Mysteries :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Merrell -

I am enjoying hearing your thoughts on this, and I agree that this discussion would be a better one once I can post my article.

And yes, I'm aware of Van Beek's arguments, but thanks for the link. The central difficulty with his view is the assumption that he can prove the non-existence of a secret tradition, to which he may not be privvy. One comparison I make is to a visitor to a college campus on Parent's Weekend coming away with no evidence of drug or alcohol use. Because the visitor is dealing with a societal group that is actively conspiring to hide the truth from him, the apparent lack of evidence is completely meaningless - it is simply indicative of a well-kept secret.

Elsdon Best describes a similar secret tradition among the Maori of New Zealand, which like Dogon cosmology centers around the 'po' as a fundamental component of matter. He says that long residence among the Maori is required before sufficient trust is gained to induce the priests to admit the existence of the tradition. So one of my questions to Van Beek is, how can he positively distinguish between a lack of evidence that comes out of deliberate obfuscation, as opposed to a lack of evidence that comes out of actual non-existence of the tradition.

My solution to the dilemma is simply to demonstrate by direct comparison that the cosmology Griaule reports is an entirely coherent form, based on the highly reputable testimony of a top scholar in regard to a tradition that Griaule had no opportunity whatsoever to influence or misconstrue. The cosmology is a coherent form, and it comes out of an esoteric tradition of precisely the kind that Griaule claims to exist among the Dogon. This constitutes direct corroboration for Griaule. It is nonsensical to say that Griaule somehow misinterpreted his Dogon informants and, in so doing, happened to accidentally document a near-exact match for another secret cosmology that I can show is an absolutely legitimate one. It is far more sensible to say that the matching form confirms Griaule's cosmological model, and so suggests that he very accurately reported he Dogon tradition.

The only real wiggle-room left is to adopt the (in my opinion) extreme view that Griaule somehow knew all the initimate details of this other tradition and deliberately and falsely presented them as if they were Dogon. But it seems far more likely to me that Van Beek interviewed a large number of Dogon tribespeople who legitimately know nothing of the secret tradition, and a smaller number of Dogon priests who deliberately lied to him - as both Griaule and Best say they are obligated by the tradition to do - to protect their secret.

As regards lack of knowledge of the Dogon language, it is true that Griaule used a translator. It is also true that his daughter ended up writing the Dogon dictionary based in large part on Griaule & Dieterlen's research.

- Laird

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 323 Duncan Kunz 29-Nov-06 13:07
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 180 Cintia Panizza 29-Nov-06 13:30
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 164 Duncan Kunz 29-Nov-06 16:32
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 172 Citizen Attorney 29-Nov-06 14:58
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 181 Duncan Kunz 29-Nov-06 16:36
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 174 Me 30-Nov-06 01:03
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 196 Duncan Kunz 30-Nov-06 05:26
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 214 Cintia Panizza 30-Nov-06 13:56
For Cintia 199 Duncan Kunz 30-Nov-06 18:11
For Duncan 168 Cintia Panizza 02-Dec-06 13:20
Read with a mirror ... previous post on GHB 168 W_C_Sally 03-Dec-06 08:23
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 206 Katherine 05-Dec-06 17:04
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 195 Cintia Panizza 30-Nov-06 17:32
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 179 Cintia Panizza 30-Nov-06 13:27
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 184 Laird Scranton 30-Nov-06 22:39
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 185 Me 30-Nov-06 23:51
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 156 Laird Scranton 01-Dec-06 00:15
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 178 mephisto 03-Dec-06 08:32
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 174 Katherine 05-Dec-06 17:27
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 203 Merrell 05-Dec-06 14:52
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 178 Ian Alex Blease 04-Dec-06 00:09
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 150 Cintia Panizza 05-Dec-06 16:36
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 136 Katherine 05-Dec-06 17:14
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 175 Cintia Panizza 05-Dec-06 18:35
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 259 Merrell 05-Dec-06 18:47
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 195 Cintia Panizza 05-Dec-06 19:33
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 137 Katherine 05-Dec-06 19:48
Transcript 160 Katherine 05-Dec-06 19:57
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 218 Merrell 05-Dec-06 20:25
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 162 Katherine 05-Dec-06 20:34
For Kat 148 Cintia Panizza 05-Dec-06 18:38
Re: For Kat 153 Katherine 05-Dec-06 18:43
Cintiapanizza 262 Katherine 05-Dec-06 19:29
For Kat and Merrel 203 Cintia Panizza 06-Dec-06 12:33
Re: For Kat and Merrel 192 Katherine 06-Dec-06 15:10
Re: For Kat and Merrel 232 Merrell 06-Dec-06 15:55
Re: For Kat and Merrel 208 Merrell 07-Dec-06 11:55
Re: For Kat and Merrel 192 Me 07-Dec-06 23:55
Re: For Kat and Merrel 563 Katherine 08-Dec-06 00:25
Re: For Kat and Merrel 195 Laird Scranton 08-Dec-06 04:21
Re: For Kat and Merrel 221 Katherine 08-Dec-06 05:07
Re: For Kat and Merrel 239 Laird Scranton 08-Dec-06 15:55
Re: For Kat and Merrel 226 Merrell 08-Dec-06 14:53
Re: For Kat and Merrel 197 Laird Scranton 08-Dec-06 16:10
Re: For Kat and Merrel 208 Merrell 08-Dec-06 18:27
Re: For Kat and Merrel 193 Laird Scranton 08-Dec-06 22:34
Re: For Kat and Merrel 193 Me 08-Dec-06 23:55
Re: For Kat and Merrel 197 Laird Scranton 09-Dec-06 00:01
Re: For Kat and Merrel 180 Laird Scranton 09-Dec-06 15:51
Re: For Kat and Merrel 278 Merrell 09-Dec-06 21:00
Re: For Kat and Merrel 175 Laird Scranton 09-Dec-06 23:58
Re: For Kat and Merrel 257 Laird Scranton 10-Dec-06 15:47
Re: For Kat and Merrel 213 Merrell 10-Dec-06 16:33
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 208 Raja 06-Dec-06 12:49
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 127 Cintia Panizza 06-Dec-06 13:03
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 182 Raja 06-Dec-06 13:13
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 211 Raja 06-Dec-06 13:19
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 182 Katherine 06-Dec-06 15:17
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 189 Raja 06-Dec-06 17:26
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 187 Katherine 06-Dec-06 17:34
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 188 Katherine 06-Dec-06 15:13
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 147 Cintia Panizza 06-Dec-06 17:11
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 193 Katherine 06-Dec-06 17:33
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 153 Raja 06-Dec-06 17:34
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 188 Katherine 06-Dec-06 17:41
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 146 Cintia Panizza 06-Dec-06 21:17
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 184 Katherine 06-Dec-06 21:25
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 168 Cintia Panizza 06-Dec-06 21:45
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 202 Katherine 06-Dec-06 22:15
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 183 Cintia Panizza 07-Dec-06 14:01
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 176 Raja 01-Dec-06 06:40
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 205 Lee McGiffen 03-Dec-06 11:38
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 185 foton 05-Dec-06 11:30
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 178 Me 06-Dec-06 00:10
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 217 Merrell 05-Dec-06 13:13
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 208 P Mac 03-Dec-06 13:50
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 198 Bobajot 03-Dec-06 23:09
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 162 Cintia Panizza 05-Dec-06 16:40
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 180 Bobajot 06-Dec-06 23:30
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 208 Cintia Panizza 07-Dec-06 14:08


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.