And We're OFF! On the way to a new platform ... we take one last look at the landscape - and Orthodox academics go the way of their journalistic confreres - We sweep the decks, for the arrival of fresher thinking
With this piece, and its companion -
Into the Maelstrom - A "Detective Story" with Climax in Sight!
we said goodbye to the old platform ...
we take one last look at the landscape - and Orthodox academics go the way of their journalistic confreres - We sweep the decks, for the arrival of fresher thinking
and welcome in the new platform where everything 'comes together' at last! Enjoy the transition... I certainly am.
As originally envisaged, the book "BARBAROUS RELIQUARY, now taking shape at long last, was what I described at the time as "A Guide for the Perplexed' - a play upon the title of a Maimonides text of medieval origin, and it's kabbalistic influences. Maimonides wrote his tracts not just as a codifier of make believe ‘laws,’ but as a bridge between the Hellenistic traditions of reason and logic, and the emerging mysticism of the kabbalists in France and Spain. And although many of the latter were dismissive of his efforts, those of later generations would come to embrace them, even claiming him as one of there own – a “secret” kabbalist who saw the light only at the end of his days, after his writings were finished.
This is important, because it would be a work of great significance, short centuries later, to fuse the philosophical traditions of the western world with the irrational eschatologies of the talmudic kabbalist tradition, binding, thereby, the naive and thrill seeking European elites to a self destructive mythology, invented for the purpose of making judaic mysticism the predominant philosophic current by which all others would be measured, and eventually, subsumed. A work of much time and great stealth – culminating - as I wrote in that opening essay, Has Europe Begun It's "Final Descent?"
in a “Europe lost to it’s own beginning.” It’s the restoration of the true story of those beginnings which will concern us here. A work similar in intent, if not execution, to overturning the tables of the moneychangers in the temple.
Has Europe Begun It's "Final Descent?"
And only with such bridges as Maimonides created would it become possible for later neo-gnostical millenarianism cults like the Sabbatean and Frankist to effect their bold schemes to integrate into that European world so as to become it’s intellectual vanguards and gatekeepers. Able to straddle the worlds of dry legalism and logic as well as florid mysticism and magic, their inheritors would become able to talk circles around any opposition to the talmudisation of history, science and legal tradition – to the point where today, few even realize there to be any alternative narrative to that singularly supremacist rendition of those disciplines!
It’s a work of faith which is undertaken here, therefore. Faith that at some point in the future, there will emerge a restored and authentic western tradition, stripped of the accretions of kabbalistic corruptions, and for which this history can serve as a cornerstone. Faith that there still remain some capable of reading and comprehending the issue at stake, at a time when extremely few are even aware of the battle, let alone willing to lend a hand.Faith that there is still to be found – somewhere – a residue of resistance tothe intentions of the deceivers to destroy the culture, the very dna of the people on whose behalf I write. But a faith not naive in nature. Because the truths to be witnessed to here are already virtually outlawed by the gatekeepers of convention, I’m aware that this work is already equally – that of an outlaw – a writer renegade to the prevailing system and its, narratives and therefore unlikely to achieve much traction no matter the amount of effort put out.
The ‘reliquary’* part of the title is a reference to the practice o placing the artefacts… bone even… of reputed saints into a container which thus becomes a receptacle of holiness venerated by pilgrims in pursuit of blessings,cures, or answers. The title Barbarous Reliquary is a play upon the modern parlance by which precious metals are a “barbarous relic” of the past, without legitimate place in the financial system of the present, that runs via debt,interest and the derivatives trade – fiat monies chasing themselves. The innate barbarity of such a system is lost upon those who depend upon the modern educational system and modern medias for their understanding, while the curious pagan crudity of the worship of bones also underlines the nature of the Christian theological racket. A pagan holdover which that church continues to authorize as it is useful to the emotional needs of its followers.
Behind all of the myths and masks however, the economic system and the value systems of the current Occidental culture are based upon a the imposition of a purely talmudic point of view, and structure of law. The fictions of‘capitalism’ ‘free enterprise,’ and the role of the entrepreneur have served but to place real free enterprise, and true entrepreneurialism into reliquaries of the conceptual kind – to be venerated by naive pilgrims unaware of the sneering laughter of those who have built the legends upon which their reputed ‘holy grounds’ of pilgrimage gain their worshipers faith and their offerings!
The ‘saint’ of this books' cover picture is Ste Foy – “ a Roman girl martyred in the town of Agen as part of the Diocletian persecutions in 303 AD. Legend holds that the twelve-year-old was first placed on a red hot griddle and when holy intervention stopped that from killing her, she was beheaded .After death, her relics performed the usual assortment of miraculous cures and visions, making them a crowd-pleasing feature of the church — which is precisely why the Conques monks stole them from Agen and relocated them to the monastery in their town!
And so, the pilgrims came. And, so the story goes, St. Foy developed her reputation for… unusual cures. Notably, when a knight came to her seeking a cure for a herniated scrotum, she, via vision, helpfully suggested that he find a blacksmith willing to smash it with a white-hot hammer.Amazingly, this gentleman followed her divine instructions, and was committed to this terrible plan right up until the last minute, when he fell backwards, away from the hammer’s strike — and was miraculously cured from the force of his fall.
The saint’s relics are still held in the golden reliquary, dating back at least to 1010, designed in the shape of a (somewhat mannish)woman. The manly face of the reliquary has actually caused some debate — some scholars see the face of a Roman emperor, while Thomas Hoving suggested that it was a death mask of Charlemagne. Regardless, not only is this one big, golden statue, it is also the last remaining example of its type, once common in the middle ages.”
Now that I have been able to access the work of scholars who pursue this real historical records outside of the bounds of European/American orthodoxy, I have been gradually strengthened in my intuitions that much of what has been passed off by that orthodoxy as factual is ... in fact... suspect. As 'suspect' indeed, as the story of "Saint Foy!" Piercing the veil of that orthodoxy has required acquaintance not just with the physical reality of the land where so much formative to the western tradition took shape - but also with the people who live in, and now write about that same territory. A sort of parallel acculturation/deculturation process.... out of which has sprung the realization that a book must be written to bring together the assorted strands of the history now finally being written beyond boundaries imposed by that same static orthodoxy and beyond the imposed separations of narrow fields like the economic, political, or historical.
In so doing, I return to a couple of quotes from that first foray - "Has Europe Begun it's 'Final Descent.'
"If a Europe which has basically turned it's back upon the putative starting place of its culture is beginning to feel the effects of such a radical cutting off from it's roots, two questions will begin to bear on what comes next... was "Greece" really the starting point for what would become 'our' civilization in the west; or was that really just history as 'marketing... the successful use of scribal notation to effect a coup upon truth? If the later possibility is the correct one... then where need we look for the real roots of what has become known as the "European" world?
...followed by this quote from Heidegger:
We must face the possibility that the beginning is not the old in the sense of the antiquated but that we are so very antiquated that we can no longer understand a beginning - and especially cannot understand when we invoke the advanced and the contemporary,"
from the same story.
Before I had finished my own business career, in the few moments available for thoughts outside of operational concerns, the story of far east Asias "Tocharians" was a great interest of mine. Reading up on these blue eyed,red haired and tall people who had inhabited the area of the Tarim Basin, millennia before “Europeans” explored there, spurred my passion for ethnography and history in new directions.
What were these apparent“ Caucasians” doing so distant from all others of their physical type? What were their origins, and how did they get there? When my pursuit of Buddhist history took me to the same area of Asia in order to study the work of European scholars who had unearthed evidence of a civilization in the midst of that same huge desert space – the people of which had the very same physical characteristic as those earlier Tocharians – it got interesting indeed!
Murals found in the cave monasteries of Kizil, still vibrant with the original colors and textures a thousand years after their making, showed men with light- colored hair and eyes dressed in long robes girded with swords insuch manner as to appear to be right out of a European medieval tapestry - but this was C7th Central Asia! Kucha and other surrounding city states from thatera were eventually conquered by an expansionary Chinese state, and disappeared from history. But the record of these strangely “European” people in the heart of Asia remained a goad to further questions about much of the basis upon which conventional historiography had been built.
It was only a short time after my study of the central Asian civilizations that I came across the work of Ethel Stewart, another obscure,self educated scholar with a passion for opening up holes in orthodox renditions of history, and filling in the resulting spaces with fascinating information. If I’d been taken aback by the strange and wonderful information which the exploration of Central Asia had provided, the work of Stewart more mind blowing indeed. Having acquired enough of a grasp of phonetics and linguistics to start translating a variety of Asian texts from the time frame of the Mongol invasions, she started comparing their information with what she had learned first hand in her field work among native Indian bands of the Northand west of Canada and Alaska.
By taking the accounts of native shamans and storytellers about their origins into a multi-variant framework of investigation, she began to realize that those stories had their genesis in historical events which Asian histories had recorded. As such, she was able to trace the lineages of individual bandsto specific parts of the Asian refugee diaspora which had resulted from remnants of central Asian nations fleeing the Mongol wave, from Tarim of the Uighurs and Turkic tribes north to Harbin, the Korean Peninsula, Kamchatka and across the sea bridge to Alaska. from there, they split into what would become separate bands that spread gradually south till reaching California and the plains of the midwest, and westwards right into eastern Canada and the Great Lakes.
Not content to upset the orthodoxy of history to that degree, she also made a study of the languages of the North American newcomers (circaC13th) which specified their antecedents in the Tibetan, Turkic, Tungan, and other central Asian tongues. So our “redskins” of reputed indigenous North American origins became the melting pot of Central Asian immigrants, with a good measure of that “Caucasian” style Tocharian dna thrown into the mix! Ethnology would never be the same. Needless to say, entrenched academics of their respective fields uniformly panned Stewarts work – it gained no traction at all during her lifetime. After finding stray references to it in ‘fringe’ epigraphic and historical diffusionist journals, I traveled to a college town in Georgia USA, the library of which held a precious copy of her published work. A few days of diligent photo-copying left me in possession of a treasure of ‘forbidden’ scholarship, which would lie in slumber among my possessions, waiting for this moment decades later.
In vacating the west for a new Asian homeland, I was forced to leave behind a large accumulated library of books on all aspects of Asian history.Years of research left behind in the move, among the slender mementos I carried with me was Ethels work. At last I know why! While it was easy for sneering scholars of a previous age – when linguistics and archeology held sway as the means of building ethnographic theories – to dismiss Stewarts ground breaking studies, with the arrival of this new, genetic-based science of dna testing , the case must, and will be opened again.
In the Khan Tengri series Return to Khan Tengri - Part Three - Light from the East? we
introduced the ideas of Murad Adji about the similar western movements of peoples of Altaic origin – into the Steppe country and then spreading to the fringes of eastern Europe and the Balkans. Here, we receive direct evidence of a second, even more far reaching wave of Altaic immigration via the southern routes, to the farthest reaches of the European sub-continent!
This, from science, not historical account. But amazingly, both agree in their outline of a dispersion of Central Asian peoples into the west, by which their descendants become the predominant part of what we call the “Europeans” of today. Myths are starting to explode left and right! Just this very morning I read an interview featuring a typical talking head droning on about how European civilization started with “the Greeks.” Blind leading the blind. We’ll be applying corrective surgery in the hopes of allowing them to regain their sight again one day! “Out of Africa” has been supplanted by “Out of the Altaic!” Even leaving aside for the time being - the tremendous significance of Kymosov attributing to this same population group the origin of Sumer, we are looking at a vastly changed landscape, from the one orthodox academics continue to bicker over endlessly. Nothing will ever be the same again.
Perhaps the best way to summarize all that bickering - and the theories over which it take place, would be to extract this introduction from J P Mallory, so that once over with, we won't have to review that territory again. For close to 25 years I was hung up with doubts about all the interpretations I had read as to the Indo-Europeans in general, and the Tocharians in specific. At last the breakthrough has come about which conforms to the reason for those doubts, and the gut instinct which drove me to withhold belief in any of them.
Here Mallory lists the contenders:
from - "Twenty-first century clouds over Indo-Europeanhomelands JP MALLORY
" ….. The Anatolian Neolithic model. This has been most popularized in the works of Colin Renfrew (1987). It sets Indo-European origins to the Anatolian Neolithic and argues that the spread of the Indo-European languages was part and parcel ofthe spread of agriculture through Europe in a demographic “wave of advance”.Since its original presentation it has been modified a number of times to deal with some of the more serious criticism directed towards it. The revised model(Renfrew 1999) still argues for a movement of farming populations from Anatolia into the Aegean and Balkans extending through central Europe along the Danube drainage (the Linearbandkeramik) and also around the western part of the Black Sea where it carried agriculture and Indo-European languages to the steppelands.
The NearEastern model. The major proponents of this model are the linguists Tamaz Gamkrelidze and Vyacheslav Ivanov (1984) who have been provided with detailed archaeological support by Stanislav Grigoriev (1999; 2002). Here the homeland is set south of the Caucasus, and Indo-European expansions are set somewhat later than presented in the Anatolian Neolithic model (the spread of farming isnot a critical element of the Near East model). A distinctive feature of this model is that the ancient European languages (Balto-Slavic, Germanic, Celtic,Italic) are all derived from a Bronze Age migration east of the Caspian through Central Asia. This in effect has created the notion of a secondary homeland located north of the Black and Caspian seas. Another possible variation of thismodel may be seen in Leonid Sverchkov’s (2012) recent book on Tokharian and,more generally, Indo-European origins in Central Asia.
3. The Pontic-Caspian model. This homeland model, developed in a large number of publications by Marija Gimbutas (e.g.,1991, 351–401) and most recently and extensively argued by David Anthony(2007), locates the homeland in the steppe and forest-steppe regions between the Dnieper and the Volga during the period c 4500–3000 BCE.
All of these models apparently require the Indo-European languages (including their attendant agricultural vocabulary) to be superimposed/adopted by at least several major complex societies of Central Asia and the Indus. If one accepts this conclusion then a significant portion of the Indo-European world cannot be explained by agricultural expansions, even among those who support an early Neolithic homeland in Anatolia. And if one is forced to accept language shift over a series of complex societies in Asia, how can one argue that only the spread of agriculture could explain language shift among less complex societies in Europe?
In any event, all three models require some form of major language shift despite there being no credible archaeological evidence to demonstrate,through elite dominance or any other mechanism, the type of language shift required to explain, for example, the arrival and dominance of the IndoAryans in India...the NearEastern model, that requires the ancestors of the ‘ancient European’ languages to wander through Central Asia, cannot place the ‘Europeans’ north of south Central Asia before c 2000 BCE at the earliest. This is going to render the Indo-Europeanization of most of Europe a far more recent phenomenon than most would expect or accept. It would detach the Indo-Europeanization of central and northern Europe from such cultures as the Corded Ware horizon that in almost every way imaginable would appear to be archaeologically, spatially and culturally a part of the Indo-European world.
More importantly, it creates a‘bottle-neck’ for the Northwest (?) Indo-European languages dated to about 1500BCE where they all should have passed from east to west across thePontic-Caspian and on into Europe. To propose a common secondary home and time depth for Balto-Slavic, Germanic, Celtic and Italic so late leaves hardly anytime at all to explain the phylogeny of the European languages and how they arrived in their historical seats.
And here, at last - we get to the money shot - will Mallorys' closing summation:
"If there are any lessons to be learned, it is that every model of Indo-European origins can be found to reveal serious deficiencies as we increase our scrutiny. One is reminded of Daniel Kahneman’s observation:
“It is the consistency of the information that matters for a good story, not its completeness. Indeed, you will often find that knowing little makes it easierto fit everything you know into a coherent pattern” (Kahneman 2011, 87).
"The problem here, of course, is that over time we have come to know more and more and that our earlier, simpler and more alluring narratives of Indo-European origins and dispersals are all falling victim to our increasing knowledge."
Falling victim indeed! But little does Mallory know, to what. A proclaimed skeptic of dna genome research, Mallory has failed to find a way to bring his earlier work on the Indo-Europeans in general - and the Tocharians in particular - to a convincing conclusion. And that's very much because he - along with all of the other scholars competing to solve this vexing issue - have been looking in the wrong places for answers. And after all these decades of waiting, I can see past the serial confusion engendered by their blindness - thanks to being able to build upon the work of those unorthodox researchers we have followed in stories previous!
We have said above that haplogroup R1a migrated across Anatolia to the Balkans between 10,000 and 8000 ybp; the group spread throughout Europe,moved east to the Russian Plain, and then went to India. The first date is supported by the fact that we find PIE in Anatolia between 10,000 and 9000 ybp(Gray & Atkinson, 2003; Bouckaert et al., 2012). PIE could have been formed and evolved during the long migration from the Altai Mountains to Anatolia.Then, the language migrated with the same R1a haplogroup to the Balkans and across Europe, where around 6000 ybp it split into branches; members of haplogroup R1a arrived around 4800 – 4600 ybp on the Russian Plain as speakersof Indo-European language(s). DNA genealogy has confirmed that haplogroup R1aarrived in India as the legendary Aryans around 3500 ybp; even today nearly 72%of some Indian upper castes are R1a bearers (Sharma et al., 2009).
The suggestion of the Anatolian hypothesis that Tocharian languages were not part of the Balkan linguistic advergence area is conditionally supported by DNA genealogy. According to Gray and Atkinson (2003), the Tocharian languages were an archaic branch, which arose around 7900 ybp, and were spoken by R1a populations in the Tarim basin.
Based on the dating of the Tocharian language and the relatively highlinguistic distance of Tocharian A and B from the other IE languages(Tomezzoli & Kreutz, 2011), it is unlikely that the protoTocharians migrated westward to Europe and the Russian Plain with the proto-Aryans (R1a),and then moved back to the Tarim Basin. It is more likely that theproto-Tocharians migrated from the Altai region of north China to the nearbyTarim basin and remained there (never going to Europe), forming the autochthonous R1a peoples of Central Asia.
The Anatolian hypothesis groups these Tocharians rather superficially with Europeans (Li et al., 2010), without any DNA justification—their haplotypes were not even reported for a comparison with European R1a haplotypes. It is not enough to consider Tocharians as Europeans on the basis of their somatic features and their clothing which, in 4000 ybp, looked like Scottish plaid. In fact, plaiding techniques could equally well have been brought to Europe by R1atribes from the Altai and Central Asia. Still, there is some room for the Tocharian languages to be considered as derivatives of the archaic European R1alanguages of the IE family. Tocharian is possibly an ancient Centum branch. Inthat case, we have to admit that Gray and Atkinson’s (2003) estimate of their appearance (7900 ybp) should be reduced at least to around 6000 ybp. Thereshould also be a recognition of an earlier migration (between 6000 – 5500 ybp)of R1a bearers from Europe to the Altai region, and theirpossible contributions to the Afanasyevo archaeological culture and perhaps to the Centum Tocharian languages in the area, including the Tarimbasin.
This concept is verifiable; if Afanasyevo bones not too far away from the Tarim basin are dated at least 5000 ybp and are shown to belong to the R1a-Z93 subclade, the case for a migration of R1a from Europe tothe Tarim basin will be well supported.
DNA genealogy data disallows Anatolia as the homeland f PIE and IE languages.
DNA records show that these languages had no specific homelands—R1a bearers migrated over thousands of miles during the course of thousands of years. No archaeological site can be possibly identified as a location in which IE split into branches—the branching of IE was a continuous process of divergence and convergence over millennia. According to DNA genealogy data (see Figure 1), the predecessors of those who spoke PIE languages might have migrated 50,000 ybp or earlier from the unknown birthplace of the β-haplogroup. The birthplace might have been in Europe, the Russian Plain, or south Siberia (where they arrived between 40,000 – 35,000 ybp). Much later, sometime after 20,000 ybp, they migrated westward along with the R1ahaplogroup via Anatolia, to the Balkans, to the Russian Plain and Pontic steppes, to the Middle East, Middle Asia, the Iranian plateau, the Ural mountains, Hindustan, South Siberia (again), North China, and Mongolia. All of these locations are migrational passing points and nothomelands for the predecessors of the IE languages.(…)
One such source of worthy critical analysis is that of Deleuze and Guattari, authors of 'A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia.' Although caught up in the late C20th milieu of Marxist materialist dogma, as well as Freudian fictions, nevertheless there are parts of their work where the authors shine a light on the important psycho-biological differences between the two poles of what is -geographically - the one huge continent of "Asia"... "Europe" being a smallish protrusion from the western extreme of it.
"Root," "Radicle" & "Rhizome" are terms from the biological sciences, which, when grafted onto the human dimension, work surprisingly well to describe certain rhythmic propulsions in history, as well as processes of the economic kind. We'll be moving towards that kind of framework in the coming examinations - here's a slice of that style -
"In Penthesilea, Achilles is already separated from his power: the war machine has passed over to the Amazons, a Stateless woman-people whose justice, religion, and loves are organized uniquely in a war mode.Descendants of the Scythians, the Amazons spring forth like lightning,"between" the two States, the Greek and the Trojan. They sweep away everything in their path. Achilles is brought before his double, Penthesilea.And in his ambiguous struggle, Achilles is unable to prevent himself from marrying the war machine, or from loving Penthesilea, and thus from betraying Agamemnon and Ulysses at the same time. Nevertheless, he already belongs enough to the Greek State that Penthesilea, for her part, cannot enter the passional relation of war with him without herself betraying the collective law of her people, the law of the pack that prohibits "choosing" the enemy and entering into one-to-one relationships or binary distinctions."
that will be a part of what we'll be pursuing soon!
*A reliquary (also referred to as a shrine or by the French term châsse) is a container for relics. These may be the purported or actual physical remains of saints, such as bones, pieces of clothing, or some object associated with saints or other religious figures. The authenticity of any given relic is often a matter of debate; for that reason, some churches require documentation of the relic's provenance