Thursday, February 14, 2008
And I don't mean the books by Jane Austen either. I'm talking about the pride and prejudice that skews historians' and scientists' views.
I used to get a lot of flak from the entrenched historians and scientists that refused to believe in the theory of diffusion as the reason behind why there are pyramids (for instance) all around the world; they stood four-square behind the theory of parallel development and consider stories about Mu or Atlantis or Egyptians and Phoenicians traveling the entire world and bringing cultures from one place to another and yet the more we uncover the more wrong historians and scientists turn out to be. For instance, Mystery Hill, the American Stonehenge, is rife with hieroglyphs that have been traced back to the sea-faring Phoenicians and there are Celtic symbols and petroglyphs in southeastern Colorado that predate the Spanish conquistadores. The most recent information coming to light proves that crops grown in South American 10,000 years ago are similar, and even the same species, as crops grown in Mesopotamia, which is considered the cradle of agrarian civilization. Now isn't that strange?
I never could understand how a might sea-faring nation like the Phoenicians would limit themselves to the Mediterranean when artifacts from their civilizations are found all over the world or how they could have missed the great land masses of the Americas and Antarctica, among others. It's impossible that mankind, being the curious and adventurous type, would stop traveling over the next hill because it was too far away.
Too often, scientists and historians take their modern prejudices and ideas and push them off onto earlier civilizations and call it understanding the primitive societies, societies that rivaled our own with technological marvels we still have not been able to duplicate or explain. One such example is the belief that Hatchepsut, the God King of Egypt, and a Pharaoh in her own right, was murdered by her stepson, Tuthmoses III, because he chafed her under her rule. Looks like the Egyptologists and historians were wrong again. Hatchepsut has been discovered and her mummy shows that she died of natural causes -- if you can call an abscessed tooth on top of diabetes natural. She was 50 years old and she was not murdered, as has been written. The fact that most Egyptologists, and those who fabricated the story of Tuthmoses III's assassination of his stepmother, wrote that Tuthmoses III wanted Hatchepsut dead because she was a woman who had no right to rule or control him says more about the Egyptologists' male chauvinism and their personal issues than it does about the truth of history. Scientists and historians continue to look down on the past with a jaundiced eye and have missed seeing the truth beauty and grandeur of a world not caught up in the need to denigrate and belittle powerful women or the mythologies that have become little more than a way to prove ancient civilizations were simple and unsophisticated.
It looks as though mythology has more to offer than quaint and simple stories about gods and goddesses and their involvement with mortals and more about how the Universe was created. Mythology is religion, but only on the surface; religion was a way devised to keep the information intact for future generations. What mythology is really about astronomy and the beginnings of the Universe. I can't understand how all those scientists and historians missed what was right in front of them -- like diffusion and globe sailing Phoenicians and the Creation of All. Guess pride and prejudice blinded them and got in their way.
That is all. Disperse.