> So....Be it Indiana (Waddell)....Jones.....or
> The obscure researcher and philosophical rejected.
And with good reason. Waddell's work is so riddled with unrecoverable errors (even for his own time), baseless prejudicial assumptions, and his own questionable translations it quickly devolves into unintelligible gobbledygook. For example: one of the main thrusts of his work is that "Menes" of Egypt was one and the same as "Manis-Tusu" (son of Sargon of Akkad) and "Minos" of Crete, the quasi-mythical 1st king of the Minoans.
According to Waddell, Menes was the governor of the Indus Valley civilization under his father, Sargon, who revolted against his father and formed his own regime in Egypt, thus the beginning of the 1st Dynasty. Keep in mind that "Menes" comes from Manetho and is virtually unattested in actual history."Manj [Menes]-the-warrior"? There is no such thing referring to Menes-a translative invention by Waddell. Regardless, Waddell places the time of Menes and the founding of Egypt in 2,700BC. Sargon of course was king of Akkad, not Sumer, around c. 2,300BC. So Menes was not only the founder of Dynastic Egypt but Minoa and also governed over the Indus Valley civilization? Quite the overachiever this Menes. All this from the similarities of the (Greek) name(s) Menes>Minos>Manis-Tusu. And this is just the beginning for Waddell which his interpretations and translations of Vedic texts, history, and Indus Valley script are none better if not worse. Waddell had no idea of the existence of the Ubaid, for example, and erroneously believed, the crux of his entire life work, the Sumerians were "Aryan" which ethnically or linguistically is simply not true.
Obviously the idea of Mesopotamian influence, and by extension earlier Caucasus/Anatolian influence, on the greater Mediterranean world was profound, but Wadell, like Churchward, is unfortunately not even remotely a credible source. This does not necessarily mean there are not nuggets of truth or interesting thought to be gleaned from Waddell, but to authenticate the veracity of his claims amongst the morass of his otherwise questionable prolific body of work is almost impossible. Which is unfortunate as he was unique in his efforts to find a "grand unified theory" for the interconnectedness of this period in history which no doubt existed.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 25-Jul-15 20:41 by Thanos5150.