Who Built The Stones?

Current topics

Re: Who Built The Stones?

Postby TisILeclerc » 5:14 pm

Cher M. 'Arper

I've been over there for a look but I get lost. I always seem to find articles that I've read before or they're about maths or quantum physics. Which is very interesting but way beyond my comprehension.

I'll get a megalithic sat nav and see if that helps. Although the ones I've encountered in the past always get me lost anyway.

I'll get my string of onions out and pop across.
Last edited by TisILeclerc on 8:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
TisILeclerc
 
Posts: 790
Joined: 11:40 am

Re: Who Built The Stones?

Postby Boreades » 8:03 pm

If they are Breton onions, you will do fine.
Boreades
 
Posts: 2081
Joined: 2:35 pm

Re: Who Built The Stones?

Postby TisILeclerc » 10:01 pm

Well, I've been and had a look but so far can't find the front door. I can hear all the drunks inside babbling on and I've picked up a few snippets which are interesting. Which is why I'm here to say something silly here instead of there.

One link led to Ray and a discussion of the Culdees. He equates them with Chaldees.

http://www.applied-epistemology.com/php ... nning#4927

He tells us that they left their original homeland and moved to the Israel area when the tin ran out in Turkey.

The Chaldeans were therefore instrumental in the evolution of the Bronze Age and as such came to be rich, influential and very numerous. They are generally better known as Hurrians, Uratians and Aramaeans - all being names which connected them with Ararat, the sacred mountain of their homeland.

Eventually the tin was worked out and most of the population was forced to migrate - hence the collapse of the civilisation. The population splintered as groups spread south and west across the Middle East.

One such group, known to us as the Hebrews finally settled in the land of Canaan (Land of the Khena-ani, or Purple People), whose language they adopted. They preferred to call themselves Israelites, ie Warriors of the Lord. Nearly there now.


The implication here is that they had an original language but those who moved to Canaan stopped using their old language and started speaking the local language. Nothing strange in that. But what was the original language?

A new theory has been promoted regarding the origins of Yiddish. The proponents of this theory believe it was not Germanic in origin but an amalgam of various languages encountered on the Silk Road and was a trader language.


Using a Geographic Population Structure (GPS, not to be confused with the global positioning system used by sat-navs), the team found that Iranian and Ashkenazic Jews likely invented the language as they traded on the Silk Road. The language is thought to have been invented by Jewish traders who didn't want others to understand what they were saying.
DNA GPS: What is the origin of Yiddish?The University of Sheffield

The four villages – named Iskenaz, Eskenaz, Ashanaz, and Ashkuz – all derive from the word 'Ashkenaz', which is the root of the word 'Ashkenazic'. According to Elhaik, north-east Turkey is the only place where the four place names exist.


http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/201 ... a-analysis

One thing of interest is that the area as a whole 'Ani' was known as the city of 1001 churches. It would appear that they had very advanced building techniques. All destroyed over the centuries by a mixture of Mongols and Moslems and earthquakes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ani

The church of St Gregory was commissioned by someone called Tigran Honents although I can't find anything about him at the moment. Could Tigran be an early form of Tiron?
TisILeclerc
 
Posts: 790
Joined: 11:40 am

Re: Who Built The Stones?

Postby Boreades » 10:21 pm

Oh gawd Tisi, good work, but you're finding parts of AEL I never knew existed.

Gonna have to rest my head and wait for the neurons to bump into each other for a while.
Boreades
 
Posts: 2081
Joined: 2:35 pm

Re: Who Built The Stones?

Postby hvered » 6:56 pm

The problem with equating Chaldeans and Culdees as per Ray (despite the mannish name, Ray's a she) is that there was never a local tin industry in Turkey nor in southern Mesopotamia where the Chaldeans were supposed to be though a copper industry flourished. Euphrates or Urudu in Sumerian means 'copper river'

My tin bible Tin In Antiquity doesn't even list Chaldea(n) in the index even though Anatolia was rich in gold and silver as well as copper and the whole country seems to have been drawn into a vast trading network where cloth and tin were exchanged for Anatolian metals. It was assumed that tin came from the Caucasus but no tin deposits have been found in the region so tin merchants may have had to travel as far afield as Cornwall. Borry's Joseph of Arimathea is supposed to have been one such trader.
hvered
 
Posts: 855
Joined: 10:22 pm

Re: Who Built The Stones?

Postby hvered » 4:50 pm

More ramblings on Joseph of Arimathea, from a writer called Alastair Swinnerton who suggests that the first mention of the alleged visit was courtesy of certain monks

Joseph is mentioned in William of Malmesbury’s ‘On the Antiquity of the Church of Glastonbury’, but it is likely that he was inserted in later editions by the monks that carried on William’s work, and wasn’t in the original.

https://alastairswinnerton.com/2016/04/ ... astonbury/
hvered
 
Posts: 855
Joined: 10:22 pm

Re: Who Built The Stones?

Postby Boreades » 10:23 pm

Still waiting for any definitive news from Templar Authors (besides making enquiries).

But in the meantime, an acquaintance from the leather apron fraternity has noted:

Whilst not fully signing up to the Templar/mason direct link theories, we have a group of warrior monks, linked to the Cistercians who built much of the great temples in Europe along the lines of sacred architecture. They had a sub-group of builder monks called the Tironensians, some of who must have been familiar with the sacred aspects of temple building. The whole Templar thing refuses to go away as far as I'm concerned with further study needed on the Druze, Mandaens and Sufism generally to get a better picture of what they were all about.

As for the bloodline theory, Hugh Montgomery, non-mason as far as I know, of the Belgrade Uni has written a most academic book tracing this bloodline using access to records of the European Royal houses. He contends there is a Royal bloodline from the Davidic kings traceable in Europe and merging with Norse/Norman stock ie de Payen, Bernard of Clairviaux et al. Whether Jehoshua/John were priest kings of that line or not is, though possible, irrelevant.


Hugh Montgomery is a new name to me. It might be a rehash of other bogus "Jesus & Royal Scots Bloodline" material, but what do I know?

Any TME insight?
Boreades
 
Posts: 2081
Joined: 2:35 pm

Re: Who Built The Stones?

Postby Mick Harper » 4:52 pm

I have read Hugh Montgomery with both interest and medium-respect. Interesting what the other nameless dude has to say about the Tironensians. Not so much what he says but that he says it. This is the first time I have consciously noticed anybody else mentioning them!
Mick Harper
 
Posts: 910
Joined: 10:28 am

Re: Who Built The Stones?

Postby Boreades » 10:54 pm

On the subject of the Tironensians, and to progress further, may I suggest further research into the hidden mysteries of Pelagius?

e.g.
"The great German theologian Karl Barth a few years ago described British Christianity as "incurably Pelagian." The rugged individualism of the Celtic monk, his conviction that each person is free to choose between good and evil. And his insistence that faith must be practical as well as spiritual remain hallmarks of Christians in Britain. An the British imagination has remained rooted in nature, witnessed by the pastoral poetry and landscape painting in which Britain excels, indeed that peculiar British obsession with gardening is Celtic in origin. Visitors to the British Isles are often shocked at how few people attend church each Sunday. Yet to the Britons, church-goers as well as absentees, the primary test of faith is not religious observance, but daily behavour towards our neighbours—and towards one’s pets, livestock and plants." (Alan G. Hefner)


It's worth noting, this resonates with the words of another great man. Gandhi.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”


The Tironensians were practical people. They built things. They were the working class of the ecumenical orders, while the Cistericians prefered to keep their hands clean and provide "the management".

(Bernard de Clairvaux, in his Apologia ad Gulielmum (1123), set the stage for new, very strict architectural standards for all Cistercian monasteries and churches, claiming that monks should spend their precious time on earth doing penance and meditating on God’s Law, not on architecture and religious art.)


This couples with the business model. The Celtic Church had much in common with early Gnosticism, which of course the Roman Church also found to be a major threat. The doctrine of the Celtic Church included the concept that man was free from God's will - the Roman Church in turn preached that absolution from the wages of sin could be attained by payment to the Church. We will protect you, if you pay us.

In latter years, the Cisterician business model triumphed, by acquisition of other orders in hard times.
Last edited by Boreades on 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Boreades
 
Posts: 2081
Joined: 2:35 pm

Re: Who Built The Stones?

Postby Mick Harper » 10:59 pm

I have changed my mind. Pelagius is too obviously a philosophical construct to be a real Dark Age individual. Which is not to say he's not very well worth studying to throw light on the motives and identity of the constructors.
Mick Harper
 
Posts: 910
Joined: 10:28 am

PreviousNext

Return to Index

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 111 guests