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' 311 Duncan Kunz 29-Nov-06 13:07
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 171 Cintia Panizza 29-Nov-06 13:30
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 150 Duncan Kunz 29-Nov-06 16:32
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 157 Citizen Attorney 29-Nov-06 14:58
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 168 Duncan Kunz 29-Nov-06 16:36
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 164 Me 30-Nov-06 01:03
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 188 Duncan Kunz 30-Nov-06 05:26
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 189 Cintia Panizza 30-Nov-06 13:56
For Cintia 185 Duncan Kunz 30-Nov-06 18:11
For Duncan 156 Cintia Panizza 02-Dec-06 13:20
Read with a mirror ... previous post on GHB 156 W_C_Sally 03-Dec-06 08:23
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 199 Katherine 05-Dec-06 17:04
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 177 Cintia Panizza 30-Nov-06 17:32
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 160 Cintia Panizza 30-Nov-06 13:27
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 170 Laird Scranton 30-Nov-06 22:39
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 176 Me 30-Nov-06 23:51
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 147 Laird Scranton 01-Dec-06 00:15
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 168 mephisto 03-Dec-06 08:32
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 138 Katherine 05-Dec-06 17:27
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 184 Merrell 05-Dec-06 14:52
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 165 Ian Alex Blease 04-Dec-06 00:09
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 141 Cintia Panizza 05-Dec-06 16:36
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 126 Katherine 05-Dec-06 17:14
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 167 Cintia Panizza 05-Dec-06 18:35
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 240 Merrell 05-Dec-06 18:47
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 187 Cintia Panizza 05-Dec-06 19:33
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 127 Katherine 05-Dec-06 19:48
Transcript 151 Katherine 05-Dec-06 19:57
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 208 Merrell 05-Dec-06 20:25
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 155 Katherine 05-Dec-06 20:34
For Kat 124 Cintia Panizza 05-Dec-06 18:38
Re: For Kat 135 Katherine 05-Dec-06 18:43
Cintiapanizza 248 Katherine 05-Dec-06 19:29
For Kat and Merrel 182 Cintia Panizza 06-Dec-06 12:33
Re: For Kat and Merrel 174 Katherine 06-Dec-06 15:10
Re: For Kat and Merrel 221 Merrell 06-Dec-06 15:55
Re: For Kat and Merrel 195 Merrell 07-Dec-06 11:55
Re: For Kat and Merrel 178 Me 07-Dec-06 23:55
Re: For Kat and Merrel 526 Katherine 08-Dec-06 00:25
Re: For Kat and Merrel 176 Laird Scranton 08-Dec-06 04:21
Re: For Kat and Merrel 195 Katherine 08-Dec-06 05:07
Re: For Kat and Merrel 210 Laird Scranton 08-Dec-06 15:55
Re: For Kat and Merrel 210 Merrell 08-Dec-06 14:53
Re: For Kat and Merrel 182 Laird Scranton 08-Dec-06 16:10
Re: For Kat and Merrel 195 Merrell 08-Dec-06 18:27
Re: For Kat and Merrel 165 Laird Scranton 08-Dec-06 22:34
Re: For Kat and Merrel 181 Me 08-Dec-06 23:55
Re: For Kat and Merrel 171 Laird Scranton 09-Dec-06 00:01
Re: For Kat and Merrel 167 Laird Scranton 09-Dec-06 15:51
Re: For Kat and Merrel 241 Merrell 09-Dec-06 21:00
Re: For Kat and Merrel 164 Laird Scranton 09-Dec-06 23:58
Re: For Kat and Merrel 246 Laird Scranton 10-Dec-06 15:47
Re: For Kat and Merrel 201 Merrell 10-Dec-06 16:33
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 198 Raja 06-Dec-06 12:49
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 122 Cintia Panizza 06-Dec-06 13:03
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 169 Raja 06-Dec-06 13:13
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 201 Raja 06-Dec-06 13:19
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 173 Katherine 06-Dec-06 15:17
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 176 Raja 06-Dec-06 17:26
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 169 Katherine 06-Dec-06 17:34
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 165 Katherine 06-Dec-06 15:13
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 138 Cintia Panizza 06-Dec-06 17:11
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 180 Katherine 06-Dec-06 17:33
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 141 Raja 06-Dec-06 17:34
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 179 Katherine 06-Dec-06 17:41
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 134 Cintia Panizza 06-Dec-06 21:17
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 175 Katherine 06-Dec-06 21:25
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 157 Cintia Panizza 06-Dec-06 21:45
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 191 Katherine 06-Dec-06 22:15
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 171 Cintia Panizza 07-Dec-06 14:01
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 168 Raja 01-Dec-06 06:40
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 193 Lee McGiffen 03-Dec-06 11:38
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 151 foton 05-Dec-06 11:30
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 168 Me 06-Dec-06 00:10
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 206 Merrell 05-Dec-06 13:13
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 196 P Mac 03-Dec-06 13:50
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 173 Bobajot 03-Dec-06 23:09
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 155 Cintia Panizza 05-Dec-06 16:40
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 168 Bobajot 06-Dec-06 23:30
Re: Egypt/Maya 'correlation' 182 Cintia Panizza 07-Dec-06 14:08


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.