kircher Tree

First post:
venicebard said:
The only viable answer to the latter question is that ultrasonic drills were probably used: this is the answer that the evidence forces on us. The answer archeologists try to force on us is: "with superhuman effort." How scientific.
Next post:
venicebard said:
Boy, I keep forgetting how literal you folks are over here. "With superhuman effort" encapsulates my appraisal of how Egyptians are supposed to have carved the stones of the Great Pyramid to their intense precision
 

Ligator

*Stones: Well... If the Romans could cave out stones very precisely, and the Inka and mayan and even the barbarian Aztecs, well could not the egyptian have done so? The method is not the same but it shows that the normal hypothesis of the historians and archeologists is most probable: i.e. no ufos or no kind of high-technology civilization in the past created the stones and the carvings, but an egyptian civilisation with technology of its age.

* Sandals... ´So you are also into that hypothesis. Well... Were is the infrastructure necessary to create bulbs? Or they were created out of thin air? A technology does not exist by itself but in a CONTEXT.

* Fell... Well. Fell assumes that all texts he and the esop have found are SPOKEN LANGUAGE-texts... That is without grammar and with special kinds of spellings. This they assume because the so called translations they have done are so weird and off, compared to ALL OTHER (Yes, ALL!!!) found texts similar to them, like all hieroglyphic texts, or all texts in old norse...
In ALL other texts there can be found traces of grammar.

If you want to prove that a translation is correct, you HAVE to show some kind of evidence that connects the grammar and words of the text to exitsiting PROVEN grammar and EXISTING linguistic knowledge about words and the DEVELOPMENT AND FORMATION OF WORDS.

Fell does not do so!

And only occasionally does he even state something about grammar... And only because it fits his intrepretation (which is based on a FEW consonants or wovels...)



* Tifignag in old bronzeage carvings... Well. The normal hypothesis is that the carved lines are a measure for number of oars of the ship. If you want to assume that the used tifinag you would have to have a foundation in linguistics. Fell DID NEVER want to prove his case, just state that his view was the true and all other people that did not listen to him were blockheads.

* Direction of the text. Fel and the ESOP never even discusses a system. Please show such a discussion for me! (When the hieroglyphs were rediscovered in the 1800s such questions as how to find the system in how a texts starts or ends, and the question of a repetable grammatic system, were things that was discussed in depth from the very first beginning).

Barry Fell is not only a fake, it is worse. he was crazy!

And Í cannot be more polite than this!

/T
 

venicebard

Ligator said:
*Stones: Well... If the Romans could cave out stones very precisely, and the Inka and mayan and even the barbarian Aztecs, well could not the egyptian have done so?
That's silly: you're comparing apples to oranges, namely formal inscriptions (associated with edifaces) to 'field etchings'. And they weren't 'Egyptians', if you're speaking of the Maurian inscriptions, but Libyan seamen who served Egypt.
The method is not the same but it shows that the normal hypothesis of the historians and archeologists is most probable: i.e. no ufos or no kind of high-technology civilization in the past created the stones and the carvings, but an egyptian civilisation with technology of its age.
I don't know how this relates to the previous sentence (above), but about this believe what you will. As far as I'm concerned, the 'technology of its age' was most likely that of thirteen or more millennia ago, and whatever survived into the dynastic age could only have been bits and fragments: I personally can't determine whether by then they used electric lights or merely sunlight via mirrors to light tunnels and such. But it does appear that scientific understanding was in steady decline from the Old Kingdom on: Eratosthenes's (a Libyan) estimate of earth's size, for example, was less accurate than that of early dynastic times, and their awareness (as shown by papyri containing calculations) of the flattening at the poles was surely lost by then (though the cubit in Greece WAS still slightly longer than that in Egypt).
* Sandals... ´So you are also into that hypothesis. Well... Were is the infrastructure necessary to create bulbs? Or they were created out of thin air? A technology does not exist by itself but in a CONTEXT.
And that is precisely what I claim you are failing to see. For the context of the ancient world was NOT, as archeologists with their limited (single-discipline) methods seem to believe, a slow rise from primitive 'beginnings', but rather a slow decline from the level of culture that produced Tihuanaco, the Great Pyramid (and several other structures in Egypt, as well as perhaps the entirety of the artifacts that show machine tooling, but of that I am uncertain), the wall with two 500-to-a-thousand ton stones in its second tier at Baalbek, Lebanon, and some of the many other 'anomalous' instances of ancient infrastructure orthodoxy chooses to ignore rather than account for.
* Fell... Well. Fell assumes that all texts he and the esop have found are SPOKEN LANGUAGE-texts... That is without grammar and with special kinds of spellings...
...by which you mean the omission of vowels? You seem to think this perceived 'lack of grammar' a big deal: far be it from me to dissuade you. If you would point out some instance of said lack, where we would expect to find inflection or something but do not, I would be happy to discuss it with you: indeed I am even open to having my opinion changed, where I am wrong.
If you want to prove that a translation is correct, you HAVE to show some kind of evidence that connects the grammar and words of the text to exitsiting PROVEN grammar and EXISTING linguistic knowledge about words and the DEVELOPMENT AND FORMATION OF WORDS.
You are simply WAY off base here, philosophically AND factually. I have seen him draw attention to linguistic evidence that was not NONEXISTENT but simply overlooked in his day because it was FROM AN EARLIER ERA. He gladly engaged in debate over his interpretation of inscriptions.

But philosophically, you (and most scholars, sadly) seem ignorant of one of the most fundamental things Plato pointed out (in ch. 19 of The Republic): that knowledge can only be had of things ETERNAL; that of things OF FINITE DURATION (what 'abides and abides not') one can only have opinions or thoughts--which of course vary in soundness but ALL lack 'proof'--and that of that which has NO DURATION (the present instant) one must remain entirely ignorant (except of course concerning things with durations passing THROUGH the present). This misunderstanding on moderns' part arises largely from the erroneous notion that Euclidean geometry is unsound, else the vivid nature of actual proof would be more widely known and accepted.
* Tifignag in old bronzeage carvings... Well. The normal hypothesis is that the carved lines are a measure for number of oars of the ship. If you want to assume that the used tifinag you would have to have a foundation in linguistics. Fell DID NEVER want to prove his case, just state that his view was the true and all other people that did not listen to him were blockheads.
Even without clear translations, it would be obvious it was Tifinag simply from the particular combination of symbols used. Your point here is... you don't have one.
* Direction of the text. Fel and the ESOP never even discusses a system. Please show such a discussion for me! (When the hieroglyphs were rediscovered in the 1800s such questions as how to find the system in how a texts starts or ends, and the question of a repetable grammatic system, were things that was discussed in depth from the very first beginning).
I have yet to address this, as I am estranged from my library for a short while longer. He does say that they tended to write every which way: up, down, and sideways. But considering only a small portion of his translations hinge on writing UP (the only odd direction, after all), this does not negate the bulk of his work: heck, perhaps he did get a few wrong, being human.
Barry Fell is not only a fake, it is worse. he was crazy!
Hardly, but I am beginning to wonder if you are. Seriously, I think you have some hostility issues towards the man (if I may copy modern group-speak).
 

blackroseivy

Wow, & speaking of hostility... :p