China - Thousands of Rock Carvings - 240 LexiLine Journal

As written on December 22, 2003 in the English version of mainland
China's People's Daily at

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200312/22/eng20031222_130951.shtml

in an article entitled "Prehistoric oriental 'Venus' carved on cliff
discovered in Ningxia"

Chinese archaeologists in Zhongwei county, northwest China's Ningxia
Hui Autonomous Region, have found the figure of a pregnant woman
carved into a cliff on Beishan Mountain.

Zhou Xinhua, curator of the museum of the Ningxia Hui Autonomous
Region, stated that this stone carving was similar to Paleolithic
carvings of women found in Europe and was the first of its kind
found in China.

THOUSANDS OF ROCK CARVINGS on BEISHAN MOUNTAIN
(for one picture see http://faculty.risd.edu/faculty/pdematte/web/)

Beishan Mountain has no fewer than 3,000 groups of cliff carvings
and over 10,000 carvings of individual figures. Indeed, near
Damaidi, the county seat of Zhongwei, the mountain has a cliff area
containing 1,509 group cliff carvings and over 6,000 individual
figures with images of men, women, hunters, warriors, sun, moon,
rivers, "mountain stones", sheep, horses, oxen, deer, tigers, swords
and axes. They also have images of men and women, hunters and
warriors.

A concentration of 200 images is found in a 12-square meter area of
rock near the Zhongwei county seat, Damaidi area.

LEXILINE COMMENT

Zhongwei county is in northwest China's Ningxia Hui Autonomous
Region of which the capital is Yinchuan - see
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/data/province/ningxia.html for a
map of the location of Ningxia.

As noted at page 362 of my book Stars Stones and Scholars

see http://www.trafford.com/4dcgi/robots/03-1722.html
and http://www.starsstonesscholars.com/

the region of Yinchuan (Yin-CHUAN) represented the constellation
Cepheus on the Great Wall of China, which marks the Milky Way. CHUAN
in Chinese means "Central Point" - it was the protuberance of the
Milky Way around which the stars of heaven seem to rotate, as the
central "horn" of the celestial dragon of heaven.

CHINESE ROCK DRAWINGS ARE ASTRONOMICAL

We know from my previous decipherment of the Great Wall of China
that the rock drawings here are astronomical in nature. Indeed, due
to my decipherment of the Great Wall of China as representing the
Milky Way of heaven on the ancient "Silk Road", i.e. as a
terrestrial hermetic map, we know that many of the cliff carvings of
Zhongwei in Ningxia Hui will date to ca. 3117 BC reflecting an
ancient surveyor's system marking a planisphere of the heavens.

ZHONGWEI = "central star", "pole star"

In deciphering the rock drawings, what clues do we get from the
hermetic Chinese place names?

ZHONG in Chinese means "clock" or "central" and
the phrase ZI WEI means "polar star"
Hence, this region of China takes its name from that ancient
astronomical function.

BEISHAN = "North Mountain" = Northern Celestial Hemisphere ?

Bei or pei in the name Beishan means "north" and bai means "white"
Shan means "mountain"
So that this originally meant "north" or "white" mountain.
Presumably, the carvings represent the northern celestial hemisphere
or "mountain" of heaven.

For more information on these rock carvings see
Writing the Landscape: Petroglyphs of Inner Mongolia and Ningxia
Province (China) by Paola Demattè, Assistant Professor, Chinese Art,
Rhode Island School of Design, at the URL

http://faculty.risd.edu/faculty/pdematte/web/MyResearch/RA%20paper.htm

The Upshot of Oakeshott - 239 LexiLine Journal

A good friend of mine sent me the following link

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/27/opinion/27BROO.html

to a December 27, 2003 New York Times article by David Brooks
entitled "Arguing With Oakeshott". Brooks writes:

"One of the most important philosophers of the 20th century,
Oakeshott lived and died, in 1990, in England. As Andrew Sullivan,
who did his dissertation on him, has pointed out, the easiest way to
grasp Oakeshott is to know that he loved Montaigne and Shakespeare.
He loved Montaigne for his skepticism and Shakespeare for his array
of eccentric characters. Oakeshott seemed to measure a society by
how well it nurtured idiosyncratic individuals, and he certainly
qualified as one.

Oakeshott was epistemologically modest. The world is an intricate
place, he believed, filled with dense patterns stretching BACK INTO
TIME. We have to be aware of how little we know and how little we
can know." [block script added by LexiLine]

The "Upshot of Oakeshott" is contained in that wonderful phrase by
Brooks in recounting Oakeshott's observation that "The world ... is
filled with dense patterns stretching BACK INTO TIME". Recall, this
IS a list on the HISTORY of civilization....

The next time you read articles by scholars on man's history -
including the postings on this list - look BEHIND the words, phrases
and sentences - and ask yourself - WHAT is actually being said by
WHOM and WHY? - and WHERE did the uttered ideas, concepts, beliefs,
indeed, ALLEGATIONS, etc. come from? What "dense patterns" do you
see in the writer's historical view? Is the writer aware of how
little we know? Is the writer aware that the world is an intricate
place and has been for quite some millennia?

Let us take an example. Look at the megaliths. Is the mainstream
view simplistic or complex? Compare this view to the view of ancient
man that LexiLine presents. Do the mainstreamers see the dense
fabric of history? What view of the brain of man is manifested in
their writings - for our ancestors of only 5000 years ago - a mere
250 generations (of 20 years each) ago? Can stone age man have been
as primitive as he is made out to be by the mainstream? which would
mean that we have made radical changes in only 250 generations?

Or is Oakeshott closer to the truth? Should we EXPECT to find
carved "pictures" in stone, drawn by our ancestors in days before
pen and ink, and formal writing?

I think we should. Else our whole sculptural and painting talent
developed only in the last 250 generations - and that is not very
likely, is it?

Rather, as far as art, painting, sculpture, yes, and even astronomy
are concerned, "The world ... is filled with dense patterns
stretching BACK INTO TIME"... far back.

Science and Wisdom - Scientia et Sapientia - Vaira Vike-Freiberga (On the benefits and deficits of science) - 238 LexiLine Journal

Professor Vaira Vike-Freiberga is the current President of Latvia, a
country which - after a half-century of occupation - obtained its
independence from the former Soviet Union in 1990. A biography was
written about Vike-Freiberga and her unusual life recently by Ausma
Cimdina as the book, In the Name of Freedom (Jumava (www.Jumava.lv),
Riga, ISBN 9984-05-685-6), a book which was just sent to me to read
by my good friend Prof. Rolands Rikards, one of the world's leading
authorities on composite materials at Riga Technical University (see
http://www.lza.lv/scientists/rikardsr.htm). In that book, Cimdina
writes (pp. 107-109) about a 1991 speech held by Vike-Freiberga
entitled "Scientia et sapientia" [science and wisdom] in which Vike-
Freiberga discussed the nature of science in our modern world,
arguing that science without wisdom was useless.

[beginning of quoted excerpts from the book]
"In her speech, [Vike-Freiberga, herself a much respected mainstream
scientist in her fields of study] integrated both an affirmation and
a criticism of science ... [stating that] ... during the Soviet
regime, the humanities had adopted the totalitarian government's
attitudes and its authoritarian versions of the "truth." ... Vaira
Vike-Freiberga presented a thumbnail history of science.... She
emphasized that the evolution of scientific thinking has gone hand
in hand with the evolution of the humanities, and that the
historical processes of democratisation and European-style democracy
as such are basically a product of the scientific mode of thinking.
At the same time, however, the speaker criticised some aspects of
science... [presenting] examples from the history of the sciences in
Europe and from contemporary scientific developments that do not
speak well of science. The roots of these negative aspects were to
be found in science itself ... not outside it.

... [In the] Middle Ages ... "mouldy parchments" were copied from
generation to generation, full of "wild and untested foolishness".
In the early years of the European universities ... authorised
knowledge "had degenerated into petty disputes" ... intellectual
debates "were reduced to claims from each side based on quotations
from ancient authorities, each side trying to line up as many dead
supporters for their views as possible." [T]he recognized
authorities of the day frequently oppressed their colleagues with
their power and authority (when they did not persecute them). The
history of scientific discovery has been, to a great extent, a
battle against authorities, real or bogus, throughout human history.
As a result, many of the world's greatest thinkers have suffered
tragic fates. The Professor's remarks about science in the Middle
Ages resonated powerfully with the more recent history of the
humanities and the social sciences in the Soviet Union. The USSR
claimed to be the embodiment of a scientific worldview, and yet was
anti-humanistic in orientation.

[T]hese were not problems limited to the Soviet era or the Middle
Ages, but [were] a deeply rooted tendency that is a fundamental part
of science and scientists to this day. "Scientists are most fond of
posing as 'scientific authorities'," she said. "They bitterly
denounce other kinds of knowledge and ridicule scientific evidence
as unsubstantiated and misleading, as if science could presume to
offer absolute truths. Such attitudes are actually incompatible with
the tentative nature and inevitable ambiguity of scientific
discoveries, which are often controversial and are constantly being
replaced by others." Excessive 'scientism'... is particularly
dangerous in countries "governed by political short-sightedness and
economic greed, where science and technology are subject to
irresponsible and irrational mandates." She also discussed social
self-defence mechanisms that offer protection against abuses of
scientific discovery or application. She reminded her audience that
even in the "so-called developed countries, there is an overall
disposition toward science that is, at best, ambivalent."

Her lecture "Scientia et sapientia" [indicated that] ... Only the
wise and strong dare to be self-critical and the same must apply to
science if it is to succeed."
[end of quoted excerpts from the book]

My comment is - I could not have written that better if I had
written it myself.

Many mainstream scientists in the West - if asked - would distance
themselves greatly from previous authoritarian Soviet academic
practices, not realizing how closely to the former Soviet model the
actual "practice" of science in the West operates - when pushed.
Just try to rock the mainstream scientific boat and you will see
this "authoritarian science" in operation quite quickly. On the
other hand "if you join the club", get "your party card", "mind your
p's and q's", and "praise the authorities that be", your academic
life can be quite enjoyable and "successful". I have been bucking
this system for 30 years. Nothing has changed.

Japanese Jomon rock image a fake - 237 LexiLine Journal

See the Stone Pages Archaeo News at
http://www.stonepages.com/news/archives/000447.html
for a story concerning a Japanese rock image - allegedly from the
Jomon period - as a fake.

What is disturbing about this report is the archaeologist's
statement that this artifact had never been investigated
before "since it was considered an important historical object",
i.e. people just accepted it as legitimate on its face.

Is that the scientific standard used in mainstream archaeology? The
more important the object - the less seriously it is investigated?

As some of you know, I have several times recommended the re-study
of the Turin Canon by new thermoluminescence methods, since I am
sure some of the pieces of this important historical papyrus have
been mis-pasted in the reconstruction process. Thermoluminiscence
would easily determine where the pieces should properly be pasted
(by grains on the paper, etc.). My suggestions have fallen on deaf
ears in Egyptology, for the same reason as given above - the object
is "too important" to study - it might be damaged.

And so, erroneous conclusions drawn from a - surely - falsely
reconstructed document are used to map the chronology of ancient
Egypt, for which the Turin Canon is of eminent importance.

Is this good science? Not in my book.

Where was Mount Sinai? - 236 LexiLine Journal

DATING OF MOSES AND EXODUS - A CONFIRMATION - OF A SORT

A mainstream archaeologist - who I presume otherwise wishes to
remain anonymous - sent me the following link by private e-mail and
I am passing it on to you.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Anati_Mount_Sinai.htm

The short, single AND significant comment of this archaeologist to
the content of the article at the above link was as follows:

"Confirmation … of a sort:"

The archeaologist is referring to confirmation of my work showing
that mainstream chronology relating to Moses and Exodus is clearly
false - see http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi300.htm.

The link above refers to "the confirmation ... of a sort" through
the very important work of Professor Emmanuel Anati (see
http://www.harkarkom.com/Anati.phtml - this page gives his biography
in english), who writes in October 2003 that the Mount Sinai
archaeological EVIDENCE clearly invalidates the current dating of
Moses and Exodus, and that all available evidence points to a much
earlier date.

Professor Anati would even date Moses and Exodus back a full
thousand years, but I think that my chronology as posted for quite
some time now at http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi760.htm will
ultimately prevail, with the reconcilable difference in our dates
having to do with the dating of the end of the Early Bronze Age.

The accurate correction of the date of Exodus, as I have long
alleged, will ultimately put the birth of Moses ca. 1708 BC, with
all of the consequences that this has for our understanding of the
subsequent chronology of the history of human civilization, for the
history of Egypt, for the history of the Jews, and for the history
of religion generally.

DAVID ROHL - A TEST OF TIME - SYNOPSIS BY JOHN FULTON - ARTAPANUS
and JOSEPHUS

Let us go back a few steps to what I have been writing for years. To
fully understand what Artapanus and also Josephus wrote about Moses,
it is useful to read e.g.
"A New Chronology: Synopsis of David Rohl's book 'A Test of Time' ",
by John Fulton, at http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/rohl-1.htm
(please note for the text reproduced below that the Egyptologists
currently date the 13th Pharaonic dynasty to ca. 1782-1650 BC -
according to Peter A. Clayton, Chronicle of the Pharaohs).

Here is what Fulton writes:

[start of quote]
"The early Christian historian Eusebius in his work Evangelicae
Preparationis' quotes from a book Peri Ioudaion' (Concerning the
Jews) by the Jewish historian Artapanus. This work of Artapanus has
not survived down to the present but is also quoted in Clement's
Stromata'. Artapanus, writing in the 3rd century BC, had access to
ancient records in Egyptian temples and perhaps even the famous
Alexandrian library of Ptolemy I.

Artapanus writes that a pharaoh named Palmanothes was persecuting
the Israelites. His daughter Merris adopted a Hebrew child who grew
up to be called prince Mousos. Merris married a pharaoh Khenephres.
Prince Mousos grew up to administer the land on behalf of this
pharaoh. He led a military campaign against the Ethiopians who were
invading Egypt; however, upon his return, Khenephres grew jealous of
his popularity. Mousos then fled to Arabia to return when Khenephres
died and lead the Israelites to freedom. It may be only a Mosaic
story with similarities to the biblical account, yet the only
pharaoh with the name Khenephres was Sobekhotep IV, who took the
name Khaneferre at his coronation. He reigned soon after Neferhotep
I of the 13th Dynasty, as mentioned above, the pharaoh in power at
Moses' birth!

Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews', with access to very old
manuscripts and writing in AD 93, also mentioned Moses' Ethiopian or
Kushite war. Here, Moses led an Egyptian army down the Nile valley,
past the Third Cataract, deep into Kush (modern Ethiopia). In the
British Museum is a stela (page 261, fig. 289) which tells of a 13th
Dynasty pharaoh undertaking a campaign south into the region of
Kush. That pharaoh is none other than Khaneferre, the step-father of
Moses according to Artapanus. He is the only 13th Dynasty pharaoh
who is recorded as having campaigned into Upper Nubia or Ethiopia.
At Kerma on the Nile an official Egyptian building was found,
outside of which was discovered a statue of Khaneferre, so dating
this building to the 13th Dynasty. This is many hundreds of
kilometres south of the known boundaries of 13th Dynasty Egypt and
may have been a governor's residence'. It would have been built to
secure Egyptian interests in the area after the military victory of
the Egyptians led by Moses, as this was the only Kushite war at that
time with Egypt. As Moses was a prince of Egypt and was 40 years old
according to the Bible when he fled to Arabia, he could certainly
have led this military operation - an Israelite leading an Egyptian
army to war! If this part of Josephus' account is true then it adds
weight to the rest of his account of the life of Moses and also
gives us some firmer evidence of the existence of this charismatic
leader!"
[end of quote]

WHERE WAS the MOUNT SINAI of MOSES? - PROFESSOR EMMANUEL ANATI

Professor Emmanuel Anati has written a book, just recently
published, entitled, The Riddle of Mount Sinai, which can be ordered
at http://www.harkarkom.com/Order.phtml, where Anati writes that
Har Karkom was the "Mount Sinai" of Moses (see
http://www.harkarkom.com).

As Anati writes - as found at:
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Anati_Mount_Sinai.htm:

[start of quote]
"Considering these various factors together, it seems that the
biblical narratives reflect what archaeological research has
discovered at Har Karkom, Beer Karkom and Kadesh-Barnea, as well as
at Jericho, Ai, Arad, Edom and Moab, and elsewhere. If the epic
described in the books of Exodus and Numbers relies on even a
minimal historical matrix, and if indeed there was an Exodus with
stops at the foot of Mount Sinai and at Kadesh-Barnea, then its
chronological context can only refer to the BAC period during which
Har Karkom was a holy mountain of exceptional importance. The
documentation gathered through archaeological research at Jericho
and Ai, the comparisons with Egyptian literature, and the actual
finds at Har Karkom, all seem to imply that the biblical narratives
have some historical background referring to the era of Exodus. Thus
the age of Joshua beginning at Gilgal, marked the twilight of the
Early Bronze Age. This is when the epoch of Moses ends, an epoch
which both culturally and historically belongs to the Early Bronze
Age, about one millennium before the dates given to such episodes by
what had been so far the conventional chronology."
[end of quote]

Professor Anati's new book, again, is The Riddle of Mount Sinai,
which can be ordered at http://www.harkarkom.com/Order.phtml.

Are we correcting ancient history at LexiLine? We are.

Stonehenge Stone 3 Axes - Stars by Leo - 235 LexiLine Journal

This posting continues the further decipherment of the Stonehenge
stones with carved axes upon them. See the previous posts for Nr. 53
and Nr. 4.

I have now uploaded

stonehengestone3.gif

to our Ancient Britain folder in our LexiLine files at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LexiLine/files/Ancient%20Britain/

THE AXES ON SARSEN 3 - Stars between Leo Major and the Big Dipper

The 3 axes on Sarsen 3 mark the stars:

1. kappa and iota in Ursa Major - nearly one large bright star since
they are so close
2. theta in Ursa Major
3. psi in Ursa Major

These are the largest stars just below the familiar stars of the Big
Dipper in Ursa Major, which also belong to Ursa Major, and which are
included in the form of the Great Bear but not the Big Dipper.

Other figures on Stone 3 mark Leo Minor, Lynx, Cameolopardalis and
Ursa Minor.
For a photo of Stone 3 go to
http://www.stonehengelaserscan.org/stone3/stone3.html

Stonehenge Stone 4 Axes - stars of Leo - 234 LexiLine Journal

This posting continues the further decipherment of the Stonehenge
stones with carved axes upon them. See the previous post for Nr. 53.

I have uploaded

stonehengestone4.gif

to our Ancient Britain folder in our LexiLine files at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LexiLine/files/Ancient%20Britain/

THE AXES ON SARSEN 4 - Leo Minor and Leo Major

Long before "laser technology"
(see http://www.stonehengelaserscan.org/stone4/stone4.html)
found axes on Sarsen 4, I identified them using computer graphic
programs, and indeed for Sarsen 4 I have these axes identified as
Leo Minor on page 122 of Stars, Stones and Scholars.

If you look at our Ancient Britain Files here on LexiLine at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LexiLine/files/Ancient%20Britain/
I uploaded my decipherment of the axes on Sarsen 4 at Stonehenge on
July 31, 2002, identifying them as Leo Minor.

Here we see from my decipherment of all the now known axes on Stone
4 as uploaded at stonehengestone4.gif that one star of Leo Minor is
marked by the axes and that the remainder mark the major stars of
Leo Major.

A further posting on Stone 3 at Stonehenge is forthcoming.

Stonehenge Stone 53 Axes & Dagger represent Scorpio - 233 LexiLine Journal

A lot of absolute nonsense is being written by archaeologists and
the press about the meaning of the axes carved on Sarsen 3, Sarsen 4
and Trilithon 53 at Stonehenge.

Here is what these axes - and one dagger, on Stone 53 - mean:

THE AXES - and one dagger - ON TRILITHON 53
see http://www.stonehengelaserscan.org/

As already shown on page 125 of my book, Stars, Stones and Scholars,
see http://www.starsstonesscholars.com
Trilithons 53 and 54 represent the back and front stars of Scorpio.

I have uploaded the file

stonehengestone53.gif

to our Ancient Britain files on LexiLine
showing the decipherment of these axes as the stars at the back of
Scorpio - and one dagger, which represents what we today know as
the "sting" of Scorpio. Each axe represents a star and the size of
the axes have been carved to represent the relative magnitudes of
these stars, which include also M6 (the Butterfly Cluster, also
called NGC 6405) and M7 (Ptolemy's Cluster, also known as NGC 6475),
both of which are mentioned in the Almagest and Ulug Beg as "that
which follows the Sting".

The dagger - clearly so drawn on the stone - is not an axe, but
represents the "sting" of Scorpio as seen in ancient days as
something other than a scorpion. Indeed, according to Richard
Hinckley Allen's Star Names, the ancients saw Scorpio as the slayer
of the Giant and the Polynesians saw here a big fish-hook.
Obviously, the men of Stonehenge saw it as a dagger.

A further e-mail is forthcoming on Sarsens 3 and 4.

Axum Obelisk (Aksum Obelisk) Ethiopia - 232 LexiLine Journal

As you can read at the following websites,
Italy has begun to dismantle the Aksum Obelisk
which is to be returned to Ethiopia.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-
woethi173533962nov10,0,5577594.story?coll=ny-worldnews-print
(copy and paste both lines of the above URL link, since it will not
wrap fully in blue, and the link will otherwise not work in Yahoo)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3252283.stm
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20030526/obelisk.html

I have previously argued for the return of the Aksum Obelisk to
Africa, and as I have noted before and as is found written in my book
Stars Stones and Scholars,

see http://www.starsstonesscholars.com
or http://www.trafford.com/4dcgi/robots/03-1722.html

the Aksum Obelisk (also written Axum Obelisk)
- according to my pioneer research on this subject -
is a relatively "modern" stone marker
that marks a major location in Africa
which in ancient megalithic days
was a megalith cornerstone
of the Neolithic geodetic survey
of Africa and the world.

Rec del Bosc Languedoc France Planisphere - 231 LexiLine Journal

To the LexiLine files under "France" at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LexiLine/

I have added the file

recdelbosc.gif

showing the rock drawing site known as
"Le Grand Ensemble du Rec del Bosc" in
Languedoc, France to be a Planisphere which I date to ca. 1000 BC.

This graphic was sent to me by Enrico Calzolari, a member of this
list. Thank you, Enrico.

Recall from my previous postings and as explained in my new book,
Stars Stones and Scholars (see also http://www.trafford.com), Languedoc
marked Canis Major and surrounding stars in the ancient survey of
France. This decipherment is substantiated at Rec del Bosc, which is
located in France between St. Gervais-sur-Mare and La Salveta-sur-
Agout near the lake Lac du Laouzas. LAOUZAS in French is similar to
Latvian LUZAS meaning "break", e.g. in the year, or season. The lake
would seem to be named for this astronomical event.

Rec del Bosc has an almost compass-like figure which marks the
cardinal astronomical directions, marking the solstices and
equinoxes, with the solstice line running from Alphard through the
North Ecliptic Pole (center of heaven). The dots to the left would
seem to mark Perseus, those dots toward the middle Ursa Minor and
those dots toward the top Ursa Major.

The two figures mark Gemini and above that Canis Major - this cross-
type of figure for Canis Major in previously ancient times was often
shown as a man holding two dogs or lions, one in each extended hand.

To the right of Gemini we have the familiar "bar" often drawn in
ancient astronomy running from Alphard to Regulus and held by the
stick figure in the picture.

My dating of this drawing to ca. 1000 BC is based on Milton D.
Heifetz's Historical Planisphere, which explains to us why a special
relationship between Regulus and Alphard existed at this time.
Regulus is on the ecliptic and Alphard is on the Celestial Equator
in this era, about 24 degrees apart (24 x 15 = 360 degrees).

What this means is that around 1000 BC, according to Heifetz,
Alphard is directly below the Summer Solstice point (on the
ecliptic) right on the Celestial Equator, i.e. its HIGHEST point
ever with respect to that celestial equator, which shifts its
position in the course of 25920 years. Either side of ca. 1000 BC,
Alphard is ABOVE the celestial equator and no longer marks the
Summer Solstice point when that is marked on the Ecliptic.

Note that these positions of the stars on the ecliptic and the
celestial equator do not change dependent on the latitude of the
observer. They are the same everywhere on earth for a given era.

Here we have a clue to the way the ancients marked the solstices in
the sky of stars in ancient days, i.e. they were clearly aware of
the sky "rising and falling" due to the wobble of the earth (they
did not know this was the cause) with the comparable changes in the
movement of the solstices and equinoxes which we call precession.
Hence, the ancients marked the stars on the ecliptic and the
celestial equator at the solstices and equinoxes in a particular era
and thus had a very good elementary hold on precession in their day.
This is probably at the root of the ancient Nordic belief that "the
sky was falling".

Rameses I Back in Egypt? - 230 LexiLine Journal

RB Paschal has sent me the following link

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/25/national/25MUMM.html?

which should take you to an October 25, 2003 article in the New York
Times entitled,
"A Journey Back to Egypt for a Mummy Thought to Be a Pharaoh"
by ARIEL HART

Take a look at the article. Very interesting, with quotes from Zahi
Hawass, who is trying to get what are basically stolen artifacts in
foreign museums back to Egypt, a movement which I definitely support.

We should always give other cultures and nations and their
antiquities the same respect we expect to be given to us and to our
own heritage. We would not want our OWN artifacts to be taken to
other nations either.

Stars Stones Scholars published - 229 LexiLine Journal

This e-mail is intended as information for you, so that you are
aware of the pertinent activities of Andis Kaulins.

This is to inform you that my newest book has just
been published. Here is the basic data for those interested:

Stars Stones and Scholars: The Decipherment of the Megaliths as an Ancient Survey of the Earth by Astronomy
by Andis Kaulins
420 pages; perfect bound; catalogue #03-1722; ISBN 1-4120-1344-5

1. Go to http://www.trafford.com
2. Enter the Bookstore
3. Click on the menu item "Search Desk"
4. Type in the name of book or author in the search box.
ONE word is sufficient from either the title or author,
- e.g. Andis, Kaulins in the author search box
- e.g. Stars, Stones, Scholars, Decipherment, Megaliths, Ancient,
Survey, Earth, Astronomy in the title search box

Read at that page:
a) About the Book
b) About the Author
c) View a Sample Excerpt from the Book

English Heritage Audit of Sites - 228 LexiLine Journal

As you can read here

English Heritage is conducting an audit of their historical sites
and will publish "Heritage Counts" on Wednesday 26th November, 2003.

This is a step forward in preserving ancient sites.

Bravo!

UPDATE - see the 2006 Heritage Counts

Miami Circle ReBuried - More Archaeology Bungling - 227 B LexiLine Journal

The string of stories showing archaeology bungling has no end.
Here is a story relating to the Miami Circle, which I have
deciphered - see the decipherment in our files - and which has now
been reburied because the state archaeologists have not been able to
get their act together. It is just one terrible tale after the next
about this inept profession.

On Thursday, Oct. 16, 2003 , the following article, written by
Martin Merzer was posted to the Miami Herald at
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/7024098.htm

"Miami Circle archaeological find will be reburied
The dig, discovered in 1998 amid much controversy, will be covered
up again - possibly for years - while officials figure out how to
open it to the public.
BY MARTIN MERZER at mmerzer@herald.com

DISCOVERY: Members of the Miami Circle Planning Committee gather at
the site just east of Brickell Avenue in Miami. CARL JUSTE/HERALD
FILE, 2001

Five years after the Miami Circle was unearthed and saved from the
bulldozers, it will be reburied Friday -- a stark concession that
officials have been unable to open the archaeological treasure to
the public, which paid $26.7 million to preserve it.

Prominent archaeologist Robert Carr said the ancient 38-foot-wide
stone carving is eroding and must be protected from the elements as
several agencies spar over how to prepare the downtown site for
public access.

Carr and others said state and local officials who mustered the
will -- and found the money -- to save the site at the mouth of the
Miami River have proved unable to agree on a plan to exhibit it.

''This is being done with the idea of not easily uncovering it for
people to see,'' said Carr, who helped find the artifact in November
1998. ``It's an acknowledgement that it could be a year or three
years, we just don't know how long, before the county and the state
are ready to open it to the public.''

Though the Circle has been shrouded from time to time by tarpaulin
or other material, the latest action is viewed as a more permanent
reburial and a disappointing phase of a discovery that once sparked
the imaginations of schoolchildren and others.

Believed to have been created more than 2,000 years ago by the now
extinct Tequesta Indians, the Circle is considered a cultural
treasure by many scientists and preservationists.

But only small groups of experts or others, after making special
arrangements, have been able to visit the archaeological site in the
heart of Miami's business district.

And now, the Circle is being reburied.

On Friday morning, Carr and other archaeologists -- responding to a
request by state officials -- will insert bags of limestone gravel
into the 26 carved basins that form the Circle.

Then they will cover the carving with a uniform level of gravel, an
impermeable tarpaulin and a layer of white sand.

'LAYER-CAKE' EFFECT

Carr called it ``the layer-cake effect.''

Michael Spring, director of Miami-Dade County's Department of
Cultural Affairs and a leading advocate of opening the site,
expressed frustration over the turn of events and blamed it largely
on state officials.

The state contributed $15 million to help purchase the Circle and
its 2.2-acre site on the southern bank of the Miami River east of
Brickell Avenue.

In return, the state gained ownership of the property.

The other $11.7 million came from the county.

So, what went wrong?

''Call the state and ask them,'' Spring said with a sigh. ``They
have all kinds of rules, regulations and restrictions.''

Brenda Swann, a state archaeologist, said it is not unusual for such
projects to move slowly and the state's 18-member Miami Circle task
force is determined to address the project's long-term interests.

''We will make sure we do it right,'' she said.

Swann said the site is being considered for incorporation into
Biscayne National Park, so federal officials and regulations are
also involved, further complicating the situation.

In May 2002, Spring introduced a plan that would shelter the Circle
under a 60-foot-tall thatched structure and erect explanatory signs.
It would cost $400,000, he said at the time, and could be completed
within four months.

''Our objectives always have been to protect the Circle, remain
respectful of the site and make it available to the public for
limited tours,'' Spring said Wednesday.

But the proposed project, to be paid for with state money, was
rejected by state officials, Spring said, after their architects
questioned the cost.

Swann said state experts also were concerned about the plan's
design. ''We don't want to take anything away from the aesthetic
nature of the site,'' she said, ``which is what a thatched roof
would have done.''

AESTHETIC VALUES

For his part, Spring questioned the state's aesthetic values. As a
temporary measure, he said, a state architect suggested that the
Circle be protected by a retractable pool cover, a plan that many
considered disrespectful to the site.

''That did not meet with overwhelming positive support from the
Miami Circle Planning Group,'' Spring said dryly. ``Given the demise
of the plan we had, there is no approved plan that the state can go
forward with.''

That leaves everything on hold.

"We had the juice, the energy, to preserve it, which we're all
thankful for,'' Carr said, "but it turns out to be much harder to
manage it and open it to the public.'' "

Lasers uncover Stonehenge secrets - 227A LexiLine Journal

More websites to the laser scans of additional stone carvings found
at Stonehenge - together with photos - are found at
http://www.24hourmuseum.org.uk/nwh_gfx_en/ART18464.html
http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/press/stonehenge_lasers.html

The press release at the Wessex Archaeology site above writes
"The Stonehenge Laser Scan website at
http://www.stonehengelaserscan.org/ [referred to in the originial
article previously posted] is currently down. A temporary
alternative may be found at http://stonehenge.archaeoptics.co.uk/

My general comment to the laser scans of the carved axes:

While I am thrilled that laser scan technology is beginning to show
carvings on the stones that I can see with the naked eye and have
long before this high-tech innovation came to the fore, please note
that what you read in those articles from the still-ever clueless
and "ritually-oriented" archaeologists about the meaning of the
carvings is of course nonsense.

As Eusebius said about the pyramids and the lists of the ancient
Pharaonic kings, which also applies to Stonehenge, "it is all
astronomy". Religious rituals and rites are in the clouded heads of
modern-day esoterics and day-dreamers, some of whom appear to staff
the archaeological faculties of this world.

Look at the beautifully carved very large profile of a head (nose to
the left) carved on the right-hand stone of the home page of
archaeoptics
http://www.archaeoptics.co.uk/
- who are doing the laser-scanning.
Do they see this yet - NO - they are oblivious. Lasers and all.
They are STILL unable to see what is directly in front of their
noses (and) retinas.
Hah!

High-Tech indeed. The discovery of carvings on megaliths is not
mainstream archaeology's to claim. They have been asleep on their
well-padded behinds for centuries. Rather, I have seen the carvings
on the stones long before them. What mainstream archaeology should
do is bow its head in shame and repent, rather than to lay claim to
discoveries which are NOT theirs.

UPDATE

To the LexiLine files on Ancient Britain at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LexiLine/files/Ancient%20Britain/

I have added

laserfoto1.gif
and
laserfoto2.gif

showing how the photograph on the front page of
http://www.archaeoptics.co.uk/
includes rock carvings which no one needs a laser beam to see....
You just have to LOOK.

On the right hand megalith, reduction of the color picture to a
black and white threshold level of 75% shows the outline of the
profiled head clearly. Note that there are other figures in the
stones as well.

On the left hand megalith, increasing brightness by 50% but also
decreasing brightness by 50% shows that there are also figures on
this megalith.

Anyone who thinks there are only some small daggers laser-sighted on
these stones (and not more figures) is just kidding himself.
We are nevertheless happy and
thankful that they have been discovered, thus further showing that
there are carvings on the megaliths of Stonehenge, but as we have
shown long before the laser discoveries, there are many, greater,
carvings on these stones.

Andreas, you are right that my interpretation of the carving in the
Cheops pyramid secret chamber is speculative - after all, I made it
based on my photograph of the TV picture seen as the chamber was
opened, not an ideal shot, I can assure you. But even Zahi Hawass
first amazed comment was something like "what are those figures?" -
so there are figures there.
My interpretation of them may or may not be correct - we shall see
as Hawass continues the work - he is a sincere man and I am sure he
will do an excellent job of ultimately providing us with definitive
photos and more research of the secret chamber.

Guardian's Egypt and Giza - 227 LexiLine Journal

BPaschal has sent me the following link regarding the Giza
Pyramids, a site by Andrew Bayuk.

http://www.guardians.net/egypt/gp1.htm

Fabulous photos. Wonderful site. Take a look at it.

I would also add the following link at that same site
http://www.guardians.net/egypt/egol1.htm
for a general overview of Egypt

as well as
http://www.guardians.net/egypt/about.htm
for a bit of information about Andrew Bayuk.

Ancient Inca Road - Gran Ruta - 226 LexiLine Journal

Along the same line as the Newsletter Number 225 on the Lost Cities
of the Amazon,

see

http://www.conservation.org/xp/news/press_releases/2003/091503_inca_eng.xml

and

http://www.quechuanetwork.org/news_template.cfm?news_id=684&lang=
(click "Espanol a Ingles" on that page to get an English translation
there online)

and

http://www.history-compass.com/Pilot/latin/Latin_incasmaps.htm

referring to the ancient 8500 km Inca Road (the Camino Inca)
in South America,
known as the "Gran Ruta Inca" in Spanish
and as the Capaq Ñan in the Quechua language,
meaning "the Great Inca Route".

At least 30,000 km of known roads branch off of this ancient road....
and I am sure it is much more than that.

Lost Amazon Cities and Ethnocartograpy - 225 LexiLine Journal

The article at

http://www.msnbc.com/news/967545.asp

covers "Lost Cities of the Amazon" which archaeologist Michael
Heckenberger of the University of Florida and colleagues
have "revealed", showing remains of roads apparently linking "a
network of large villages in a carefully organized, gridlike
pattern."

As written there:
"Road directions and the orientations of other structures are keyed
to the directions of the sun and stars.... Today, the Kuikuro
continue this sort of 'ethnocartography,' as Heckenberger calls it."

But of course these are remnants of a very ancient systematical
survey, as we see from my decipherment of the megaliths.

Zahi Hawass, Nefertiti, Rosetta Stone - 224 LexiLine Journal

The weekly on-line Al-Ahram in Cairo Egpyt has a very interesting
article at

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/656/hr2.htm

by Zahi Hawass
Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities
and Director of the Giza Pyramids

on the subject of the alleged Nefertiti mummy and the Rosetta Stone.

Egyptian to Greek Numbers - 223 LexiLine Journal

RBPaschal has sent me a link to a very interesting BBC article
by Paul Rincon, BBC Science, entitled
"Greeks 'borrowed Eyptian numbers' ".
see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3109806.stm
which refers to
Stephen Chrisomalis
and his September, 2003 article in Antiquity entitled
"The Egyptian origin of the Greek alphabetic numerals".

I am certain that this is surely true
especially in view of my 1999 chart on the origin of the alphabet at
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi5.htm
which much precedes the work of Chrisomalis.

Bizarre Mainstream Archaeology - Queen of Sheba - 222 LexiLine Journal

For some bizarre mainstream archaeology see

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28514-2003Sep4.html

for the Washington Post story of one mainstream archaeologist's
erroneous vision of Sheba
and

http://www.bartleby.com/108/14/9.html

which is the Second Book of Chronicles in the King James Version for
the original story of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba.

Here are some sites about Saba and the Queen of Sheba
http://www.windweaver.com/sheba/Sheba.htm
http://www.geocities.com/mandaeans/Sabians4.htm

For me, as a man trained in law and evidence, one of the most
disturbing things about mainstream archaeology is its academic
nihilism, its lack of intellectual depth and scope, its substitution
of flowery non-content for nuts-and-bolts factual materials, all of
which are combined with a near absence in archaeological circles of
a capacity for self-criticism and self-correction.

For example, when historic personages can not be found in the eras
assigned to them by archaeologists, it is presumed that HISTORY has
erred, but never have the grave-diggers themselves erred. This is a
unique academic concept of self-infallibility which archaeology
shares with many of the soft humanities, where people merely have to
claim their motor works, without it actually ever having to run.

For this reason, many so-called "archaeology scholars" have argued
that famous personages such as Abraham, Moses, King Saul, King David
and King Solomon, etc. never existed, because archaeologists have
never found any physical evidence for these persons in the historic
era to which THEY erroneously assign these persons.

see e.g. http://www.northwestern.edu/univ-relations/media/news-releases/1999-00/*events/biblesymp-events.html

but see also
http://www.geocities.com/elchasqui_2/ZSitchinbook3m.html

giving various data
showing that Abraham was initially - and CORRECTLY -
dated to a much earlier era originally than currently

i.e. Abraham as having lived at the same time as the early Elamites,
which is early in the third millennium BC, when Pharaonic
Civilization also started, for Abraham went "down into Egypt".
The entire record is there in the Bible.

[For that 3rd millennium date in the archaeology of the Elamites see
The Archaeology of Elam, Cambridge University Press, 1999.]

Some scholars have even denied the presence of Jews in Egypt in
ancient days and have declared Exodus and the Babylonian Captivity
as fictions.

We even have people in Germany today who deny that the Holocaust of
WWII and the near extermination of the Jews ever took place.

One way to try to destroy a people or a person is to steal their
identity or to take away their rightful history.

Look at the current Middle East - is this not in part a battle about
where the Jews belong? It is a historical question of great
importance. It is also a topic which fills our daily news - with no
end in sight. So, we really should get it right, should we not?

A man of intellectual depth - as opposed to mainstream archaeology -
would extend his questioning with regard to Biblical personages and
the age in which they allegedly lived. He would objectively
ask: "but what about other eras? could these persons have lived in
other periods?" - perhaps it is WE and not history, who have erred
in our time-keeping and our name-giving. Let us try to fit the
known facts to another period. Perhaps OUR chronology is wrong".

As indeed it is.

As I have pointed out, Biblical personages can indeed be found in
the physical historical record, albeit in different historical eras
than those now assigned to these personages by the clueless
mainstream archaeologists.

We now have another mainstream archaeologist

- see same link as at the top of the page -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28514-2003Sep4.html

who has added his voice to those who question the existence of
Jewish-related Biblical figures and kings. He alleges that the Queen
of Sheba may not have existed, because - as we might logically
expect - no physical evidence of her has been found in the erroneous
era in which the archaeologists have looked for her.

Interestingly, this archaeologist alleges that "Truth is but a
construction". What does this say about the "science" involved?

No man of the law, trained in logic would ever accept this
definition of Truth. Truth is NOT "but a construction". If you do
not eat and drink, and breathe, you die. That is a truth. It is a
fact, an inviolable fact. It is not a construction.

But what people "view" to be "their" truth based on "their" personal
prejudices and beliefs, may be THEIR truth for THEM, but it is not
THE truth. There is a difference. Truth is not that which
is "accepted" as a matter of academic construction, as the
archaeologists might claim. Rather, that which is accepted is merely
a "convention" - and archaeology consists almost entirely of
conventions, and very, very few truths.

One must ask in the case of the Kingdom of Saba - why not look for
the Queen of Sheba (Saba) in the period of the first historical
mention of this people? i.e. when they first made known contact with
the outer world - for the Queen of Sheba knew nothing of the outer
world until she visited Solomon. This first Sabaen mention is ca.
the 12th century BC, a period which corresponds to my dating of the
Biblical King Solomon, who was in my view Ramses II, Pharaoh of
Egypt.

[note: The name Ramses is a reading by the Egyptologists of one of
the several royal pharaonic hieroglyph name cartouches of this king -
the hieroglyph which actually reads "Solomon" is read incorrectly
by the Egyptologists as MERI-AMUN, thus AMUN is correct but MER is
not a part of the name but means "measure. The entire hieroglyph
means MENesis (MOON, AMUN), MER (measure), SAULE (RA - the Sun, from
RATS "the wheel") MEDZIS [born of] hence SAULE (SOL) AMUN (oMON) =
SOLOMON MEDZIS, born of the sun and the moon - and indeed this is an
eclipse during his reign, a meeting of the Sun and the Moon.]

THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE (!) indicates

(quoting p. 95 of C. Edens & T.J. Wilkinson, "Southwest Arabia
during the Holocene," Journal of World Prehistory, 12, Epigraphic
Chronology (1998) that "The stratigraphic context of these inscribed
sherds establish that a writing system appeared in S. Arabia [Saba]
perhaps as early as the 12-11th [century] BC, seemingly well before
the first identified monumental inscriptions (perhaps early the 8th
BC). This conclusion requires that the South Arabian writing system
was borrowed from northern antecedents as early as the Late Bronze
Age." [my comment - and this will be the Egyptians and King
Solomon's legacy to Sheba]

But, as one commentator notes at
https://listhost.uchicago.edu/pipermail/ane/2003-April/008422.html
this would mean an impossible gap of hundreds of years from early
evidence of writing at Saba to the monumental inscriptions....
He is right. There is no such gap. The dating of the kingdoms of the
monumental inscriptions is off the mark by hundreds of years.

What this means in the evidence of SABA is that we have the same
several-hundred-year chronological error that we find everywhere
else. Obviously, evidence of writing goes hand in hand with
monuments - there is no hundreds of years inbetween. So, Sheba
learned the art of writing in Egypt and brought it to her country.
That fits the Biblical historical record, when Sheba visited Egypt
in the days of Ramses II, who was King Solomon.

The archaeologists are thus looking for evidence of the Queen of
Sheba in the wrong century. In their case, there is no truth,
but only self-deception and falsehood, lodged in an erroneous
archaeololgical convention of how history ought to be in THEIR
conception, and not how history actually was.

More Blundering Archaeologists - 221 LexiLine Journal

More "blundering archaeologists" are described by The Guardian
at

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1034647,00.html

a link provided by "explorator" at yahoogroups.com,
a link listing provided through David Meadows,
who in my opinion is generally unduly hard on the non-mainstream and
here, at least, exceptionally "forgiving" to mainstream archaeology
blunders, where no forgiveness should be given.

Meadows writes:
"Not sure the press coverage is fair on this one ... petroglyphs
found this summer in Norfolk which were thought to be possibly
2000 years old have turned out to date from 1995 ... A.D."

In fact, the "excited" archaeologists in Norfolk had dated rock
carvings to ca. 1000 BC until a construction worker came forward
stating that the carvings (two intertwined serpents, a dragon and
runic symbols) were his, and made only 8 years ago.

Contrary to the opinion of Meadows, in my opinion, the press
coverage was in fact very KIND to the archaeologists. Here is what
The Guardian should have written.

"As far as rock carvings go, mainstream archaeology has not a clue
about what they are doing in interpreting prehistoric art and
megalithic sculpture, otherwise, they would have no trouble in
distinguishing the real things from falsifications or "modern art".
If the construction worker had not come forward, this "sensational"
find would have gone into archaeology books as "legitimate". Is this
a wider problem in archaeology?

As observed by Andis Kaulins - whose book, Stars Stones and
Scholars: Decipherment of the Megaliths as an Ancient Survey of the
Earth by Astronomy" appears this month - "Most legitimate ancient
rock carvings relate to astronomy. One has to know what the rock
carvings meant in their regional astronomical context in ancient
days to correctly interpret them. Knowing this context, legitimate
ancient art can be distinguished easily from art which has nothing
to do with ancient eras. Anyone finding runic symbols together with
intertwined serpents together with a dragon - now or in the future -
is the subject of a hoax, whether intended or not. No such themes
were actually used in the UK in ancient days. This is a case of a
modern myth propogating a myth, so-called imagined modern Druids
seeking mythical Druids - which seems to be the penchant of
mainstream archaeology. Stated simply, mainstream archaeology has no
clue on this score. If you want to know what significance attaches
to prehistoric art and megalithic sculpture, you have to read my
book."
__________

Ponder if you will, dear LexiLiners, what "scientific method" other
than "guesswork" and "wishful thinking" is at the root of the
numerous mainstream archeaological blunders which I have described
to you in the space of just the last few weeks. And imagine just how
widespread such archaeological blunders are - and how many of these
have not yet been shown to be the blunders they are.

I think then that all of you will obtain a better understanding of
the research that I present to you in LexiLine.

I know what the stones and drawings mean - the archaeologists do not.

Protecting Thornborough Circles (Henges) - 220 LexiLine Journal

My decipherment of the Thornborough Circles ( Thornborough Henges )
see http://www.megaliths.co.uk/thornbor.htm
indicates that the land surrounding the circles is also of
special importance to an understanding of this ancient site.

In response to my letter voicing my concern about rumored future
gravel extraction very near the Thornborough Circles (Henges) in
England, I received the following e-mail today from John Hinchliffe,
Acting Regional Director, English Heritage, Yorkshire Region. Since
it is not a personal letter to me as such, but rather a statement of
English Heritage policy, I am forwarding it to the members of
LexiLine for your information.
______________

[Response of English Heritage to the e-mail of Andis Kaulins of 1
September 2003, addressed to Dr Simon Thurley, Chief Executive,
English Heritage, see http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/, whose
job, as they themselves describe is: "It is our job at English
Heritage to make sure that the historic environment of England is
properly maintained and cared for. By employing some of the
country's very best architects, archaeologists and historians, we
aim to help people understand and appreciate why the historic
buildings and landscapes around them matter. From the first traces
of civilisation, to the most significant buildings of the 20th
century, we want every important historic site to get the care and
attention it deserves."]

Dear Andis

Thank you for your message of 1 September concerning Thornborough
Henges in North Yorkshire. Our Chief Executive Dr Simon Thurley has
asked me to respond to your query.

As monuments of national importance all three of the Thornborough
henges, the associated cursus and adjoining landscape are designated
as Scheduled Ancient Monuments. Scheduling, or designation, allows
the Government, with advice from English Heritage, to give legal
protection to nationally important sites and monuments. The
Secretary of State must be notified of any works which might affect
a Scheduled Ancient Monument, and will not usually give consent for
works which may damage or disturb the site. The henges can
therefore be regarded as fully protected and not under threat.

The current mineral extractions at Thornborough, which are outside
the scheduled monument area, are the subject of permissions granted
to Tilcon-Tarmac by North Yorkshire County Council. At this stage
English Heritage has no statutory authority to limit or prevent the
extractions, which are within the remit of the local planning
authority. The current extraction work has been the subject of
archaeological sampling within a mitigation strategy agreed by North
Yorkshire County Council's Heritage Unit as a condition of the
existing planning consent.

English Heritage remains concerned about the wider landscape setting
of the monuments and is currently funding Dr Jan Harding of
Newcastle University to undertake extensive archaeological research,
at a cost of over £145,000. Dr Harding's work has two principal
components: firstly, he has produced an archaeological desktop
assessment of the monument complex, clearly defining their
significance and landscape setting, and assessing the archaeological
potential of the area. Secondly, he is undertaking a programme of
extensive fieldwork to ascertain more fully the nature and
preservation of the archaeological remains within the landscape
around the henges. The results of Dr Harding's work will inform the
future management of the henges and their landscape setting.

Until Dr Harding's work is completed, and the archaeological value
of the landscape adjacent to the scheduled henges is better
understood, English Heritage is firmly opposed to any further gravel
extraction in the vicinity of the scheduled site.

In order to ensure the conservation and appropriate management of
the henges and surrounding landscape, English Heritage has worked
hard to develop effective partnerships with the owner of the central
and southern henges and other relevant organisations. The owner has
entered into a Countryside Stewardship agreement with DEFRA which
has seen the reversion of the cursus, central henge and intervening
landscape from arable cultivation to pasture. In addition, our
Inspector of Ancient Monuments for the area has met with local
groups (including the Friends of Thornborough) to listen to their
concerns and discuss the problems and possible solutions with them,
and English Heritage is committed to the continuation of this
dialogue.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention. Please be
assured that we aim to continue working in partnership with the
owners, the local community and North Yorkshire County Council to
ensure the survival and effective management of the henges and their
landscape.

Yours sincerely

John Hinchliffe

Acting Regional Director
English Heritage Yorkshire Region

More Archaeology Bungles - 219 LexiLine Journal

The archaeologists are at it again.

I read in my local German newspaper, Trierischer Volksfreund Nr.
202, of September 1, 2004, page 28, that the local archaeologists
discovered three important sarcophags in Weilerswist about a month
ago and then just left them there unopened and unsecured - with the
result that grave-robbers in the interim have destroyed the covers
and looted whatever was inside. It probably did not help that the
local paper recently ran a story giving the exact location of the
find. I laugh out loud - incompetence supreme.

See http://rhein-main.net/sixcms/detail.php/1235813

But Weilerswist thinks IT has problems. These are nothing compared
to what we find in Egyptology, where we find that the mummy recently
and sensationally alleged to be the famed Egyptian Queen Nofretete
(Nefertiti) is probably a man.

As noted at

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/09/01/mummy.nefertiti.reut/index.html

"There has been some confusion as to the sex of this individual."

I laugh out loud.

Do you now see why my confidence in mainstream archaeology is next
to zero?

"Guesswork" would be a good name for the allegedly "scientific"
methods employed by this humble craft.

Mainstream Archaeology Fakes - 218 LexiLine Journal

Archaeology - as well as sister disciplins such as Egyptology and
Assyriology (Near Eastern Studies) - are all disciplines very
competent at "digging up" evidence, which is actually their proper
job.

They are often equally incompetent in the accurate interpretation of
their findings, which is properly NOT always their job, training OR
expertise, even though THEY think it is. An Egyptologist with no
astronomy training but still interpreting ancient astronomical texts
from Egypt is about like a man with no knowledge of Chinese
translating Han texts into English.

But this situation is not likely to change much in the near future.

But who then is the proper "expert" for the interpretation of much
of ancient history? Frankly, much of this should be in the hands of
the men of the law.

After all, the oldest written historical sources (the Ebla Tablets,
The Code of Hammurabi (sic, Abraham), the Bible, etc.) are LAWS -
properly the realm of trained jurists such as myself.

The Bible, such as the 10 Commandments and the various other
Biblical pronouncements which fill the Bible - contain LAWS, rules
for living, making life better for humanity, etc. The same is true
for other similar religious books such as the Koran, which are also
collections of laws, telling men how they should live.

The interpretation of the meanings of these books should be the
realm of people trained in jurisprudence, i.e. experts in the
interpretation of laws, and no one else.

Much of the present world political chaos is a result of the fact
that various religious and academic incompetents are interpreting
ancient sources to fit THEIR world view and many fools in the
ignorant masses are following these erroneous teachings - teachings
made by people who have no business interpreting these ancient
sources or preaching what they actually mean.

This practice has proven to be a worldwide disaster, in every
century, also in the present one.

Just open your morning paper to see the results.

UPDATE November 9, 2003

I posted before about the James ossuary inscription forgery.
How do these things happen? How can an archaeological forgery go
this long unrecognized? Part of the answer is found below.

Dave Meadows and his Explorator
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Explorator/
now has a link to
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Chadwick_Indications.htm
under the title
"Jeffrey Chadwick, "Indications that the "Brother of Jesus"
Inscription is a Forgery":"

What disturbs me here greatly is that the REAL archaeology issue
- the methods by which peer review ignores "contrary opinion" -
is not mentioned in the above Explorator description of that news
item. But THAT is the NEWS at that website.

This is an integral part of this forgery scandal.
People saw early that the ossuary script was a forgery - but they
were blocked by peer review from publishing their opinions. Just
read below.

As stated at
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Chadwick_Indications.htm
"Dr. Jeffrey R. Chadwick's essay, "Indications that the "Brother of
Jesus" Inscription is a Forgery," was an early scholarly analysis of
the so-called James ossuary inscription, written within a few months
of the Ossuary's announcement to the world. Dr. Chadwick first
submitted the essay for publication to Hershel Shanks' magazine,
Biblical Archaeology Review. Although the magazine turned down the
essay, Mr. Shanks argued against it in his book The Brother of
Jesus, which he co-wrote with Dr. Ben Witherington III. Dr.
Chadwick's essay has never been released to the public, so Bible and
Interpretation offers it to the world here for the first time."

I need not comment those events - they speak for themselves.

Of course, Chadwick was right, the ossuary script is a forgery, but
this is how "established" peer-review works. The truth is blocked
and - surprise, surprise - as in the case of Knorosow and the
decipherment of the Maya glyphs - the incorrect interpretations are
published by the mainstream opponents of the truth not only for a
profit, but in Knorosow's case, his opponent - wrong on nearly every
count - was even knighted. A story straight out of the macabre.

When material should be me made accessible to the mainstream for
their OWN interest - the standards of publication are different.

When Hershel Shank's OWN access to the unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls
had been blocked some years previously, he moved heaven and earth to
get his access to the original texts and finally used a "secret"
copy of them. See http://www.nullens.org/jesus/chapter6/jch67.htm
Shanks then published a book giving his opinions on this topic as
well, all in the name of science of course.

Human Clothing Date of Origin - 217 LexiLine Journal

ot being particularly fashionable myself, I occasionally enjoy
glimpsing into the world of fashion at the FeedRoom
http://www.feedroom.com
which I highly recommend for top news stories in other fields as
well.

Speaking of fashion,
when did our "threads" first originate?
Since when do humans first wear clothes at all.

Recall, I claim that the word AFRIK,
as an old term for Africa,
comes from an Indo-European term
e.g. Latvian PLIK
meaning "nude, without clothes",
i.e. the description of Africa as the land of the people who wear no
clothes, as is still the case in parts of Africa today.

Scientists studying the genetics of lice - especially the type that
breeds in human clothing - have discovered that the genetic break
between these "clothes-adapted" lice and those lice which are at
home in human hair (they requiring no clothing) took place around
70,000 years ago. This genetic evidence also matches the human
genetic evidence which indicates that humans first came "out of
Africa" into cooler regions at about this same time period,
suggesting that clothing was a matter of adaptation to colder
temperatures due to human migration northward.

See:

http://www.nature.com/nsu/030818/030818-7.html

Gerald Stanley Hawkins Stonehenge - 216 LexiLine Journal

The following link from Explorator at Yahoo contains an obituary of
Gerald Stanley Hawkins

http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,3604,1004737,00.html

who is often seen as the founder of scientific archaeoastronomy.

Hawkins was in my opinion the greatest student of the
megaliths in the 20th century.

He understood that megalithic man was quite a bright and resourceful
student of the heavens and that Neolithic man in general was and
still is greatly understimated by smug establishment scholars.

Mainstream archaeologists who thought they were criticizing the
superb work of Hawkins and who referred to the builders of
Stonehenge as "howling barbarians" were referring - in the last
anaylsis - to themselves.

Books at Eisenbrauns - 215 LexiLine Journal

Eisenbrauns at http://www.eisenbrauns.com is - as far as I know -
the leading bookseller in the field of ancient studies and I
subscribe to their newsletter which I highly recommend to everyone.

As an example, the following newsletter just came in....
_________

But one preliminary comment....
If we compare any science to a tree, the trunk to its main
foundation, the branches to its main hypotheses and its leaves to
the detail questions - mainstream science is fairly good at doing
the detail work - indeed, in this context, most scientists are "leaf
people". When we attack mainstream science, we are looking to see if
the "branches" of the tree are healthy, which in many cases they are
not, and indeed, to see if the trunk is naught but a stump,
indicating that this or that tree need to be planted anew. Very few
scientists are "branch people" and a true "trunk person" only
appears about once a century.

The following articles are all "leafy".
__________

BOOKNEWS FROM EISENBRAUNS

To order the following title visit the Eisenbrauns web site:
http://www.eisenbrauns.com/wconnect/wc.dll?ebGate~EIS~~I~STEUNDERO

"Under One Sky: Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East."
Alter Orient und Altes Testament (AOAT) 297. Edited by John M. Steele and
Annette Imhausen. Ugarit-Verlag, 2002, vii + 496 pages, Cloth, English. ISBN:
3934628265. $118.00

"Under One Sky" presents 26 revised and expanded contributions to the
conference that took place at the British Museum June 2001. The
authors examine the many-faceted interdependencies of Egyptian and
Mesopotamian astronomy and mathematics, ranging from Sumerian Ur III mathematical
problems (J. Hoyrup), astronomical and mythological references in
Egyptian texts (R. Krauss), and the Babylonian Diviner's Manual (C. Williams)
to gnosis and astrology in the 4th book of the Pistis Sophia (A. von
Lieven and Babylonian lunar theory in Roman Egypt (A. Jones).

Eisenbrauns is the exclusive North American distributor of "Under
One Sky" and the entire AOAT series that features monographs and collected
volumes on the ancient Near East and biblical studies. To view the entire list
of available AOAT volumes, visit our web site and search by
series "AOAT."

CONTENTS:

On Columns H and J in Babylonian Lunar Theory of System B - Asger Aaboe

Predictions of Lunar Phenomena in Babylonian Astronomy - Lis Brack-Bernsen

Treatments of Annual Phenomena in Cuneiform Sources - John P. Britton

History of the heleq - Leo Depuydt

Measuring Egyptian Statues - Friedhelm Hoffmann

How to Educate a Kapo or Reflections on the Absence of a Culture of Mathematical Problems in Ur III - Jens Hoyrup

The Algorithmic Structure of the Egyptian Mathematical Problem Texts - Annette Imhausen

Babylonian Lunar Theory in Roman Egypt. Two New Texts - Alexander Jones

Early Babylonian Observations of Saturn: Astronomical Considerations - Teije de Jong

The Eye of Horus and the Planet Venus: Astronomical and Mythological References - Rolf Krauss

The Historicity Question in Mesopotamian Divination - Daryn Lehoux

Gnosis and Astrology. 'Book IV' of the Pistis Sophia - Alexandra von Lieven

Ration Computations at Fara: Multiplication or Repeated Addition - Duncan J. Melville

Square Tablets in the Yale Babylonian Collection - Karen R. Nemet- Nejat

A Goddess Rising 10,000 Cubits into the Air . . . Or Only One Cubit, One Finger? - Joachim F. Quack

Aristarchos and the 'Babylonian' Month - Dennis Rawlins

Closing the Eye of Horus - Jim Ritter

More than Metrology: Mathematics Education in an Old Babylonian Scribal School - Eleanor Robson

A Study of Babylonian Normal-Star Almanacs and Observational Texts - Norbert A. Roughton

Egyptian Festival Dating and the Moon - Anthony Spalinger

A Simple Function for the Length of the Saros in Babylonian Astronomy - John M. Steele

The Earliest Datable Observation of the Aurora Borealis - F. Richard Stephenson and David M. Willis

The 'Transit Star Clock' from the Book of Nut - Sarah Symons

Enuma Anu Enlil Tablets 1-13 - Lorenzo Verderame

The Role of Astronomical Techniques in Ancient Egyptian Chronology: The Use of Lunar Month Lengths in Absolute Dating - Ronald A. Wells

Signs from the Sky, Signs from the Earth: The Diviner's Manual Revisited - Clemency Williams

Cahokia Figurines elsewhere in the USA - 214 LexiLine Journal

The Science Daily news online from Science Daily Magazine
has an article today entitled

"New Technique Helps Solve Mystery Of Ancient Figurines"

at
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/07/030707090954.htm

This article deals with ancient figurines found in the South and
Southeast of the USA whose origin has been traced by very modern
methods to quarries near the site of Cahokia.

These findings of course confirm my decipherment of ancient sites in
the USA as being interconnected and bear witness to the wide travels
of ancient man.

I am certian that this new method - called PIMA -- which stands for
non-invasive "Portable Infrared Mineral Analyzer" will bring us many
more surprises once it is applied to other ancient artifacts.

Out of Africa - Human Origins - 213 LexiLine Journal

Welcome!

As an alumnus of Stanford University I get a Stanford newsletter
about goings on at "the Farm", as Stanford is locally called [so-
called because the University used to be the farm of Leland Stanford
Senior until he willed his land and fortune to establish Stanford in
honor of his untimely deceased son, whence the still-standing
official name of "Leland Stanford Junior University" for Stanford.]

At the URL

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2003/may28/humans-528.html

you will find a most interesting article by Mark Shwartz entitled
"DNA suggests humans descend from small ancestral population "
indicating that humans came "out of Africa" into the rest of the
world only about 70000 years ago.

As is written there concerning DNA results:

"Our results are consistent with the 'out-of-Africa' theory,
according to which a sub-Saharan African ancestral population gave
rise to all populations of anatomically modern humans through a
chain of migrations to the Middle East, Europe, Asia, Oceania and
America," Feldman noted.

...

"The data revealed a genetic split between the ancestors of these
hunter-gatherer populations and the ancestors of contemporary
African farming people -- Bantu speakers who inhabit many countries
in southern Africa. "This division occurred between 70,000 and
140,000 years ago and was followed by the expansion out of Africa
into Eurasia, Oceania, East Asia and the Americas -- in that order,"
Feldman said.

This result is consistent with an earlier study in which Feldman and
others analyzed the Y chromosomes of more than 1,000 men from 21
different populations. In that study, the researchers concluded that
the first human migration from Africa may have occurred roughly
66,000 years ago."

Flinders Petrie and Chronology at Tell El Hesy (Lachish) - 212 LexiLine Journal

Welcome!

Copyright © 2001-2003 by Andis Kaulins

[This is a challenge to the mainstream archaeologists. I claim the
chronology of the Middle East is flawed - and it is flawed due to
errors made initially by Flinders Petrie. My reasons are given
below. Any mainstream archaeologist out there who thinks he can
rebut my arguments is invited to submit a contra e-mail - BASED on
evidence - not on opinion (WHO you or your cited sources are
professionally interests me not a whit - it is the EVIDENCE that
counts - ONLY the evidence).]

Tell El Hesy (Lachish) by W.M. Flinders Petrie, reprinted 1989 by
Histories & Mysteries of Man Ltd., London, England, 1989, ISBN 1 854
17 052 X, is the foundation for modern chronology of the fertile
crescent. I have read the book in detail, confirming my initial
suspicion that Petrie made capital chronological errors in his
dating of Tell el Hasy and Lachish - errors which mainstream
chronology has blindly followed ever since, leading to a completely
erroneous history of the Middle East.

Since Petrie's dating of Tell El Hesy is the foundation for modern
chronology of the fertile crescent, it is all the more remarkable
that the book is out of print and virtually unknown - even though
its conclusions are uncritically accepted and used to date Biblical
and Egyptian history in general. Most men are sheep.

The fact is that Petrie made critical - if consistent - dating
errors, based on his preconceived notion of the chronological
history represented at the archaeological sites examined by him.

_________________________

1. Tell el Hesy - 16 miles East of Gaza about a third of the
distance from Gaza to Jerusalem - is an accumulated "residential"
mound ca. 60 feet in heigth (from 278 feet above sea level to 340
feet above sea level).

The upper layer - at 340 feet - contained "regular black and red
Greek pottery" which Petrie dated to ca. 450 BC. The bottom of the
tell is at 278 feet.

There is a layer of a period of great destruction - a stratum of
small stones "at the level of 286 to 291 feet" with a large layer of
ash above that which Petrie calls "the great bed of ashes"." Massive
man-made walls of mud brick lie below the layer of small stones,
pointing to a previous high culture.

Similar mounds in Egypt - as Petrie notes - rise 3 to 4 feet per
century or 30 to 40 feet in a thousand years. At 3 feet per century,
the earliest dwellings would be ca. 2000 years older than the Greek
pottery at the top level and would date to 2450 BC. At 4 feet per
century of accumulation, the earliest dwellings would be ca. 1500
years older than the Greek pottery and would date to ca. 1950 BC.
Since none of these fit into the preconceived picture, Petrie sets
the earliest dwellings at el Hesy at 1670 BC, based on a new
proposed rate of accumulation of 5 feet per century, the faster rate
allegedly because the "greater rainfall" in Syria would lead
to "quicker" destruction of mud walls and thus to a greater rate of
tell accumulation.

Petrie even goes so far as to call certain walls "the Amorite
wall", "Rehoboam's wall", "Manessah's wall", "the Wall of Ahaz",
etc., trying - in an "unscholarly" Schliemann-type manner - to fit
his finds to the Biblical accounts.

Indeed, there is no evidence for such quicker accumulation
whatsoever!

Rather, Petrie gently and almost imperceptibly "bends" the
archaeological facts to fit his view of Biblical history.

_________________________

2. Petrie bases his chronology on what he calls "Phoenician
pottery". As Petrie writes (p. 40), "The excavations at Tell el Hesy
proved to be an ideal place for determining the history of pottery
in Palestine. And once settle the pottery of a country, and the key
is in our hands for all future explorations." Indeed, as if knowing
his error, Petrie writes at page 45 "I have under rated rather than
over rated the age of the Tell el Hesy levels". How right he was !

Pottery called bilbils by the Syrians (thin black vases with long
necks) were found at the level of 305-325 feet above sea level on
the East side of Tell el Hesy and "black bowls" known to be
contemporary to the bilbils were found at the level of 295 to 315
feet at the Southeast side. (Please Note: Assyrian
bil-bil means plural bil, i.e. "bowls" and NOT bil-bil !)

Petrie then states that although this pottery is not dated in
Phoenicia, he had seen similar examples in Egypt, the earliest of
which were dated to the late 18th dynasty in Egypt (Petrie dated
this to ca. 1400 BC on the basis of two similar things of Amenhotep
III - whose reign is dated today to ca. 1350 BC).

To an impartial observer, the bilbils and black bowls would BOTH be
seen to span 20 feet of accumulated time - 305-325 feet on the East
and 295-315 feet on the Southeast, i.e. a corresponding 20 foot time
span, with SLANTING topography probably accounting for the
difference.

Petrie, however, inexplicably puts the the two figures together and
expands the Phoenician period to 25 feet of accumulated history at
Tell el Hesy, placing the early Phoenician period at the level of
295 feet and running it to 320 feet, although in fact BOTH measured
sites at Tell el Hesy point to only a 20-foot accumulated Phoenician
time-period. Obviously, Petrie used this calculational "trick" -
perhaps subconsciously - to mesh his preconceived notions about
Biblical chronology with the chronology of Egypt and fit the
Phoenicians in.

Correctly however, to be consistent in using the measuring rod of
the 60 foot heigth of the Tell, the Phoenician pottery period could
only have spanned 20 feet or 1/3 of the height of the tell, from the
level of 305 to 325 feet above sea level, so that 305 feet above sea
level at Tell el Hesy marked the earliest Phoenician pottery and not
295 feet, a difference of ca. 300 critical years (3 feet per
century) of chronology! This indeed is the approximate margin of
error in Biblical chronology between the correct date for Moses and
Exodus (1628 BC) and the date currently assigned to Moses and Exodus
by mainstream chronology (ca. 1300).

If level 305 and not 295 corresponded to Petrie's ca. 1400 BC - then
35 feet of accumulation separated the earliest Phoenician pottery
from the top of the Tell, and 35 feet of accumulation would have
occurred in ca. 1000 years. This would be a rate of accumulation
corresponding to the verified 3 to 4 feet per century evidenced on
corresponding Tells in the Egyptian delta.

The accumulation of 5 feet per century for Tell el Hesy alleged by
Petrie is thus clearly erroneous. As he himself suspected, he had in
fact VASTLY under rated the age of the levels of Tell el Hesy,
simply because he wanted to mesh a Biblical chronology which was far
older than he imagined.

Therefore, NO scholar anywhere in the world today - in any field
dealing with ancient history in the fertile crescent - can possibly
accept Petrie's chronology and those current mainstream chronologies
built upon his conclusions. Such chronologies are nothing other than
fictions and must be amended to correct for Petrie's obvious error.

_________________________

3. Santorin explodes 1628 BC

Once the dating of Tell el Hesy has been corrected, the layer of ash
(5 feet!) and the layer of stones above the massive walls below take
on a new significance since the levels of ash and stones then apply
to the period ca. 1628 BC.

As Petrie himself writes "These ashes were certainly spread by the
wind". "No deposit by hands could effect this, the stuff must have
been wind-borned, and dropped by the breeze without interference."
(p. 16)Lacking any better theory, however, Petrie tries to account
for them by the Bedawin (Bedouin) burning of plants for alkali
and "the charcoal layers...the result of the sparks and dust of the
burning, and the breaking up of the fires; while the white lime
layers were the dust blown about after the lixiviation had washed
away the alkali. The town must then have been deserted, or almost
so, at the time when the alkali burners resorted here, and when
their ashes blew about and settled undisturbed over a great part of
the hill."

What Petrie writes above is absolute nonsense of course, but Petrie
had to explain the layers of ash somehow.

Of course, after the event causing these layers of volcanic ash,
Tell el Hesy is deserted. Even more, as Petrie himself writes: "Now
this we see just corresponds to the great break in the history of
Palestine...."

This "break in the history of Palestine" of course did not happen
because of plants being burned for alkali by nomads. This was the
great period of conflagration due to the explosion of Santorin, the
volcanic ash, the earthquakes, fire from the heavens, apparently
over several years. Petrie places the date for this layer of ash at
ca. 1300 BC but of course he has a ca. 300-year error. The year is
actually closer to 1628 BC.

_________________________

4. Interestingly, Petrie's dating of the so-called "Amorite" comb-
face pottery on page 40 of his book as being ca. 1600 BC to ca. 1000
BC meshes exactly with my dating of the Phoenician levels at Tell El-
Hesy. Perhaps this was the influence of the Phoenicians on the
Amorites. It is Petrie's misdating of the Phoenicians - based on his
attempt to mesh historical data of Egypt with the erroneous
chronology of the Biblical Jews - which was his undoing. Indeed, it
has remained a great chronological problem down to this day.

The Dating of Tell el Hesy is thus correctly:

A. Top of mound - 340 feet above sea level = ca. 500 BC (Greek
pottery)(after several hundred years of dark ages - - Greek pottery
had surfaced ca. 700 BC)

B. Last Phoenician (comb-face) pottery - 325 feet above sea level =
ca. 1000 BC
This is the period of the invasion of the northern Sea Peoples who
came to the rescue of the Hebrews, but were turned back by Ramses
III = Biblical Shishak and the Assyrian Babylonians. This led to the
end of the Pharaohs and was the period of the Babylonian Captivity
of the Jews as well as the dark age in the fertile crescent - when
building of temples etc. ceased and much was destroyed.

C. Earliest Phoenician (comb-face) pottery - 305 feet above sea
level = ca. 1650 BC
This is the period of ca. 1628 BC, with earthquakes and the
explosion of the volcano Santorin on Thera - which was the period of
the Biblical Exodus, and also the period at which the Phoenicians
become prominent, probably through migration to escape natural
disasters. This is the period of the layer of stones and ashes at
Tell El Hesy.

D. Earliest dwellings at Tell el Hesy - 280 feet above sea level =
ca. 2500 BC
As Petrie notes, in the N.W. tower of Tell el Hesy, at level 295
feet above sea level (ca. 2000 BC by my corrected chronology of
Petrie's data), they found "a cylinder of coarse dull red haematite,
now weighing 142.3 grains, probably 144 originally; this is the
Egyptian kat weight. Several scraps of bronze were found, wire
armlets, hair-pins, a .knife, and a sheep bell; and some iron
fragments, a knife, and arrow-heads." This corresponds possibly to
the building of a fort by the Egyptians here in the 24th year of
reign under Amenemhet I ca. 2000 BC, who organized an expedition to
Gaza - the northeastern border of united Egypt at that time -
against the Asiatic desert dwellers. This corresponds to the
position of Lachish.

Does that above date of 2500 BC seem unusual?

_________________________

5. Who were the Phoenicians?

The mark of a great man of science is not that he always right, but
rather that he recognizes the critical issues and adds new methods
and insights to knowledge, even if they are not perfect. No one is
right all the time.

My criticism of Petrie's erroneous chronology by no means should
take away from the greatness of his manifold achievements.

Also in his book on Tell el Hesy, Petrie shows the enormous breadth
of his interests and, in his discussion of the styles of masonry in
Palestine, points us toward a proper identification of the
mysterious Phoenicians

The Phoenicians are found referenced in Egyptian hieroglyphs of the
Middle Kingdom under the term FENEKHW, which of course is an Indo-
European term as in Latvian VEJNIEKI or VEJNIESHE "men of the wind",
(VEJNIESHI = PHOENICIANS) i.e. sailors.

The idea that the (Italian) sailing boat feluca derives from Arabic
fulk "ship" is incorrect. It is the other way around, since the root
is proto-Indo-European as in Latvian VEJ- "wind". Latin retains this
root in VELA "the sail" which is Latvian VELA "cloth, washing hung
up to dry - which resulted in the idea of a sail". In the north of
Europe these were probably the WENDs, people of the WIND. The terms
BRIT- and PRUS- as in Britain and Prussia (Borussia) thus probably
are related to the Latvian term BURAS "sails", which explains
another ancient term PRST for the "sea peoples"
found in ancient sources.

The Phoenicians of course are not in any manner the Palestinians -
as some claim, for these latter were not sailors but rather
landlocked desert marauders, who are otherwise the Hyksos of
history, or the Midianites of the Bible.

Petrie recognizes in his book on Tell el Hesy that the style of
stone dressing used by the Phoenicians was "flaking and pocking" -
i.e. flaking by heavy blows and then bruising down the surface with
a heavy pointed hammer - and that this style is found:

1) on the great monolith lying in the quarry in the Russian quarter
of Jerusalem
2) in the galleries called Solomon's Stables under the Haram
3) in the stone work of the temple at Hagir Kim in Malta
4) in the wrought stones at Stonehenge - Petrie writes "the best
examples of it are on the flat tops of the uprights of the great
trilithons.
And another curious formation occurs at Stonehenge as well as at
Hagir Kim; the edge of an upright is somewhat raised, so as to form
a sort of tray, and a corresponding cutting is made in the cap
stone. This is of course in addition to the rough tenons at
Stonehenge." (p. 36)

In other words, Petrie has observed the clear connection between the
megalithic cultures of old - certainly one of the first men ever to
do so.

The desert dwellers, i.e. Palestinians, had a different style of
masonry, found only in a few places since they were nomads and not
ordinarily settled peoples. This masonry style is identified by
Petrie, as "long-stroke picking" - done with an edge or point, with
no breadth of cut - and is seen on

1) the great blocks of the first building of the Beit el Khulil near
Hebron
2) dressing of the wall at Tell Safi - which Petrie says is probably
the old Philistine fortress of Gath,
and
3) on the sandstone masonry and steps of Lachish ca. 700 BC, i.e.
after the Babylonian captivity and AFTER the days of the
Phoenicians, who were the Sea Peoples who had lost their seat of
power in the fertile crescent in the days of Ramses III, who was
Shishak.

Interesting is that Petrie regards Jewish style to be a mixture
which is neither pure Amorite [Arab] nor Phoenician, but which
consists of a mixture of characters of both peoples.

_________________________


6. Ashdod, Ashkelon = Kadesh [Thick layer of ash also found here]

My redating of Tell el Hesy makes it relatively simple to also
correctly date ancient cities of the Near East in that same region
and correct some major errors of mainstream historical scholarship.

Here are the basic corrections
a. Ashdod was an ancient city on the "curve of the Mediterranean
Coast" at the Wadi Lakhish (similar to Indo-European e.g. Latvian
LIKS, LICIS "gulf") on a what was probably the northernmost border
of Ancient Egypt on a line running toward Lachish (Tell
el Hesy).

The levels of occupation at Ashdod show the same dating errors as
Tell el Hesy and are off by about 300 to 350 years. (Ashdod is
similar to Greek azotus and Latvian azotis meaning "bosom" [of the
Mediterranean], i.e. "gulf", curved part of the Mediterranean).

There is a very thick layer of ash at Ashdod at the level which
corresponds to the thick layer of ash at Tell el Hesy. This layer of
ash dates to ca. 1628 BC whereas mainstream scholars date that level
of ash erroneously to 1300-1200 BC (without the benefit of Petrie's
imagined "alkali burners" theory). Hence, all other levels at Ashdod
are correspondingly falsely dated.

It is only AFTER the volcanic eruption of Santorin that the
Philistines occupy the city, including the neighboring Ashkelon.

Indeed, ALL the cities Jericho, Debit (Tell Bet-Mirsim), Lachisch,
Bet-El, Gibeon and Hazor (Tell el Qedaz) were all destroyed by fire
and ash at the same time - and - as David Rohl has noted for Hazor,
this occurred at least a hundred years previous to any possible
destruction by the Israelites - in fact 300 years previous.

b. Scholars in the 20th century have erred in locating Lachish at
Tell ed-Duwer. Rather, Petrie already and correctly identified Tell
el Hesy in the 18th century as Lachish, i.e. La-cHish (cHish =
Hesy). Tell (k)ed-Duwer is in fact the Biblical site of Kadesh which
scholars have unsuccessfully and falsely tried to find in a
completely other region. KaDesh was later used as the "reference"
city for the battle in the Bible, and the battle here was a battle
for the northern border of Egypt. Indeed, there is strong evidence
of ancient military battle here, e.g. ancient Assyrian ramps have
been found at (k)ed Duwer, i.e. Kadesh.

c. At the time of King Ramses II (who was King Solomon - the battle
of Kadesh took place in the fifth year of his reign, 480 years after
Exodus - which is 1147 BC), and the winning of this battle is found
inscribed in the reliefs at Karnak, where the battle is said to have
been won for Eskarun which is similar to Indo-European e.g. Latvian
aizskarin "border, curtain". Assyrian sources refer to Eskarun as
Asqualuna and refer to it as a "region" with a definite BORDER, and
we retain this term as the historical city name Ashkelon on this
border.